Science, religious beliefs conflict for one in three Americans

[jAZ]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/07/68494044/1

Science, religious beliefs conflict for one in three Americans
03:38 PM

Americans by-and-large admire scientists -- unless they get crosswise on issues with religious overtones such as evolution, global warming, embryonic stem cell research -- according to a new survey released today from the Pew Forum.

Dr. Alan I. Leshner, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, called it a "communications gap" but it may be more of a belief gap.

The survey found 55% say science and religion are often in conflict and 36% say science sometimes conflicts with their own religious beliefs. Among those 36%:

*41% refer specifically to evolution, creationism, Darwinism and debates about the origin of life.

*15% cite differences over the beginning of life, primarily concerns about abortion(12%) but also cloning and birth control.

*9% are concerned about the use of stem cells.

While 95% of the public said they believe in God or a higher power, 41% of scientists don't believe in either. Nearly half of scientists say they're atheist, agnostic or believe "nothing in particular" but only 17% of the general public is unaffiliated.

You can see that big gap in action on a hot issue such as embryonic stem cell research where, according to the report:

Majorities of Catholics (60%), white mainline Protestants (59%), black Protestants (54%) and the religiously unaffiliated (74%) favor federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Just over half of white evangelical Protestants (52%) oppose it.
It doesn't seem like a mere "communications gap" to me, one that people could talk their way across if they knew just the right words to choose.

Coincidently, the survey was released a day after born-again genome-mapping super-scientist Francis Collins, author of the best selling book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief was named by President Obama to head the National Institutes of Health.

[Hydrae]

Yes, science and religion are often in conflict. However, being agnostic this has little to no affect on me personally.

[jAZ]

Heh... we are all but identical on the subject.

[stevieray]

...that leaves 2/3...

.666

:eek: ;)

[irishjayhawk]

I put agnostic & atheist because it depends on how atheist is defined. The majority of atheists adopt the notion that while they cannot prove with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, the evidence swings them closer to 100% as you can get without being certain.

That view could be qualified as either depending on your view.

[Metrolike]

Being agnostic is where it's at. I think one has to be an extremely brave individual to be an atheist.

[irishjayhawk]

...that leaves 2/3...

.666

:eek: ;)

Are you going to vote?

[BucEyedPea]

Part 2 - None of the choices reflect me. I am not religious. I am spiritual and respect religion and all faiths.
It doesn't mean I agree with all of them or that I don't find some weird. I just have a live and let live attitude and don't understand some folks hang-ups about religion.

[donkhater]

I answered no to every question in part 1 except the last. I do believe in a higher power, I am Catholic and I do consider myself a scientist (In fact, that's my profession).

[irishjayhawk]

I answered no to every question in part 1 except the last. I do believe in a higher power, I am Catholic and I do consider myself a scientist (In fact, that's my profession).

Why "no" to the first one?

[donkhater]

Why "no" to the first one?

I guess it depends on your perspective. I don't feel my faith conflicts with science, so I answered no.

"Religon" covers a pretty wide span of beliefs. Religon A is often in conflict with Religon B so it's no wonder that it could be in conflict with science.

Science, in this day and age, seems to be which opinion gains a public foothold first regardless of evidence or the carrying out of the scientific process.

I guess after writing that, I should have answered yes, but I don't feel it does in my life.

[irishjayhawk]

I guess it depends on your perspective. I don't feel my faith conflicts with science, so I answered no.

"Religon" covers a pretty wide span of beliefs. Religon A is often in conflict with Religon B so it's no wonder that it could be in conflict with science.

Science, in this day and age, seems to be which opinion gains a public foothold first regardless of evidence or the carrying out of the scientific process.

I guess after writing that, I should have answered yes, but I don't feel it does in my life.

How so?

[jAZ]

I guess it depends on your perspective. I don't feel my faith conflicts with science, so I answered no.

"Religon" covers a pretty wide span of beliefs. Religon A is often in conflict with Religon B so it's no wonder that it could be in conflict with science.

Science, in this day and age, seems to be which opinion gains a public foothold first regardless of evidence or the carrying out of the scientific process.

I guess after writing that, I should have answered yes, but I don't feel it does in my life.

That's why questions 1 and 2 were seperated.

[donkhater]

That's why questions 1 and 2 were seperated.

Well, I guess I don't know HOW or IF other religons conflict with science, how could I even answer it then?

[donkhater]

How so?

You see it all the time. There are loads of thngs that are believed to be scientific fact, when in fact, they seem to be the product of aggressive advertising.

Man-made climate change comes directly to mind. On a smaller scale, dietary and health claims backed by 'scientific studies' seem to occur daily.

[oldandslow]

You see it all the time. There are loads of thngs that are believed to be scientific fact, when in fact, they seem to be the product of aggressive advertising.

Man-made climate change comes directly to mind. On a smaller scale, dietary and health claims backed by 'scientific studies' seem to occur daily.

Except, according to Pew, 84% of all scientists believe in man made global warming.

http://thestatsblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/pewaaas-findings-on-scientists%E2%80%99-attitudes-toward-global-warming-media-coverage-replicate-earlier-stats-surveys/

I suppose all of them are taken in by aggressive advertising. By the way, what corporation is sponsoring all of these "aggressive ads" touting GW?

.

[Direckshun]

What does "conflict" mean?

Science says it's impossible for a guy to rise from the dead. So I'd say they are necessarily conflicting.

Now if we're saying "conflict" to the extent that they are exclusive from one another or negate the other's legitimacy, I'd say no way in hell.

[wild1]

I don't have any conflicts. I think non-whites are all inferior just like Darwin did.

[oldandslow]

I don't have any conflicts. I think non-whites are all inferior just like Darwin did.

...and most bible believing Christians of the time as well.

[donkhater]

Except, according to Pew, 84% of all scientists believe in man made global warming.

http://thestatsblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/pewaaas-findings-on-scientists%E2%80%99-attitudes-toward-global-warming-media-coverage-replicate-earlier-stats-surveys/

I suppose all of them are taken in by aggressive advertising. By the way, what corporation is sponsoring all of these "aggressive ads" touting GW?

.

Trust me when I tell you that there are only a handful of scientists in the whole world that have a firm grasp on all the dynamics that go into the science of climatology. Even those with degrees in the field will be constantly mislead by data. I can say this with certainty because that's the nature of scientific analysis.

You can never prove a theory, you can only disprove it.

I question the validity of the 84% number. I work around scientists all day and I can guarantee that not even 30% believe in man-made global warming. Of course we aren't climatologists. How many of those 84% are?

Oh, and Gore stumps all the time for man-made global warming. If you don't think that that benefits his company (which I believe deals in carbon trading) then you aren't just old and slow, but naive as well.

[Bowser]

I am somewhere between agnostic and believing in a higher something. And I feel that science and religion (Christianity in particular) find themselves at odds (I've not studied other religions, so it wouldn't be fair for me to blanket comment on that subject).

[oldandslow]

Trust me when I tell you that there are only a handful of scientists in the whole world that have a firm grasp on all the dynamics that go into the science of climatology. Even those with degrees in the field will be constantly mislead by data. I can say this with certainty because that's the nature of scientific analysis.

You can never prove a theory, you can only disprove it.

I question the validity of the 84% number. I work around scientists all day and I can guarantee that not even 30% believe in man-made global warming. Of course we aren't climatologists. How many of those 84% are?

Oh, and Gore stumps all the time for man-made global warming. If you don't think that that benefits his company (which I believe deals in carbon trading) then you aren't just old and slow, but naive as well.

And I graduated with a PH.D in bio from the University of OK and personally know the climatologists who work in one of the BEST weather schools in the world at OK.

They believe in GW...

You insinuate you are a scientist yet use anectodotal evidence from non-climatologists to make your claim. How very scientific.

Did you read the Pew study? It's at the link. They are transparent with their methodology.

Al Gore vs the budgets of every oil & coal company in the world. Yep, he is gonna win that advertising campaign.

[irishjayhawk]

You see it all the time. There are loads of thngs that are believed to be scientific fact, when in fact, they seem to be the product of aggressive advertising.

I think you're confusing two things that I can see. First, science is open to change. It's okday with being wrong. Second, isn't what you're describing a problem with the media and not science or the facts it has at its disposal.


Man-made climate change comes directly to mind.

Perhaps.


On a smaller scale, dietary and health claims backed by 'scientific studies' seem to occur daily.

