Exactly where are you pulling out this X vs. 7X argument?

Again, is the issue of how infrared is reflected back to the surface in doubt? I suppose the planet Venus is all a big AL GORE CONSPIRACAY!

(In retrospect, it would appear HUR already covered it. But just in case: You have X amount of IR coming in, but that is not the total radiated power incoming. One can easily have X amount of IR come in with much more in the visible and have 7X IR leave...)

[Edited on May 1, 2009 at 12:11 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2009 11:59:07 PM

Quote :

"Water and CO2 are opaque to IR. When IR hits these, it is reflected back toward the surface; it does not escape like visible "

This is truth water itself has a major absorbtion band at 1328um.

Quote :

"Your car glass is opaque to IR; it is trapped, heating the seats and heating the air."

Actually this is false. Glass is opaque to UV radiation but rather transparent to the Near IR band. Most of your fiber optic
high speeds communication takes place btw 1300-1500um.

one of my latest projects for my company involves using IR in order to interpret and evaluate
process changes as related to heat transfer. I'll be happy to call out anyone that wants to post homeland.com or bogus information
regarding IR.

Quote :

" The reason this analogy was made this way was to get around the issue of optics. But, if you must: light of visible to UV goes in. It downshifts to IR."

Not quite accurate. The earth is not a transmission. The earth essentially is a gray body and could almost be simplified to a pure
black body with emissivity ~1. The sun is a black body irradiator that emits light primarily in the visible spectrum but also significant quantities in UV and IR.
This radiation is either absorbed or reflected by the earth. Nothing is downshifted. The earth itself emits its own radition
as governed by planck's law. Due to the temperature of our planet this is all in the IR spectrum.

Essentially green house gasses just as easily reflect incoming IR from the sun as they would trapping the radition that reaches the earth back down.
The imbalence comes due to the summation of the sun's radiation absorbed by the earth, heating the planet, and radiated as IR black body radiation.
This IR is what climate change scientist are worried about as far as CO2 "trapping heat"

BTW water sucks due to its attenuation of IR

Quote :

"we end up with 7X leaving the earth."

Do not know for sure but it may be possible that 7x of a certain band of IR iss radiated off by the earth than received.

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 11:57 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on May 1, 2009 at 12:14 AM. Reason : k]

5/1/2009 12:02:46 AM

Quote :

"Actually this is false. Glass is opaque to UV radiation but rather transparent to the Near IR band. Most of your fiber optic high speeds communication takes place btw 1300-1500um."

Ok, I didn't think about fiber optic cable - you're right. I was thinking of polyethylene, which is definitely opaque to near-IR. (I used to use it for demonstrations of IR vs. visible light transmission).

The car is obviously an imperfect analogy.

Quote :

"Not quite accurate. The earth is not a transmission. The earth essentially is a gray body and could almost be simplified to a pure black body with emissivity ~1. The sun is a black body irradiator that emits light primarily in the visible spectrum but also significant quantities in UV and IR. This radiation is either absorbed or reflected by the earth. Nothing is downshifted. The earth itself emits its own radition as governed by planck's law. Due to the temperature of our planet this is all in the IR spectrum."

Again, simplification for the sake of argument. Sure, earth really isn't simply a transmission medium - there's absorption and incoherent scattering and everything else. I was thinking more along the lines of incoherent scattering rather than blackbodies (Wein's law).

But you're correct; earth acts fundamentally more like a "gray body" emitter, one which absorbs in UV and visible and emits in near-IR. (I mean, obviously you have reflection in visible too, but that just goes right out...)

(I was actually probably making the error of thinking about neutron transport while I was doing this thought process in my head, which is likely where I went astray - obviously, neutron transport and radiation transport are two very different problems...)

[Edited on May 1, 2009 at 12:07 AM. Reason : .]

5/1/2009 12:05:28 AM

This thread is rather entertaining. I've never seen people so willingly complicate the shit out of a topic when they can't even grasp the basics.

Quote :

"Funny that you mention thermo. Given that satellite measurements show the earth is releasing more heat radiation in to space than it is receiving... Wonder what that would do to temperatures...""

Quote :

"No, I am advocating a basic understanding of optics. Light at one wavelength easily passes through - it is not absorbed or reflected. Light of another wavelength is reflected. "

Optics didn't have a thing to do with this particular debate. The point that was put forward is that the earth is currently radiating more energy than it is receiving. Regardless of any "optics" you think might be going on, more energy leaving the planet than entering the planet means we're cooling if external energy sources were the only sources of energy for the planet.

