EPTScience might be neat and clean at the high school level, but it's quite messy at the cutting edge.
Climate Scientists Hacked - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
Science might be neat and clean at the high school level, but it's quite messy at the cutting edge. | ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
| ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
On November 22 2009 09:52 WhiteNights wrote: The number of climate scientists who believe there isn't global warming is in the single digits out of thousands. It's not newsworthy because there aren't any. I'm not sure what you mean here. The scientific community at large agrees that the hottest year on record was 1998 and that over the past decade there has been a net decrease in global temperatures. Don't pull bullshit out of your ass. There is still a lot of debate going on regarding exactly what factors have influenced global temperatures and how much of it is man-produced. The media doesn't cover this because it's not a fashionable discussion. It neither induces fear and sensationalism nor does it adhere to the trend in pop culture to be more "green." (And don't doubt for a second that I think the desire to be green is admirable, but there are so many things we do that we claim are "green" that simply aren't. The enviornmental movement at large is a sham and a lie, which is extremely disheartening since there are some various serious environmental issues that get wrapped up in this laughable game.) | ||
|
WhiteNights
United States252 Posts
On November 23 2009 02:16 Mortality wrote: I'm not sure what you mean here. The scientific community at large agrees that the hottest year on record was 1998 and that over the past decade there has been a net decrease in global temperatures. Yes, there has been a net decrease (it is not as warm as it was in 1998.) However, finding the linear trend by regression on 1998-2007 and 1999-2008 on GISTEMP (surface air temperature), GISTEMP (meteorological), and HADCRUT yields a (small) positive trend when run over either of these years. And choosing 1998 as your start year (the hottest year on record) will obviously make the upward trend look less than it is. But even if it did yield a negative trend, that is not evidence that global warming has stopped, paused, or reversed. On November 23 2009 02:16 Mortality wrote: Don't pull bullshit out of your ass. There is still a lot of debate going on regarding exactly what factors have influenced global temperatures and how much of it is man-produced. The media doesn't cover this because it's not a fashionable discussion. Yes, there is discussion of precisely and exactly how much methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide have to play in the scientific literature, but there is no disagreement that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the most significant factor involved. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Pretty much everything still looks like its trending upwards. Heads up: there's a lot of noise in the measurements. This is old news. | ||
|
Dasher
United States71 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/piratesarecool.jpg) I would say that we have a pretty obvious cause right here. | ||
|
Failsafe
United States1298 Posts
| ||
|
Try
United States1293 Posts
On November 23 2009 03:44 Dasher wrote: I would say that we have a pretty obvious cause right here. And recently, with Somalian piracy exploding, the average global temperature has gone down! Genius! It 5x cheaper to relocate everyone on earth than to bring CO2 levels down to levels where it, according to scientists, will no longer cause global warming. We can do little things that don't hurt the economy now, such as increasing heat efficiency using more heat-retaining buildings, but eventually we will run out of "cute tricks" and the only way we can further cut CO2 levels is massive cuts in production. Hybrids and "efficient" methods will only cut CO2 levels so much. To see any major cuts in CO2, we must destroy the global economy. Is it worth it to save our beaches? I don't know. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On November 23 2009 03:49 Failsafe wrote: I'm just saying, if I was a scientist studying the climate, and I'd been ignored my entire life because no one gives a fuck about my field... Well, I'm just saying that if something like global warming came up, something that got me grant money and made at least some people interested in what I have to say... Well, I'm just saying I'd probably try to hold onto it, you know, devote some resources into that area of research... For the good of humanity, you know. I haven't met a scientist yet who gives a flying fuck about the public opinion on his/her research =p. Most consider "the public" annoying and prone to misunderstandings. They want to impress their collegues (in their field), not random ppl on the streets. And if a new climatologist managed to produce a working believable theory that explains current phenomena without invoking global warming dues partly to humans he would have 1000s of quotations within the year so don'tthink there isn't incentive. Emphasis here on believable, theories like that are produced all the time, none so far has been good enough to win the majority over. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
There is no consensus on "global warming". Freeman Dyson, the second greatest living physicist (after Murray Gell-Mann), has been writing on the subject lately and is a harsh critic of the warming thesis. The Earth's climate is an incredibly complex system; it cannot be modeled accurately with the current level of knowledge and computing ability. If changes in the Earth's climate could be forecast for the next decade, then so could the behavior of global financial markets. On the other hand, if there is global warming, the Islamic statelet of Maldives shall be the first to go under  | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On November 23 2009 05:22 HnR)hT wrote: The subject of this thread erroneously refers to the authors of the exposed emails as "scientists." They are not scientists, they are frauds who produce junk and propaganda at taxpayers' expense. Falsification of results is the most serious breach of the principle on which the scientific profession is founded: an absolute commitment to the truth. There is no consensus on "global warming". Freeman Dyson, the second greatest living physicist (after Murray Gell-Mann), has been writing on the subject lately and is a harsh critic of the warming thesis. The Earth's climate is an incredibly complex system; it cannot be modeled accurately with the current level of knowledge and computing ability. If changes in the Earth's climate could be forecast for the next decade, then so could the behavior of global financial markets. On the other hand, if there is global warming, the Islamic statelet of Maldives shall be the first to go under You are right: as we say in my country: "Tout va bien Madame la Marquise" (and long life to the taxpayer -as if it was a problem for the taxpayer rather than the oil companies, hahaha-) | ||
|
Mr.Pyro
Denmark959 Posts
On November 22 2009 10:19 BuGzlToOnl wrote: Now, if we do things to prevent global warming from happening and it turns out to be false, we still just cleaned up our messy lifestyles and made the world nicer place to live in. I'm sure the thousand of dead children in Africa will be delighted we put up some windmills to stop the water from flooding our basements. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On November 23 2009 05:54 MaD.pYrO wrote: I'm sure the thousand of dead children in Africa will be delighted we put up some windmills to stop the water from flooding our basements. Do you know that Thirld World country are the one who are going to suffer the most from global warming? And the starving children in Africa may benefit that we have a good reason to question the system which put his country in the sad state in which it is now. | ||
|
HowitZer
United States1610 Posts
The Global Warming Swindle | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
fixed | ||
|
Glaucus
479 Posts
| ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
On November 23 2009 02:58 WhiteNights wrote: Yes, there has been a net decrease (it is not as warm as it was in 1998.) However, finding the linear trend by regression on 1998-2007 and 1999-2008 on GISTEMP (surface air temperature), GISTEMP (meteorological), and HADCRUT yields a (small) positive trend when run over either of these years. And choosing 1998 as your start year (the hottest year on record) will obviously make the upward trend look less than it is. But even if it did yield a negative trend, that is not evidence that global warming has stopped, paused, or reversed. Yes, there is discussion of precisely and exactly how much methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide have to play in the scientific literature, but there is no disagreement that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the most significant factor involved. Really? Because recent research has shown that spikes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have followed, rather than preceeded, increases in global temperature throughout the geological record. In fact you can even see this in the graphs another user posted if you look carefully enough. It's something you would probably dismiss as a trick of the eye, but it's something that has scientists baffled. See here: http://www.icr.org/article/does-carbon-dioxide-drive-global-warming/ If one looks at these data in finer detail, as shown in Figure 4, it becomes evident that temperature is driving the carbon dioxide concentration, not the other way around. And see here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/ But simple fact is: “No matter what rules temperature, CO2 is easily overruled by other effects, and this CO2-argument falls”. So we are left with graphs showing that CO2 follows temperatures, and no arguments that CO2 even so could be the main driver of temperatures. Wait, what? Yes. Take a good look at the graphs. Clearly it's not such a simple "cause and effect" relationship. Do a bit more reading before making such strong statements that are not so easily backed up. You know what the mass media has told you, but the mass media itself has an agenda it follows. | ||
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
But back in the real world... maybe I am just hopelessly naive but I can't help but think it a teensy bit unlikely that the Royal Society, the United Kingdom's premier scientific organisation, with a long and illustrious history, along with all the other major scientific institutions of the world, would participate. The Royal Society - Climate Change The Royal Society - Facts and Fiction About Climate Change | ||
|
WhiteNights
United States252 Posts
On November 23 2009 07:23 Mortality wrote: Really? Because recent research has shown that spikes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have followed, rather than preceeded, increases in global temperature throughout the geological record. In fact you can even see this in the graphs another user posted if you look carefully enough. It's something you would probably dismiss as a trick of the eye, but it's something that has scientists baffled. See here: http://www.icr.org/article/does-carbon-dioxide-drive-global-warming/ And see here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/ Wait, what? Yes. Take a good look at the graphs. Clearly it's not such a simple "cause and effect" relationship. And if we look at a more long term geological record, we see that in the long term, the graphs don't match up very well at all. See here: http://biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html Yes, in geological timescales, frequently CO2 has lagged temperature in rising. Previous climate changes have been driven by many things which were not CO2 such as Milankovitch cycles (shorter term), continental drift, plate tectonics (longer term), the movement of the sun around the galaxy (even longer term), the development of life (you get the picture), and changes in solar irradiance (etc). However, the basis for the theory that the unprecedented recent modern warming is driven by CO2 is not in "this has happened in the past so it will happen in the future." The timescales for previous drivers of climate operate on thousands or millions of years, none of which can explain current warming. The anthropogenic theory provides a satisfactory explanation, and it really has no competition when it comes to alternative explanations (sun and cosmic ray levels which, while they may affect climate, have changed very little in the last 100 years, as well as being inadequate to explain why temperature shifts of this speed and magnitude have not occurred in the past.) The fact that CO2 affects temperature is well established by such things as the existence of the greenhouse effect and radiation experiments. Scientists have attempted to determine to what degree CO2 effects is true through atmospheric modeling based on the thermal and optical properties of the various gases in our atmosphere. On November 23 2009 07:23 Mortality wrote: Do a bit more reading before making such strong statements that are not so easily backed up. You know what the mass media has told you, but the mass media itself has an agenda it follows. I don't post based on what the mass media has told me (I don't really follow mass media at all because I would rather play Starcraft than watch television.) To everyone, just not you; here's something from the American Institute of Physics (the United States' largest organization of physicists) that provides a brief introduction to the historical background on the discovery of global warming. The Discovery of Global Warming | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
On November 23 2009 07:29 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: Apparently there are rumours on the internets that there is a massive conspiracy involving the overwhelming majority of the world's climate experts, who have put aside their PhDs, decades of experience and hundreds of thousands of pages of research in order to help "the liberals" raise taxes. But back in the real world... maybe I am just hopelessly naive but I can't help but think it a teensy bit unlikely that the Royal Society, the United Kingdom's premier scientific organisation, with a long and illustrious history, along with all the other major scientific institutions of the world, would participate. The Royal Society - Climate Change The Royal Society - Facts and Fiction About Climate Change It's not a conspiracy, but first: scientists do care about funding and second: it was a good theory at the time it was introduced. The new data just doesn't agree with it. So what do people do? They try to come up with ways to "re-evaluate" new data to fit the model. However, as against doing this as you can tell I clearly am, it's not entirely without merit to do this. The issue is that there's a fine line between looking at new data in a different light and trying to find things in the data that aren't there. And the mass media works real hard to keep these discussion on the down low, because global warming propaganda is a much better sell than real science is. | ||
| ||
