Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Climate wars revisited: Finally, does evidence matter in science?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A friend asks us to notice again science writer Matt Ridley’s complaint about the Climate Wars’ Damage to Science, quoting:

The great thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. The good drives out the bad, because experiments get replicated and hypotheses tested — or so I used to think. Now, thanks largely to climate science, I see bad ideas can persist for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they become intolerant dogmas.

Previous notice here.

To some of us, the biggest problem was the wholesale manipulation of data, as in Climategate and data fudging.

We were used to this with Darwinism, etc., but then some people began doing it with stuff your nephew or your granny should care about.

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Comments
"Looking at the sky is not the same as observing the atmosphere." I guess. Lemme rephrase then: how would someone observing the atmosphere recognize the greenhouse effect? Andrewasauber
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
"Seriously?" Yes. "So now you’re rejecting the laws of thermodynamics?" No. You can't make a real-world comparison between what is measured and an imaginary otherwise. It's not really a comparison. It would be a guess as to what the "otherwise" was supposed to be. Do you see? Andrewasauber
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
asauber: Well, I’ve been observing the atmosphere for a long time and I haven’t seen this greenhouse effect. Looking at the sky is not the same as observing the atmosphere. http://i.imgur.com/91sn32Q.jpg asauber: “Otherwise” is imaginary. Seriously? So now you're rejecting the laws of thermodynamics?Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
"The Earth’s atmosphere." Well, I've been observing the atmosphere for a long time and I haven't seen this greenhouse effect. How do I recognize it? "warmer than it would be otherwise" Small problem. "Otherwise" is imaginary. Andrewasauber
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
ppolish: Science deniers chime in as expected Yeah. It makes you wonder why people would rush to misrepresent Zharkova's findings. ppolish: No greenhouse there. Well, a very weak greenhouse effect due to the very thin atmosphere. ppolish: No greenhouse = no life btw. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be largely frozen.Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
asauber: 1. Where do I observe the greenhouse effect _______ The Earth's atmosphere. asauber: 2. How do I observe the greenhouse effect ________ You will observe that the Earth's surface is warmer than it would be otherwise due to the characteristics of the atmosphere, just as you will observe the child is warmer under a blanket than would be otherwise. The specifics were provided above.Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Ice caps on Mars are melting too. And they are further from the Sun. No greenhouse there. No greenhouse = no life btw. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.htmlppolish
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Science deniers chime in as expected: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/ That did not take long.ppolish
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
"Remember the part about the gray-body temperature of the Earth? Remember the part about the thermal characteristics of CO2?" I do. Simply repeating yourself doesn't answer the question that was and is still unanswered by you. Where and how do I observe the greenhouse effect? I'll even make you an answer sheet to fill in: 1. Where do I observe the greenhouse effect _______ 2. How do I observe the greenhouse effect ________ If you can't answer this, just say so. Andrewasauber
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
asauber: Do you really think pretending to “observe” an imaginary blanket is equivalent to observing the greenhouse effect in real life? Remember the part about the gray-body temperature of the Earth? Remember the part about the thermal characteristics of CO2?Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
"we pointed to a blanket" Do you really think pretending to "observe" an imaginary blanket is equivalent to observing the greenhouse effect in real life? I'd like to observe the greenhouse effect in real life. I'm getting the feeling you don't know what you are talking about. Andrewasauber
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
asauber: I asked where and how I can observe something you claim can be observed. Yes, and we pointed to a blanket, showed that it warmed what was underneath (remember the part about the gray-body temperature of the Earth?), then provided the measured thermal characteristics of the blanket and how they matched the observed warming (remember the citations starting in 1881?).Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