If you had mentioned something along the lines of how the earth alse absorbs heat internally from exothermic reactions and radioactive decay, you could have made a point. Instead, you proceeded to sound like a complete dumbass while trying to pretend to have an understanding of thermodynamics.

5/1/2009 12:32:49 AM

Quote :

"Optics didn't have a thing to do with this particular debate. The point that was put forward is that the earth is currently radiating more energy than it is receiving. Regardless of any "optics" you think might be going on, more energy leaving the planet than entering the planet means we're cooling if external energy sources were the only sources of energy for the planet."

I love it when people who wouldn't pass freshman physics want to give me a lecture on not understanding physics. Please, do go on.

The point put forward is erroneous.

Earth radiating more infrared than it receives does not mean it radiates more energy than it receives.

You fail.

5/1/2009 12:34:44 AM

that would be fine and dandy if infrared radiation was the only form of heat radiation. Unfortunately, that's a common misconception.

5/1/2009 12:55:32 AM

I don't recall putting forth that assertion.

In fact, what I recall saying is simply that when the Sun's rays come in, they come in at wavelengths generally transparent to the atmosphere (or they wouldn't get in). When they leave, much of that radiation is re-radiated by the earth at wavelengths which are opaque to the atmosphere, and hence prone to being reflected if they comes into contact with certain gasses; thus acting to heat the surface. Other wavelengths could accomplish this task (microwave obviously comes to mind, given that water responds to it as well), but infrared is the most obvious one.

[Edited on May 1, 2009 at 1:01 AM. Reason : .]

5/1/2009 1:00:05 AM

Quote :

"that would be fine and dandy if infrared radiation was the only form of heat radiation. Unfortunately, that's a common misconception."

heat radiation

lol

5/1/2009 7:32:40 AM

we can almost think of the earth as a black body? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and call that oversimplification.

5/1/2009 8:14:52 AM

how can you sit there and say that the whole earth is african american. i think its also important to pay notice to the many other races like native americans, italian americans, jewish americans, chinese americans, and more americans.

5/1/2009 8:38:25 AM

TKE-Teg

Of course the earth is not a pure black body radiator otherwise the earth would be significantly cooler than it is.
Are you a selective reader only cherry picking parts of replies.
I clearly said the Earth combined as a whole is more of a gray body (at least in the IR band we are concerned about for global warming CO2,
water vapor, etc) but can be simplified as a black body since this implies a direct proportional
relationship

If you really want to get technical the earth is a selective radiator across the whole entire electromagnetic spectrum and for some
bands the earth's emmisivity would approach that of a blackbody for a given temp.

5/1/2009 9:00:40 AM

^ HUR really does know what he's talking about here on this topic. Just to emphasize.

5/1/2009 11:26:23 AM

None of you know what youre talking about. STFU

5/1/2009 12:58:32 PM

I forgot, we had our own credentialed geophysicist Lumex here to set us straight.

Do enlighten us, please, with your stunning contributions.

5/1/2009 1:23:01 PM

You mean pretend I know something that thousands of published climatologists don't? No one here is qualified to discuss this. The whole thread comes down to "my linked article" vs "your linked article". It's even more annoying than real trolling.

5/1/2009 1:33:42 PM

Yeah. The optics of how infrared is trapped inside the atmosphere (i.e., the Greenhouse Effect) is something thousands of climatologists don't know. Or physicists. Or engineers. Or anybody who has actually taken a few physics classes.

Why don't you go back to trolling some other thread about things you have no knowledge or understanding of? It seems like you have your hands full with that task already.

[Edited on May 1, 2009 at 1:38 PM. Reason : Really.]

5/1/2009 1:38:11 PM

Quote :

"whole thread comes down to "my linked article" vs "your linked article"

You do know nearly everything published worth reading and every scholarly article contains 10's if not over 100 sources or refrences to data or other published articles.

5/1/2009 2:43:16 PM

Indeed, and there is a vast amount of published articles for both sides of this argument. Where is this going to get us?

5/1/2009 3:02:43 PM

No, there's not. For anti-global warming, there's a bunch of stuff by amateur bloggers and conservative-affiliated organizations that is mostly bullshit. Look at aaronburro's sources.

