Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Do you support jailing global warming skeptics, because you haven't answered the question?
Click to expand...

Of course not, the only real skeptics of global warming are the mainstream scientists promoting modern climate science understandings. Criminalizing, much less wasting the money and jamming the courts while providing a stage for the delusions of an idiot contingent does nothing to address the primary cause or secondary issues indicated by climate science.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
For this you sound dumb

Maybe its because I am better educated

But I will try teaching you and the rest of the people on this forum the truth
Click to expand...

Teachers must first demonstrate a mastery of the subject they wish to instruct. Demonstrate this mastery of climate science understanding you assert.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Maybe its because I am better educated

But I will try teaching you and the rest of the people on this forum the truth
Click to expand...

Education doesn't stop when you graduate.

You've repeatedly shown ignorance of how bad a 2C rise in average global mean temperature would actually be, for example.

I'd suggest watching this video, though no doubt you will ignore or dismiss it.

 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
According to this article if all the fossil fuels are burned it will take 200 years for the water to rise 1 meter
Click to expand...
That article is parroting a lie by Lewis Page at the Register, Elf Grinder 3000. Lewis Page is lying about the press release.
Burning all fossil energy would raise sea-level by more than 50 meters – and eliminate all ice of Antarctica
“If we were to burn all attainable fossil fuel resources, this would eliminate the Antarctic ice sheet and cause long-term global sea-level rise unprecedented in human history,” lead author Ricarda Winkelmann of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research says. “This would not happen overnight, but the mind-boggling point is that our actions today are changing the face of planet Earth as we know it, and will continue to do so for tens of thousands of years to come. If we want to avoid Antarctica to become ice-free, we need to keep coal, gas and oil in the ground”.
...Assuming a pulse of carbon release, the scientists’ simulations show that Antarctica would lose ice over at least the next ten thousand years in response, with an average contribution to sea-level rise of up to three meters per century during the first millennium.
Click to expand...
The press release makes it clear that the paper is about long term risks.

The article is Winkelmann, R., Levermann, A., Ridgwell, K., Caldeira, K. (2015): Combustion of available fossil-fuel resources sufficient to eliminate the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Science Advances.
 
So who is now being 'Alarmist' now? I do find it amusing when denialists overhype warnings, either bringing predictions forwards or over emphasising them.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
I have an undergraduate degree in one of the sciences as well as mathematics
Click to expand...
The posts in this tread indicate that you are trying very hard to deny the science and mathematics that you have been taught, Elf Grinder 3000!
Relying on non-science about climate and insulting climate scientists is not good.

You should have learned a basic part of science - reading, understanding and not misrepresenting your sources.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is applied to organizations and their leaders.
The letter to Obama specifically states
One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis added)
The letter advocates investigations, not arbitrary jailing.
 
This thread is about the science of global warming. Political discussions are off-topic. There are threads in politics and conspiracies that address such points. Further off-topi political talk may subject users to further moderation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader
 
Most Non-Climate Scientists Agree on Global Warming Too

Nearly 92% of biophysical scientists surveyed believe that human activity has contributed to global warming

Supporters of policies to address man-made climate change are quick to cite research showing 97% of climate scientists believe that humans are contributing to global warming. Now, new research suggests that consensus extends to scientists in other fields.

Published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the study found that nearly 92% of biophysical scientists surveyed believe that human activity has contributed to global warming. Nearly 94% said they believe global temperatures are rising. Researchers surveyed 2,000 scientists at universities in the Big 10 Conference and received 698 responses. The survey included fields like biology, chemistry and physics.

The study’s design specifically addresses the belief that scientists who are skeptical of climate change come from fields outside of climate science. The new research weakens that argument...
Click to expand...
http://time.com/4051338/climate-change-scientists/

It should be no surprise to anyone that scientists, regardless of their specialization, are better equipped to read, analyze and understand the nature of scientific arguments and the evidentiary support provided with respect to those arguments than those who do not share the benefits of a rigorous scientific education, training and experience within the sciences.
 
Early Clear Global Warming Signals Seen Back in 1940s

Global warming first appeared in the 1940s in parts of Australia, Southeast Asia and Africa, according to a new study recently published findings in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

The study does more than assess these early signals, it also discusses projections of where climate impacts will likely intensify in coming years. The average temperatures changed in the tropics. Polar temperature changes in the record emerged later but were evident by the period between 1980 and 2000, the release said.

The continental United States showed fewer of these signs, especially the East Coast and the Midwest/central states. While these areas are not yet manifesting truly clear warming signals, according to the researchers, this will likely happen in the next decade, according to a statement...

..."We expect the first heavy precipitation events with a clear global warming signal will appear during winters in Russia, Canada and northern Europe over the next 10-30 years," said Dr. Ed Hawkins from the National Center for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading, who was co-author of the report, the statement noted. "This is likely to bring pronounced precipitation events on top of the already existing trend towards increasingly wet winters in these regions."
Click to expand...
 