"It’s like you are asking to see how a blanket works" It's not. I asked where and how I can observe something you claim can be observed. You still haven't provided any where and how. Andrewasauber
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
New England has the same CO2 and was cooler last year than the rest of the world. It was cooler than normal. How could that be if CO2 is it?Virgil Cain
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
asauber: I asked where and how can I observe the greenhouse effect. And we answered you by providing the relevant observations, in particular, that CO2 absorbs and emits in the infrared spectrum. It's like you are asking to see how a blanket works, and when we point to the thermal properties of a blanket, you act confused. Andre: Please don’t tell us what we already know You asked "so what?" and we answered. So you already know there is a greenhouse effect? Good! Do you also know that a doubling of CO2 will lead to a direct increase of 3% in the greenhouse effect?Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
No, but Zhar­ko­va might reasonably be expected to know the results of her own research.
And she said we have to wait and see. and no one has demonstrated the warming is strictly human-caused.
Solar irradiance is correlated with global temperatures until the last few decades.
The Sun isn't the only natural factor.Virgil Cain
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Zachriel Seriously you should have been a preacher. Please don't tell us what we already know, and please stop caring you have no reason to.Andre
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
"We answered your question" No. You didn't. I asked where and how can I observe the greenhouse effect. You replied, but didn't answer. Andrewasauber
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain: Emails are NOT peer-review No, but Zhar­ko­va might reasonably be expected to know the results of her own research. Virgil Cain: and no one has demonstrated the warming is strictly human-caused. Solar irradiance is correlated with global temperatures until the last few decades. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif Andre: I learnt in the early 80’s that the stratosphere is cooler and the surface warmer so what? That's due to the greenhouse effect. Andre: Good luck to any knobhead that thinks human beings have any influence in the greater scheme of things….. "In the greater scheme of things" the Sun is an enormous source of energy. However, for those who live under the thin blanket of the Earth's atmosphere, the greenhouse effect means the Earth's oceans aren't frozen.Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
What is CO2? CARBON DIOXIDE AND HUMAN HEALTH By Nasif Nahle Pollutants are dangerous compounds for living beings. Like water, CO2 is vital for life on Earth; thus, CO2 is not a pollutant or contaminant. The specific heat of CO2 is 850 J/Kg K, which means carbon dioxide is able to absorb, store and emit heat. However, we cannot take this property into account when considering if CO2 is a pollutant because Water has a specific heat of 1,996 J/kg K, which means it is more efficient than CO2 at absorbing, emitting and storing heat. Water, like CO2, is vital for living beings. CO2 densities have increased to more than 4000 ppmv in some geological eras, for example, during the Ordovician Period (Scotesse; 2002. Avildsen et al; 1998). When CO2 in the terrestrial atmosphere has reached densities this high in the past, life flourished abundantly. Consequently, we cannot consider such a high concentration of atmospheric CO2 as "pollution". CO2 is the basic nutrient for plants and other photosynthetic organisms. Plants form the base of every food chain. Thus, the greater the density of CO2 in a given environment, the greater will be the production of food for plants and of the animals that feed on them. In recent times it has become fashionable to relate CO2 to global warming, but water in its liquid or gaseous phase absorbs, stores and emits heat 4 times (400%) more efficiently than CO2. If, therefore, by this property water is not considered a pollutant, CO2 then cannot be considered a pollutant either. Carbon Dioxide cannot intoxicate because it is a non-poisonous non-toxic substance. The data for CO2 related to human health are next: •The density of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.000747 Kg per cubic meter of air. Normal CO2 Levels. The effects of an increased level of CO2 on an adult person in good health can be summarized as: •Normal outside levels: 350 - 600 ppmv. •Acceptable levels: up to 600 ppmv. •Stiffness and odors: 600 - 1000 ppmv. Data provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): •Standards: 1000 ppmv. •Stupor: 1000 - 2500 ppm. •Maximum allowed concentration in an 8 hour working period: 5,000 ppmv. Extreme and Dangerous CO2 Levels: •Nausea and increase of the cardiac and respiratory frequencies (from oxygen deficiency): 30,000 ppmv. •The above plus headaches and sight impairment: 50,000 ppmv. •Unconsciousness and death: 100,000 ppmv (OSHA). As you can see, Carbon