My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Galapagos

The Discovery Institute is a religious propaganda mill and their websites should only be linked to on a decent science forum as a demonstration of what deceptive pseudoscience looks like.

Hmmm. Quoting myself above:

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Most folks see this sort of presentation and proceed to attempt to discredit the source or the sponsor

The fact that people with biases like to listen to points of view that support their biases is not surprising. But the argument as presented in the video stand, and reasonably supports the solar-activity-as-primary-driver point of view.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

To my knowledge, there is no contest that CO2 rose over the last century. There is also certainly no contest about whether C02 can act as a greenhouse gas. The issue is...

When you say "there's no contest" you are as much as saying: "there's widely-held scientific consensus". You are setting the parameters of debate by acknowledging scientific consensus.

Originally Posted by Biochemist

In this discussion it is nice to avoid references to the "consensus" of scientists. Nothing in science is decided by consensus. Science is not a democracy.

Yet, we should avoid doing that, should we?

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Most folks see this sort of presentation and proceed to attempt to discredit the source or the sponsor (as has been done in previous posts). I think this forum deserves to focus on the underlying science, not the perceived biases of the contributors.

Bias goes to credibility. Of course the credibility of the source is valid. The crazy nut on the street corner holding a bible and shouting "the world is going to end" is less credible and more-easily ignored than a NASA press conference announcing the same. There is nothing improper about considering the bias of the source.

~modest

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by modest

When you say "there's no contest" you are as much as saying: "there's widely-held scientific consensus".

Perhaps. But the "no contest" position invites posters to identify an opposing position. I am not relying on an unnamed consensus. Do let me know if you are aware of anyone that contests the position.

Originally Posted by modest

Bias goes to credibility.....There is nothing improper about considering the bias of the source.

Only if the critique of bias is used in place of critique of the content. That approach is politics, not science. The presenter in the above video is a Cal Tech PhD. The data is credible. It is worth reminding ourselves that there are well-informed folks that do not hew to this orthodoxy.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Perhaps. But the "no contest" position invites posters to identify an opposing position. I am not relying on an unnamed consensus.

Saying there's "no contest" exactly does rely on unnamed consensus.

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Do let me know if you are aware of anyone that contests the position.

Sure, you say there's no contest that CO2 is a greenhouse gas while Engineerdude (a self-proclaimed engineer) has argued extensively in the last few pages of this thread that it does not work as a greenhouse gas the way scientific literature (or scientific consensus) says it does. He's gone as far as describing experiments he's done to debunk it as a greenhouse gas.

You've essentially ignored his argument by setting the bar and saying "there's no contest" while you tell others not to do the same (all in the same post mind you). It's truly dizzying.

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Only if the critique of bias is used in place of critique of the content. That approach is politics, not science.

If you feel that strongly about it then you might consider avoiding the practice.

Originally Posted by Biochemist

The presenter in the above video is a Cal Tech PhD. The data is credible.

So, we're allowed to claim data is credible if it's presented by a PhD, but not allowed to claim data is credible if its presented by a near-unanimous majority of PhDs in the field of research.

I'm going to have to all-around disagree with you. I think a scientific consensus does count for something and is worth mentioning. I think conclusions that go against such a near-unanimous scientific consensus are considered "extraordinary claims" that require extraordinary proof. I explicitly do NOT think all claims (regardless of how biased and silly they are) deserve to be debunked on equal footing.

As you say: there is no contest that the earth is warming up. When Flying Binghi walks on to the forum here and claims otherwise, it is sufficient to point out the scientific consensus against his silly claim. While Flying Binghi's claim is widely contested around these parts, you are correct, there's no *real* contest. Not really.

~modest

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by modest

Sure, you say there's no contest that CO2 is a greenhouse gas while Engineerdude (a self-proclaimed engineer) has argued extensively in the last few pages of this thread that it does not work as a greenhouse gas the way scientific literature (or scientific consensus) says it does.

If I understand Engineerdude's, he is not suggesting that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. He is suggesting that the magnitude of the effect is not significant enough to significantly affect climate.

Originally Posted by modest

So, we're allowed to claim data is credible if it's presented by a PhD, but not allowed to claim data is credible if its presented by a near-unanimous majority of PhDs in the field of research.

This is getting a little silly. I was asking for a critique of a presentation of data give by an MIT PhD. And there is pretty good evidence that a significant minority of climatologists do not regard the CO2 problem as a crisis. I am a little disappointed that we keep referring to this mystic consensus. Last I heard, the IPCC would not even release the names of the "2500" supporting scientists for thier report(s).

Originally Posted by modest

As you say: there is no contest that the earth is warming up.

...but there IS contest about the rate, the causality and the degree to which CO2 is an actor.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

This is getting a little silly. I was asking for a critique of a presentation of data give by an MIT PhD.

