The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science

I admit ignorance here, why do we know that increased CO2 = Increased temperatures?
mantakos said:
Yes, the chart I posted earlier showed historic CO2 levels as measured over the past few hundred thousands years, as determined by ice core samples. A similar chart could plot CO2 and temperature together on the same timeline, and you would see that cyclical variation in temperature leads CO2. You might conclude from this that temperature is a driver of CO2, and you would be absolutely correct, as changes in ocean temperature change the ability of the ocean to hold CO2, so as the oceans warm and cool the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rises and lowers.

If we stop here, there are two mistakes we can make. One is to say "well, that solves it, CO2 doesn't cause warm, warm causes CO2". The mistake here is thinking that causes and effects can only happens in happy pairs of one cause married to one effect, but there's no reason why our brains shouldn't be able to grasp that a cause can have an effect that impacts the cause. In other words, warming encourages rising CO2 concentration, and rising CO2 concentration encourages warming. CO2 is a positive feedback. Before people came along, the warming was driving the CO2 and the CO2 magnified the cycles of warming and cooling.

Today, the CO2 concentration is being jacked up by human contributions, and CO2 is encouraging warming.

The second naive mistake we can make is to say "so, there, it's not CO2 causing warming, the warming is natural and the warming is driving CO2, just like usual". This is a particularly bad mistake, because we're putting enough CO2 into the atmosphere to account for double the observed rise, so we're not exactly at a loss to explain how that CO2 got there. Also, per the chart I posted earlier, the current CO2 level is well above any level seen in any sample taken from the past 800k years.

There's no doubt surrounding the ability of CO2 to encourage warming, that's just basic science, observable in the differences between the Earth and the Moon and between Mercury and Venus. Where there is doubt is in how this complex climate system reacts to rising CO2 and in the relative impacts of the many positive and negative feedbacks.
-harry
Click to expand...
 
mantakos said:
Well, tell us the process by which you determined your answer. Maybe you've got a better system, and we can all switch to that.

I hear a lot of "follow the money" and "science is imperfect" and "I can imagine several ways to name-call those who say the thing I don't want to be true", but I'm not hearing a lot about the improved way of determining how stuff works that has led to a higher level of understanding among those who know that this is all a scam.

So far I've been able to glean that there's a fellow named Al Gore who wrote a book, and that there is this thing called money that we need to follow (tracking it to those who have less of it), but I'm still at a loss to understand the underlying structure by which all of this truth has been determined in a non-dogmatic and non-axiomatic manner.
-harry
Click to expand...

Simple. How about giving all dissenting viewpoints in the community at least a fair shake instead of a hand waving "we don't believe it" by the mainstream scientists. They are as guilty as those that you are ragging against.
 
Skylane81E said:
I admit ignorance here, why do we know that increased CO2 = Increased temperatures?
Click to expand...

We know for certain that CO2 can increase surface temperature. We know that it can function as a greenhouse gas, trapping sunlight and warming the Earth. The most salient difference between Earth and Venus is the high concentration of CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere. I don't think the fact that CO2 can increase temperatures is under debate by even the most ardent climate change denier.

I think the issue we have is whether the CO2 we're currently pumping into the atmosphere is actively increasing surface temps as we speak. The scientific consensus from those who study these things is an emphatic yes. There are lots of people for whom this is insufficient, for a variety of good and not so good reasons.
 
The earth is flat, I tell you! The earth is flat!
 
Skylane81E said:
I admit ignorance here, why do we know that increased CO2 = Increased temperatures?
Click to expand...
This is something that can be verified in a lab environment:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
...Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere....​

But if we want easier proofs, we can look to the differences between the Earth and the Moon, as the Earth is, on average, much warmer, despite being the same distance from the Sun. We can also look to Mercury and Venus, as Venus is, on average, warmer, despite being farther from the Sun.

And while it's difficult to model the complex system that is the Earth's climate, it's relatively easy to model "big rock floating in space X miles from the Sun", and if there was no greenhouse effect this big rock would be too cold to sustain the kind of life forms that we're familiar with.
-harry
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Simple. How about giving all dissenting viewpoints in the community at least a fair shake instead of a hand waving "we don't believe it" by the mainstream scientists. They are as guilty as those that you are ragging against.
Click to expand...
Do you really believe that dissenters have no voice? Why do you believe that? What evidence do you have that this is the case?

Because what I see is an active community of researchers sniping at each other, disputing each other's evidence, and disputing each other's disputes. The deep dark secret uncovered by "Climategate" is that these guys take this stuff a little too personally, and get a little bitchy behind closed doors, but that dissenters are having no trouble getting published, getting their voices heard, getting the attention of other researchers, and getting responses.
-harry
 
I am envisioning scientists on online forums arguing about the merits of their respective research. Do you think they all agree with each other any more than pilots do? :D
 
mantakos said:
Do you really believe that dissenters have no voice? Why do you believe that? What evidence do you have that this is the case?

Because what I see is an active community of researchers sniping at each other, disputing each other's evidence, and disputing each other's disputes. The deep dark secret uncovered by "Climategate" is that these guys take this stuff a little too personally, and get a little bitchy behind closed doors, but that dissenters are having no trouble getting published, getting their voices heard, getting the attention of other researchers, and getting responses.
-harry
Click to expand...

I already mentioned one in this thread.
 
Everskyward said:
I am envisioning scientists on online forums arguing about the merits of their respective research. Do you think they all agree with each other any more than pilots do? :D
Click to expand...
Actually no. I've seen some pretty "nasty" discussions in the science journals, although the language is quite different from those in these threads. The journal discussions are very drawn out because of lead times of 6 months from article submission to publishing (most of the time is peer review*). You won't notice that it is a discussion unless you follow the literature or follow the citations back in time.

One discussion you see periodically in the chromatography forums is whether silica gel dissolves significantly in methanol and/or water so the "purified" compound contains a lot of silica gel. I find it interesting that a person will claim they will not run a silica flash column in more than 10% methanol, but will run a silica HILIC column with a methanol / water gradient (for those not in the field- same material, different particle size). It's going to get to ATITPPA status soon.

*peer review is part of the problem or part of the solution. Lots of mistakes are caught but peer review also tends to force conformity. New theories tend to need much more supporting data, especially when they go against current thinking. They will be published, but the peer review also tends to be longer and more arduous.
 
mantakos said:
Do you really believe that dissenters have no voice? Why do you believe that? What evidence do you have that this is the case?

Because what I see is an active community of researchers sniping at each other, disputing each other's evidence, and disputing each other's disputes. The deep dark secret uncovered by "Climategate" is that these guys take this stuff a little too personally, and get a little bitchy behind closed doors, but that dissenters are having no trouble getting published, getting their voices heard, getting the attention of other researchers, and getting responses.
-harry
Click to expand...

"The Debate is Over!"

---Some Big Haired Buffoon.
 
The funny thing is that we have all these authorities here claiming that peer review is just an old boy's club, and that dissenting views are quashed in mainstream science. Not one person has given so much as a shred of evidence beyond the "climategate letters" which in the end turned out utterly innocuous. In the meantime the scientists say these views are utterly rubbish.

Again, reminds me of the article I posted that started this thread. The only authority that will be believed is the one that says what these folks want to hear.
 
I already posted a legitimate example. You conveniently ignored it.
 
Because it was a really poor example. Higgs proposed the "god particle" with only a theoretical framework and no evidence. Now that the LHC is up and running, the experiments to prove or disprove his theory can be carried out.

I fail to see the similarity to someone proposing a novel idea with solid data getting ignored by mainstream science journals. Odin, even Uri Geller got his nonsense into Nature.
 
He wasn't part of the good ol boys club, and that's why it was rejected. Not because it was theoretical framework. You think it's a bad example because it goes against what you believe.

Ironic don't you think?
 
Higgs? A full professor of theoretical physics at the University of Edinburgh? The guy has won prizes for theoretic physics! He is part of the old boys network!
 
In the early 1960's he wasn't.
 
Last edited:
Good point. So you're saying that in the 60s he was a crank ignored by everyone. In 1960 he was a lecturer at the Tait Institute of Mathematical Physics at the University of Edinburgh, roughly their version of an Assistant Professor. So you're saying that he was treated as an outsider and a crank.

That doesn't jive very well with his promotion to full professor with tenure. You don't get to that status at a reputable institution without an international reputation and a slew of papers in international journals, even in Physics.

The funniest thing was they thought there was a new unified theory a few years ago, it took the Physics world by storm. It was proposed by a unemployed ski bum. I'm not making this up. The theory wound up having some holes in it, but could come to something. Physics is weird.
 
EdFred said:
He wasn't part of the good ol boys club, and that's why it was rejected...
Click to expand...
And I guess that's why we've never heard of him. Oh wait...

His work was published in a major journal. How, exactly, is that preventing his voice from being heard?
-harry
 
mantakos said:
And I guess that's why we've never heard of him. Oh wait...

His work was published in a major journal. How, exactly, is that preventing his voice from being heard?
-harry
Click to expand...

You've heard of him NOW, but prior to that he was dismissed. His first submission was rejected because he wasn't part of the in crowd. I realize it goes against your viewpoint so it's difficult for you to accept, but try.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
You've heard of him NOW, but prior to that he was dismissed. I realize it goes against your viewpoint so it's difficult for you to accept, but try.
Click to expand...
His paper was published in a leading journal in 1964:

Perhaps it would help if you could explain to us what you saw in that TV show you watched that would help us understand how he was shut out of the public debate and his voice went unheard.
-harry
 
steingar said:
Good point. So you're saying that in the 60s he was a crank ignored by everyone. In 1960 he was a lecturer at the Tait Institute of Mathematical Physics at the University of Edinburgh, roughly their version of an Assistant Professor. So you're saying that he was treated as an outsider and a crank.

That doesn't jive very well with his promotion to full professor with tenure. You don't get to that status at a reputable institution without an international reputation and a slew of papers in international journals, even in Physics.

The funniest thing was they thought there was a new unified theory a few years ago, it took the Physics world by storm. It was proposed by a unemployed ski bum. I'm not making this up. The theory wound up having some holes in it, but could come to something. Physics is weird.
Click to expand...

No, I am not saying he was a crank. It would be more like you coming up to a group of 20,000hr ATPs and saying, "you know if we did this in an aircraft it might be of benefit." The ATPs would look at you and go "whatever you peon private pilot, you aren't part of the crew."

After a while it turns out you really are on to something, and after you get your instrument rating or commercial certificate they listen a little closer. 50 years later, you are a 20,000ATP and part of the network, so now whatever you say is gospel. Until another peon with 120 hours and a SEL says, "hey, I've got on idea about..."
 
mantakos said:
His paper was published in a leading journal in 1964:

Perhaps it would help if you could explain to us what you saw in that TV show you watched that would help us understand how he was shut out of the public debate and his voice went unheard.
-harry
Click to expand...

Not the first time he submitted it to the European faction. Note that was an American Journal. At the time the in crowd was the Europeans. Try and keep up.
 
EdFred said:
Not the first time he submitted it to the European faction. Note that was an American Journal. At the time the in crowd was the Europeans. Try and keep up.
Click to expand...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/nov/17/sciencenews.particlephysics
...In late summer 1964, two years before he would give his Princeton lecture, Higgs rushed out a succinct letter, packed with mathematical formulae that backed his discovery and sent it to a leading physics journal run from Cern, the European nuclear research organisation in Geneva. The paper was published almost immediately, but went largely unnoticed.
...
The scientist took the chance to retreat to Edinburgh and write his second paper, this time elaborating on the true implications of his work. In autumn 1964, he sent it to the same journal for publishing, but astonishingly the Cern editors rejected it. Evidently, it was considered "of no obvious relevance to physics". He quickly sent it to America's leading physics journal, where it appeared later that year.... ​

So in the course of a few months, he submitted one paper in Europe, it was published, submitted another paper in Europe, it was rejected, then submitted a paper in the US, it was published.

And this is your proof that the scientific community is axiomatic and dogmatic and that those with unconventional ideas are silenced and rejected and cannot get their voice heard.
-harry
 
I never said "can not get their voice heard." You're trying to twist my words to make your argument look better. No surprise.

And with that I am bowing out of this thread. You and steingar are prime examples of the title.
 
