• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

Almo said:
GW people are wrong and we take recommended steps: Economy Slowdown for no good reason.
Click to expand...

Which is not true. There would be an economic slowdown only if we stick with old technologies and oil. Alternative energy sources would not only help the environment and make us feel better. It would also be an economic boon as big as the internet.

As things stand we will have to buy our solar panels from China.
 
Almo said:
Very much so. Anyway, back on topic.

What irks me most about the global warming issue is what's at stake on the two sides:

GW people are wrong and we take recommended steps: Economy Slowdown for no good reason.

GW people are right and we don't take recommended steps: Planet fries us.

To me, whether global warming is man made or not is irrelevant in the face of the potential consequences if it is, and we could do something about it.

(this argument applies to the question of whether or not there are too many people on the planet.)
Click to expand...
Thanks, but this thread is not about whether GW is happening. It is about the behaviour of GW "sceptics". If they have a case, why can't they agree what it is, why do they keep contradicting one another (or even themselves), and why are they so frequently dishonest?
 
I know it's not about whether it's happening. I'm talking about the consequences of listening to the people who say it's not. Though I suppose even the consequences aren't what you're getting at; it's the why of their behavior. Sorry about that.
 
TrueSceptic said:
Originally Posted by mhaze
So when does this fit into your schemes for correct thinking and correct understanding?
​
Thanks, but I think you are missing the point of this thread. :)
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Then again, perhaps you are trying to skirt data and evidence that does not fit with your OP and your silly theories. So I'll ask again: Where does the quoted peer reviewed research fit into your numbering scheme?

Or is your number scheme designed for an audience of idiots?
 
Almo said:
I know it's not about whether it's happening. I'm talking about the consequences of listening to the people who say it's not. Though I suppose even the consequences aren't what you're getting at; it's the why of their behavior. Sorry about that.
Click to expand...
That's OK :)

GW and its consequences (if it's real) are well covered in other threads.

What I'm interested in is the nature of GW "scepticism". There are other highly complex sciences that people are happy to accept, but not this one. What makes it so different?
 
mhaze said:
Perhaps. Then again, perhaps you are trying to skirt data and evidence that does not fit with your OP and your silly theories. So I'll ask again: Where does the quoted peer reviewed research fit into your numbering scheme?

Or is your number scheme designed for an audience of idiots?
Click to expand...
Which theories? What numbering scheme?

I have simply listed "sceptic" claims and behaviour that I have observed.
 
Ocelot said:
How to talk to a climate "Skeptic"

As a skeptic (or sceptic) I prefer to use the word denialist for Global Warming (So called) skeptics.
Click to expand...
I can see why, but it can be seen as being aggressive from the outset so I only use it for the extreme ones.

Yes, I know that site well. :D
 
TrueSceptic said:
Which theories? What numbering scheme?

I have simply listed "sceptic" claims and behaviour that I have observed.
Click to expand...

And I've simply asked where these two peer reviewed articles fits into your theories, which may be defined as your enumeration of "skeptic claims and behavior".

Surely this is a reasonable question. Either this work fits into the worldview you have suggested, or it does not. If it does not, they you need to add to your enumerated lists. If it does fit or if you revise the list so that it does fit, then your conceptual product has been improved. Or alternately, it crumbled.

You do want to actually have a comprehensive list, don't you?

One that can't be so easily shown to be based on false premises of grouped strawmen?
 
Haze, did you miss the bit where he said "I make no claim to this list being exhaustive"

I think the list is a fair summary from the debates I've been in.
 
mhaze said:
So when does this fit into your schemes for correct thinking and correct understanding?

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-247.pdf

Ocean heat storage changes should be where the focus is with respect to diagnosing the magnitude of global warming, as summarized in the paper


Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.

One of the issues, however, is whether heat is being transferred deep into the ocean, and thus sequestered there for a long time, perhaps to reappear at the surface unexpectedly. A paper in 2007 looked at this issue (thanks to Fergus Brown for alerting us to it). This paper is

Gregory C. Johnson, Sabine Mecking Bernadette M. Sloyan and Susan E. Wijffels 2007: Recent bottom water warming in the Pacific Ocean. J. of Climate. Volume 20. November 2007.​
and has the abstract​
“Decadal changes of abyssal temperature in the Pacific Ocean are analyzed using high-quality, full-depth hydrographic sections each occupied at least twice between 1984 and 2006. The deep warming found over this time period agrees with previous analyses (Fukasawa et al. 2004; Kawano et al. 2006b). The analysis presented here suggests it may have occurred after 1991, at least in the North Pacific. Mean temperature changes for the three zonal and three meridional hydrographic sections analyzed here exhibit abyssal warming often significantly different from zero at 95% confidence limits for this time period. Warming rates are generally larger to the south, and smaller to the north. This pattern is consistent with changes being attenuated with distance from the source of bottom water for the Pacific Ocean, which enters the main deep basins of this ocean southeast of New Zealand. Rough estimates of the change in ocean heat content suggest that the abyssal warming may amount to a significant fraction of upper world ocean heat gain over the past few decades.”
The text includes
“Between 3000 m (or 4000 m in the case of P06) and the bottom these estimates of heat flux range from 0.01 W m–2 along 47°N (P01) to 0.06 W m–2 along 170°W south of the equator (P15S). These values are between 5 and 30% of the heating trend of 0.2 W m–2 estimated for the 0–3000 m world ocean heat content change between 1955 and 1998 (Levitus et al. 2005) and between 2 and 10% of the heating trend of 0.6 W m–2 (per unit area of the Earth’s surface) estimated for the 0–750 m world ocean heat content change between 1993 and 2003 (Willis et al. 2004). Thus, abyssal Pacific Ocean heat content variations may contribute a small but significant fraction to the Earth’s heat budget…… The data from these repeat sections suggest that abyssal variations may contribute significantly to global heat, and hence sea-level, budgets. To close ocean heat, sea level, and likely freshwater budgets on interannual timescales, the ocean below 2000 m must be much better sampled in space and time than it has been, or is likely to be, relying on repeat hydrography alone.“
This is an important paper with respect to diagnosing the radiative imbalance of the climate system (i.e. global warming and cooling). Moreover, if heat is being stored in deep depths, this would help explain why sea level continues to rise yet the upper ocean has not been warming in recent year. It also means that the feedback of this heat into the atmosphere is delayed, or even lost for a very long time in terms of how this heat affects the rest of the climate system.
Click to expand...

So the argument goes from "only the top of the ocean warms" so there's nothing to worry about, to "all of the ocean warms" so there's nothing to worry about.

That the ocean warms at these depths isn't new news at all. It's in the AR4.

So in terms of the thread would this be, "climate scientists overlook important factor that they already know about?"
 
mhaze said:
And I've simply asked where these two peer reviewed articles fits into your theories, which may be defined as your enumeration of "skeptic claims and behavior".

Surely this is a reasonable question. Either this work fits into the worldview you have suggested, or it does not. If it does not, they you need to add to your enumerated lists. If it does fit or if you revise the list so that it does fit, then your conceptual product has been improved. Or alternately, it crumbled.

You do want to actually have a comprehensive list, don't you?

One that can't be so easily shown to be based on false premises of grouped strawmen?
Click to expand...
Again, no theories, just observations.

I never claimed my list to be exhaustive and it is really just "top-level" claims and beliefs.

If you care to condense those articles into a sentence or 2 I'll see if and where they'd fit.

What strawmen? I have seen these claims made numerous times. Are you claiming that no one makes them anywhere?
 
mhaze said:
And I've simply asked where these two peer reviewed articles fits into your theories, which may be defined as your enumeration of "skeptic claims and behavior".

Surely this is a reasonable question. Either this work fits into the worldview you have suggested, or it does not. If it does not, they you need to add to your enumerated lists. If it does fit or if you revise the list so that it does fit, then your conceptual product has been improved. Or alternately, it crumbled.

You do want to actually have a comprehensive list, don't you?

One that can't be so easily shown to be based on false premises of grouped strawmen?
Click to expand...
Again, no theories, just observations.

I never claimed my list to be exhaustive and it is really just "top-level" claims and beliefs.

If you care to condense those articles into a sentence or 2 I'll see if and where they'd fit.

What strawmen? I have seen these claims made numerous times. Are you claiming that no one makes them anywhere?
 
TrueSceptic said:
Again, no theories, just observations.

I never claimed my list to be exhaustive and it is really just "top-level" claims and beliefs.

If you care to condense those articles into a sentence or 2 I'll see if and where they'd fit.

What strawmen? I have seen these claims made numerous times. Are you claiming that no one makes them anywhere?
Click to expand...

Okay, I think I understand your perspective. You are not interested in science and do not have a list of assertions that embody scientific thought on global warming or the lack of it.

Do I care to condense the articles for you? No, you have already been presented with the "abstract" to one of them. FYI, that is a condensation of the article.

So your thread belongs in "Social Issues", not "Science".
 
fsol said:
So the argument goes from "only the top of the ocean warms" so there's nothing to worry about, to "all of the ocean warms" so there's nothing to worry about.

That the ocean warms at these depths isn't new news at all. It's in the AR4.

So in terms of the thread would this be, "climate scientists overlook important factor that they already know about?"
Click to expand...

Superficially reasonable, but the thrust of the arguments had to do with issues of predicting heat capacity and the time variations in transfers from oceans to atmosphere. But it looks as if the OP is more concerned with social issues or popular perceptions than the scientific arguments, so the points may be moot.
 
mhaze said:
Okay, I think I understand your perspective. You are not interested in science and do not have a list of assertions that embody scientific thought on global warming or the lack of it.

Do I care to condense the articles for you? No, you have already been presented with the "abstract" to one of them. FYI, that is a condensation of the article.

So your thread belongs in "Social Issues", not "Science".
Click to expand...
Tricky one. This thread is about claims and beliefs relating to climate science, not the science itself. Perhaps a mod can advise?

Why did you say that I "do not have a list of assertions that embody scientific thought on global warming or the lack of it"? For all you know, I might have, but this thread is not about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom