Robert Dewey
EF5
http://algore.org/node/331 is also a good source... Also, the Hadley Center is a pretty good source I hear: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/
Glaciers disappearing from Kilimanjaro
- Thread starter John Farley
- Start date
Mike Smith
Yup, "science" has done a great job on this issue:
Jones writes, "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
From: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186_pf.html
If I were on the pro-GW side today, I don't think I would be criticizing The Wall Street Journal's reporting on this issue.
Darren Addy
EF5
Don't anthropomorphize science. It hates it when we do that.
Let me put it another way: How far would an economic/stock market argument get if it contradicted the Wall Street Journal with a quote from National Geographic or a UK Tabloid?
Learning how to evaluate sources and look for loaded language should be taught in Middle School (if not earlier).
Let me put it another way: How far would an economic/stock market argument get if it contradicted the Wall Street Journal with a quote from National Geographic or a UK Tabloid?
Learning how to evaluate sources and look for loaded language should be taught in Middle School (if not earlier).
Last edited by a moderator:
John Farley
Supporter
Wow! I started this thread a month ago, and it is still going. Since for more than 2 weeks of that month I was out of the country, I have not posted again until now, although I have tried to keep up. Mostly, I want to say that I appreciate the high level of debate and discussion in this thread, and the fact that it has not turned into the kind of name-calling flame war that earlier threads on this topic have. Regardless of your views on global warming, I think it is an important issue to discuss, and I would expect the quality of discussion in a group as science-oriented as this one to be high. That hasn't always been the case in the past, but it has been this time, and I appreciate that.
Just a couple of substantive thoughts. First, I'm not overly impressed by the leaked emails or the presence of "global warming activism." Regarding the emails, the notion of science as neutral inquiry to find the truth was debunked long ago - clashing paradigms with scientists seeking to find empirical support for their theories is a much more accurate description. Thomas Kuhn pointed this out long ago in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. And as to activism, we know there is activism on both sides - but so what? It seems to me that you get farther looking at the evidence that can be brought to bear than by looking at the motivations of the scientists. The evidence that global warming is occurring seems pretty overwhelming; and much of that warming is consistent with what scientific theories say about the effects of greenhouse gases. That said, just what percentage of global warming may be attributed to human activities seems to me like an open question. It's probably more than 0 and less than 100%, but that is a big range. Unfortunately, if we wait to take any action until we have a definitive answer to that question, it may be too late to act if the percentage turns out to be high. That's what worries me.
Second, while on my trip I saw some first hand evidence of the decline of tropical glaciers in the Peruvian Andes. Locals expressed concern about the decline of the glaciers, and fear that they could be completely gone in another 20 years. I can't say definitively what is causing their decline, but declining they are. It also was striking to me that there was not much snow, even in the immediate vicinity of the glaciers (i.e., above 17,000 feet), and I would think there would have been more in what is late spring in the southern hemisphere. Now, I don't know anything about the climatology of snow cover in the Peruvian Andes, so maybe that is normal, but since glaciers form from snow building up faster than it can melt and eventually compacting to ice, I would have thought that there would be more snow around the glaciers in late spring than there was. But perhaps not in the direct sun of the tropics.
Thanks again, everyone, for keeping this thread thoughtful and civil.
Just a couple of substantive thoughts. First, I'm not overly impressed by the leaked emails or the presence of "global warming activism." Regarding the emails, the notion of science as neutral inquiry to find the truth was debunked long ago - clashing paradigms with scientists seeking to find empirical support for their theories is a much more accurate description. Thomas Kuhn pointed this out long ago in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. And as to activism, we know there is activism on both sides - but so what? It seems to me that you get farther looking at the evidence that can be brought to bear than by looking at the motivations of the scientists. The evidence that global warming is occurring seems pretty overwhelming; and much of that warming is consistent with what scientific theories say about the effects of greenhouse gases. That said, just what percentage of global warming may be attributed to human activities seems to me like an open question. It's probably more than 0 and less than 100%, but that is a big range. Unfortunately, if we wait to take any action until we have a definitive answer to that question, it may be too late to act if the percentage turns out to be high. That's what worries me.
Second, while on my trip I saw some first hand evidence of the decline of tropical glaciers in the Peruvian Andes. Locals expressed concern about the decline of the glaciers, and fear that they could be completely gone in another 20 years. I can't say definitively what is causing their decline, but declining they are. It also was striking to me that there was not much snow, even in the immediate vicinity of the glaciers (i.e., above 17,000 feet), and I would think there would have been more in what is late spring in the southern hemisphere. Now, I don't know anything about the climatology of snow cover in the Peruvian Andes, so maybe that is normal, but since glaciers form from snow building up faster than it can melt and eventually compacting to ice, I would have thought that there would be more snow around the glaciers in late spring than there was. But perhaps not in the direct sun of the tropics.
Thanks again, everyone, for keeping this thread thoughtful and civil.
Dave Gallaher
EF5
That's among the better jokes I've read on ST.
I agree completely with this. Also, I question National Geographic's scientific integrity--it is a very popular mag, but I think the advertisers who pay a large premium have considerable influence over content in the modern era. Some of the stuff I see on the NG cable channel is suspicious to me.
