|
On August 20 2013 05:08 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Now, having said that, we know that 99% of people are scientifically illiterate and cannot interpret data themselves. We must rely on those professionals who study the field to give their best interpretations. If there is never a debate on the issue and only one side is allowed to speak then I'm afraid I can't believe they are telling the whole truth. A dissenting opinion must be allowed to make it's case in order for the truth to come out. Imagine if astronomers discovered an asteroid heading toward Earth. They checked their calculations, double-checked them, triple-checked them. Every time they found that Earth is in the path of trajectory of the asteroid.
In that circumstance would you jump up and make a big song and dance about "dissenting opinion"? If you did, would you be surprised if you tested the patience of most astronomers?
|
On August 20 2013 06:31 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 05:08 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Now, having said that, we know that 99% of people are scientifically illiterate and cannot interpret data themselves. We must rely on those professionals who study the field to give their best interpretations. If there is never a debate on the issue and only one side is allowed to speak then I'm afraid I can't believe they are telling the whole truth. A dissenting opinion must be allowed to make it's case in order for the truth to come out. Imagine if astronomers discovered an asteroid heading toward Earth. They checked their calculations, double-checked them, triple-checked them. Every time they found that Earth is in the path of trajectory of the asteroid. In that circumstance would you jump up and make a big song and dance about "dissenting opinion"? If you did, would you be surprised if you tested the patience of most astronomers?
Well was the asteroid the result of natural causes or was it because of anthropogenic causes?
|
On August 20 2013 06:31 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 05:08 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Now, having said that, we know that 99% of people are scientifically illiterate and cannot interpret data themselves. We must rely on those professionals who study the field to give their best interpretations. If there is never a debate on the issue and only one side is allowed to speak then I'm afraid I can't believe they are telling the whole truth. A dissenting opinion must be allowed to make it's case in order for the truth to come out. Imagine if astronomers discovered an asteroid heading toward Earth. They checked their calculations, double-checked them, triple-checked them. Every time they found that Earth is in the path of trajectory of the asteroid. In that circumstance would you jump up and make a big song and dance about "dissenting opinion"? If you did, would you be surprised if you tested the patience of most astronomers?
The problem is that climate science neither has nor deserves the same level of trust as physics. Climate science is largely in the business of making poorly based claims about the far future while consistently having their models contradicted by the short term developments. Climate science should be lumped with economics and psychology, other fields which similarly apply naive models to much too complicated systems and pretend they have the scientific rigor of a natural science.
|
On August 20 2013 05:08 TricksAre4Figs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 04:37 radiatoren wrote:On August 20 2013 02:16 TricksAre4Figs wrote:On August 20 2013 01:10 dabbeljuh wrote:Dear TricksAre4Figs, I will see if this book is in our library and have a look at it. I am really interested if this book shows more things than the IPCC scrutiny by the science academies of the world after the Himalaya fault in the last report. Just from a glance of what the book promises it seems to attack ad hominem and not the facts. It might be true for example, that 30 % of the literature in the IPCC is non peer reviewed, but this means at the same time that 70% is, and there are good reasons for grey literature: In the working groups II and III on adaptation and mitigation, many regional details for many underdeveloped countries are simply nonexisting in published literature (as in there are no scientists that deal with these countries), so the IPCC relies on world bank or similar reports. Those are clearly not of the same standard as peer-revieweder literature, but its as good as it gets. as I believe that you are very strongly opiniated that climate change science is a hoax, I fear that we will not be able to convince you with singular arguments. A good attempt at explaining what this book does can be found in the comments itself (the following is copied from amazon): "The main problem of the book: It only deals with the messenger, but does not really care about the message. It starts with the scientific academies: DL several times challenges the scientific academies to look at the IPCC process and to look after that 'spoiled child'. She considers the academies as scientific authorities, which should set the standards and speak out on that topic. She welcomes the report of the IAC (see above) and blames the IPCC of not having implemented its recommendations. However, while it is undisputed that there are deficiencies in the IPCC process and that there is room for improvement (as in every human organization in the world, by the way) one has to keep in mind two things: 1) There is no such thing as a scientific assessment of the state of knowledge in any other scientific field. The IPCC is a novel thing and yet has to develop everything new and learn from experience, which is a long process. 