[Phys-L] Re: positive feedback loops (was global warming)

[dtmarx at ILSTU.EDU (David T. Marx)]

Thanks, Daryl, but I'm not looking for people to simply agree with me.  I really want
people to go out and look at numerous primary sources of information and decide for
themselves.  People should also do more than simply look at graphs, but look deeply
into the pitfalls of the measured data, the historical holes in the data, alternative
explanations, etc.  I see a lot of people simply believing the models with no justification
for doing so.

I am greatly disappointed in many of the responses to this thread.  I enjoyed Leigh's
response, but his was based on argumentation rather than data.  Some others simply
think I do not know of which I speak.  That's fine, if you have reason to do so.

In my class in the fall of 2003, I looked at around 500 refereed journal articles, I also
looked at the unacceptible references my students submitted, which included:
congressional testimony, speeches, news articles, environmental websites,
encyclopedias, books, etc.  After in-class discussion of the evidence, 100% did not
believe global warming is occurring.  I was greatly surprised by this outcome.  Before
the project, I was both curious about the topic and a bit skeptical.  I agreed with the
class in the end.

This semester, the students largely found a different body of literature than the previous
class.  The quality of the articles was not as good scientifically and the students did not
put as much effort in as the previous class had.  In the end, the vote was 60% do not
believe in global warming and 40% believe that it is occurring (most thinking its caused
by human influences with some believing in natural processes).

In this project, we did not consider modeling papers, only measured physical data,
including that which covers up to 100 000 years historically.  We did not look at
increasing CO2 levels.  I accept it as a given that CO2 levels are increasing for various
reasons.  I also accept that sufficiently high CO2 levels will result in substantial global
warming (cf Venus).  However, no one seems to know how much "greenhouse gas" you
need to have to produce significant warming.  The modelers also have difficulty
accounting for various pollutants that result in cooling.

If you wish to seek out papers, I recommend the Geophysical Research Letters, The
Journal of Climate, and the other journals produced by the American Meteorological
Society and good places to start.

Before I close, I will state again that I am not in favor of pollution, I'm in favor of
promoting cleaner energy technologies, I think we should be planting many more trees
(if we are so concerned with CO2), but let's not simply accept the global warming
doomsday scenario without quality, unbiased scientific review.

Good luck,
David Marx


On 18 Dec 2004 at 15:28, Daryl L. Taylor wrote:

> Dr. Marx, I'm with ya!
>
> I have yet to see any REAL scientific evidence (ie Physical data...) that
> has anything to do with us (Human beans) within the data. I like to look at
> the data. ALL the data. Going back a few gazillion years (<65, thank
> you...), the geo-physical data I've seen just makes my shoulders shrug and
> want to reach for another beverage.
>
> Speaking of which, David, if you have any specific student-oriented research
> conclusions from your classes, you had mentioned before that you had your
> kids do some serious research on this, I'd love to see them. I'm starting a
> semi-serious debate with a few AP students, who are buying into the
> media-science of global warming, and would like some ammunition other than,
> "Shut up, your grade depends on what I think..."
>
>
> Daryl L. Taylor, Fizzix Guy
> Greenwich HS, CT
> PAEMST '96
> International Internet Educator of the Year '03
> NASA SEU Educator Ambassador
> www.DarylScience.com