TL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 16
Forum Index > General Forum |
Rhine
187 Posts
| ||
WniO
United States2706 Posts
I'll buy into this fad when they find manbearpig, and when snow stops falling in vermont. | ||
v3chr0
United States856 Posts
However, our direction should be to work WITH nature, and not against it. If some people want to think we can actually change the climate so much in such a little time, there's nothing I can do but laugh. If people really think our meager existence on this planet can actually hurt and destroy it involuntarily, in the time frame they propose, is absurd. Advancements, and ways to protect the environment will only get stronger/better. Who's to say that with advancements, in 50-100 years Climate Change is not only a problem we know how to solve, but can. I seriously believe we'll be around on this Earth for a lot longer than 100's of years more. I'm not too worried, we are already more environmentally aware, things are only going to get better in terms of "what we contribute to climate change". Honestly though, any and all arguments are irrelevant. The natural world needs to be preserved, and the Human race needs to prosper to advance. You find a balance, and you keep it that way. Balance is essential. | ||
Asol
Sweden109 Posts
First of all, after lurking here at TL for over 2 years - this has made me want to create a account. Hats of for that. First of all quick questions here: I don't understand why you call people "denialists". If I were to "deny" god, wouldn't that also make me a "denialist"? Not agreeing with what you think/believe/reality most certainly can't give you the right to call people that. It seems rather petty, and I honestly can't see how it could possibly benefit you gaining support. You're giving them a slap on the face before even starting your argumentation. Surely most people who read this title are going to be irritated. Why did you make this thread here? Given that you have a better understanding than most of the people here, how could you hold a effective discussion? The people here apart from a few won't be able to discus with you on a similar basis and don't have the same knowledge. You could pretty much say w/e as long as it is sort of "advanced" and makes somewhat sense - close to none would argue with you. Close scrutiny is a (in my opinion) essential part, and here it is virtually non-existent apart from a few brave souls who I honestly can't trust since we're on the internet. Anyone can link to a credible looking site that I've never heard of and claim it to be 100% true based on science that I am unfamiliar with. Why would Global Warming / Climate Change be a bigger issue than any of the other "big issues" that we deal with today? Do you believe that it is worth to dedicate more time and money to Global Warming / Climate Chnage then it is to dedicate more time and money to help starvation, poverty, the current economic crisis, curing aids / cancer etc. What makes it more worthy of my time / money then any of those? Seeing as it's nothing that we desperately need to fix right now (or so it appears) - why shouldn't we work on these problems that could make a colossal difference? Cheers, and I nonetheless appreciate the effort that you put into this thread. | ||
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
Ok (cracks knuckles) On December 14 2011 08:27 Zedromas wrote: This.......times a thousand. My Dad used to say that finding a cure for cancer would actually cost corporations more money than they would be willing to part with. I don't agree 100% with this viewpoint but it's something to seriously consider. I honestly, just don't believe we have enough long-term reliable data about the Earth's climate. At best, our most reliable numbers and measurements regarding this issue only go back as far as 1200AD, and there is still debate about how trust-worthy these figures really are. "The most general definition of climate change is a change in the statistical properties of the climate system when considered over long periods of time, regardless of cause. Accordingly, fluctuations over periods shorter than a few decades, such as El Niño, do not represent climate change."-Straight from the Wikipedia Climate Change page. In short, 2000 years is the blink of an eye for any planet. But I think there is merit in discussing Man's effects on our truly wonderful and diverse world. READ THE THREAD ![]() This was answered just a few posts above yours. It makes no sense to say that scientists do better from proving the prevailing consensus. If you could find an alternate explanation that fits the data you would be the most well known scientist in a hell of long time. Scientists gain from proving things wrong. On December 14 2011 07:23 dabbeljuh wrote: I am a physicist working as a climate scientist. If I could find a serious flaw in all climate models and all data measurements and all climate reconstructions and all simple energy budget models (big if), I would be the most well know scientist on Earth, I assure you of that. I would come up with a new theory of decadal changes and would put up the best research programme on earth to understand that new prediction system. OR I would just go into consulting °J° -> bottom line: scientists are funded permanently (very few, they dont really care what they find out, they are safe) or in projects that run 1-3 years (big majority). this wouldnt change if climate change is not so drastic. over time the amount of money spend into scientifically boring projection exerciseswould spread back to understanding the complex Earth system. I would be happy about that, that would be the incentive, more real science, less politic exposure. | ||
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On December 14 2011 08:51 WniO wrote: I'ts been a long time since middle school, but I dont really remember how the greenhouse theory or whatever works. How can the suns radiation pass through the atmosphere and be all fine and dandy and then all of the sudden get trapped when it gets reflected back from the earth. Wouldnt the radiation just bounce off and never touch the earth if that were the case? and sidenote:+ Show Spoiler + I'll buy into this fad when they find manbearpig, and when snow stops falling in vermont. I seriously doubt you actually want to learn anything, Mr manbearpig. However, if you are serious about learning about this, and not just posting for the sake of posting, please read the information in the following link. http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm It explains the Green House effect and why C02 is the main culprit for the long term warming trend that is shown in the data. Come back in you have any questions on it. | ||
WniO
United States2706 Posts
On December 14 2011 09:08 Probulous wrote: I seriously doubt you actually want to learn anything, Mr manbearpig. However, if you are serious about learning about this, and not just posting for the sake of posting, please read the information in the following link. http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm It explains the Green House effect and why C02 is the main culprit for the long term warming trend that is shown in the data. Come back in you have any questions on it. thanks ill read it. | ||
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On December 14 2011 08:55 Asol wrote: Hello. First of all, after lurking here at TL for over 2 years - this has made me want to create a account. Hats of for that. First of all quick questions here: I don't understand why you call people "denialists". If I were to "deny" god, wouldn't that also make me a "denialist"? Not agreeing with what you think/believe/reality most certainly can't give you the right to call people that. It seems rather petty, and I honestly can't see how it could possibly benefit you gaining support. You're giving them a slap on the face before even starting your argumentation. Surely most people who read this title are going to be irritated. Why did you make this thread here? Given that you have a better understanding than most of the people here, how could you hold a effective discussion? The people here apart from a few won't be able to discus with you on a similar basis and don't have the same knowledge. You could pretty much say w/e as long as it is sort of "advanced" and makes somewhat sense - close to none would argue with you. Close scrutiny is a (in my opinion) essential part, and here it is virtually non-existent apart from a few brave souls who I honestly can't trust since we're on the internet. Anyone can link to a credible looking site that I've never heard of and claim it to be 100% true based on science that I am unfamiliar with. Why would Global Warming / Climate Change be a bigger issue than any of the other "big issues" that we deal with today? Do you believe that it is worth to dedicate more time and money to Global Warming / Climate Chnage then it is to dedicate more time and money to help starvation, poverty, the current economic crisis, curing aids / cancer etc. What makes it more worthy of my time / money then any of those? Seeing as it's nothing that we desperately need to fix right now (or so it appears) - why shouldn't we work on these problems that could make a colossal difference? Cheers, and I nonetheless appreciate the effort that you put into this thread. First off, welcome to TL. Home of the most people on the interent ![]() I don't understand why you call people "denialists". If I were to "deny" god, wouldn't that also make me a "denialist"? Not agreeing with what you think/believe/reality most certainly can't give you the right to call people that. It seems rather petty, and I honestly can't see how it could possibly benefit you gaining support. You're giving them a slap on the face before even starting your argumentation. Surely most people who read this title are going to be irritated. I can't answer for the OP specifically, maybe his motivations are different, but this is my point of view. Skeptic - One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions. - Online dictionary Skepticism - Skepticism has many definitions, but generally refers to any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2] The word may characterise a position on a single matter, as in the case of religious skepticism, which is "doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)",[3] but philosophical skepticism is an overall approach that requires all new information to be well supported by evidence.[4] - Wikipedia Note, a skeptic is inherently doubtful of hypotheses or generalisations. Science is inherently skeptical. The whole field is based on questioning the current way of thinking. The important bit is that a skeptic is willing to change their view in the face of new evidence. Denial - simple denial: deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether The reason these people are called denialists is because they refuse to change their position regardless of the data presented. If you are objective, take a look at this thread. Who is posting information? Who is trying to back up there view with data?. Who is willing to actually read what has been written? The same arguments come up, over and over and over again. Even once they have been discussed. This is denial. To the "skeptics", read this link Global Warming & Climate Change Myths. If your argument is not dealt with there, or you have some problem with the way it was dealt with, then please bring it here. But saying the same thing over and over does not make it right. Please read the thread. Why did you make this thread here? Given that you have a better understanding than most of the people here, how could you hold a effective discussion? The people here apart from a few won't be able to discus with you on a similar basis and don't have the same knowledge. You could pretty much say w/e as long as it is sort of "advanced" and makes somewhat sense - close to none would argue with you. Close scrutiny is a (in my opinion) essential part, and here it is virtually non-existent apart from a few brave souls who I honestly can't trust since we're on the internet. Anyone can link to a credible looking site that I've never heard of and claim it to be 100% true based on science that I am unfamiliar with. I imagine this thread is made to educate people. In fact here is exact purpose from the OP You guys can come up with a bunch of sceptic arguments that you are not so sure how to handle, and I will come up with a - hopefully - precise scientific answer to what the science in that case is. I will carefully discriminate between scientific assessment and potential political responses (some thing that denialists usually dont do, which makes the discussion so exhausting). If you are a cancer expert and there are people out there deliberately spreading misinformation that smoking does not cause cancer, would you not want to do something like this? As for people deferring to someone in the know, that never happens on the internet. Not a single person in this thread who exposes the anti-warming theories has said "Oh well you're an expert so you must be right." People should respond to evidence. As for the last bit on trusting people, well you have to make up your own mind. If you don't trust the sites linked, so be it. But then I ask, why come here in the first place? Why would Global Warming / Climate Change be a bigger issue than any of the other "big issues" that we deal with today? Do you believe that it is worth to dedicate more time and money to Global Warming / Climate Chnage then it is to dedicate more time and money to help starvation, poverty, the current economic crisis, curing aids / cancer etc. What makes it more worthy of my time / money then any of those? Seeing as it's nothing that we desperately need to fix right now (or so it appears) - why shouldn't we work on these problems that could make a colossal difference? This is a social question and probably outside the purpose of this thread. | ||
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
I stopped believing when advocates changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change. | ||
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On December 14 2011 10:18 Joedaddy wrote: I've always heard that there is as much scientific evidence disproving man-made global warming/climate change/whatever they are calling it today as there is supporting it. I stopped believing when advocates changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change. Ok, yet another repeated argument ![]() Argument from the sceptics There is no consensus The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere". (Petition Project) Response Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy. But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn’t even know about would turn up later on – and they did! So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon. In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004). Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities. We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one. In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm Directly from the links I posted earlier. Come on people, please try and move this forward. Going over the same ground does nothing. | ||
Mip
United States63 Posts
There is also no way to prove causality with anthropogenic sources. The temperature of the earth has swung so wildly in the past that the relatively tiny rises in temperature that climate scientists are claim as "anthropogenic warming" could just as easily be explained as noise in the grand scheme of climate evolution. This is true unless you are willing to make the claim that you understand all that contributes to the climate and how everything interacts, which from experts I've talked to in the field, that is not the case. There are always new covariates that are being discovered that change everything. It's easy to prove that for a closed system the addition of more C02 adds a warming effect, but when you add to that all the complex interactions of the environment with the C02 levels, then you complicate the problem to the point that the mere assertion that an increasing C02 concentration in the atmosphere has an increasing effect on global temperature is also moot. Use of the word "denialist" is also wholly irresponsible in terms of trying to have an unbiased fact-based debate. That term carries the same connotation as a holocaust denier and this isn't a history debate, it's a science debate. Climate science is not "settled" and to try and take a position that some of these points are beyond the point of being argued about at this point is destructive to the scientific inquiry on the matter. There is also a large stratification of people who don't buy into the "people are destroying the world" side of the climate debate. There are people who deny global warming on the grounds that global temperature has fallen in the last 10 years. There are people who accept that the past century has been one of warming, but are skeptical about the source of the warming. There are people who take everything they hear from the news and from Al Gore, and just buy into the whole theory with no question. But if you're going to have a serious debate, you have to acknowledge that there are many many groups of people that are on different sides of a lot of sub-issues. | ||
