Posted on 08/21/2009 8:11:50 PM PDT by neverdem
I have posted several recent commentaries over the past few months which dispute both global warming being caused primarily by carbon dioxide (it may have a smaller contribution) as well as any global cooling "ice age" scenario.
Why? Not due to any political ideology I assure you, but because the data is not consistent with either viewpoint. I am unconvinced in particular that mankind is causing global warming. First of all, the warming has taken a vacation for about the past five or six years, which doesn't make sense as CO2 increases every year.
Second, frequently touted facts such as shrinking arctic sea ice (true) prove nothing about human caused climate change. It is readily admitted by the NSIDC (www.nsidc.org) that changing weather patterns and ocean currents are the primary drivers behind recent years of summer ice melt. Furthermore, 30 years is a darned short time span in which to draw any conclusion (from ice trends) on either cooling or warming!
Having said all that, we owe it to ourselves as a civilization to continue research and not follow the mantra of the elite, nor to buy into the hysteria of conspiracy-minded websites.
I invite you to read the article linked to here(pdf) which is authored by a scientist much more learned than I and to do it with an open mind. On the flip side, you’ll find as you investigate the "Al Gore" side of global warming people that are equally sincere and convinced of their viewpoint: but it's based on modeling and a very short time scale of data, which places the science supporting the anthropogenic warming on shakier ground.
And right now global warming is on vacation; I just hope legitimate scientific inquiry and dissent is not.
Actually not. There are plenty of scientists who don't jump on the newest fadwagon. There is so much research needing to be done that grant money can be given for very worthwhile projects.
As for any scientist having an insight into truth--they don't. Good scientists can be researching the same problem and come up with contradictory results--that means that something is going on that no one has yet figured out.
Well, I have to disagree with you Mom... Science today has become almost totally controlled by grants which of course controls science.
There are a lot of good scientists, that I do not disagree with, but you fail to understand than most scientific research if done by grants by the government. That alone will skew the results to favor whatever result the government is looking for. Any time that money is provided for a task, the result may be biased toward future grants.
This is not a guess... Seen it happen too many times and still happens. I would love to see science go back to old fashion factual evidence but won’t happen until the money is removed.
Good scientists still remain, but bribes are a scientists best friend (grants) and they remain in the majority...
Thank you.
The CLOUD09 experiment at CERN in Europe led by physicist Henrik Svensmark will be finishing up it’s work probably by the end of this year.
Then they will be able to say if climate change is driven by cosmic rays creating low lying clouds via collision, ionization and chain reaction in our atmosphere when they are entering in greater numbers due to 1)a decrease in the protective magnetic field strength of the sun and/or 2) an increase in their numbers in certain areas of our orbit around the galaxy.
The preliminary results seem to support this theory. I recommend The Chilling Stars (2nd ed.) to anyone who is interested in this research.
There will not be another ice age or warm age on Earth ever again. We will regulate the climate with cloud control.
What pwned means, as my 14 year old son showed me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhb89V43KWc&feature=PlayList&p=B95549F1C90DB1EB&index=0&playnext=1
Obama just went to the Grand Canyon,I wonder How he thinks that came about. Maybe he thinks because we drive SUVS
I know very well how science works, since I’ve been doing research for about 15 years now. The grant money is given out by the government, but it’s other scientists—NOT the government—who decide who gets the money.
When you go to publish your findings in a journal, you have to sign disclosure forms about the source of your funding. There’s quite a bit of worry about someone getting a grant from a corporation and then publishing results favorable to that corporation, because bias is assumed in that case. It’s not that scientists can’t take corporate money, but people want to know when assessing the research results. When the source of your funding is government (like all of mine, except during the first year of graduate school), you can safely and legally say that there is no conflict of interest. In my case, since I am in the Army, I also have to put in a statement that my opinions/interpretations are my own and do not necessarily represent the position of the Army—although the Army reviews and approves everything I publish, and the fact that I work for them is right under my name. (They want the positive advertising from having Army scientists publish.)
“I would love to see science go back to old fashion factual evidence but won’t happen until the money is removed.”
I don’t know how you would expect scientists to do research in the absence of money. You sound like those people who want “universal health care” in order to prevent MDs from making a profit. Who is going to put in all that time and work if they don’t get paid for it? Not me, I like getting paid!
Pray tell, what does “PWN3D” mean? Is this a youthful thing, or a code for an acronym? I cannot for the life of me think what it might represent.
I agree we will have that capability. What's not clear is whether, by the time we have, it will matter to us anymore. It might not matter for at least two reasons: We might change ourselves so radically that climate may no longer be an issue or concern, and/or we might leave this planet. The likelihood of either is hard to estimate at this point, but would seem good enough that both require some consideration.
“...the warming has taken a vacation for about the past five or six years, which doesn’t make sense as CO2 increases every year.
Remove but one assumption and it can make sense.”
You nailed the issue.
The entire AGW argument is founded on the relationship between temperature and CO2 but ignores the fact that since CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years. IF a causative relationship actually exists then CO2 is the “effect” rather than the “cause.”
The “assumption” is a THEORY but the AlGoridots insist that is is a fact. The only “settled science” in this or any other field of study is that the very concept of “settled science” is profoundly unscientific!
Politics? How about Religion? People believing in man caused global warming do so more on Faith than good science. When the facts do not match their beliefs they just change the game. Now it’s the religion of global “Climate Change” and the words “global warming” are not being used anymore.
We don’t actually know how fast the big ice grew ~ but we do have a good grasp on the global temperatures over that period. Except for his conclusions regarding GW this is a pretty good read of the history of the study of the Ice Age Cycles: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm
No, the convection limitation thesis does not 'splain it satisfactorily.
Cheers!
I looked all over, and as far as I can see the CLOUD09 experiment will be starting up in 2010. The chamber was just delivered to CERN in late June/ early July.
I suspect results may not be really available until 2011.
They seemed to believe they will have some important results by the end of this year.
How are we going to leave the planet now that President Obama has cut the money to NASA and cancelled “Moon, Mars, and Beyond” program?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.