Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#23260 08/25/07 08:10 PM
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
W
Wolfman Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
scpgo2, I KNEW this would get your attention!

This article,
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176986-2,00.htm

and another recent one in Newsweek,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/

are shedding light on the fact that "Reliable Sources" can be bought to publish reports that debunk Global Warming studies.




I found it rather interesting that Europeans are far more likely to believe the warning signs than are Americans. Why is that? Is it because Europeans are "next door" to Africa and Asia? For Americans, next door is Canada and Mexico, and most Americans have never even been to those countries. The physical isolation of North America leads to a sort of psychological isolation. That's not good.

It's too late for a lot of our Animal Friends, let's hope it isn't too late for us.

Last edited by Wolfman; 08/25/07 08:18 PM. Reason: Spell Check
.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Yes, there seems to be an increasing cultural divide between the European and the American, and it has nothing to do with plate tectonics. I'm not too sure what the reasons are. Is it something to do with politics? If so, is the culture driving the politics or vice versa? This has cropped up in several threads in one way or another. Maybe the historians will have a better perspective.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Perhaps the Eurpoeans notice natural signs of warming because they have access to longer historical and anecdotal evidence. For instance the locals may have been fishing in a particular spot in April for 100s of years and suddenly (and it does seem to be suddenly) the fish are there in March. In our garden, (in Australia) after a very cold winter, the blossom trees are, as every year since 1990, blooming earlier. And we have our freaky weather... with a drought that still continues, storms and huge bush fires. Such folklore is ignored as unscientific ( which it is probably) but really- isn't research just documented testing of anecdotes- under the splendid name of hypotheses?

The fires in Greece must give pause to those who hold the obdurate disbelief in the reality of Climate Change. I think we are the frogs in the pot--and the water is getting hotter all the time. Certainly here in Australia our Prime Mininster, a firm disbeliever, has, as a result of popular opinion, given some concern to this area at last. Not with much conviction, but better than nothing.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
Ellis, there is a problem with folklore because it is indeed not scientific. For example, how can you have a drought and storms? Drought and huge bush fires go hand in hand, but storms bring rain. Like the newsweek article implied, people have selective memory.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Believe me in Australia we have drought and storms (sometimes even in the same place), and storms light bush fires, especially during drought! I was answering the musings of Rede who was wondering why the Europeans are more open to the idea of the reality of Climate Change than Americans, by giving my opinion that there are anecdotal records in Europe that go back 100s of years and there aren't the same historical texts/customs/habits in the US, or indeed in Australia.











Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
W
Wolfman Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
"Anecdotes" are hardly scientific, but my Dad relocated from Poland to British Columbia when the Nazis moved in 1939. He remembers that the Fraser River would freeze up in Winter, allowing he and his buddies to walk across on the ice to a Liquor Store on the other side. They made money selling booze. That same stretch of river NEVER freezes up now. I'll bet there are thousands of stories like that, all over the World. We just never hear them. Of course, the Naysayers will tell you that there is no basis in fact to these anecdotes. The preponderance of memories of our ancestors is ignored.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Is that simply an anecdote? Looks like a verifiable observation that contributes to the scientific evidence from where I'm sitting.

Of course. if some guy had stuck a thermometer in the river and recorded the winter temperatures, those Naysayers would probably be less sceptical. Or they might want to argue about where exactly the guy actually stuck the thermometer, and whether the thing was working properly, whether guy's eyesight was 20/20 etc, etc...


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
W
Wolfman Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
You are right on, Rede, the body of evidence points to a startling change in our climate.

But, sigh, if it isn't witnessed by "accredited experts", it means nothing. Unfortunately, those most affected by Climate Change, the Butterflies, the Frogs, the Songbirds of the World, have no voice.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
More information is needed though to make it more scientific. Did it freeze in the mid 1930s? His neighbours would have been able to tell him that. In what year did it stop freezing? Did it freeze every year before that point? Did it only freeze for a couple of years? Was there significantly less precipitation the years it froze thus making it more apt to freeze due to a slower flow rate?

Anecdotes usually don't have enough information to make them valuable.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Yes they do John, it's just that in some places people who make the decisions aren't listening.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
Anecdotes usually do have enough information to make them valuable? Great. Here is anecdotal information from my backyard. In 2000, we put in two ponds connected with a fast running stream. We designed it this way so it would best be able to resist freezing. We had it easily running through the winter that first year; however, every year afterward it has frozen over. That must mean that we are headed for global cooling.

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Unbelievable.......this is a science forum, and there is people arguing that because "Pappy" says he used to be able to walk across the Fraser River in 1939, that we must be in an anthro-CO2 initiated global warming event.
Anecdotes are not science.

Real science says that the average temperature for the US (the country that has over 25% of the world's climate stations), has a temp trend that is well within the uncertainty range(0.21C over the last 86 years, or 0.024C per decade).

BUT THE US IS ONLY 2% OF THE WORLD'S SURFACE!!!!! People cry. Of course it is, but that 2% of the world's surface (5% of the land area) is the best monitored. It has 25% of the climate stations used in the GISS estimate, it has the most rural stations (don't tell me don't tell me that surrounding a thermometer by asphalt doesn't impact the observations), and it's telling a different story then the rest of the world. Is the difference because of regional differences in temperature trends? Or does it boil down to crappy data used for the rest of the world?

Garbage in = garbage out

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
"Unbelievable.......this is a science forum"

Cool it Canuck.

Anecdotal evidence, although not science, can be evidence worth investigating. Mammas and Pappies once put Jenner on the right track...

"It had been noted that where milkers of cows had been infected with the matter from pustules forming on the teats or udders of the cows, they showed an insusceptibility to small-pox attack. Proceeding on the lines of this observation Jenner made experiments whereby he transferred from the hands or arms of dairy servants this matter to other persons..."



"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted By: redewenur

Anecdotal evidence, although not science, can be evidence worth investigating. Mammas and Pappies once put Jenner on the right track...


I completely agree with you that anecdotal evidence can used used to focus scientific studies. I have no problem with that.

However, you called it a
Quote:
verifiable observation that contributes to the scientific evidence

which it is not.

But lets use this anecdote to focus in on southwest BC and and look at the scientific data. Here's a link to a paper on "Climate Change in British Columbia - A Paleoenvironmental Perspective". Published in 2003 in the Canadian Water Resources Association Journal.

The graph that might interest Wolfman is on page 15 of the pdf document, or page 545 of the Journal. It's a temperature reconstruction for the Pacific Northwest from 1750 to 1980 using tree rings (I'm sure nobody here has issues with temperature records from tree rings).

See any warming there?


As an aside, I would love to see proxy temperature data compared to the surface network for recent years. Let's see if the trends shown in the climate network are borne out in the proxy datasets. It seems all proxy datasets end in 1980. Proxies are good enough for us to estimate the global average temperature in 1500, surely they equally as good in 2007.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Noone is suggesting that anecdotes taken in insolation are a scientific finding, but isn't most science, if not all, the result of testing a hypothesis based on observable phenomena? And, is your argument Canuk, that these observable phenomena can make no valuable contribution to science?

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
My arguement is, that somebodies father saying he used to be able to walk across the Fraser river in winter, or that snowbanks were waist high, or anything from a person's "memory", is not a scientific observation.

A scientific observation would be climate station records or proxy temperature data (the graph that I linked to). Look at trends in that data, and see if Wolfman's father was right, or if perhaps he was helping himself to that bootlegged booze.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Wolfman did not claim scientific veracity for his father's recollections, in fact he says that thay are not scientific. He merely presented them as the sort of recollections that could form part of a body of anecdotes that may lead to further discussions. Science is not some great event that happens when people of immense intellect sitting in bare rooms in splendid isolation think of things to research. In fact research happens in response to need, curiosity and observation. Successful people of immense intellect however do understand that Wolfman's grandpa, and others like him are disturbed by something different that they do not understand. These scientists look for the 'why?' and thus conform to the description of science in the dictionary---'the study,description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of the nature and behaviour of phenomena in the physical and natural world'.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Canuck
However, you called it a
Quote:
verifiable observation that contributes to the scientific evidence

which it is not.

verify: to check whether or not something is true by examination, investigation, or comparison

Perhaps you're right in this particular instance. However, the point being made is clear enough. Anecdotal evidence should not be ignored.



"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
W
Wolfman Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
In Primitive Cultures stories told by ancestors were considered Wisdom. Here we are ignoring our Ancestors. And look at the mess we're in.

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Anecdotal evidence should not be ignored.


Of course not. It also should not be used as "scienfitic evidence"

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5