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.
Maybe, and that's a "big maybe" that those opinions can be linked to science, and that is if you include the opinions of the skeptic scientists. For example, while Roy Spencer is not a skeptic, his has a different view about global warming, and so the founder of IARC at the University of Alaska: Global Warming « Roy Spencer, PhD
But in reality, opinions aren't more than guesses.
Large scale surveys and studies protect against people with bad ideas, almost certainly connected to emotional biases, whom are otherwise highly educated on the topic. You can cherry-pick faulty opinions from otherwise highly educated individuals on almost any subject. If you're going to disregard the strong consensus of the most credible people on a topic, then you can disregard almost anything. We should question the notions of the Big Bang, that mass creates gravity, that the world is round, and the like because we can't individually verify them?
And even if you're going to disregard consensus scientific opinion and projections, that doesn't get you around waning arctic sea ice measurements (unless you go conspiracy theory "the scientists claiming the measurements are all lying").
Large scale surveys and studies protect against people with bad ideas, almost certainly connected to emotional biases, whom are otherwise highly educated on the topic. You can cherry-pick faulty opinions from otherwise highly educated individuals on almost any subject. If you're going to disregard the strong consensus of the most credible people on a topic, then you can disregard almost anything. We should question the notions of the Big Bang, that mass creates gravity, that the world is round, and the like because we can't individually verify them?
And even if you're going to disregard consensus scientific opinion and projections, that doesn't get you around waning arctic sea ice measurements (unless you go conspiracy theory "the scientists claiming the measurements are all lying").
You got it all wrong. All I said is that opinions aren't facts. So if you base your knowledge of global warming on the opinions of global warming scientists, then you would have to look at both sides of the issue. I posted a link to Roy Spencer, one who has a different view about human-caused global warming. Roy Spencer is not a skeptic; he works for NASA. http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-globa...m-for-dummies/
When was that, thirty years ago when the scientists of the time predicted a global cooling and ice age? That was their opinion, but it hasn't happened. And in the past the earth was flat, at least that was the belief of the scientists of the time. Computer-generated forecasts relating to the planet's global warming/cooling aren't necessary exact science, since we haven't lived to a complete cycle of warming/ice age. We have no idea what will happen to solar activity, or even earth's volcanic activity in the near future, both of which would probably affect the earth's climate. One volcano alone, Mount Tambora affected the earth's climate in/past 1816.
You got it all wrong. All I said is that opinions aren't facts. So if you base your knowledge of global warming on the opinions of global warming scientists, then you would have to look at both sides of the issue. I posted a link to Roy Spencer, one who has a different view about human-caused global warming. Roy Spencer is not a skeptic; he works for NASA. My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies « Roy Spencer, PhD
Roy Spencer? Riiiight...Spencer is a signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming", which states that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Sorry I do not believe that God is in control of the climate, or anything else for that matter.
Quote:
When was that, thirty years ago when the scientists of the time predicted a global cooling and ice age? That was their opinion, but it hasn't happened.
The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming, not cooling.
Quote:
And in the past the earth was flat, at least that was the belief of the scientists of the time. Computer-generated forecasts relating to the planet's global warming/cooling aren't necessary exact science, since we haven't lived to a complete cycle of warming/ice age. We have no idea what will happen to solar activity, or even earth's volcanic activity in the near future, both of which would probably affect the earth's climate. One volcano alone, Mount Tambora affected the earth's climate in/past 1816.
No one has ever claimed that science was exact, but it is the best tool we have.
You got it all wrong. All I said is that opinions aren't facts. So if you base your knowledge of global warming on the opinions of global warming scientists, then you would have to look at both sides of the issue. I posted a link to Roy Spencer, one who has a different view about human-caused global warming. Roy Spencer is not a skeptic; he works for NASA. My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies « Roy Spencer, PhD
When was that, thirty years ago when the scientists of the time predicted a global cooling and ice age? That was their opinion, but it hasn't happened.
Performing a bit of research before posting can help to reduce inflating stories and actual events.
By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. ***Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.***
In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling.
***In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.***
***At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would exert a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.***
The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.
Researching data is always the best way to approach a discussion. At least we can keep the discussion centered around the actual events and data vs. opinions and misinformation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK
And in the past the earth was flat, at least that was the belief of the scientists of the time.
This is completely false. No scientist in the past ever claimed or believed that the earth was flat. Please do research before posting false information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK
Computer-generated forecasts relating to the planet's global warming/cooling aren't necessary exact science, since we haven't lived to a complete cycle of warming/ice age. We have no idea what will happen to solar activity, or even earth's volcanic activity in the near future, both of which would probably affect the earth's climate. One volcano alone, Mount Tambora affected the earth's climate in/past 1816.
Models don't need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects - and we have that now. If you knew there were a 90% chance you'd be in a car crash, you wouldn't get in the car (or at the very least, you'd wear a seatbelt). The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming. To wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible.
Pay close attention to the sections and the misconceptions discussed in these sections.
Predicting/projecting the future: A common argument heard is "scientists can't even predict the weather next week - how can they predict the climate years from now"?
Uncertainties in future projections: A common misconception is that climate models are biased towards exaggerating the effects from CO2.
Do we know enough to act?: Skeptics argue that we should wait till climate models are completely certain before we act on reducing CO2 emissions.
The Basic Tab explains the principles behind the models.
Quote:
Climate Myth:
Models are unreliable
"[Models] are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere." (Freeman Dyson)
Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence.
Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change.
Roy Spencer? Riiiight...Spencer is a signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming", which states that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Sorry I do not believe that God is in control of the climate, or anything else for that matter.
The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming, not cooling.
