EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:02 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:38 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Differing opinions on conclusions and semantics? I find it odd that after you tried to make a paper say something it did not that you would then post something dwelling so much on semantics and opinion of meaning as evidence to support something else.


Umm, Wayne, there is a BIG difference with saying that human activity has a significant influence, and saying that human activity is the dominant cause.


Too bad the difference was between "significant" and "major" then, wasn't it.


No, the difference was between a major cause and significant contributing factor. There is a big difference between the two phrases.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:41 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

No, as too many of the "skeptical" researchers seem to have more difficulty in publication in the better quality publications.


So you wouldn't consider someone who has a Ph.D in the relevant fields of Climate Change an expert if they only published 10 papers? That is what the Anderegg et. al paper is trying to do.

Quote:
If I were using him as a reference to someone unfamiliar with his reputation I would concentrate on the experience and publications.


And skeptics have had experience and have published many peer reviewed papers.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 7:02 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Differing opinions on conclusions and semantics? I find it odd that after you tried to make a paper say something it did not that you would then post something dwelling so much on semantics and opinion of meaning as evidence to support something else.


Umm, Wayne, there is a BIG difference with saying that human activity has a significant influence, and saying that human activity is the dominant cause.


Too bad the difference was between "significant" and "major" then, wasn't it.


Snowy123 wrote:
No, the difference was between a major cause and significant contributing factor. There is a big difference between the two phrases.



Not in the English language.

The synonyms are the same.


http://thesaurus.com/browse/significant

Significant

Definition: Important

Major

http://thesaurus.com/browse/factor?s=t

Factor

Definition: determinant

cause

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 7:05 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

No, as too many of the "skeptical" researchers seem to have more difficulty in publication in the better quality publications.


So you wouldn't consider someone who has a Ph.D in the relevant fields of Climate Change an expert if they only published 10 papers? That is what the Anderegg et. al paper is trying to do.


Probably not, unless the papers were exceptional.

Quote:
Quote:
If I were using him as a reference to someone unfamiliar with his reputation I would concentrate on the experience and publications.


And skeptics have had experience and have published many peer reviewed papers.


Not evidenced for those listed in your post.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:58 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

..

A contributing factor is much different than a 'major cause.' Significant can also be subject to the scientist's interpretation of what significant actually means.

The author of this post interviewed skeptical climate scientists on this issue, and some would pick human activity as being a significant contributing factor, because significant is subject to one's interpretation of what significant actually means, since how much of a contribution for human activity to be a significant factor was not specified in the paper.

The major problem with this study is the second question. It is not phrased properly. In fact, the phrasing is so poor that I consider the entire study flawed because of it. There are multiple problems with the phrasing, so let me break them down.

1. The phrase "human activity"

Human activity comprises numerous actions which can affect the climate other than greenhouse gases. Agricultural changes and deforestation are two influences that come to mind. Now, any respondent who believes that ANY human activity can change the climate must answer yes to this question.

A better phrasing would be:

Do you think anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

2. The phrase "significant contributing factor"

The problem with this is obvious. What makes something significant? If 5% of recent temperature change is caused by mankind, is that significant? How about 10%? There is no context for answering the question. There is no way of knowing whether or not the respondents consider human activity the primary factor in temperature change.

A better phrasing would be:

Do you think that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the primary factor (50% or more) in changing mean global temperatures?


Richard Lindzen (from the post)

As you know, polling is a dicey business. With respect to your first question, my answer to (1) is probably, but the amount is surprisingly small -- suggesting that global mean temperature anomaly is not a particularly good index. My answer to (2) would be yes, but dependent on what is meant by significant. As to your second question, I agree that one can answer yes without any implication of alarm. Remember, according to the IPCC, we have already reached a level of radiative forcing that is almost as large as one would expect from a doubling of CO2. Even is climate sensitivity were 0.5C (which is generally considered to be of no concern) we would still be making a significant contribution to the small observed 'warming.'

John Christy (from the post)

It was not phrased properly. For example someone might think that 10 percent of any warming constitutes a "significant" contribution, and so would answer yes to that question, even though the proportion of warming due to any human effect might in fact be small.

Patrick Michaels (from the post)

Anyone with experience in survey development (and I know people who do this) would recognize the hidden motive here. It is telling that such a paper would be accepted with such poor design and such a foregone conclusion.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:05 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Probably not, unless the papers were exceptional.



Okay,

Would you consider your denist to be an expert if he didn't publish any papers?

Quote:
Not evidenced for those listed in your post.


"A geologist is by definition an Earth Scientist"-Wayne Stollings.

Source:

http://envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.p ... 73#p175073

Interesting that geologists who support the AGW theory are considered to be earth scientists, (which sounds more credible in the field of climate change) and yet geologists skeptical of AGW are not?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:17 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

..

A contributing factor is much different than a 'major cause.'


Yes, but since you ignored the whole phrase, which was SIGNIFICANT contributing factor this is nothing but a strawman.

The two phrases are significantly different only if you ignore things like the dictionary and thesaurus.

Quote:
Significant can also be subject to the scientist's interpretation of what significant actually means.


So can "major", but we were dealing with what was actually presented and not what you might interpret the "actual" meaning to be.

Quote:
The author of this post interviewed skeptical climate scientists on this issue, and some would pick human activity as being a significant contributing factor, because significant is subject to one's interpretation of what significant actually means, since how much of a contribution for human activity to be a significant factor was not specified in the paper.


If one is the expert in the field, as is supposedly the point of contention, the opinion of that person on significance should not be that far from any other similar scientist. The point of a poll is generally to compare opinions.

Quote:
The major problem with this study is the second question. It is not phrased properly. In fact, the phrasing is so poor that I consider the entire study flawed because of it. There are multiple problems with the phrasing, so let me break them down.


This would be .... an OPINION?!? :shock:

Quote:
1. The phrase "human activity"

Human activity comprises numerous actions which can affect the climate other than greenhouse gases. Agricultural changes and deforestation are two influences that come to mind. Now, any respondent who believes that ANY human activity can change the climate must answer yes to this question.

A better phrasing would be:

Do you think anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

2. The phrase "significant contributing factor"

The problem with this is obvious. What makes something significant? If 5% of recent temperature change is caused by mankind, is that significant? How about 10%? There is no context for answering the question. There is no way of knowing whether or not the respondents consider human activity the primary factor in temperature change.

A better phrasing would be:

Do you think that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the primary factor (50% or more) in changing mean global temperatures?


The best option would br for them to perform their own poll, would it not? It is easy to be critical of the work if one never does any themselves.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:21 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Probably not, unless the papers were exceptional.



Okay,

Would you consider your denist to be an expert if he didn't publish any papers?


Probably not. One can be an expert without publication, but not very likely.

Quote:
Quote:
Not evidenced for those listed in your post.


"A geologist is by definition an Earth Scientist"-Wayne Stollings.

Source:

http://envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.p ... 73#p175073

Interesting that geologists who support the AGW theory are considered to be earth scientists, (which sounds more credible in the field of climate change) and yet geologists skeptical of AGW are not?


An Earth scientist is not always an expert on climate change, but an expert on climate change would be an Earth scientist.

If you looked at the threas you would note you had made the claim there were no scientists other than one and I was pointing out the other scientists involved. There was no mention of climate specialists in that discussion.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:16 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Probably not. One can be an expert without publication, but not very likely.



This is comical.

Quote:
An Earth scientist is not always an expert on climate change, but an expert on climate change would be an Earth scientist.


Geologists study Earth's history and climatic history, and Physicists are experts in the physics involved with climate science.

This is from Wiki:

Currently, geologists are also engaged in the discussion of climate change, as they study the history and evidence for this Earth process.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:18 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

The best option would br for them to perform their own poll, would it not? It is easy to be critical of the work if one never does any themselves.


I think this poll should be re-done, with this question (provided by the blogger) as the question to assess the consensus.

Do you think that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the primary factor (50% or more) in changing mean global temperatures?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:12 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Probably not. One can be an expert without publication, but not very likely.



This is comical.


Actually, I was thinkg more sad.

Quote:
Quote:
An Earth scientist is not always an expert on climate change, but an expert on climate change would be an Earth scientist.


Geologists study Earth's history and climatic history, and Physicists are experts in the physics involved with climate science.


Neither of which makes them experts in the field of climate change.

Quote:
This is from Wiki:

Currently, geologists are also engaged in the discussion of climate change, as they study the history and evidence for this Earth process.


Being engaged in a discussion does not make one an expert. You are engaged in such a discussion and you are not an expert on the subject.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:13 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

The best option would br for them to perform their own poll, would it not? It is easy to be critical of the work if one never does any themselves.


I think this poll should be re-done, with this question (provided by the blogger) as the question to assess the consensus.

Do you think that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the primary factor (50% or more) in changing mean global temperatures?


Then you should convince someone to redo the poll and get it published.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:18 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Actually, I was thinkg more sad.



Agreed.

Quote:
Neither of which makes them experts in the field of climate change.


So what degrees should you have to be considered to be an expert? Climatology involves all of these fields put together.

Quote:
You are engaged in such a discussion and you are not an expert on the subject.


I think that you misinterpreted the Wiki quote, the quote said that this is because they study earth's history, and these processes with Earth's history.

Essentially, some geologists are very similar to paleoclimatologists.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:19 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

The best option would br for them to perform their own poll, would it not? It is easy to be critical of the work if one never does any themselves.


I think this poll should be re-done, with this question (provided by the blogger) as the question to assess the consensus.

Do you think that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the primary factor (50% or more) in changing mean global temperatures?


Then you should convince someone to redo the poll and get it published.


Thanks for the idea, I actually will try that.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:31 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Actually, I was thinkg more sad.



Agreed.

Quote:
Neither of which makes them experts in the field of climate change.


So what degrees should you have to be considered to be an expert? Climatology involves all of these fields put together.


Experience is the determining factor for being an expert in any field.

Quote:
Quote:
You are engaged in such a discussion and you are not an expert on the subject.


I think that you misinterpreted the Wiki quote, the quote said that this is because they study earth's history, and these processes with Earth's history.


Study of history does not make one an expert on history. Being involved in a discussion on history still does not make one an expert.

Quote:
Essentially, some geologists are very similar to paleoclimatologists.


Only if they have the experience as all would have similar training as a geologist.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group