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
On December 14 2011 10:25 Probulous wrote: Ok, yet another repeated argument ![]() Argument from the sceptics Response http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm Directly from the links I posted earlier. Come on people, please try and move this forward. Going over the same ground does nothing. Ok but... there are still a huge number of scientists who say there is no evidence supporting man made global warming/climate change. Your 1 article does not open and close the book on 31,000+ scientists who disagree. Its a nice argument for consensus but it does nothing to address the evidence against man made global warming. The article is extremely bias in saying that "those who understand the nuances and scientific basis." That's just a nice way of saying if you disagree then you don't know what you're talking about. Again, its not addressing any of the evidence against man made global warming. | ||
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On December 14 2011 10:29 Mip wrote: I'm a statistician and from what I've seen of climate models that address the relevant statistical uncertainty associated with the major climate models is that they show an upward trend in predictions, but the confidence bands on the predictions diverge so quickly as to make the thought that we can predict where this whole "global warming" scare is going to actually end up going absolutely moot. There is also no way to prove causality with anthropogenic sources. The temperature of the earth has swung so wildly in the past that the relatively tiny rises in temperature that climate scientists are claim as "anthropogenic warming" could just as easily be explained as noise in the grand scheme of climate evolution. This is true unless you are willing to make the claim that you understand all that contributes to the climate and how everything interacts, which from experts I've talked to in the field, that is not the case. There are always new covariates that are being discovered that change everything. It's easy to prove that for a closed system the addition of more C02 adds a warming effect, but when you add to that all the complex interactions of the environment with the C02 levels, then you complicate the problem to the point that the mere assertion that an increasing C02 concentration in the atmosphere has an increasing effect on global temperature is also moot. Use of the word "denialist" is also wholly irresponsible in terms of trying to have an unbiased fact-based debate. That term carries the same connotation as a holocaust denier and this isn't a history debate, it's a science debate. Climate science is not "settled" and to try and take a position that some of these points are beyond the point of being argued about at this point is destructive to the scientific inquiry on the matter. There is also a large stratification of people who don't buy into the "people are destroying the world" side of the climate debate. There are people who deny global warming on the grounds that global temperature has fallen in the last 10 years. There are people who accept that the past century has been one of warming, but are skeptical about the source of the warming. There are people who take everything they hear from the news and from Al Gore, and just buy into the whole theory with no question. But if you're going to have a serious debate, you have to acknowledge that there are many many groups of people that are on different sides of a lot of sub-issues. Well this is a very reasonable response. I'm a statistician and from what I've seen of climate models that address the relevant statistical uncertainty associated with the major climate models is that they show an upward trend in predictions, but the confidence bands on the predictions diverge so quickly as to make the thought that we can predict where this whole "global warming" scare is going to actually end up going absolutely moot. There is also no way to prove causality with anthropogenic sources. The temperature of the earth has swung so wildly in the past that the relatively tiny rises in temperature that climate scientists are claim as "anthropogenic warming" could just as easily be explained as noise in the grand scheme of climate evolution. This is true unless you are willing to make the claim that you understand all that contributes to the climate and how everything interacts, which from experts I've talked to in the field, that is not the case. There are always new covariates that are being discovered that change everything. It's easy to prove that for a closed system the addition of more C02 adds a warming effect, but when you add to that all the complex interactions of the environment with the C02 levels, then you complicate the problem to the point that the mere assertion that an increasing C02 concentration in the atmosphere has an increasing effect on global temperature is also moot. This is a real problem and unfortunately is dificult to solve. This is what SkepticalScience has to say in this respect. Knorr finds that since 1850, the airborne fraction has eemained relatively constant. When CO2emissions were low, the amount of CO2absorbed by natural carbon sinks was correspondingly low. As human CO2 emissions sharply increased in the 20th Century, the amount absorbed by nature increased correspondingly. The airborne fraction remained level at around 43%. The trend since 1850 is found to be 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade. There are several differences in methodology between Knorr 2009 and Le Quere 2009. Knorr's result does not include the filtering for ENSO and volcanic activity employed by Le Quéré. However, when Knorr does include this filtering in his analysis, he finds a trend of 1.2 ± 0.9% per decade. This is smaller than Le Quere's result but is statistically significant. Knorr also finds the 150 year trend while Le Quéré looks at the last 50 years. This may be significant. If the airborne fraction is increasing, it is possibly a recent phenomenon due to natural carbon sinks losing their absorption ability after becoming saturated. Several studies have found recent drops in the uptake of CO2 by oceans (Le Quere 2007, Schuster 2007, Park 2008). However, with such a noisy signal, this is one question that will require more data before being more fully resolved. The only way to get a clearer picture is through more research and more complicated models. We can gain more certainty around the trends apparent in the data through futher obersvation. The influence of co-variates are much more difficult to ascertain as the data will simply not be available. I have no response for this and would appreciate the OP giving his insight here. Use of the word "denialist" is also wholly irresponsible in terms of trying to have an unbiased fact-based debate. That term carries the same connotation as a holocaust denier and this isn't a history debate, it's a science debate. Climate science is not "settled" and to try and take a position that some of these points are beyond the point of being argued about at this point is destructive to the scientific inquiry on the matter. One's connotation of the word denial is subjective. My understanding is that someone who refuses to change their position despite the evidence showing otherwise, is a denialist. There is also a large stratification of people who don't buy into the "people are destroying the world" side of the climate debate. There are people who deny global warming on the grounds that global temperature has fallen in the last 10 years. There are people who accept that the past century has been one of warming, but are skeptical about the source of the warming. There are people who take everything they hear from the news and from Al Gore, and just buy into the whole theory with no question. But if you're going to have a serious debate, you have to acknowledge that there are many many groups of people that are on different sides of a lot of sub-issues This is fair but I would posit that people who use arguments such as "the world isn't warming" or "scientists are in it for the money" are denialists. They refuse to acknowledge the available evidence. For example you say "There are people who deny global warming on the grounds that global temperature has fallen in the last 10 years." Well, why choose ten years? Why not longer timespans? We know that the effects, if real, will happen over longer time spans than a decade. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm You can pick and choose, but the long term trend is up. To say otherwise would be a denialist position. There are obviously people with different understandings of what is available, people also come to different conclusions. I have no problem with people disagreeing with the conclusions drawn from evidence. It is people who flat refuse to accept what is clearly shown to be true, that annoy me. | ||
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On December 14 2011 10:39 Joedaddy wrote: Ok but... there are still a huge number of scientists who say there is no evidence supporting man made global warming/climate change. Your 1 article does not open and close the book on 31,000+ scientists who disagree. Its a nice argument for consensus but it does nothing to address the evidence against man made global warming. The article is extremely bias in saying that "those who understand the nuances and scientific basis." That's just a nice way of saying if you disagree then you don't know what you're talking about. Again, its not addressing any of the evidence against man made global warming. Fair enough. Link the data. And not a youtube clip please, actual data sets proving your point. Articles that are peer reviewed or at least in respectable publications. In particular, those that show that the globe is not warming over the long term, or ones that show if its warming the source is something natural. (Sun cycles have been dealt with earlier in this thread) | ||
acker
United States2958 Posts
The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science. http://web.archive.org/web/20080713053831/http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html Please tell me this isn't the petition you are referring to, Joedaddy. | ||
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
On December 14 2011 10:56 Probulous wrote: Fair enough. Link the data. And not a youtube clip please, actual data sets proving your point. Articles that are peer reviewed or at least in respectable publications. In particular, those that show that the globe is not warming over the long term, or ones that show if its warming the source is something natural. (Sun cycles have been dealt with earlier in this thread) I'm not the one pretending to be a scientist. I most likely wouldn't know a data set disproving man made global warming if it sat on my lap and told me what it wanted for Christmas. The OP asked for skeptics' arguments for not believing man made global warming and I gave mine. In return, you gave me a completely biased article that didn't really say anything. What Mip said makes more sense than anything else I've seen so far though. | ||
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
I've always heard that there is as much scientific evidence disproving man-made global warming/climate change/whatever they are calling it today as there is supporting it. I provided some evidence to the contrary. You say the article is biased, well show me some evidence that there is much scientific evidence disproving man-made global warming. On the one hand you say my evidence is biased, but on the other you won't try and provide your own. Where did you get the idea that evidence is equal? You then say That's just a nice way of saying if you disagree then you don't know what you're talking about. Again, its not addressing any of the evidence against man made global warming. Which is exactly what you said earlier. Please find me something that supports this case. The only evidence available from what you have written is that there are some scientists that disagree. Well that was dealt with, unless there is something specific you don't agree with. Finally I'm not the one pretending to be a scientist. I most likely wouldn't know a data set disproving man made global warming if it sat on my lap and told me what it wanted for Christmas. Then why say there is equal amounts of evidence saying this is the case? The OP asked for skeptics' arguments for not believing man made global warming and I gave mine. In return, you gave me a completely biased article that didn't really say anything. What is your argument? | ||
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On December 14 2011 07:23 dabbeljuh wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 14 2011 04:39 storm8ring3r wrote: What is the incentive for a climate scientist to predict that everything is going to be okay I am a physicist working as a climate scientist. If I could find a serious flaw in all climate models and all data measurements and all climate reconstructions and all simple energy budget models (big if), I would be the most well know scientist on Earth, I assure you of that. I would come up with a new theory of decadal changes and would put up the best research programme on earth to understand that new prediction system. OR I would just go into consulting °J° -> bottom line: scientists are funded permanently (very few, they dont really care what they find out, they are safe) or in projects that run 1-3 years (big majority). this wouldnt change if climate change is not so drastic. over time the amount of money spend into scientifically boring projection exerciseswould spread back to understanding the complex Earth system. I would be happy about that, that would be the incentive, more real science, less politic exposure. Here's where I have to take a stand against what you've been saying. Sorry, this is going to offend you probably, but it's the way it is. Actually, if you deny the alarmist models, you are a heretic because the shock has taken hold in the public and the scientific community. The "CO2 evidence" comes largely form the IPCC, a so called body of 2500 scientists. That number is skewed, however, because anyone who comments on the conclusions of the IPCC is considered a contributor, regardless if they disagree with the findings. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903927204576572842778437276.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop This minority report states the IPCC and subsequent alarmists are wrong and used computer models to skew the effects for propogandic and funding use. Main points: + Show Spoiler + CO2 is not a pollutant and that's not the hypothesis in the scare; Pollution is a separate and important issue. The Vestok ice cores, the basis for much of climate studies, indicates post the ice age (plesitocene era) there has been a relatively stable period of temperature in contrast (holscene period.) Putting warming in context, looking back 16,000 years, you can say the earth has been warming, for its much warmer since the ice age; back 10,000 years there has been mild cooling but relatives statis; back 2000 years there was mild cooling as well; back 100 years massive warming!; back 10 years relative stasis. The GISP and GIRP state looking back 5,000 years there have been several warm periods; Egyptian, Minean, Roman, Medievil, and late 20th up to the 21st. The Vostok cores show going back 400,000 years that the 1.5 degree celsius variation from 1979-2005 was within the normal variation shown throughout the holoscene period. Anthony Watts, meteorologist and founder of surfacestations.org, studied the so-called best weather stations of the NOAA USHCN and sighted incorrect placement of temperature gauges near air conditioners and on top of asphalt, which accounted for the sharp increase in temperature readings during the early 2000s. Jones and Wang's studies of Chinese urban heat island effect have been debunked by Douglas J Kennan, stating of the 84 stations used in the study, 49 of the 84 stations cited have no historical record to indicate accurate readings. Of the 35 stations with records, they have been moved repeatedly, reducing the validity of their data. These studies are a large part of the IPCC's backbone. The Iris effect, proposed by Richard A Lindzen in 2001, suggests increased sea surface temps in the tropics would result in more cirrus clouds, reducing infrared radiation leakage and perhaps creating a cooling effect in the coming decades. Roy Spencer at University of Alabama, Hunstivlle confirmed the finding in 2007 using updated satellite data. Over the last 400,000 years according to the Vostok data, temp peaks have occurred six times over zero degrees celsius. Our holoscene period is one of those peaks; Within the holoscene period there has been a period in the 14th century called the Little Ice Age (1550-1850) and a medievil warm period (950-1150), which have been left out of the "hockey-stick" graph that Michael E. Mann posited in a 1998 article "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries". Actually, the bulk of the 20th C. warming was between 1905 and 1940; a cooling period existed between 1940 and 1975, when CO2 production from humans rose. Here's the kicker against the CO2 argument; CO2 is .054% of the atmospheric gasses. Of the Greenhouse Gasses, wator vapor composes 95% of it. Greenhouse Gas global warming would be indicated by greater warming in the troposphere but actually satellite and weather balloon data from that height indicates the surface warming was more intense during this recent warming period and temperature actually decreased with altitude. Piers Corbyn, solar physiciist and long range forecaster has indicated sun spots have a direct correlation with weather forecasting and warming; During the Little Ice Age he observed less solar activity, indicating a cooling period. Margaret Thatcher was integral to the IPCC's success; In 1988 the MET office helped fund and form the IPCC and release the first international climate change report of its kind in 1990. The interesting thing is how it coincided with the union miner's strike. Regarding funding, prior to Bush senior's presidency, climate studies had about $140 million in federal funding. That number rose to $2 billion in the 1990s. Regarding sea levels, they are not effected by global warming or the melting of ice caps. Two factors are major contributors to sea level rises; one is local rises and falls from the land, not the sea and second, neustatic changes in the ocean thru thermal expansion, which is almost impossible to measure. The International Arctic Research Center observes expansion and contraction of the ice caps yearly and by season. They are always melting and freezing over time, for the greatest discrpency in temperature is not global changes over time (less than 1 degree celsius) but the variation between the poles over seasons. Paul Reiter, who contributed to the third IPCC report in 2001, resigned because the IPCC was making incorrect models for climate change and his name was on the report. He testified before the US Congress in 2006, using his expertise on malaria not being a tropical disease and therefore not a global warming issue for the northern hemisphere, for it already wiped out thousands in Russia and many near the arctic circle. Respected scientists and experts on related climate subjects: + Show Spoiler + Robert M. Carter, Marine Geophysical Lab at James Cook University in Queensland Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa Piers Corbyn, forecaster and founder of Weather Action (use of the sun to predict weather and climate patterns.) John Christy, IPCC report 3 author and professor at the University of Alabama Hunstville; helped develop the first satellite temperature record with Roy Spencer Philip Stott, Emeritus of Biogeography at the University of London Paul Reiter, former IPCC report participant; current member of the WHO and professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris Roy Spencer, professor at the Principle Research Institute at University of Alabama Huntsville Patrick Michaels, professor for the Department of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia Nigel Calder, former New Scientist editor Syun-Ichi Akasotu, director of the International Arctic Research Center Tim Ball, professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg Frederick Singer, 1st director for the USNWSS Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Center Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1987-1989 I thought this was pretty cute by the way. + Show Spoiler + | ||
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
We are even seeing the problems of climate change in Australia. Lets say this heavier rains and warmer climate thing is true, because that is exactly what is happening in Australia. Wouldn't Australia benefit from heavier rains? In the beginning we got less than optimal rain and we would often get droughts, however this was easy to mitigate as we would just store the water or tap it out from the river, and found out more efficient ways to irrigate. Now we get huge droughts lasting till the rivers run dry, but when it rains, the rain is so heavy it destroys all the crops anyway (happened in Queensland last year where rains completely destroyed all the banana crops and we had no bananas for about a year). So even though it rains heavier, the hotter and dryer weather means that we get less rain overall and the rivers run completely dry, and then when it does rain it rains far too heavy and destroys all our crops. Even if we store all that rain, it doesn't make a difference, the crops are gone. I see nothing positive about the changes in climate, there's some real examples of the percieved "better" changes, but in reality it just doesn't work that way, we need the world to be as it was before we started polluting like mad. | ||
Keyboard Warrior
United States1178 Posts
| ||
| ||