MigL Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 That's better ! ( After you read all of iNow's provided links, then you can give in and change your views. Thanks iNow. )
Shelagh Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) If you change your mind just because everyone is against your opinion, then you're just trying to 'fit in'. LOL! No one has ever accused me of trying to fit in! Oh well, since you insist on some kind of explanation, I'll make an attempt to explain my scepticism. Take NASA for starters. On their website concerning consensus among scientists, the most recent research papers cited were published in 2013. To me, that is just not good enough: References J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus. W. R. L. Anderegg, Expert Credibility in Climate Change, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107. P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002. N. Oreskes, Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618. Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009) AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006) ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013) Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013) Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013) Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012) APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007) GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2010) Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change (2005) Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005) Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007) http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ By their own admission, there is still much to learn: There hasn't been one explanation yet that I'd say has become a consensus, where people say, We've nailed it, this is why it's happening, Parkinson said. Our models are improving, but they're far from perfect. One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models. For Antarctica, key variables include the atmospheric and oceanic conditions, as well as the effects of an icy land surface, changing atmospheric chemistry, the ozone hole, months of darkness and more. It's really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected -- it would be amazing if everything did, Parkinson said. The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it's natural for scientists to ask, OK, this isn't what we expected, now how can we explain it? https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum Well, isn't that just like the weather to be unpredictable? Just altogether too many unknowns for my liking. But then again, I'm a disappointment, so I'm not expected to make sense of the avalanche of data spewing out of NASA. Edited December 22, 2015 by Shelagh
puppypower Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 Did anyone see the data that said that the level of CO2 flatten in 2014. CO2 did not increase in 2014. Was this predicted by the models that are making 50 year predictions? Recently, aerosols were revisited. Back in the 1970's, the climate fear was connected to global cooling and a new ice age. The young people may not remember this; clean slate of newbies. Back in the 1970's, aerosols were studied because it was assumed this was culprit for the global cooling. Aerosols come from many manmade sources, such as factories, and these were blocking the sun light cooling the earth. After careful investigation, a climate model aerosol number was set. When man made global warming became the new rave, these old aerosol numbers were used as part of the CO2 driven global warming computer models, since the two affects offset each other; aerosols cool and CO2 warms. Recently aerosols were revisited and the old numbers were revised downward. What this means is the CO2 should be revised downward, since the CO2 numbers were estimated based on the old higher aerosols numbers. Now CO2 is weaker that thought and it appears that the weaker CO2 has leveled off. Maybe this is why they predict 50 years instead of 10-20 years.
swansont Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 Did anyone see the data that said that the level of CO2 flatten in 2014. CO2 did not increase in 2014. Was this predicted by the models that are making 50 year predictions? Probably not, as assuming that would be idiotic. Models are run under a set of inputs, and do not account for actions of government, or other events. If the conditions of CO2 generation change, you re-run the model with the new data. This is similar to a mental model of "I will be at work in 30 minutes" when you commute. It assumes a set of conditions. If there is an accident, especially one involving you, then you have to update your model with the new data. The insinuation from you statement is that even though a typical commute is 30 minutes, that you have no idea whatsoever of when you will be in to work. And yet, you probably leave about 30 minutes before you need to be in. All of that assumes the initial claim was true and not just fabricated. Which it seems to have been. No citation to back it up, that's for sure. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html 1
Ophiolite Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 Recently, aerosols were revisited. Back in the 1970's, the climate fear was connected to global cooling and a new ice age. The young people may not remember this; clean slate of newbies. I remember that the occasional science writer, seeking to convey the long term variability of climate and to educate their audience about the Ice Ages, would reflect on the fact that we were in an inter-glacial and could expect the ice caps to grow again in the future - that was the distant future. It was tied, largely, to recognition of the Miklankovitch cycles, not to human activity. There were no intergovernmental panels on climate change, no UN sponsored research, no great public debate. Nothing. Just an occasional piece of educational (or sometimes, sensational) journalism. Do you have any citations that will counter these assertions? If so, please share them.
