USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

[Denny Crane]

Is ragging on climate science the goal here? Because if so, anyone on the internets is perfectly qualified to do so. You don't need a mining geologist for that. Rag on!

Qualifications only matter if you are relying on expert opinion (as opposed to carefully studying the matter in question yourself, or just making uninformed assumptions). If you are going to rely on expert opinion, it makes sense to pay more attention to those with the most expertise, and less attention to those who aren't expert.

You reject the actual experts in climate science, yet trot out this mining geologist as an expert. That would be bad decision-making if you were relying upon his opinion. But of course you aren't - you've selected this "expert" because he agrees with the opinion you already had. The fact that you have to select experts that aren't really expert to buttress your case is pretty good evidence that you are, technically speaking, wrong about all of this.

Or, of course, it is a giant conspiracy involving thousands of scientists, in which case you'd be right to reject them all as experts. I'd be concerned about that possibility, but I'm too busy worrying about the ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOLD that was under WTC7 and how Obama was born in Kenya and how the Rockefellers are secretly creating a one-world government.

barfo

So you'd rely on expert opinion about astrology. Damn anyone who's not an expert astrologer. Never mind that astronomers don't study astrology, but rather something else that's quite related. As related as geology is to climate "science."

 

[yakbladder]

So you'd rely on expert opinion about astrology. Damn anyone who's not an expert astrologer. Never mind that astronomers don't study astrology, but rather something else that's quite related. As related as geology is to climate "science."

Oh Denny - fixated on your astrologers again. But what can you expect from someone who so obviously worships Nancy Reagan?

To answer your question, no an astronomer would not be a valid expert opinion on astrology. Sure, the astronomer studies the stars, but they don't have any insight into correlation between "future events" and stars. Just movements, measurements, and identification. To that particular slice of the pie they might be able to comment. And so a geologist might be able to address the level of CO2 in rocks, etc. but they wouldn't necessarily be able to equate what effects that CO2 has on the rest of the world - except maybe in terms of soil..maybe.

Climate science is actually much more complicated and involves the study of weather and everything revolved around weather. Weather. Rocks. One has complex systems, analysis of several factors, the other is one OF the factors.

But again, to barfo's point - do you have any information provided by an actual climate scientist with proof supporting your claim? Can you provide this article?

 

[PapaG]

Agreed. Throw incentives/disincentives out there so that the bad behaviour is no longer worth it to 'em.

Good luck with that. India already told the US to take a flying leap, and imposing tariffs on China wouldn't be a good idea considering they are basically backing the US treasury at this point.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh Denny - fixated on your astrologers again. But what can you expect from someone who so obviously worships Nancy Reagan?

To answer your question, no an astronomer would not be a valid expert opinion on astrology. Sure, the astronomer studies the stars, but they don't have any insight into correlation between "future events" and stars. Just movements, measurements, and identification. To that particular slice of the pie they might be able to comment. And so a geologist might be able to address the level of CO2 in rocks, etc. but they wouldn't necessarily be able to equate what effects that CO2 has on the rest of the world - except maybe in terms of soil..maybe.

Climate science is actually much more complicated and involves the study of weather and everything revolved around weather. Weather. Rocks. One has complex systems, analysis of several factors, the other is one OF the factors.

But again, to barfo's point - do you have any information provided by an actual climate scientist with proof supporting your claim? Can you provide this article?

Is the World Ocean Warming? Upper-Ocean Temperature Trends: 1950–2000

But hey, these guys are oceanographers publishing in some whacko journal called "Journal of Physical Oceanography"

There's this, also, from Harris-Mann's longrangeweather.com site (Harris is a climatologist, Mann is a meteorologist):

120-Year Climate Study

A comprehensive climatological study of over 600 cities both in North America and around the rest of the world, which I finally completed in mid-2001, compared the average (mean) temperatures in Fahrenheit for the six decades from 1880 through 1940 and the following 60-year period ending December 31, 2000.

Needless-to-say, I was a bit surprised to discover that this planet overall had only warmed up a mere .7 of one degree Fahrenheit on a global scale from 1941 through the balance of the 20th Century.

In fact, if one removed the 15 largest cities, the "concrete and asphalt jungles", from the study, Mother Earth would have actually COOLED OFF about .4 of one degree Fahrenheit in the last six decades.

(Supports what I said about asphalt in a previous post)

 

[yakbladder]

So if you removed man-made asphalt, the Earth's temperature would be cooler. Hrm..bizarre theory..almost sounds like man-made climate change. Thanks Denny!

BTW, I think it's interesting to note that the new Sec. of Energy is looking at different road coverings that actually reflect rather than absorb heat. In order to reduce a city's heat generation.

Is the World Ocean Warming? Upper-Ocean Temperature Trends: 1950–2000

But hey, these guys are oceanographers publishing in some whacko journal called "Journal of Physical Oceanography"

There's this, also, from Harris-Mann's longrangeweather.com site (Harris is a climatologist, Mann is a meteorologist):

120-Year Climate Study



(Supports what I said about asphalt in a previous post)

 

[mobes23]

Good luck with that. India already told the US to take a flying leap, and imposing tariffs on China wouldn't be a good idea considering they are basically backing the US treasury at this point.

Close to right -- both of those countries reacted against disincentives. Incentives could still work. What those might be, I have no idea.

 

[Denny Crane]

So if you removed man-made asphalt, the Earth's temperature would be cooler. Hrm..bizarre theory..almost sounds like man-made climate change. Thanks Denny!

BTW, I think it's interesting to note that the new Sec. of Energy is looking at different road coverings that actually reflect rather than absorb heat. In order to reduce a city's heat generation.

Earth's temperature IS cooler. If you measure temperatures over the asphalt, you get readings that spoil your overall data. Cooler by .4 degrees C.

 

[yakbladder]

Earth's temperature IS cooler. If you measure temperatures over the asphalt, you get readings that spoil your overall data. Cooler by .4 degrees C.

But the overall temperature is warmer, because of man-made interference. So, again, the Earth could be a bazillion degrees cooler (I dare you to define bazillion), but since we've interfered the temperature has risen. Hence, man-made climate change.

 

[hasoos]

He got what right? I had a BS prior to my MBA. I guess they don't teach real science these days?

BS in what though? It's a type of a degree. It doesn't make you a scientist. People can get a BS in computer programming, but I wouldn't want them making scientific decisions.

 

[hasoos]

Close to right -- both of those countries reacted against disincentives. Incentives could still work. What those might be, I have no idea.

Right, just like how we shit in our own back yard until the Love canal lit on fire. They will do it until it endangers their lives, and in those countries, they may even do it after.

The best incentive of all is survival. It reaches down to the lowest level of human instinct and makes decisions very black and white.

 

[hasoos]

How were global temperatures compiled in 1934?

What the US was the only one doing weather in that year? Is the rest of the world cavemen or something? People around the world have been doing weather for centuries. Get over it, the US isnt' some technological marvel that is the mythical land of the USA, the land where weather has been tracked longer than anywhere else.

 

[BrianFromWA]

BTW, I think it's interesting to note that the new Sec. of Energy is looking at different road coverings that actually reflect rather than absorb heat. In order to reduce a city's heat generation.

I'm interested in this. Off the cuff, my first thought is that "heat" can't really be reflected, can it? I mean, the heat storage of the road is based upon the solar energy it absorbs, which is both a function of the material property and the black-body effect of the asphalt. "reflection" of that solar energy means that that sunlight is going somewhere...like partially into the eyes of the drivers of those roads. And if there's an issue with greenhouse effect (I'm not qualified to parse the science among the warring factions) continuing b/c of pollution, etc...reflecting that energy back into the atmosphere will just increase atmospheric temperature, right? I mean, instead of the damping function of the asphalt absorbing the energy and storing it as heat (to be bled off during times of "cool" atmospheric temperature), it will reflect that energy back into the "greenhouse" and keep the atmospheric temperature higher all the time?

That said, I'm all for novel science and engineering solutions, rather than politics and economics. To quote CS Lewis' Affectionate Uncle Screwtape:

If he must dabble in science, keep him on economics and sociology; don't let him get away from that invaluable "real life." But the best of all is to let him read no science but to give him a grand general idea that he knows it all and that everything he happens to have picked up in casual talk and reading is "the results of modern investigation."

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm interested in this. Off the cuff, my first thought is that "heat" can't really be reflected, can it? I mean, the heat storage of the road is based upon the solar energy it absorbs, which is both a function of the material property and the black-body effect of the asphalt. "reflection" of that solar energy means that that sunlight is going somewhere...like partially into the eyes of the drivers of those roads. And if there's an issue with greenhouse effect (I'm not qualified to parse the science among the warring factions) continuing b/c of pollution, etc...reflecting that energy back into the atmosphere will just increase atmospheric temperature, right? I mean, instead of the damping function of the asphalt absorbing the energy and storing it as heat (to be bled off during times of "cool" atmospheric temperature), it will reflect that energy back into the "greenhouse" and keep the atmospheric temperature higher all the time?

That said, I'm all for novel science and engineering solutions, rather than politics and economics. To quote CS Lewis' Affectionate Uncle Screwtape:

Yeah, heat can be reflected, as is light.

If you think about it, the sunlight reflected off of pure white snow is really bright.

 

[PapaG]

The head of the IPCC is an economist. What could he possibly know about climate science!

 

[barfo]

The head of the IPCC is an economist. What could he possibly know about climate science!

Nice find, but no one is saying that an economist can't possibly know about climate science. Heck, a grade school dropout working at a truck stop could be an expert in the field. It just isn't very likely, that's all.
What I've been arguing is that there is no reason to assume that an economist knows about climate science. If they prove they do, good for them. Apparently this guy has proved he does.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Nice find, but no one is saying that an economist can't possibly know about climate science. Heck, a grade school dropout working at a truck stop could be an expert in the field. It just isn't very likely, that's all.
What I've been arguing is that there is no reason to assume that an economist knows about climate science. If they prove they do, good for them. Apparently this guy has proved he does.

barfo

The 38-year veteran physicist/economist at the EPA hasn't proven it, though.

 

[barfo]

The 38-year veteran physicist/economist at the EPA hasn't proven it, though.

Correct, he has not - at least not that I've seen evidence of. There is a difference between being the head of the IPCC, and writing an unsolicited report at taxpayer expense.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Correct, he has not - at least not that I've seen evidence of. There is a difference between being the head of the IPCC, and writing an unsolicited report at taxpayer expense.

barfo

What's the difference? They are both economists. You are the one who mocked the idea of economists being climate scientists, not me. Yet the head of the IPCC is an economist by trade.

 

[maxiep]

What's the difference? They are both economists. You are the one who mocked the idea of economists being climate scientists, not me. Yet the head of the IPCC is an economist by trade.

PapaG, don't you get it? The only people barfo will recognize as "experts" are the ones that agree with him.

 

[rocketeer]

Nice find, but no one is saying that an economist can't possibly know about climate science. Heck, a grade school dropout working at a truck stop could be an expert in the field. It just isn't very likely, that's all.
What I've been arguing is that there is no reason to assume that an economist knows about climate science. If they prove they do, good for them. Apparently this guy has proved he does.

barfo

it definitely seems like you're only willing to consider people to be "experts" when they agree with your opinion.

 

[barfo]

it definitely seems like you're only willing to consider people to be "experts" when they agree with your opinion.

Really? I'm willing to consider any and every climate scientist an expert in climate science. Anyone else, there has to be some evidence they are expert. That doesn't seem to me an unreasonable set of requirements.

barfo

 

[barfo]

What's the difference? They are both economists. You are the one who mocked the idea of economists being climate scientists, not me. Yet the head of the IPCC is an economist by trade.

The difference is that one is clearly a respected figure in that field, whereas the other clearly isn't.
Given a lack of highly relevant academic credentials, I'll look to the opinions of others in the field. Rather than, say, the opinions of some posters on the internet.

barfo

 

[rocketeer]

Really? I'm willing to consider any and every climate scientist an expert in climate science. Anyone else, there has to be some evidence they are expert. That doesn't seem to me an unreasonable set of requirements.

barfo

that's fine except that you are dismissing all the evidence that someone could be an "expert" when they disagree with your opinion.

 

[barfo]

that's fine except that you are dismissing all the evidence that someone could be an "expert" when they disagree with your opinion.

What evidence have I dismissed?

barfo

 

[rocketeer]

What evidence have I dismissed?

barfo

it seems like someone being a 38 year physicist/economist at the EPA(assuming papag was right in calling him that) would know a little bit about things effecting the environment. climate science certainly would seem to be related there.

 

[barfo]

it seems like someone being a 38 year physicist/economist at the EPA(assuming papag was right in calling him that) would know a little bit about things effecting the environment. climate science certainly would seem to be related there.

Oh, I've already stipulated that he knows a little bit about the subject. There is a difference between knowing a little bit and being an expert.

To know whether he's an expert, we'd need to know what he spent those 38 years doing.

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

To know whether he's an expert, we'd need to know what he spent those 38 years doing.

barfo

Well, if he spent any of them here, we'd know he ain't no expert.

 

[yakbladder]

Even accepting the fact that the person at the EPA is an expert (whether they are or not) is pointless. There are many thousands of climate scientists who disagree with that position. While it is possible that the EPA economist could be right, the odds are incredibly slim. Yet people here seem willing to throw out every last bit of reason to prop that person up as an "expert" in order to support their statements.

that's fine except that you are dismissing all the evidence that someone could be an "expert" when they disagree with your opinion.

How incredibly ironic..you call out barfo but not the others who dismiss the evidence by thousands of people who ARE experts...

Oh, I've already stipulated that he knows a little bit about the subject. There is a difference between knowing a little bit and being an expert.

To know whether he's an expert, we'd need to know what he spent those 38 years doing.

barfo

 

[rocketeer]

How incredibly ironic..you call out barfo but not the others who dismiss the evidence by thousands of people who ARE experts...

barfo is dismissing the people as experts.

the others are acknowledging that the people are experts but disagree with their conclusions.

 

[PapaG]

barfo is dismissing the people as experts.

the others are acknowledging that the people are experts but disagree with their conclusions.

Bingo. It's not a debate when one side automatically dismisses anything that goes against their dogma by questioning the person presenting the data, and not the data itself. There are also many "climate scientists" (whatever that means) who question anthropogenic global warming, or even what impact man has on global warming. Calling them kooks, or questioning their credentials while accepting similarly credentialed people because they are on "your side" (not you, just an example), tells me that the science backing anthropogenic GW has some holes in it. The EPA "economist's" report, through meta-analysis, illustrates the weakness of the science that is recorded, yet instead of rebutting it with new science, or even pulling up the data and arguing against the "economists" conclusions, we simply get smears on the man's character, with zero knowledge of what he knows about climate science.

Weak sauce, IMO, and a sign of a very weak argument.