quote:Also, I would like to know how accurate Crichton's analysis of the Urban Heat Island problem is.
quote:Another issue that often comes up in discussion about the surface temperature record is the impact of the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE), and here it appears on p370. It is undisputed that the centres of cities such as New York are significantly warmer than the surrounding countryside. This issue has been extensively studied and is corrected for in all analyses of the global temperature trends. To see whether there might still be a residual effect in the corrected data, a recent paper (Parker, Nature, 2004) looked at the differences in the trends if you looked separately at windy and not-so-windy conditions. Wind is known to diminish the impact of urban heating, and so the trends on windy days should be less than trends on still days if this was important. The trends actually end up almost exactly the same. Other validating data for the corrected surface temperature record comes from the oceans, which have also been warming in recent decades. Even Richard Lindzen , normally an arch-skeptic on these issues, stated that "ocean temperature increases present some support for the surface temperature record" Lindzen (2002). Another demonstration that the corrections are sufficient is that over the continental US, where many cities have a clear urban heating signal, the mean of the corrected data is actually rather flat (p88) - i.e. none of the strong urban biases in the US has made it into the regional or indeed global mean.
posted
"but the current politically-enforced 'consensus' prevents anyone from addressing the true range of possiblities without getting dismissed as a crackpot."
Again, this is a statement which is based on media-fueled speculation (and deliberate misinformation) rather than fact. I think you'll find that the scientific establishment has not acted to suppress people working to come up with alternative greenhouse models.
I fail to see how you-or anyone-has refuted some other allegations Crichton makes.
Aside from your problems with comparing data and tests (Crichton says it isn't done, or is done badly, etc.)-which I don't concede-what about many other things that are laid at GW's door?
For instance, 'evaluating the past': are you saying Crichton is lying when he says many heroes of the environmental movement from the past-men and women who are still often believed today-have been hundreds or thousands of percentage points off in their predictions for what weather would be like today?
That temperature-record data might, in fact, be skewed because of where the monitoring stations are located (often near major population centers)?
That many scientists have presented evidence that glaciers are in growing in some places, receding in others?
Perhaps most importantly, that the 'consensus of scientists' might, just might have a bias that colors their reports on global warming, considering their sources of funding?
And most importantly, in my opinion, that the argument that a 'consensus of scientists' believes such and such is happening is bullcrap? It's not an acceptable argument in any other situation, and Crichton points out that once scientists need no longer search for funding for research, sometimes their views markedly change?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"For instance, 'evaluating the past': are you saying Crichton is lying when he says many heroes of the environmental movement from the past-men and women who are still often believed today-have been hundreds or thousands of percentage points off in their predictions for what weather would be like today?"
It's also worth noting that Galileo was often wrong. That does not, however, invalidate the respect that we still have for him. We can respect heroes of the environmental movement, and scientists who've done otherwise good science, even if critical flaws in those theories produced poor models.
The potential error would lie in the whole "who are still believed today," and that's a fault more of the media than of science. You won't, in general, find scientists citing discredited data or using obviously flawed models; you will, however, hear people in the media reciting a piece of poor statistics years after it was discredited. But this is hardly a flaw unique to the environmental movement; how many times, for example, have you heard some old saw repeated on a news show or as color in an editorial that you know has been discredited, based on your superior knowledge of the subject?
Frankly, I think this sort of thing happens more in physics and biology than it does in environmental science. How many beetles are there? Is there light on the dark side of the moon? And does ontology really recapitulate phylogeny?
"That temperature-record data might, in fact, be skewed because of where the monitoring stations are located (often near major population centers)?"
The link I provided addressed this with ample citations to the contrary; in general, the models are adjusted to reflect urban heat islands.
"That many scientists have presented evidence that glaciers are in growing in some places, receding in others?"
Again, read my link. It points out that global warming is not meant to imply uniform warming, nor uniform glacial shrinkage; in fact, glaciers are growing in some areas precisely because the mean temperature there has grown warm enough to permit precipitation. That said, this is a silly argument; it's like saying that because the ozone hole doesn't get bigger every year, year after year, that it's not getting bigger. Just because every glacier isn't shrinking, that doesn't mean that, on average, glaciers aren't receding at record rates.
"Perhaps most importantly, that the 'consensus of scientists' might, just might have a bias that colors their reports on global warming, considering their sources of funding?"
And this is, of course, part of what I find so offensive. Do you know many environmental scientists who are willing to fudge their research to keep the grant money?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
No, Tom, I don't know any. But my question is: why is trust (apparently) the acceptable default setting for listening to environmentalists, and contempt the default setting for listening to anyone contradicting the movement?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those scientists who contradict the majority, I listen to.
They are currently outnumbered by a much bigger group of equally authoritative scientists.
When in doubt, I am more inclined to believe that the majority of scientists are correct on a given topic; this tends to be self-correcting over the long term, of course.
I do not generally rely on politicians or activists of either stripe for my information.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Volume. Seriously. If you repeat something often enough, loud enough, using small enough words, people will eventually come to not only agree with you but to believe that they've felt that way all along, and you've only recently started to agree with them.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
