Acidic Ocean
- Thread starter Madfronter
- Start date
MCsaxmaster
New member
Oh good griefâ€"much of what’s written below is so far removed from reality it’s…well, let’s just say it’s ‘out there’ 
Uh, no, not even close. The best way to make a name for yourself and advance your career, and I can say this out of first-hand experience, is to shake up a paradigm. The ONLY way to do that is to understand that paradigm (‘consensus’) in great detail, understand it’s failings, and attack those failings through experimentation in an attempt to improve our understanding. If the improvements are convincing and large enough, the paradigm shifts.
To say that a working scientist needn’t be concerned with the consensus to do his/her work is effectively saying that a scientist doesn’t need to know ANYTHING about the subject they are working on. To say that doesn’t make sense is an understatement.
But results alone (data) don’t and can’t change paradigmsâ€"it’s the hypotheses that explain the new data, and ALL of the previous data in a new, more parsimonious way that changes the paradigm. NONE of that happens or can happen without a clear understanding of the ‘consensus view’ including possible shortcomings of that paradigm.
Uh, no, the greatest scientists in history are not great because they broke with the consensusâ€"any fool can do that. They are great because they developed highly testable hypotheses (which they themselves had significant evidence to support) that did a very good job of solving problems that were insoluble with the understanding of the time. For instance, people knew of gravity well before Newton, and they knew that celestial bodies (planets, moons, etc.) orbited. They did not know why, or that these phenomenons could be explained by a common mechanism. Newton demonstrated that both (and other phenomenons) could be explained by a common force, gravity, and developed the mathematics needed to make exquisitely precise predictions. It wasn’t a break from consensus that made Newton great, it was a refinement of it. That is how science works.
As the late, great Carl Sagan said:
“They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.â€Â
As I said, any fool can disregard consensus: there are Flat Earthers, Moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists, young-Earth creationists, etc. that do it all the time. These folks are laughed at for a reason…
Agreed, which is why no scientist does that or would think to do it. Claiming otherwise is a strawman, and a pretty pitiful one. Creighton knew (or should have known) better than that.
Yep, and no one does that. Strawman, yet again.
Uh, no, that’s so far removed from reality I’d laugh hysterically if he weren’t serious. The importance of solar forcings is integral to climatology. Aerosol forcings are integral too, and albedo, and greenhouse gas forcings, etc. There are a great number of factors to be considered, and people have known that for well over a century. A quick scan over a page or two from an IPCC report, or an undergraduate climatology text, or even a secondary education text, would make that clear. Apparently that was too much to ask from Mr. Creighton.
Uh…no??? I could just as easily say that, ‘the hypothesis that humans could ever travel to the moon is contradicted by validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology’. That claim is so far off the mark, and so far removed from reality, what can I really say about it?
What contrary work published where and ignored by who? Where is this imaginary published work?
He could make the same claim telling us why the Earth is really flat, not ~spherical, and be just as compelling.
Ummmm, statistics anyone? Last I knew statistics were still classified as mathematics. Statistics can only be applied to data (= evidence). What part of this is unclear?
Chris
Uh, no, not even close. The best way to make a name for yourself and advance your career, and I can say this out of first-hand experience, is to shake up a paradigm. The ONLY way to do that is to understand that paradigm (‘consensus’) in great detail, understand it’s failings, and attack those failings through experimentation in an attempt to improve our understanding. If the improvements are convincing and large enough, the paradigm shifts.
To say that a working scientist needn’t be concerned with the consensus to do his/her work is effectively saying that a scientist doesn’t need to know ANYTHING about the subject they are working on. To say that doesn’t make sense is an understatement.
But results alone (data) don’t and can’t change paradigmsâ€"it’s the hypotheses that explain the new data, and ALL of the previous data in a new, more parsimonious way that changes the paradigm. NONE of that happens or can happen without a clear understanding of the ‘consensus view’ including possible shortcomings of that paradigm.
Uh, no, the greatest scientists in history are not great because they broke with the consensusâ€"any fool can do that. They are great because they developed highly testable hypotheses (which they themselves had significant evidence to support) that did a very good job of solving problems that were insoluble with the understanding of the time. For instance, people knew of gravity well before Newton, and they knew that celestial bodies (planets, moons, etc.) orbited. They did not know why, or that these phenomenons could be explained by a common mechanism. Newton demonstrated that both (and other phenomenons) could be explained by a common force, gravity, and developed the mathematics needed to make exquisitely precise predictions. It wasn’t a break from consensus that made Newton great, it was a refinement of it. That is how science works.