The Science and Effects of Climate Change

Tonight, we tackle a topic that may be controversial for some, but there’s no doubt that its effects appear to be happening now and could be more dramatic in the future. It’s a problem that needs attention now to prepare for any future contingencies. That problem is climate change. PNM’s Dennis Shaffer talks with Dan Vimont, an Associate Professor in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at UW-Madison. He studies the mechanisms of climate variability and change, and the interactions between weather and climate. Also, joining the conversation is Michael Notaro, a Senior Scientist, who studies climate change impacts on ecosystems, and hydrology of the Great Lakes Basin. Both Dan and Michael are with the Center for Climatic Research. They gave us an idea about climate science, like the difference between climate and weather, how natural variability plays a factor, and how reliable are climate models.

In addition to the science, how will climate change effect human health? Jonathan Patz from the Global Health Institute provided some clues. Jonathan has studied the effects of climate change on human health for over 20 years. Heat waves pose a serious threat to human health, like the devastating one in Europe a few years ago.

Wisconsin has been looking into ways of dealing with climate change through the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts. Many places on the internet explain climate change, including this one from Bill Nye, the science guy, and from the EPA. Here’s a nice website explaining climate change and human health.
Click to expand...
http://www.wortfm.org/sept-17-2015-the-science-and-effects-of-climate-change/

It always helps to have these little "basic understandings" review/refreshers to help new participants understand where the mainstream understandings baseline. Here are a few of the links embedded in the above article:

Audio link of the radio broadcast - https://soundcloud.com/wort-fm/pnm-sept-17-2015-the-science-and-effects-of-climate-change

Dan Vimont, an Associate Professor in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at UW-Madison, Link - http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~dvimont/Home.html

climate change and human health - http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/geh/climatechange/
 
This just in ....

...... a MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, .....

...... A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

.......... over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...k=eed4d6e8bc5dab0dbe9f6380ea63cbce-1444069897
 
You won't read this but it puts paid to any validity of your marvelous source - his is just gish gallop of discredited nonsense.

David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold

Posted on 15 April 2011 by dana1981
Computer modeler David Evans has written an opinion article published in the Financial Post which has apparently been spread throughout the "skeptic" blogosphere. Numerous readers have asked that Skeptical Science respond to this article, and we aim to please.

The article contains a lot of empty rhetoric about "the carbon gravy train," "alarmists," and governments' "tame climate scientists." There are a whole lot of words in the article devoted to not saying very much. We'll stick to our usual policy and ignore the fluff, focusing on what little scientific content the article contains.
Click to expand...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html
 
Arnold Martin said:
This just in ....
...
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...k=eed4d6e8bc5dab0dbe9f6380ea63cbce-1444069897
Click to expand...
An electrical engineer displaying his ignorance of climate science reported in a newspaper!
Notice how the reporter is reporting on a series of blog posts - "He has been summarising his results in a series of blog posts on his wife Jo Nova’s blog for climate sceptics.". There are a couple of submitted papers in peer review in an unnamed journal.

Notice how the reporter does not ask any actual climate scientists about the results - they drink the Kool-Aid without verifying their source.

Any knowledgeable peer reviewer is likely to reject the papers since they would know that
  • Climate sensitivity is not derived from modeling alone - there are many independent measurements of the response of the climate to drivers.
  • Solar activity has been decreasing over the last 35 years while global warming has accelerated. It is only been surface temperatures that did not increase as much as expected over the last decade or so. And that looks like it has finished because 2014 was one of the warmest years on record, 2015 is looking to be even warmer.

ETA: David Evans credentials as a computer modeler or electric engineer are dubious - he has only published a single paper in 1987 about Fourier and Hartley transforms which looks like results from his PhD thesis (PhD in 1989).
 
Last edited:
...... a MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate .....
Click to expand...
Is that all? I'd have thought such a discovery would have implications far beyond AGW. There's no unique mathematics involved in AGW, after all. There's unique mathematics involved in a lot of climate denial, that's true, but not in the subject itself.

A cynic might well regard this as a suspiciously targeted discovery. I can attest to that. :cool:
 
CapelDodger said:
It's a real feature right now, isn't it? I wonder if they're stockpiling new crap for a shock-and-awe display for Paris.
Click to expand...

The question is, do they still have financing? Because for years I haven't seen any evidence tobacco isn't related to lung cancer. For me this recent bad rehashing means they have been left high and dry.
 
Arnold Martin said:
.......... over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.
Click to expand...

Great! Now we can stop worrying and get on with our lives.




...That is proven, right? You didn't just post that because it agreed with what you already believe, and got blinded by his degrees, right? Right?
 
aleCcowaN said:
The question is, do they still have financing? Because for years I haven't seen any evidence tobacco isn't related to lung cancer. For me this recent bad rehashing means they have been left high and dry.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I noticed some years ago that the oil companies were getting out of climate denial (only ever a skirmish line) and into opposition to renewables on purely economic grounds. When you want to appear like sober responsible companies that can be trusted with the Arctic, association with clowns like Monckton and David "Force X" Evans is not helpful. Particularly telling, I thought, was when Heartland scaled back on the climate denial and set up a unit specifically to oppose renewables.

Naturally the nutjobs have their fly-wheels spun up and will carry on regardless. Nothing but the demographic imperative can stop them. Well, that or having David Evans sort out their household wiring. :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom