"Richard Alley discovered something 10 years ago that made him worry the Earth's climate could suddenly shift, and it changed his life. It was a two-mile long ice core, pulled up from the center of Greenland. It contained bubbles of air that reveal what the Earth's atmosphere was like over a period of 100,000 years. The ice core showed that at one point, in as little as 10 years, the global climate had drastically changed. Soon after that discovery, climate change became a personal crusade for Alley." source
Life changing experience? Personal crusade? Sounds almost religious to me. However there can be no discrediting of Alley's credentials and for his research he has become a poster boy of sorts for the alarmists, as he is frequently cited for his work in Greenland as proof of man made global warming, and in fact gave testimony before the House of Rep's Committee on Science, saying as much.
What is not as widely reported is his recent admission to The Economist that his Greenland studies may very well have been flawed, or in other words.... full of shit, wrong and erroneous on all counts.
"Hitherto, the best records have come mostly from Greenland, but according to Richard Alley, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University who works on the WAIS Divide project, cores from Greenland contain too much dust to provide a truly accurate record. The dust includes chemicals that can react with the trapped gases, changing their composition." source
All the alarmists are constantly pointing to Greenland as proof, but what does it say when the lead scientist calls into the question the very accuracy of his own work that is so often referenced as proof of anthropogenic warming. Exactly... not a whole hell of a lot, and that is why it is paramount to their cause to stifle dissent and quash debate.
The more I read of this Alley, the more I actually like him, even though we may disagree on this issue, as he seems to be of high integrity and truly concerned with the honesty of scientific discovery. Although I can say with almost 100% certainty after watching him on a recent Nat'l Geographic program that he is completely insane, not that that is necessarily a bad thing.
"Richard Alley, a Pennsylvania State University glaciologist who has studied the Antarctic ice sheet but was not involved in the new research, said more research is needed to determine if the shrinkage is a long-term trend, because the new report is based on just three years of data. "One person's trend is another person's fluctuation," he said." source
and from his book...
"ALL scientific ideas are subject to revision; we should never be absolutely sure that the truth has been reached. Old ideas should be tested continually, in an effort to tear them down and replace them with better ones. Ideas that survive this constant attack will be especially robust. Experience shows that if we behave as if these surviving ideas are true, we will succeed.... But, on the other hand, the ideas may be true, they may be reasonable approximations of the truth, or we may just be lucky.In science, no idea, be it speculation, hypothesis, theory, law, model, or FACT, is ever considered to be the final answer. That's the way science works. We ALWAYS act on uncertain answers; we never know if something is the truth with a capital T." source
That's science -- not this putting the policy cart before the scientific horse malarkey. Well said Dr. Alley, but I still think his belief that man is the cause for the current warming cycle is wrong, and I give him credit for agreeing with me that he might be.
EE-Aw!!!
24 comments:
Dr. Alley seems to be a thoughtful, cautious scientist who understands the scientific method.
The articles you link to provide evidence that the Antarctic ice sheet is melting more rapidly than previously expected.
Question: if the 10,000 researchers involved in the International Polar Year (IPY), should, after their research is completed, end up confirming anthropogenic global warming, would you then admit that you might be wrong?
From the same Economist article....
"Surprisingly, finding out what is happening to the ice sheets at the moment is almost as hard as looking at their past. Whether a sheet is growing or shrinking depends on whether it picks up more snow in the winter than it loses to calving icebergs and meltwater in the summer."
and...
"These measurements have already shown that different things are going on in different places. In eastern Antarctica increased snowfall is causing the ice sheet to thicken at the moment. The west Antarctic ice sheet, however, is thinning at between 10cm and one metre a year."
Answer: No
Obviously there is more work to be done on understanding what is going on in Antarctica. That's why they are putting 10,000 researchers to work on it.
SO, basically, when the year is up and they publish, you will dismiss their studies if they do not agree with your position, and cite them as proof that you're right if they do?
Gary, why do we need 10,000 researchers if we already know what's going on, and the DEBATE IS OVER?
Isn't that a waste of time and money since we already KNOW THAT THERE'S A CONSENSUS?
Who are these 10,000 scientists that have nothing better to do than waste their time on something as silly as this? Didn't they read the U.N. report? Don't they know that we need to jump into the kyoto deal immediately? do they think we have a whole year to wait? Are these guys idiots or what? I can't believe they won't just go along with the politicians that wrote the U.N. report like the other 2500 "scientists" that signed it.
Obviously there is still room for research on the details of global warming. I will be suprised if the IPY group's results challenge the consensus on global warming, however, I am prepared to re-evaluate my position should they do so.
