Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

Well, that makes me glad I gave you such short shrift.

-Max

TAke yourself seriously then, be reflexive rather than just destructive.

There are scientists who are trapped in some kind of structure. They have no agency. They say what they say because the 'structure' they are embedded in tells them to.

What about MW. Why does MW say what he says? What do you want to accomplish?

[llamabeast]

Thanks for the answer Max.

Let me turn your question around: why was Ignatz Semmelweiss a pariah for decades in the medical community, when listening to him was really in everyone's best interest? (To the extent that his discovery, today, would elicit nothing but "Duh. Of course washing your hands reduces infection rates.")

Well, I think it's obviously the case that there can be enormous inertia in the scientific community, such that obviously correct things can sometimes be resisted for a long time. I definitely wouldn't claim that the scientific consensus is always correct.

However, this is kind of the opposite, in that a very large number of scientists have started believing in a new theory (manmade global warming) and abandoned the status quo to do so. People didn't believe in it in, say, the 70s, and it wasn't a very nice thing to start believing in either. I understand that the early proponents of manmade global warming experienced considerable resistance to their ideas, as you'd expect. But now, I think it's fair to say that a majority of scientists and public bodies accept manmade global warming. Can you think of another example where there has been a mass move away from the status quo to a new theory which turns out to be wrong (or at least, wronger than the old one)? I feel there would have to be quite compelling evidence to cause that kind of shift.

I suppose my approach in thinking about this is really to look at the trends in people's beliefs rather than the science itself, at least for the sake of this discussion. I actually had a course in atmospheric chemistry in my undergrad chemistry degree at cambridge, and it was made completely clear that climate change was a real issue, the whole background was explained, and it seemed entirely non-controversial. Of course, it could easily be argued that my lecturers were biased, or misled. Whoever gives the information can make a convincing case in either direction (in a matter with so very much evidence, it is easy to find enough to thoroughly support either side which makes it all but impossible to judge the validity of presented arguments). So this brings me back to the question of why there should be so many biased/misled scientists who believe in this rather uncomfortable idea of manmade global warming in the first place.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Can you think of another example where there has been a mass move away from the status quo to a new theory which turns out to be wrong (or at least, wronger than the old one)? I feel there would have to be quite compelling evidence to cause that kind of shift.

You know, llamabeast, I don't know. I'm not much of a scientific historian. (I mean, I could say "what about phrenology?" but I don't know whether it ever caught on to the degree you're asking for.) If you were to go looking for precedent, you'd probably have to look in a field that has the salient characteristics of climatology: the subject is too complex for experimental study, so experiments focus on studying the behavior of simplified models of the subject. The only other field I know of like that is economics, but as I said I don't know much about the history of economic theory so I don't know whether it's experienced fads.

-Max

[llamabeast]

I fear that in attempting to sound intellectual Omnirizon, you may be coming across as a bit rude. The comment which made Max glad he gave you short shrift did sound quite patronising you know, although I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

I fear that in attempting to sound intellectual Omnirizon, you may be coming across as a bit rude. The comment which made Max glad he gave you short shrift did sound quite patronising you know, although I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.

et tu brute! I thought we were on the same side llama

actually I did mean it that way.
any intelligence was pure coincidence.


the real reason MW won't respond to my questions is due to the fundamental problem of using a social constructionist argument to attack a position you disagree with. It's like throwing rocks from a glass house.

[licker]

Fair enough, I should not have said 'anyone'.

There was very little research going on on the subject was my point, for whatever the theories at the time were.

James Hanson is an interesting fellow, do you know his history with GW?

[Omnirizon]

PS. I'm not a rude guy. I wasn't rude for the sake of being rude.

and actually llama, MW was patronising first when he dodged my question by posting a link to literature on it. The tone and specificity of that question should have made it very clear that I'm more than familiar with the literature.

