Science

[inked]

Here's another interesting scientific divide:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...ode=404341&c=1

[The Gaffer]

An interesting article, Inked. It's a bit unfortunate if undergrads are expected to nail their colours to a mast as part of their course! Maybe they should find a muddy field somewhere and duke it out with the handbags.

It smacks somewhat of the "Social Darwinist" routes that were travelled, and largely rejected, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

However, it would be silly to reject evolutionary theories out of hand in explaining the development of cultures. Mating for life, for example, might be advantageous from a population development point of view. Of course behaviours that increase the likelihood of survival or breeding would be differentiated from those that don't (or that reduce it). But how such a hypothesis could be tested scientifically I am not sure. And the identification of memes in the first place is necessarily interpretivist.

[Jonathan]

"The Great Divide" eh? I think the article describes a schism that doesn't exist.

Social anthropology and evolutionary anthropology are two very different things - the former encompassing studies concerning human culture and the latter, well, evolution and biology.

The author of the article could just as well have put together a story about a civil war raging in the field of engineering, with civil engineers on one side and molecular engineers on the other.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I have a great visual for that, Jonathan.

The civil engineers are wearing suits and holding protractors. The molecular engineers are moles in puttees, waving those dowel and ball models of DNA.

[The Gaffer]

Hehe, good point. Though they probably wouldn't have to share the same floor, fight for students or indeed for curriculum space. (Actually they might, in which case the fighting would be just as dirty.)

[truthiscool]

Science is way to confusing. School is way to confusing. Life is just confusing. Why is this so???? dang am i that stupid. lol

[brownjenkins]

Confusion is actually a good thing, and at the very heart of science.

When you start to think you know stuff is when you are in trouble.

[inked]

GREAT BATTLES IN SCIENCE.... there oughta be a book!

AND, .... THERE IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Great Feuds in Science....

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Feuds-Sc...8516730&sr=8-1

enjoy

[inked]

Oh, no! NOT data manipulations!! Oh, the horror......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...zing-heat.html

[Nurvingiel]

A general comment on global warming (prompted by your article) is that it's a long-term warming trend. One or some cold winters don't disprove the theory.

It's about -10C here.

[The Gaffer]

I think the only way the deniers would be convinced would be if every day was hotter than yesterday. In fact even then, they'd say it was sunspots or something.

[inked]

God forbid that reforming ice should indicate cooling, Gaffer! It's anti-scientism and someone shoud make them there water molecules for daring to contradict the approved hysteria of scientism-ists!

By the way, the dearth of sunspot activity is indicative of decreased solar output. You might have heard of the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age, given your advantages.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by inked

God forbid that reforming ice should indicate cooling, Gaffer! It's anti-scientism and someone shoud make them there water molecules for daring to contradict the approved hysteria of scientism-ists!

Funny. It's exactly three months since I replied to one of your "the ice is reforming" posts with a "yes, in some locations".

Ice reforming occurs but don't forget the ice that at the same time is melting. It is the net result that matters.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

God forbid that reforming ice should indicate cooling, Gaffer! It's anti-scientism and someone shoud make them there water molecules for daring to contradict the approved hysteria of scientism-ists!

By the way, the dearth of sunspot activity is indicative of decreased solar output. You might have heard of the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age, given your advantages.

Just out of curiousity, since it seems you question that rapid global warming is in fact occuring, what is your strongest argument to support this view?

[Grey_Wolf]

Is there if fact a reforming of the polar ice? The news usually blare out the melting of the same.

And as for the Sun, the number of years of life left for it is measured in the billions, way off and most certainly at a time when mankind no longer exists.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

And as for the Sun, the number of years of life left for it is measured in the billions, way off and most certainly at a time when mankind no longer exists.

Oh Grey Wolf, you're talking about the life expectancy of the sun, which has little to do with the sunspot activity that Inked brought up. They are different things.

[Grey_Wolf]

ok, I understand.

[inked]

Coffeehouse, I have posted a series of links and articles that dare to question the current ascendent paradigm of global warming - mostly on this thread. There are respectable scientists who question the paradigm. There are data which in fact contradict it mightily. Of course, that requires that one look at and assemble the data.

Global warming is far from proven. I have argued that in my lifetime the paradigm has shifted from anticipated global cooling (resurgent in the 1950's from the earlier fad in the 1930's) to steady-state to warming. The latter is just the current fad.

Research into ice cores shows dramatic climactic swings in relation to a number of factors, including carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, regional landmass changes, vulcanism, et cetera. I happen to think the scaremongering regarding global warming currently in fashion is highly questionable.

I seem to be in a loathsome minority to the pundits who prefer global warming. Ah, well, ... this to shall pass. But shall we have warming and swell the oceans and drown the coasts - yes. And not in any mode of human endeavor can we change that. It is a natural cycle. The question is whether we humans could prevent it by any stretch of the human capability or will. I would answer, no. We can mitigate some human effects. But we shall adapt to climate change or die out, just as the past has shown.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

Coffeehouse, I have posted a series of links and articles that dare to question the current ascendent paradigm of global warming - mostly on this thread. There are respectable scientists who question the paradigm. There are data which in fact contradict it mightily. Of course, that requires that one look at and assemble the data.

Global warming is far from proven. I have argued that in my lifetime the paradigm has shifted from anticipated global cooling (resurgent in the 1950's from the earlier fad in the 1930's) to steady-state to warming. The latter is just the current fad.

Research into ice cores shows dramatic climactic swings in relation to a number of factors, including carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, regional landmass changes, vulcanism, et cetera. I happen to think the scaremongering regarding global warming currently in fashion is highly questionable.

I seem to be in a loathsome minority to the pundits who prefer global warming. Ah, well, ... this to shall pass. But shall we have warming and swell the oceans and drown the coasts - yes. And not in any mode of human endeavor can we change that. It is a natural cycle. The question is whether we humans could prevent it by any stretch of the human capability or will. I would answer, no. We can mitigate some human effects. But we shall adapt to climate change or die out, just as the past has shown.

I'm confused by your argument, because it seems you first put yourself in a minority versus the view that global warming is taking place. But then you state that 'we [shall] have warming', calling it a natural cycle. So which is it: do you deny that global warming is taking place on Earth as we speak or do you accept that global warming is taking place, yet deny that it is man-made?

Assuming you mean the latter, what evidence have you come across that is particularly convincing in countering the view that global warming is caused by human beings?

For beginners there was one of the first comprehensive research projects on the role of human beings in global warming, which presented data and global warming models on the state of the world's oceans. "Penetration of human-induced warming into the world's oceans", authored by several scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in 2005, had the following verdict [this is from the abstract, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15933161?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez. Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.P ubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles& logdbfrom=pubmed]

"A warming signal has penetrated into the world's oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences. Changes in advection combine with surface forcing to give the overall warming pattern. The implications of this study suggest that society needs to seriously consider model predictions of future climate change."

I was wondering what your response is to this, and whether you have any compelling evidence that counters these findings?

[Coffeehouse]

I'm adding this to my answer/question Inked

You state that "There are data which in fact contradict it mightily". The scientific community has produced overwhelming evidence of an increase in both temperature, CO2 and methane levels, in the air and in the oceans. Apart from the evidence that shows anthropogenic (scientific term for man-made/caused by human beings) increases of CO2 levels on a massive scale, there is evidence of:
The lessened ability of warmer oceans to absorb CO2, the lessened ability of tropical rainforests and wetlands to absorb CO2 due to deforestation and desertification of said ecosystems (even though plants absorb, on average, more CO2 than previously, due to their adapting to the higher CO2 levels), the defrosting of the permafrost in primarily Siberia where large quantities of CO2 and methane are pocketed and which, if released, would lead to an unpredented short-term increase in CO2 levels (these pockets containing more CO2 than all the combined emissions of the world's cars as of 2008).
What evidence in the form of falsification of the datasets for the above findings, etc. and other evidence that contradicts these findings can you present (since you claim there are data that do so)? I'd also ask that at the very least any such evidence needs to be presented in at least one scientific peer-reviewed publication.

*On a sidenote Inked: You also argue that there has been a paradigmic shift from 'anticipated global cooling' to 'steady-state' to 'warming'. That is wrong to state, because there was not a universal agreement amongst climate scientists in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s that there was a definite move towards global cooling. On the contrary, the widespread acknowledgement by climate scientists in the mid-20th century was that they simply had too little reliable data to make any definite conclusions. Thus there has been no paradigmic shift, because there never was a universal 'global cooling' paradigm. There definitely have been scientists, Milankovitch, Emiliani, Broecker, etc., whom argued that there was a possibility of a immediate cooling (Let's not forget that 'immediate' in this scientific language meant at the very least thousands of years), but they represent a fraction of climate scientists.*

Go to work!