CharonY Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 LOL! No one has ever accused me of trying to fit in! Oh well, since you insist on some kind of explanation, I'll make an attempt to explain my scepticism. Take NASA for starters. On their website concerning consensus among scientists, the most recent research papers cited were published in 2013. To me, that is just not good enough: References J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus. W. R. L. Anderegg, Expert Credibility in Climate Change, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107. P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002. N. Oreskes, Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618. Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009) AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006) ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013) Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013) Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013) Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012) APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007) GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2010) Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change (2005) Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005) Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007) http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ By their own admission, there is still much to learn: Well, isn't that just like the weather to be unpredictable? Just altogether too many unknowns for my liking. But then again, I'm a disappointment, so I'm not expected to make sense of the avalanche of data spewing out of NASA. You are aware this are papers alone that look at consensus among the community? If anything this a lot of work to look at how much people agree on a thing. The actual work that are part of the consensus are in the thousands of publications by now. Also, as others have pointed out (especially take a look at the provided links), not knowing specific details does not mean that one does not have a good idea of the overall picture.
Ophiolite Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 Oh well, since you insist on some kind of explanation, I'll make an attempt to explain my scepticism. You identify yourself as someone who is interested in astronomy. Will you humour me by answering this question. Do you feel there is a consensus as to how planets are formed? I assure you your answer will be relevant and I shall explain clearly why once the answer is in hand.
iNow Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) Well, isn't that just like the weather to be unpredictable? Just altogether too many unknowns for my liking. Also, as others have pointed out (especially take a look at the provided links), not knowing specific details does not mean that one does not have a good idea of the overall picture.This touches on a common point of confusion among those who refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence we have in support of the human impact on climate, namely the difference between weather and climate. https://www.skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions-intermediate.htm While you can't predict with certainty whether a coin will land heads or tails, you can predict the statistical results of a large number of coin tosses. Or expressing that in weather terms, you can't predict the exact route a storm will take but the average temperature and precipitation will result the same for the region over a period of time. <snip> A good analogy of the difference between weather and climate is to consider a swimming pool. Imagine that the pool is being slowly filled. If someone dives in there will be waves. The waves are weather, and the average water level is the climate. A diver jumping into the pool the next day will create more waves, but the water level (aka the climate) will be higher as more water flows into the pool. In the atmosphere the water hose is increasing greenhouse gases. They will cause the climate to warm but we will still have changing weather (waves). Climate scientists use models to forecast the average water level in the pool, not the waves. Edited December 22, 2015 by iNow
Ophiolite Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 I have always liked the distinction captured in this remark. "The United Kingdom has an excellent climate. It is only its weather that is atrocious."
Shelagh Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 I have always liked the distinction captured in this remark. "The United Kingdom has an excellent climate. It is only its weather that is atrocious."... and Scotland has nine months of winter followed by three months of bad weather. Why can't you be content with being smugly superior about global warming and allow me to remain sceptical? I'm not trying to convert anyone. It's only those in positions of power who need to be convinced, and they seem to be buying into the whole AGW thing. Cleaner energy, less dependence on fossil fuels supplied by the Middle East, and stricter regulations on pollutants are things we should be pursuing irrespective of climate change.
Ophiolite Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 Why can't you be content with being smugly superior about global warming and allow me to remain sceptical? Because you are a citizen of a democratic country. As such you can impact the policies pursued by your government that impact on global warming. If I allow you to remain smugly self deprecating, while you simultaneously abuse the meaning of the word sceptical, then I fail in my duty as a citizen and contribute to the continuation of policies that endanger my grandchildren. I'm not trying to convert anyone. I am. It would be irresponsible not to. It's only those in positions of power who need to be convinced, Bollocks, for the reasons noted above. Cleaner energy, less dependence on fossil fuels supplied by the Middle East, and stricter regulations on pollutants are things we should be pursuing irrespective of climate change. Agreed, but the probable reality of AGW make actions on these items more pressing.