As the late, great Carl Sagan said:
“They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.â€Â
As I said, any fool can disregard consensus: there are Flat Earthers, Moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists, young-Earth creationists, etc. that do it all the time. These folks are laughed at for a reason…
Agreed, which is why no scientist does that or would think to do it. Claiming otherwise is a strawman, and a pretty pitiful one. Creighton knew (or should have known) better than that.
Yep, and no one does that. Strawman, yet again.
Uh, no, that’s so far removed from reality I’d laugh hysterically if he weren’t serious. The importance of solar forcings is integral to climatology. Aerosol forcings are integral too, and albedo, and greenhouse gas forcings, etc. There are a great number of factors to be considered, and people have known that for well over a century. A quick scan over a page or two from an IPCC report, or an undergraduate climatology text, or even a secondary education text, would make that clear. Apparently that was too much to ask from Mr. Creighton.
Uh…no??? I could just as easily say that, ‘the hypothesis that humans could ever travel to the moon is contradicted by validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology’. That claim is so far off the mark, and so far removed from reality, what can I really say about it?
What contrary work published where and ignored by who? Where is this imaginary published work?
He could make the same claim telling us why the Earth is really flat, not ~spherical, and be just as compelling.
Ummmm, statistics anyone? Last I knew statistics were still classified as mathematics. Statistics can only be applied to data (= evidence). What part of this is unclear?
Chris
wld1783
Premium Member
Europe is growing due to immigration. France is losing its identity.
England already. The rest of the world will find its balance. We have enough food, we have enough water (shortages are local and used by corrupt governments to maintain power) what we don't have is enough common sense, literacy and education in the world.
Most Famins have been between partially and mostly caused by political factors...Come On how about Mostly
But heck I guess Denver should put a carbon tax on working out. This global warming is causing one heck of a snow storm. Then again if you tax working out, health clubs will leave America and Europe and pop up all over China and India.
Bill
elegance coral
They call me EC
I don't think anyone would argue over the need for education and common sense.
Common sense should tell us that famine will become more common as our climate continues to change. Have we forgoten about the largest famine in our life time? http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0721-07.htm
This was brought on by a drought. Which is a change in the climate. Not political factors. Even if political factors may have made matters worse. As resources become more scarce, governments will become more corrupt. It's just a fact of life.
Our global population is exploding.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html
As our numbers increase, the demand for resources will increase. This is already a very delicate balancing act.
http://aspo.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=31
We can not say that we have enough food and clean water. Enough for what? We are already bickering over food prices. Access to good clean drinking water is becoming more and more scarce. Even Florida and California are under water restrictions. As our population grows and climate changes these problems can only get worse.
Yes, these are localized problems. They will always be localized problems. Different areas of the planet will always have different climates. The problem is that localized problems can have a global effect. What would happen to global food prices if the mid west suffered an extended drought? We can no longer think of problems as "localized". What happens in one part of the globe has the potential to effect us all.
DouglasTiede
Premium Member
Shame to see smart people fall for the evolution theory.
Ahh well...
( bet that opened a can )
Ahh well...
( bet that opened a can )
MCsaxmaster
New member
::shakes head::
Ok guys, let's get back on topic, otherwise the thread is liable to be closed. Ocean acidification is fair game.
Ok guys, let's get back on topic, otherwise the thread is liable to be closed. Ocean acidification is fair game.
elegance coral
They call me EC
Okay......Back on topic.
I don't believe that the slight drop in PH we're talking about will have a catastrophic impact on coral reefs. Every time we do a large water change, or move a coral from one system to another, the change in PH can be much larger, and occur much faster than what the coral reefs will experience. This doesn't call for long term evolutionary changes in order to survive. Corals can adapt to slight changes in their environment much better than we give them credit for. If this were not the case, we would not have tanks full of coral.
If we want to worry about the future of coral reefs, it's global worming and man made pollution we should be concerned about. These factors have the potential to wipe out coral reefs much faster than ocean acidification. Pollution has destroyed coral reefs in parts of the world and the Florida Keys are on the fast track to the same demise. Global worming has caused bleaching events all around the globe. If we concentrate on fixing these problems the possibility of ocean acidification goes away.
