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.
This is all fascinating stuff, but it doesn't explain why no predictions of climate scientists ever come true. See, this is the thing, anyone who does any research at all at any level -- even college undergrads -- can throw together a bunch of mumbo jumbo that impresses people not involved in that research. If you've ever done any organic chemistry, you can literally just write out some basic equations and impress probably 95% of people in America, including biologists and physicists. And yet at the end of the day, the question remains: why are climate scientists always wrong?
I have posts multiple lines of evidence proving otherwise.
An example already given hurricane would increase in intensity. Happening!
Non hurricane storm events would increase in frequency. Happening!
Increased intensity of El Niño. Happened!
So clearly they are not "always wrong". Scientists routinely change theories as more information is available. Can you admit you were wrong?
My 4th grade textbook said that by 1999 the rainforest would be extinct along with all it's cancer curing plants due to development. Once the rain forest was gone the earth would loose 1/3rd of it'a breathable oxygen and we would all be ghasping for air. Then shortly later, we were taught about the hole in the ozone layer caused from mom's hair spray. The giant hole was going to melt the ice caps saturating with salt what little precious drinking water the earth had left. Don't even get me started on the polar bears and whales. When I got to college, all the rage was Al Gore's nobel prize winning documentary. What happened to those predictions of oceans dramatically rising, beaches flooding, and islands tipping over? Speaking of which how much $$$ did Al Gore make off that documentary?
I have posts multiple lines of evidence proving otherwise.
An example already given hurricane would increase in intensity. Happening!
Non hurricane storm events would increase in frequency. Happening!
Increased intensity of El Niño. Happened!
So clearly they are not "always wrong". Scientists routinely change theories as more information is available. Can you admit you were wrong?
Actually, we're in a long period of decreased hurricane frequency and decreased hurricane intensity. And El Nino isn't increased in intensity.
You're actually a great example of a climate scientist. You can make this really intricate post that makes you sound very authoritative and knowledgeable about the topic, throwing out names and citations. But then when you have to actually cut to the chase, everything you believe happens to be wrong. That's a small little problem, isn't it? BTW, if I had to guess, I'd say you were probably, as I mentioned, an undergraduate who just regurgitates memorized information that they were fed by a professor from a handout.
the warming of the last 100 years is part of the warming of the last 18000 years since the peak of the last major ice age.
never has it been a perfect sine wave.. the warming is a very erratic upward trend
here is an example graph:
the warming of the 'last 100 years' is NOTHING in comparison of the last 18000 years....to talk about 100 years out of a 4 billion year old earth, is small minded
even Plato was talking about climate warming.....that's 1000 years ago
The key difference you are missing is that those changes occurred over 5000 years, look at the scale on your graphs, the few people that lived in the world had time to adapt. This is a sudden change of almost 1 deg C over the past 100 years and models indicated 2 to 6 Deg C. The models are not perfect and research is ongoing how oceans and the atmosphere react but it will be very significant.
Most of those changes are explainable (not all) based on some physical phenomena that occurred very slowly for the most part, so how do you account for this temperature change in a few centuries.
Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)
Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.
The new Tesla is due out next year and will start at 35k. Yes, still more than most can afford for a niche car BUT few could afford the first cars either. It took time and innovation for that to happen.
Yes, Musk is a bit smug but Henry Ford wasn't known for his humility.
As I said earlier, I do not support things like Cap and Trade or carbon taxes as all that does is take from the middle and lower classes to enrich the markets. No thanks. I do support investing in new technologies as long as they are required to show results. Tesla has. Solyndra didn't and we need to hold politicians accountable for what choices they make also.
What makes Elon a hypocrit is that he wants electric cars to reduce greenhouse gases, and in the same breath wants to colonize Mars using fossil fueled heavy lift rockets.
I could drive my car for over a million miles on the fuel that just one heavy lift rocket consumes in a few minutes.
What makes Elon a hypocrit is that he wants electric cars to reduce greenhouse gases, and in the same breath wants to colonize Mars using fossil fueled heavy lift rockets.
I could drive my car for over a million miles on the fuel that just one heavy lift rocket consumes in a few minutes.
LOL, he can "think big" but I don't get too concerned over things he is never going to do. We aren't going to be colonizing Mars in any of our lifetimes.
You're actually a great example of a climate scientist.
Actually I am NOT a climatologist, I am an oceanographer but ok.
Quote:
You can make this really intricate post that makes you sound very authoritative and knowledgeable about the topic, throwing out names and citations. But then when you have to actually cut to the chase, everything you believe happens to be wrong.
It is interesting that you find my explanation intricate as I have tried to put them in the simplest terms possible. I am sorry that much of it was unclear for you. If you tell me which parts you struggled with I can attempt to explain in simpler terms.
And ultimately, the proof of the pudding, is that you couldn't support your statements at all, and I did.
Quote:
That's a small little problem, isn't it?
Why is it a problem? You're not a scientist. You don't make policy. Your ability to understand is not needed. I do not understand the mechanisms that govern lots of things but I trust in the expertise of my plumber, or the man who manages our portfolio, and things work out just fine.
Quote:
BTW, if I had to guess, I'd say you were probably, as I mentioned, an undergraduate who just regurgitates memorized information that they were fed by a professor from a handout.
I am not, I am a 40 something woman who has been working in this field for 25 years. In addition to publishing on oceanography topics (not pure climate science) I also have a full time gig teaching research at a STEM school for the gifted, a part time one working for a federal research agency and I adjunct at local uni. Oh, and I have a grad degree in my field, so it don't need to regurgitate anything.
But the fact that you think you need to attack the messenger says quite a bit about the fact you are not really here to have a discussion about the science. Which btw, is fine. Your acceptance of science is not necessary in anyway.
OTOH, clearly you have nothing to contribute to science part, as shown by your complete lack of evidence, so what is the point of your contribution?
LOL, he can "think big" but I don't get too concerned over things he is never going to do. We aren't going to be colonizing Mars in any of our lifetimes.
Space exploration, science inventions are keys to civilization, look around how our lives have changed the last 50 years. Thinking big is what we do, I recall people saying the same thing regarding a moon landing.
Why do you hate science so much.
Space exploration, science inventions are keys to civilization, look around how our lives have changed the last 50 years. Thinking big is what we do, I recall people saying the same thing regarding a moon landing.
Why do you hate science so much.
I'm not condemning him for thinking big. You have to think it before you can do it. His technological discoveries will likely help us move beyond where we are now one day.........a day after we are all gone.
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.