Well, with new areas of science with not much longevity or precedent there are bound to be different studies that say different things almost daily. I don't see this as anything other than being new in a certain area or new technologies bringing in new things to test. (For example, effects of high fructose corn syrup.)


None of which neglect using the Scientific Method....

[irishjayhawk]

What does "conflict" mean?

Science says it's impossible for a guy to rise from the dead. So I'd say they are necessarily conflicting.

Now if we're saying "conflict" to the extent that they are exclusive from one another or negate the other's legitimacy, I'd say no way in hell.

I obviously disagree with that segment. There have been many gaps closed by science that were previously filled by religion.

[BucEyedPea]

And I graduated with a PH.D in bio from the University of OK and personally know the climatologists who work in one of the BEST weather schools in the world at OK.

They believe in GW...
I said we had more trees than during the 1800's and you told me to name a single biologist that thought that. I named Dixie Lee Ray, a marine biologist. Still I researched it further, since I did rely on a claim stated in her book. I found more information on it. It didn't take a degree in biology to know that and that it's a well accepted claim including by professional foresters who manage our forests.

I ordered publications from this site The Forest History Society (http://www.foresthistory.org/). Ray's statement and my claim is true.It is well documented. How come you don't know this but have a PHD?

Now please name your climatologists. Generalities won't do especially when relying on an appeal to authority which is also a logical fallacy.

[irishjayhawk]

I said we had more trees than during the 1800's and you told me to name a single biologist that thought that. I named Dixie Lee Ray, a marine biologist. Still I researched it further, since I did rely on a claim stated in her book. I found more information on it. It didn't take a degree in biology to know that and that it's a well accepted claim including by professional foresters who manage our forests.

I ordered publications from this site The Forest History Society (http://www.foresthistory.org/). Ray's statement and my claim is true.It is well documented. How come you don't know this but have a PHD?

Now please name your climatologists. Generalities won't do especially when relying on an appeal to authority which is also a logical fallacy.

You backed up a claim rather than just insisting you knew someone or something?

Congrats.

[donkhater]

And I graduated with a PH.D in bio from the University of OK and personally know the climatologists who work in one of the BEST weather schools in the world at OK.

They believe in GW...

You insinuate you are a scientist yet use anectodotal evidence from non-climatologists to make your claim. How very scientific.

Did you read the Pew study? It's at the link. They are transparent with their methodology.

Al Gore vs the budgets of every oil & coal company in the world. Yep, he is gonna win that advertising campaign.

Are you insinuating that the oil and coal companies are falsifying data for their own existance?

Tell me, where do your climatologist friends get their salaries?

[donkhater]

BTW, I didn't say that I didn't agree with global warming or climate change or whatever they call it nowadays. I just don't think there is sufficient evidence to back the man-made theory.

[BucEyedPea]

Why would a climatologist believe in something that's supposed to be scientific fact?

[oldandslow]

I said we had more trees than during the 1800's and you told me to name a single biologist that thought that. I named Dixie Lee Ray, a marine biologist. Still I researched it further, since I did rely on a claim stated in her book. I found more information on it. It didn't take a degree in biology to know that and that it's a well accepted claim including by professional foresters who manage our forests.

I ordered publications from this site The Forest History Society (http://www.foresthistory.org/). Ray's statement and my claim is true.It is well documented. How come you don't know this but have a PHD?

Now please name your climatologists. Generalities won't do especially when relying on an appeal to authority which is also a logical fallacy.

You are counting tree farms...very different than old growth forests. I will get you plenty of data on this later...

As for OU and GW - you can start here http://climate.ok.gov/newsmedia/climate_statement.pdf

Dr. Ken Crawford is the state climatologist and a personal friend.

[BucEyedPea]

You are counting tree farms...very different than old growth forests. I will get you plenty of data on this later...

As for OU and GW - you can start here http://climate.ok.gov/newsmedia/climate_statement.pdf

Dr. Ken Crawford is the state climatologist and a personal friend.

No I am not counting tree farms—at all. And you well know that there is dispute and controversy over the value of old growth forests contribution to the environment versus newer growth. Anyhow, that wasn't your original contention. You're turning it into a strawman. You refuted that we had more trees only.

Okay that's but one climatologist. You said climatologist(s) plural. There are more that signed the Oregon Petition Institute. I find alleging clmiatologist(s) plural is a common tactic by GW enthusiasts. Then on closer examination it's not so many afterall.

