Debate among scientists about Global Warming vs Active Cycle

[x-y-no]

Here is another tidbit for all those who still have an open mind. The author is a geologist but has some interesting insight.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf

Tell me something, sponger ... do you completely reject the peer-review process? Do you truly see no value in it? Why do you give greater weight to an article by someone not trained in climate science and published in a non-peer-reviewed Lyndon LaRouche publication than you do to the vast body of peer-reviewed climate science?

For those who are interested in the particular biases of the publication sponger cited, here is their stetment of purpose:

21st Century Science & Technology magazine challenges the assumptions of modern scientific dogma, including quantum mechanics, relativity theory, biological reductionism, and the formalization and separation of mathematics from physics. We demand a science based on constructible (intelligible) representation of concepts, but shun the simple empiricist or sense-certainty methods associated with the Newton-Galileo paradigm.

Our unique collection of editors and scientific advisers maintain an ongoing intellectual dialogue with leading thinkers in many areas, including biology, physics, space science, oceanography, nuclear energy, and ancient epigraphy. Original studies by the controversial economist Lyndon LaRouche have challenged the epistemological foundations of the von Neumann and Wiener-Shannon information theory, and located physical science as a branch of physical economy. In science policy areas, we have challenged sacred cows, from the theory of global warming to the linear threshold concept of radiation.

Now maybe someone can explain in detail what they mean when they say they "shun the simple empiricist or sense-certainty methods associated with the Newton-Galileo paradigm," but it sounds to me like they reject the scientific method.

[themusk]

Just to provide some perspective concerning any reference to climate science (whether real or popular speculation) of the 1960's and 1970's.

During the time some persons were speculating in popular newspapers and magazines about an ice age, I was working at NOAA on a global weather computer model. I was working in Fortran, on punched cards fed into a computer system that was at the time something like the second or third fastest system on the planet -- but which today can barely hold a candle to my two scrapheap AMD Duron systems running Linux on my desk.

Imagine running global weather models on your desktop. Pretty grim, eh?

I was also involved in a project that digitized the very best photographs we then had of certain athmospheric phenomena. These were classified spy satellite photographs. The worst low resolution junk you can find at weather.com is of higher resolution than the classified photos we were using then.

Weather science of the 1960s and 1970s might as well be from the the Ice Age, compared to what we know now. Yes, many scientists have changed their minds on many matters between then and now -- but this isn't an illustration of the fickleness of science: it's an illustration of progress.

[terstorm1012]

Here is another tidbit for all those who still have an open mind. The author is a geologist but has some interesting insight.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf

Tell me something, sponger ... do you completely reject the peer-review process? Do you truly see no value in it? Why do you give greater weight to an article by someone not trained in climate science and published in a non-peer-reviewed Lyndon LaRouche publication than you do to the vast body of peer-reviewed climate science?

For those who are interested in the particular biases of the publication sponger cited, here is their stetment of purpose:

21st Century Science & Technology magazine challenges the assumptions of modern scientific dogma, including quantum mechanics, relativity theory, biological reductionism, and the formalization and separation of mathematics from physics. We demand a science based on constructible (intelligible) representation of concepts, but shun the simple empiricist or sense-certainty methods associated with the Newton-Galileo paradigm.

Our unique collection of editors and scientific advisers maintain an ongoing intellectual dialogue with leading thinkers in many areas, including biology, physics, space science, oceanography, nuclear energy, and ancient epigraphy. Original studies by the controversial economist Lyndon LaRouche have challenged the epistemological foundations of the von Neumann and Wiener-Shannon information theory, and located physical science as a branch of physical economy. In science policy areas, we have challenged sacred cows, from the theory of global warming to the linear threshold concept of radiation.

Now maybe someone can explain in detail what they mean when they say they "shun the simple empiricist or sense-certainty methods associated with the Newton-Galileo paradigm," but it sounds to me like they reject the scientific method.

LOL I hadn't noticed the Lyndon LaRouche connection! Then again, on the cover it says "The Myth of Fallout Cancer" which we all know really isn't.

[Jim Hughes]

Sponger, interesting read but some of that contradicts what Jim has told us about Stratospheric warming/cooling.

I have just glanced over it and I probably will not get around to reading it thoroughly for another day or so but I am curious about your comment. How does it contradict what I have said ?


Jim

[Jim Hughes]

Here is another tidbit for all those who still have an open mind. The author is a geologist but has some interesting insight.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf

Tell me something, sponger ... do you completely reject the peer-review process? Do you truly see no value in it? Why do you give greater weight to an article by someone not trained in climate science and published in a non-peer-reviewed Lyndon LaRouche publication than you do to the vast body of peer-reviewed climate science?

For those who are interested in the particular biases of the publication sponger cited, here is their stetment of purpose:

21st Century Science & Technology magazine challenges the assumptions of modern scientific dogma, including quantum mechanics, relativity theory, biological reductionism, and the formalization and separation of mathematics from physics. We demand a science based on constructible (intelligible) representation of concepts, but shun the simple empiricist or sense-certainty methods associated with the Newton-Galileo paradigm.

Our unique collection of editors and scientific advisers maintain an ongoing intellectual dialogue with leading thinkers in many areas, including biology, physics, space science, oceanography, nuclear energy, and ancient epigraphy. Original studies by the controversial economist Lyndon LaRouche have challenged the epistemological foundations of the von Neumann and Wiener-Shannon information theory, and located physical science as a branch of physical economy. In science policy areas, we have challenged sacred cows, from the theory of global warming to the linear threshold concept of radiation.

Now maybe someone can explain in detail what they mean when they say they "shun the simple empiricist or sense-certainty methods associated with the Newton-Galileo paradigm," but it sounds to me like they reject the scientific method.

I am NO LaRouche fan by any means and I still need to read this article better but you can not just shoot the messenger here just because it may go against what you or I may think.

If this geologist is making valid points, and I currently have no idea if he is, then we have to at least think about what he is saying.

Now your comments would be right if the data that they are showing is false, or if they have been tamperd with. That would be a whole different ballgame of course.


Jim

[x-y-no]

I am NO LaRouche fan by any means and I still need to read this article better but you can not just shoot the messenger here just because it may go against what you or I may think.

That wasn't my question. I was asking sponger whether he/she rejects the peer-review process or else why he/she would dismiss the massive body of peer-reviewed climate science in favor of unreviewed articles in obscure journals with the stated philosophy of '"shun[ing] the simple empiricist or sense-certainty methods associated with the Newton-Galileo paradigm."

I think it's a fair question.

Where do you stand on the value of peer-review and the scientific method?

If this geologist is making valid points, and I currently have no idea if he is, then we have to at least think about what he is saying.

Well, I skimmed the first couple of paragraphs and have already seen several blatant lies. So I don't hold much hope for the integrity of the rest of it.


EDIT:

Ok ... I've read the first few pages.

First, he engaged in some extensive misrepresentation of what climate scientists (most prominently Stphen Schneider) have said - using selective quotes to create a false conclusion.

Next, he uncritically presents some industry estimates of the cost/benefits of the Kyoto traety. I won't bother to address that, I think they're exaggerated but I don't think the Kyoto treaty as written was terribly useful so I'd rather not fight about it.

Next he spends a couple of pages making the rather obvious point that there are natural cycles in climate, some of them with very large effect. Since nobody disputes this, it seems rather a waste of space to me. Of course, his intent is to disparage the possibility of man-made forcing, but that's a nonsense argument. It makes about as much sense as arguing that because some forest fires occur naturally, man cannot possibly cause forest fires (or it is therefore of no importance if man causes forest fires).

Next he spends a couple of pages on McIntyre & McKitrick's criticism of the Mann et.al. "hockey stick" paper. (BTW in the course of this he falsely claims that MM05 was peer-reviewed - it wasn't). This criticism has been thoroughly falsified. For a pretty good layman's language discussion of where MM05 went wrong, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

Well ... that's as far as I've gotten at the moment, but so far he's batting 0.000.

[cycloneye]

You know that I am watching how this debate is unfolding about this hot theme that rises passions between both sides of the spectrum.Yes it has been a fairly heated exchange at times but so far no personnal attacks haved been launched as I can see and I commend those who are participating in the debate that this far haved been exchanging views and evidence to sustain their positions to keep it this way.I know that many haved learned some things from this debate including me from both sides that we didn't know about.So folks keep it going this way.

[terstorm1012]

You know that I am watching how this debate is unfolding about this hot theme that rises passions between both sides of the spectrum.Yes it has been a fairly heated exchange at times but so far no personnal attacks haved been launched as I can see and I commend those who are participating in the debate that this far haved been exchanging views and evidence to sustain their positions to keep it this way.I know that many haved learned some things from this debate including me from both sides that we didn't know about.So folks keep it going this way.

That's the wonderful thing about this site. Unlike other weather sites where pros and amateurs reguarly insult each other, this one is always informative and full of very, very smart people from all walks of life and ideologies.

[sponger]

Yep, S2k is a class act! Cycloneye, I blame you for digging up this topic again. You are such a trouble maker!

