Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Space, the environment, new discoveries and new uses for old ones
seeinred
Posts: 1264
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby seeinred » Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:57 pm

Fordama wrote: flowers are blooming earlier,


But this spring, local wildflower watchers say bluebonnets and their usual sidekicks, Indian paintbrushes, are sparse.

“Everywhere is about two weeks late,” said Spencer Moore, a Waco optometrist known for photographing 
eagles at Lake Waco. “They’re coming out, but just a smattering of them. I think this is going to be one of those off years.”

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/environmen ... 734d0.html


The National Park Service announced today that the peak bloom for the famed cherry blossoms will come a week later than originally estimated. Instead of peaking between March 26-30, said the service, they will be in full glory from April 3-6.

http://dcist.com/2013/03/peak_bloom_for ... s_push.php
[/quote]
... but it's cold outside!


Myth: The planet can't be warming when my front yard is covered in several feet of snow. … This winter has been one of the chilliest, how is that possible in a warming world?

Science: Local temperatures taken as individual data points have nothing to do with the long-term trend of global warming. These local ups and downs in weather and temperature can hide a slower-moving uptick in long-term climate. To get a real bead on global warming, scientists rely on changes in weather over a long period of time. To find climate trends you need to look at how weather is changing over a longer time span. Looking at high and low temperature data from recent decades shows that new record highs occur nearly twice as often as new record lows.

For instance, a study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in 2009, found that daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the prior decade across the continental United States.
http://www.livescience.com/19466-climat ... usted.html



seeinred
Posts: 1264
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Six Persistant Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby seeinred » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:00 pm

sbayhills wrote:I believe what I said;

I believe the sun is the greatest factor in our environment. The Left continues to use man made global warming as a vehicle to push their ideologies.

The sun is to blame


Myth: Over the past few hundred years, the sun's activity, including the number of sunspots, has increased, causing the world to get warmer.


Science: In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend, while the climate has been heating up, scientists say. In the past century, solar activity can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount. (Solar activity refers to the activity of the sun's magnetic field and includes magnetic field-powered sunspots and solar flares.)

A study published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics in December 2011 revealed that even during a prolonged lull in the sun's activity, Earth still continued to warm. The study researchers found that the Earth absorbed 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter than escaped back into space during the study period from 2005 to 2010, a time when solar activity was low.
http://www.livescience.com/19466-climat ... usted.html

seeinred
Posts: 1264
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby seeinred » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:02 pm

Zebra wrote:
How "extreme" is that minority or do we just take your word for it? Got any numbers?

How idiotic for the astrophysicist to not know how science works ... :shrug:



Not everyone agrees
Myth: There's no consensus on whether the planet is actually warming.

Science: About 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-made global warming is happening. "In the scientific field of climate studies — which is informed by many different disciplines — the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change — and that's nearly all of them," according to Skeptical Science, a website dedicated to explaining the science of global warming.

seeinred
Posts: 1264
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby seeinred » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:04 pm

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant


Myth: Rick Santorum, GOP presidential nominee, summed up this argument in the news when he said: "The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is," he told the Associated Press.

Science: While it is true that plants photosynthesize, and therefore take up carbon dioxide as a way of forming energy with the help of the sun and water, this gas is both a direct pollutant (think acidification of oceans) and more importantly is linked to the greenhouse effect. When heat energy gets released from Earth's surface, some of that radiation is trapped by greenhouse gases like CO2; the effect is what makes our planet comfy temperature-wise, but too much and you get global warming.
http://www.livescience.com/19466-climat ... usted.html

seeinred
Posts: 1264
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby seeinred » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:07 pm

Don't worry, it's not that bad


Myth: Some have pointed to human history as evidence that warm periods are good for people, while the cold, unstable stints have been catastrophic.

Science: Climate scientists say any positives are far outweighed by the negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, human health, the economy and the environment. For instance, according to one 2007 study, a warming planet may mean an increased growing season in Greenland; but it also means water shortages, more frequent and more intense wildfires and expanding deserts.
http://www.livescience.com/19466-climat ... usted.html

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18125
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby Fordama » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:08 pm

Zebra wrote:
How "extreme" is that minority or do we just take your word for it? Got any numbers?

How idiotic for the astrophysicist to not know how science works ... :shrug:

Seeing how none were actually presented that believe that the Sun is the main cause of global warming, I won't comment on them. I certainly never said that any of them don't know how science works. You might not, if you don't understand the difference between consensus and unanimity, but I didn't say the scientists didn't.

But given that the Sun has shown a very slight cooling trend over the last 35 years, it is unlikely that it is the culprit of global warming.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

seeinred
Posts: 1264
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby seeinred » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:09 pm

Credit: © NZ IPY-CAML.

Antarctica is gaining ice


Myth: Ice covering much of Antarctica is expanding, contrary to the belief that the ice cap is melting due to global warming.

Science: The argument that ice is expanding on Antarctica omit the fact that there's a difference between land ice and sea ice, climate scientists say. "If you are talking about the Antarctic ice sheet, we expect some gain in accumulation in the interior due to warmer, more moisture-laden air, but increased calving/ice loss at the periphery, primarily due to warming southern oceans," climate scientist Michael Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, told LiveScience. The net change in ice mass is the difference between this accumulation and peripheral loss. "Models traditionally have projected that this difference doesn't become negative (i.e. net loss of Antarctic ice sheet mass) for several decades," Mann said, adding that detailed gravimetric measurements, which looks at changes in Earth's gravity over spots to estimate, among other things, ice mass. These measurements, Mann said, suggest the Antarctic ice sheet is already losing mass and contributing to sea level rise.

Now for sea ice, this type of ice is influenced by year-to-year changes in wind directions and changes in ocean currents. For sea ice, it's tricky to identify a clear trend, Mann said.
http://www.livescience.com/19466-climat ... usted.html

seeinred
Posts: 1264
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby seeinred » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:10 pm

Climate models are unreliable


Myth: Models are full of "fudge factors" or assumptions that make them fit with data collected in today's climate; there's no way to know if those same assumption can be made in a world with increased carbon dioxide.

Science: Models have successfully reproduced global temperatures since 1900, by land, in the air and the oceans. "Models are simply a formalization of our best understanding of the processes that govern the atmosphere, the oceans, the ice sheets, etc.," Mann said. He added that certain processes, such as how clouds will respond to changes in the atmosphere and the warming or cooling effect of clouds, are uncertain and different modeling groups make different assumptions about how to represent these processes.

Even so, Mann said, certain predictions are based on physics and chemistry that are so fundamental, such as the atmospheric greenhouse effect, that the resulting predictions — that surface temperatures should warm, ice should melt and sea level should rise — are robust no matter the assumptions.
http://www.livescience.com/19466-climat ... usted.html

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby kramer » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:14 pm

crayegg wrote:Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing.


At 12 o'clock noon, the rays of the Sun are the strongest. Yet the hottest time of day is 3 hrs later, around 3pm.

Are you sure there isn't a similar (and longer) lag with the activity of the sun and global temperatures?


crayegg wrote: Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

A PNAS paper which I have posted here has said that half of the recent warming is from nature. And Al Gore has said that scientists have reported that CO2 is only responsible for about 40% of the warming.

50% * 40% is 20%.

What is the"20%?" It's the amount of warming that *CO2* is more likely responsible for.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby kramer » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:19 pm

Fordama wrote:I knew Kramer was going to show up with some Alex Jones-like post full of scrawl!

Fordama

I knew my factual and science based responses would so flummox you that you'd say something incredibly stupid. You exceeded my expectations and came thru in spades...
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby kramer » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:23 pm

Fordama wrote:Actually, that is the highly flawed logic that our media presents--that both sides of an issue carry equal weight. Only an extreme minority of astrophysicists and climatologists stand on the side that the Sun is a large cause in the current global warming.


That PNAS paper I posted says that half of the recent warming is from natural causes. So, what could have caused this warming?

And then when you consider that Al Gore once reported that scientists now say that CO2 is responsible for only about 40% of the warming, that means at best, CO2 is responsible for about 20% of the warming.

Damn pesky science...

Fordama wrote:Neil Degrasse-Tyson talks about this phenomena of "presenting both sides" as though equal weight should always be given to both. That may work well when talking politics, religions, etc, but that's just not how science works.


Climate 'science' isn't science. It's politics.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18125
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby Fordama » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:27 pm

kramer wrote:I knew my factual and science based responses....

Ive been waiting for that sort of thing for years. Half of what you posted had little to do with what I actually said.

But there was a lot of it!

Image
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby kramer » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:31 pm

Fordama wrote: flowers are blooming earlier,


But this spring, local wildflower watchers say bluebonnets and their usual sidekicks, Indian paintbrushes, are sparse.

“Everywhere is about two weeks late,” said Spencer Moore, a Waco optometrist known for photographing 
eagles at Lake Waco. “They’re coming out, but just a smattering of them. I think this is going to be one of those off years.”

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/environmen ... 734d0.html


The National Park Service announced today that the peak bloom for the famed cherry blossoms will come a week later than originally estimated. Instead of peaking between March 26-30, said the service, they will be in full glory from April 3-6.

http://dcist.com/2013/03/peak_bloom_for ... s_push.php

... but it's cold outside!


seeinred wrote:Myth: The planet can't be warming when my front yard is covered in several feet of snow. … This winter has been one of the chilliest, how is that possible in a warming world?

Science: Local temperatures taken as individual data points have nothing to do with the long-term trend of global warming. These local ups and downs in weather and temperature can hide a slower-moving uptick in long-term climate. To get a real bead on global warming, scientists rely on changes in weather over a long period of time.


The warming has essentially stopped for 17 years. How much longer "period of time" do we need of this (assuming it continues) to conclude that something has changed?

seeinred wrote:To find climate trends you need to look at how weather is changing over a longer time span. Looking at high and low temperature data from recent decades shows that new record highs occur nearly twice as often as new record lows.


Does this statement take into effect urban sprawl? We already know that UHI (Urban Heat Island) effects can be almost 22 degrees F from within a city to the nearby countryside. This means that thermometers that were measuring temperature decades ago in rural areas and which are now in urban areas are going to read much higher.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18125
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby Fordama » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:40 pm

Awesome--your answer about the flowers was one giant fallacy addressed in the original post, but you didn't even notice!


Image
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby kramer » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:41 pm

Fordama wrote:Ive been waiting for that sort of thing for years. Half of what you posted had little to do with what I actually said.


All of what I posted directly refuted the parts of your post that I quoted. That's why you don't directly respond to them and instead opt to make pronouncements and spew bull crap. That's your M.O.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Six Persistant Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby kramer » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:43 pm

seeinred wrote:The sun is to blame


Myth: Over the past few hundred years, the sun's activity, including the number of sunspots, has increased, causing the world to get warmer.


Science: In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend, while the climate has been heating up, scientists say. In the past century, solar activity can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount. (Solar activity refers to the activity of the sun's magnetic field and includes magnetic field-powered sunspots and solar flares.)

A study published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics in December 2011 revealed that even during a prolonged lull in the sun's activity, Earth still continued to warm. The study researchers found that the Earth absorbed 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter than escaped back into space during the study period from 2005 to 2010, a time when solar activity was low.
http://www.livescience.com/19466-climat ... usted.html



What time of day are the rays of the Sun the strongest?
12 noon.

What time of day is the hottest?
around 3pm.

Now do some thinking...
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby kramer » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:49 pm

seeinred wrote:Don't worry, it's not that bad


Myth: Some have pointed to human history as evidence that warm periods are good for people, while the cold, unstable stints have been catastrophic.

Science: Climate scientists say any positives are far outweighed by the negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, human health, the economy and the environment. For instance, according to one 2007 study, a warming planet may mean an increased growing season in Greenland; but it also means water shortages, more frequent and more intense wildfires and expanding deserts.
http://www.livescience.com/19466-climat ... usted.html




Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor

I hope that guy never gets to hear Dyson’s most heretical assertion: Atmospheric CO-2 may actually be improving the environment.

"It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation," Dyson said. "About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO-2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil."

In fact, there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO-2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/20 ... stein.html


More benefits than negatives to putting more plant and tree food in the air according to Einstein's successor. This directly contradicts the claim at the top of this post.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18125
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby Fordama » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:50 pm

kramer wrote:
All of what I posted directly refuted the parts of your post that I quoted..

Actually, it didn't. A couple weren't even in the same ballpark!

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby kramer » Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:37 pm

Fordama wrote:Actually, it didn't. A couple weren't even in the same ballpark!

Fordama


Everything I posted knocked the claims of your (peer reviewed???) source out of the ballpark.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18125
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Postby Fordama » Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:25 am

kramer wrote:
Everything I posted knocked the claims of your (peer reviewed???) source out of the ballpark.

Except that it had little connection to reality.

Carbon cycle--learn it, love it, live it.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

Return to “Science and Technology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest