Oregon Pe ion vs. Union of Concerned Scientists Pe ion.

[Wild Cobra]

There are recent articles out about a Pe ion being sent to congress by the Union of Concerned Scientists. They are mostly from academia, while the Oregon Pe ion has several times more signatures, and a broader base of scientists.

Which is more convincing to you? What does it take to convince us one way or another, or to change our views?

Now I started a new thread about this because R&R linked something in the Club that was throwing a topic even farther off, that I went on a tangent with. It is very interesting article, and has to do with changing minds on the topic. I am placing my response to him here, rather than pollute the other thread more:

BTW, WC, have a read of this:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010...npersuadables/

It describes the way in which ideology can obscure evidence, according to psychological studies. Oh, and I'm not trying to pick a fight with you at all, just pointing this stuff out.

Oh, I agree that bias often keeps a person from changing their minds. I think the article also points out correctly that science is suppose to be skeptical, and not predisposed to a particular position.

I have used various aspects of science for more than 30 years now. I am simply amazed that after all the evidence is presented, especially when it comes to solar and soot, that the AGW crowd still focuses on CO2.

I think you intended the article to say that I am not open minded, that my decision is made, and cannot be changed.

Wrong. I have simply never seem the evidence to show me that CO2 has the same reliability in tends to temperature as solar, and and recently, the radiative forcing of soot has been upgraded to past 0.5 watts/sq meter.

If you wish to convince me that CO2 is as potent of a GHG, then I need proper scientific demonstration, not just for CO2, but that my assessments of solar and soot are wrong. They both cannot be right, because if they were, we would be even warmer.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

There have been numerous published papers looking at both solar forcing and soot, as you well know.

Here's a nice storehouse for some of the solar forcing papers:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm

As for soot, it is already accounted for in all the modeling. The 2007 IPCC report stated that it contributes a forcing of 0.44+/-0.13 W/m2, so I don't know why you consider your 0.5 W/m2 figure to be a revelation. Soot has a significant warming effect, but alone it cannot explain the magnitude of warming we are witnessing.

As for your contention that there hasn't been convincing evidence that CO2 is a strong GHG, which science have you been reading? This history, from the American Ins ute of Physics, is a well-told, fully referenced account of the discovery of GHGs:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Anyway, I'm not going to debate this with you because I don't believe you are capable of changing your mind on it, no matter how strong the evidence. In the end there's no point to it and I just end up feeling ty, so I'll leave it at that.

[ElNono]

I just want a science grant from the government... where do I get my check?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I just want a science grant from the government... where do I get my check?

Way to show your ignorance. In order to get a government grant to study something you have to go through multiple processes to justify the research, its benefit to the community, etc. It is an extremely time-consuming process that often ends up wasting tens or hundreds of hours that scientists should be spending on their science.

And yeah, those few billion dollars spent on scientific study each year really match up to the TRILLIONS spent on fossil fuels...

If you want to talk conspiracies, always look at who has more to gain. In this case it is clearly the fossil fuel lobby.

[Wild Cobra]

There have been numerous published papers looking at both solar forcing and soot, as you well know.

Here's a nice storehouse for some of the solar forcing papers:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm

Nice for the AGW crowd. However, it only lists studies and timeframes that are friendly to their position. As much as I dislike the way the IPCC color their results, at least they have some pretty good facts. They just cherry pick for results. The IPCC uses 0.12 watts/sq m of forcing for solar irradiance, but at least they do call it direct forcing. They ignore saying what the indirect forcing is. Take page 191 of the AR4 for example. They at least knowledge published ranges from 0 to 0.68 watts of radiative forcing.

As for soot, it is already accounted for in all the modeling. The 2007 IPCC report stated that it contributes a forcing of 0.44+/-0.13 W/m2, so I don't know why you consider your 0.5 W/m2 figure to be a revelation. Soot has a significant warming effect, but alone it cannot explain the magnitude of warming we are witnessing.

It's been revised twice since AR4 which had it at 0.1. I believe the newest revision is 0.55 watts I think. I forget for sure, but remember it's above 0.5.

See the trend? Tell me. Do you think the 1.6 watts total forcing in AR4 is still valid after increasing soot from 0.1 to 0.55? Has it increased by 0.45 watts, or does that 0.45 watts need to come out of a different factor, like CO2...

As for your contention that there hasn't been convincing evidence that CO2 is a strong GHG, which science have you been reading? This history, from the American Ins ute of Physics, is a well-told, fully referenced account of the discovery of GHGs:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

I wish people would stop referencing that. I don't know how many links I have seen it in. It is a history, and nothing that quantifies, with proof, the constants used in the CO2 forcing formulas.

Tell me. Have you seen anything that proves the formula they use is correct for CO2? I haven't, and nobody has been able to show me the scientific method used to derive the radiative forcing formula for CO2.

Anyway, I'm not going to debate this with you because I don't believe you are capable of changing your mind on it, no matter how strong the evidence. In the end there's no point to it and I just end up feeling ty, so I'll leave it at that.

I do have an open mind. As I said, nobody has been able to give me any acceptable facts contrary to what I have come to believe. Tell me. What do you think of this simple illustration that shows the radiative forcing changes from a 0.12 watt direct atmospheric solar forcing change:



How am I wrong that this is an actual 0.93 watts of solar forcing, or at least close? Now what if... Just keep an open mind... What if, in reality, the 0.81 and 0.45 difference need to be removed from the 1.66 watts for CO2 forcing. that would only leave 0.28 watts of forcing for CO2. Wouldn't it?

now I don't suspect that would be true. The way I see it, the added radiative forcing from the suns extra heat was proportionally divided into the other GHG's. Still, makes CO2 much smaller than the AGW crowd believes, if I am right...

[ElNono]

Way to show your ignorance. In order to get a government grant to study something you have to go through multiple processes to justify the research, its benefit to the community, etc. It is an extremely time-consuming process that often ends up wasting tens or hundreds of hours that scientists should be spending on their science.

And yeah, those few billion dollars spent on scientific study each year really match up to the TRILLIONS spent on fossil fuels...

If you want to talk conspiracies, always look at who has more to gain. In this case it is clearly the fossil fuel lobby.

No, really... I just want my check...

[sabar]

I just want a science grant from the government... where do I get my check?

Become a research assistant at any university then kick back and relax! I got four grand that way (I actually did work though, so your tax dollars went to semi-good use in advancing computer technology!)

Way to show your ignorance. In order to get a government grant to study something you have to go through multiple processes to justify the research, its benefit to the community, etc. It is an extremely time-consuming process that often ends up wasting tens or hundreds of hours that scientists should be spending on their science.

Eh, that's the job of the research director who is probably tenured. How many STers have a phd?

[ElNono]

Become a research assistant at any university then kick back and relax! I got four grand that way (I actually did work though, so your tax dollars went to semi-good use in advancing computer technology!)

Good to know sabar is an honest man...

Eh, that's the job of the research director who is probably tenured. How many STers have a phd?

I have a php... does that count?