Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[macdoc]

Not batting very well on expertise....physicists are not climate scientists.
And your sources suggest the usual right wing Koch funded nonsense.

Where's the papers?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Not batting very well on expertise....physicists are not climate scientists.

Then the "it's basic physics" arguments are baloney, right? You'll challenge people on your side when they spout that nonsense, right?

... And your sources suggest the usual right wing Koch funded nonsense.

Tribal. Dyson is "right wing"? Really?

Where's the papers?

In journals you evidently do not read.
P.S., What's your real name and what are your credentials?

 

[Belz...]

True. I did okay in high school Physics and two years of college Physics, but otherwise I have to depend on authority.

Only when it suits you, it seems.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Why them rather than the thousands of scientists who agree that AGW is real and significant? What is it about this handful of people that makes their opinion so much more credible to you than that of the vast majority of scientists?

This is nonsense. "The vast majority" of scientists are no more qualified to opine on the factors that drive climate than is any intelligent layman, since "the vast majority" of scientists do something other than climate science. If you mean "the vast majority of climate scientists", that's a self-selected group that includes people with far less expertise (and intelligence) than Dyson (e.g., the computer modelers).

 

[Pixel42]

"The vast majority" of scientists are no more qualified to opine on the factors that drive climate than is any intelligent layman, since "the vast majority" of scientists do something other than climate science

Only one of the names on your list is a scientist who does climate science.

Why do you accept the authority of the scientists you list who do something other than climate science, when the vast majority of scientists who do something other than climate science agree that AGW is real and significant?

Why do you accept the authority of the single scientist on your list who does climate science, when the vast majority of scientists who do climate science agree that AGW is real and significant?

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
"The vast majority" of scientists are no more qualified to opine on the factors that drive climate than is any intelligent layman, since "the vast majority" of scientists do something other than climate science

Let Lindz make his stand ....the community is not buying it. - the rest we can then write off as out their field

The 2000 papers regarding climate science published in 2012 on the survey were written by those engaged in climate science....
One was denying AGW - the others affirmed it. You can chase that single paper if you like.

 

[macdoc]

(e.g., the computer modelers).

like Gavin??

Gavin A. Schmidt
Classé dans: Contributor Bio's Extras — gavin @ 6 décembre 2004

Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He has worked on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, including solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases.

He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research.
He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences.
He has over 100 peer-reviewed publications and is the co-author with Josh Wolfe of “Climate Change: Picturing the Science” (W. W. Norton, 2009), a collaboration between climate scientists and photographers. He was awarded the inaugural AGU Climate Communications Prize and was the EarthSky Science communicator of the year in 2011.

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/gavin-schmidt/#sthash.D56wZMtJ.dpuf

I'd say Gavin is more than qualified in climate science to tell you AND Dyson you are both wrong. Your contention that AGW is false is hopeless. This is a science forum...you are expected to put up evidence.
..all you have is sound bites from Faux news and Dear Anthony sites.

 

[Belz...]

This is nonsense. "The vast majority" of scientists are no more qualified to opine on the factors that drive climate than is any intelligent layman, since "the vast majority" of scientists do something other than climate science.

I thought we all understood that "scientist" here is a shorthand for scientists who actually study this stuff for a living.

 

[macdoc]

Dyson is the darling of he right wing because they have no one else.

Where's the papers?

In journals you evidently do not read.
P.S., What's your real name and what are your credentials?

I'm happy to read them and any casual search of the internet would provide more than adequate background if you are prurient.
I'm quite able to read and understand science and climate journals - I have a communications degree and have worked in high tech for a lifetime

When I don't understand something I ask Gavin or others who do and some of the working scientists on here and other boards.

Gavin's words for your ilk are not printable here.

•••

I guess this diatribe lays it out....

Malcolm Kirkpatrick May 10, 2010

do not know of anbody who denies “climate change”. Indeed, many opponents of policies designed to address AGW see previous climate change (e.g. ice ages, Younger Dryas, Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age) as reason to dispute CO2 as a cause of warming.

I plead ignorance. I accept that my B.A. in Math does not qualify me to assess the models which climate scientists use. It does not qualify me to assess the statistical techniques by which a warming trend appears through statistical noise and sampling error. It does not qualify me to assess the validity of the assumptions about plant physiology which allow paleobotanists to use fossilized tree rings as thermometers. I am still trying to think through the basic physics that allows the temperature of a body in orbit of radius r around a star with radiant flux x watts/M^2 at r to depend on anything other than x, r, and radioactive decay and residual heat generated by impact during formation.

http://johnrennie.net/2010/05/09/“stasists”-no-“deniers”-yes/

That you don't understand is none of our concern nor are your obvious limitations in ability to comprehend rather simple physics of AGW.....seems more like selective self blinkering.

The primers are in my signature....

Now where are the papers supporting your thesis?

On this issue, I'm a skeptic all around. I don't see that 6 billion humans couldn't have an impact on the Earth's climate.

http://critiquesoflibertarianism.blogspot.ca/2008/06/libertarians-and-global-warming.html

and I see you just lifted one of your "comments:

Where I live, there's a 24-hour warming and cooling cycle and a 365-day warming and cooling cycle. Solar astronomers tell us that there's an 11-year sunspot cycle, and longer-period cycles caused by precession of the Earth's axis, c......

yada yada
http://critiquesoflibertarianism.blogspot.ca/2008/06/libertarians-and-global-warming.html
whole cloth....no orginal thoughts since 2008??

Pardon my gales of laughter...walks like a duck, talks like a duck....likely is...

 

[macdoc]

Interesting bit on heat transfer from ocean depths...

The biggest ocean waves in the world sweep through the South China Sea's Luzon Strait, towering more than 550 feet (170 meters) tall.

Luckily for ships plying the busy waters between Taiwan and the Philippines, these massive waves barely break the surface, though the waves can be a daily event. But for scientists, understanding these underwater "internal waves," which happen throughout the world's oceans, is important for modeling Earth's climate; the waves may push huge volumes of heat, salt and nutrients around the ocean.

more
http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/oceans-huge-hidden-waves-explained-140110.htm#mkcpgn=rssnws1

snip

The ocean itself is divided because colder, saltier water is denser and sinks below hotter, less salty water. Scientists think internal waves, which have been seen in many oceans, can mix up these layers, removing heat from the shallow ocean, for example.

These waves are potentially "the key mechanism for transferring heat from the upper ocean to the depths," Peacock said.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...
That you don't understand is none of our concern nor are your obvious limitations in ability to comprehend rather simple physics of AGW.....seems more like selective self blinkering.

But... but... you just said

Not batting very well on expertise....physicists are not climate scientists.

Which is it?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Dyson is the darling of he right wing because they have no one else.

Not my question. Do you call Dyson "right wing"?

... Gavin's words for your ilk are not printable here.

That didn't take long. Typical of the AGW side of this discussion.

http://critiquesoflibertarianism.blogspot.ca/2008/06/libertarians-and-global-warming.html
whole cloth....no orginal thoughts since 2008??

I'm hardly a libertarian. At least, my libertarian friends don't think so.

 

[macdoc]

That's my question to you....the 2,000 papers surveyed in the ScAm report were published by working scientists currently in the field...ONE denying AGW.

They understand....you trot our a couple of physists and one climate scientist in bad odor.

Now where's these papers you claim to have...not interested in peurile semantics....the snark does not go unnoted.
Trot out the evidence for your proclamations spammed all over for years.

Or find somewhere else like the conspiracy forum for fellow travellers.
Here you go....your very own bully pulpit...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9753636#post9753636

I don't really care what you are except you are woefully ill informed on AGW and Freeman is the darling of the right wing solely for his out of field musings on AGW.

What his politics are, like yours I could care less. You are the one slumming in libby forums.

Now got any papers? Evidence to support your notion that humans cannot affect climate???

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I thought we all understood that "scientist" here is a shorthand for scientists who actually study this stuff for a living.

Did we? Then speak carefully. Doesn't "for a living" then imply a financial stake in emphasizing (perhaps exaggerating) the relevance of the topic? And what "stuff"? Computer models? Pollen in lake sediments? Tree rings? Oxygen isotopes in ice cores? Calcium isotopes in fossil mollusks? Orbital mechanics? Atmospheric/geological chemical interaction?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

What his politics are, like yours I could care less. You are the one slumming in libby forums.

Say what? You introduced the terms "right wing" and "libertarian" to this discussion. Odd behavior for someone who "could care less", doncha think?

Now got any papers? Evidence to support your notion that humans cannot affect climate?

Who says they cannot?

 

[macdoc]

As matter of fact all of those fields are relevant to climate and are adjunct support for research into AGW even if for the purpose of exclusion...ala orbital mechanics which has been ruled out.

The snide comment about financial interest is an insult to working scientists and why am I not surprised given the tone.
As I mentioned - the conspiracy forum is elsewhere.

Now do you have relevant papers to support your contention that humans cannot impact the climate or not.?

Straight forward question....

 

[macdoc]

Who says they cannot?

You did. In your libby world ...

Quote:
On this issue, I'm a skeptic all around. I don't see that 6 billion humans couldn't have an impact on the Earth's climate.http://critiquesoflibertarianism.blo...l-warming.html

Do you have any science to put forward to support your thesis or are you going to play word games.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... I have a communications degree ...

That explains a lot.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Now got any papers? Evidence to support your notion that humans cannot affect climate???

Who says they cannot?

You did. In your libby world ...

On this issue, I'm a skeptic all around. I don't see that 6 billion humans couldn't have an impact on the Earth's climate.

I would have expected even a communications major to handle a double negative.

 

[r-j]

Ouch. Burn.