Shelagh Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 Agreed ...Well, we seem to agree on the important issues. ... the probable reality of AGW make actions on these items more pressing.... which reflects badly on human beaviour.
dimreepr Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 ... which reflects badly on human beaviour. Human behaviour often reflects badly on human endeavour but the latter often prevails; go humans... 1
swansont Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 ... and Scotland has nine months of winter followed by three months of bad weather. Why can't you be content with being smugly superior about global warming and allow me to remain sceptical? I'm not trying to convert anyone. It's only those in positions of power who need to be convinced, and they seem to be buying into the whole AGW thing. Cleaner energy, less dependence on fossil fuels supplied by the Middle East, and stricter regulations on pollutants are things we should be pursuing irrespective of climate change. Your skepticism seems to be coupled with an unwillingness to learn the science, which means it's more willful ignorance than skepticism. This is a science discussion board. Is it that hard to see why we would not want to let that persist?
Ophiolite Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 Well, we seem to agree on the important issues. No, we only agree on the need for more sensitive care of the environment. You do not agree that 1. The reality of AGW is highly probable. 2. You can influence the political will to address the problem. 3. Skeptical relates to holding reasoned reservations about hypotheses, but think instead it can be applied to an unwarranted withholding of provisional acceptance.
Shelagh Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 Your skepticism seems to be coupled with an unwillingness to learn the science, which means it's more willful ignorance than skepticism. This is a science discussion board. Is it that hard to see why we would not want to let that persist? Wrong conclusion. I have researched the science of climate change; I am sceptical about AGW.
iNow Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) I have researched the science of climate change; I am sceptical about AGW.What are the top two or three reasons you persist in your skepticism? What prevents you from being Why are you convinced that the ~98% of climate experts (those who study this as their lifes work... who would win an almost guaranteed Nobel prize if they proved AGW wrong) are simply mistaken in their shared conclusions? Edited December 23, 2015 by iNow 1
Shelagh Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 I don't have a top three, iNow. Here are three statements on climate scientist (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies), Dr. Kate Marvel's blog: "Climate models are highly misunderstood." "In the simple model, the recent history of the climate looks a lot like the sum of its parts." "In the more complex model, this isnt true anymore, especially for precipitation, because different kinds of emissions are interacting with each other. This complicates the whole business of attribution. It may be possible to attribute observed climate changes to specific phenomena: ozone depletion, for example, or increased aerosol concentrations. But when we go one step further and try to attribute these changes to the emissions that caused them, things get a bit harder. ... ... we have to be careful in selecting the models we use, and to ensure that theyre fit for purpose. Climate models are not perfect representations of reality, nor are they intended to be. ... They are simplifications, and useful ones at that. The trick is deciding what to leave behind." http://marvelclimate.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-whole-sum-and-parts.html?view=classic By her own admission, the models climatologists are using are incomplete, which is the main reason for my scepticism.
iNow Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 Our model of evolution is incomplete, but I suspect you accept that as valid. Our model of medicine is incomplete, but I suspect you try to eat well and you listen to your doctor. Why is climate change different for you? Surely, this is about more than someone's blog, right? 1
Shelagh Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 Evolutionists do not attempt to convert creationists; medical practices even accomodate homeopathy. Conversely, AGW advocates are very scathing about doubters. Read the comments on this blog and take on board what the average person on the street thinks: http://iceagenow.info/complete-turn-around-now-nasa-says-burning-fossil-fuels-cools-planet/#comments
iNow Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 Those who accept evolution as valid very much DO try to convince creationists of the errors in their thinking. We have countless examples of that, even just right here on this very site. Further, the tone and attitude of those who accept the validity of climate science has absolutely zero bearing on the science itself. Can you elaborate for us why you think your referral to "scathing comments" is in any way relevant? Finally, what precisely did you want me and other readers to take away from the comments on that blog? Will you explain why you feel that is relevant to the validity of climate science? Why exactly are you suggesting that I should care what the "average person on the street" thinks? I'm not clear on your intended point and welcome the opportunity to better understand it.
Shelagh Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 If you don't care what the average person thinks, why do you care what I think?
studiot Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 shelagh I have researched the science of climate change You might find the following interesting reading. Lomborg The Skeptical Environmentalist.
Shelagh Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 I see that the book was made into the documentary, Cool It. I've added the book to my TBR list!
Recommended Posts