If they provide still more evidence to support manmade global warming, are you prepared to re-evaluate your positon?
There will be nothing surprising about the IPY's results. They will either blame man, or if a natural explanation is discovered they will strike it as coincidence and blame man.
Now give me my grant money.
I am beginning to see how you can ignore all the scientific evidence that does not support your position. If it's an Exxon-linked op-ed piece it proves your position, anything else you dismiss, in this case in advance.
Gary, why don't you reevaluate now?
I realize that you thought there was a consensus when all your research consisted of reading algores press clippings, but now that you know it's not true you still stick to that argument, why?
I realize of course that your whole argument for believing in man made GW is based on a consensus and so admitting that there isn't one would really screw up your comfort level, but wouldn't you rather be honest with yourself than ignorant?
Giving up already?
Ah the old standard rebuttal. There has been no ExxonMobil connection in my last three posts, but yet when in doubt and faced with overwhelming reason you go back to the well.
"Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil." -- Eric Hoffer
There is a consensus, in that over 90% of the scientists working in the field of climate science agree with the National Academy of Science, the IPCC, etc. That's consensus. For the last time, there is a difference between consensus and unanimity.100% is unanimity, 90% is a strong consensus.
I have said it is not inconceivable that the minority of skeptics could be right, merely unlikely. If the current study we are discussing comes up with new evidence supporting the skeptics, I will re-evaluate my opinion, based on new evidence. You have stated that you will not. Who is ignorant?
90%?
So how many scientists are working in the field of climate science?
5 thousand?
10 thousand?
So lets say if it's 10 thousand that actually work in the field you're saying that 9 thousand of them agree with the IPCC?
I don't think so.
What's the qualification to be working in the field? Do you have to have published something? Do you need to be "peer reviewed"?
Does a meteorologist count? If they work in the field but they get funding from exxon are is their opinion disqualified? If so, then what about the ones that get funding from green peace, or algore? do they also get disqualified?
If you're going to throw around 90% you're going to need to back that shit up.
There is no consensus.
by the way, won't you at least admit that based on the fact that 10,000 scientists are doing another study to determine if the glaciers are in fact melting and WHY or HOW they are melting PROVES that the discussion in fact IS NOT over?
If you are willing to admit that (i hope you're going to be honest) then why would algore and company keep screaming that it is? Could it be because they know their argument can't stand up to scrutiny and they're pushing their agenda for their own reasons?
Is this going to be your new rebuttal "unamity/consensus" because although we appreciate the English lesson I can assure you that we know the difference, as it is a unanimous consensus of The Aurora that you are a jackass, but thanks anyways. Perhaps its time to retire it.
It is you that is missing the point. You continually say that you are willing to consider the data and yet when presented with opposing views you do not. In fact you usually do the polar opposite. Your argument is one of dismissal not debate.
We point out...
The Mars/ Earth cap correlation... nothing more than coincidence you say.
Solar irradiance (aka The Sun).... statistically insignificant.
Historically proven warming/cooling trends... irrelevant.
Water vapor..... unproven.
Methane gas.... cowshit
And lest we forget any opposing scientists we cite have been corrupted by the devil aka... ExxonMobil.
Unfortunately yours is not an isolated strategy but rather the modus operandi of the alarmist movement.
Can you least pretend that you love Mother Earth for once. Dismiss not debate aint no way treat a lady.
Consensus:
Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion. Once a decision is made it is important to trust in members' discretion in follow-up action.
In the ideal case, those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus.
In theory, action without resolution of considered opposition will be rare and done with attention to minimize damage to relationships.
HMMMMM..... so you should WANT to hear those who oppose you......
Do you even read the articles you link to? The Washington Post article is titled "Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Rapidly"
"The Antarctic ice sheet is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year in a trend that scientists link to global warming, according to a new paper that provides the first evidence that the sheet's total mass is shrinking significantly"
Obviously this is a serious subject worthy of continued scientific investigation, which is continuing and which, so far, supports manmade global warming.
90% is only an estimate, based on several meta-analyses of the scientific literature.One such study was in Science, I believe, but I don't have a citation offhand. The skeptics are in the minority (not opinion, undeniable fact) and also seem not to publish in peer-reviewed journals.
Yes that was the headline, which is no shocker as it is of an alarmist tone.
But did you continue reading. The article then went on to point out the fact that these experts have no fricking idea what theyre talking about, some think its growing some think its shrinking, others have no idea one way or another. All state that the science is still out on Antartica.