2) All criticism of IPCC processes, deficiencies, etc. does not change the results of innumerable scientific studies over decades and the main findings of the IPCC which are based on these studies. There may be some overstatements for certain aspects ' and some understatements for others (a problem DL was not interested in at all!) ' but the overall picture is not really altered by that. While requesting academies to step in, DL does not know or just conceal that numerous academies all over the world have done similar assessments as the IPCC and have come just to the same conclusions: that there is man-made climate change over the last decades and that this ' without counteraction - will be a serious problem in the future." I did start this thread to discuss scientific questions and hypotheses that you or other TLers have; it is unfortunate that organisational issues you have with the UN or the IPCC process stop you from really looking at the underlying science best regards, if you have read the book, please dont hesitate to message me if you have any questions concerning the underlying science (or the process) W I appreciate you taking the time to respond in such a detailed manner and to look at what I have presented in this thread. However, I never said I thought climate change science was a hoax. You are attempting to put words in my mouth and to paint me as a "hoaxer" "denier" which is just a clever debating tactic that doesn't happen to be based on the facts of what I've said. Secondly, what makes you think I am "very strongly opinionated"? I'm simply bringing something to the discussion that hasn't been brought up yet. On the contrary, you seem to be the one who is very strongly opinionated and combative when presented with a dissenting opinion. His opinion is based on what you brought to the table. No need to get so defensive!  As he also points out, it is a bit to the ad hominem side of the discussion and it also doesn't seem to relate to what he is trying to discuss here, which is the science. If there are more specific quotes relating to the scientific topic instead of the people doing the research it is more in the spirit of this thread. If you want to stear closer to the topic at hand: What effects do you think the corrupt scientists have on climate science and why has a majority of scientists accepted their opinion as generally true? There must be something missing somewhere for us to make it make sense! It is not ad hominem to point out that unqualified people are hired and appointed to senior positions within the IPCC. This issue is detailed in depth in the book that I cited earlier. It costs about $4 to get the online version of the book if you're interested. To put it in very basic terms there is a concern that the data in various different climate science fields is being interpreted by activists and not by scientific standards. The issue of climate change is NOT entirely about the science at this point, it's about the activism and the politics surrounding it as well. We must be careful not to be bamboozled by activists who have an agenda and are not conducting objective scientific inquiry into the matter. Now, having said that, we know that 99% of people are scientifically illiterate and cannot interpret data themselves. We must rely on those professionals who study the field to give their best interpretations. If there is never a debate on the issue and only one side is allowed to speak then I'm afraid I can't believe they are telling the whole truth. A dissenting opinion must be allowed to make it's case in order for the truth to come out.
But in that case, who is supposed to make that dissenting opinion and on what specific topics? As far as I know, most of the relevant data are publically available so the 1% can go nuts. For the 99% that may be scientifically illiteral, it all comes down to who to trust.
When it comes to politics, climate science lends itself well to debates since consequences and therefore time to act and best ways to reach the goal are uncertain and that lends itself well to some discussions.
When it comes to the scientific material it is far harder to have a debate since the consensus is already there to a large degree. It is hard to discuss science since both parts have to air their healthy scepticism and be humble enough to admit that other theories are possible if they are not scientifically wrong. If we are talking real scientists they mostly end up complementing eachothers lectures.
|
On August 20 2013 06:51 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 06:31 GreenGringo wrote:On August 20 2013 05:08 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Now, having said that, we know that 99% of people are scientifically illiterate and cannot interpret data themselves. We must rely on those professionals who study the field to give their best interpretations. If there is never a debate on the issue and only one side is allowed to speak then I'm afraid I can't believe they are telling the whole truth. A dissenting opinion must be allowed to make it's case in order for the truth to come out. Imagine if astronomers discovered an asteroid heading toward Earth. They checked their calculations, double-checked them, triple-checked them. Every time they found that Earth is in the path of trajectory of the asteroid. In that circumstance would you jump up and make a big song and dance about "dissenting opinion"? If you did, would you be surprised if you tested the patience of most astronomers? The problem is that climate science neither has nor deserves the same level of trust as physics. Climate science is largely in the business of making poorly based claims about the far future while consistently having their models contradicted by the short term developments. Climate science should be lumped with economics and psychology, other fields which similarly apply naive models to much too complicated systems and pretend they have the scientific rigor of a natural science. I'm sorry, but you don't understand enough about science to even appreciate the distinctions between different scientific fields. The majority of climate change scientists publishing relevant papers are highly trained in physics and mathematics (like the gentleman running this thread). Many scientists would simply call them "physicists working in climate science". Most physicists would be proud to call them their own.
