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.
Then why are you here arguing? I am a scientist and here you are arguing with me over the facts of global warming.
Why say this if it's not your place to argue with scientists?
Show me where in the link you posted where "they do". While you're at it show me where these 10 skeptics refer to the non-credible site that you posted.
NOTE: None of those ten skeptics have ever made a global climate model in their life.
None Amazing! Of the top 10 skeptics....None have published any peer reviewed articles that challenge the consensus. *shrug*
Yes gloating about global warming is exactly what you are doing.
Skeptics and non use the same data, and work at the same research centers as the rest. But if you want to know what the skeptics say, then do your own homework, which by the way is quite easy to accomplish these days.
I am not arguing nor gloating. From the beginning I have said that I am glad to be living in a period of global warming. This global warming period has allowed all kinds of living things to thrive in places that had been covered by ice. Arguing about it is not going to stop the climate from changing. The only thing it will do is to introduce you to hypertension.
Skeptics and non use the same data, and work at the same research centers as the rest. But if you want to know what the skeptics say, then do your own homework, which by the way is quite easy to accomplish these days.
Actually, it is not so easy. If you try to follow the links and references given on skeptic's web pages, they virtually never lead back to any peer-reviewed, professional journal articles published by climatologists who "use the same data, and work at the same research centers" as the climatologists who publish the data and analyses related to climate change. It is precisely because of this that you will find so many articles on the web, and posts in this forum, claiming that "the peer-review process is worthless" and "the climatologists are part of a grand liberal conspiracy to perpetrate a hoax". If it were easy to do our own homework and find the professional climatologists who have published skeptical conclusions in peer-reviewed professional journals, there would be no need for the claims that peer-review process is worthless, or claims that scientists are part of a conspiracy. Instead we would have a high-level scientific debate with peer-review professional climatology articles supporting both sides of the debate. This is precisely what we do not have. I also think we probably can't really stop what we've started, so we should be preparing for the long-term consequences.
Quote:
I am not arguing nor gloating. From the beginning I have said that I am glad to be living in a period of global warming. This global warming period has allowed all kinds of living things to thrive in places that had been covered by ice. Arguing about it is not going to stop the climate from changing. The only thing it will do is to introduce you to hypertension.
You and I are in agreement here. I, too, am glad that we are not slipping into another ice age. We have, as my mom used to say "fallen in the outhouse and come out smelling like a rose." More specifically, we've polluted our environment to such an extent that we've pushed ourselves into a global warming phase. Like I said before, I'm kinda thankful for this, but for lots of reasons I think it is bad to keep burning carbon. I also don't think that we can completely stop what we've started (tho I think we can slow it down and minimize it a bit), so we need to start preparing for the long-term consequences.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 03-04-2016 at 01:41 PM..
Actually, it is not so easy. If you try to follow the links and references given on skeptic's web pages, they virtually never lead back to any peer-reviewed, professional journal articles published by climatologists who "use the same data, and work at the same research centers" as the climatologists who publish the data and analyses related to climate change. It is precisely because of this that you will find so many articles on the web, and posts in this forum, claiming that "the peer-review process is worthless" and "the climatologists are part of a grand liberal conspiracy to perpetrate a hoax". If it were easy to do our own homework and find the professional climatologists who have published skeptical conclusions in peer-reviewed professional journals, there would be no need for the claims that peer-review process is worthless, or claims that scientists are part of a conspiracy. Instead we would have a high-level scientific debate with peer-review professional climatology articles supporting both sides of the debate. This is precisely what we do not have.
You and I are in agreement here. I, too, am glad that we are not slipping into another ice age. We have, as my mom used to say "fallen in the outhouse and come out smelling like a rose." More specifically, we've polluted our environment to such an extent that we've pushed ourselves into a global warming phase. Like I said before, I'm kinda thankful for this, but for lots of reasons I think it is bad to keep burning carbon.
The videos of climatologists testifying in Congress shed a lot of light in relation to the opposing views about the data being discussed. Then if you want to know what the ten skeptics say about climate change, just follow the sub-links in the article (link I posted above), or just read the scientific documents that have been published. Most of these climatologists are professors at US and other universities.
Just keep in mind that several of the skeptics are barred from participating in climate change discussions. Maybe the discussion of "climate" has turned political?
The videos of climatologists testifying in Congress shed a lot of light in relation to the opposing views about the data being discussed.
If you are referring to Easterbrook, we already seen the problems with his approach to the data. If his data were convincing, I wouldn't care that he is not actually a climatologist, nor would I care that he has not published his data in peer-reviewed journals. For all I care, he could be a janitor at the local high school and still have some insights that other people have missed. But, as it turns out, his data is simply outdated. There were good scientific reasons to update the data, so drawing conclusions from the outdated data is not very helpful.
