Skull Valley lawmaker wants both side...

Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students

There are 1632 comments on the Verde Independent story from Feb 5, 2013, titled Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students. In it, Verde Independent reports that:

Saying students are getting only one side of the debate, a state senator wants to free teachers to tell students why they believe there is no such thing human-caused "global warming.' The proposal by Sen.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Verde Independent.

“I can never convince the ”

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#1169 May 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
An experiment is: "A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/experiment
The scientific method requires experimental tests:
1. Make observations.
2. Propose a hypothesis.
3. Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis.
4. Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.
5. If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/lecturenotesl3/...
And computer modelling and in silico research is not part of this why? You have failed so far to provide any substantive evidence that in silico research methods fall outside of such parameters.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1170 May 13, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
And computer modelling and in silico research is not part of this why?
Climate science didn't always require computers. Modelling isn't the only problem, I've questioned the use of ice cores to measure sudden CO2 increases. Using an instrument made of ice to make a case that rapid global warming doesn't happen seems problematic at best.

.
DanFromSmithville wrote:
You have failed so far to provide any substantive evidence that in silico research methods fall outside of such parameters.
Direct measurement of outcomes under controlled conditions (see Scientific Method) will always be more reliable than modelled estimates of outcomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_model...

.
DanFromSmithville wrote:
And computer modelling and in silico research is not part of this why? You have failed so far to provide any substantive evidence that in silico research methods fall outside of such parameters.
One application of scientific modelling is the field of "Modelling and Simulation", generally referred to as "M&S". M&S has a spectrum of applications which range from concept development and analysis, through experimentation, measurement and verification, to disposal analysis. Projects and programs may use hundreds of different simulations, simulators and model analysis tools.
[ibid]

“I can never convince the ”

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#1171 May 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Climate science didn't always require computers. Modelling isn't the only problem, I've questioned the use of ice cores to measure sudden CO2 increases. Using an instrument made of ice to make a case that rapid global warming doesn't happen seems problematic at best.
.
<quoted text>Direct measurement of outcomes under controlled conditions (see Scientific Method) will always be more reliable than modelled estimates of outcomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_model...
.
<quoted text>One application of scientific modelling is the field of "Modelling and Simulation", generally referred to as "M&S". M&S has a spectrum of applications which range from concept development and analysis, through experimentation, measurement and verification, to disposal analysis. Projects and programs may use hundreds of different simulations, simulators and model analysis tools.
[ibid]
Science itself has not always used computers. That really isn't a solid critique of the application of computer technology.

I don't understand where you are going with the statements regarding ice cores. Based on your position, wouldn't something that refutes global warming be right up your alley regardless of how robust the techniques are?

See. Even your last statement included modelling as experimentation. I am not saying that climate models are the most robust example. I am just saying that they are a form of experiment. Apparently, we are now in agreement.

If you aren't experienced in experimentation or in silico research that kind of global conclusion is baseless and has little or no merit.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1172 May 14, 2013
I don't think we're in agreement about computer models. Good models can be reconciled against "Direct measurement of outcomes under controlled conditions", experiments. Climate models have never been reconciled that way.

I'd like to learn more about experimentation; what's the most compelling experiment you've found for man made catastrophic climate change or climate change mitigation?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1173 May 14, 2013
What does it mean when a climate model gets it right?

03 Apr 2013, 14:30
Roz Pidcock

Do climate models do a good job of forecasting global temperature? Recent coverage in the more climate skeptic press has suggested reasons to be doubtful. But a new paper shows a forecast the Met Office made more than 15 years ago has been "remarkably accurate" in predicting global temperature rise. So what does the fact that some models do better than others tell us about the way climate scientists use them?

A couple of weeks ago, we covered an article in the Mail on Sunday which poured heavy criticism on climate models' ability to forecast global temperature rise.

The piece argued that because projections of temperature rise made by an important set of climate models are somewhat higher than than we've seen in the past decade, climate models are "catastrophically flawed".

Global temperature is currently tracking the lower end of the temperature range predicted by the latest generation of climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)- and scientists have speculated about the reasons why.

But as a counter-example, research just published in the journal Nature Geoscience provides an example of one model getting it spot-on. The paper compares a Met Office climate forecast made in 1999 against actual temperature data up to 2012 - and shows they match to within a few hundredths of a degree.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/04/what-...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1174 May 14, 2013
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evi...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1175 May 14, 2013
Physics can't discriminate man made greenhouse gas emissions from natural emissions. That's another reason an experimental test on man made climate change is required before adopting the policy.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1176 May 14, 2013
A critique of Fair Game's citation is found here:
http://landshape.org/enm/interpretation-bias/

The phrase “evidence of a change in the clear-sky greenhouse radiative forcing” is a much weaker claim than the previous “experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. After all, they did not perform an experiment in the usually understood sense, nor did they directly measure the Earth’s greenhouse effect, which relates to radiation across the whole infrared spectrum, from the surface to top of atmosphere.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1177 May 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Physics can't discriminate man made greenhouse gas emissions from natural emissions. That's another reason an experimental test on man made climate change is required before adopting the policy.
More troll bait.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#1179 May 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
A critique of Fair Game's citation is found here:
http://landshape.org/enm/interpretation-bias/
The phrase “evidence of a change in the clear-sky greenhouse radiative forcing” is a much weaker claim than the previous “experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. After all, they did not perform an experiment in the usually understood sense, nor did they directly measure the Earth’s greenhouse effect, which relates to radiation across the whole infrared spectrum, from the surface to top of atmosphere.
BG has invented a new genre. Science gibberish. Just when you thought Junk Science was the last word..
"The phrase “evidence of a change in the clear-sky greenhouse radiative forcing” is a much weaker claim than the previous “experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”."
Baloney. The greenhouse effect is the radiative forcing from re-radiation of ground sourced (IR thermal band around 15C)which of course, is most clearly measured on 'clear days'. So the statement is saying the same thing.
Brian_G wrote:
After all, they did not perform an experiment in the usually understood sense..
Again, baloney. One can do an 'experiment' in the lab with knobs and meters or in the field with instruments and a changing input. BG makes stupid claims about experiment being the ONLY basis for science and then restricts 'experiment' to artificial models that really aren't all that useful to most science.
Brian_G wrote:
nor did they directly measure the Earth’s greenhouse effect, which relates to radiation across the whole infrared spectrum, from the surface to top of atmosphere.
More baloney. Every object at a specific temperature radiates IR at a specific frequency (photon energy is related to temperature) and the greenhouse effect related to IR bands within the temperature range of the surface. The solar influx is mostly visible and the atmosphere is essentially transparent to that. And the total flux balance (including reflection, etc ) is about the total radiative equilibrium of which the greenhouse effect is just a PART.

“I can never convince the ”

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#1180 May 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I don't think we're in agreement about computer models. Good models can be reconciled against "Direct measurement of outcomes under controlled conditions", experiments. Climate models have never been reconciled that way.
I'd like to learn more about experimentation; what's the most compelling experiment you've found for man made catastrophic climate change or climate change mitigation?
Why don't you start with something a little more simple before you jump into the hard stuff. I would suggest your review some historical efforts. Try some history of science websites. I get back to you on anything more advanced when you better understand things.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1181 May 15, 2013
Fair Game's experiment didn't test man made greenhouse gas emissions and climate temperature. It tested spectral observations of all greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, not from man made emissions alone. It didn't observe climate, just the nature of infrared emission from greenhouse gas.

So I ask again; what's the most compelling experiment you've found for climate change mitigation?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1182 May 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Fair Game's experiment didn't test man made greenhouse gas emissions and climate temperature. It tested spectral observations of all greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, not from man made emissions alone. It didn't observe climate, just the nature of infrared emission from greenhouse gas.
So I ask again; what's the most compelling experiment you've found for climate change mitigation?
Wrong.

It tested the CO2 spectrum.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1183 May 16, 2013
Right, it tested the CO2 spectrum, not man made climate change theory or climate change mitigation.

There's never been an experimental test of either.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1184 May 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Physics can't discriminate man made greenhouse gas emissions from natural emissions. That's another reason an experimental test on man made climate change is required before adopting the policy.
Stupid, it is not a physics problem, methinks you need to review the definition of physics

However, there is the empirical fact proven by chemists, atmospheric scientists and meteorologists that greenhouse gas immersions show a historically unprecedented rise following mans industrialisation.

Man cause more CO2 to be emitted and voila, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase, it’s not rocket science.

You can easily test the theory yourself, turn on a tap so that it drips and watch how much water is collected on the bowl in 30 minutes, then turn the tap on full for 30 minutes.

A more accurate model using atmosphere can be set up, lock yourself in a garage with a car fuelled with standard fossil fuel. Start the engine and let it tick over for a while then measure the makeup of the atmosphere in the garage. Now press the accelerator so the engine is running at around 2000RPM for the same amount of time and then measure the makeup of the atmosphere.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1185 May 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Right, it tested the CO2 spectrum, not man made climate change theory or climate change mitigation.
Wrong. It tested the *change* in the CO2 spectrum after we added CO2, and therefore man made climate change.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#1186 May 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Right, it tested the CO2 spectrum
which is the basic physics of the greenhouse effect in atmopheric physics.
Brian_G wrote:
not man made climate change theory
The usual crap. First you demand 'bench top lab experiments' and then when provided, you say it isn't 'real world experience'. It isn't but then there are plenty of other studies that provide the link between physics theory and the 'natural experiment' of uncontrolled GHG releases.
Brian_G wrote:
..or climate change mitigation.
The physics can be shown to work both ways. Increase GHGs and you get more trapping and greater warming. Lower GHGs and you get LESS warming and therefore less 'climate change'. Not prefect since the climate is metastable and can have points from which it takes millenia to recover once past (tipping points) but it is certainly a reasonable first step to avoid increasing the problem and lessening the likehood of larger problems.
Brian_G wrote:
There's never been an experimental test of either.
In your lexicon which rejects lab experiments as 'not real world' and rejects real world experiments as not being in the lab. You are an intellectual hypocrite at the least.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#1187 May 16, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. It tested the *change* in the CO2 spectrum after we added CO2, and therefore man made climate change.
Correct.

MORE info:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years."

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#1188 May 16, 2013
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-reveals-scientif...

Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change

May 15th, 2013 in Space & Earth / Environment

The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming – 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)

Led by John Cook at the University of Queensland, the study has been published today, Thursday 16 May, in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters.

The study went one step further, asking the authors of these papers to rate their entire paper using the same criteria. Over 2000 papers were rated and among those that discussed the cause of recent global warming, 97 per cent endorsed the consensus that it is caused by humans.

The findings are in stark contrast to the public's position on global warming; a 2012 poll* revealed that more than half of Americans either disagree, or are unaware, that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the Earth is warming because of human activity.

John Cook said: "Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary.

"There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception. It's staggering given the evidence for consensus that less than half of the general public think scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

"This is significant because when people understand that scientists agree on global warming, they're more likely to support policies that take action on it."

In March 2012, the researchers used the ISI Web of Science database to search for peer-reviewed academic articles published between 1991 and 2011 using two topic searches: "global warming" and "global climate change".

After limiting the selection to peer-reviewed climate science, the study considered 11 994 papers written by 29 083 authors in 1980 different scientific journals.

The abstracts from these papers were randomly distributed between a team of 24 volunteers recruited through the "myth-busting" website skepticalscience.com , who used set criteria to determine the level to which the abstracts endorsed that humans are the primary cause of global warming. Each abstract was analyzed by two independent, anonymous raters.

From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

Co-author of the study Mark Richardson, from the University of Reading, said: "We want our scientists to answer questions for us, and there are lots of exciting questions in climate science. One of them is: are we causing global warming? We found over 4000 studies written by 10 000 scientists that stated a position on this, and 97 per cent said that recent warming is mostly man made."

Visitors to the skepticalscience.com website also raised the funds required to allow the study to be accessible to the public.

Daniel Kammen, editor-in-chief of the journal Environmental Research Letters, said: ""This paper demonstrates the power of the Environmental Research Letters open access model of operation in that authors working to advance our knowledge of climate science and to engage in a public discourse can guarantee all interested parties have the opportunity to review the same data and findings."

More information:* www.pewresearch.org/2013/04/02/climate-change...

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, by John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce, 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1189 May 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Wrong. It tested the *change* in the CO2 spectrum after we added CO2, and therefore man made climate change.
It observed "change" in the CO2 spectrum over time; the observation wasn't an experiment on man made CO2 emissions or climate change. Coincidence isn't causality.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 32 min IBdaMann 54,547
Poll Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 1 hr Into The Night 2,321
News Obama paints doomsday scene of global warming i... 1 hr Belle Sexton 3
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr Into The Night 6,901
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 5 hr ritedownthemiddle 34,475
US Chamber Fueled by Foreign Oil & Coal Money (Oct '10) 8 hr IB DaMann 18
News Obama opens historic Alaska trip focused on glo... 9 hr litesong 1
More from around the web