• 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.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it curious that despite the fact that nearly 60% of a diverse body of earth science researchers consider climate science to be a mature science (in varying levels of consideration) in a single, small sample survey conducted almost half a decade ago to be in any way supportive of your implications that most climate scientists agree with your perspective on the issues of climate science.

Fully mature doesn't even indicate the models will be that much more accurate in the future. You overlook the statistical error inherent in the climate system to arrive at a foregone conclusion.

That ain't skepticism.
 
Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science
And that is meant to prove what exactly? Relativity is a mature field of physics, with a number of lines of supporting evidence and applications (Mercurys orbit, gravitational lensing, GPS time corrections, etc). Similarly Quantuum Mechanics is another well-established field of physics with supporting evidence and applications. yet they cannot be equated, there is still no quantuum description of gravity. Does that mean both are invalid for making predictions, finding supporting evidence and finding applications? Of course not.

Your point is a straw man. Everybody that has looked at climate science knows there are areas of understanding that are ripe for greater study (particularly the role of aerosols and cloud formation), which is why NASA has recently lauched new satellites to study each of them.

It's a denier straw-man arguement to make a point that the science isn't 'settled', of course it isn't. Please let us know of one single modern field of science that is. The only 'settled' fields are those that we know suffer from flaws (such as classical gravitation). They are still remembered only because they are useful in certain simple applications and as primers to build upon in education.
 
Similarly Quantuum Mechanics is another well-established field of physics with supporting evidence and applications. yet they cannot be equated, there is still no quantuum description of gravity. Does that mean both are invalid for making predictions, finding supporting evidence and finding applications? Of course not.

Is this a textbook alarmist response, comparing a physical science to a theoretical one? I guess it's appropriate considering the lack of empirical data. :rolleyes:
Your point is a straw man. Everybody that has looked at climate science knows there are areas of understanding that are ripe for greater study (particularly the role of aerosols and cloud formation), which is why NASA has recently lauched new satellites to study each of them.

What do you need 100% of scientists saying the field is immature? That's not a strawman by any sense of the word. That's a scientific fact :D

It's a denier straw-man arguement to make a point that the science isn't 'settled', of course it isn't. Please let us know of one single modern field of science that is. The only 'settled' fields are those that we know suffer from flaws (such as classical gravitation). They are still remembered only because they are useful in certain simple applications and as primers to build upon in education.

Who cares about "settled", whatever that means. I'm talking about a science that is mature enough to make the reliable predictions required of it.
 
Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science

Which does not support, and in fact contradicts, your statement in the linked quote.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6872971&postcount=1631

...Is there anything you'd like to discuss about the science? How about the fact that it isn't near settled, and 95% of climate scientists think it is anything but "mature"?...

Please provide support for this assertion
 

That's very obtuse. It's quite clear from the statement 95% of climate scientists don't find this science mature.

Can you believe that? Look at this:

Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as “very reliable.”

Most of what you read is garbage, including sites like RealClimate. That's why I'm only reading journals, peer reviewed science. You should to, it would give you a more realistic interpretation.

Despite big bad Exxon and the "evil oil companies" [mu aw aw]:

"I]Five percent of climate scientists say they have been pressured by public officials or government agencies to “deny, minimize or discount evidence of human-induced global warming,”[/I]

That's it. So much for the allegations of propaganda. :rolleyes:
 
in particular informed skepticism.

The models even with something so chaotic as hurricanes are certainly accurate enough for policy and risk assessment each season.
The record over the last decade has been exemplary.

Globally it hardly takes "models" to SEE what is occurring and the basic physics of that is simply and well understood even if the pace of consequence is difficult - in main due to the one variable - our C02 emissions - that cannot be predicted.
 
That's very obtuse. It's quite clear from the statement 95% of climate scientists don't find this science mature.

It is actually quite clear and straight forward as anyone without a denialist pseudoscience agenda can rather easily perceive. The statement does not say or imply what you are trying to distort it into meaning.

Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as “very reliable.”

I agree, the vast majority of the media try to present the issue as one of two equally credible groups arguing over interpretations and perspectives. When actually we have mainstream science and the overwhelming bulk of evidences and research indicating AGW, and a handful of politicians and pseudoscience schills and the bulk of the energy and carbon fuel industries plugging their ears, stamping their feet and flinging any dirt they can find in all directions looking for something to stick and resonate.

Most of what you read is garbage, including sites like RealClimate. That's why I'm only reading journals, peer reviewed science.

You are the one quoting and citing political blogs like they were gospel, and I'm the one quoting and citing published mainstream journal science...there seems to be a serious disconnect from reality occurring here.
 
Most of what you read is garbage, including sites like RealClimate.

I see the premiere climate science access for the layman -staffed and written by working climate scientists with hundreds of published and recent papers on climate is garbage in your considered view.

:dl:

Let's see
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/contributor-bios/

That's why I'm only reading journals, peer reviewed science.

and what evidence of that do we have??? 4 year old Harris polls??
 
You are the one quoting and citing political blogs like they were gospel, and I'm the one quoting and citing published mainstream journal science...there seems to be a serious disconnect from reality occurring here.

That's a lie. Everything you post has been filtered through those pseudoscience political blogs. When the science comes up for discussion you run for their shelter. I surprised you don't realize this.
 
Most of what you read is garbage, including sites like RealClimate.

The facts say otherwise. The contributors at realclimet have large numbers of publications in the world’s highest profile journals. They are in fact the very scientists you have said you agree with, apparently you agree with the scientists expect the ones who say things you don’t like, and unfortunately for you this includes almost all the scientists who publish in major journals.


As you can see the list of contributors to realclimate is impressive by any measue.
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as...as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdtf=&as_sdts=5&hl=en

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...Mann"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...mann"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...stad"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...torf"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...dley"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...teig"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...cher"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...bert"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...idel"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

That's why I'm only reading journals, peer reviewed science.

Clearly false. The only journal article you have cited proved to have no support for your claim.

Can you believe that? Look at this:

Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as “very reliable.”

The disparity between the “scepticism” in the popular press and the current state of the science is well documented. It’s therefore no surprise that they would rate news outlets poorly as denial such as yours that can’t be supported with literature is getting far too much press.
 
That's a lie. Everything you post has been filtered through those pseudoscience political blogs. When the science comes up for discussion you run for their shelter. I surprised you don't realize this.

You are mistaken, yet again.
 
The facts say otherwise. The contributors at realclimet have large numbers of publications in the world’s highest profile journals.

That doesn't mean they aren't alarmists.

As you can see the list of contributors to realclimate is impressive by any measue.
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as...as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdtf=&as_sdts=5&hl=en

And the first one authored a paper on the Maunder minimum and the LIA. 0.4 degrees globally, 1-2 locally. That's more than 150 years worth of CO2 forcing. Do you think the alarmists in the Astrometria thread acknowledge that? Nope.

Clearly false. The only journal article you have cited proved to have no support for your claim.

Nonsense, I don't believe you read it. I'm sure you filtered it through a propaganda site and came to some conclusion another alarmist came to. It's group think.

The disparity between the “scepticism” in the popular press and the current state of the science is well documented. It’s therefore no surprise that they would rate news outlets poorly as denial such as yours that can’t be supported with literature is getting far too much press.

The only thing I deny is allowing myself to be alarmed and manipulated by the politics. :D
 
Mucking with the climate

potential consequences....

How severe can climate change become in a warming world? Worse than anything we've seen in written history, according to results of a study appearing this week in the journal Science.


An international team of scientists led by Curt Stager of Paul Smith's College, New York, has compiled four dozen paleoclimate records from sediment cores in Lake Tanganyika and other locations in Africa.
The records show that one of the most widespread and intense droughts of the last 50,000 years or more struck Africa and Southern Asia 17,000 to 16,000 years ago.
Between 18,000 and 15,000 years ago, large amounts of ice and meltwater entered the North Atlantic Ocean, causing regional cooling but also major drought in the tropics, says Paul Filmer, program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Earth Sciences, which funded the research along with NSF's Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences and its Division of Ocean Sciences.
"The height of this time period coincided with one of the most extreme megadroughts of the last 50,000 years in the Afro-Asian monsoon region with potentially serious consequences for the Paleolithic humans that lived there at the time," says Filmer.
The "H1 megadrought," as it's known, was one of the most severe climate trials ever faced by anatomically modern humans.
Africa's Lake Victoria, now the world's largest tropical lake, dried out, as did Lake Tana in Ethiopia, and Lake Van in Turkey.
The Nile, Congo and other major rivers shriveled, and Asian summer monsoons weakened or failed from China to the Mediterranean, meaning the monsoon season carried little or no rainwater.
What caused the megadrought remains a mystery, but its timing suggests a link to Heinrich Event 1 (or "H1"), a massive surge of icebergs and meltwater into the North Atlantic at the close of the last ice age.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-ancient-catastrophic-drought-severe-climate.html

a monsoon failure would put billions at risk.....

of course that' off in the future...

...or is it?

With crops failing, 3.3 mn people in Bihar risk death by hunger (Special)

Mon Nov 30 07:14:09 2009 by IANS ( Leave a comment )


By Sahil Makkar
Patna, Nov 30 (IANS) Over 3.3 million people in Bihar risk death by hunger due to a new enemy. A senior official has blamed climate change for this year’s drought, which has placed so many people at risk.
“It seems that climate change is responsible for drought in 26 districts of the state. Crop production is falling. And it has largely affected districts that were earlier flood-prone,” the Bihar government’s Principal Secretary Vyasji told IANS.
“Our estimates suggest that 12.6 million families are affected by this. We have taken family size as five and so the people hit due to drought are 63 million. Of them 3.3 million people are destitute and have no means of livelihood. If our delivery system fails these destitute people would be exposed to high risk of hunger deaths,” he added.
The senior official said: “The surface water is drying up. The Indrapuri water reservoir, which was a major source of irrigation in the state, has 40 percent less water this year in comparison to last year. The water level has gone down because of scanty rainfall.”


The southwest monsoon — lifeline of the state’s agrarian economy — was two weeks late in Bihar this year. The actual rainfall recorded during the current agriculture season till Aug 6 was 331.7 mm against the average of 568.5 mm, showing a deficit of 42 percent. The state government has declared drought in 26 districts.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal...r-risk-death-by-hunger-special_100281894.html
 
That doesn't mean they aren't alarmists.

The fact that the people who publish regularly on the subject are alarmed pretty much proves there isn’t much in the way of alarmism. IMO if you want to look for alarmism on this subject look at all the unfounded hysteria claiming everything will collapse if we move away from fossil fuels.

And the first one authored a paper on the Maunder minimum and the LIA. 0.4 degrees globally, 1-2 locally. That's more than 150 years worth of CO2 forcing.

Perhaps you mean something more like “current CO2 induced global warming” but that means you must be mathematically challenged, as globally current warming from CO2 is a little under 0.2 deg per decade, making 0.4 deg a little over 20 years worth of warming. Or perhaps you don’t understand the difference be global and local, but then of course there are places where local warming is much faster then 0.2 deg per decade.

Nonsense, I don't believe you read it. I'm sure you filtered it through a propaganda site and came to some conclusion another alarmist came to. It's group think.

“Propaganda”” being any published science you don’t want to agree with and “group think” being your CT explanation for why you can’t find published science to support your claims?
 
Don't know if this is of interest but is an email exchange between a climate change sceptic Prof and the science journo from the Independent. Mind you it's not exactly a debate...

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-sceptic-professor-freeman-dyson-2224912.html

I'm not sure which is worse, the anguish over what once-respected icons such as dyson have degenerated to, or the regret of now having to go back and revisit my considerations of these individuals' earlier life works with the perspective that they so strongly allow non-science issues to influence and impact their considerations and assessments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom