I meant to type that into my email to Jekka. Gmail fail.
Eat whatever the wife has time to cook, the usual.
??
I meant to type that into my email to Jekka. Gmail fail.
Noted and bookmarked.
I will add it to my book que.
By the by, if you ever get into an evolution debate there is an equally good book I just finished, "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne.
Equally good plain language bit on a different topic.
I do understand the science fairly well, but prefer not to get bogged down in arguing the minutae, when the real issues don't require it.
I would generally agree with this, but it seems that the people who study it most seem to be generally a bit more sure about the probability that we are affecting our climate.
The only thing we are really unsure of, is the ultimate effect of that. There is a chance that it could be really, really bad.
We have enough information to formulate some reasonable courses of action to forstall the worst of the potential outcomes.
The defintion of "peer-review" is to submit something to a group of people who apply some modi of skepticism to the paper in order to vet any potentially fatal flaws, and to see if the conclusion is reasonably supported by the evidence suggested.
The answer would therefore be: "all of them".
Where we will disagree though, is in the definition of "skeptic". You want a process as stilted towards your viewpoint, as you perceive the current process to be stilted against it. That is not, to me, science.
I pointed out that the gentleman seems to bear some of the charactoristics.
Perhaps you would be willing to answer the question posed of Yoni.
I do not know the answer to that question.
Yes, we are affecting our planet with CO2. Nobody denies that. The denial is to the level that the AGW crowd claims. For me, and what I do understand of the sciences, black carbon on ice has cause more warming than CO2 has. I rate the forces as:
1) Solar variations
2) Soot
3) CO2
And there are planty with PHD's in Climatology that disagree with them.
Yet you ignore the same flaws in AGW sciences.
We disagree.
Well, there was a 30 year cooling trend from the 1940's to 1970's. Do we understand that better than they did in 1970?
To be quite frank, Climate science hasn't change all that much. The first predictions of what rising CO2 levels would do are over 100 years old. The fundamentals of climate science has been in place for quite some time and they are not really debatable.
How do we understand it better?
Well, scientists do this thing called science where they investigate and figure things out. The temperature of the 1940-70s have a very simple and logical explanation.
What would that be? CO2 rose dramatically during that period.
Yes, I believe we do understand our climate better than we did in 1970.
I would assign the main swing as being from normal variance in climate, caused by a variety of factors and their interaction.
The more pertinent question:
How would that period have been different, had we not been emitting geometrically increasing amounts of GHG?
That is the real question. Most climate scientists would posit:
Mildly different, probably slightly cooler.
Well, in actuality CO2 didn't rise nearly as dramatically during that time period as it has since. It went from 310ppm to 320ppm over those 30 years for an increase of roughly 10ppm. To give you perspective, in the 40 years since its risen roughly 60ppm to 380.
So, right off the bat you can see that CO2 concentrations still did not rise as dramatically as they have.
Now, that being said, all things being equal you should obviously still see an increase in temp. The operating factor here is that all things were not equal. We saw an increase in airborne aerosols from 2 sources: Industry and volcanism. Industrial aerosols have since been regulated due to their effects on our environment and volcanic aerosols are not at the level they once were. Reduction in these aerosols has lessened their ability to cool the planet.
Understand?
Also, a way to verify this theory is to take a look at average minimum temperature. While aerosol blocking of sunlight affected the average high temperature showing a cooling affect, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere managed to have still warm the temperature at night and during that cooling period the average minimum temperature still showed an increase.
While the aerosols limited the amount of sun light and thus maximum heating the CO2 still managed to trap more infrared energy than before that period which led to the increase in average minimum temperature through the same period.
Whatever the peer-review process' flaws are, it is still how science is conducted.
From rational wiki's website.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
I have rather directly viewed the source journals for a number of your quoted sources.Lack of peer review, and claims of vast establishment conspiracies
One of the single most important aspects of true science is replication and verification, particularly from third parties not involved in the original experiments. This is the heart of peer review, where new ideas are laid out before fellow scientists with all the details of how to replicate and extend the research. While the social dynamics of peer review are not foolproof, and many interesting issues can emerge, there is still nothing better for advancing human knowledge. It is, of course, not surprising that people who promote pseudoscience want to avoid peer review like a plague.
If an idea has not been published in a single peer review journal, it is safe to say it is not science. Most people have at least a passing knowledge of the peer review system and so pseudoscience promoters often have to offer hand-wavy explanations for why their ideas have not been published anywhere.
In medicine it is common to blame Big Pharma for wanting to hide the fact that some natural product cures all known illnesses because it will hurt their profits - despite the fact that such a thing would generate more profit, and Big Pharma would be dying to get their hands on it!
In biology creationists often claim that evolution is propped up by a vast atheist and materialist conspiracy, as if every PhD student ended their final viva with their supervisor taking them to one side for "a little chat". This "big conspiracy" is perhaps the most common tactic, but more imaginative excuses do exist; such as Jason Lisle claiming that his theory on how to solve the starlight problem doesn't need to pass through the peer review system of major science journals because you wouldn't expect evolutionist papers to pass through creationist journals.
When pseudosciences are published, they are often published in pseudo-journals, those that have "peer review" but are less rigorous than one would expect of the scientific mainstream. Pseudoscience promoters will sometimes start their own journals that are "reviewed", of course, by fellow promoters.
These journals are often easily identified by their poor standards for inclusion, or their lack of inclusion in scholarly indexes such as ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar. One of the most obvious characteristics of pseudo-peer review is a total lack of interest in replicating or verifying the "work" of others in the field.
All of them tend to have rather uncritical reviews of material that I was able to discern. They seemed to fit the pattern here fairly well.
As I said before, I don't think you would be satisfied with any peer-review, unless it was outright stilted towards your established beliefs. That does not strike me as science.
If that were the case, then the northern polar region would eperience a drastically warmer climate change than the southern one, simply due to the pattern of our burning of carbon.
Is that the case?
Soot on snow and ice definitely has a higher forcing than CO2 all things being equal. All things are not equal, however, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere gives it a much larger effect.
I'll put it to you this way: I have 2 types of fire. One burns at 100 degrees and the other at 150. However, I have 10 times as many fires of the 100 degree variety.
The numbers used in my analogy are arbitrary and only meant to convey the principle.
I would also like to point out Soot and CO2 emissions have the same sources.
Oddly enough, I have been reviewing rationalwiki on a number of areas.
Seems like my coinage of "denier" has already been taken.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denialism
Looks like I am not alone in reaching my conclusions about this. Hmm.
That website is extremely biased and you would do well not to site it.
Check out their entry on "ClimateGate".
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate
Climategate is the most common term that the media and blogosphere gave to to a controversy that followed the November 2009 release of thousands of illegally-obtained e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Global warming denialists immediately pounced on the story, claiming that much of the data supporting the existence of global warming were fabricated. The media quoted many of the e-mails[1] out of context.[2] (A big scientific project causes people to curse, disagree and sigh. Who knew?)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