The methods of physics can absolutely be applied to climate science. Thermodynamically, the Earth is not a "complicated system" in the least. It's a system with an atmosphere that's exposed to a radiator. That is why the vast majority of physicists from other disciplines are not in the least skeptical about climate science: because it's so easy to arrive at a first approximation to the problem.
Obviously deducing exactly when we're going to die is not easy. But it isn't needed, and that is why anyone who knows the first thing he's talking about on this subject tends to get so testy.
|
On August 20 2013 07:35 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 06:51 Darkwhite wrote:On August 20 2013 06:31 GreenGringo wrote:On August 20 2013 05:08 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Now, having said that, we know that 99% of people are scientifically illiterate and cannot interpret data themselves. We must rely on those professionals who study the field to give their best interpretations. If there is never a debate on the issue and only one side is allowed to speak then I'm afraid I can't believe they are telling the whole truth. A dissenting opinion must be allowed to make it's case in order for the truth to come out. Imagine if astronomers discovered an asteroid heading toward Earth. They checked their calculations, double-checked them, triple-checked them. Every time they found that Earth is in the path of trajectory of the asteroid. In that circumstance would you jump up and make a big song and dance about "dissenting opinion"? If you did, would you be surprised if you tested the patience of most astronomers? The problem is that climate science neither has nor deserves the same level of trust as physics. Climate science is largely in the business of making poorly based claims about the far future while consistently having their models contradicted by the short term developments. Climate science should be lumped with economics and psychology, other fields which similarly apply naive models to much too complicated systems and pretend they have the scientific rigor of a natural science. I'm sorry, but you don't understand enough about science to even appreciate the distinctions between different scientific fields. The majority of climate change scientists publishing relevant papers are highly trained in physics and mathematics (like the gentleman running this thread). Many scientists would simply call them "physicists working in climate science". Most physicists would be proud to call them their own. The methods of physics can absolutely be applied to climate science. Thermodynamically, the Earth is not a "complicated system" in the least. It's a system with an atmosphere that's exposed to a radiator. That is why the vast majority of physicists from other disciplines are not in the least skeptical about climate science: because it's so easy to arrive at a first approximation to the problem. Obviously deducing exactly when we're going to die is not easy. But it isn't needed, and that is why anyone who knows the first thing he's talking about on this subject tends to get so testy.
Would you mind referencing the relevant scientists and their papers you speak of?
|
On August 20 2013 07:42 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Would you mind referencing the relevant scientists and their papers you speak of?
Like every single one of them. Type in "list of climate scientists" and you'll get a Wiki of a list that's composed almost entirely of physicists and mathematicians.
But that's such a douchebaggish question, so straightforwardly answerable with an elementary Google search, that I'm going to bow out of this thread. You know it's a lost cause when you get immaterial paper requests from people who have not the slightest intention of reading a paper.
|
On August 20 2013 07:53 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 07:42 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Would you mind referencing the relevant scientists and their papers you speak of?
Like every single one of them. Type in "list of climate scientists" and you'll get a Wiki of a list that's composed almost entirely of physicists and mathematicians. But that's such a douchebaggish question, so straightforwardly answerable with an elementary Google search, that I'm going to bow out of this thread. You know it's a lost cause when you get immaterial paper requests from people who have not the slightest intention of reading a paper.
Uhhh, sorry I wasn't sure which scientists you considered to be relevant or irrelevant which is why I asked you to reference a few for us to research. Interesting response though, you seem like a raging kool-aid drinker who can't engage with people who might not agree with you on an adult level.
|
A leaked draft of the U.N.'s next major climate change report warns that global sea levels could rise more than three feet by the end of the century if greenhouse emissions continue unbated, The New York Times reported Monday.
The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) report is also more confident that human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels, are the chief cause of the atmospheric warming seen since the 1950s. The report's authors say it is at least 95 percent likely that humans are behind this warming, according to an initial report from Reuters last Friday.
This confidence is reflected in the study's language. It's "extremely likely" that humans caused "more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010," The Times quoted from the draft report.
The IPCC outlines several several sea level rise scenarios for the end of the century, based on efforts to limit emissions in the coming decades. The most optimistic emissions reductions could bring only a 10-inch rise, explains the Times, on top of the eight inches seen in the last century. If emissions continue at a runaway pace, sea levels could rise "at least 21 inches by 2100 and might rise a bit more than three feet."
The National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration's 2012 State of the Climate report, released earlier this month, showed global greenhouse gas emissions reached a new record high in 2011, and estimates suggest the record was broken again in 2012.
Source
|
On August 20 2013 07:35 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 06:51 Darkwhite wrote:On August 20 2013 06:31 GreenGringo wrote:On August 20 2013 05:08 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Now, having said that, we know that 99% of people are scientifically illiterate and cannot interpret data themselves. We must rely on those professionals who study the field to give their best interpretations. If there is never a debate on the issue and only one side is allowed to speak then I'm afraid I can't believe they are telling the whole truth. A dissenting opinion must be allowed to make it's case in order for the truth to come out. Imagine if astronomers discovered an asteroid heading toward Earth. They checked their calculations, double-checked them, triple-checked them. Every time they found that Earth is in the path of trajectory of the asteroid. In that circumstance would you jump up and make a big song and dance about "dissenting opinion"? If you did, would you be surprised if you tested the patience of most astronomers? The problem is that climate science neither has nor deserves the same level of trust as physics. Climate science is largely in the business of making poorly based claims about the far future while consistently having their models contradicted by the short term developments. Climate science should be lumped with economics and psychology, other fields which similarly apply naive models to much too complicated systems and pretend they have the scientific rigor of a natural science. I'm sorry, but you don't understand enough about science to even appreciate the distinctions between different scientific fields. The majority of climate change scientists publishing relevant papers are highly trained in physics and mathematics (like the gentleman running this thread). Many scientists would simply call them "physicists working in climate science". Most physicists would be proud to call them their own. The methods of physics can absolutely be applied to climate science. Thermodynamically, the Earth is not a "complicated system" in the least. It's a system with an atmosphere that's exposed to a radiator. That is why the vast majority of physicists from other disciplines are not in the least skeptical about climate science: because it's so easy to arrive at a first approximation to the problem. Obviously deducing exactly when we're going to die is not easy. But it isn't needed, and that is why anyone who knows the first thing he's talking about on this subject tends to get so testy.
I understand enough about science to hold a master's degree in theoretical physics.
Regardless of whether the Earth's climate is simple, understanding a system should enable you to make accurate predictions about the future. The gold standard of science is not simply peer review and significance testing, but showing predictive accuracy, and failure to do so ruins your credibility.
It really shouldn't be difficult to understand why plots of asteroid trajectories are considered more trustworthy than climate change estimates. It seems climate science's track record as far as tested predictions go is nothing but a series of embarrassments.
|
On August 20 2013 08:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +A leaked draft of the U.N.'s next major climate change report warns that global sea levels could rise more than three feet by the end of the century if greenhouse emissions continue unbated, The New York Times reported Monday.
The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) report is also more confident that human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels, are the chief cause of the atmospheric warming seen since the 1950s. The report's authors say it is at least 95 percent likely that humans are behind this warming, according to an initial report from Reuters last Friday.
This confidence is reflected in the study's language. It's "extremely likely" that humans caused "more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010," The Times quoted from the draft report.
The IPCC outlines several several sea level rise scenarios for the end of the century, based on efforts to limit emissions in the coming decades. The most optimistic emissions reductions could bring only a 10-inch rise, explains the Times, on top of the eight inches seen in the last century. If emissions continue at a runaway pace, sea levels could rise "at least 21 inches by 2100 and might rise a bit more than three feet."
The National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration's 2012 State of the Climate report, released earlier this month, showed global greenhouse gas emissions reached a new record high in 2011, and estimates suggest the record was broken again in 2012. Source
The IPCC has been thoroughly discredited. Next.
|
On August 20 2013 08:01 TricksAre4Figs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 07:53 GreenGringo wrote:On August 20 2013 07:42 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Would you mind referencing the relevant scientists and their papers you speak of?
Like every single one of them. Type in "list of climate scientists" and you'll get a Wiki of a list that's composed almost entirely of physicists and mathematicians. But that's such a douchebaggish question, so straightforwardly answerable with an elementary Google search, that I'm going to bow out of this thread. You know it's a lost cause when you get immaterial paper requests from people who have not the slightest intention of reading a paper. Uhhh, sorry I wasn't sure which scientists you considered to be relevant or irrelevant which is why I asked you to reference a few for us to research. Interesting response though, you seem like a raging kool-aid drinker who can't engage with people who might not agree with you on an adult level. You're not engaging on an "adult level". All you've brought to the table so far is the utterly childish and inane point that the specialists "might" be wrong that the Earth is in grave peril.
Well here's a question: so fucking what? Everybody admits they "might" be wrong. It's crashingly, creakingly, blindly obvious that the only relevant point is whether you have an INTERESTING objection that could turn the "might" into something more.
You don't have such an interesting objection, either technical or non-technical. I'm therefore at a complete loss as to what else to say to you. Doubtless you'll reach for some new insult, because that's all you really have: insults and the banal, content-free point that the community of scientific specialists "might" be wrong.
|
On August 20 2013 07:35 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 06:51 Darkwhite wrote:On August 20 2013 06:31 GreenGringo wrote:On August 20 2013 05:08 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Now, having said that, we know that 99% of people are scientifically illiterate and cannot interpret data themselves. We must rely on those professionals who study the field to give their best interpretations. If there is never a debate on the issue and only one side is allowed to speak then I'm afraid I can't believe they are telling the whole truth. A dissenting opinion must be allowed to make it's case in order for the truth to come out. Imagine if astronomers discovered an asteroid heading toward Earth. They checked their calculations, double-checked them, triple-checked them. Every time they found that Earth is in the path of trajectory of the asteroid. In that circumstance would you jump up and make a big song and dance about "dissenting opinion"? If you did, would you be surprised if you tested the patience of most astronomers? The problem is that climate science neither has nor deserves the same level of trust as physics. Climate science is largely in the business of making poorly based claims about the far future while consistently having their models contradicted by the short term developments. Climate science should be lumped with economics and psychology, other fields which similarly apply naive models to much too complicated systems and pretend they have the scientific rigor of a natural science. I'm sorry, but you don't understand enough about science to even appreciate the distinctions between different scientific fields. The majority of climate change scientists publishing relevant papers are highly trained in physics and mathematics (like the gentleman running this thread). Many scientists would simply call them "physicists working in climate science". Most physicists would be proud to call them their own. The methods of physics can absolutely be applied to climate science. Thermodynamically, the Earth is not a "complicated system" in the least. It's a system with an atmosphere that's exposed to a radiator. That is why the vast majority of physicists from other disciplines are not in the least skeptical about climate science: because it's so easy to arrive at a first approximation to the problem. Obviously deducing exactly when we're going to die is not easy. But it isn't needed, and that is why anyone who knows the first thing he's talking about on this subject tends to get so testy.
I'm pretty sure the Earth is a complicated system. There are quite a few feedback effects that can make increased CO2 output more or less important than the simple greenhouse effect would imply. Ex. increased CO2 can lead to increased water vapor, another greenhouse gas. Or increased CO2 can lead to other things that diminish the effect.
I'd agree with you that at first blush it is very intuitive that an increase in CO2 will result in some increase in global temperatures. But that basic intuition isn't very useful when crafting public policy that deals with real costs and real choices.
|
On August 20 2013 08:14 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 08:01 TricksAre4Figs wrote:On August 20 2013 07:53 GreenGringo wrote:On August 20 2013 07:42 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Would you mind referencing the relevant scientists and their papers you speak of?
Like every single one of them. Type in "list of climate scientists" and you'll get a Wiki of a list that's composed almost entirely of physicists and mathematicians. But that's such a douchebaggish question, so straightforwardly answerable with an elementary Google search, that I'm going to bow out of this thread. You know it's a lost cause when you get immaterial paper requests from people who have not the slightest intention of reading a paper. Uhhh, sorry I wasn't sure which scientists you considered to be relevant or irrelevant which is why I asked you to reference a few for us to research. Interesting response though, you seem like a raging kool-aid drinker who can't engage with people who might not agree with you on an adult level. You're not engaging on an "adult level". All you've brought to the table so far is the utterly childish and inane point that the specialists "might" be wrong that the Earth is in grave peril. Well here's a question: so fucking what? Everybody admits they "might" be wrong. It's crashingly, creakingly, blindly obvious that the only relevant point is whether you have an INTERESTING objection that could turn the "might" into something more. You don't have such an interesting objection, either technical or non-technical. I'm therefore at a complete loss as to what else to say to you. Doubtless you'll reach for some new insult, because that's all you really have: insults and the banal, content-free point that the community of scientific specialists "might" be wrong.