If you are thinking of John Christy, I would grant that he is indeed a climatologist, but I would suggest taking a look at this page for a list of his assertions (which are mostly made in non-science public forums) and the majority of climatologist arguments against his position.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 03-04-2016 at 02:22 PM..
If you are referring to Easterbrook, we already seen the problems with his approach to the data. If his data were convincing, I wouldn't care that he is not actually a climatologist, nor would I care that he has not published his data in peer-reviewed journals. For all I care, he could be a janitor at the local high school and still have some insights that other people have missed. But, as it turns out, his data is simply outdated. There were good scientific reasons to update the data, so drawing conclusions from the outdated data is not very helpful.
If you are thinking of John Christy, I would grant that he is indeed a climatologist, but I would suggest taking a look at this page for a list of his assertions (which are mostly made in non-science public forums) and the majority of climatologist arguments against his position.
Just keep in mind that the most influential skeptics are just a few individuals. The consensus is the majority, which holds power and influence at all levels. Just read what of some of the most influentials skeptics are doing around the world trying to better it. Their websites can be found by digging in the Internet.
Skeptics and non use the same data, and work at the same research centers as the rest. But if you want to know what the skeptics say, then do your own homework, which by the way is quite easy to accomplish these days.
No they don't use the same data and if they do then they are misinterpreting it. The climate deniers are identical to the mentality of people who follow conspiracy theories, believe in creationism and interpret their bible literally. You can show them the overwhelming amount of data that supports whatever it is they are denying but they will wield their fudie shield and say it is not so. Or claims that the data is fudged and all consenting scientists are a bunch of evil conspirators.
I already know what the deniers are saying and why they say it...they are obviously wrong. It's not rocket science to see the detrimental effects of global warming all around us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK
I am not arguing nor gloating. From the beginning I have said that I am glad to be living in a period of global warming.
Actually what you said is that you are happy to see global warming and that "for my children to enjoy this warming period pleases me". This is gloating at it's best at the expense of the planet suffering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK
This global warming period has allowed all kinds of living things to thrive in places that had been covered by ice. Arguing about it is not going to stop the climate from changing. The only thing it will do is to introduce you to hypertension.
I suppose it does not dawn on you that odd and unusual weather patterns are not a good sign? But hey just as long as you perceive that you are getting something good out of it I guess that's all that matters.
No one here is arguing...this is a discussion forum.
Global Warming is a fact and it's pretty futile trying to argue against well substantiated facts and data. Doing so is no different then what bible literalists and creationists do with respect to Evolution. There is no argument with them...it's just they don't understand what they are talking about and are completely scientifically illiterate at the same time.
If you want to counter the facts and data that exists then do so. This is how to engage in discussions and and draw conclusions. So far you have only posted a non-credible link, next a video of a very dishonest Easterbrook who has the repetition for being a complete liar and uses deceptive tactics to manipulate data in order to force the results he wants. Then a link of 10 "skeptics" of which not a single one has published any peer reviewed articles that challenge the consensus Then to add insult to injury you gloated about how much pleasure it brings you to see global warming.
You're going to have to do better than that if you want to carry on an intelligent discussion about global warming.
Anyway back to the OP's Question: Global Warming, Where are we at?
Considering current CO2 emission pathways, severe climate change impacts need to be anticipated (IPCC, 2007; Nicholls and Cazenave, 2010). As one of the most perceivable effects of global warming, sea level rise will amplify the magnitude as well as the frequency of coastal floods
The remnants of the Jet Star roller coaster is pictured in the ocean, almost five months after Superstorm Sandy, in Seaside Heights, New Jersey March 21, 2013.
A paper was just published by Drs. Boettle, Rybski and Kropp that dealt with this question. The authors of this study note that if you are concerned about societal and economic costs, the rate of sea rise isn’t the entire story. Much of the damage is caused by extreme events that are superimposed on a rising ocean. Damage is highly nonlinear with sea rise.
How does this relate to climate change? Well as we warm the planet we are raising the baseline level of water from which extremes happen. Second, we are making some extreme weather events more likely. To measure the changes to extreme events in the future, the authors use a statistical method to estimate economic losses from coastal flooding. Using Copenhagen and other locations as test cases, they found that economic losses double when water rises only 11 cm. They also find that the costs rise faster than sea level rise itself. So, if we expect a linear increase in sea level over the next century, we should anticipate costs that increase more rapidly.
No they don't use the same data and if they do then they are misinterpreting it. The climate deniers are identical to the mentality of people who follow conspiracy theories, believe in creationism and interpret their bible literally. You can show them the overwhelming amount of data that supports whatever it is they are denying but they will wield their fudie shield and say it is not so. Or claims that the data is fudged and all consenting scientists are a bunch of evil conspirators.
I already know what the deniers are saying and why they say it...they are obviously wrong. It's not rocket science to see the detrimental effects of global warming all around us.
Actually what you said is that you are happy to see global warming and that "for my children to enjoy this warming period pleases me". This is gloating at it's best at the expense of the planet suffering.
I suppose it does not dawn on you that odd and unusual weather patterns are not a good sign? But hey just as long as you perceive that you are getting something good out of it I guess that's all that matters.
No one here is arguing...this is a discussion forum.
Global Warming is a fact and it's pretty futile trying to argue against well substantiated facts and data. Doing so is no different then what bible literalists and creationists do with respect to Evolution. There is no argument with them...it's just they don't understand what they are talking about and are completely scientifically illiterate at the same time.
If you want to counter the facts and data that exists then do so. This is how to engage in discussions and and draw conclusions. So far you have only posted a non-credible link, next a video of a very dishonest Easterbrook who has the repetition for being a complete liar and uses deceptive tactics to manipulate data in order to force the results he wants. Then a link of 10 "skeptics" of which not a single one has published any peer reviewed articles that challenge the consensus Then to add insult to injury you gloated about how much pleasure it brings you to see global warming.
You're going to have to do better than that if you want to carry on an intelligent discussion about global warming.
Anyway back to the OP's Question: Global Warming, Where are we at?
Are you aware that the skeptic professors and scientists work at the same research centers the "climate research" scientists work at? Are you aware that all gather and use the same data?
The only person I can't have a discussion is you, because everything to you is winning an argument, and I don't argue. As I have said numerous times, I worry more about an extended global cooling than I would ever worry about this period of global warming. During this period of warming, all types of life has thrived, something that would have been impossible for animals and plants to do under a thick layer of ice.
So the OP asked where we are at relating to global warming, and my answer is as follows: we are were this period of global warming is at, and have no idea what the future holds.
Just because I want my children and I to have a good life, not in a place that is burning or freezing, does not mean that I am gloating. And about all of that "sky is falling" stuff you are referring to, go ahead and see if you can prevent nature from doing it. I just won't get a heart attack or an ulcer over it.
Are you aware that the skeptic professors and scientists work at the same research centers the "climate research" scientists work at?
Prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK
Are you aware that all gather and use the same data?
Prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK
The only person I can't have a discussion is you, because everything to you is winning an argument, and I don't argue.
No one is arguing but I suppose this is how you are hoping to divert the attention to the facts that I have mentioned. So far you have offered nothing of value to this topic.
These are your offerings:
a non-credible link
a video of dishonest Easterbrook who has the repetition for being a complete liar and uses deceptive tactics to manipulate data in order to force the results he wants.
a link of 10 "skeptics" of which not a single one has published any peer reviewed articles that challenge the consensus
gloated about how much pleasure it brings you to see global warming
making unsubstantiated claims about the data that non-skeptic and skeptic climate scientists gather and use
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK
Just because I want my children and I to have a good life, not in a place that is burning or freezing, does not mean that I am gloating.
You did not gloat over your desire for your kids to have a good life. Kids growing up in Iceland and other arctic nations have a good life. Your gloating was when you expressed pleasure over global warming so that your kids can enjoy warm vs. typically cold Alaska.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK
And about all of that "sky is falling" stuff you are referring to, go ahead and see if you can prevent nature from doing it. I just won't get a heart attack or an ulcer over it.
I suppose you will have to take this up with the person making the claim that the "sky is falling" and those having a heart attack or developing an ulcer over it.
No one is arguing but I suppose this is how you are hoping to divert the attention to the facts that I have mentioned. So far you have offered nothing of value to this topic.
These are your offerings:
a non-credible link
a video of dishonest Easterbrook who has the repetition for being a complete liar and uses deceptive tactics to manipulate data in order to force the results he wants.
a link of 10 "skeptics" of which not a single one has published any peer reviewed articles that challenge the consensus
gloated about how much pleasure it brings you to see global warming
making unsubstantiated claims about the data that non-skeptic and skeptic climate scientists gather and use
You did not gloat over your desire for your kids to have a good life. Kids growing up in Iceland and other arctic nations have a good life. Your gloating was when you expressed pleasure over global warming so that your kids can enjoy warm vs. typically cold Alaska.
I suppose you will have to take this up with the person making the claim that the "sky is falling" and those having a heart attack or developing an ulcer over it.
Case and point.
By the way, I am not a toro, Matadora.
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.
*shrug*