No one has ever claimed that science was exact, but it is the best tool we have.
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
Dr. Spencer’s first popular book on global warming, Climate Confusion (Encounter Books), is now available at Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com.
If you think that your are right and he is wrong, I suggest for you to have a discussion with him to prove him wrong.
LOL at mentioning Roy Spencer. He is the Ultimate Climate Misinformer. Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer
Performing a bit of research before posting can help to reduce inflating stories and actual events.
In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling.
***In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.***
***At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would exert a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.***
The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.
Researching data is always the best way to approach a discussion. At least we can keep the discussion centered around the actual events and data vs. opinions and misinformation.
This is completely false. No scientist in the past ever claimed or believed that the earth was flat. Please do research before posting false information.
Pay close attention to the sections and the misconceptions discussed in these sections.
Predicting/projecting the future: A common argument heard is "scientists can't even predict the weather next week - how can they predict the climate years from now"?
Uncertainties in future projections: A common misconception is that climate models are biased towards exaggerating the effects from CO2.
Do we know enough to act?: Skeptics argue that we should wait till climate models are completely certain before we act on reducing CO2 emissions.
The Basic Tab explains the principles behind the models.
Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence.
Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change.
What has all of that to do with taking what scientist from both sides have to say with a grain of salt? Also, I have no issues with global warming nor cooling. What I am saying is that I read what each side has to say about CO2 and global warming, and cited Roy Spencer.
I don't care the least about the subject of climate change, whichever change is taking place, nor arguing about it. I let the scientists involved argue among themselves. They are the experts.
What has all of that to do with taking what scientist from both sides have to say with a grain of salt? Also, I have no issues with global warming nor cooling. What I am saying is that I I read what each side has to say about CO2 and global warming, and cited Roy Spencer.
I don't care the least about the subject of climate change, whichever change is taking place, nor arguing about it. It's not my religion.
Fighting a losing battle Holmes. Dude positively referenced ID rendering any scientific conclusion from that day forward junk in many eyes.
Not an ID proponent myself, at least not how religion argues ID. But when people step out of consensus among disciplines, except maybe art but even then sometimes, they are often subjected to scorn.
I'm only vaguely familiar with his cloud mitigation of warming papers so I'm not one to comment. He was effective in the Nazi for Nazi thing a few years back though. That was funny.
Fighting a losing battle Holmes. Dude positively referenced ID rendering any scientific conclusion from that day forward junk in many eyes.
Not an ID proponent myself, at least not how religion argues ID. But when people step out of consensus among disciplines, except maybe art but even then sometimes, they are often subjected to scorn.
I'm only vaguely familiar with his cloud mitigation of warming papers so I'm not one to comment. He was effective in the Nazi for Nazi thing a few years back though. That was funny.
Not fighting, just stating that I see what both sides have to say on the issue of CO2 and global warming. I don't argue about such things. But I have been enjoying this period of global warming. What else can I do?
Isn't his data collection any good to the scientific community? I don't really know. He has a report about CO2 and global warming at his website that seems to contradict human-caused CO2 as being as great as other scientists are saying. I am assuming that if he was that wrong he would have lost his job by now. But again, I am not a scientist.
Not fighting, just stating that I see what both sides have to say on the issue of CO2 and global warming. I don't argue about such things. But I have been enjoying this period of global warming. What else can I do?
Isn't his data collection any good to the scientific community? I don't really know. He has a report about CO2 and global warming at his website that seems to contradict human-caused CO2 as being as great as other scientists are saying. I am assuming that if he was that wrong he would have lost his job by now. But again, I am not a scientist.
My data analysis occurs in healthcare and finance. Since I am laymen only in regards to atmospheric physics atmosphere/ocean interplay I'd defer my conclusions.
I have questioned the methodologies, especially around accuracy of temperature (air) pre 1965.
My basic premise is climate is changing (always has and will), man does effect (to what degree, not sure), we don't know enough to categorically state with absolute certainty a whole lot in regards to the 'why', but our actions are having negative consequences in many area (ocean-air pollution, potable water, species elimination due to encroachment, etc...). Pumping the CO2 we have been probably hasn't been beneficial to natural change but I'll stop there.
I'm more interested in solutions anyway. That's where I often diverge from 'consensus'.
What has all of that to do with taking what scientist from both sides have to say with a grain of salt? Also, I have no issues with global warming nor cooling. What I am saying is that I read what each side has to say about CO2 and global warming, and cited Roy Spencer.
What it all as to do with is that you appear to not understand that you appear to not be able to understand that you are only listening to the climate deniers who have a political and/or economic agenda for standing on the side of being a denier.
You need to be able to discern the credibility of someone like Roy Spencer with his agenda. He is not an expert on Climate Science.
I don't care the least about the subject of climate change, whichever change is taking place, nor arguing about it. I let the scientists involved argue among themselves. They are the experts.
Then why are you here arguing every thread that has anything to do with climate science?
Why are you siting questionable scientists who clearly have an agenda, if you don't care the least? Why is it always a questionable disingenuous scientists or links vs. credible scientists?
Why do you post links trying to convince us with the disingenuous climate scientists who have a political or personal agenda?
That behavior does not read that you don't care in the least about the subject of climate change.
I could care less about Collecting Antiques...therefore I don't hang out or post in that part of the forum.
The only thing I can suggest for folks like you is learn who the players are in Climate Science. Learn what their agenda is. Learn what their political and economic interests are. Thoroughly research their background and their agenda, you will come to find how out just shady and non-credible they are.
Wonder why good ole boys in the Trump circle wanted to know the names of scientists working on climate science. Anyone with half a brain knows why.
Last edited by Matadora; 01-01-2017 at 08:40 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.