The anti-global warming movement consists largely of redneck armchair climatologists.

5/2/2009 2:06:14 AM

Quote :

"I suppose the planet Venus is all a big AL GORE CONSPIRACAY!"

i don't suppose being so much fucking closer to the sun has any thing to do with that, does it? no, of course not

I've been fishing around and can't find my source on the 7X difference. I know I've read it, but I'll keep looking. Lindzen also has some other thing where he mentions an effective 7X effect of CO2 according to the fearmongerer's stats that seems unsustainable given simple physics. I don't think I am confusing the two, though. I have certainly read somewhere that the Earth is emitting more radiation of importance than it is receiving from the sun.

Quote :

"No, there's not. For anti-global warming, there's a bunch of stuff by amateur bloggers and conservative-affiliated organizations that is mostly bullshit. Look at aaronburro's sources."

Care to back that up with fact, buddy? Or are you calling Lindzen an "amateur blogger?" Are you calling McIntyre an "amateur blogger?" The whole notion of a "consensus" is hogwash that was invented to try and stifle critics and paint them as dubious.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: science is NOT about consensus. It's about data. And the data for AGW is, by and large, suspect.

you really showed your ass with that post, and I am happy to nail you to the wall for it

[Edited on May 2, 2009 at 4:01 AM. Reason : ]

5/2/2009 4:00:28 AM

Quote :

"i don't suppose being so much fucking closer to the sun has any thing to do with that, does it? no, of course not"

Dude, one can do a simple calculation of the solar flux based on geometry (i.e., solid angle), then look at the surface temperature difference, which is on average about 800 F hotter than Earth (835 - 900 F). It's hotter than Mercury (-280 F - 800 F), which kind of blows your whole "closer to the Sun" theory out of the water.

[Edited on May 2, 2009 at 12:22 PM. Reason : Venutian Conspiracy!]

5/2/2009 12:20:40 PM

Quote :

"The anti-global warming movement consists largely of redneck armchair climatologists."

lol

Quote :

"i don't suppose being so much fucking closer to the sun has any thing to do with that, does it?"

Well Mercury is half teh distance venus is. Yet Mercury is actually cooler than Venus; even on the sun facing side! OMG AL GORE LIES

Quote :

"I have certainly read somewhere that the Earth is emitting more radiation of importance than it is receiving from the sun."

Is that what Rush Limbaugh told you.

What is radiation of importance; I do not even think James Hansen would agree with this statement even if he is part of the lying
global warming conspiracy.

5/2/2009 1:31:05 PM

RADIATION. OF. IMPORTANCE.

5/2/2009 1:41:16 PM

Quote :

"you really showed your ass with that post, and I am happy to nail you to the wall for it"

What does that even mean....

5/2/2009 6:53:30 PM

So Domino's now makes sugar they claim is carbon free.

http://www.dominosugar.com/carbonfree/default.htm

Just to be clear, when you consume the sugar and your body processes it it turns into water and carbon dioxide. How's that carbon free again?

5/5/2009 11:22:24 AM

Since clearly a human can output CO2 anywhere near in magnitude to the 2.1 cars/ person ratio of the US.

This carbon-free thing does sound stupid though and is likely just a PR stunt to capture the business of environmentally conscious liberals.

5/5/2009 11:29:47 AM

Because they buy carbon offsets. Totally real and not at all bullshit carbon offsets *sigh*

And shame on you for not buying offsets to counter your shameless respiration.

5/5/2009 11:32:18 AM

i wonder when they'll come out with carbon friendly pets.

5/5/2009 12:27:13 PM

dude... don't bring up shit like that... learn about the carbon cycle.

btw, how bout this for "including everyone in the debate." oh, we'll just blame it on "divisions in the party..."

Quote :

"The survey's release comes on the same day that [b]more than 30 congressional Democrats met with President Obama at the White House to discuss [global warming and cap-and-trade][b] The president is trying to prevent progress on climate change, one of his signature issues, from being derailed by divisions within his own party over "cap and trade.""

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/05/cnn-poll-global-warming-can-be-stopped/

5/5/2009 7:00:33 PM

^ah yes, the carbon cycle. Like how over millions of years carbon gradually became trapped when all the organic matter that used it decayed and was buried. And now, we're completing the cycle by re-releasing it. I get it now

5/5/2009 8:35:50 PM

Quote :

"i wonder when they'll come out with carbon friendly pets. "

like a Chia Pet?

