Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates

  1. Aug 14, 2005 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    "Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates"

    http://www.livescience.com/environment/050811_global_warming.html
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 14, 2005 #2
    There are a couple of inconsistencies here (or plain lies if you prefer that)

    Check here for the reality. See that the corrected low troposphere temperatures (black) only differ marginally to give a new trend of about 0,123 degrees per decade (old 0,115). Radiosondes are on 0,114, the surface trend in the same period (1979-2005) at around 0,172.

    So the accurate situation is that the previous slight warming trend of the lower trophosphere has been corrected to be marginally more, but still less than the surface trend. See this

    The correction pertained an artificiality in the tropics when the satelites pass the equator. This also means that the larger local difference on the northern hemisphere is not changed.

    So the suggestion of erroneous cooling in the article is a plain wrong strawman. This is how the public is misinformed continuously.
     
  4. Aug 14, 2005 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Strawman: A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted.

    These published reports are intended to be easily refuted? Have you considered reading them before dismissing them?
     
  5. Aug 14, 2005 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why do you mask your links?
     
  6. Aug 14, 2005 #5

    Tide

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Ivan,

    But we all know that global warming causes global cooling! http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/041217_sealevel_rise.html

    It's too bad you're into harassing and insulting members rather than in having serious discussions. It could be fun and even illuminating. Oh, well. Good luck.
     
  7. Aug 14, 2005 #6
    Ivan,

    I'm not aware that "look here" is masking links, I still think it's a error not to allow for the feature, otherwise the graphs would have stared directly in your face, like here:

    unmasked link: [url]http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=23074&start=1[/url]

    where you can follow the discussion about this in detail. With this information it may be clear that ...[quote]While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.[/quote]...is a [url=http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html]straw man (masked link)[/url].

    Nobody has ever suggested that the lower trophosphere is cooling, although before the big 1998 El Nino the lower troposphere (MSU2 LT) was just about trendless.

    BTW The lower stratosphere (MSU-4) is indeed cooling, which is undisputed by any party, whilst the global warmers love to explain this as caused by enhanced radiation due to more greenhouse gasses. So the reporter is mixing things up to serve his case. Needless to say that the slighter lower warming trend of the lower troposphere still refutes the enhanced greenhouse gas forcing hypothesis.
     
  8. Aug 14, 2005 #7

    iansmith

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    these are the abstract of the article in question. These have been publish in the Science Express of August 11 2005.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/sciencexpress/recent.shtml
     
  9. Aug 14, 2005 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It helps everyone to see where the information is coming from. To me it seems misleading considering that the source is everything. When I see a page full of links like this, here, and, as opposed to ****.edu, ***.noaa, ***.gov, etc, it makes me wonder. Frankly, this alone makes me suspicious of the credibility of the links. I would think that you would prefer to be up front with your sources.
     
  10. Aug 14, 2005 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Could you be more specific? I wasn't aware that I had insulted anyone.

    I also see the word "strawman" used improperly as the norm here now.
     
  11. Aug 14, 2005 #10

    Tide

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Gladly - since you asked!

    You: "Have you considered reading them before dismissing them?"

    That's rude. Posturing yourself in a discussion or debate evades the issues and isn't exactly the pinnacle of professionalism in science.

    You: "Why do you mask your links?"

    In addition to being unwarranted and off-topic it implies deceit on the part of the poster and appears intended to call into question the veracity of the member without addressing the technical issues at hand. Besides, any regular user of the web knows she can plainly see the URL by passing the mouse pointer over the link and does so routinely.

    If you are still unable to discern the offense in your comments then I advise some serious reflection and introspection.

    In my experience, people tend to choose the path of ridicule, ad hominem attack and insult when they have run out of valid and legitimate debating points. Of course, I assume it's simply a momentary lapse in judgment in your case.

    By the way, your lapse caught my attention because of your Oppenheimer quote: "There is no place for dogma in science"

    Robert would have been the last person to stifle debate and adopt a dogmatic posture. This is particularly important with regard to climate change and one should recognize the importance of questioning the validity of the data, models and theory behind it.
     
  12. Aug 15, 2005 #11
    Anyway look at the bottom of the graph.

    http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/jonesmsu52.gif

    Perhaps notice the sources of the data. Unfortunately the predecessor of MSU-2LT, the dataset tltglhmam_5.1 is no longer on the net but I'm sure that Spencer and Christy (S&C) will make it available. You can have my set.

    Unlike the global warmers like Mann and Jones having a hard time to reveal data, methods and dealing with critique, it may be noted that S&C have always given full access to all data, models and algoritms, and upon critique, acknowlegded the error, credited the discoverers and published prompt corrections.
     
  13. Aug 16, 2005 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I did.

    It seemed relevant to me. And I'm not debating anything.

    Well, I see this tactic used by people who are giving misleading information or trying to hide the source, so this always sets off an alarm for me.

    When people who in all likelihood are good and honest scientist are called liars due to their published reports and most likely, highly qualified interpretation of those reports, I consider this a huge lapse in judgement. To call them strawmen is flat out laughable.

    I think the word "lies" pretty much set the tone for dogma. :wink:
     
  14. Aug 16, 2005 #13
    Well, this:
    boldface part is plainly wrong. Period.

    Previous data (MSU 2LT version 5.1) showed warming as well, only a little less. So introducing a wrong statement is an essential first part of the strawman. And what is the difference between a wrong statement and a lie?
     
  15. Aug 16, 2005 #14
  16. Aug 16, 2005 #15

    Tide

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Ivan,

    Well, then let's all stoop to their level! ;)
     
  17. Sep 19, 2005 #16
    So, this Global Warming "problem" is really just bolangne? Most people you ask believe it's significant reality.
     
  18. Sep 19, 2005 #17
    I don't think that it is bologna. Are we allowed to quote published journal articles on this website? Or is that a copyright violation? I would be happy to comment on some studies.
     
  19. Sep 19, 2005 #18

    Tide

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    scrappy,

    Please do! :)
     
  20. Sep 20, 2005 #19
    Here we go again. The world is warming so we have to cut our greenhouse emissions

    Remember there are several questions.

    Is the world warming up?

    Is this warming unusual and unprecedent?

    To what extend can that warming be attributed to which causes?

    Can we do anything?

    Must we do anything?
     
  21. Sep 20, 2005 #20
    It's interesting. We simply live as humans and therefore (so many suggest) the world has become "off balance", and somehow we are altering nature... as if we aren't "natural" just being human beings. We are not so significant that we can change the earth beyond it's ability to do what it has done for eons!

    I'm not condoning irresponsiblity here, but come on, people!

    Andre, you are a breath of reality concerning this subject. You have demonstrated extreme patience in this forum.

    I'm just floored by some of the things people are convinced of here. :bugeye:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates
  1. Global Warming (Replies: 35)

  2. Global warming (Replies: 1)

  3. Global Warming (Replies: 2)

  4. Global warming (Replies: 5)

  5. Global Warming (Replies: 2)

Loading...