I don't believe that the slight drop in PH we're talking about will have a catastrophic impact on coral reefs. Every time we do a large water change, or move a coral from one system to another, the change in PH can be much larger, and occur much faster than what the coral reefs will experience. This doesn't call for long term evolutionary changes in order to survive. Corals can adapt to slight changes in their environment much better than we give them credit for. If this were not the case, we would not have tanks full of coral.
If we want to worry about the future of coral reefs, it's global worming and man made pollution we should be concerned about. These factors have the potential to wipe out coral reefs much faster than ocean acidification. Pollution has destroyed coral reefs in parts of the world and the Florida Keys are on the fast track to the same demise. Global worming has caused bleaching events all around the globe. If we concentrate on fixing these problems the possibility of ocean acidification goes away.
There is a difference between a sudden and temporary drop in pH like from a water change in your tank, and a chronically low pH such as will occur from ocean acidification. If you were to run a tank with such a chronically low pH, as that expected to occur from ocean acidification, you will start seeing long term problems.
wld1783
Premium Member
elegance coral
Be careful what you believe.
I remember that famine it occurred just before I entered the Air Force...The world had food and water ready it just couldn't get to the population due to corrupt dictators, civil war, and the inability of the UN to act.
Yes Florida and California are in drought but Fargo is flooded. Sorry no more beer cheese soup its under water.:eek2: Heck I see lots of flooding throughout the Mid West.
The Earth has cycles and I still don't buy this "Global Warming" due to man made CO2...If man made CO2 is defiantly causing Global warming and a PH drop in our oceans why did they rename Global Warming to Climate Change...Better marketing to sell their agenda? Lots of money will be made selling carbon credits through Cap and Trade.
And yes much higher electricity costs...No more MH for you.
Bill
Be careful what you believe.
I remember that famine it occurred just before I entered the Air Force...The world had food and water ready it just couldn't get to the population due to corrupt dictators, civil war, and the inability of the UN to act.
Yes Florida and California are in drought but Fargo is flooded. Sorry no more beer cheese soup its under water.:eek2: Heck I see lots of flooding throughout the Mid West.
The Earth has cycles and I still don't buy this "Global Warming" due to man made CO2...If man made CO2 is defiantly causing Global warming and a PH drop in our oceans why did they rename Global Warming to Climate Change...Better marketing to sell their agenda? Lots of money will be made selling carbon credits through Cap and Trade.
And yes much higher electricity costs...No more MH for you.
Bill
First , Thanks to MCsaxmaster, Greenbean and Bill's reef for your informative posts.
Wether or not one accepts the urgency of and human causation of or critical contribution to global warming/climate change and acidic oceans, it seems the fact that they are occurring is inescapable.
Unfortunately, most of the discussion on these issues seems to center on social/ political solutions wether they are regulatory or an excuse for more government controls and taxes or the need for an ambiguous new world order. Attempting to solve seemingly urgent problems this way may involve more inertia and resistance than can be overcome, certainly in the short run. The general disingenuous nature of politicians and self interest of nations and individuals are likely insurmountable barriers to timely effective social/political actions.
I'd like to hear more about any non social/political potential solutions science is exploring . Perhaps for example in a perfect world we should have large algae farms and use the product for food and fertilizer and maybe even a low CO2 emitting energy source.
Wether or not one accepts the urgency of and human causation of or critical contribution to global warming/climate change and acidic oceans, it seems the fact that they are occurring is inescapable.
Unfortunately, most of the discussion on these issues seems to center on social/ political solutions wether they are regulatory or an excuse for more government controls and taxes or the need for an ambiguous new world order. Attempting to solve seemingly urgent problems this way may involve more inertia and resistance than can be overcome, certainly in the short run. The general disingenuous nature of politicians and self interest of nations and individuals are likely insurmountable barriers to timely effective social/political actions.
I'd like to hear more about any non social/political potential solutions science is exploring . Perhaps for example in a perfect world we should have large algae farms and use the product for food and fertilizer and maybe even a low CO2 emitting energy source.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
As someone who has looked at the adaptability of reefs to heat stress I'd be the first to tell you that I'm much more concerned about the near-term impacts of acidification than increasing temps. There are lots of reefs that are currently several degrees below the absolute maximum for coral growth and while increasing those temps will result in massive coral loss, corals have a few tricks to adapt to temp stress- switching zoox clades or simply shifting the forms of enzymes they produce, moving deeper or poleward. Even if the projected temp increase by 2100 comes to pass, there would very likely still be reefs with positive growth (assuming temp was the only stressor, which isn't the case obviously).
On the other hand, they don't have a whole lot of mechanisms to maintain calcification rates in reduced pH. The problem is not that the individual corals won't survive this reduction, because they will. The problem is that the integrity of the reef system is dependent on calcification rates being faster than the rate of natural erosion due to storm breakage, bioeroders, and dissolution. In reduced pH corals don't grow as fast and they have less energy to repair damage or reproduce.
You're comparing a threat that would take more than a century to wipe out positive growth on all reefs vs. one that could do it in less than 50 years. In either case though changes are occurring too rapidly to really expect any major evolutionary solutions.
Who is "they" and when did they change the name? You know that group of scientists in the IPCC warning about global warming? You realize it was formed in 1988 and the initials stand for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, right?
Climate change describes all of the effects of changing atmospheric chemistry including changes in precipitation patterns, storm frequency and intensity, shifting of Hadley cells and jet streams, local cooling, and an increase in global average temperature (aka global warming). Climate change is all of the consequences while global warming is one of the consequences- which term is used has absolutely no reflection on the certainty of the science.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Mr. Obama: You Are Wrong About Climate Change
Mr. Obama, you are wrong, or so say an increasing number of prominent scientists around the world. Are our lawmakers listening? Have politics so completely exceeded the boundaries of common sense and reason that we will allow this myth of man-caused global warming to continue? Let us hope not. Let us spread this message as far and wide as possible.
Peter
"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."
â€" PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true. (source)
We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.
Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2
After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3
The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4
Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.
Syun Akasofu, Ph.D, University Of Alaska
Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)
Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D, Anderson Materials Evaluation
J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
Colin Barton Csiro, (retired)
David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008
John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)
Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University
Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Roger Cohen, Ph.D, Fellow, American Physical Society
Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)
Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D, Past-President, Italian Geological Society
Susan Crockford, Ph.D, University Of Victoria
Joseph S. D'aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)
David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma
Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester
Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy Conversion, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario
John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle
Upon Tyne, (retired)
Eduardo Ferreyra, Argentinian Foundation For A Scientific Ecology
Michael Fox, Ph.D, American Nuclear Society
Gordon Fulks, Ph.D, Gordon Fulks And Associates
Lee Gerhard, Ph.D, State Geologist, Kansas (retired)
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D, Technische Universitat Braunschweig
Ivar Giaever, Ph.D, Nobel Laureate, Physics
Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D, Scientific Director, Inttas (Paraguay)
Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D, University Of Ottawa
James Goodridge, California State Climatologist, (retired)
Laurence Gould, Ph.D, University Of Hartford
Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand Climate Coalition
William M. Gray, Ph.D, Colorado State University
Kenneth E. Green, D.Env., American Enterprise Institute
Kesten Green, Ph.D, Monash University
Will Happer, Ph.D, Princeton University
Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D, University Of Connecticut, (emeritus)
Ben Herman, Ph.D, University Of Arizona, (emeritus)
Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D, U.S. Navy, (retired)
Doug Hoffman, Ph.D, Author, The Resilient Earth
Bernd Huettner, Ph.D.
Ole Humlum, Ph.D, University Of Oslo
A. Neil Hutton, Past President, Canadian Society Of Petroleum Geologists
Craig D. Idso, Ph.D, Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global Change
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Agriculture (retired)
Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D, Yokohama National University
Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Sten Kaijser, Ph.D, Uppsala University, (emeritus)
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, University Of Stockholm, (emeritus)
Joel Kauffman, Ph.D, University Of The Sciences, Philadelphia, (emeritus)
David Kear, Ph.D, Former Director-General, Nz Dept. Scientific And Industrial Research
Richard Keen, Ph.D, University Of Colorado
Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D, Lifetime Achievers Award, National Science And Technology Forum, South Africa
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research
Robert S. Knox, Ph.D, University Of Rochester (emeritus)
James P. Koermer, Ph.D, Plymouth State University
Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D, University Of Alaska Fairbanks
Wayne Kraus, Ph.D, Kraus Consulting
Olav M. Kvalheim, Ph.D, Univ. Of Bergen
Roar Larson, Ph.D, Norwegian University Of Science And Technology
James F. Lea, Ph.D.
Douglas Leahy, Ph.D, Meteorologist
Peter R. Leavitt, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
David R. Legates, Ph.D, University of Delaware
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
Harry F. Lins, Ph.D. Co-Chair, IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D, University Of Missouri
Howard Maccabee, Ph.D, MD Clinical Faculty, Stanford Medical School
Horst Malberg, Ph.D, Free University of Berlin
Bjorn Malmgren, Ph.D, Goteburg University (emeritus)
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D, Australian Environment Foundation
James A Marusek, U.S. Navy, (retired)
Ross Mckitrick, Ph.D, University Of Guelph
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D, University Of Virginia
Timmothy R. Minnich, MS, Minnich And Scotto, Inc.
Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Michael Monce, Ph.D, Connecticut College
Dick Morgan, Ph.D, Exeter University, (emeritus)
Nils-axel Morner, Ph.D, Stockholm University, (emeritus)
David Nowell, D.I.C., Former Chairman, Nato Meteorology Canada
Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., University Of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D, University Of Tasmania
Alfred Peckarek, Ph.D, St. Cloud State University
Dr. Robert A. Perkins, P.E. University Of Alaska
Ian Pilmer, Ph.D, University Of Melbourne (emeritus)
Brian R. Pratt, Ph.D, University Of Saskatchewan
John Reinhard, Ph.D, Ore Pharmaceuticals
Peter Ridd, Ph.D, James Cook University
Curt Rose, Ph.D, Bishop's University (emeritus)
Peter Salonius, M.Sc., Canadian Forest Service
Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
Thomas P. Sheahan, Ph.D, Western Technologies, Inc.
Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth
Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville
Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of Reclamation
George H. Taylor, MS, Applied Climate Services
Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata, (Argentina)
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D.
Dr. Anton Uriarte, Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco
Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy
Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg, (emeritus)
Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On Climate Change
Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University
Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University
Miklos Zagoni, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Antonio Zichichi, Ph.D, President, World Federation Of Scientists
Footnotes
Swanson, K.L., and A. A. Tsonis. Geophysical Research Letters, in press: DOI:10.1029/2008GL037022.
Brohan, P., et al. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2006: DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006548. Updates at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature.
Pielke, R. A. Jr., et al. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2005: DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-86-10-1481.
Douglass, D. H., et al. International Journal of Climatology, 2007: DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.
These guy's are all nuts right?
Mr. Obama: You Are Wrong About Climate Change
Mr. Obama, you are wrong, or so say an increasing number of prominent scientists around the world. Are our lawmakers listening? Have politics so completely exceeded the boundaries of common sense and reason that we will allow this myth of man-caused global warming to continue? Let us hope not. Let us spread this message as far and wide as possible.
Peter
"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."
â€" PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true. (source)
We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.
Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2
After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3
The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4
Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.
Syun Akasofu, Ph.D, University Of Alaska
Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)
Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D, Anderson Materials Evaluation
J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
Colin Barton Csiro, (retired)
David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008
John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)
Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University
Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Roger Cohen, Ph.D, Fellow, American Physical Society
Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)
Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D, Past-President, Italian Geological Society
Susan Crockford, Ph.D, University Of Victoria
Joseph S. D'aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)
David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma
Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester
Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy Conversion, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario
John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle
Upon Tyne, (retired)
Eduardo Ferreyra, Argentinian Foundation For A Scientific Ecology
Michael Fox, Ph.D, American Nuclear Society
Gordon Fulks, Ph.D, Gordon Fulks And Associates
Lee Gerhard, Ph.D, State Geologist, Kansas (retired)
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D, Technische Universitat Braunschweig
Ivar Giaever, Ph.D, Nobel Laureate, Physics
Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D, Scientific Director, Inttas (Paraguay)
Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D, University Of Ottawa
James Goodridge, California State Climatologist, (retired)
Laurence Gould, Ph.D, University Of Hartford
Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand Climate Coalition
William M. Gray, Ph.D, Colorado State University
Kenneth E. Green, D.Env., American Enterprise Institute
Kesten Green, Ph.D, Monash University
Will Happer, Ph.D, Princeton University
Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D, University Of Connecticut, (emeritus)
Ben Herman, Ph.D, University Of Arizona, (emeritus)
Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D, U.S. Navy, (retired)
Doug Hoffman, Ph.D, Author, The Resilient Earth
Bernd Huettner, Ph.D.
Ole Humlum, Ph.D, University Of Oslo
A. Neil Hutton, Past President, Canadian Society Of Petroleum Geologists
Craig D. Idso, Ph.D, Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global Change
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Agriculture (retired)
Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D, Yokohama National University
Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Sten Kaijser, Ph.D, Uppsala University, (emeritus)
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, University Of Stockholm, (emeritus)
Joel Kauffman, Ph.D, University Of The Sciences, Philadelphia, (emeritus)
David Kear, Ph.D, Former Director-General, Nz Dept. Scientific And Industrial Research
Richard Keen, Ph.D, University Of Colorado
Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D, Lifetime Achievers Award, National Science And Technology Forum, South Africa
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research
Robert S. Knox, Ph.D, University Of Rochester (emeritus)
James P. Koermer, Ph.D, Plymouth State University
Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D, University Of Alaska Fairbanks
Wayne Kraus, Ph.D, Kraus Consulting
Olav M. Kvalheim, Ph.D, Univ. Of Bergen
Roar Larson, Ph.D, Norwegian University Of Science And Technology
James F. Lea, Ph.D.
Douglas Leahy, Ph.D, Meteorologist
Peter R. Leavitt, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
David R. Legates, Ph.D, University of Delaware
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
Harry F. Lins, Ph.D. Co-Chair, IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D, University Of Missouri
Howard Maccabee, Ph.D, MD Clinical Faculty, Stanford Medical School
Horst Malberg, Ph.D, Free University of Berlin
Bjorn Malmgren, Ph.D, Goteburg University (emeritus)
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D, Australian Environment Foundation
James A Marusek, U.S. Navy, (retired)
Ross Mckitrick, Ph.D, University Of Guelph
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D, University Of Virginia
Timmothy R. Minnich, MS, Minnich And Scotto, Inc.
Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Michael Monce, Ph.D, Connecticut College
Dick Morgan, Ph.D, Exeter University, (emeritus)
Nils-axel Morner, Ph.D, Stockholm University, (emeritus)
David Nowell, D.I.C., Former Chairman, Nato Meteorology Canada
Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., University Of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D, University Of Tasmania
Alfred Peckarek, Ph.D, St. Cloud State University
Dr. Robert A. Perkins, P.E. University Of Alaska
Ian Pilmer, Ph.D, University Of Melbourne (emeritus)
Brian R. Pratt, Ph.D, University Of Saskatchewan
John Reinhard, Ph.D, Ore Pharmaceuticals
Peter Ridd, Ph.D, James Cook University
Curt Rose, Ph.D, Bishop's University (emeritus)
Peter Salonius, M.Sc., Canadian Forest Service
Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
Thomas P. Sheahan, Ph.D, Western Technologies, Inc.
Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth
Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville
Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of Reclamation
George H. Taylor, MS, Applied Climate Services
Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata, (Argentina)
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D.
Dr. Anton Uriarte, Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco
Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy
Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg, (emeritus)
Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On Climate Change
Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University
Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University
Miklos Zagoni, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Antonio Zichichi, Ph.D, President, World Federation Of Scientists
Footnotes
Swanson, K.L., and A. A. Tsonis. Geophysical Research Letters, in press: DOI:10.1029/2008GL037022.
Brohan, P., et al. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2006: DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006548. Updates at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature.
Pielke, R. A. Jr., et al. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2005: DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-86-10-1481.
Douglass, D. H., et al. International Journal of Climatology, 2007: DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.
These guy's are all nuts right?
greenbean36191
Premium Member
In just the first 10 names you have 2 computer engineers, a materials analyst, a marketing professor, a guy that works for a coal scrubber company, a guy who claims affiliation with a university he doesn't work for, a retired coal geologist, and a retired professor of petroleum and geoengineering (who is also a young earth creationist- go figure). There's only one climate scientist in the first 10 names.
The list also includes an expert in "orgone energy" who is listed as a PhD, but doesn't hold a doctorate, vocal "skeptics" of the link between cancer and smoking, and several people whose only affiliation is listed as IPCC reviewer (the reviews are open to anyone who responds, not just invited experts).
It's hardly an imposing list of climate scientists who are tossing aside the consensus. In fact, there are very few climate scientists in the whole list. Even if it was made up of entirely climate scientists though, it would prove absolutely nothing since science is about evidence, not personal beliefs. Lists of names do not provide evidence of anything other than that you can find several people to sign a statement. You can also find several hundred people to sign statements that the earth is 6,000 years old, that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and the holocaust never happened. Would seeing those petitions convince you of those points?