Exactly the problem. You're not advocating a position or presenting data or making an argument. You're pointing out a video and expecting people to critique it. Aside from the issue that many Hypography members can't watch videos online as they use dial up, this still isn't a fair thing to ask. You skillfully tell people not to object to the video because it's creators are biased nor comment that it makes strange claims that go against prevailing scientific understanding.

It seems to me the onus is on you in this regard. If the video struck a chord with you then by all means... critique it. Does it give a conclusion that you agree with or that you can support? What is it? What data agrees with it? I have full confidence in your ability to present such a position...

~modest

[modest]

Originally Posted by modest

It seems to me the onus is on you in this regard. If the video struck a chord with you then by all means... critique it.

It now strikes me that you did, in fact, comment on the video—so, the above is not entirely fair.

Originally Posted by Biochemist

In this video, the argument is that warming is better correlated with solar activity over the long term (300 to 1000 years)

There is no record of solar irradiance over such time periods. However, even if we approximate solar irradiance using sunspots, the AGW camp is not claiming that solar irradiance is not a significant actor on global temperature. I'm sure AGW allows for both solar irradiance and atmospheric CO2 to impact the climate.

Originally Posted by Biochemist

and that the increase in temperature over the last 100 years is more likely from solar activity than from CO2 increases.

While solar activity certainly affects climate, to say an increase in temperature over the last 100 years is primarily due to solar activity strains credulity at the least. Consider Occam's razor. There is something (CO2) that is expected to increase global temperatures when present in the atmosphere due to a well-tested law of physics. People add to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere then measure an increase in temperature. Exactly what we expect to happen, in fact, happened.

We don’t need elaborate coincidences in the way of unmeasured solar irradiance to explain the obvious. Moreover, we’ve been measuring the sun’s output since 1979. The data is as follows:


-source

The sun's output certainly doesn't seem to be increasing over the past 30 years since we began measuring it. Global surface temperatures have increased markedly over that time. This evidence directly supports AGW over the statement that "increase in temperature over the last 100 years is more likely from solar activity than from CO2 increases".

Originally Posted by Biochemist

It also argues that CO2 increases are generally a result of warming, not a cause (since warm oceans undeniably store less CO2 than cold ones).

Increasing CO2 doesn't have to be either a cause or a result of warming. It easily can be both. In the case of human released carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels we can be pretty certain—that is *not* caused by increase in temperature or solar irradiance.

Originally Posted by Biochemist

The recent drop of global temperatures (2008) back to about the 100 year mean supports this position.

Quickly putting this data into excel tells me that global temperatures haven't been equal to the current 100 year average since 1975 and we're currently well above that average now. To imply that our measurements of solar irradiance have correlated with global temperatures over the past 30 years is simply not true.

~modest

[Buffy]

Welcome back Mr. Bio! I see you're having fun already!

Apropos of nothing, here in LA it's the dead of winter and its 86 degrees F (30C)...

Of course appeals to source are not *proof* but when it comes to the grey stuff, it's sure something to help form an opinion.

Does anyone agree with the notion that man-made or not, that the data shows a trend that represents a threat to national security? Do you think Wall Street or Florida or Houston are worth saving? A few bazillions of geo-engineering are worth a googol-zillion of transplanting the populace to say...Oregon?

You know she's gonna leave you well done,
Buffy

[Flying Binghi]

That post wasn't directed towards you or anyone in particular, it was a few relevant links and an observation(somewhat off topic, oops!) about the party system in the USA and anti-scientific pseudoskepticism. I have not been following your debate closely(nor do I plan on it), feel free to carry on without me.

Good, run along

As you say: there is no contest that the earth is warming up. When Flying Binghi walks on to the forum here and claims otherwise, it is sufficient to point out the scientific consensus against his silly claim. While Flying Binghi's claim is widely contested around these parts, you are correct, there's no *real* contest. Not really.

I'm yet to see any audited proof that human released CO2 has made any difference to the global climate. The global climate has warmed, and cooled, since before humans... why, even planet Mars has been afected by recent 'climate change'

to say an increase in temperature over the last 100 years is primarily due to solar activity strains credulity at the least.

...and the Medieval warm period was caused by ???

Consider Occam's razor. There is something (CO2) that is expected to increase global temperatures when present in the atmosphere due to a well-tested law of physics. People add to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere then measure an increase in temperature. Exactly what we expect to happen, in fact, happened.

...and yet the last few years of satilite readings show a cooling trend

[Flying Binghi]

If you were trying to make a point, it was lost on me.
Sure, there are natural sources of CO2. There's also human induced CO2.

Are you arguing that climate change is occurring regardless of human impact?

freeztar, my post on undersea Artic volcanoes was more of a question.

Seems the Artic ice melt is a major plank in the pro AGW fundamentalist claims. What my references show is the aceptence from the real scientists doing Artic volcanic research, that there is minimal understanding of the massive volcanic undersea range below the Artic ice cap. That, to me, would shake the belief of the fundamentalist claims.