[BucEyedPea]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

A sample of experts' comments about the science of "An Inconvenient Truth":

The "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites:

Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.


But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."


There's a lot more in the link including Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson who doesn't agree with your climatologist, Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology. Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden.Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter.Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.



There is no consensus in this field. We're just not told about the dissenters.
The religion of GW is a threat to civilization and we humans are the endangered species.

[irishjayhawk]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

A sample of experts' comments about the science of "An Inconvenient Truth":

The "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites:








There's a lot more in the link including Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson who doesn't agree with your climatologist, Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology. Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden.Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter.Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.



There is no consensus in this field. We're just not told about the dissenters.
The religion of GW is a threat to civilization and we humans are the endangered species.

You lose so much credibility when you do things like this.

I hope, by the way, that you are talking about man-made, specifically.

[Direckshun]

I obviously disagree with that segment. There have been many gaps closed by science that were previously filled by religion.

In what way does that effect the legitimacy of religion?

[KILLER_CLOWN]

You lose so much credibility when you do things like this.

I hope, by the way, that you are talking about man-made, specifically.

why would someone lose credibility by pointing out the fact that a few power brokers moved many people into a spiritual frenzy over something made up whole cloth? and Hope didn't work so well when this nation elected Soetoro.

[Saul Good]

Except, according to Pew, 84% of all scientists believe in man made global warming.

http://thestatsblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/pewaaas-findings-on-scientists%E2%80%99-attitudes-toward-global-warming-media-coverage-replicate-earlier-stats-surveys/

I suppose all of them are taken in by aggressive advertising. By the way, what corporation is sponsoring all of these "aggressive ads" touting GW?

.

According to Barbara Boxer, the vast majority of scientists acknowledge God as the creator.

Senator Boxer: National Weekly Radio Address on Global Warming
"The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists say that the earth is in peril if we don’t act now. They’ve told us clearly that more than 40 percent of God’s creatures could face extinction if we don’t act now."

[irishjayhawk]

In what way does that effect the legitimacy of religion?

I guess I interpreted legitimacy as credibility.

[Saul Good]

I guess I interpreted legitimacy as credibility.

So you're trying to evaluate the credibility of faith? Good luck with that.

[irishjayhawk]

why would someone lose credibility by pointing out the fact that a few power brokers moved many people into a spiritual frenzy over something made up whole cloth? and Hope didn't work so well when this nation elected Soetoro.

See, there you go again, saying GW was, umm, "made up whole cloth".

[Saul Good]

See, there you go again, saying GW was, umm, "made up whole cloth".

It's interesting how Global Warming was never an issue until someone figured out how to monetize it.

[irishjayhawk]

It's interesting how Global Warming was never an issue until someone figured out how to monetize it.

Right................

[Saul Good]

Right................

Rats. Foiled again by IJ. Another assertion sliced with a surgeon's precision, and IJ holds the scalpel.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

See, there you go again, saying GW was, umm, "made up whole cloth".

Junk science ma lad, junk science.

[irishjayhawk]

Junk science ma lad, junk science.

There you go again. It isn't. Period. You've even admitted it in another thread. Global Warming exists, period.

[irishjayhawk]

Rats. Foiled again by IJ. Another assertion sliced with a surgeon's precision, and IJ holds the scalpel.

Wow, a pot-kettle statement if I've ever seen one.

Look, let's not pretend that global warming wasn't being studied before Al Gore.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

There you go again. It isn't. Period. You've even admitted it in another thread. Global Warming exists, period.

No i admitted normal temperature variations, we were in a warming trend now were in a cooling trend this is how it works.

[Saul Good]

There you go again. It isn't. Period. You've even admitted it in another thread. Global Warming exists, period.

Yeppers. Sometimes it does get warmer. Usually, this warming can be observed between the hours of 8:00AM and 3:00 PM.

[irishjayhawk]

No i admitted normal temperature variations, we were in a warming trend now were in a cooling trend this is how it works.

Global Warming is a global warming trend.

[irishjayhawk]

Yeppers. Sometimes it does get warmer. Usually, this warming can be observed between the hours of 8:00AM and 3:00 PM.

Rats. Foiled. Surgeon. Scalpel.