Of course there are actual claims made in the statement that can be evaluated by true skeptics. So has there been "no net warming for over a decade now?" Judge for yourself. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ua...mp/from:1999.2/plot/gistemp/from:1999.2/trend
Also, don't forget to check out what the cited references have to say about that statement.
The first one is about how decade-scale internal variations "superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing" can cause apparent phase changes masking the trend. There is no claim that there has been no net warming, only that decadal variation has been underestimated (meaning that 10 yrs is not a long enough time period to determine a trend). They also specifically note in the conclusion that "there is no comfort to be gained by having a climate with a significant degree of internal variability, even if it results in a near-term cessation of global warming...If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models."
The second paper is just a description of the data processing methods for HadCRUT3, which doesn't support the claim of no net warming either as you can see in the link above.
How about reference 3? Does it support that there has been no increase in weather related property damage? No, it only shows that such an increase can't be demonstrated clearly, largely because there is poor data. That's a big difference from saying it's not happening.
Does reference 4 show that the models are an abject failure? No, it shows that after the most recent correction to the satellite record (done by a few of the signatories), the model predictions and satellite record are in good agreement except in the tropics, where the discrepancy is still within the margins of error- or at least it would show that if the authors of the paper included the uncertainties as is standard practice. Other papers responding to this one have since included those uncertainties to allow a better comparison.
The list also includes an expert in "orgone energy" who is listed as a PhD, but doesn't hold a doctorate, vocal "skeptics" of the link between cancer and smoking, and several people whose only affiliation is listed as IPCC reviewer (the reviews are open to anyone who responds, not just invited experts).
It's hardly an imposing list of climate scientists who are tossing aside the consensus. In fact, there are very few climate scientists in the whole list. Even if it was made up of entirely climate scientists though, it would prove absolutely nothing since science is about evidence, not personal beliefs. Lists of names do not provide evidence of anything other than that you can find several people to sign a statement. You can also find several hundred people to sign statements that the earth is 6,000 years old, that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and the holocaust never happened. Would seeing those petitions convince you of those points?
Of course there are actual claims made in the statement that can be evaluated by true skeptics. So has there been "no net warming for over a decade now?" Judge for yourself. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ua...mp/from:1999.2/plot/gistemp/from:1999.2/trend
Also, don't forget to check out what the cited references have to say about that statement.
The first one is about how decade-scale internal variations "superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing" can cause apparent phase changes masking the trend. There is no claim that there has been no net warming, only that decadal variation has been underestimated (meaning that 10 yrs is not a long enough time period to determine a trend). They also specifically note in the conclusion that "there is no comfort to be gained by having a climate with a significant degree of internal variability, even if it results in a near-term cessation of global warming...If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models."
The second paper is just a description of the data processing methods for HadCRUT3, which doesn't support the claim of no net warming either as you can see in the link above.
How about reference 3? Does it support that there has been no increase in weather related property damage? No, it only shows that such an increase can't be demonstrated clearly, largely because there is poor data. That's a big difference from saying it's not happening.
Does reference 4 show that the models are an abject failure? No, it shows that after the most recent correction to the satellite record (done by a few of the signatories), the model predictions and satellite record are in good agreement except in the tropics, where the discrepancy is still within the margins of error- or at least it would show that if the authors of the paper included the uncertainties as is standard practice. Other papers responding to this one have since included those uncertainties to allow a better comparison.
So in all this "Science " on both sides of the coin- what is the control factor? This is the reason there will never be a real scientific answer. I don`t believe in global warming per sey being man made-as there are other forces of nature at work that shadow mans contribution. Man accelerated perhaps- if we did not exist, then it might be a few degrees cooler. However I see man as no greater or lessor form of nature-whatever we do is a natural act. The fact of conciousness does not imply dominion over nature-or responsiblity. If people choose to believe one way or another- so be it- but neither is right or wrong. I do believe that this whole situation could have been delt with better from the begining. I think if it would have been less of a attack on the common man ie the SUV drivers, and more like it was in the sixties of a "lets pull together" the whole thing would have gone smoother. As is said before believe what you may - it doesn`t matter. And truth be told its poltics as much if not more than science.