Yet the title in an aim to scare in big bold letters contrary to the message of the article states unemphatically that....
Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Rapidly
New Study Warns Of Rising Sea Levels
....and concludes with legislation being proposed by Sen Kerry and Rep Waxman.
Do you really not see the insanity of it all?
The study mentioned concludes:
"The ice sheet is losing mass at a significant rate," said Isabella Velicogna, the study's lead author and a research scientist at Colorado University at Boulder's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. "It's a good indicator of how the climate is changing. It tells us we have to pay attention."
Richard Alley then supports more research, since the study is only based on three years study, and then they quote a skeptic, "who writes for the Web site TSCDaily, which is partly financed by fossil fuel companies that oppose curbs on greenhouse gases linked to climate change."
I have come to the conclusion that you do not understand the scientific method.
Wow this may be a record for you. You were able to throw three standard liberal rebuttals into one comment.
1) Cherry pick the data
2) Blame Exxon
3) Call me stupid
Well played Gary you never disapoint.
The title could have easily been titled "Antactic Ice Sheet A Mystery" but that wouldnt serve the alarmist agenda now would it.
...and the article concluded with the libs Kerry and Waxman looking to "quickly to impose mandatory limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases" when both Velicogna and Alley conceded they have no idea what theyre talking about regarding the Antartic, not yet at least.
Forget about the Washington Post headline for a moment. The whole point of the article was news of a major new study, published in "Science", a prestigious scientific jounral, and said study supports my position not yours, a point that seems to have escaped you.
Now you want me to forget about the title whereas two comments ago you were emphatic that I should pay attention to it.
This is futile. Im not as interested in scoring points as I am in the truth.
The point of my post, that apparently is lost on you, and the reason that I linked that article amongst others was to show that one of the foremost and most quoted glaciologists claiming anthropogenic warming readily concedes that they dont know shit.
The science is not yet in and the debate is not over.
I dont see why you and your ilk are so quick to destroy industry and lives on unsettled science. I for one am not.
But the scientist Dr. Alley accepts the reality of global warming. He favors taking more samples of the ice in Antarctica because the Greenland samples had dust. This is the cautious approach of a scientist.
You criticized the headline of the Washington Post article. I think it accurately reflects the thrust of the Science study, which is yet more evidence for global warming.
Prediction: in a year, when the International Polar Year study is completed, assuming it supports global warming, you will still be saying the science is not in. Science is rarely if ever 100%. There is a consensus though and this latest Science study supports it.
So we are back to its a reality again huh?
This study supports nothing of the sort, and Alley himself although a disciple of man made warming concedes that there is insufficient and inaccurate data at this time to come to that conclusion. If three years aint good enough for a glaciologist, four years aint gonna be good enough for me, esp. if its still just a "best guess".
"Just a few years ago, the world's climate scientists predicted that Greenland wouldn't have much impact at all on sea level in the coming decades. But recent measurements show that Greenland's ice cap is melting much faster than expected." GRACE Report
Glaciers melt, its what they do, always have, always will, until there is proof of which there is currently NONE that it is mans fault, I will continue to give my fellow two legged mammals the benefit of the doubt.
So if you want to believe that in three years man is melting Greenlan and the Antartic, then let me know when you shed your coat, I could use a new sweater ya frickin sheep. Three years ago you would have told me that the expected added mass is the result of the evil Carbone crime family.
I will continue to look at their horrendous forecasting track record and continue to think they are full of shit until proven otherwise.
Well, yes the article suggests that Greenland and Antartica are warming faster than predicted. That means global warming is worse than previously thought.
I can see you bought Smykowski's mat.
Im not talking about the article, I am talking about the actual report. Melting does not necessarily mean warming just as warming does not necessarily mean man made. The report makes no other conclusion but that Greenland is currently (four years ago they thought differently)experiencing a net loss of mass and the Antartic might do the same one day, and they have no idea about the how, why, or what.
The Island of Montserrat is constantly adding mass, so does that work out as a sort of eco-indulgence or offset?
You see 1 and add it to your ideology to equal 2, well Im afraid thats not how it works.
The earth's lithosphere is in a constant state of change. Unlike you I will not subscribe to the alarmist notion that every hiccup that the Earth experiences is the result of mankind's industry and the call for immediate draconian legislation.
For fucks sake Continents have separated and are still drifting apart as we speak but god forbid a chunk of ice falls into the ocean and the end of the world is nigh to you people.
Its chicken little shit, and it discredits the true conservation movement.
Post a Comment