[petegz28]

Yeppers. Sometimes it does get warmer. Usually, this warming can be observed between the hours of 8:00AM and 3:00 PM.

in the months of April-September in the northern hemishpere.

[petegz28]

Global Warming is a global warming trend.

You do realize the planet has been hotter in the past than it is now, right?

[irishjayhawk]

You do realize the planet has been hotter in the past than it is now, right?

And this has what to do with the price of tea in china?

[irishjayhawk]

Come to think of it, I'm not going to derail this thread anymore.

[petegz28]

No i admitted normal temperature variations, we were in a warming trend now were in a cooling trend this is how it works.

The best things humans can do is take a lesson from our ancestors an learn how to adapt. Life as constantly had to adapt to its surroundings from day 1. Why this is beyond the though process of some I will never know.

[petegz28]

And this has what to do with the price of tea in china?

It will make the tea in China cheaper cause we won't be able to afford it here

[BucEyedPea]

The problem with that Pew link is it's loaded with generality. It says climate scientists at the IPCC. I spent a day counting them up and they were a minority of the attendees.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

The problem with that Pew link is it's loaded with generality. It says climate scientists at the IPCC. I spent a day counting them up and they were a minority of the attendees.

but the general concesus between those on the GW payroll tend to be were in a warming trend and hunams(spathi) caused it.

[BucEyedPea]

but the general concesus between those on the GW payroll tend to agree were in a warming trend and hunams(spathi) caused it.

I looked deeper into the link and it was from a grand total of 489 professional scientists who were either a member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) or the American Geophysical Union (AGU). Meteorologists are not climatologists.

[JohnnyV13]

There you go again. It isn't. Period. You've even admitted it in another thread. Global Warming exists, period.

Irish, its really not that simple.

I did some very crude environmental modelling (over a decade ago) when I was in molecular biology graduate school.

I do not pretend I am any kind of expert on the subject, but I did learn a thing or two about the process.

Enviromental modelling is VERY complex. There are multiple dynamic processes involved and with respect to global temperature, VERY SMALL differences in inputs can make enormous, orders of magnitude differences in output.

Consequently, that's why you regularly hear catastrophic enviromental predictions that don't come to pass, because the most extreme predictions are what draw media attention, but the actual research has shows quite a wide range of possible outcomes due to possible measuring error or the affects of unknown processes that aren't modelled.

With respect to global warming, its not entirely certain that human emissions are the cause.

Human emissions only make up a VERY small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Secondly, we have been in a global warming trend since the early middle ages, well before man put ANY carbon emissions into the air. Obviously, global warming can occur by other processes than increased CO2. But, lab expermiments show that increased CO2 does cause SOME warming. The question is how much, and can human CO2 emissions create some kind of catastrophic greenhouse amplification.

The bottom line is: we know that CO2 emissions cause some kind of warming, but we don't know exactly how much. The results can be extreme to virtually negligible depending on the modelling assumptions you make.

Basically, we need to make our political decisions based on the fact that catastrophic results are ONE possible outcome, an outcome that we need to give much more weight due to the dire results. Yet, we must keep in mind that our models aren't certain and aren't exactly good enough to be truly predictive.

As for sound bites like 84% of scientists believe in global warming, they are somewhat misleading. For one thing, what "scientists" do they refer to? I mean if you asked a bunch of quantum physicists, medical researchers or astronomers that question, they wouldn't have a much better opinion than the public in general. They would simply be relying on the veracity of climate specialists, and presuming their peer reviewed studies are accurately reported by the general press. Most scientists do NOT read technical journals outside their field, BECAUSE THEIR FIELDS ARE COMPLEX ENOUGH.

The problem with technical uncertainty, is that it generally lacks the ability to create political will. So that proponents of the global warming problem tend to overstate the certaintly, simply because they know that the global warming risks will tend to be brushed off by people with vested interests in the status quo.

Hence, we end up trying to win political mandates based on distortions from both sides of the question.

[BucEyedPea]

This book review says: this shows how to use the existing and scientific facts properly and how not to accept non-answers such as referring to authority or cheap ad hominems. It also supplies the facts and the only points that matter. It is a short manual for constructively pursuing debates with AGWers and in that sense it is truly a "skeptic’s handbook."


Better get prepared because of this:
The "global warming" movement is now calling for enormous "investments" in certain public policies and new political institutions to supervise people’s and firms’ emissions of CO2. To most scientists in climatology this change in the movement’s agenda is most likely unexpected; if you are not used to the political game you are not prepared when your opponent makes his politically obvious (in normal situations denoted "irrational") move.

Wow who would've expected that?

Contains factual information including that the literature in peer-reviewed journals in the relevant scientific disciplines have since long disproved the politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Yet it rages on....

Most of us laymen AGW skeptics have been dismissed with the proclaimed truth that "scientists all agree" (which really means "talking heads all agree").

[HonestChieffan]

The complexity of GW and GW analysis and predictions stems from needing to always change the data or to add a "constant" to magnify the result in a manner that appears legit. This is called the "Gore Factor"

A(b2/c)*(Gore Factor)= Hysteria and Change

[blaise]

why would someone lose credibility by pointing out the fact that a few power brokers moved many people into a spiritual frenzy over something made up whole cloth? and Hope didn't work so well when this nation elected Soetoro.

Because he wanted to ignore the rest of the post.

[tiptap]

I am quite humbled by the interest that has been generated by our paper “Has the climate recently shifted?” (Swanson and Tsonis, 2009), and would like the thank the RealClimate editors for the opportunity to give my perspective on this piece.

Before delving into the paper itself, a few words about the place of our work in the global warming “debate” are in order. A quote from the early 20th century Viennese polymath Egon Friedell (which I ran across in the wonderful book Cultural Amnesia by Clive James) captures the situation better than any words I could ever weave;

Electricity and magnetism are those forces of nature by which people who know nothing about electricity and magnetism can explain everything.

Substitute the words “modes of natural climate variability” for “electricity and magnetism,” and well…, hopefully the point is made.

It first needs to be emphasized that natural variability and radiatively forced warming are not competing in some no-holds barred scientific smack down as explanations for the behavior of the global mean temperature over the past century. Both certainly played a role in the evolution of the temperature trajectory over the 20th century, and significant issues remain to be resolved about their relative importance. However, the salient point, one that is oftentimes not clear in arguments about variability in the climate system, is that all else being equal, climate variability and climate sensitivity are flip sides of the same coin. (see also the post Natural Variability and Climate Sensitivity)

A climate that is highly sensitive to radiative forcing (i.e., responds very strongly to increasing greenhouse gas forcing) by definition will be unable to quickly dissipate global mean temperature anomalies arising from either purely natural dynamical processes or stochastic radiative forcing, and hence will have significant internal variability. The opposite also holds. It’s painfully easy to paint oneself logically into a corner by arguing that either (i) vigorous natural variability caused 20th century climate change, but the climate is insensitive to radiative forcing by greenhouse gases; or (ii) the climate is very sensitive to greenhouse gases, but we still are able to attribute details of inter-decadal wiggles in the global mean temperature to a specific forcing cause. Of course, both could be wrong if the climate is not behaving as a linear forced (stochastic + GHG) system.

With that in mind, our paper is fundamentally about inter-decadal variability in the climate system and its role in the evolution of the 20th century climate trajectory, as well as in near-future climate change. The climate system has well known modes of variability, such as the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), that are active on inter-annual time scales. We are interested in how this short time-scale (from the climate perspective!) variability impacts climate anomalies over multi-decadal time periods.

What we find is that when interannual modes of variability in the climate system have what I’ll refer to as an “episode,” shifts in the multi-decadal global mean temperature trend appear to occur. I’ll leave the details of these episodes to interested readers (here and here), as things get pretty technical. It’s sufficient to note that we have an objective criteria for what defines an episode; we aren’t just eyeballing curves. The climate system appears to have had three distinct “episodes” during the 20th century (during the 1910’s, 1940’s, and 1970’s), and all three marked shifts in the trend of the global mean temperature, along with changes in the qualitative character of ENSO variability. We have also found similar types of shifts in a number of model simulations (both forced and unforced) that were run in support of the IPCC AR4 report.

The contentious part of our paper is that the climate system appears to have had another “episode” around the turn of the 21st century, coinciding with the much discussed “halt” in global warming. Whether or not such a halt has really occurred is of course controversial (it appears quite marked in the HadCRUT3 data, less so in GISTEMP); only time will tell if it’s real. Regardless, it’s important to note that we are not talking about global cooling, just a pause in warming.

What’s our perspective on how the climate will behave in the near future? The HadCRUT3 global mean temperature to the right shows the post-1980 warming, along with the “plateau” in global mean temperature post-1998. Also shown is a linear trend using temperatures over the period 1979-1997 (no cherry picking here; pick any trend that doesn’t include the period 1998-2008). We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020. Of course, this contrasts sharply with other forecasts of the climate system; the purple line roughly indicates the model-based forecast of Smith et al. (2007) , suggesting with a warming of roughly 0.3 deg C over the 2005-2015 period.

Why would anyone in their right mind believe what I’ve just outlined? Everything hinges on the idea that something extraordinary happened to the climate system in response to the 1997/98 super-El Niño event (an idea that has its roots in the wavelet analysis by Park and Mann (2000)). The figure to the left shows the spatial mean temperature over all grid boxes in the HadCRUT3 data set that have continuous monthly coverage over the 1901-2008 period. While this provides a skewed view of the global mean, as it is heavily weighted toward North America, Europe and coastal areas, unlike the global mean temperature it has the cardinal virtue of being a consistent record with respect to time. The sole exclusion in the figure is the line connecting the 1997 and 1998 temperatures.

Now, anomalous behavior is always in the eye of the beholder. However, the jump in temperature between 1997 and 1998 in this record certainly appears to pass the “smell test” (better than 3 standard deviations of interannual variability) for something out of the ordinary. Nor is this behavior dependent on the underlying time interval chosen, as the same basic picture emerges for any starting time up until the 1980’s, provided you look at locations that have continuous coverage over your interval. Again, as the temperature anomaly associated with this jump dissipates, we hypothesize that the climate system will return to its signal as defined by its pre-1998 behavior in roughly 2020 and resume warming.

What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf. Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond.

A guest commentary by Kyle Swanson – University of Wisconsin-Milwauke
http://www.realclimate.org/

[Chieficus]

You are counting tree farms...very different than old growth forests. I will get you plenty of data on this later...

As for OU and GW - you can start here http://climate.ok.gov/newsmedia/climate_statement.pdf

Dr. Ken Crawford is the state climatologist and a personal friend.

Really? That's cool. I graduated from there with a Meteorology degree back in '03. I didn't have much exposure to Dr. Crawford, but what I did he seemed like a pretty good guy.

I read through that paper you linked--I'd be kind of interested to know who else from the school worked on the panel. When the subject was brought up in classes, the profs I had seemed to be split 50/50--they all acknowledged a warming trend, but were divided on it's cause. Granted, though also, from things I've heard they've expanded the climatological aspect of the SoM over these past six years.

[tiptap]

For years now I have been mentioning that when you look at the distribution of temperatures from all 48 states, that the number of new all time highs has doubled over the normal distribution expectations. And more importantly, NO state, for any month duration, has set a new all time low for now running 15 years. As the nice graph shows on the bottom of first page from the OK PDF, there has been a true shift in the mean temperature.

[BucEyedPea]

For years now I have been mentioning that when you look at the distribution of temperatures from all 48 states, that the number of new all time highs has doubled over the normal distribution expectations. And more importantly, NO state, for any month duration, has set a new all time low for now running 15 years. As the nice graph shows on the second page from the OK PDF, there has been a true shift in the mean temperature.

Well, when you ignore evidence that thermometers used for such temp readings were placed near or on heat sinks then what would one expect?
In increase in mean temperature. Seems to me such evidence should be considered.

[tiptap]

Well, when you ignore evidence that thermometers used for such temp readings were placed near or on heat sinks then what would one expect?
In increase in mean temperature. Seems to me such evidence should be considered.

No BEP, I don't. However that study's rating system is not quoted and used properly. There are truly bad sites. But the vast majority are only rated as less than prime because of bad upkeep, by their assessment and not rated as adversely affected by Urban Heat sources. I do look at their site.

[BucEyedPea]

I don't believe you because I've met scientist of your background who've even seen your posts and refute them handily. You just have no one here to counter you. So don't tell me about bad sites. I've read the UN documents. I see where this is going.

[HonestChieffan]

airports are a heat sink.
Didnt have airports just not that long ago.
Thermometers varied and still do.
All time lows wwere set in the last global cooling cycle. Highs get set in warming cycles. Cycles tend to be cyclical.

The data are not conclusive on cause only on recent trends and cannot be called predictive.

[bigfoot]

The pick, by Obama, of Collins comes as a surprise. Refreshing to see someone who is a man of faith, and a great scientist.


Obama Nominates Well-Known Scientist—a Strong Believer—to Head National Institute of Health
by Aimee Herd : Jul 11, 2009 : The Brody File – CBN News, MLive.com

"Would not God who gave us this glorious creation of His, and who gave us the intelligence to be able to try and understand it, would He not be worshipped by our applying those tools to appreciate what He has done for us?" –Dr. Francis Collins

According to a CBN report, President Barack Obama recently chose Dr. Francis Collins, the mastermind of the Human Genome Project, to lead the National Institute of Health. Dr. Collins is an outspoken Christian.

Described by research director of the Van Andel Institute, Dr. Jeffrey Trent, as having "inherent brilliance," Dr. Collins is credited with cracking the genetic code. An article on MLive.com states that he "developed a technique…that allowed researchers to scan large segments of the human genome in search of disease-producing genes…"

Later on, he and his team of researchers used that same technique to identify genes for Huntington's disease, among others, including those of the "M4 type of adult acute leukemia." (Photo: Wikipedia)

Dr. Trent, who worked with Collins on the Human Genome Project, noted that Collins—in his new position—would be a voice of reason when it comes to the issue of Health Care.

"Francis will play a major role in the development of aspects related to the health care debate," said Trent. "He will be one of those unique individuals to usher out the one-size-fits-all medicine and usher in the 'putting the patient first in our treatment' decisions."

In an interview several years ago with CBN News, Collins said, "Would not God who gave us this glorious creation of His, and who gave us the intelligence to be able to try and understand it, would He not be worshipped by our applying those tools to appreciate what He has done for us? That draws me closer to Him in a way I really can't quite put into words. But it gives me a sense of just how grand and awesome His mind must be."

Collins' appointment must still be confirmed by the US Senate.


http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=6926

[tiptap]

I don't believe you because I've met scientist of your background who've even seen your posts and refute them handily. You just have no one here to counter you. So don't tell me about bad sites. I've read the UN documents. I see where this is going.

Ok BEP, I understand that you have resources that you feel more confident with in guiding your understanding about the question of Global Warming. There are plenty of well meaning and honest souls that do dismiss the concerns. And there is no lack for an abundance of sites willing to provide a forum for all those who wish to call into question the science.

I was one of them as well in the 1980's. I am convinced otherwise today. It doesn't serve the argument that I am liberal. All to often it is easy to equate liberals and evil and socialism and to tie those to GW. I had been against Nuclear Energy. I was only concerned about sulfate and smog from power production from fossil fuels. I am quite willing to revisit the need for Nuclear Energy. It has to part of a solution. I do not see Cap and Trade as anti capitalistic. It is an attempt to have the total cost represented in the markets.

I hope I am wrong. You can dance on my grave. But I do try to make my arguments understandable. And to a more refined understanding they might seem untempered. But this is a football site. And I don't intend to really go deep into the metrics of the science.

[KC native]

I don't believe you because I've met scientist of your background who've even seen your posts and refute them handily. You just have no one here to counter you. So don't tell me about bad sites. I've read the UN documents. I see where this is going.

ROFL Another, I know a guy who posts from BEP. ROFL

[KC native]

Ok BEP, I understand that you have resources that you feel more confident with in guiding your understanding about the question of Global Warming. There are plenty of well meaning and honest souls that do dismiss the concerns. And there is no lack for an abundance of sites willing to provide a forum for all those who wish to call into question the science.

I was one of them as well in the 1980's. I am convinced otherwise today. It doesn't serve the argument that I am liberal. All to often it is easy to equate liberals and evil and socialism and to tie those to GW. I had been against Nuclear Energy. I was only concerned about sulfate and smog from power production from fossil fuels. I am quite willing to revisit the need for Nuclear Energy. It has to part of a solution. I do not see Cap and Trade as anti capitalistic. It is an attempt to have the total cost represented in the markets.

I hope I am wrong. You can dance on my grave. But I do try to make my arguments understandable. And to a more refined understanding they might seem untempered. But this is a football site. And I don't intend to really go deep into the metrics of the science.

BEP doesn't understand the difference between empirical and anecdotal data. Don't waste your time.