I just want to understand whatever it is you understand that makes you so sure that one side is right and the other side is wrong. There is plenty of dissent on this issue and plenty of errors that have been made by the climate change doomsayers. So why are you so sure that they are still correct?
|
United States24565 Posts
On August 20 2013 08:14 TricksAre4Figs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 08:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A leaked draft of the U.N.'s next major climate change report warns that global sea levels could rise more than three feet by the end of the century if greenhouse emissions continue unbated, The New York Times reported Monday.
The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) report is also more confident that human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels, are the chief cause of the atmospheric warming seen since the 1950s. The report's authors say it is at least 95 percent likely that humans are behind this warming, according to an initial report from Reuters last Friday.
This confidence is reflected in the study's language. It's "extremely likely" that humans caused "more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010," The Times quoted from the draft report.
The IPCC outlines several several sea level rise scenarios for the end of the century, based on efforts to limit emissions in the coming decades. The most optimistic emissions reductions could bring only a 10-inch rise, explains the Times, on top of the eight inches seen in the last century. If emissions continue at a runaway pace, sea levels could rise "at least 21 inches by 2100 and might rise a bit more than three feet."
The National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration's 2012 State of the Climate report, released earlier this month, showed global greenhouse gas emissions reached a new record high in 2011, and estimates suggest the record was broken again in 2012. Source The IPCC has been thoroughly discredited. Next.
Can you explain when/how it was 'discredited'?
On August 20 2013 08:18 TricksAre4Figs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 08:14 GreenGringo wrote:On August 20 2013 08:01 TricksAre4Figs wrote:On August 20 2013 07:53 GreenGringo wrote:On August 20 2013 07:42 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Would you mind referencing the relevant scientists and their papers you speak of?
Like every single one of them. Type in "list of climate scientists" and you'll get a Wiki of a list that's composed almost entirely of physicists and mathematicians. But that's such a douchebaggish question, so straightforwardly answerable with an elementary Google search, that I'm going to bow out of this thread. You know it's a lost cause when you get immaterial paper requests from people who have not the slightest intention of reading a paper. Uhhh, sorry I wasn't sure which scientists you considered to be relevant or irrelevant which is why I asked you to reference a few for us to research. Interesting response though, you seem like a raging kool-aid drinker who can't engage with people who might not agree with you on an adult level. You're not engaging on an "adult level". All you've brought to the table so far is the utterly childish and inane point that the specialists "might" be wrong that the Earth is in grave peril. Well here's a question: so fucking what? Everybody admits they "might" be wrong. It's crashingly, creakingly, blindly obvious that the only relevant point is whether you have an INTERESTING objection that could turn the "might" into something more. You don't have such an interesting objection, either technical or non-technical. I'm therefore at a complete loss as to what else to say to you. Doubtless you'll reach for some new insult, because that's all you really have: insults and the banal, content-free point that the community of scientific specialists "might" be wrong. I just want to understand whatever it is you understand that makes you so sure that one side is right and the other side is wrong. There is plenty of dissent on this issue and plenty of errors that have been made by the climate change doomsayers. So why are you so sure that they are still correct?
I think in order for someone to discuss this with you, you should tell us in what way are you skeptical that human behavior is responsible for measured changes in climate. IE: "Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle" or "CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes."
The fact that we started observing sudden, fast shifts in environmental levels shortly after the onset of the industrial evolution leads me to believe that we should be asking which aspects of our current model of climate change contributors are wrong or need to be adjusted, rather than if there was just some crazy coincidence. Please state your specific stance and why so we can respond to it.
|
On August 20 2013 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 07:35 GreenGringo wrote:On August 20 2013 06:51 Darkwhite wrote:On August 20 2013 06:31 GreenGringo wrote:On August 20 2013 05:08 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Now, having said that, we know that 99% of people are scientifically illiterate and cannot interpret data themselves. We must rely on those professionals who study the field to give their best interpretations. If there is never a debate on the issue and only one side is allowed to speak then I'm afraid I can't believe they are telling the whole truth. A dissenting opinion must be allowed to make it's case in order for the truth to come out. Imagine if astronomers discovered an asteroid heading toward Earth. They checked their calculations, double-checked them, triple-checked them. Every time they found that Earth is in the path of trajectory of the asteroid. In that circumstance would you jump up and make a big song and dance about "dissenting opinion"? If you did, would you be surprised if you tested the patience of most astronomers? The problem is that climate science neither has nor deserves the same level of trust as physics. Climate science is largely in the business of making poorly based claims about the far future while consistently having their models contradicted by the short term developments. Climate science should be lumped with economics and psychology, other fields which similarly apply naive models to much too complicated systems and pretend they have the scientific rigor of a natural science. I'm sorry, but you don't understand enough about science to even appreciate the distinctions between different scientific fields. The majority of climate change scientists publishing relevant papers are highly trained in physics and mathematics (like the gentleman running this thread). Many scientists would simply call them "physicists working in climate science". Most physicists would be proud to call them their own. The methods of physics can absolutely be applied to climate science. Thermodynamically, the Earth is not a "complicated system" in the least. It's a system with an atmosphere that's exposed to a radiator. That is why the vast majority of physicists from other disciplines are not in the least skeptical about climate science: because it's so easy to arrive at a first approximation to the problem. Obviously deducing exactly when we're going to die is not easy. But it isn't needed, and that is why anyone who knows the first thing he's talking about on this subject tends to get so testy. I'm pretty sure the Earth is a complicated system. There are quite a few feedback effects that can make increased CO2 output more or less important than the simple greenhouse effect would imply. Ex. increased CO2 can lead to increased water vapor, another greenhouse gas. Or increased CO2 can lead to other things that diminish the effect. I'd agree with you that at first blush it is very intuitive that an increase in CO2 will result in some increase in global temperatures. But that basic intuition isn't very useful when crafting public policy that deals with real costs and real choices. No, you don't name any such "feedback effect". The fact that there isn't any "significant feedback" effect is partly why this is so simple to analyse. Find a reason why pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere means less greenhouse gas density overall and win yourself the Nobel prize for chemistry.
And of course intuition isn't sufficient. That is why we have a community of specialists devoted to studying this problem. That is why we don't need a bunch of ignoramuses mouthing off and discrediting climate change science with no argument other than a misunderstanding of thermodynamics. I'm quite happy to stop posting and defer to the professionals provided that you do the same. Something tells me you don't like the idea.
|
On August 20 2013 08:38 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2013 07:35 GreenGringo wrote:On August 20 2013 06:51 Darkwhite wrote:On August 20 2013 06:31 GreenGringo wrote:On August 20 2013 05:08 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Now, having said that, we know that 99% of people are scientifically illiterate and cannot interpret data themselves. We must rely on those professionals who study the field to give their best interpretations. If there is never a debate on the issue and only one side is allowed to speak then I'm afraid I can't believe they are telling the whole truth. A dissenting opinion must be allowed to make it's case in order for the truth to come out. Imagine if astronomers discovered an asteroid heading toward Earth. They checked their calculations, double-checked them, triple-checked them. Every time they found that Earth is in the path of trajectory of the asteroid. In that circumstance would you jump up and make a big song and dance about "dissenting opinion"? If you did, would you be surprised if you tested the patience of most astronomers? The problem is that climate science neither has nor deserves the same level of trust as physics. Climate science is largely in the business of making poorly based claims about the far future while consistently having their models contradicted by the short term developments. Climate science should be lumped with economics and psychology, other fields which similarly apply naive models to much too complicated systems and pretend they have the scientific rigor of a natural science. I'm sorry, but you don't understand enough about science to even appreciate the distinctions between different scientific fields. The majority of climate change scientists publishing relevant papers are highly trained in physics and mathematics (like the gentleman running this thread). Many scientists would simply call them "physicists working in climate science". Most physicists would be proud to call them their own. The methods of physics can absolutely be applied to climate science. Thermodynamically, the Earth is not a "complicated system" in the least. It's a system with an atmosphere that's exposed to a radiator. That is why the vast majority of physicists from other disciplines are not in the least skeptical about climate science: because it's so easy to arrive at a first approximation to the problem. Obviously deducing exactly when we're going to die is not easy. But it isn't needed, and that is why anyone who knows the first thing he's talking about on this subject tends to get so testy. I'm pretty sure the Earth is a complicated system. There are quite a few feedback effects that can make increased CO2 output more or less important than the simple greenhouse effect would imply. Ex. increased CO2 can lead to increased water vapor, another greenhouse gas. Or increased CO2 can lead to other things that diminish the effect. I'd agree with you that at first blush it is very intuitive that an increase in CO2 will result in some increase in global temperatures. But that basic intuition isn't very useful when crafting public policy that deals with real costs and real choices. No, you don't name any such "feedback effect". The fact that there isn't any "significant feedback" effect is partly why this is so simple to analyse. Find a reason why pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere means less greenhouse gas density overall and win yourself the Nobel prize for chemistry. And of course intuition isn't sufficient. That is why we have a community of specialists devoted to studying this problem. That is why we don't a bunch of ignoramuses mouthing off and discrediting climate change science with no argument other than a misunderstanding of thermodynamics. I'm quite happy to stop posting and defer to the professionals provided that you do the same. Something tells me you don't like the idea.
If it's so simple why are the climate models so bad?
![[image loading]](http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20130330_STC334_1.png)
Link
|
I have an answer, but I'm sure Dabbeljuh has a better one. So let's just wait to hear what he has to say.
P.S. -- Although that doesn't look "bad" to me. The "actual" line is consistently within the confidence interval and a general upward trend is successfully predicted.
|
On August 20 2013 08:48 GreenGringo wrote:
I have an answer, but I'm sure Dabbeljuh has a better one. So let's just wait to hear what he has to say.
There are only two possible explanations. Either they are too incompetent to understand a simple system, or the system is complicated enough for well-funded scientists to get the wrong answers.
|
On August 20 2013 08:14 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 08:01 TricksAre4Figs wrote:On August 20 2013 07:53 GreenGringo wrote:On August 20 2013 07:42 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Would you mind referencing the relevant scientists and their papers you speak of?
Like every single one of them. Type in "list of climate scientists" and you'll get a Wiki of a list that's composed almost entirely of physicists and mathematicians. But that's such a douchebaggish question, so straightforwardly answerable with an elementary Google search, that I'm going to bow out of this thread. You know it's a lost cause when you get immaterial paper requests from people who have not the slightest intention of reading a paper. Uhhh, sorry I wasn't sure which scientists you considered to be relevant or irrelevant which is why I asked you to reference a few for us to research. Interesting response though, you seem like a raging kool-aid drinker who can't engage with people who might not agree with you on an adult level. You're not engaging on an "adult level". All you've brought to the table so far is the utterly childish and inane point that the specialists "might" be wrong that the Earth is in grave peril. Well here's a question: so fucking what? Everybody admits they "might" be wrong. It's crashingly, creakingly, blindly obvious that the only relevant point is whether you have an INTERESTING objection that could turn the "might" into something more. You don't have such an interesting objection, either technical or non-technical. I'm therefore at a complete loss as to what else to say to you. Doubtless you'll reach for some new insult, because that's all you really have: insults and the banal, content-free point that the community of scientific specialists "might" be wrong.
Yo GreenGringo, let me help you out here. Dozens of articles in support of your point are my speciality
http://theconversation.com/the-greenhouse-effect-is-real-heres-why-1515
the link between greenhouse gas concentrations and global surface air temperature – is based primarily on our fundamental understanding of mathematics, physics, astronomy and chemistry. Much of this science is textbook material that is at least a century old and does not rely on the recent climate record.
...
Here in Australia, the decade ending in 2010 has easily been the warmest since record keeping began, and continues a trend of each decade being warmer than the previous, that extends back 70 years. Globally, significant warming and other changes have been observed across a range of different indicators and through a number of different recording instruments, and a consistent picture has now emerged
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/abs/ngeo865.html
Our palaeorecords show that the LST increase in Lake Tanganyika during the past 90 years is uncharacteristic of the preceding natural variability and unprecedented in the past 1,500 years, suggesting that the recent anomalous trend in Tanganyika LST is a response to anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/cliff/Snowpack.pdf
These studies have found that spring snowpack in the Cascades experienced large declines (20%-40%) during roughly the latter half of the twentieth century (Mote 2003; Mote et al. 2005, 2008; Hamlet et al. 2005). It was also found that this decline was due more to warming temperatures than to decreases in precipitation (Mote et al. 2005, 2008). This conclusion was supported by the observation that percentage losses of spring snowpack were greater at low elevations than at high (Mote 2003, 2006). Related studies ... have suggested that a substantial portion of the observed large losses of snowpack and earlier spring streamflow pulses in the latter half of the twentieth century are due to anthropogenic global warming (Mote et al. 2005; Stewart et al. 2005; Hamlet et al. 2005; Mote 2006; Mote et al. 2008).
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-07/uoa-wol062911.php
Warming of the ocean's subsurface layers will melt underwater portions of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets faster than previously thought, according to new University of Arizona-led research. Such melting would increase the sea level more than already projected. The research, based on 19 state-of-the-art climate models, proposes a new mechanism by which global warming will accelerate the melting of the great ice sheets during this century and the next.
If that isn't enough I have plenty more authors to support my view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
