6 ms·

" 5. A small but significant scientific group arguing that we are not the primary cause of warming, even though we may be a contributing factor;" please link t

by jshen 14y ago

" 5. A small but significant scientific group arguing that we are not the primary cause of warming, even though we may be a contributing factor;" please link to some source to backup this claim

illuminate 14y ago
They're "significant" because of their contrarian-ness, of course, not because they have compelling evidence.
run4yourlives 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_questioning_the_accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the...
- jshen 14y ago
  Please see [this](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5167904 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5167904) and [this](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5167868 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5167868) for my response.
anigbrowl 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the... I personally believe both in anthropic global warming and that we should do something about it, but have no problem with the grandparent post's observation about the existence of some scientific opposition to this point of view. You'll note that the contrarian scientists listed at the link above tend to be relatively qualified to have an opinion by virtue of their academic specialty (as opposed to the opinions of scientists with no particular insight into such matters like, say, metallurgists or linguists). I find such counter-arguments interesting and worthy of consideration even when I don't agree with the conclusions drawn.
- jshen 14y ago
  Thanks for the link. I looked up the views of the first scientist listed under "Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes". Here is what I found "Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy—almost throughout the last century—growth in its intensity."[4] This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change as well as accepted reconstructions of solar activity. [5][6][7] He has asserted that "parallel global warmings—observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth—can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."[8] This assertion has not been accepted by the broader scientific community, some of whom have stated that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations" and that it "doesn't make physical sense."[9][10] Abdussamatov also contends that the natural greenhouse effect does not exist, stating "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated."[11] He further states that "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." He has stated that more work is needed to model the effect. However, this effect cannot happen because the mean free path of molecules in the atmosphere is very short, transferring energy by collisions and preventing greenhouse gases from retaining the excess energy they absorb. In early 2012, Abdussamatov predicted the onset of a new "mini-iceage" commencing 2014 and becoming most severe around 2055.[12]" Is this really a a significant contrarian as the OP stated?
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    Please reread my last sentence above: I don't find the arguments of these skeptics convincing. In several cases I think they're quite wrong. However, I also think they have a decent understanding of the scientific context and that their arguments are quite likely made in all sincerity. The point of the original list was not to validate the position of these scientists, but to observe the fact that there is a small number of scientists who hold those contrarian positions. Just because I think they're wrong doesn't mean they don't exist or that they're necessarily lying.

by jshen 14y ago

" 5. A small but significant scientific group arguing that we are not the primary cause of warming, even though we may be a contributing factor;" please link to some source to backup this claim

illuminate 14y ago

They're "significant" because of their contrarian-ness, of course, not because they have compelling evidence.

run4yourlives 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_questioning_the_accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the...

jshen 14y ago
Please see [this](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5167904 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5167904) and [this](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5167868 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5167868) for my response.

anigbrowl 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the... I personally believe both in anthropic global warming and that we should do something about it, but have no problem with the grandparent post's observation about the existence of some scientific opposition to this point of view. You'll note that the contrarian scientists listed at the link above tend to be relatively qualified to have an opinion by virtue of their academic specialty (as opposed to the opinions of scientists with no particular insight into such matters like, say, metallurgists or linguists). I find such counter-arguments interesting and worthy of consideration even when I don't agree with the conclusions drawn.

jshen 14y ago
Thanks for the link. I looked up the views of the first scientist listed under "Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes". Here is what I found "Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy—almost throughout the last century—growth in its intensity."[4] This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change as well as accepted reconstructions of solar activity. [5][6][7] He has asserted that "parallel global warmings—observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth—can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."[8] This assertion has not been accepted by the broader scientific community, some of whom have stated that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations" and that it "doesn't make physical sense."[9][10] Abdussamatov also contends that the natural greenhouse effect does not exist, stating "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated."[11] He further states that "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." He has stated that more work is needed to model the effect. However, this effect cannot happen because the mean free path of molecules in the atmosphere is very short, transferring energy by collisions and preventing greenhouse gases from retaining the excess energy they absorb. In early 2012, Abdussamatov predicted the onset of a new "mini-iceage" commencing 2014 and becoming most severe around 2055.[12]" Is this really a a significant contrarian as the OP stated?
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  Please reread my last sentence above: I don't find the arguments of these skeptics convincing. In several cases I think they're quite wrong. However, I also think they have a decent understanding of the scientific context and that their arguments are quite likely made in all sincerity. The point of the original list was not to validate the position of these scientists, but to observe the fact that there is a small number of scientists who hold those contrarian positions. Just because I think they're wrong doesn't mean they don't exist or that they're necessarily lying.