I wanted MW to show a grasp of what he talks about by applying it to the argument, rather than just mentioning the concept. MW is talking tropes, llama, and any fool can do that by just regurgitating what he is spoonfed. I want him to show that he understands what he's saying by applying it to the argument.

but like I said, no one here really gives a damn about science, they are more concerned with just blowing flames at their opponents ad nausuem until someone gets bored with the whole odious ordeal and leaves, while the other person can convince themselves they've somehow 'won' a battle. I would actually theorize that the reason we see the anti-GW/GCM crowd doing the most talking is because it is only in OT threads on internet forums that they can somehow 'win' their battle. so put another notch on the keyboard there Big Dogs, because your ****ing 'flamewarriors' talking about GW in a place where no one gives a damn what you have to say.



In case anyone here decides to actually read _real_ literature related to what they are talking about and arguing, I've attached an article I downloaded using my membership to the Social Studies of Science journal. Not that anyone will, since no one really cares to understand what's actually going on in science or how it really works. But here's hoping against hope.

[cleveland]

"Modelers generally agree that the climate system is a chaotic system in both a technical and practical sense, rendering short-term weather patterns unpredictable beyond a few weeks." (pg 899)

How true that is.

Since the venerable Dick Goddard can't even tell me if it'll be 10F or 60F next week, I'm inclined to ignore anyone who says, "Based on my sophisticated computational model, the 2027 global climate will be [insert stupid opinion here] ."

Even the simplest weather models are chaotic - i.e. extremely sensitive to initial conditions. No dungeon master worth his twenty-sided die believes the outcome of this roll can be predicted.

----------------

Heat is a different story, though. Heat ("q" from thermo) can only added to the planet from a) cosmic (specifically Solar) radiation, and b) terrestrial release (e.g. burning the Cretaceous period). q can only be shed by radiation.

Atmospheric [CO2] decreases q radiation losses. Since solar q intake has been relatively stable, terrestrial q release has been increasing, and atmospheric [CO2] has been increasing, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize total planetary q is increasing.

The effect of that increased q is (obviously) quite debatable, however.

[licker]

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

PS. I'm not a rude guy. I wasn't rude for the sake of being rude.

Then why were you rude? Because you are a rude guy?

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

but like I said, no one here really gives a damn about science, they are more concerned with just blowing flames at their opponents ad nausuem until someone gets bored with the whole odious ordeal and leaves, while the other person can convince themselves they've somehow 'won' a battle.

The irony is quite amusing. Considering you are the primary person in this thread throwing flames.

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

In case anyone here decides to actually read _real_ literature related to what they are talking about and arguing, I've attached an article I downloaded using my membership to the Social Studies of Science journal. Not that anyone will, since no one really cares to understand what's actually going on in science or how it really works. But here's hoping against hope.

The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including:

·political science, sociology, economics

·history, philosophy, psychology

·social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines

Oh my, I can see why this journal would be chock full of information on climate science...

Have you read the IPCC reports? And not just the summary report, the whole big thing? I don't know, but I find it amusing that you are acting like some big tough 'flamewarrior' while calling everyone else who happens to disagree with the premise you support whatever names you want.

Anyway, out of idle curiosity what is your background Omni? Are you involved in some field related to climatology?

Atmospheric [CO2] decreases q radiation losses. Since solar q intake has been relatively stable, terrestrial q release has been increasing, and atmospheric [CO2] has been increasing, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize total planetary q is increasing.

Well except that lately we cannot find the extra 'q' in the places we think it should be (oceans primarily, as the atmospheric heating doesn't account for the projections). So you may want to rethink your supposition that the heat flux from the sun is (or has been) indeed constant. Beyond which you still need to find the mechanisms for previous hot and cold periods without human influence (and yes, the planet has had higher CO2 concentrations before...).

Following your statements rigidly leads to a particular conclusion, true, however, I challenge that your statements are actually born out in observable evidence.

[thejeff]

Climate is actually simpler than weather. At least since you're looking for less detail in the prediction.

To extend your example, would it make sense to say, Since the venerable Dick Goddard can't even tell me if it'll be 10F or 60F next week, I'm inclined to ignore anyone who says, "despite our current cooling trend, the temperature will rise into the 90s by next August."