XY I dont have any problem who the peer review and the scientific method. What I have issue with is WHO is doing the peer review. Dr Schneider? We know where he stands. The UN Panel on climate change? No agenda there!

As for the scientific method, I think that one went out the window long ago on the global warming debate. Its not that I think there isn't any solid GW research going on, but its buried under an avalance of biased scientists. Scientists whose next grant is based on doom and gloom scenarios. Biased science = junk science.

If

[x-y-no]

XY I dont have any problem who the peer review and the scientific method. What I have issue with is WHO is doing the peer review. Dr Schneider? We know where he stands. The UN Panel on climate change? No agenda there!

I have no idea where you got this notion that Stephen Schneider is the be-all and end-all of climate science. I don't agree with the characterization of him that your sources falsely present, but that's immaterial. Even if he were the biased, agenda-driven person your sources seek to portray him as, he's one individual in a huge field. Any major piece of research published in a major journal such as "Nature" or "Science" has multiple reviewers, and there's an extensive back-and-forth between those reviewers and the authors, all of which is monitored by the editors. Then all that work is widely and openly discussed, and any important piece of work is picked apart and either reproduced (or shown to be unreproduceable and thus likely false) by many other groups around the world. There is no tiny cabal of conspirators controlling the science.

As for the scientific method, I think that one went out the window long ago on the global warming debate. Its not that I think there isn't any solid GW research going on, but its buried under an avalance of biased scientists. Scientists whose next grant is based on doom and gloom scenarios. Biased science = junk science.

So far your only evidence for this claim has been a couple of links to articles which are nothing but laundry-lists of the same falsehoods, distortions and discredited arguments I've seen a hundred times before. I'm at a loss to understand how you think that stuff is in any way helpful, however "open minded" one is.

But if it's an article of faith with you that the great majority of climate scientists are venal frauds then I'm afraid there's no point in further discussion. I've given up arguing religion.

If you want to discuss real science with a real open mind, then I'm happy to continue.

[Jim Hughes]

testerstorm1012,

I had a free moment so I just tried to find something about the stratosphere in this research article. Not to sure what part contradicts what I have been saying.

My comments have mostly been centered around the stratosphere at the poles in reference to the AO changes and maybe some others. And the 50 hPa 25N-25S in reference to the AMO/increased tropical activity.

The stratosphere and global tropospheric temperature anomalies that he shows, in which he gives no exact reference, 30 hPa ...100 hPa what???, does seem to show the correlation though. It just seems to be slightly lagging by about 6-12 months.

You also have to consider other things like volcanic eruptions and the ENSO phases...and all oceans for that matter. The El Chichon eruption in 1982 occurred in tandem with the strong 1982-83 El Nino. A warm ENSO will warm the troposphere considerably and this seemed to diminish the stratosphere/troposphere relationship.

The Pinatubo eruption occurred during some warm ENSO years but it was not as strong as the 82-83 event and you can see that the troposphere cooled more after the stratosphere warmed.

Now look at what the 1997-98 El Nino did to the tropospheric temperatures. (Rose considerably)

The stratosphere/troposphere relationship has pretty much behaved like I have talked about since the 1997-98 El Nino. Remember the cooling trend you may notice in the troposphere between 1999-2000 is related to the La Nina in 1998-99.

You just have to consider _all the variables to see the whole picture_

Is this clearer now?


Jim

[terstorm1012]

yes it is, thanks.

[MGC]

Peer review can be just as crooked as a bunch of Louisiana politicians. So a group of scientist are assembled and there is a review. If you had published a report would you have a scientist that might not agree with you review your work? Didn't Darwin have a similar problem with his evolution theory? (which I don't totally agree with, but that is a another debate) Point is you can get your "peers" to give a favorable review as needed.

X-Y-NO, it seems every one that offers a dissenting view of your own is either a lier or uncredible. Do you own and drive an automobile that burns fossil fuels?..............MGC

[x-y-no]

Peer review can be just as crooked as a bunch of Louisiana politicians. So a group of scientist are assembled and there is a review. If you had published a report would you have a scientist that might not agree with you review your work? Didn't Darwin have a similar problem with his evolution theory? (which I don't totally agree with, but that is a another debate) Point is you can get your "peers" to give a favorable review as needed.

The authors of papers don't get to select their reviewers - that's done by the journals. And if there were systematic fraud in the review process of major jounals like "Nature" and "Science", it wouldn't take very long for that to be discovered given how widely read and discussed such work is, and the number of disparate groups which examine and attempt to reproduce such work.