5/5/2009 9:01:18 PM

Cap-and-trade is as stupid now as it was when it was first proposed by W. Bush. Where were you people then?

5/6/2009 12:18:38 AM

Just b.c Cap in Trade is fucking retarded, there are other human made pollution dangers more worthy of our attention, Al Gore profits off of hyping out the global warming claims, and that we have random variance of colder days mixed in with normal days does not eliminate the hypothesis that human could have some impact on the climate due to artificial CO2 emissions or that we should not research the subject.

5/6/2009 12:39:37 AM

Quote :

"there are other human made pollution dangers more worthy of our attention"

This can not be repeated enough.

5/6/2009 12:42:23 AM

^I will always agree with you on that.

Quote :

"Cap-and-trade is as stupid now as it was when it was first proposed by W. Bush. Where were you people then? "

I really didn't start reading up and doing my own research on AGW and the "evils" of CO2 until about 2 1/2 years ago. It's not really a partisan issue for me, b/c I know there are power hungry politicians on both sides that are drooling all over the power they'd have by controlling a compound necessary for all life on this planet.

5/6/2009 11:35:28 AM

Anthony Watts and a lot of volunteers just completed a study of the location of temperature monitoring stations in the US. Here is part of the summary:

Quote :

"The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Until now, no one had ever conducted a comprehensive review of the quality of the measurement environment of those stations. During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically document more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found. We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas. In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source. In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited. "

Just an example of how flawed things are. You can read the full report (31 pages) or summary here: http://www.heartland.org/books/SurfaceStations.html

[Edited on May 7, 2009 at 9:55 AM. Reason : k]

5/7/2009 9:54:49 AM

Quote :

"the Heartland Institute receives funding from the energy industry. For example, ExxonMobil reports that Exxon, its divisions and affiliates, and its foundation contributed $115,000 to Heartland in 2006, including $90,000 specifically for "General Operating Support -- Climate Change." Heartland's website states: Heartland reported income and spending of $5.2 million and a full-time staff of 25 in 2007. Funding comes from approximately 2,700 individuals, foundations, and corporations. Heartland's donor base has always been diverse. All energy companies combined -- oil, coal, natural gas, and utilities -- gave less than 5 percent of its budget in 2007 and probably will in 2008. About 16 percent of its budget comes from corporations, with the rest from foundations and individuals. "

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/Corporate/gcr_contributions_public06.pdf#page=3
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2006/136/082/2006-136082357-02f92de6-F.pdf#page=152

http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/03/at_the_heartland_and_discovery.php

Quote :

"While manufacturing a scientific controversy where there is none, HI also moves to promote the public accountability frame, arguing that scientists, news organizations, and liberal elites like Al Gore, Hollywood, and the UN are censoring rival ideas. Sound familiar? It's the exact "teach the controversy" train of thought that DI has used for so many years. And linked on Drudge this morning, now HI spokespeople are even appealing to the courts to step in to expose the "climate change hoax and fraud." There you go. There's the anatomy of the HI framing strategy. Just like the Discovery Institutes' PR campaign against evolution, HI has laid an elaborate rhetorical trap for science. As long as you keep arguing the science, responding to their claims of uncertainty, you keep discourse locked in their preferred paralyzing mental box. (UPDATE: RealClimate has this post from January on some of the PR planning and cash incentives that went into the conference.)"

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/04/tell_the_truth_about_heartland.php

Quote :

"A few weeks ago Dave Hansford, the environmental writer for the New Zealand Listener, wrote an article on how global warming deniers create an illusion of dissent: In November, three members of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition - Bryan Leyland, Owen McShane and Vincent Gray - spoke at UN climate talks in Denpasar in support of a US-based conservative group, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). They told delegates "climate change is a non-problem" and that they should "have the courage to do nothing". Leyland says CFACT did not pay him to attend the Bali talks, but acknowledges some expenses were met by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, funded "almost exclusively from rich people", he says, "who are worried about this issue entirely out of their concern for sound science and the fate of free enterprise". People like oil giant ExxonMobil. The Union of Concerned Scientists says the oil giant gave US$16 million ($19.6 million) to conservative groups - CFACT among them - between 1998 and 2005. The union says this was "to manufacture uncertainty" on the issue of climate change. ExxonMobil's reports show it has granted $791,500 to Heartland since 1998, and its public affairs adviser, Walter Buckholtz, appears on Heartland's 2005 tax return as its "government relations adviser". Heartland's Joseph Bast responded with a letter demanding that Hansford be fired. Hansford reports ExxonMobil's giving to conservative groups, including my organisation, The Heartland Institute, between 1998 and 2005. He fails to report what percentage of the total income of the conservative movement, or Heartland in particular, this amounted to. For Heartland, it was never more than 5% of the organisation's annual budget. I'm sure it was far less than 5% of the entire movement's income during this time. If funding dictates an organisation's views on global warming, then why aren't conservative groups 95% in the alarmist camp? ... Umm, because the other 95% of their funding doesn't come from folks who wnat Heartlan to support IPCC? I don't know how writers like Hansford sleep at night. If he has even a shred of personal integrity, he should apologise for his attacks on the growing number of scientists who say the threat of global warming has been over-sold, and promise to never again write on this subject. And his publisher should accept nothing less. "

http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute

Quote :

"Dozens of scientists are demanding that their names be removed from a widely distributed Heartland Institute article entitled 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares. The article, by Hudson Institute director and Heartland "Senior Fellow" Dennis T. Avery (inset), purports to list scientists whose work contradicts the overwhelming scientific agreement that human-induced climate change is endangering the world as we know it. DeSmogBlog manager Kevin Grandia emailed 122 of the scientists yesterday afternoon, calling their attention to the list. So far - in less than 24 hours - three dozen of those scientists had responded in outrage, denying that their research supports Avery's conclusions and demanding that their names be removed."

[Edited on May 7, 2009 at 10:42 AM. Reason : .]

5/7/2009 10:31:49 AM

Also, don't forget that we have other methods of temperature tracking, including satellites, which have been controversial - but:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050811_global_warming.html

Quote :

"For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening. Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses. The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed. ... After correcting for the mistake, the researchers obtained fundamentally different results: whereas Spencer's analysis showed a cooling of the Earth's troposphere, the new analysis revealed a warming. Using the analysis from Mears and Wentz, Santer showed that the new data was consistent with climate models and theories."

5/7/2009 10:53:01 AM

I really don't understand why this thread has been nothing but rehashing warn out climate science arguments.

Temperature *is* rising (can NOT deny it) and all signs point to it being caused by the growing concentration of GHG gases in the atmosphere.

Why is this issue at all divided by left and right political views? This is the consensus of the scientific community. Why do you take the word of political science majors at the Heartland Institute over the word of climatologists at MIT, Cambridge, etc etc etc???

Do you honestly think you can learn climate science in your spare time AND learn it well enough to out-argue those individuals that have studied this subject for decades?????

[Edited on May 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM. Reason : ``]

5/7/2009 10:54:04 AM

The topic is divided on political lines, in my opinion, because republicans are even more tied to big business than democrats are (though both are guilty) and the republicans choose this as their pro-business lie, while democrats choose others... Democrats, for example, get donations from Big Abortion

5/7/2009 11:14:56 AM

Quote :

"We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas. In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own sitting requirements that stations must be 30 meters "

James Hansen probably personally sent out the memo for climatologists of the world to unite and set up their thermometers in such fashion to which they could get "true" readings but they would be skewed to illustrate exaggerated high temperatures.

Apparently only 10% of the scientists, operating temperature stations, are honest. Trusted websites like heartland.org then provide us with legit sources of information from true patriotic people believing in conservative values that can put together a trusted scholarly underground source for us to break through the liberal lies.

Realistically the answer is somewhere in the middle. Human made CO2 likely does cause climate on the global level to drift high as far as temperatures are concerned. The hard part is just evaluating which part is due to natural processes and cycles. On a local scale though the result is more about “change” as the dynamics of the global weather cycle may mean different consequences (including cooling) depending on the location.

Quote :

"the republicans choose this as their pro-business lie"

I do not think this is quite fair. Plenty of democrats are guided by pro-business motives although these industries are usually completely seperated or even a counter to the traditionally Republican supported industries (energy,Agr, aerospace, banking) instead of (tech, alt energy, entertainment, medical)

I also do not think its wrong for those with direct interests in industries that will be hurt by restrictions brought about by AGW concerns to push against the topic. Although I think they go about it in the wrong way (usually by putting their fingers in their ear and denial).

When it comes down to it though I think more people join GOP out of their own self-interest than the democrats.
Where as you will find more people that are democrats simply for their own altruistic nature or environmentalist beliefs

[Edited on May 7, 2009 at 11:42 AM. Reason : a]

5/7/2009 11:27:32 AM

l

[Edited on May 7, 2009 at 11:31 AM. Reason : la]

5/7/2009 11:27:32 AM

I'm glad to see you looked into it, B/C THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE is just hosting the report on their website. They didn't commission or pay for it.

you people

Quote :

"I really don't understand why this thread has been nothing but rehashing warn out climate science arguments. Temperature *is* rising (can NOT deny it) and all signs point to it being caused by the growing concentration of GHG gases in the atmosphere. "

Socks, the first part is right while the second part is blatantly false.

[Edited on May 7, 2009 at 1:17 PM. Reason : and satellite/weather ballon info does not back up climate models.]

5/7/2009 1:12:59 PM

If heartlands report from Billy Rae Smith and Dick Cheney's Climate advisor says its false than it MUST be true!

5/7/2009 1:51:04 PM

glad to see you contributing to the intelligence of the thread

5/7/2009 1:56:13 PM

DG. Why do you only point out that some of the people who are against AGW are in the pockets of oil companies? Why don't you point out the pro-AGW people who are equally in the pockets of "green" business?

Quote :

"Temperature *is* rising (can NOT deny it) "

Actually, you can deny it. Given that we see consistent jerry-rigging of the temperature data by the proponents of the theory...

Quote :

"This is the consensus of the scientific community."

Actually, it isn't. And "consensus" doesn't mean "right."

Quote :

"James Hansen probably personally sent out the memo for climatologists of the world to unite and set up their thermometers in such fashion to which they could get "true" readings but they would be skewed to illustrate exaggerated high temperatures."

No, but he did order that corrections for the UHI be removed from the temperature record. Wonder why...

Quote :

"Apparently only 10% of the scientists, operating temperature stations, are honest."

Scientists don't run the temperature stations... The stations are put wherever they are and then we read the data from them.

Quote :

"When it comes down to it though I think more people join GOP out of their own self-interest than the democrats."

You mean like blacks? or gays?
give me a break.

^^^ What part of "the Heartland Institute didn't write the report" do you not understand?

5/7/2009 10:50:17 PM

^ Well, I know you can print out lists of people that say that they are skeptical of various aspects of climate change. Of course, very few of those people are actually trained in climate science and even fewer have tenure track positions at major universities.

Rather than use lists, I prefer to determine whether there is consensus on the subject by looking at polls like this one...

Quote :

"A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus

Or statements by organizations like the US National Academy of Science and American Meteorological Society that say that humans significantly contribute to climate change.

If your definition of consensus is that 100% of climatologists believe in human induced climate change, than I agree that there is no consensus. However, I think most any poll you look at will find that well over 75% (and usually up to 85-90%) of people actually active in the field do think temps are rising and humans are playing a big role in causing it. If that's not a consensus, I think its at least pretty good indication of the state of the scientific research.

And since my degree track did not prepare me to understand the nuances of climate research, I think these polls and statements actually do matter.

5/8/2009 4:24:20 AM

Quote :

"and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures."

In scientific terms, doesn't "significant" mean greater than 1%? Or is it 10%? Afterall, they didn't say "the most significant factor", therefore even if you believe human activity was the least significant cause among a long list of causes, you would still agree it was a significant factor. As such, you are right there is a consensus that human activity has impacted temperatures; the urban heat island effect alone has significantly impacted average global temperatures. As such, your poll implies nothing beyond what everyone should already conceed.

[Edited on May 8, 2009 at 9:49 AM. Reason : uban]

5/8/2009 9:48:24 AM

And LoneSnark with the semantics denial . Do you REALLY believe the study is referring to "statistical significance"?

5/8/2009 10:05:59 AM

I don't know, didn't read the study. All I know is what was quoted, which was "a significant factor", which to me strongly implies "one significant factor among many", they would have said "most significant factor" if they meant that, but they clearly did not. It was a poll, afterall, we cannot ask the participants what they thought "a significant factor" meant.

5/8/2009 10:17:09 AM