Stoaty
Well-known member
I didn't know that youtube has been online for 30 years... or is that how misunderstandings begin?klapauzius said:
Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?
- Thread starter DanCar
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
RegGuheert
Well-known member
Sorry, that argument was refuted in the article I linked. Both sea and surface ice have increased.jackal said:
jackal
Well-known member
I don't see how the article refuted the science. Ice surface is only 1 component. The thickness of the ice is another which isn't taken into account in this article. The measurements also need to account for the period which it was measured, which again isn't accounted for in the article. Basically, this is not a science article..and more like news taken out of context.RegGuheert said:
Also, as I explained, don't confuse micro and global climate change.
AndyH
Well-known member
The hardest part of understanding any subject is finding trustworthy sources of information - you show good sense being selective.o00scorpion00o said:
What you might consider is that if you want a first and second opinion on open heart surgery that you would likely seek cardiac surgeons, not geologists or journalists or paid salespeople from the "anti-heart surgery guild."
Skeptical Science is not a 'pro man made warming' site - it is a science communications site run by actual published scientists that are doing this research. Compare that with Watt's site - a paid denier site run by a former meteorologist with no advanced education.
Here's climate science from climate scientists:
http://www.realclimate.org/
Having an open mind is good - but one cannot get accurate understanding from the science until one learns the language and studies the underpinning science. It CAN be done and IS done and you get plenty of kudos for doing it! But it's not a 'short attention span theatre' by any stretch.o00scorpion00o said:
Here's a specific example of what I meant about understanding the underpinning science. Here's the thumbnail sketch on this subject as I understand it today: - nuclear science brought us understanding of isotopes - elements with different numbers of neutrons in their nucleus. We understand how carbon can gain neutrons and how long it takes for those neutrons to 'bleed off' so that carbon returns to 'normal'. We use that understanding to do carbon dating. We can see that carbon in the atmosphere - carbon bombarded with cosmic rays - is a different isotope than carbon that has been stored underground and out of reach of cosmic rays for millions of years. We can directly examine CO2 in the atmosphere and tell how much of it got there by burning fossil fuels.o00scorpion00o said:
- Additionally, the fossil fuel industry keeps decent records of how much they extract and sell, and power generation, steel plants, and fuel companies keep records of what they buy and sell. The second way we can track how much fossil fuel we use is direct accounting.
- The third way to track our input to increased CO2 levels is related to burning - when we burn fossil fuel it uses oxygen from the atmosphere to make CO2 - and we can track the changes in the concentration of atmospheric oxygen.
That's three completely independent ways to track our contribution - no models, no guessing - hard facts.
Here's a summary of how we know it's us from a highly regarded physicist and climate scientist:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXgDrr6qiUk[/youtube]
This is incorrect across the board. Science is in the business of understanding how the world works - that's what they do. There are always questions, yet they know what they know to high certainty levels. As for UK Met and warming/drought events, that's weather, not climate. Weather is outside your window today. Climate is a long term trend of at least 30 years. The UK Met models are only one of thousands of models in use around the planet - NO climate paper or report or position is based on only one model.o00scorpion00o said:
AndyH
Well-known member
Weather satellites have been up since 1959.Stoaty said:I didn't know that youtube has been online for 30 years... or is that how misunderstandings begin?klapauzius said:
Go easy, Sloaty, English is Klap's third language.
klapauzius
Well-known member
AndyH said:Weather satellites have been up since 1959.Stoaty said:I didn't know that youtube has been online for 30 years... or is that how misunderstandings begin?klapauzius said:
Go easy, Sloaty, English is Klap's third language.
Thank you...I was a bit hasty there.
Yeah, so this proves its all a lie. YouTube wasnt online in the 80s and therefore global warming isnt real too!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Does that adequately reflect the logic of some of the arguments made here?
AndyH
Well-known member
Truth is good - thanks for clearing that up!klapauzius said:
Don't try to bring 'logic' into Denierville - that'll lead to burning out important brain circuitry!
Now I need to find another answer for the question, "Why has my air conditioning bill increased every year for the past eight?" :lol:
AndyH
Well-known member
Damn those scientists - why can't they get their predictions right?
RegGuheert
Well-known member
Yeah, the arctic looks pretty bad. If Antarctica had melted off at a similar rate, things would be a lot worse right now.AndyH said:
Stoaty
Well-known member
I think you have finally nailed it. Question is, watts wrong with that kind of logic? :lol:klapauzius said:
RegGuheert
Well-known member
From the article I linked:jackal said:
Absolutely. This is certainly just cherry-picked data. But since the news outlets do not report that Antartica is growing ice, most assume it is still shrinking.jackal said:
Melting of BOTH polar ice caps was a prominent prediction of the climate scientists for many, many years. Such melting is obviously a global issue if/when it occurs. If any models had predicted this trend, a priori, I would give the models more credit. I don't know of any that did.jackal said:
Again, the IPCC models do not account for variations in the amount of global cloud cover, which is a global issue. THAT is why they were unable to predict this effect.
o00scorpion00o
Well-known member
Okay since I was quoted in several posts, I can't reply to each individual, so please excuse me.
I know all about the global scientific acceptance that C02 is the driver and Man is mainly responsible. However as a layman I'm supposed to accept that my hard earned is going in research to organisations who's sole purpose is to keep the piper happy. I know my hard earned is going to subsidise foreign renewable energy companies, and research institutes because they say I'm helping contribute to climate change and I don't appreciate the media's focus only on warming events, as a poster mentioned that I shouldn't confuse weather with climate, which I don't but Then the same goes for the media and climatologists who do use weather to their advantage, you simply can't deny that.
I know that skepticalscience and wattsupwiththat both include links to real scientific articles, so lets be fair on that, however I disapprove of the way they both cherry pick links, data and articles to suit themselves and their agendas. It's wrong!
Getting back to C02, if you look at the graph on the 2nd page of the current satellite data you will see that the earth's temps are as they were at several stages in the past, now I know there have been several attempts to debunk the UAH. But if the data is correct how come with the C02 levels past 400 ppm are we not as warm as 1998 ? We know ground data isn't too accurate.
I know the U.S has been experiencing unusual cold and here in Europe, but my personal experience is that it has cooled down a lot over the last few years, as I said with the cattle feed shortage this year, the palm trees mostly gone, and roses no longer appearing in December and even January in the last few years, that can't go unnoticed. I do remember much warmer summers and 2000-2007 were much much warmer than recent years and I should know as I used to work out doors between 1999-2006. It's also getting dryer and they predicted much more flooding etc. One thing that hasn't changed is the damn wind, but what has changed with the wind is the wind direction which mainly was from the south west bringing mild humid and very wet weather, now it's mainly north west/North/ North east. Sure that's just weather, maybe I could appreciate that if it were just for one year.
Another thing is that, how can we know that the data taken from ice cores etc etc relating to past climate is in any way an indication as to what what will happen in the future or even it being relevant at all ?
It is also known that the mini Ice age in Europe was a time when the Sun was as inactive as it is now, and it is a fact that it is cooler now. Related ? who knows.
All I know as this argument will go on for decades I see a fellow called Joe Bastardi and he does my head in just listening to him, and Al Gore is a disgrace both disruptive individuals to both causes, however I could say Bastardi has some kind of qualifications where as Al Gore is making a lot of money from talking IMO crap !
What hope have we really in understanding it all ?
All I know is I want a Nissan Leaf hahahaha
I know all about the global scientific acceptance that C02 is the driver and Man is mainly responsible. However as a layman I'm supposed to accept that my hard earned is going in research to organisations who's sole purpose is to keep the piper happy. I know my hard earned is going to subsidise foreign renewable energy companies, and research institutes because they say I'm helping contribute to climate change and I don't appreciate the media's focus only on warming events, as a poster mentioned that I shouldn't confuse weather with climate, which I don't but Then the same goes for the media and climatologists who do use weather to their advantage, you simply can't deny that.
I know that skepticalscience and wattsupwiththat both include links to real scientific articles, so lets be fair on that, however I disapprove of the way they both cherry pick links, data and articles to suit themselves and their agendas. It's wrong!
Getting back to C02, if you look at the graph on the 2nd page of the current satellite data you will see that the earth's temps are as they were at several stages in the past, now I know there have been several attempts to debunk the UAH. But if the data is correct how come with the C02 levels past 400 ppm are we not as warm as 1998 ? We know ground data isn't too accurate.
I know the U.S has been experiencing unusual cold and here in Europe, but my personal experience is that it has cooled down a lot over the last few years, as I said with the cattle feed shortage this year, the palm trees mostly gone, and roses no longer appearing in December and even January in the last few years, that can't go unnoticed. I do remember much warmer summers and 2000-2007 were much much warmer than recent years and I should know as I used to work out doors between 1999-2006. It's also getting dryer and they predicted much more flooding etc. One thing that hasn't changed is the damn wind, but what has changed with the wind is the wind direction which mainly was from the south west bringing mild humid and very wet weather, now it's mainly north west/North/ North east. Sure that's just weather, maybe I could appreciate that if it were just for one year.
Another thing is that, how can we know that the data taken from ice cores etc etc relating to past climate is in any way an indication as to what what will happen in the future or even it being relevant at all ?
It is also known that the mini Ice age in Europe was a time when the Sun was as inactive as it is now, and it is a fact that it is cooler now. Related ? who knows.
All I know as this argument will go on for decades I see a fellow called Joe Bastardi and he does my head in just listening to him, and Al Gore is a disgrace both disruptive individuals to both causes, however I could say Bastardi has some kind of qualifications where as Al Gore is making a lot of money from talking IMO crap !
What hope have we really in understanding it all ?
All I know is I want a Nissan Leaf hahahaha
Stoaty
Well-known member
Now that is the first honest response I have seen. You know that there is a global consensus among scientists about CO2 and climate change, you just don't accept science. Is there a global conspiracy?o00scorpion00o said:
WetEV
Well-known member
RegGuheert said:
Antarctic sea ice satellite record goes back to Nimbus 1, which I suspect you will never see in Forbes.
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/699/2013/tc-7-699-2013.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2012 isn't a record.
o00scorpion00o
Well-known member
DanCar said:
Damn you DanCar, look what you started !!! LOL
AndyH
Well-known member
o00scorpion00o said:
Joe Bastardi is a weather man, not a climatologist - and is a known climate change denier.
Please - read Naomi Oreskes book "Merchants of Doubt" - the same people that brought us the ad campaigns to keep us smoking even when doctors understood that smoking kills people are back doing global warming propaganda.
Most - about 90% - of what you say you're confused by are the direct result of the information warfare done by the fossil fuel industry and by oil- and coal-funded groups that exist for only one reason - the make US - the common people - stop trusting science so that they can keep selling us their product.
I understand completely what you're saying in your posts - I truly understand your confusion - because I love maths and science, was a conservative Republican from before I could vote (back in the days when 'conservative' meant taking care of the planet...), served a military career during the Reagan/Thatcher years, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and through "project Iraqi Oil part Deux". By all measures, I should be on the side of deniers and big oil.
Like you, in hindsight I realized that climate where I grew up is no longer like that - we used to have good hard freezes so that we could set-up hockey rinks on local lakes. We used to be able to put ice fishing huts miles into some lakes and never doubted for a minute that they wouldn't be there next weekend or next month. We used to have plenty of all-day soaking rains and cool nights that kept everything growing (hated that - had a lawn mowing business as a kid...
). And we used to get enough snow every other year to have at least one 'snow emergency' - which kept cars off the roads and we could race snowmobiles down the 4-lane roads. None of that happens any longer.That's what sent me back to school so I could learn enough to understand how to read scientific papers. I found that the press does a horrible job of communicating science - even the ones that try to get it right.
Look at the websites - look at who runs them and who the writers are. Watts is not a scientist. Neither is Bastardi. Look to places like Sourcewatch so you can see who's paying for these people to spread disinformation and work from there. Validate your sources first before reading their information because there is a very well funded and very vocal fossil-fuel and political disinformation campaign - and I'm sorry to say that the majority of it comes from the US. To say that it's disturbing to see this country allowing the same types of propaganda and disinformation tactics used in the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany is putting it mildly - I'm ashamed that the US has been the source of the world's disinformation that is killing people around the world.
Cheers.
AndyH
Well-known member
Let's check with the horse, shall we?RegGuheert said:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-2.html
Bzzt - thanks for playing anyway.
o00scorpion00o
Well-known member
Stoaty said:
Not that I don't accept, I question it, there is a difference.
As I said, according to the satellite temp data, the temps are as they were at several stages in the last 33 years of so, so if C02 is the driver of warming why are we not as warm as 1998 the hottest recorded year ?
Surely questioning the science can't be argued as not accepting ?
AndyH
Well-known member
There's nothing wrong with questioning in general - it's starting a question with a known untruth that's the problem. Garbage in, garbage out applies here.o00scorpion00o said:
Discussing or talking about individual "temperatures" is weather. It's short term. When one wants to understand climate they have to look at long-term (30 years and longer) trends. That's what's causing you confusion from the start.
The fact remains that the long-term global average temperature trend continues higher in spite of excessively cold years or excessive warm years.
Deniers cherry-pick 'weather' and tell us it's cooling. Science uses all available data and shows us it's warming.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
dgpcolorado
Well-known member
Not that I expect anyone, who is determined to reject the idea that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, will care, but I think that this graph is interesting to look at:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/10/science/crossing-a-line.html?smid=pl-share
Since we as a society seem unlikely to do anything about climate change until it is much too late, I think the focus should be on adapting to the coming changes. But, then, I am something of a pessimist when it comes to human behavior.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/10/science/crossing-a-line.html?smid=pl-share
Since we as a society seem unlikely to do anything about climate change until it is much too late, I think the focus should be on adapting to the coming changes. But, then, I am something of a pessimist when it comes to human behavior.