But the reason I asked the question is because sponger provided several links to non-peer-reviewed articles by authors not trained in the field and published in obscure non-climate-science journals and offered those as more authoritative than the entire body of peer-reviewed science in the field. I wondered why anyone would prefer such material as more authoritative.

X-Y-NO, it seems every one that offers a dissenting view of your own is either a lier or uncredible.

I haven't said that at all. I have addressed each claim as it comes. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You claim there is a massive fraud being perpetrated with the cooperation of hundreds if not thousands of scientists, many of whom I have met and spoken extensively with and who strike me as thoroughly honest and dedicated to discovering truth. You offer no proof of this alleged scandal of global proportions. I'm not going to quietly accept such a charge unchallenged.

Do you own and drive an automobile that burns fossil fuels?..............MGC

Yes, I have a very nice Mustang GT convertible which I enjoy quite well, thank you. I do, however, leave it in the driveway most of the time - riding my bike to work and walking to the grocery store on most occasions.

[Jim Hughes]

Where do you stand on the value of peer-review and the scientific method?

They are very important. Although I am sure that we could find some examples where they ended up being wrong. But the examples would probably be far and in between.

But who knows when that one important research paper will end up being peer-reviewed wrong? OTOH I also realize that you can not think like that. Rules are rules....but I do like to break them ocassionaly.


Jim

[MGC]

Excellent choice in an auto there X-Y-No. I use to be an biker. But since I moved to Mississippi the only riding I do is for fun. I too rode to work when I lived in California but that was before my bones got achy....MGC

[johngaltfla]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10198616/



Oh here we go with another debate about if Global warming is the main cause of the upward cycle of activity since 1995 or is the normal multidecal cycle.

My personnal take has been in the past years is that it's the normal active Multidecal cycle and not global warming that has sparked the very active seasons since 1995 except for 1997 when the strong el nino capped that season.However we have to look at the possibilitie that some effects from Global warming may haved enhanced the tropical activity.But plenty of reasearch has to be done to be more confident about being global warming the prime factor of the increased activity.

Ok folks I know that this kind of theme spark controversies so let's keep the debate in this thread about this very sound and in a manner in an educational way for all of us who may not understand some technnical things about this hot theme.

Simple. How many Ford Expeditions and Chevy Yukons were driving around when the Great Labor Day Hurricane hit in the 1930's?

How many Cat 4's and 5's were there in 1625?

You can not tie the two together because we do not have 10,000 years of data to refer to. So the Global Warming crowd should just wait. Or pray they live 10,000 years to prove me wrong.

[caribepr]

Simple. How many Ford Expeditions and Chevy Yukons were driving around when the Great Labor Day Hurricane hit in the 1930's?

How many Cat 4's and 5's were there in 1625?

You can not tie the two together because we do not have 10,000 years of data to refer to. So the Global Warming crowd should just wait. Or pray they live 10,000 years to prove me wrong.

Well heck, who knew how simple it could be? Ok, you wackos, pack up the old studies and find something new. Case solved!
Joking aside, if proof is being looked for based on your thoughts above, then apparently you are content that there is no basis for your own beliefs either? Once again, are you saying there is no global warming at all or that global warming has no effect whatsoever on weather in the world?

[x-y-no]

Simple. How many Ford Expeditions and Chevy Yukons were driving around when the Great Labor Day Hurricane hit in the 1930's?

How many Cat 4's and 5's were there in 1625?

You can not tie the two together because we do not have 10,000 years of data to refer to. So the Global Warming crowd should just wait. Or pray they live 10,000 years to prove me wrong.

For what is nominally a science-related site, I continue to marvel at the level of hostility to the entire scientific enterprise (which is dedicated to understanding and predicting the real world) around here.

I guess you'd say those folks at the NHC have a heck of a lot of nerve to try and accurately predict the future paths uf hurricanes, no? Shouldn't the just keep their mouths shut and wait to see what happens before they say anything? After all, we don't have perfect knowledge of the initial state of the atmosphere nor do we have perfect understanding of all the dynamics, so any predictive technology we use is bound to be imperfect.

[sponger]

XY, exactly what evidence that contradicts global warming do you dispute.

1) That the most monitored glacier in the world isnt thickening.

2) That space based temperature readings show a .1 degree increase in world temp in last 30 years.

3) That all the increase of 1 degree since 1875 was a rebound of a cooling trend which leveled off in the 30's.

4) That the midlevel atmosphere shows almost no change at all.

Those hearalded computer models indicate a 10 degree increase in global temps by 2100. The last time that happened 300 million years ago 98% of all life was lost. Hardly a likely scenario. You can not dismiss these findings outright unless like Jim said the data is manipulated.