There are no such anomalies. No one says that carbon dioxide is the only factor which effects temperature. If it were, we would get our weather forcasts from the Mauna Loa Observatory.
That's how science works. Are you saying that the Sun, ENSO and the Asian brown clowd have no effect on climate? The explanation has been known by scientists for a long time. No one factor can explain climate on its own. Not the Sun, not aerosols and not carbon dioxide. That does not mean the either has no effect.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/i...
If you're holding your breath waithing for that to happen, that explains your avatar.
That's all we would need. The government interfering in science. Here's a picture of what such government interference would look like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jim_In...
The 'human activity driving the climate' was never accepted science, except by people who think beliefs don't need to be verified. I don't think the IPCC gained credibility as anything other than a self serving political group.
Climate change as a political movement is on the decline. The predictions of an ice free Arctic circle and 0.3 degrees per decade warming are no longer being made. Warmists are no longer trying to ascertain what the rate of global warming is in degrees per decade. Instead they are waiting for an anomaly to happen and then building a case for attributing it to human activity. As Pegmimer says, 'The past ten year period was the warmest ten year period on record' (sic) but I think he meant to say the first decade of the 21'st century was the warmest decade on record. To an intelligent person, this is just another way of saying global warming ended in 1998 and this just shows that the warmists will take any warming they can get even if it was last century.
No, not at all. In true paradigm shifts there is a fundamental change in the the world view. Mostly what we have now is that many people had the simple-minded belief that the temperature rise would be monotonic and they neglected natural variation. If you take that into account, there are no anomalies that cannot be explained.
The whole idea of a "pause" in global warming comes from taking a very myopic look at climate change. The past ten year period was the warmest ten year period on record, it's only when you start looking on a yearly basis that you see any pause.
The paradigm only existed in the minds of the minority that defines themselves as the 97.1 majority. How fragile it is, this house of cards.
Not at all. For all the rhetoric, for all the obfuscation and tactics employed by non-scientists to promote their views, AGW is based on well-established science.
It is a fact that we humans dig and pump fossil fuels out of the ground. It is a fact that burning these fuels in an atmosphere with oxygen produces CO2. And it is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All this has been known for more than a century.
We can do the maths. If we dig up X amount and burn Y amount per year, then the total we produce and pump into the atmosphere is about 30 billion tonnes per annum. You can debate the exact figure, but no amount of debate changes the fact that the figure is in the tens of billions of tonnes of additional CO2 per year that would not have been present had we not burned the fuels. To put the figure in context, it roughly works out as 82 million tonnes per day, or 950 tonnes per second.
So on Monday morning at 9:00:00 am, we produce 950 tonnes of CO2. If, by 9:00:01 am that CO2 has not be scrubbed from the atmosphere then the next 950 tonnes adds to it. And so on. The problem is that we produce CO2 faster than the natural processes on our planet can scrub it from the atmosphere. There is no evidence to the contrary. There IS evidence supporting that assertion, such as isotope concentrations from air sampling and carbon storage by plants, fluid dynamics and theories involving the mixing of gases, and a CO2 increase over many decades.
If we all agree that we burn fossil fuels, that C+O2 = CO2, that the planet can't scrub that CO2 as quickly as we produce it, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then the laws of physics tell us our atmosphere must warm.
THAT is what you need to overturn before a paradigm shift can occur. The details, the models, the predictions are science in action. Some will be wrong, others will be right but only if they're tweaked, and so on. This is because science adapts to new information. But these details don't change the solid laws of chemistry, maths, and physics on which AGW is based.
No You are attempting to apply a concept which is pertinent to established scinces
From wikipedia link
"Paradigm shifts tend to be most dramatic in sciences that appear to be stable and mature, as in physics at the end of the 19th century"
Climate science as applied to AGW is neither sable of mature Once again you seem to be spinning your wheels and grasping at straws. It is unfortunate that your ilk can't produce even a single article written by a real climate scientist to aid your cause/ I hope I live long enough to see that.
Ottawa Mike - The climate is fine as it is. I've grown tired of the banging of heads with these morons time and again. It's not a significant issue with the mainstream media either (as it shouldn't be). You're an intelligent man. There is plenty of evidence that shows how insignificant humans are to the natural climate of the planet. You seem to be trying to convince 20 (at the most) people who do nothing to make their case publicly. I've seen no publications from any of them. They aren't experts here at Y/A. Most of them give nothing but bitter *diatribes anyway. Y/A answers is a microscopic view of "Global Warming" and efforts here to convince anyone of anything are futile.
Absolutely not - and maybe you should actually read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn. His paradigm shift actually refers to the adoption of new scientific theories. I'll admit that to the untrained eye, it may not seem that clear in "-Structure-". However, in "Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (edited by Lakatos and Musgrave), Kuhn is more specific.
There is nothing about the global temperature readings over the last 15+ years that in any way contradicts AGW theory. And since Deniers have never come up with an explanation that has not already been scientifically rejected or that is not extra- or super-natural in origin, let alone actually provide a superior explanatory model for current observations - the question is moot.
=====
jim z --
Nice job of not even bothering to read OM's link. You've never heard of Thomas S. Kuhn, huh? This will not doubt come as a surprise, but there is an entire field of knowledge dedicated to the Philosophy of Science. Your lack of familiarity with the subject has always been evident in your answers which reflect a complete ignorance of science and the scientific method.
On the upside, the fact that people gave you thumbs-up means that there are people even more ignorant and scientifically illiterate than yourself.
Yes I do. I have been reading more and more articles counter to AGW arguements and more pointedly counter to AGW alrmist claims. two examples.
1. Pacific Islands over the past 20 - 60 years have been growing NOT shrinking as proponants of sea level rise have claimed.
2. Anamolous snowfalls in the antarctic could be countering sea level rise. Eastern Atlantic facing region.
BTW - did you see the latest study oin radioactive decay and solar activity? A paper released out of California Berkley has demonstrated that solar activity impacts the rate of radioactive decay globally. BPreviously this was not beleived possible but it has been proven. They do NOT know the mechanics nor do they postulate on the mechanics linkages etc. Real interesting stuff...
Many things are coming out and it very much seems to me the preponderance of the new data, testing and other empircal data sets experiments etc are proving coutner to various issues concerning AGW and more specifically the alarmist stances of AGW.
It is a fair description of what is happening, but it has been ongoing since the beginning. The CAGW movement has been in crisis since 1988. Indeed, it can only survive in the mental fog that crisis (fear) induces. The movement has never enjoyed the kind of empirical validation that would elevate the hypothesis to a theory. It gains momentum through appeals to fear, predictions of dire consequences, appeals to authority, and threats of social isolation.
As Michael Crichton said "This is not how science is done; it is how products are sold."
The movement's only hope is to keep the people in a state of fear, for if that ever is lifted, the critical thinking will start, and the movement will come apart at the seams. If the scientific method is ever applied, the CAGW hypothesis will end up in the 'dustbin of history.'
The advocates are doing their best to maintain the fear, and prevent the hard questions from being asked; hence, the 'predictions' of dire consequences, tipping points, catastrophic results, claims of time running out, it is happening now, etc. It is also the reason for the desperate ad hominem attacks on those whole point out the flaws in the hypothesis.
If you aren't familiar with that term, perhaps read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift#Kuhnian_paradigm_shifts
My first (serious) thought into this was the recent Economist article which was pretty surprising coming from a champion of AGW action.
From the description of a paradigm shift, there is an accumulation of anomalies which cannot be explained by the current worldview (i.e. CO2 caused warming). One example might be the recent pause in warming. However, the "pause" is generally treated rather flippantly by either coming up with explanation(s) for it or simply disregarding it as insignificant. However, it is still anomaly and as the Wiki article puts it: "There are anomalies for all paradigms...that are brushed away as acceptable levels of error, or simply ignored and not dealt with..."
When enough anomalies accumulate, the scientific discipline is thrown into a state of crisis. When this occurs, there may be a protracted set of "attacks" by the differing sides (as has happened during past paradigm shifts).
Do you detect a climate science paradigm shift either coming or already underway? If yes, how will government involvement change this process?
No, not even close. And you are again radically distorting what Economist actually said (see below), as you did here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... .
But Kuhn is a good book, even if over-assigned in college courses.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21...
"...Some scientists are arguing that man-made climate change is not quite so bad a threat as it appeared to be a few years ago...Does that mean the world no longer has to worry? No, for two reasons. The first is uncertainty. The science that points towards a sensitivity lower than models have previously predicted is still tentative...The second reason is more practical. If the world had based its climate policies on previous predictions of a high sensitivity, then there would be a case for relaxing those policies, now that the most hell-on-Earth-ish changes look less likely. But although climate rhetoric has been based on fears of high sensitivity, climate policy has not been. On carbon emissions and on adaptation to protect the vulnerable it has fallen far short of what would be needed even in a low-sensitivity world...There is no plausible scenario in which carbon emissions continue unchecked and the climate does not warm above today’s temperatures... Good policies―strategies for adapting to higher sea levels and changing weather patterns, investment in agricultural resilience, research into fossil-fuel-free ways of generating and storing energy―are wise precautions even in a world where sensitivity is low. So is putting a price on carbon and ensuring that, slowly but surely, it gets ratcheted up for decades to come. If the world has a bit more breathing space to deal with global warming, that will be good. But breathing space helps only if you actually do something with it."
Edit: JimZ imagines he is the little boy exposing the naked emperor. Actually, other than being unable to spell simple words, like "clothes," he has nothing in common with the truthful little kid, but much in common with the stubbornly ignorant geezers telling the kid to shutup, and grumbling that only a leftist would claim to know whether the emperor's appearance has any relation to whether his body is .04% or 40% covered.
Government involvement will aid those who are screaming that emperor really does have clothes on. Don't believe your eyes, believe what we tell you. I don't know if it is a paradigm shift or just a realization that those who purported to know things they didn't have been exposed in their nakedness.
Note: Shoot, how did I misspell clothes after all that shopping with my wife? Sometimes I am in too big a hurry. Gary, you can be quite nasty. Elizabeth, The lady doth protest too much, methinks. It seems you are desperately trying to link our emissions of CO2 to all the warming and then to your predictions of dire consequences. It just isn't that convincing. Well, I better get out of my Shakespearean mode before I get too deep, Choke me in the shallow water. See it is getting too late.
