|
Post by louise on May 6, 2011 20:54:13 GMT 1
So the people who claim that we already know everything we need to know about the planet re climate, and that sceptics are "unscientific idiots" are wrong? Could you please explain who these 'people' are? I've been reading a lot on this topic over the years and have never heard any scientist say that "we already know everything about the climate" - they'd be doing themselves out of a job for start. Even Gavin Schmidt says www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on May 7, 2011 8:58:52 GMT 1
Could you please explain who these 'people' are? I've been reading a lot on this topic over the years and have never heard any scientist say that "we already know everything about the climate" - they'd be doing themselves out of a job for start. I've read and heard plenty of them assert that it is now "settled" that global warming is caused by man's increasing emission of CO2 into the atmosphere. I may have just read you yourself claim this is a "law of physics" in fact; unless my memory's playing tricks?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 7, 2011 9:43:48 GMT 1
I've received lots of comments of this type on the old beeb science board from people who think they have a greater scientific grasp of the actualité than me, Louise. They think I should defer to the authority of the 'consensus' and they deride my "common sense" and native wit, my refusal to be bamboozled by so-called "climate science".
It is pretty common knowledge, to all except CO2 cultists like you, that the dominant clique of the IPCC will not debate "the science" with sceptical scientists because the facts are supposedly indisputable. I don't think so! So long as Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, Pielke et al dispute the facts and the interpretation of the facts I think I have permission to publicise their views and scepticism in general.
I have clearly read more widely on the various climate disputes than you and most other detractors on the beeb boards Louise, so I have no false modesty about resisting the sort of criticisms that flood out of the usual suspects like yourself, listener, lazarus, havelock, kiteman, Eamonn, Helen, STA, Biker, uncle Tom Cobbley and all.
Listener's certainty that the late 20th century *rate* of temperature rise was "unprecedented" was particularly easy to vanquish. Remember that conversation, Louise? The one where I quoted Dr Phil Jones' reply to Roger Harrabin about the *rates* of temperature rise in the late 19th, early 20th and late 20th century being identical?
I note that you seem to share the same confusion as 'Listener' about the difference between the concepts of a linear "rise" and an "acceleration". The global mean temperature rise (IF it is distinguishable from UHI) and the sea-level rise, about which you are so concerned, are not "unprecedented" at all. It would be a very good idea if you could take these facts on board.
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 7, 2011 10:49:15 GMT 1
Could you please explain who these 'people' are? I've been reading a lot on this topic over the years and have never heard any scientist say that "we already know everything about the climate" - they'd be doing themselves out of a job for start. I've read and heard plenty of them assert that it is now "settled" that global warming is caused by man's increasing emission of CO2 into the atmosphere. I may have just read you yourself claim this is a "law of physics" in fact; unless my memory's playing tricks? Your memory may be playing tricks in that it seems to be a little selective. I certainly did say that the laws of physics state that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will have an impact on climate. I certainly DID NOT say that this is the ONLY thing that has an effect. I clearly said that water vapour, deforestation and population increase also have an impact. I also said that there is still a lot of work to be done to understand the different ways in which these things have an effect and that this is what the scientists are continuing to investigate. You say that "I've read and heard plenty of them assert that it is now "settled"" - could you tell me which of these said this as I'd like to read their justification for this.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 7, 2011 11:42:30 GMT 1
Just found this comment from Craig Loehle on Judith Curry's Climate Etc judithcurry.com/2011/05/06/redefining-dangerous-climate-change/about our attitudes to phoney "science" Craig Loehle | May 6, 2011 at 4:39 pm | Reply Those not born with common sense typically get more of when forced to catch or grow what they eat, build things etc. Few people today get experience with physical objects that are uninterested in memes and fads and concepts and thus have few chances to develop practical common sense. It is noteworthy to me that I hear almost no engineers who are believers. They have experience with being wrong. Elitists never experience being wrong because they just ignore contrary evidence or spin it away.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 7, 2011 11:48:47 GMT 1
We've got better things to do than jump through hoops that clever-clever alarmist clones set up, Louise. Things like informing ourselves about the climate and other stuff ( ;)Nick) rather than engaging in feeble attempts at point-scoring.
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 7, 2011 14:08:59 GMT 1
I note that you seem to share the same confusion as 'Listener' about the difference between the concepts of a linear "rise" and an "acceleration". The global mean temperature rise (IF it is distinguishable from UHI) and the sea-level rise, about which you are so concerned, are not "unprecedented" at all. It would be a very good idea if you could take these facts on board. I take my facts on board by reading quite widely rather than just one type of blog. This for instance www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=scientists_say_seas_will_ris_040511?ref=ccbox_weather_category2 states Please note use of the word accelerating in this sentence. The article goes on to say Now you may question the cause of this acceleration but I have seen elsewhere that you readily agree that the climate is changing so I don't understand the point you are making. You seem to think that this climate change is entirely natural (i.e. 'the science is settled'). My position is that we do not know how much of this change is due to man but that some element of it is likely to be as a result of increasing CO2 emissions (i.e the science ISN'T settled).
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 7, 2011 15:38:50 GMT 1
State your source! Who is describing whom as a "scientist", please? We are not all as easily impressed as you by this title especailly when attributed to IPCC hacks.
Any change in climate currrently being experienced is WELL within the range of what the PREVIOUS climate paradigm (I.E. the one before climate alarmism took hold of publicly financed climate "science") described as "Natural Variation".
No-one, "scientist" or otherwise, Listener, has overturned this paradigm. It certainly did not imply that the science was previously considered settled because it acknowledged "natural variation". It meant that Natural Variation was STUDIED. No-one at the IPCCV is currently studying "natural variation". Why? Because they KNOW the "problem" is manmade. The answer was a given and the evidence accumulated to prove it. This is not the way real science proceeds.
No-one denies "climate change". It is a meaningless tautology that alarmist Chicken Lickens have recently discovered. The whole history of the planet from one ice to another with brief interglacials between is one of "climate change".
The role of mankind in affecting his local or regional weather is visible in land cover and land use change (loss of forests, agriculture, irrigation, urban growth etc) and in atmospheric pollution (soot which alters albedo and may trap heat) but as for the role of anthropogenic CO2 in raising global mean temperature it is completely speculative and lacking any emprical evidence.
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 7, 2011 15:56:33 GMT 1
State your source! Who is describing whom as a "scientist", please? I didI linked to the news article and clearly quoted "according to AMAP, which is backed by the eight-nation Arctic Council." If you had clicked on the link provided you would have read the full article that quoted "Professor Dorthe Dahl-Jensen from the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen and a member of the Oslo-based Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP)." The abstract of Professor Dorthe dahl-Jensen's report can be found on page 22 of this PDF www.amap.no/Conferences/Conf2011/abstracts.pdfAny change in climate currrently being experienced is WELL within the range of what the PREVIOUS climate paradigm So in fact, YOUR view is the science is settled. Mine is not.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 7, 2011 16:31:34 GMT 1
Oh, yes! AMAP! I knew I had come across that acronym recently. Anthing composed of letters must be kosher, yes? Read this Oh noes! Sea level rising three times faster than expected (again)Posted on May 2, 2011 by Anthony Watts Somehow, I just can’t get past the picture of the guy in the beret who seems to be saying to the cameraman “Look the island! It is disappearing before our eyes!”.wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/02/oh-noes-sea-level-rising-three-times-faster-than-expected-again/Don't you get disheartened, Listener, when you find sceptics have been there before you, seen it, debunked it and moved on to debunk the next piece of alarmist scaremongering "research"? "The AMAP group's main function is to advise the nations surrounding the Arctic -- the U.S., Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland -- on threats to its environment." What? You mean funding stops if there is no "threat" discovered? What a bummer! they wouldn't be looking for "natural variation", then?
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on May 8, 2011 8:33:46 GMT 1
On the contrary there is virtually no evidence that you read anything except anti-AGW blogs so your view of climate change science is highly biased. Without reading extensively on both sides of the debate your opinions are largely useless.
Same old rubbish non-arguments. Of course the climate has changed rapidly in the past. And it will have done so for various reasons. The climate is now changing again and the evidence shows with a high degree of probability that this time humans are significantly to blame.
If you studied both sides of the argument with an open mind this would be clear to you.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on May 8, 2011 14:29:50 GMT 1
So nick/louise, we should all give the government some money and control and sit on a bus to make the sky better? Forgive me, but I'll spend my time laughing at you idiots.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on May 8, 2011 14:32:37 GMT 1
Another election with lots of debate.... Yet not one, single, solitary word about climate change. It's so last year.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on May 8, 2011 15:00:11 GMT 1
Your posts, as always, show that your opinions are driven by politics not by science. They are, therefore, irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on May 8, 2011 15:27:45 GMT 1
I've read and heard plenty of them assert that it is now "settled" that global warming is caused by man's increasing emission of CO2 into the atmosphere. I may have just read you yourself claim this is a "law of physics" in fact; unless my memory's playing tricks? Your memory may be playing tricks in that it seems to be a little selective. I can't argue with that. Heat it, cool it? Dry it, dampen it? Green it, denude it? Melt it, freeze it? Cloud it, blue it? These particular "laws of physics" seem a little indefinite and uncertain to be so dignified by the name, if you ask me. Good. In terms of water vapour, something like several hundred times the impact, as far as I understand these "laws of physics" you're referring to. And, again, it's still a big Unknown whether it's: Heat it, cool it? Dry it, dampen it? Etcetera. Good. There seems little to argue about then. Lovelock for one, who even claims to know the exact concentration ppm that must mathematically prove to be the irreversible tipping point for runaway catastrophic heating, inevitably leading to at least five billion people starving to death. Mann for another, though you probably don't want to read any more of his justifications. The list is endless, according to Al Gore and Tony Blair, who claimed that all "his" scientists had assured him that the science was now "proven beyond any doubt." That celebrated scientific expert John Prescott forcibly repeated this mantra before his recent jaunt to the Cancun bash. I can't be bothered to look for more respectable and salubrious noteworthies, because the point I think is undeniable - the AGW lobby has been spreading the falsehood that there is a "consensus" amongst the world's scientific community about CO2 and rising global temperature since at least 1988. One figure does pop into mind though. Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science, the most prestigious scientific journal in the US, their equivalent of Nature (which under the comparably unscientific John Maddox is equally as culpable of this political gerrymandering of the "consensus"), the journal of the AAAS, the largest and most influential scientific community in the world. He declared editorially in 2006 that the debate concerning global warming was over, and that sceptical articles would no longer be published. He published Naomi Oreskes' now thoroughly discredited paper purporting that there were no AGW-dissenting scientific papers published (a totally false contention used by Al Gore as proof that AGW is now a "settled" issue in his atrocious film), but refused to publish Peiser and Bray's complete demolition of her research and argument. There is little question that the leading Gatekeeper and communications outlet for the American scientific community has decided this question is "settled", and has taken it upon himself to drumbeat science into foisting a political stance to it. Any scientist who disagrees with him is denied access or review. This is very, very bad news for "Science" - by which I mean, science - the scientific method, the scientific community, the reputation for science as an epistemic project and hallmark of civilised progress - it undermines the whole Enlightenment, imo, and has done untold damage to the integrity of science and the respect warranted to the academic scientific community. Like you, I don't know if global warming is occurring, or if it's significantly anthropogenic; but it's this unfathomable damage to the intellectual currency of our civilisation wrought by the AGW scaremongers that I most object to.
|
|