I'm reminded of a friend's paper about why snakes don't have legs. He sent it to the prestigious science journal Nature. They rejected it out of hand, claiming it was of insufficient general interest. He sent them a letter back asking who wouldn't be interested in such a finding. I teach that paper to this day/

Ed is just somewhat ignorant of how science works, but cannot admit to such. It is a very normal thing to send a paper to one journal, have it rejected, and send it to another and have it accepted. There are loads of good reasons for that, and some not so good ones.

The the example of the Higgs Bosun is a really poor one. There are far better instances of ideas that were slow to catch on. However, data rules. If someone can come up with data contravening current thought on global climate, they'll get their hearing. Every journal wants to be the one to publish the next great thing.
 
ebacon said:
... What is in the geothermic model that predicts global warming now instead of a harder fall, e.g. proportional feedback, to colder temperatures?...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand your question. The cycles you're seeing are driven by variation in solar radiation that result from variation in the Earth's orbit. So warming is driving CO2 in that picture, and CO2 is a positive feedback enhancing the warming.

The primary negative feedback in that cycle is simply radiation into space, so as the Earth heats up, it simply radiates more energy. This is analogous to heating up your grill in the backyard, the warmer it gets the more power you have to put into it to sustain that temperature, as higher temperatures result in higher rate of heat loss. Greenhouse gases are comparable to adding insulation to your grill, they allow higher temperatures to result from the same level of power by reducing the rate of energy loss.
-harry
 
EdFred said:
I never said "can not get their voice heard." You're trying to twist my words to make your argument look better. No surprise.
Click to expand...
I apologize for my accurate paraphrasing. What you said, exactly, is:
'How about giving all dissenting viewpoints in the community at least a fair shake instead of a hand waving "we don't believe it" by the mainstream scientists.'​

and:
'I already posted a legitimate example. You conveniently ignored it.' ​

Your example was a guy who had 2 papers published in prestigious journals over the course of a few months, but had one rejected.
And with that I am bowing out of this thread. You and steingar are prime examples of the title.
Click to expand...
You proposed a hypothesis without presenting any data. We presented your data for you. The data did not support your hypothesis. Your argument was given "a fair shake". Now you're taking your ball and going home.
-harry
 
steingar said:
The the example of the Higgs Bosun is a really poor one. There are far better instances of ideas that were slow to catch on. However, data rules. If someone can come up with data contravening current thought on global climate, they'll get their hearing. Every journal wants to be the one to publish the next great thing.
Click to expand...

The "Cosmological (sp) constant" because the univerce expanding just wasn't possible?
 
:mad2:

Thank you, Dr, for fighting the good fight against the forces of darkness.

We had a dim spell there around the turn of the previous millennium. I hope we don't go back.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Just fly to California and run Spork's model.
Click to expand...

That's what spork and I are planning. He is being a gentleman by letting me witness the reconfigured Blackbird on the same trip when it's ready. It takes time to coordinate this stuff. :yesnod:
 
EdFred said:
When the Great Satan (and his minions) leads by example, I will follow. Until then I have a big white ass he can kiss.
Click to expand...

He would claim he offsets his energy inefficient lifestyle with carbon credits. That said, the actions of the author, no matter how hypocritical, do not affect reality. In that particular the article had a very good point. About half this thread (and any other discussion of climate change) is about how bad Gore is. There is little discussion about the veracity of the science, except for mostly erroneous talking points from Fox News and other conservative media outlets.

The stuff happening to the world was predicted long ago. The only good thing about any of this is my own lack of children. I would hate for them to inherit a world broken by my generation because they didn't like the messenger.
 
steingar said:
He would claim he offsets his energy inefficient lifestyle with carbon credits. That said, the actions of the author, no matter how hypocritical, do not affect reality. In that particular the article had a very good point. About half this thread (and any other discussion of climate change) is about how bad Gore is. There is little discussion about the veracity of the science, except for mostly erroneous talking points from Fox News and other conservative media outlets.

The stuff happening to the world was predicted long ago. The only good thing about any of this is my own lack of children. I would hate for them to inherit a world broken by my generation because they didn't like the messenger.
Click to expand...

Al Gore is no different than the TV preachers telling everyone to follow the Bible while not doing so themselves. Carbon offsets are the equivalent of saying, "Well, yeah, I killed two hookers, but I knocked two chicks up to make up for it."

Why should I listen to one word from any of them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top