Forgive the threadjack, but the other thing that should be taught in school is a commercial credit course (i.e. how the credit card system works), but the bank lobbies have prevented that from happening.
Darren Addy
EF5
Dave,
I know that the NG Television and Magazine divisions are completely different entities, but you bring up an interesting side point. Consumer Reports is a very trusted source, in part because of their policy to accept no advertising. Virtually every other "news/information source" is going to accept advertising and so we (should) ask if perhaps that is coloring their views, getting them to pull punches or ignore things that should not be ignored. ( This is a problem with the economic model we follow in journalism. Nobody wants to shoulder the entire cost of magazine or newspaper production via their subscription rates, so we recognize advertising is part of the process.
The problem seems to be that we only question it when we find something that disagrees with what we want to believe. Otherwise we tend to "give it a pass". This is a subtle form of confirmation bias.
To be truly fair and open-minded (in the Good Way) we must evenly apply our personal rules for evaluating evidence.
I know that the NG Television and Magazine divisions are completely different entities, but you bring up an interesting side point. Consumer Reports is a very trusted source, in part because of their policy to accept no advertising. Virtually every other "news/information source" is going to accept advertising and so we (should) ask if perhaps that is coloring their views, getting them to pull punches or ignore things that should not be ignored. ( This is a problem with the economic model we follow in journalism. Nobody wants to shoulder the entire cost of magazine or newspaper production via their subscription rates, so we recognize advertising is part of the process.
The problem seems to be that we only question it when we find something that disagrees with what we want to believe. Otherwise we tend to "give it a pass". This is a subtle form of confirmation bias.
To be truly fair and open-minded (in the Good Way) we must evenly apply our personal rules for evaluating evidence.
Mike Smith
More on glacier melt: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...acier-melt-down-debate-a-tempest-in-a-teapot/
Jerry Prsha
EF4
Regarding the hacked emails that allegedly amplify the real human effects on Global Warming.
I just thought I'd throw this out there since she head's NOAA. http://www.noaa.gov/lubchenco.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Joshua Nall
EF4
Of course she is going to have this view, looks like her whole life has revolved around the study of climate change.
When I was 14 or so mom took me to the dentist. He said I had 4 cavities, wanted to drill out and fill all of them with metal alloy. She took me to another dentist, he said I had none. To this day I have never had a cavity. This type thing goes on in every field.
I've always been leery of experts. Thought myself to be expert in some areas when really I just wanted to win the argument. Lot of experts out there with more agendas than common sense.
Mike Smith
The Cooling of Kilimanjaro
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
Oddly, this does not manage to overcome the cooling that happens in Tanzania. The temperature averages actually drop over time. The right most column is the total number of thermometers in that year while the column just to the left of it is the annual average. We start out at 26.7 C and slowly drop to the 23 C range where we substantially stabilize in the 1930s and where we stay to today. (Missing data is shown as -99.0 but does not participate in the averaging process).
So, someone has actually analyzed data from Tanzania and found ... cooling.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
Oddly, this does not manage to overcome the cooling that happens in Tanzania. The temperature averages actually drop over time. The right most column is the total number of thermometers in that year while the column just to the left of it is the annual average. We start out at 26.7 C and slowly drop to the 23 C range where we substantially stabilize in the 1930s and where we stay to today. (Missing data is shown as -99.0 but does not participate in the averaging process).
So, someone has actually analyzed data from Tanzania and found ... cooling.
Ryan McGinnis
EF5
Which is why, to this day, whenever I need my spleen removed, I turn to Yahoo Answers. I've taken it out myself at least three times now.
Joshua Nall
EF4
Didn't mean to take away from the scientific nature of this thread by posting something from my childhood, but I did learn a lesson from that experience.
Was it a Doctor that said you needed to remove your spleen? He may have made an incorrect diagnosis, Doctors are notorious for that. I would have definitely gotten a second opinion, researched it myself, etc.. especially after the second go round
If it is a blood disorder caused by a malfunctioning spleen, that can sometimes be handled with medication.... just throwing it out there by chance your Dr. didn't tell you. Sometimes they hold back information also. Experts are just people. We consider them experts because they have generally devoted huge amounts of time to something. It doesn't mean that they are right.... or even bright, some of them. Now NASA is in the news again... going to get interesting.
Ryan McGinnis
EF5
Didn't mean to take away from the scientific nature of this thread by posting something from my childhood, but I did learn a lesson from that experience.
Was it a Doctor that said you needed to remove your spleen? He may have made an incorrect diagnosis, Doctors are notorious for that. I would have definitely gotten a second opinion, researched it myself, etc.. especially after the second go round
Experts are just people. We consider them experts because they have generally devoted huge amounts of time to something. It doesn't mean that they are right.... or even bright, some of them. Now NASA is in the news again... going to get interesting.
I also rode to work today on a unicorn.
Jason Harris
EF5
http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1016476466000205357mdBkSoxGDM
Believe me this link is relevant--it's all about what constitutes evidence.
Believe me this link is relevant--it's all about what constitutes evidence.
Robert Dewey
EF5
This thread is still going? Didn't the Hadley Center squash the idea of Global Warming? 
Similar threads
