Teh whole "hole in the ozone layer" thing was a good example of bad science - Freon may, in fact, destroy ozone, but is much (greater than 12x) heavier than air. nobody has yet to describe how Freon (which is used in closed loop cooling systems) can defy gravity and reach the ozone layer in concentrations enough to make a hole. Oh, and by the way, the hole is only over Antartica.
This is an example of politically motivated enties ceazing on a new discovery (ozone layer hole), casting scientific investigation aside, and jumping to a political goal.
I would love to see the real AGW data and provide an informed perspective, but that's right; no one has made the data available to the public. I defy anyone to provide this "scientific" data that so many (supposedly) have come to a consensus about!
BTW - if you have a 'consensus' in science, you probably need a second opinion.
Gentlemen, there are two big problems with both sides of this argument, and both are hopelessly mired in their own egos, failing to use true science to extricate themselves.
Those who are positive that man is almighty and causing great and irreversible as well as irreparable harm to the planet by changing the climate: Please look closely at recorded history. Man's written record includes many periods described as mini-ice-ages, and many other periods of extended heat and drought.
Those who are positive that this as all a farce and there is nothing to fear from unlimited use of whatever resources we have been granted: Please be mindful of the history in microcosm of innumerable ventures where local resources were extracted, then the framework for extraction collapsed, with future generations unable to even put to new use the mess that was left behind without gross additional effort.
For those who think that both sides are being extreme and more is going on than meets the eye, we need to ponder a few questions:
1. Where is the money coming from to finance the politics and science groups addressing this issue? If it is from industry, what does that industry have to gain? Look into the banning of freon and other ozone depleting (yes, that was reasonably proven) substances to understand why in a few short years politics can do an about-face. A bunch of patents expired globally, and big money was there for a new generation of patents for what would have been lower performing compounds, except they were less-zone-depleting.
2. What is to be gained politically by jumping on the "man is causing irreparable climate change" bandwagon? That is not to say that we are not, as can readily be seen by looking at the environmental history of the Arabian peninsula. Politics dictate providing an issue that people can gather under a banner for, that is divisive enough to be "sexy", and that will garner financial backing as well (see item 1).
One more question, something that I have not seen mentioned in this whole discussion: has anybody looked at the sun's energy output? Sunspots have been observed for years, and they had previously been some fairly regular cycles observed. Now, this last cycle seems to be different, in that there have been way fewer sunspots observed for quite a few years. It is a given that most of the energy on the earth comes from the sun. What happens if that energy delivery increases by a bit, say 0.01%? How do we measure that small a change in such a large quantity? Even worse, what can we do about it?
One more comment, a really vicious one: Just consider that if "cap and trade" ever happens, whoever winds up being the broker will make more money than Bill Gates could ever dream of. Just think, a product that everybody must deal in, and only one broker, by federal mandate, and no competition. Do you suppose that my assertion about the profits are a bit low? Cap and trade will provide some small organization with enough wealth to purchase control of our country. Then where will we be?
In fact you -can- test some of climate theory. Michael Crichton proposed a simple test: using your best models, predict today what the climate will be in five or ten years. So far, no one has taken him up on the challenge.
The theory of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is ill supported by the facts but well supported by the money and the press. Why the need for witness intimidation, evidence tampering and endless repetition of the big lie if the underlying theory is so robustly supported by the facts? Carl Sagan demanded extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims. The world is ending, hand over all your money and your freedom to save it certainly qualifies as extraordinary claims. Where is the extraordinary proof - not the endlessly redone models that can't predict the past let alone the future, not the cooked data, not the neglected data - the proof? Where's the weak evidence that even consistently backs up these claims?
Your not on the payroll of Koch industries are you?
...outgoing longwave IR radiation...
Key word is outgoing here...
If it gets reflected back in it does not go out ie outgoing...
Your logical basis is based on a bad assumption, or purposfully misrepresenting the facts.
controlled experiments have been done that prove that Co2 is a insulator and holds in heat. This has been done and validated by others. How long can the oceans soak up excessive Co2 levels? apparently for a while longer but not before most all of the corral is killed around the world. what do you think will happen to our food supply from the ocean when most all the corral is dead? and it will not return until the Co2 level drops back to pre 2000 (minimum)levels in the ocean. This will require the Co2 in the air to be reduced.
This is not going to happen at least for 100 to 200 years. and this is if we do something about global warming now.
I think perhaps you have a bias against statical based research and stochastic methods. The way meteorologists validate their models is by seeding them with data from the past comparing them with observations from the present. Granted, specific mesoscale features are not very predictable in the long run but, their probabilities are. The fact is that the science is still young. We are still learning about its features: Southern ocilation (el nino), PDO, ENSO. These cycles are on the order of decades, detected from collections of data less then a century old. Climatological data is gleaned from multi-disciplined sets and is hard to normalize.
Despite these difficulties, one would be a fool not to wonder, and even bigger fool not to approach it scientifically. Science is a process that leaves behind the trail of facts for one to opine on. It seems you read some lit and formed the opinion that it is not worth reading on because the facts you wanted did not seem obtainable. That is fine, but that doesn't make the discipline baseless.
To frankmlinar, this article is not vague or misleading. The article simply describes how the climate change frenzy is based on something that can't really be described as science. Give us one credible experiment that shows we're headed for doomsday because of man-made global warming. Where has the scientific method been followed? The scientific method as you know starts off with step 1 making a hypothesis, then step 2 performing experiment(s), then step 3 observing and recording data from the experiment(s) without bias, then step 4 forming a conclusion based on the data either proving or disproving the hypothesis. Step 5 would be a branching step where if the data does not support the hypothesis, one should go back and re-evaluate and perhaps reform the hypothesis and run the experiment again based on the new hypothesis. If the data supports the hypothesis, then the question of repeatability comes up. That's when you publish your report to have other scientists look at it, debate it, and do the exact same experiment to see if they were able to get to the same conclusion.
Now, let's go through why this climate "science" is far from being a science. First, step 2 is impossible to do with our limited technology. We cannot make a scale model earth complete with an atmosphere, gravity, plants and animals (don?t forget the polar bears), ice on the poles, a molten core, salinity in the oceans, the sun being the exact distance and warmth, etc. exactly like earth and then somehow add CO2 to see what happens. We're not gods and to think that we are, is arrogant.
Second and even worse, since we're limited to only observing this earth (as opposed to the experimental earth) what these so-called scientists do for step 3 is irresponsible when they?re manipulating data to fit their hypothesis of man-made global warming. That?s what the whole climate-gate was all about. Also, did you know that a few decades ago, they took data from all 6000 temperature stations worldwide to calculate the average global temperature, but today they're only taking data from 1500 stations where the temperatures are warmest? If you did that, of course your average temps would seem like they were going higher than in decades past. The rest of the 4500 stations are still working and collecting data, but these pseudo scientists have dumped the data from their overall calculation as "bad" data. What part of being an unbiased observer is that? No data is "bad" data from a real scientists' perspective. It simply is what it is. You said there's too much data? I say there's not enough real data!
Lastly, step 5, the peer review, where they're supposed to share and discuss with other scientists the data they had collected. These so-called scientists dismiss any scientist who has a differing hypothesis. Only the hypothesis that we have man-made global warming is accepted. It's like we're back in the days of Galileo when it was widely accepted that the earth was at the center of the universe. Galileo was placed under house arrest for heresy when he had his heliocentric idea and no one wanted to hear his differing hypothesis. Real scientists who follow the scientific method normally have debates about the topics in their field. Believe it or not, there's still an on-going scientific debate over the Big Bang. But oh no, we can't have a debate over the climate and the dissenting scientists are shut out and dismissed in favor of this highly politicized junk science. How unscientific of them and they call themselves scientists. Debate is at the heart of the scientific community. So yes, I agree that this man-made global warming IS nothing more than speculation. It hasn?t been vetted through the scientific method and it certainly hasn?t been debated. What isn't speculation is nature-made global warming, and global cooling for that matter.
I am in favor of being clean, meaning finding alternative methods of energy and reducing pollution, but this change must happen gradually, with incentives, not draconian rules, and for the right reasons. Abrupt changes will destroy entire industries and economies, which will destroy countless people's lives and drive up the prices, or worse.
I apologize for the long post, but I feel passionate about this having been in the sciences myself. It just really frustrates me how people can call something a science when none of the scientific conventions are followed.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.