Dioxide does not intoxicate — it suffocates. All of the effects listed above correspond to asphyxia, not to poisoning; however, water and sand also asphyxiate and they are not considered pollutants either. Consequently, CO2 cannot be considered a pollutant merely because it asphyxiates. Many have tried to tag CO2 as a pollutant simply because it is a product of fossil fuel combustion. However, CO2 is also a product of respiration, fermentation and putrefaction. In any case, the CO2 released by combustion of fossil fuels had previously been taken from the atmosphere by photosynthetic organisms and converted into organic compounds to be used in their metabolic functions as structures for reproduction, etc. When those photosynthetic organisms later died, their remains were subjected to strong geological processes that convert organic matter into oil, coal and methane. Recommended reading: The Holocene CO2 Rise: Anthropogenic or Natural?) Those products are the fossil fuels that we use today to power our industries and vehicles; therefore, we are only returning CO2 to the place it once occupied during the Carboniferous Period. CO2 cannot then be considered a pollutant just because it is released back into the atmosphere by combustion of organic fuels and from many other natural processes unrelated with life.Andre
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
Here is a nice video of the sun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4JS6isT4C8 Good luck to any knobhead that thinks human beings have any influence in the greater scheme of things..... It was C.S. Lewis that said....... "The Christian and the Materialist hold different beliefs about the universe. They can’t both be right. The one who is wrong will act in a way which simply doesn’t fit the real universe. Consequently, with the best will in the world, he will be helping his fellow creatures to their destruction." And one thing is for sure materialists with their absolute ignorance of the universe is leading us to our destruction.Andre
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain- http://didyouknow.org/graphics/space/planetsizes.jpg Lol:)ppolish
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
ppolish- The Sun has nothing to do with it. :roll:Virgil Cain
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
I learnt in the early 80's that the stratosphere is cooler and the surface warmer so what?Andre
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT
Solar Activity has really increased since the Industrial Revolution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg Is that a hockey stick? But with Solar Activity, what goes up must come down. That graph gives me shivers brrrr.ppolish
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
The reduced so­lar ac­ti­vity would oc­cur ei­ther way, but it would­n’t out­weigh the ef­fects of a strictly hu­man-caused glob­al warm­ing, re­search­er Val­en­ti­na Zhar­ko­va of North­um­bria Uni­vers­ity in the U.K. wrote in an e­mail.
Emails are NOT peer-review and no one has demonstrated the warming is strictly human-caused. Get a grip, Zachriel. When the Suns gets cooler so will the earth.Virgil Cain
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
asauber: You didn’t answer my question. We answered your question, and provided citations. The research has been replicated many times over the last century, with the latest study providing much higher accuracy on the radiative properties of CO2. Here's a simple way to understand the greenhouse effect. Calculate the gray-body temperature of the Earth based on the laws of thermodynamics. You will find that the Earth's surface temperature is significantly warmer than the gray-body temperature, while the stratosphere is cooler.Zachriel
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
ppolish @ 47, The actual reason is due to a phenomenum called cognitive dissonance, which makes someone incapable of recognizing a fact so contrary to their fundamental beliefs that it becomes invisible for all practical purposes. Thus, even attempting to explain the mini ice age or two warm periods, is to them like trying to read the numbers of an encrypted string and simply cannot be comprehended. So, as Robert Heinlein once advised,"Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig." -QQuerius
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
ppolish: Did you read the part where she says AGW is not real? "The reduced so­lar ac­ti­vity would oc­cur ei­ther way, but it would­n’t out­weigh the ef­fects of a strictly hu­man-caused glob­al warm­ing, re­search­er Val­en­ti­na Zhar­ko­va of North­um­bria Uni­vers­ity in the U.K. wrote in an e­mail." The study does *not* predict a mini ice age. Nor does the official press release. You are merely echoing bad reporting. http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamoZachriel
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
Zachriel, You didn't answer my question. Please read it again and respond appropriately. Andrewasauber
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply