CU-Boulder prof speaks on mass media role in climate change skepticism

February 22, 2010

Mass media have been a key vehicle by which climate change contrarianism has traveled, according to Maxwell Boykoff, a University of Colorado at Boulder professor and fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, or CIRES.

Boykoff, an assistant professor of environmental studies, presented his research today at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego. He spoke during a panel discussion titled "Understanding Skepticism: Its Sources and Strategies."

Boykoff's segment was titled "Exaggerating Denialism: Media Representations of Outlier Views on Climate Change" and discussed prominent pitfalls.

"One problem occurs when outlier viewpoints are not individually evaluated in context," said Boykoff. "A variety of influences and perspectives typically have been collapsed by into one general category of skepticism. This has been detrimental both in terms of dismissing legitimate critiques of or policy, as well as amplifying extreme and tenuous claims."

Such claims are amplified when traditional news media position noncredible contrarian sources against those with scientific data, in a failed effort to represent opposing sides, said Boykoff.

Another issue in mass media is the tendency to flatly report on both the claims of contrarians, as well as the accusations made about their claims and motives, he said. The ensuing finger-pointing plays into the conflict, drama and personalized stories that drive news. It also distracts attention from critical institutional and societal challenges regarding carbon consumption that calls citizen behaviors, actions and decisions to account.

"Reducing climate science and policy considerations to a tit-for-tat between dueling personalities comes at the expense of appraising fundamental challenges regarding the necessary de-carbonization of industry and society," said Boykoff.

Among various and ongoing research strategies, Boykoff -- in partnership with Maria Mansfield from Exeter University and the University of Oxford -- has tracked climate change coverage in 50 newspapers in 20 countries and six continents since 2004. Boykoff also has looked at how climate science and policy find meaning and traction in people's everyday lives through work in the United States, United Kingdom and India.

Speakers Stephen Schneider from Stanford University; Naomi Oreskes from the University of California, San Diego; William Freudenburg from the University of California, Santa Barbara; and Riley Dunlap from Oklahoma State University joined Boykoff on the panel.

More information: For more information on Boykoff's research visit http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/max_boykoff/

Provided by University of Colorado at Boulder (news : web)

view popular send feedback to editors
2.2 /5 (19 votes)  

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

Loodt
Feb 22, 2010

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (12)
Understanding Climate Change Skepticism: Its Sources and Strategies."

It doesn't pass the smell test!
frenchie
Feb 22, 2010

Rank: 2.9 / 5 (8)
Although i'm not even sure what the "smell" test is, i'm assuming you mean that since you do not agree with the study you just think it stinks.

Are you stating this point simply because you do not believe in climate change or because you believe the study is actually flawed?
TegiriNenashi
Feb 22, 2010

Rank: 2.1 / 5 (11)
That is exactly what we need: a study of other studies and their newspaper coverage. Apparently the issue grew so big that it can support the most ridiculous parasitic activity.
Newbeak
Feb 22, 2010

Rank: 2.1 / 5 (7)
The scary thing to me is that no one,not even the climate experts,understands this subject.As well,I cringe when I read that dire projections are based on computer models,which are accepted as gospel. Citizens are asked to vote on the adoption of measures that will end up costing mankind literally trillions.
I guess I should be happy.Whether or not climate change is man-made or natural,whole new economic sectors are being brought into being with the resultant creation of millions of jobs.
JayK
Feb 22, 2010

Rank: 3.3 / 5 (16)
..accepted as gospel.

You don't know much about the subject, do you? You don't realize that predictive models are tested against actual data and compared in order to give error bars, do you? You don't even remotely understand about scientific models, do you?

And your anti-intellectualism in the statement "not even the climate experts" is pretty clear, either that or you've swallowed the anti-science dogma of people like Anthony Watts and his blog of fail.
Sean_W
Feb 22, 2010

Rank: 2.4 / 5 (14)
That was just the saddest article I've seen in weeks. "Extreme claims" and "outlier opinions" and "contrarianism" being given too much media time? In other words, the big stupid meanies won't shut the hell up. Climatology isn't a science; it's a daycare for half a dozen cranky toddlers with PhDs.
Newbeak
Feb 22, 2010

Rank: 3.4 / 5 (8)
I certainly don't know much about the subject,I agree,no more than the average person. Yes,I do understand that in science,a hypothesis is formulated,and compared against collected data. You aren't seriously suggesting climatologists know exactly what is going on,do you? They are admittedly making progress,but this is a young science. I get the feeling your view is akin to suggesting cancer researchers completely understand the nature of cancer and a cure for all forms is in hand.
It is not in the nature of scientific enquiry to refuse to listen to opposing views,but that is what people like you are determined to do.
There are precedents to your stance in the history of scientific discovery.One that comes to mind is the stubborn resistance of the established medical community to the idea that a bacterium is responsible for stomach ulcers.
I will not argue with you that reducing man-made pollution is a not a noble goal,and will result in many new jobs and a boost to the economy
phlipper
Feb 22, 2010

Rank: 2 / 5 (8)
The study looked into how contrairians were not catagorized - credible scientific criticisms vs "nut case" critics. MSM tends to lump them together. From the article, it is not at all clear how the researchers could recognize the difference. One of these days soon, it will be the warmers who are the contrairians. We will then need to catorigizem them. I wonder which group we should put Al Gore in, the scientific deniers or the bafoon brigade?
JayK
Feb 22, 2010

Rank: 3 / 5 (14)
Here is the thing, newbeak, the deniers have set themselves into an opposing camp that acts as if anyone that understands the current science and supports the theory that man's current CO2 emissions are currently making the Earth warmer, are all part of some vast conspiracy. The way this shows up is in anti-intellectualism, such as calling it a "young science" or that by not understanding an incredibly complex system that it is somehow less valid than neurobiology or yes, even germ theory. The scientific theory that CO2 and other trace gases form an absorption layer in the atmosphere isn't at all new.
Parsec
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 4.1 / 5 (7)
The point of the article was that the MSM makes no distinction between people who know what they are talking about and the fools who do not.

Both supporters and deniers of current AGW understanding should be concerned about this. There is valid and important evidence that AGW is real, and there is also valid and important evidence that we do not fully understand the systems we are analyzing. At the least we need to know what we do not know.

Unless we discuss the real, scientific information we have, we cannot reach valid conclusions. It then becomes a political football in which action depends on who has the most leverage, not what is the best policy.
toyo
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
I wonder whether Boykoff's study also picked up on deliberate misrepresentation by the media, such as that done by AP when they gave independent scientists the set of emails and data hacked during Climategate and then came back with the headlines: "Science not faked, but not pretty".
Remember that? A lot of news media carried that report.
The Washington Post then did a follow-up with those self-same scientists and the picture they paint is somewhat different. See for yourself the article :
Washington Times editorial, Monday, December 28, 2009.
Now why would AP do that?
Why are they misrepresenting the views of those scientists?
Why is THAT not discussed in this article?
Ah yes, he talks about : "the necessary de-carbonization of industry and society"... ah, well then... he's already reached his conclusions anyway, a little deceit by the media can always be overlooked, especially if it supports one's own convictions, can't it?
JayK
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 3 / 5 (12)
Washington Post or the Washington Times? Also, you're talking about an editorial that rephrased what was said, then went "oooga booga!" with respect to it. What the scientists said the second time around really wasn't that much different than the AP reported. There was no deceit, at least none that you or the Washington (Something) has proven.

Don't you need to go prove aliens abducted your sheep or something?
Skeptic_Heretic
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 2.7 / 5 (3)
such as calling it a "young science" or that by not understanding an incredibly complex system that it is somehow less valid than neurobiology or yes, even germ theory.

Funny that you name two sciences that are also both very young.

Climatology is a new field as of about the 40's when the US became interested in how regional terrain affects the yield of nuclear weapons and how the climate stirs the radioactive material.

Prior to that the research was considered "Earth Sciences" and included geology, meterology, and a lot of other fields.
joefarah
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 1.8 / 5 (10)
Talk about calling the kettle black! Where do you think the GW propaganda came from?! (Hint: not from scientifically valid data. Hint 2: A. Gor_ Hint 3: Med_a Hint 4: IPC_'s Age_d_) Fill in the blanks to get the answers.
JayK
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 3.2 / 5 (9)
And there is joefarah, alleging that the data is fake (anti-intellectualism) but never actually providing proof of that.

Good job joefarah! Now do you have something useful to add or are you just going to run away, as usual?
3432682
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 2.8 / 5 (11)
Maybe if skeptics weren't treated like dirt, studies like this, designed to smear skeptics, would not be necessary.
1. Completely one-sided pro-warming news coverage
2. Ignoring the warnings of skeptics
3. Conspiracies of alarmist scientists to block the papers and comments of skeptics
4. Withholding data, including ignoring FOIA requests for years
5. Refusing to debate
6. Vilifying skeptics, like this study and article does
7. Calling for the prosecution of skeptics
8. Accusing skeptics of being in the employ of oil and coal companies
9. Completely one-sided funding of science examining climate; blackballing skeptics
10. Ignoring decisive studies debunking predictions of the IPCC
11. Ignoring major climate alternative explanations such as cosmic rays and Earth orbit changes
12. Falsification of the land temperature records
13. Full spectrum prediction of dire consequences
14. Writing IPCC conclusions 6 months before the science reports are completed
-- etc etc etc
JayK
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 2.8 / 5 (11)
@3432682: Usually you just drop these comments like little pellets and then run, but just in case you're serious:

Skeptics have not put forth a scientific argument against AGW. Putting the two on equal footing, as you have attempted to do, is a false equivalent. It is similar to putting a professional biologist in a debate against a Creationist. The biologist has thousands of studies to fall back on, that are incredibly complex and take a long time to explain, and the other side can just sit there and cast aspersions far and wide, moving the goalposts and never actually answering a question that requires facts.

For an example of someone that attempted to play this game and has been caught: http://www.newswe...d/233942

And if you can ever show proof of your number 10 or 12, for instance, please do. I'd love to see it, I need a good laugh.
Skeptic_Heretic
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 2.6 / 5 (7)
Skeptics have not put forth a scientific argument against AGW. Putting the two on equal footing, as you have attempted to do, is a false equivalent.

Not really. AGW is a hypothesis that needs to be validated. The multiple hypotheses contrary to AGW are in the same stage of the method.

Your biologist/creationist statement is way off base. The skeptical within the AGW debate are not making grandeois statements when they say there has been no statistically significant warming, or that the link between CO2 and temperature aren't well understood. Both statements are completely accurate.

Making lists of points and other silliness doesn't further the discussion for anyone.
JayK
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 3 / 5 (12)
no statistically significant warming

I'm sorry, but the data disagrees, and the conclusions of scientists that have studied it is pretty conclusive across multiple earth sciences. We've had this argument before, though.
link between CO2 and temperature aren't well understood

And yet just because the link isn't totally understood doesn't falsify the science, nor does it make the conclusions false. The absorption spectrum and the acidification of the oceans is pretty well backed up by current data, as well as proxy.

cont:
JayK
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 3.2 / 5 (11)
See, you're claiming that small concerns within climate science = validation of skepticism of all the climate science. I can come up with thousands of instances where scientists use algorithms that are based on dropping unknown offset constants, or unsolvable portions of equations that would only change the answers by 2%. All data has error measurements, you know that. When the error margins on the data keeps getting smaller and smaller, at some point you have to acknowledge that the data has the substance you're requiring.
thermodynamics
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Just a minor comment on all of the banter that is taking place. It is important to know how the scientific process works. A hypothesis is put forward, it is then tested. However, the testing is usually to attempt to falsify the hypothesis (thereby ruling it out and showing that an alternative must be sought). Falsification is the approach because it is, normally, impossible to include all conditions to prove something true in a general setting. For instance, if I were testing a boiler (something I do) for a specific reaction product based on the hypothesis that it will occur, I look for it NOT to occur because there are too many variables for an occurrence to show other than a very narrow "proof" whereas if it fails I know I have to start over. Falsification is an important part of hypothesis testing. (I hate the 1000 character limit and will have to carry this over to a second post).
thermodynamics
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Continuing my last post: In the process of testing a hypothesis we try to predict and then look for a failure of prediction. It is important to know what we are looking at and to make sure that we are really testing what we hypothesize instead of testing a side effect of something else. That is why laboratory experiments designed to test a specific effect are simplified. Also, an important part of our effort to test is our ability to predict. We predict (using our hypothesis) and then test to see if the prediction is within the error limits of our experiment. Generally we set up a set of tests ahead of time and then make those tests to be sure that the uncertainty in the experiment is taken into consideration to test the predictions. What seems to be lost in these discussions is that we use computer models to make those predictions and then we test them. Modeling is an important part of modern experimentation. (continued)
thermodynamics
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Continued from my last post: The process is: 1) Produce a hypothesis. 2) Decide how to use the hypothesis to produce testable experiments to attempt to falsify the hypothesis. 3) Run the experiments and examine the statistics to define your uncertainty in measurements, and determine if you have met the criteria for statistical significant falsification. If you have not been able to falsify the hypothesis this does not "prove" the hypothesis correct. It only limits the uncertainty in applying the hypothesis to prediction in technical approximations (I use the term approximations because nothing is exact in the physical world). What is happening in the realm of climate science is they are producing hypotheses and modeling the response based on these hypotheses and testing them against the response of the earth. (Continued again)
thermodynamics
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Continued from the last post: Modeling is an important part of every complex technical effort these days. Your cars are modeled, your airplanes are modeled. Everything is modeled. Those who discount the usefulness of models do not understand modern engineering and science. Those who proclaim the science "settled" do not understand science. However, I have seen no credible tests of the basic tenants of the contribution of greenhouse gases to the warming of the planet that falsify the fundamental theory of heat trapping. There are many other hypotheses suggesting mechanisms for climate change (as opposed to heat trapping) that have been tested and found to fail and are being modified or replaced. Those will continue to be tested. What I do not see is counter hypotheses that have been put forward for attempted falsification by the groups that claim that greenhouse gases are not important. There is a long way to go, but the scientific method should be used at each step.
thermodynamics
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Continued: I look at the 14 items listed by 3432682 and I do not see any testable claims except number 11. However, let me address the comments in number 11. The comment about cosmic rays is interesting because there have been a number of tests of the hypotheses and they have falsified it as originally presented. However, scientists being what they are, the hypothesis has been revised and is being tested again. PhysOrg has covered the on-going investigations of the cosmic ray possibility. I am interested in the continued investigations and a better understanding of how it does affect things. As for the other part of number 11, the changes in Earth's orbit are always taken into consideration in even the simplest of the GCMs. If in no other way than to limit the time frame of the simulation to assign an acceptable boundary condition to the change in orbit. Continued again
thermodynamics
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Continued again: However, there are a number of other items that must be taken into consideration such as cloud cover, solar variance, sun spots, ocean currents, and many other items. It is important to know that each of these conditions must have an hypothesis attached to it and those hypotheses must be tested for falsification. While that is being done, the influence of these parts of the climate are approximated with associated error bars. The global circulation models are not perfect and everyone with a lick of sanity will acknowledge that. However, they are not useless. Many good scientists are working to improve the models and they are getting better. Those who dismiss them have not tried to improve them (that I am aware of). Instead they have derided them and those working hard to produce them. (continued again).
thermodynamics
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
What needs to happen is that those on both sides of this argument need to provide testable hypotheses as well as the data and methods of analysis so that everyone starts to trust each other. The very poor behavior of some scientists is well documented and they should be held accountable for their unprofessional behavior. However, they should also be recognized specifically so the others working in the field are not tarred with the same brush. Name calling on both sides is appalling. This is science and there should be an effort to test the hypotheses and get better answers for those making decisions. However, at every step the scientific method should be used. If you don't understand it, read up on it. If you do understand it, then ask the question: "Is my position falsifiable?" Stop carping about the people involved and focus on the science. Make useful suggestions, and stop flinging mud.
marjon
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
Why should anyone consider mass media research by an assistant professor in environmental studies more credible than any other non-expert in mass media?
omatumr
Feb 23, 2010

Rank: 2.1 / 5 (7)
Maxwell Boykoff failed to mention the discovery of deception and data manipulation by those promoting CO2-induced global warming.

Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" turned out to be a "Convenient Untruth" for scientists who were willing to fudge data for research grants.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Studies
Former NASA PI for Apollo
JayK
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 2.5 / 5 (8)
Did it just get ego in here?

Oh hi, Oliver, I couldn't see you for your ego. Nice to see you making the rounds across the internet again.
toyo
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 2.5 / 5 (8)
Washington Post or the Washington Times? Also, ... What the scientists said the second time around really wasn't that much different than the AP reported. There was no deceit, at least none that you or the Washington (Something) has proven.

Well JayK you got one thing right, it was the Washington Times.
However your re-phrasing of the WT editorial is even more biased than the AP article.
Belittling a well-put-together commentary on the AP deceit shows you up for what you really are, denigrating any informed dissent.
I would not normally take the trouble to answer your riposte to my earlier comment, if it wasn't for the fact that you seem to have made PhysOrg your playground, lowering the tone of the debate.
Here's just one quote from the WT editorial:
"There's a big difference between saying that there isn't sufficient evidence to determine if falsification of data occurred - and that there should be an investigation - and saying, as AP did: "Science not faked."
Skeptic_Heretic
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
See, you're claiming that small concerns within climate science = validation of skepticism of all the climate science. I can come up with thousands of instances where scientists use algorithms that are based on dropping unknown offset constants, or unsolvable portions of equations that would only change the answers by 2%. All data has error measurements, you know that. When the error margins on the data keeps getting smaller and smaller, at some point you have to acknowledge that the data has the substance you're requiring.
They said the Earth was flat, then revised their statement based on narrowing down the margin of error in their measurements.

This is the same discussion. So are your models off by feet or inches? You don't know, I don't know, no one knows. Until we refine the measurement again, this one is in question.
JayK
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 2.7 / 5 (7)
You know you don't have an argument when your signature is more characters than your actual comment.

As for you, toyo, why don't you let me know when you find proof of fraud, as the Washington Times alleged, but didn't prove.

Skeptic, the Earth was considered flat not just from observational error, but because the people were told to believe it. Yet most of us have been on the edge of vast plains or deserts that show us a curvature that is impossible to ignore.
Skeptic_Heretic
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Yet most of us have been on the edge of vast plains or deserts that show us a curvature that is impossible to ignore.


If you're looking for it.
JayK
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
If you're looking for it.

As long as one weighs less than a duck, you could easily make the observation to the rest of your tribe without fear of death.
Skeptic_Heretic
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
If you're looking for it.

As long as one weighs less than a duck, you could easily make the observation to the rest of your tribe without fear of death.

You've missed the point.

Rather than fearing tribal death those who state CO2 MAY NOT be the cause are immediatly assaulted with cries of "Denialist" "Liar" "Oil shill", akin to the old cries of "heretic" "sinner" "godless heathen".

Meanwhile no one is looking at the horizon.

Even you said that my commentary will be painted with a "denialist" brush simply because of what I say. Perhaps you need to take another look and remind yourself that the Earth may not be as obvious as what's beneathe your feet.
JayK
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
Skeptic, you have to admit that your capabilities and your comments are unlike any others on this site, or any other site. You are a rare individual and it is unfortunate that some of your arguments appear as echoes of denialist rhetoric.

In actuality, I don't really understand your opposition to the concept of CO2 being a major component of warming.

Maybe a summary of your views to these questions would be helpful:

1) The globe is showing significant warming since the industrial age.
2) CO2 concentrations in atmospheric measurements have shown a steady growth.
3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Lets just start there.
Skeptic_Heretic
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 3.2 / 5 (5)
1)Agreed
2)Agreed
3)agreed

Now here's where it goes kaboom.

Typically the skepitical have no disagreement with any of the above, however, what I disagree with is when you say that number 3 and number 2 MUST BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NUMBER 1 and state that since 2 and 3 are true then 1 must be true because of 2 and 3.

The truth of the matter is we have no idea why it's getting warmer and that statistically significant warming has stopped or temporarily paused. To attribute such huge energy changes in such a giant system by manipulating such a small amount of a small content trace gas is intellectually offensive without hard definitive statements of how exactly it works. It's like blaming an ant for sinking the combined navies of the entire world.

So what are your next questions?
JayK
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 2.8 / 5 (8)
I'm just setting up a baseline for understanding your position, I want to know more.

Gavin Schmidt discusses the ideas of the plateau:
http://www.realcl...g-pause/

I disagree with his dismissal of solar radiation, however, but he makes the statistical case that this "pause" is nothing in the great scheme of things.

Camp and Tung have this journal entry that indicates solar forcing contributes an average of .18 deg C on the 11 year cycle

http://www.amath....007b.pdf

And more supporting evidence of greenhouse warming from them in another article:

http://www.amath....-jgr.pdf

The last one supports a conclusion of 3.2 deg C from the IPCC on the doubling of CO2.
Skeptic_Heretic
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
Camp and Tung have this journal entry that indicates solar forcing contributes an average of .18 deg C on the 11 year cycle
From the link:
we obtain a global warming signal of almost 0.2 K
attributable to the 11-year solar cycle.

Degrees Kelvin, not Celsius or Farenheit. That wasn't intellectually honest of you in the least.
Also in that same abstract
The problem of solar-cycle response is interesting in its own right, for it is one of the rare natural global phenomena that have not yet been successfully explained.

Effectively they have said "We don't know". That's what most of these papers say when you actually read them all the way through.

Your third link:
The
change in the solar constant amounts to about 0.90 Wm^-2
for the last three cycles.
0.90 Watts per square decimeter is a fairly large variance.

JayK
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 3.9 / 5 (7)
You are correct, I made a mistake in my units. My sincerest apologies.

I actually was looking at their figure 1 graph which shows the y axis in deg C, not in deg K, however. It might be an error in their paper, one which should be noted somewhere. Yet, at the temperature ranges that are being discussed, a single degree C is equivalent to a degree K
http://www.sensor...ion.html
So while I typed C and they used K, they are actually equivalent and you sniped at me for no reason.
marjon
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
You are correct, I made a mistake in my units. My sincerest apologies.

I actually was looking at their figure 1 graph which shows the y axis in deg C, not in deg K, however. It might be an error in their paper, one which should be noted somewhere. Yet, at the temperature ranges that are being discussed, a single degree C is equivalent to a degree K
http://www.sensor...ion.html
So while I typed C and they used K, they are actually equivalent and you sniped at me for no reason.

There is such thing as 'degree K'. Kelvin is an absolute unit.
The difference between 0 deg C and 1 deg C is 1K.
100 deg C is not equivalent to 100K.
0 deg C = 273.15K.
Skeptic_Heretic
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
So while I typed C and they used K, they are actually equivalent and you sniped at me for no reason.

No, not in the least.

Kelvin is a true measure of thermic energy where as the "degree" on the celsius or farenheit scale is relative to pressure and other external non-relevant forces. C and K are only parallel units of measure in deep space where pressure and other factors are negligible and only true thermal value can be measured as opposed to the conversion of other energies to thermic energy by way of vibration.

Now, is .2K equal to .2 degrees Celsius? At 1 atmosphere, yes, at less than one atmosphere, not by a long shot. Under less pressure your K measurement will remain the same while your C measurement will sharply decline.

In regards to this paper, their percieved change could mean .2 degrees C at the coast while it could mean 0.01 degree C at an elevation of 500 feet.
As for sniping make sure you can take it before you dish it out:)
marjon
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)


Now, is .2K equal to .2 degrees Celsius? At 1 atmosphere, yes, at less than one atmosphere, not by a long shot. Under less pressure your K measurement will remain the same while your C measurement will sharply decline.



"The kelvin, unit of thermodynamic temperature, is the fraction 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water."

"The unit of Celsius temperature is the degree Celsius, symbol °C, which is by definition equal in magnitude to the kelvin."
http://physics.ni...vin.html
marjon
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
The kelvin, unit of thermodynamic temperature, is the fraction 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water.

The unit of Celsius temperature is the degree Celsius, symbol °C, which is by definition equal in magnitude to the kelvin.

http://physics.ni...vin.html
PinkElephant
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
@Skeptic_Heretic,
Degrees Kelvin, not Celsius or Farenheit.
It is very easy to convert from C to K: take the temperature in C, and add 273.15. 1 degree C represents exactly the same temperature delta as 1 degree K. The difference is that K takes the absolute zero as the 0 of its scale (so K physically can't go negative), whereas C takes the freezing point of distilled water under 1 atmosphere as the 0 of its scale (which on the K scale, corresponds to a temperature of 273.15.)
Your third link:
The change in the solar constant amounts to about 0.90 Wm^-2 for the last three cycles.
0.90 Watts per square decimeter is a fairly large variance.
Actually, that's 0.9 Watts per square METER.
marjon
Feb 24, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
@Skeptic_Heretic,
Degrees Kelvin, not Celsius or Farenheit.
It is very easy to convert from C to K: take the temperature in C, and add 273.15. 1 degree C represents exactly the same temperature delta as 1 degree K. The difference is that K takes the absolute zero as the 0 of its scale (so K physically can't go negative), whereas C takes the freezing point of distilled water under 1 atmosphere as the 0 of its scale (which on the K scale, corresponds to a temperature of 273.15.)
Your third link:
The change in the solar constant amounts to about 0.90 Wm^-2 for the last three cycles.
0.90 Watts per square decimeter is a fairly large variance.
Actually, that's 0.9 Watts per square METER.

Degree K has no meaning.
Do you use 'irregardless'?
Skeptic_Heretic
Feb 25, 2010

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)

It is very easy to convert from C to K: take the temperature in C, and add 273.15. 1 degree C represents exactly the same temperature delta as 1 degree K. The difference is that K takes the absolute zero as the 0 of its scale (so K physically can't go negative), whereas C takes the freezing point of distilled water under 1 atmosphere as the 0 of its scale (which on the K scale, corresponds to a temperature of 273.15.)
Only when measuring thermic energy solely. Read the whole statement.

Actually, that's 0.9 Watts per square METER.

Take another look

w/m^-2 is decimeter. NEGATIVE two, not 2.

With the amount of ad hominems you guys toss around from time to time one would expect you to be perfect in your understanding of the terminology and symbols at play.
thermodynamics
Feb 25, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Skeptic: I must need a tutorial. You wrote: "Kelvin is a true measure of thermic energy where as the "degree" on the celsius or farenheit scale is relative to pressure and other external non-relevant forces. C and K are only parallel units of measure in deep space where pressure and other factors are negligible and only true thermal value can be measured as opposed to the conversion of other energies to thermic energy by way of vibration."

I have no idea where you came up with this. The papers that were displayed used changes in temperature "delta-T" (that is my representation for the usual delta so don't look for it in the paper). When looking at the difference between temperatures, K and deg C are identical. They only differ when you use them as absolute temperatures. What really confuses me is the idea that C has something to do with pressure or something else. Please explain how you came up with that strange idea. I'm looking forward to this one.
PinkElephant
Feb 26, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
@Skeptic_Heretic,
Only when measuring thermic energy solely. Read the whole statement.
No. You're just flat-out wrong. Kelvin and Celcius are exactly the same scale. The only difference, is how the origin of the scale is defined.
Take another look

w/m^-2 is decimeter. NEGATIVE two, not 2.
No, you take another look. The original statement was not "w/m^-2", it was "Wm^-2", which is the same as W/m^2. Or have you never encountered negative exponents in your introductory Algebra?
croghan27
Feb 27, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
thermodynamics ... good posting .... that is what I do all day as well - start up furnaces/boilers and that is the process I use to find unpredictable anomolies.

If a piece of equipment does not operate in the predictated way - as in the theory of its' operation is false - the I look for something wrong with the equipment, not the theory.
Mesafina
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
This has got to be the most intelligent conversation on this topic I have seen on this site in a while. Despite everyone's disagreements, I hope you all appreciate that you all are able to have a reasonably honest discussion and expose errors in each other's thinking in a mostly non-derogatory manner.

Kudos to you all.
superhuman
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
The problem with AGW is A which stands for anthropogenic - there is simply no conclusive evidence that humans are responsible for significant portion of observed warming.

The only "evidence" provided by supporters of AGW is based on computer climate models, but those models have never been proven to accurately model global climate. From scientific point of view such models are not trustworthy and cannot be relied upon. Before a model can be taken seriously it has to be verified against experiments. Only when we have a climate model which can repeatedly and successfully model global climate many decades ahead we will be able to tell what effects man-made emissions have on climate. This will require running the models twice - once with and once without man-made emissions and comparing results. This is the *only* way science can answer the question of human impact on climate since experiments are impossible.

Until that happens AGW will remain nothing more then a plausible hypothesis.
mosahlah
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
The AGW crowd is found religion on a house of cards built of some really shaky assumptions. SO lets start with the base and work our way up:
1st: The earth is really warming. (I can't see it)
2nd: It really is caused by human activity.(faith)
3rd: It will continue catastrophically.(prophecy)
4th: We can control the temperature of the Earth by economical means.(Al says we can perform miracles right now)
5th: The effect of AGW is clearly worse than the cure. (devine scriptures)
If any of these fail to meet objective scientific standards, we are wasting our souls with this crusade.
Bloodoflamb
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
@mosahlah
1) You can't see the quantum mechanical nature of the universe.
2) We don't know that gravity is actually a manifestation of spacetime curvature due to the presence mass-energy.
3) We can't be sure that the current physical description of reality will still hold 10 seconds from now.
4) Not sure what to say to this one. If we assume that the humans can affect an increase in temperature, you think it does not follow that we can also affect a decrease or at least a stabilization?
5) No one claims to know the exact future consequences of a possible increase in global surface temperatures. Similarly, no one claims to know definitively whether someone's house in Florida will be struck by a hurricane, but it's still better to be prepared than to just let it happen and deal with it afterwards.

Is the planet currently being heated by human activity? Maybe. Will we ever know definitively? Possibly. Are efforts to curb carbon emissions inherently bad? No.
marjon
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Are efforts to curb carbon emissions inherently bad? No.

Are efforts to curb carbon emission inherently good? No.
Bloodoflamb
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Are efforts to curb carbon emissions inherently bad? No.

Are efforts to curb carbon emission inherently good? No.

I would say that the effort to reduce carbon emissions will ALWAYS produce positive results. Even if we're not warming the planet in a STATISTICALLY MEANINGFUL way (because we are warming it at the very least in a statistically insignificant way), reducing carbon emissions corresponds to reducing the net use of combustion of organic materials to power our ever increasing energy dependent economy. This will reduce the creation of chemicals harmful not only to plants and Bambi, but also to humans. Have you ever seen fly-ash ponds? They're disgusting.
marjon
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
I would say that the effort to reduce carbon emissions will ALWAYS produce positive results

So you advocate everyone must stop breathing?
stvnwlsn
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
It's amazing how many people on here get there "science" from FAUX (FOX) news. It's like the stupidity I saw in a Kentucky senate debate where they were saying we should not be afraid of carbon "one of the most abundant substances in the universe". THE LAST DECADE WAS THE WARMEST ON RECORD. I don't know what planet you are all living on.
marjon
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
THE LAST DECADE WAS THE WARMEST ON RECORD.

That is not true, but how long is the record?
The 30's were very warm and those few decades about 1000 years ago were quite warm.
Not to mention when dinosaurs roamed about.
If your assertion were true, people around the world are flocking to places that have warmer climates. Now they won't have to move so far.
Better hold your breath, you are breathing out CARBON!
stvnwlsn
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
The CO2 I'm exhaling is not nearly as potent a greanhouse gas as the methane you're spewing.
Bloodoflamb
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
So you advocate everyone must stop breathing?

I did not say or imply this. Do you know what a strawman is?
marjon
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
So you advocate everyone must stop breathing?

I did not say or imply this. Do you know what a strawman is?

Do you understand the absurdity of saying all carbon emissions must be curbed?
marjon
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
The CO2 I'm exhaling is not nearly as potent a greanhouse gas as the methane you're spewing.

Do you propose mandatory use of Beano to cut methane emissions?
Water is the most potent greenhouse gas. How do you propose to regulate water vapor emissions? Set all tea kettles to shut off at 98 deg C?
Or maybe we all need to wear 'stil' suits as the natives of Dune wore.
Bloodoflamb
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
So you advocate everyone must stop breathing?

I did not say or imply this. Do you know what a strawman is?

Do you understand the absurdity of saying all carbon emissions must be curbed?

Do you understand the absurdity of assigning an argument to someone who did not make that argument?
marjon
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
So you advocate everyone must stop breathing?

I did not say or imply this. Do you know what a strawman is?

Do you understand the absurdity of saying all carbon emissions must be curbed?

Do you understand the absurdity of assigning an argument to someone who did not make that argument?

I would say that the effort to reduce carbon emissions will ALWAYS produce positive results.

That's what you said. Define carbon emissions since exhaled CO2 is a carbon emission. Reducing those emissions won't produce positive results for those living things that are exhaling poison gas.
Bloodoflamb
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
I DID say that. Very good! Now, tell me how saying that positive results will occur in efforts to reduce carbon emissions entails that I believe that everyone should stop breathing.

I wish you the best of luck, because there is no way to show it. More precisely, it is a FALSE assertion!
JayK
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
Bloodoflamb, you're arguing with an idiot, I hope you realize.
Bloodoflamb
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
I'm not sure I'm arguing. I think it's more accurately described as stating. Or perhaps trouncing?
marjon
Feb 28, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
Bloodoflamb, you're arguing with an idiot, I hope you realize.

I think it is idiotic for the EPA to try and regulate a gas all humans exhale.
Sanescience
Mar 01, 2010

Rank: 3.2 / 5 (5)
AGW was under peoples radar for a long time, then they started getting into peoples pockets and a lot of people took notice. Now that greater scrutiny has been brought to the issue, those on the bandwagon from the start are a tad offended, if not indignant, that their ideas would be challenged. Probably there is "over hype" in the dangers and predictions. For example, Leipold (of GP) has admitted that emotive reasoning is part of their modus operandi (justified for the sake of the cause). And sensational media coverage was bound to cause a backlash. But ultimately the direction of public policy, or public "conscious", has been changed for good. Reduced CO2 (Carbon is an inaccurate term) will always be a feature bullet point now.
But ultimately is it correct? I doubt we will know anytime soon, because the factors are sufficiently complex to be like tea leaves, people will choose what they see.
frenchie
Mar 04, 2010

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Bloodoflamb, you're arguing with an idiot, I hope you realize.

I think it is idiotic for the EPA to try and regulate a gas all humans exhale.


And so we observe the absurd, the grotesque, and the plain retarded way that SOME climate change skeptics reason.
How do you expect to be taken seriously when you EVER make a claim that controlling CO2 emission from machines is in ANY way related to controlling our breathing.

Did you think you had a "gotcha" moment there marjon? Please go back to playing in the sandbox and let the grown ups have a discussion

@Sanescience
Very well put.
Skeptic_Heretic
Mar 09, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
How do you expect to be taken seriously when you EVER make a claim that controlling CO2 emission from machines is in ANY way related to controlling our breathing.

Probably because by the stats, human beings produce 3x more CO2 than human industry does. Still an idiotic argument for him to make, but it's not as ridiculous as you would make it seem.
thermodynamics
Mar 09, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
Skeptic: There is a problem with mixing the idea of CO2 production by respiration with the production by burning fossil fuels. The CO2 that you produce breathing comes from the food that you eat to keep you alive. That food (even if it is meat) comes through the food chain and is based on photosynthetic production of carbon based food. That means there is no net production. You are actually indirectly photosynthetically fueled. The fossil fuels that are burned were sequestered until we pulled them out of the ground. They produce "new" (in that they have been gone for hundreds of millions of years) carbon dioxide. The food you eat (producing the CO2 you exhale) is recycled.

http://cdiac.ornl...faq.html

So, you can make the argument for exhalation but be clear it is recycled from our food and comes from the atmosphere in the form of fresh vegetation (at the bottom of the food chain). Burning oil is not (new vegetation).
Skeptic_Heretic
Mar 10, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Thermo,

If we're going to look at that as our measure of count the whole gripe with the Beef industry should be out the window. After all, their methane production is directly related to what they eat. Same with termites and ethylene. If we're going to draw a line at what constitutes an acceptable release and an unacceptable release, we'll have to remain perfectly consistent.
thermodynamics
Mar 10, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Skeptic: Great point. Let me address it. Plants take up CO2. They do not take up methane or ethylene. So, if I eat a plant, I take up the carbon in the form of a food and exhale it as CO2. It starts out as CO2 and winds up as CO2. Cows eat plants that start out making plant material using CO2. The cow uses most of that CO2 to produce respiration as CO2 (and that is not counted). However, when it produces a molecule of CH4, it has used chemistry to transform CO2 into a more active molecule. You do not hear anyone talking about cow CO2 production. You hear them addressing CH4 production. Likewise with the termites. They produce mostly CO2 and no one counts it because it comes from CO2. That is an even balance. However, when they produce ethylene it is not an even balance so you see scientists addressing the ethylene. I don't think you have ever seen anyone addressing the biological CO2 output of living animals. Instead you see the ouput of more complex molecules.
dachpyarvile
Apr 05, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Wow, thermodynamics! I did not know that you do not fart. Is that true?

Well, then, if it is not, then you also produce CH4--same as the cows but perhaps in lesser amounts. Should your emissions count? :)
thermodynamics
Apr 06, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
dachpyarvile: Good point. I should count my methane emissions. However, they are not extensive. ;-)

The original argument was about exhalation. I will concede you my minor methane contribution. Look up cows and you will find out they use a different mechanism for digestion and put out greater fraction of methane (at least for me). I will admit I have had some co-workers that seemed to exhaust more methane (and other hydrocarbons) than normal. :-)
Skepticus_Rex
Apr 06, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
I suggest you take a look at an article over at New Scientist and ponder for a minute any desire to remove methane emissions from the atmosphere.

Living green plants are believed to emit 10 to 30% of global methane emissions. Of course, that is just a rough estimate.

Ruminent animals are not the only forms of life belching methane. :)

http://www.newsci...5343.900
Skeptic_Heretic
Apr 06, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
dachpyarvile: Good point. I should count my methane emissions. However, they are not extensive. ;-)

Can you describe the baseline test involved?

(for some reason the picture of someone ripping off into a jar made me laugh).
Rank 2.2 /5 (19 votes)
Tags

climate change, mass media, climate science
Related Stories
more news
Relevant PhysicsForums posts
  • Wind Waves in Reservoir ~ Wind run-up and Wind set-up
    created20 hours ago
  • Balance of oxygen in the atmosphere
    createdFeb 01, 2012
  • The case for a methanol-based economy
    createdJan 30, 2012
  • Weather in a rotating cylinder
    createdJan 25, 2012
  • Importance of difference between SVP over ice and water?
    createdJan 19, 2012
  • Ozone and atmosphere sampling
    createdJan 16, 2012
  • More from Physics Forums - Earth

More news stories

Astronomy team discovers nearby dwarf galaxy

(PhysOrg.com) -- A team led by UCLA research astronomer Michael Rich has used a unique telescope to discover a previously unknown companion to the nearby galaxy NGC 4449, which is some 12.5 million light years ...

Space & Earth / Astronomy

created 6 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 3 | with audio podcast

Amasia: As next supercontinent forms, Arctic Ocean, Caribbean will vanish first

(PhysOrg.com) -- Geologists at Yale University have proposed a new theory to describe the formation of supercontinents, the epic process by which Earth’s major continental blocks combine into a single ...

Space & Earth / Earth Sciences

created 7 hours ago | popularity 4.1 / 5 (7) | comments 2 | with audio podcast

Chandra finds Milky Way's black hole grazing on asteroids

(PhysOrg.com) -- The giant black hole at the center of the Milky Way may be vaporizing and devouring asteroids, which could explain the frequent flares observed, according to astronomers using data from NASA's ...

Space & Earth / Astronomy

created 7 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 5 | with audio podcast

In scientific coup, Russians reach Antarctic lake

After more than two decades of drilling in Antarctica, Russian scientists have reached a gigantic freshwater lake hidden under miles of ice for some 20 million years - a pristine body of water that may hold ...

Space & Earth / Earth Sciences

created 7 hours ago | popularity 4.8 / 5 (5) | comments 4

New images capture 'stealth merger' of dwarf galaxies

New images of a nearby dwarf galaxy have revealed a dense stream of stars in its outer regions, the remains of an even smaller companion galaxy in the process of merging with its host. The host galaxy, known ...

Space & Earth / Astronomy

created 7 hours ago | popularity 3 / 5 (1) | comments 0 | with audio podcast


Why are there so few fish in the Earth's oceans?

(PhysOrg.com) -- A Stony Brook University researcher has found that, contrary to popular belief, there are not plenty of fish in the sea.

Transparent iron? For the first time, an experiment shows that atomic nuclei can become transparent

At the high-brilliance synchrotron light source PETRA III, a team of DESY scientists headed by Dr. Ralf Röhlsberger has succeeded in making atomic nuclei transparent with the help of X-ray light. At the ...

Physicists build highly efficient 'no-waste' laser

A team of University of California, San Diego researchers has built the smallest room-temperature nanolaser to date, as well as an even more startling device: a highly efficient, "thresholdless" laser that ...

Scientists strengthen memory by stimulating key site in brain

Ever gone to the movies and forgotten where you parked the car? New UCLA research may one day help you improve your memory.

Study shows how DNA finds its match

It's been more than 50 years since James Watson and Francis Crick showed that DNA is a double helix of two strands that complement each other. But how does a short piece of DNA find its match, out of the millions ...

Most stretchable spider silk reported

The egg sac silk of the cocoon stalk of the cave spider Meta menardi is the most stretchable egg sac silk yet tested, according to a study published Feb. 8 in the open access journal PLoS ONE.