Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I would not please. When those "claiming" to be scientists bastardize that which IS actual science, everyone loses.
This conversation reminds me of that movie "legally blonde" when she's first in court and starts to explain what mens rea means rather than making an opening statement. Nobody is losing anything here, but time. I think it's just easier for people talk to semantics about definitions than actually spending the time on the important stuff, which is the science. You don't seem particularly interested in getting into it either. Further, what makes someone a scientist is not arguing about the scientific method and whether a hypothesis generates a theory. It's the deep dive that matters. As far as me being a scientist goes- meh- if you want to discuss physiochemistry, pharmacokinetics, maybe a bit of crystallography, awesome. That's what I do all day, every day. It's about the work.
I've noticed that most of the people who believe in anthropological global warming know next to nothing about data. When you ask them why they believe in AGW they almost always just say "because 97% of scientists believe we are warming the planet". Putting aside that this 97% figure is a lie that traveled around the world (actually 2/3 of "scientists" of all kinds of different backgrounds have no opinion), saying "because scientists say so" is not data. It's a logical fallacy (fundamental attribution error).
And when you confront believers in AGW about the Vostok / Greenland ice core data they say "Huh?" Never heard of it.
Or if you ask them what they think of the Danish Meteorilogical Institute that demonstrated a direct correlation between sun spots and earth temperature, they've never heard of that either.
Or if you confront them about the short, cherry picked time period that AGW supporters use to create their "hockey stick", they have no answer. They usually just get defensive.
there is no evidence of 'man-made' global warming
the reality is 99.9% of people understand that climate change is real...been happening for the 4 billion years this earth has existed...climate always changes....there have been over two dozen major ice ages...and two dozen interglacial periods, where the global average temp have been about 75'f (about 17'f warmer than currently)....climate change is natural....
according to the cycle (each cycle is 50000-150000 years) we are about HALF WAY through the warming(inter-glacial period) before we hit the peak at 75'f +/-2' (our current global average is only about 58-59'f)
only people who deny history and science , are the ones calling it man made.
mans contribution to it is like 2%......what we do need to do is be better custodians of our planet, and stop polluting so much and abusing our natural resources
I think we should always be expanding technology and moving towards better energy....I believe solar is the answer..and wish obozo had made that his "shovel ready' plan instead of his unstimulating stimulus bill...........I don't think wind is really viable
we do need to do better in recycling and reducing the garbage we produce.....instead of making everything disposable and has to be replaced 3-5 years... go back to making things that last
according to the cycle (each cycle is 50000-150000 years) we are about HALF WAY through the warming(inter-glacial period) before we hit the peak at 75'f +/-2' (our current global average is only about 58-59'f)
As I mentioned posts ago I'm not sure why you assume scientists are ignoring anything. There are thousands of publications on climate science addressing everything you mention in this thread.
Each one of those papers relies upon hypothesis information gathered from other papers which are based on climate models. Each and every CAGW and AGW climate model has been shown to be wrong. As time passed, the models were compared to actual data which revealed a need to tweak the models. After the models were tweaked (updated where their results more accurately reflected actual results) the input data sets were proven to be flawed. In essence, you can't get there from HERE, where HERE was the original data sets used. This concept renders the theory, the statistical coding itself, wrong.
This is the case for each and every single climate forecast model. None are exempt. So how is this science, when the supposed science part (verification) has failed on each and every attempt?
I know what I believe is true. You are free to come up with your own conclusions.
Last edited by KS_Referee; 03-03-2017 at 01:00 PM..
the reality is 99.9% of people understand that climate change is real...been happening for the 4 billion years this earth has existed...climate always changes....there have been over two dozen major ice ages...and two dozen interglacial periods, where the global average temp have been about 75'f (about 17'f warmer than currently)....climate change is natural....
according to the cycle (each cycle is 50000-150000 years) we are about HALF WAY through the warming(inter-glacial period) before we hit the peak at 75'f +/-2' (our current global average is only about 58-59'f)
only people who deny history and science , are the ones calling it man made.
mans contribution to it is like 2%......what we do need to do is be better custodians of our planet, and stop polluting so much and abusing our natural resources
I think we should always be expanding technology and moving towards better energy....I believe solar is the answer..and wish obozo had made that his "shovel ready' plan instead of his unstimulating stimulus bill...........I don't think wind is really viable
we do need to do better in recycling and reducing the garbage we produce.....instead of making everything disposable and has to be replaced 3-5 years... go back to making things that last
according to the cycle (each cycle is 50000-150000 years) we are about HALF WAY through the warming(inter-glacial period) before we hit the peak at 75'f +/-2' (our current global average is only about 58-59'f)
So you clearly have a double standard.
You are more than happy to rely on the overwhelming scientific consensus on the climate change that occurred before humans. But you have disdain for the overwhelming scientific consensus on the climate change that is happening from human CO2 and methane emissions.
Each one of those papers relies upon hypothesis information gathered from other papers which are based on climate models. Each and every CAGW and AGW climate model has been shown to be wrong. As time passed, the models were compared to actual data which revealed a need to tweek the models. After the modles were tweeked (updated where their results more accurately reflected actual results) the input data sets were proven to be flawed. In essence, you can't get there from HERE, where HERE was the original data sets used. This concept renders the theory, the statistical coding itself, wrong.
This is the case for each and every single climate forecast model. None are exempt. So how is this science, when the supposed science part (verification) has failed on each and every attempt?
I know what I believe is true. You are free to come up with your own conclusions.
I'm not a climate scientist so I cannot speak to it directly, but I have a hard time understanding how all the research is built solely on models- models that work or don't work. I use models in my work, but it's an accessory to the data- to the data integration and interpretation. Furthe, I would assume there are multiple modeling techniques used along a course that vary too greatly in application and scope to fit this rather generalized statement. With that said, perhaps it's easy enough to tease out. Are the models used referenced in the thousands of publications?
As far as what I believe to be true- I have not studied the science in any meaningful depth so I cannot have a well informed opinion. I have to rely on the scientists.
Cool, to this scientist, and the vast majority who work in the climate sciences, it is climate change.
What do you mean by "it" in that sentence? Seriously, it's simply not possible to discuss "it" when nobody knows what you mean by "it".
It's not hard to type out things, and explain clearly what you are saying. For example:
Quote:
To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"
Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification." This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?
For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.
The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."
In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."
Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.
During the late 1980s one more term entered the lexicon, “global change.†This term encompassed many other kinds of change in addition to climate change. When it was approved in 1989, the U.S. climate research program was embedded as a theme area within the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
But global warming became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to global warming. He said: "global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming."4 Hansen's testimony was very widely reported in popular and business media, and after that popular use of the term global warming exploded. Global change never gained traction in either the scientific literature or the popular media.
Hansen was quite clear in his theoretical predictions, based on the CO2 theory, about what would happen. He changed his tune in 2000, going so far as to state CO2 warming is likely to be cancelled out by the aerosols from burning, and the warming we saw might actually have been from CfCs, potent greenhouse gases, which as they decline has resulted in a lack of continued warming.
A common view is that the current global warming rate will
continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent
decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases
(GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the
products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and
negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting.
You are more than happy to rely on the overwhelming scientific consensus on the climate change that occurred before humans. But you have disdain for the overwhelming scientific consensus on the climate change that is happening from human CO2 and methane emissions.
interesting is you must have a reading comprehension disability...
what I wrote is that the climate warming that has been currently happening for the last 16000 years since the peak of the last ice age is natural
and mans contribution is less than 2%
the overwhelming evidence is that the cycles are natural
When just anybody can decide what is or is not "real" evidence, science gets all mushy and political.
This is not new, it's just quite public when it comes to global climate change and how much of it caused by human beings.
I'd say it is a potential evidence data point among a mass of evidence data points, the vast majority of which I am unfamiliar with since they lie outside my fields of expertise. I am however aware of what goes into the process of conducting and publishing scientific research and peer review, and am generally fairly happy to defer to the expert consensus in the relevant field of a disputed scientific topic when I lack personal expertise on the topic.
So, the semantic/definition/labeling arguments aside - which side of the debate would you personally come down on?
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 03-03-2017 at 12:42 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
