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.
I guess the Milankovich cycles shortened to a century?
And about time, too. 100,000 years is just too long for some folks to wait. If we can "butcher the Arrhenius equation to make it seem as though it supports AGW" as OP suggests, than by golly, deniers get to butcher Milankovich cycles. Fair's fair and all that.
Science is NEVER settled and is certainly NEVER based upon a consensus. All science MUST hold up to scientific scrutiny.
As far as the pseudo-science proclaiming atmospheric CO2 generated by humans the bogeyman of CAGW/CAGCC, every single model used to predict what the temperatures will be have been wrong when projected out over 10, 15 and 20 years. Furthermore the modification of "known" data, i.e. to statistically "clean" and "better average" the data for the purpose of attempting to show their models were more accurate than they actually were, also having the benefit of minimizing anomalies their models didn't predict, i.e. "hide the decline" of East Angola's hacked email, has proven, beyond a shadow of doubt that CAGW/CAGCC is nothing more than a blind faith religion or pseudo-science rather than actual science.
When very famous climate scientists such as Judith Curry are skeptical about man-made CO2 emissions being the main driver of global warming, rather that the temperature changes are more likely due to natural occurrences, with only minimal influence from man-made CO2 emissions, so the CAGW/CAGCC crowd starts attacking her and even threatening her, one has to wonder what is really going on.
Judith Curry is far from being alone. There are more than plenty prominent climate scientists who question the degree to which human activity is causing climate change, or if human activity is causing any warming at all. Given these facts, how can anybody claim "The science is settled"? When did science devolve into bullying or threatening your scientific peers into either silence or worse, compelling them to voice scientific opinions they don't believe? That isn't science. That is religion.
KS, Instead of spouting off at the mouth with utter rubbish...show us credible evidence for these claims...I'm confident you will fail to produce what I've asked.
KS, Instead of spouting off at the mouth with utter rubbish...show us credible evidence for these claims...I'm confident you will fail to produce what I've asked.
I believe in climate change but I worked for many years as a research physicist and I also believe strongly in rational science. Judith Curry is not what I would call "utter rubbish" and in fact ignoring her is tantamount to engaging in emotional, irrational science, which none of us needs. Judge someone on facts, not on emotion.
Judith Curry has good credentials and knows what she is talking about. I would not call her a non-believer, I would categorize her as being very demanding that people produce good science and if she sees poor science she is not afraid to call "BS" and demand better. I personally think this is absolutely spot-on. The AGW debate is so emotional we cannot allow bad science to get into it. Everything has got to be of the highest quality.
Despite having a PhD in geophysics I do not feel qualified to argue AGW so will leave that to others. But I do feel strongly about arguing for both sides to produce quality science.
If you want to judge Judith Curry, she has a blog. Here is one of her comments on a recent piece of work. See what you think.....
I believe in climate change but I worked for many years as a research physicist and I also believe strongly in rational science. Judith Curry is not what I would call "utter rubbish" and in fact ignoring her is tantamount to engaging in emotional, irrational science, which none of us needs. Judge someone on facts, not on emotion.
Judith Curry has good credentials and knows what she is talking about.
"Despite having a PhD in geophysics I do not feel qualified to argue AGW".
She holds the same credentials as you...so why do you feel that you are not qualified to argue "AGW" and she is?
However I think you anyone is able to argue "AGW" if they invested the time to learn the facts about it and understand the data that supports it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
Despite having a PhD in geophysics I do not feel qualified to argue AGW so will leave that to others. But I do feel strongly about arguing for both sides to produce quality science.
Thank you for being honest about this truth. This is why it's important to call out the outliers in science. She's an outlier just like Michael Behe and Phillip E. Johnson. Yes there outliers in the field of science.
Judith Curry like you also holds a PhD in geophysics...I suppose you should consider her not qualified just as you admit about yourself.
Maybe you can name some of those scientific organizations that strongly disagree that increased CO2 levels are not responsible for increased warming. Also is there an organization that can offer an alternative theory as to why its warming because the fact that temperatures are increasing is not up for debate..
CO2 levels vs temperature are not always consistent but the overall trend indicates a correlation, it hasn't been overstated.
The fact that temperatures are increasing isn't necessarily a fact since there is no reliable and accurate surface temperature record that predates the satellite era (1979-), and even the satellite data that for decades showed much less warming than the "adjusted" and "homogenized" surface readings has finally been fully corrupted by those "correcting" the data.
GHCN v.4 is a fairy tale and land-based weather station data has historically been collected in a non-standardized, non-scientific way, and it's even worse for sea surface measurements.
As for your "trend indicating correlation," CO2 is being artificially introduced into the atmosphere in huge quantities, so any warming, related to CO2 or not, even if it is a tiny amount of warming, will show a positive correlation to CO2, but correlation isn't causation.
If it were, pirates would be responsible for causing inflation.
The fact that the two don't consistently correlate is a huge red flag.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Matadora again.
Amazing - I guess you don't understand the concept of scientific consensus or maybe it's just that you don't WANT to understand and are taking refuge behind the concept of "satan" to justify your stance. You should be posting this stuff on the religion forum - not here.
For anyone else who might be following this thread, Naomi Orestes - a highly respected science historian - published an essay in the journal Science way back in 2004 that explains the scientific consensus on climate change:
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature. In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”.
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise”. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue”.
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
Stating that the current life forms on the planet (human beings included) come from CO2 is just bizarre. You are the only person I have encountered who makes such an argument. You have had at least 15 years to quit trying to get published in The Journal of Irreproducible Results and instead start reading the scientific journals such as Science - surely one of the gold standards when it comes to publishing the results of current scientific research.
When all else fails, you default to ad hominem/straw man responses. In addition, folks don't need to go to medical school or be a PhD in order to understand scientific principles. Back when I was still teaching, my freshman students began to pick up on it after the first couple of lectures. Maybe all my students were geniuses but somehow I doubt it.
The "I'm right and you are stupid" stance didn't work for the Wizard of Oz anymore than it does for you - any hypothetical time spent on the editorial board for a scientific journal not withstanding.
It is so obvious that you have never spent any time teaching in a scientific discipline nor do you display the spirit of open minded scientific debate in your posts. These "I know more than any of you satan worshippers" replies are simply ridiculous. You aren't persuading anyone except yourself.
It's "bizarre" is it? I don't doubt that this is the first time you have heard this, or considered this, as you have demonstrated very limited understanding of the physics, chemistry, and biology of CO2. To the rest of this, it is "old hat" that we take for granted that everyone knows. It is shocking that I have to explain this to someone who claims to have a command of "science".
TELL ME WHERE ALL THE CARBON FROM ALL THE CARBON BASED COMPOUNDS IN YOUR BODY ORIGNIATED.
That is simply because you do not understand the carbon cycle and how carbon containing material is created on this planet. When you and Matadora expose your ignorance of actual science, rather than simply retorting to some fanciful liberal "consensus" drivel, it shows you cannot defend the actual issues of AGW. Why not? Because it is a false and flawed hypothesis that does not hold up to scrutiny.
It is indeed "bizarre" to those who do not understand biology, chemistry and physics. I have already demonstrated to you on several instances how CO2 is converted to more complex carbon based compounds, which are ingested by animals and converted into other carbon based compounds.
SO............................ TELL ME WHERE ALL THE CARBON FROM ALL THE CARBON BASED COMPOUNDS IN YOUR BODY COME FROM? This should be entertaining.
The simple fact that this notion is "bizarre" reveals your complete ignorance of the subject matter. It is "bizarre" to me that someone who claims supreme understanding of the carbon cycle and atmospheric CO2 would not know this very basic fact. It gets back to the fact that you two have the scientific basic knowledge of a grammar school student and are trying to debate a complex issue. Without that basic knowledge, it is impossible to compose a rational argument. All you can do is "google search" some quip, rather than actually think and evaluate information on your own. You simply lack the tools to do so.
Last edited by hawkeye2009; 02-07-2019 at 06:06 AM..
In these AGW debates, it is shocking to find that basic scientific knowledge is completely lacking in an understanding of CO2, where it comes from, and where it goes on our planet.
Many AGW supports find it "bizarre" and deny that all the carbon atoms in their bodies that make up all the carbon compounds (nearly all compounds in the human body are carbon based with a few exceptions) comes ultimately from atmospheric CO2.
Lack of this very basic understanding of CO2 leads the left to vilify and view one of the essential building blocks of life on our planet as a "pollutant"!
One can debate this issue all you want, but this is one of the very few instances in science in which the "science is settled". Keep in mind that things we take for granted as fact are still not considered "settled", such as evolution and the theory of gravity. Most agree that those concepts are 100% true, but they are still actually theories.
This is at the elementary school level so that everyone, regardless of lack of education in a scientific field, can understand it.
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.
AGW: All the carbon in your body came from CO2
