General Climate Discussion

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
Oh, that would be ....local...sir

Ooops sorry.

[AKH]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I saw it, I was just wondering whether you were seeing both sides.

So how many do you take out of the list?  Does it add up to more than just a few remaining?

Skepticism used to be good.  It used to be a significant part of science.  

In climate science, skepticism seems to be something that is unwelcome.

The consensus is that, the vast majority of scientists believe...

It doesn't matter what a scientist believes, it matters what he can prove.

That there is a debate at all shows that the science is not in.

There is no debate on the 2nd law of thermo.  There is no debate on Ohms law or F= Ma

Here the science has shown, you and I can come to agreement, we can use these tools to predict the future within several decimal places.

The chaotic system that is our weather and climate is still very much in debate.

As you are no doubt aware, there is a well established mechanism within science for expressing scepticism - the peer review process.  This process makes use of credible and respected journals and does not incorporate mainstream media at all.  Yet,  these sceptics choose to debate the science almost exclusively via the mainstream media.  Why is that?  After all, their science is sound, isn't it?

[Angus]

Not sure....but how do you explain the SL rising without ice melting, or SL not rising with Ice melting

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Angus
Not sure....but how do you explain the SL rising without ice melting, or SL not rising with Ice melting

Depends. Some coastlines rise while others fall. To get a really accurate picture of an overall global change may require satellite data which of course we've been collecting for less than 50 years.

[lazs2]

I don't see why the 400 or more scientists mentioned... plus all the peer reviewed papers that put doubt on the whole man made global whatever scam...

I don't see why I should believe the "scientists" on this board more.   I don't see any "scientist" on this board who is in the climate science business.

Of the last 548 peer reviewed papers.. all of em.. in the last 2 years... only 7% are as sure as the "scientists" here.    6% say it is pure bunk and the remaining either say they don't know or that the evidence is too weak to say it is happening.

lazs

[AKH]

Originally posted by lazs2
I don't see why the 400 or more scientists mentioned... plus all the peer reviewed papers that put doubt on the whole man made global whatever scam...

I don't see why I should believe the "scientists" on this board more.   I don't see any "scientist" on this board who is in the climate science business.

Of the last 548 peer reviewed papers.. all of em.. in the last 2 years... only 7% are as sure as the "scientists" here.    6% say it is pure bunk and the remaining either say they don't know or that the evidence is too weak to say it is happening.

lazs

So, lets start by removing all of the "400 prominent scientists" who aren't in the climate science business. Of course, that will mean removing the vast majority from the list, won't it?

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

You're still having problems with the concept of neutrality, I see.

Interestingly enough, this survey has not been published by any journal.  Even Energy and Environment (which does not appear in the ISI database) rejected it.

[Angus]

Originally posted by AKIron
Depends. Some coastlines rise while others fall. To get a really accurate picture of an overall global change may require satellite data which of course we've been collecting for less than 50 years.

That both adds and subtracts to the SL depending on the cases.
In our country the land is rising due to the decrease in glacial weight.
Anyway, hasn't SL been measured with GPS during the last years?

[Angus]

Oh, for interest, we've had unusual climate this year, breaking records as far as I know.
The autumn is still on in winter, but that's rather becoming the norm.
Storms are very frequent, 4 of them (hurricane strength) in a couple of weeks.
That one was on yesterday:


(hope the link works)

Spiking at some whooping 90 m/sec...that's 324 kph, 201 mph, or 175 kts.

[Jackal1]

There are tons and tonnes of steaming BS here so for.......................... ....
and the level is most certainly rising.

[Tuomio]

Originally posted by SIG220

Mass Starvation and diseases could start to limit population growth by then.  Or the pressures caused by such overpopulation could perhaps eventually contribute to the start of major new wars, as nations compete for the meager resources that are still available.  

SIG 220

This fact has been know to mankind for decades. But the problem is that it shatters the illusion of world being nice place to live in. It might be nice place when you live in developed evinroment but those are hard to come by. Weaker parts of this world are getting what has been coming to them for some time, sooner or later.

Its not the mother nature that will end the luxorious lives we have here, its the jealous or suffering population that will not accept their fate. I know i wouldn't.

The more money we pump into these global social pet projects like prevention of something as absurd as climate change the more terrible suffering there will be.  (with absurd i mean how optimistic we are about our abilities to wish away the reactions of actions, may they be caused by us or not)

Huge man made events, like world wars are mostly just outbursts from ignoring the obvious outcome for decades. We are playing with fire and our clothes are soaked with gasoline.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Jackal1

There are tons and tonnes of steaming BS here so for.......................... ....
and the level is most certainly rising.

So, stop posting

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by AKH
As you are no doubt aware, there is a well established mechanism within science for expressing scepticism - the peer review process.  This process makes use of credible and respected journals and does not incorporate mainstream media at all.  Yet,  these sceptics choose to debate the science almost exclusively via the mainstream media.  Why is that?  After all, their science is sound, isn't it?

Are you saying that those who are solidly on the Anthropogenic bandwagon are not using the mainstream media?

[Angus]

Tonne and ton.....just a little difference

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Are you saying that those who are solidly on the Anthropogenic bandwagon are not using the mainstream media?

 

WTF?

I'll clear it up for you, and explain what he meant.

Louis was simply stating that you, Holden, certainly act like you know it all.  You pick apart every post with your vast knowledge, and cunning reparte.  We are mere mortals to your godliness.

BTW, how many peer-reviewed papers have you published?  I know how many I have, sir.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I saw it, I was just wondering whether you were seeing both sides.

So how many do you take out of the list?  Does it add up to more than just a few remaining?

Skepticism used to be good.  It used to be a significant part of science.  

In climate science, skepticism seems to be something that is unwelcome.

The consensus is that, the vast majority of scientists believe...

It doesn't matter what a scientist believes, it matters what he can prove.

That there is a debate at all shows that the science is not in.

There is no debate on the 2nd law of thermo.  There is no debate on Ohms law or F= Ma

Here the science has shown, you and I can come to agreement, we can use these tools to predict the future within several decimal places.

The chaotic system that is our weather and climate is still very much in debate.

Yep, and gravity IS STILL A THEORY. I wonder how that can be, in your universe of certainty?


The thing you missed, that you are discussing now, approximately 11 years late, was the debate portion of the scientific discussion on AGW.  The debate that exists now, is a political one... a "please mommy, I want to keep burning carbon later". political argument.