If the GOP wants to investigate "scientific fraud" and global warming - I say bring it

[jpak]

They will be handed their ignorant asshats by the scienctific establishment.

Data are not their friends.

Bring it fuckwads

:oldDUFUsmiley:

[baldguy]

1. But remember, these are the people that call Biblical creationism "science".

[jpak]

2. OK, they should hold evolution-is-a- scientific-fraud hearings too

Bring it dipshits

:D

[fascisthunter]

3. problem with this is, what funding and support will these anti-global warming liars

have at their disposal, and will the global science community be censored or prevented from challenging the liars to bring facts with them?

[jpak]

4. If they hold hearings and they challenge respected climate scientists live on CSPAN

They will get a shellacking.

yup

[fascisthunter]

6. GOOD... I'll be all for it

[pscot]

25. No amount of money

can sustain the lies.

[HereSince1628]

5. The rules of science aren't their friends, either

but they aren't planning on evaluating science as science, they want to approach it as if it were a legal issue. It's the same strategic ploy of venue that the intelligent design groups employ.

What they'll do is a semantic attack on words such as fact, proof, and theory. And when they get one scientist to say that there must always be a willingness to consider a theory is incorrect (usually in some minor rather than existentially important way) they will have their talking point and they will use it forever.

A reader can get a good grasp of this in Chris Mooney's "The Republican War Against Science."

[jpak]

7. Then scientists will have to take them to school on the scientitic method

and give them an "F"

Fucking "A"

[HereSince1628]

8. A Congressional hearing is unlikely to play by the rules of science

No matter how much a scientist could try, the men (and they will be mostly men) on the committee are going to be lawyers and some of them even former prosecuters.

This has played out before. The rules of Congress are a lot more like the rules of law than they are the way science works.

With respect to "the" scientific method, that idea offered to America as part of national science curricula to get us caught up with Sputnik isn't really a very good model of how science works.

[jpak]

9. Which is why scientists testifying at those hearing have to challenge the Inquisitors

Loudly, Cogently and on C-SPAN

yup

[HereSince1628]

10. Well, if you like watching people going around in circles

I suppose there is some recreation in that.

But what WILL happen, because of scientific values, someone on the science side will mention there is always a bit of doubt, and that scientific understanding is tentative rather than permanent.

At that point, the inquisitors will smile broadly, and take their soundbite on the road, FOREVER. It is inevitable, you can't out argue people who don't have an open mind. Arguments only reinforce their loyalty and commitment to the cause of their belief.

As a scientist I find that a tiresome waste of time. I'd rather be in a lab with the slides of the worms I've collected or at a desk translating papers on the parasites of gulls. Educating lawmakers to a view they don't believe is near impossible.

[jpak]

11. Then you surrender the field to the morans - good luck with that new GOP NSF budget!

:D

[HereSince1628]

12. Extremely little of NSF goes to my area anyway. We've now well established

the northward migration of parasites of seabirds correlated to changes that look like just like global warming (:)). As my work concerns Norway and Russia it's well enough supported through collaborations with scientists there.

[jpak]

13. So it would will be OK with you when the GOP slashes NSF's budget?

:wow:

[HereSince1628]

14. I think you are demonstrating the exact behavior I was talking about

People who believe something are tenacious and will neither give up or change their minds.

I suspect, but don't know because it's outside my arena, but I thing the budgets of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are probably the ones that need protecting most on this issue.

[jpak]

15. Nope - lots of global change/ environmental science is funded by NSF

NCAR - National Center for Climate Research

Climate and Large Scale Dynamics

Paleoclimate

Climate Process and Modeling Teams

Ocean Science

Polar Programs

Atmospheric and Geospace Science

Earth Sciences

Atmospheric Chemistry

Green Chemistry

Biodiversity

Terrestrial Ecosystem Science

Population and Community Ecology

Environmental Biology

Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems.

All the fraud stuff the GOP wants to get rid of...

Yup

[HereSince1628]

16. Yes lots of project titles

But that says nothing of the amounts of dollars awarded, which as far as everyone working in science is never enough for their area.

[jpak]

17. Who do you think funds these areas of research - the Parks Service?

NSF is the go-to funding agency for global change science.

And if the science community does not stand up to these morans in Congress - they will be looking for other work.

yup

[pscot]

26. +1

[joshcryer]

29. The question then is if the media will cover it.

I think the scientists have to be careful, if their language is too strong, they'll be accused of trying to affect policy (which is a big no no for scientists, see kristopher's not liking Hansen making statements about sea ice reticence for an example on these forums).

If their language is too weak, they'll be rolled over.

[kestrel91316]

18. Psssssst: they won't even invite real climatologists to the hearings.

[joshcryer]

19. Heh, they'll conclude that the results are "inconclusive" and dust the science under the rug.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Your 'facts' are wrong

The Holocene only started about 10,000 years ago. So 18k years is not 'throughout the Holocene].

Temperature has not been 'rising slowly and steadily'. If you look at estimates of temperatures during the Holocene, you find that while some tropical regions had an earlier period of colder temperatures (compared with pre-industrial levels), temperate and arctic regions (and one tropical region) were, at the same time, warmer than the pre-industrial level - sometimes by quite a bit more. And of course, in that 18,000 year timeframe you mentioned, there was a far quicker increase in temperature at the end of the ice age (the point being that the Holocene didn't start until the end of the ice age). Really, your attempt to say everyone should be talking about the Holocene has failed, completely.

"Does it make much sense to claim that anthopogentrically caused CO2 has been the culprit for the last 75 years or so of climate change, but the previous 17,925 years was a natural period of climate change???"

Yes, because the temperature rise in the last 100 years or so has been far greater than anything seen in the previous 2,000 years.

"This seems at least to support the claim of some climatologists that solar cycles/radiation is responsible for warming on Earth and Mars."

No, because total solar irradiance mainly varying with the sunspot cycle, but has overall slightly decreased since the satellite measurements began in the 1970s. And when scientists look at the relative contributions of greenhouse gases, and solar irradiance, to the recent increase in temperature, they find the solar contribution to change "is negligible for warming since 1980.", but that the contribution from anthropogenic greenhouse gases is the majroity of the change.

"temperature controls CO2 levels, and not the other way around"

It's a positive feedback system. That's what all scientists say. An increase in temperature causes an increase in CO2, and an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature.

As for Mars: its climate is quite variable:

Globally, the mean temperature of the Martian atmosphere is particularly sensitive to the strength and duration of hemispheric dust storms, (see for example here and here). Large scale dust storms change the atmospheric opacity and convection; as always when comparing mean temperatures, the altitude at which the measurement is made matters, but to the extent it is sensible to speak of a mean temperature for Mars, the evidence is for significant cooling from the 1970’s, when Viking made measurements, compared to current temperatures. However, this is essentially due to large scale dust storms that were common back then, compared to a lower level of storminess now. The mean temperature on Mars, averaged over the Martian year can change by many degrees from year to year, depending on how active large scale dust storms are.

In 2001, Malin et al published a short article in Science (subscription required) discussing MGS data showing a rapid shrinkage of the South Polar Cap. Recently, the MGS team had a press release discussing more recent data showing the trend had continued. MGS 2001 press release MGS 2005 press release. The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere. Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (subscription required) showed, using the Mars GCM, that the south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional climate transits between the unstable states.

Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth…

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. I gave links to actual science; you just make assertions without evidence

"None of this is in dispute". Well, I've already shown that it is, because I've given links that show you to be wrong. So, you're wrong again.

"I have to disagree that temperature rises in the last 100 years are greater than we have seen before. I can't remember the period specifically, but in the Holocene there was a period wherein the planet saw a 50 degree temperature change in less than a hundred years. It may have occurred during the little Ice age, but I can't remember."

A complete fantasy on your part. Fifty degrees temperature change (I assume you mean Fahrenheit, but that's still more than 27 degrees centigrade) is more than between the depths of any ice age and the highest temperature in the last 3 million years.


Figure 1-6 Climate of the last 3 million years

http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/iceagebook/history_of_climate.html

"The fact is, the planet has undergone a general warming trend for the last several thousand years"

No. After the exit from the ice age, there has been small variation. No 'general warming trend'.


Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years

Look, here's something real about the Holocene, rather than your random imaginings:

The start of the present warm phase, the Holocene. Following the sudden ending of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago (or 10,000 14C years ago), forests quickly regained the ground that they had lost to cold and aridity. Ice sheets again began melting, though because of their size they took about two thousand more years to disappear completely. The Earth entered several thousand years of conditions warmer and moister than today; the Saharan and Arabian deserts almost completely disappeared under a vegetation cover, and in the northern latitudes forests grew slightly closer to the poles than they do at present. This phase, known as the 'Holocene optimum' occurred between about 9,000 and 5,000 years ago (8,000-4,000 14C years ago), though the timing of the warmest and moistest conditions probably varied somewhat between different regions. Some of the events and regional climatic trends of the last 10,000 years are summarized in this time line by N.C. Heywood. The 'optimum' may have been punctuated by a severe cold and dry phase that affected climates across north Africa, southern Asia, Europe, the Americas and Antarctica about 8,200 years ago (7,500 14 y.a.), perhaps lasting for a century or two before a return to warmer and wetter conditions (Stager & Mayewski 1997). In Africa at least, the climate does not seem to have returned to the moist warm 'optimum' state that prevailed before this sudden drought, but it was significantly moister than at present. After about 5,000 years ago, there was a further cooling and drying in many areas (again, often sudden and stepwise), and conditions became more similar to the present-day. A particularly widespread cool event associated with relatively wet conditions seems to have occurred in many parts of the world around 2600 years ago (van Geel et al. 1996). A general pattern in climate during the Holocene has been detected from high-resolution cores in the north Atlantic. It seems that at least in the North Atlantic region, and possibly globally, there was a warm-cold cycle with a periodicity of around 1500 years (Bond et al. 1997). In the north Atlantic region, and probably adjacent oceanic areas of Europe, the change from peak to trough of each period was about 2 deg.C , a very substantial change in mean annual temperature (though only a small fraction of the change between glacial and interglacial conditions). The cold phases seem to have been relatively abrupt, and each lasted several centuries before an apparently rapid switch back to warmer conditions. on this approximate periodicity are dated at 11,100 10,300 9,400 8,100 5,900 4,200 2,800 and 1400 years ago; they include the 8,600 y.a. and 2,600 y.a. events which seem to have been the most extreme in terms of showing up in terrestrial records around the world.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

"I can list specific areas around the world where either geologic, archaeologic, or even historic evidence shows the planet has been undergoing natural periods of climate change for the last 10k-12k years". Sure, there's some natural variation, especially in certain areas, but the global temperature has not changed as much or as fast as within the last hundred years.

"Didn't the Earth recently see the a several month long period of very low sunspot activity that directly correlated with Didn't the Earth recently see the a several month long period of very low sunspot activity that directly correlated with abnormally low temperatures worldwide??"

The most recent sunspot low (which is a period of several months) had the fewest sunspots in the last century or so, yes. But since there wasn't a period of "abnormally low temperatures worldwide", no, there was no such correlation. I have no idea why you would ask if there was.

Mars' changes are probably due variation in axial tilt, as that link said. I've pointed out that solar irradiance has decreased ever so slightly recently (and the variation in that associated with the sunspot cycle was decreasing in the period that the Martian polar caps shrunk), so we can rule out solar radiation causing them to shrink.

[jpak]

33. "50 degree temperature change in less than a hundred years." "but I can't remember."

you can't remember because it never happened.

made-up ignorant denier psuedoscience

yup

[jpak]

22. The recent rise in global temperatures is the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases

Ever hear of the Suess Effect?

Ever hear of the Mauna Loa data series?

Ever see all the direct and proxy temperature data on the rise of global temperatures and changes in the cyrosphere?

Ever hear about the the direct measurements of increases in radiative forcing due to increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases?

Paleoclimatology clearly indicates the recent rapid rise in global temperatures are anomalous and can only be explained by human activity?

The real science debate was over years ago.

Denier pseudoscience sucks

yup

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

32. The real science - not stupid denier pseudoscience - says you are wrong

Here's one you should read...

Suess, Hans E. (1955) Radiocarbon Concentration in Modern Wood. Science, Volume 122, Issue 3166, pp. 415-417

And here's the peer reviewed science since 1999 - read 'em and weep

Richard A. Kerr (2001) It's Official: Humans Are Behind Most of Global Warming
Science 2001. 291: 566 (commentary and summary of recent research)

J. E. Harries, H. E. Brindley, P. J. Sagoo, R. J. Bantges (2001). Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature 410: 355 - 357

T. P. Barnett, D. W. Pierce, R. Schnur (2001). Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans. Science 292: 270-274.

S. Levitus, J. I. Antonov, J. Wang, T. L. Delworth, K. W. Dixon, and A. J. Broccoli (2001) Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System. Science 292: 267-270.

D. J. Karoly, K. Braganza, P. A. Stott, J. M. Arblaster, G. A. Meehl, A. J. Broccoli, and K. W. Dixon (2003) Detection of a Human Influence on North American Climate. Science. 302: 1200-1203

B. D. Santer, M. F. Wehner, T. M. L. Wigley, R. Sausen, G. A. Meehl, K. E. Taylor, C. Ammann, J. Arblaster, W. M. Washington, J. S. Boyle, and W. Brüggemann (2003) Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes. Science. 301: 479-483

P. A. Stott, D. A. Stone and M. R. Allen (2004) Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003. Nature 432: 610-614

J. Hansen, L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G. A. Schmidt N. Tausnev (2005) Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications. Science. 308: 1431 – 1435

T. P. Barnett, D. W. Pierce, K. M. AchutaRao, P. J. Gleckler, B. D. Santer, J. M. Gregory, and W. M. Washington (2005) Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans. Science. 309: 284-287

M. Lockwood and C. Frohlich (2007) Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proc. R. Soc.doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880 Published online

Seung-Ki Min, Xuebin Zhang, Francis Zwiers (2008) Human-Induced Arctic Moistening. Science 25 April 2008:
Vol. 320. no. 5875, pp. 518 - 520 DOI: 10.1126/science.1153468

Paul J. Durack and Susan E. Wijffels et al. (2010) Fifty-year trends in global ocean salinities and their relationship to broad-scale warming. Journal of Climate, (in press) DOI: 10.1175/2010JCLI3377.1

yup

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

37. The current warming is not natural, it's been measured and published

Your history teacher should have stuck to history - because he/she doesn't know jack about climate science.

The IPCC said nothing of the kind - if you even bothered to read those reports, the all concluded that the current warming trend is due to human activity.

I was in Katrina - it sucked worse than the media reports.

Deniers wallow in their ignorance and contempt of science.

The facts are these...

Human activity is the sole reason for the measured rise in atmospheric CO2, N2O and CH4 since 1850.

The rise in those greenhouse gases have measurably altered the Earth's radiative balance and trapped more solar radiation in the Earth's climate system.

That increase in greenhouse forcing has resulted in a measured rise in global temperatures.

That global temperature rise temperature measurably altered the Earth's hydrological cycle.

We are near the tipping point for rapid long term change in the Earth's climate that will severely impact human populations for millenia.

It's the wacko climate deniers that distort science and play on people's ignorance.

yup

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Damn, what did the troll say?

His history teacher was his 'source' for his climate science 'facts'? :rofl:

[jpak]

39. yup - his junior high history teacher

:wow:

[joshcryer]

28. "Does it make much sense to claim that anthopogentrically caused CO2 has been the culprit"

Yes.

[Odin2005]

31. Interglacial temperatures peaked 8000 years ago.

the climate had been slowly cooling over the past 8000 years, the cooling slowed somewhat by forest-clearing and methane emissions from rice farming. In fact the climate came very close to the glaciation threshold in the 1700s, a result of the decimation of Native American populations by disease.

Your whole post is a bunch of false, ignorant talking points.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Odin2005]

36. I am talking aboit for the human-caused warming of the last 100 years.

Go read "Plows, Plaugues, and Petroleum".

[jimlup]

30. I agree, the scientific community is smart and doesn't take shit...

They will win the hearings and slam the repukes in the process. And they also have a memory as well as some power.

If the repukes do it - it will be a typical "let's shoot ourselves in the foot" repuke move. Don't overestimate the repuke's ability to govern. They are way worse at it than you can even imagine.

Dems win even though many of them have no spines because repukes are such ass clowns.

[JohnWxy]

40. I DON'T Believe it! but it's true! LOL!!!

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/gop-investigate-scientific-fraud-global-warming-report/