Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Global Climate change 2019

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    And isn't it a bit of an ad hominem to just dismiss him like that and not even respond to anything he says?
    I would respond to a flat earther in the same way, or someone who denies HIV causes AIDS. It's easier to make up wrong arguments than it is to provide detailed information showing why those arguments are wrong. People like Singer take advantage of that asymmetry.

    If assessing the credibility of an information source is an ad hominem, then i'm guilty of it.

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    There is also a lot of peer pressure to conform to the Climate Change theory. You will be mocked, ostracized and refused funding if you go against the grain. It is almost like a religion.
    Similar things have been said about accepting the science that HIV causes AIDS. How do you know they're not being mocked and ostracized because they're laughably wrong?

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    The purse strings are held by the priests, I mean politicians, who basically use the information as a way to push through their agendas.
    But again, for the majority of the time that climate change has been a major public issue in the US, the presidency and often the legislature has been controlled by the party who doesn't believe it exists. How come the scientists have been consistent throughout that time?

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    right. because we can change the data to show that it didn't and we have good excuses why it needed changing.
    No, i was saying that even if we accept the most pro-skeptical history of what happened with the pause, your description sounds nothing at all like what happened - wrong order of events, and wrong events.

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    And they have all been wrong on any long term predictions. That kinda puts the knife in it for me.
    They haven't though. That's simply wrong.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • #32
      Did some digging on the cause of the Amazon fires. What I found out hotter and prolonged Dry Season is the major cause of the fires. It is a circular impact on the regional weather. Increasing droughts and expansion of the dry arid regions are a part of the Global Warming worldwide. Also aggravated by increased burning and clearing of rain forests under the current president of Brazil.

      Yes both pasture and rain forest are burning.

      Source: https://time.com/5661162/why-the-amazon-is-on-fire/


      On the afternoon of Aug. 19, the sky over São Paulo, Brazil’s largest city, went dark. A cold front combined with ash from forest fires in the Amazon rainforest and formed ominous clouds that blocked out the sun. Photos of the blackened sky began to pop on Twitter, and soon the world was paying attention to the blazes rampaging across the forest called “the lungs of the world.” Many blame President Jair Bolsonaro’s rhetoric as the central factor in the crisis. Less obvious are the ways the conflagration stems from years of slashing government budgets for the environment and dismantling support for indigenous and traditional subsistence communities.

      For example, Bolsonaro’s predecessor, Michel Temer, reorganized the government and wielded his budget scissors liberally. Temer downgraded a ministry focused on supporting sustainable family farms and chopped funds for environmental protections and science. In 2017, Temer cut the federal science budget by 44% and took nearly the same amount from the discretionary budget of IBAMA, Brazil’s environmental agency. In April 2019, Bolsonaro continued the trend, cutting IBAMA’s budget by 24%. Those cuts left the agency unable to cover its fixed costs and left it without resources for patrolling and enforcement.

      © Copyright Original Source

      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
        I would respond to a flat earther in the same way, or someone who denies HIV causes AIDS. It's easier to make up wrong arguments than it is to provide detailed information showing why those arguments are wrong. People like Singer take advantage of that asymmetry.

        If assessing the credibility of an information source is an ad hominem, then i'm guilty of it.
        You are doing exactly what I said about mocking, ostracizing, etc those who don't conform. I thought he made some good points in the article. You refusing to address them on the basis that you think he is a kook, just reinforces my belief that anyone who is not on board with Climate Change is ostracized.


        Similar things have been said about accepting the science that HIV causes AIDS. How do you know they're not being mocked and ostracized because they're laughably wrong?
        And how do you know they are not just being rejected because Climatology is just set in their beliefs? Kinda like when Alfred Wegener proposed that the continents moved over time?

        But again, for the majority of the time that climate change has been a major public issue in the US, the presidency and often the legislature has been controlled by the party who doesn't believe it exists. How come the scientists have been consistent throughout that time?
        because it has already become the zeitgeist of the scientific community. And there are ALWAYS politicians using it to push through their agendas. Also the majority of the colleges and scientific institutions that supply the financing are liberals who need the climate change to continue their agendas. There is a lot of momentum there to overcome by a single administration.

        No, i was saying that even if we accept the most pro-skeptical history of what happened with the pause, your description sounds nothing at all like what happened - wrong order of events, and wrong events.
        you won't even comment on the article I posted - I can easily just say "You are wrong, Lurch" - how is that an argument?

        They haven't though. That's simply wrong.
        We should have all been dead of skin cancer from the Ozone Hole and all of our coasts been flooded by now if that were true.

        Proud Member of Da Blonde's Axis of Evil, Adam's Dirty Dozen, Dee Dee's Goon Squad, Tweb's In-Crowd, The Brood of Vipers & Exorcised by Ty & Dee Dee, and the only person who ever banned rogue06!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          You are doing exactly what I said about mocking, ostracizing, etc those who don't conform. I thought he made some good points in the article. You refusing to address them on the basis that you think he is a kook, just reinforces my belief that anyone who is not on board with Climate Change is ostracized.
          I skimmed it. He's lying. He does that in every single piece he writes, often repeating the same lies. (If you want details, it'll have to wait until after work.) How many times do i have to read someone who lies repeatedly before you'd approve me ignoring them? That's not a rhetorical question - i'd really like to hear your perspective on that.

          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          And how do you know they are not just being rejected because Climatology is just set in their beliefs? Kinda like when Alfred Wegener proposed that the continents moved over time?
          That's a better example than you think, though not in the way you think. Yes, Wegner met some resistance because people have difficulty accepting new ideas. But he met plenty more resistance because he proposed absolutely no mechanism by which the plates moved, or what force caused them to move in the first place. And that's a lot like what's happening with the people who object to the mainstream viewpoint. They suggest things like "natural cycles", but can't identify what might be cycling. Or they suggest climate sensitivity may be low, but can't identify why so many studies keep producing much higher numbers.

          In any case, i know because i've examined the scientific claims of both sides in excessive detail. Something you've already indicated you haven't done.

          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Also the majority of the colleges and scientific institutions that supply the financing are liberals who need the climate change to continue their agendas. There is a lot of momentum there to overcome by a single administration.
          Then why did the scientists working at oil companies come to the same conclusions? Why do scientists at universities in other countries, with very different politics and histories, also reach the same conclusions?

          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          We should have all been dead of skin cancer from the Ozone Hole and all of our coasts been flooded by now if that were true.
          Now you're just throwing out unrelated and really bad examples. We banned the chemicals that scientists identified as causing the ozone hole, and it's recovering. The IPCC reports have been consistently conservative on sea level rise, and have badly underestimated the rate we're actually measuring, and so have had to be revised upwards. They're both examples of the complete opposite of what you're trying to use them to support.

          You're complaining that i'm not taking your information seriously enough, and you're doing that? Do you want to actually get involved in a discussion about this, or do you just want to throw out so much garbage that i get tired of it and walk away?
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            I skimmed it. He's lying. He does that in every single piece he writes, often repeating the same lies. (If you want details, it'll have to wait until after work.) How many times do i have to read someone who lies repeatedly before you'd approve me ignoring them? That's not a rhetorical question - i'd really like to hear your perspective on that.
            Well it would help to show me that he IS lying and where. I thought the point was to convince me I am wrong. Simply calling him a liar kind of plays into my belief that anyone who is against AGW is shunned and mocked.


            That's a better example than you think, though not in the way you think. Yes, Wegner met some resistance because people have difficulty accepting new ideas. But he met plenty more resistance because he proposed absolutely no mechanism by which the plates moved, or what force caused them to move in the first place. And that's a lot like what's happening with the people who object to the mainstream viewpoint. They suggest things like "natural cycles", but can't identify what might be cycling. Or they suggest climate sensitivity may be low, but can't identify why so many studies keep producing much higher numbers.
            There are other examples of the "consensus" rejecting new ideas. Copernicus for example.

            In any case, i know because i've examined the scientific claims of both sides in excessive detail. Something you've already indicated you haven't done.
            Good point. I have studied "both sides" but I am not a scientist. I am a layman who has always been interested in science and am self-studied.


            Then why did the scientists working at oil companies come to the same conclusions? Why do scientists at universities in other countries, with very different politics and histories, also reach the same conclusions?
            Because it is a great story to get funding and to push their agendas through, just like here. And most other countries are MORE liberal than we are. AGW seems to be a great tool to push through things like socialism and austerity measures.

            Now you're just throwing out unrelated and really bad examples. We banned the chemicals that scientists identified as causing the ozone hole, and it's recovering. The IPCC reports have been consistently conservative on sea level rise, and have badly underestimated the rate we're actually measuring, and so have had to be revised upwards. They're both examples of the complete opposite of what you're trying to use them to support.
            Question: how much has the sea level risen in the last 100 years? and how much can be shown to be due to AGW?

            You're complaining that i'm not taking your information seriously enough, and you're doing that? Do you want to actually get involved in a discussion about this, or do you just want to throw out so much garbage that i get tired of it and walk away?
            Show me some models from say 20 years ago, what they predicted and then show me what has actually happened. I remember Gore predicting we would have no ice caps in the summer by 2013. And don't just say "well Gore isn't a scientist" because he wasn't just making up stuff out of thin air, he was getting his information from climatologists and their models.

            Proud Member of Da Blonde's Axis of Evil, Adam's Dirty Dozen, Dee Dee's Goon Squad, Tweb's In-Crowd, The Brood of Vipers & Exorcised by Ty & Dee Dee, and the only person who ever banned rogue06!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              I thought the point was to convince me I am wrong.
              No, i expect it's not possible to convince you you're wrong, given that you're throwing misinterpretations of random junk like the ozone hole into this in order to protect your beliefs. The point for me is to try to understand how you got those beliefs and what you're doing to protect them. I'm not sure what the point of this is for you.

              I suppose it's fair to ask what could possibly cause you to change your mind. I assume you've thaught about that regarding an opinion you're clearly extremely committed to. I know i certainly have in this case.

              In any case, i'll give you a more substantial reply later when i'm done with work, rather than just taking short breaks.
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                No, i expect it's not possible to convince you you're wrong, given that you're throwing misinterpretations of random junk like the ozone hole into this in order to protect your beliefs. The point for me is to try to understand how you got those beliefs and what you're doing to protect them. I'm not sure what the point of this is for you.

                I suppose it's fair to ask what could possibly cause you to change your mind. I assume you've thaught about that regarding an opinion you're clearly extremely committed to. I know i certainly have in this case.

                In any case, i'll give you a more substantial reply later when i'm done with work, rather than just taking short breaks.
                What would actually change my mind? Actual global warming evidence that can't be handwaved away as "weather" - Like the ice cap melting completely away. coastlines disappearing. I keep hearing this is the hottest it's ever been, and such, but I remember hotter weather from when I was a kid. And when we get colder than normal winters it is said to be weather not climate, and when it is warmer than normal it is climate not weather.

                Bad things are proof of climate change and normal things are dismissed as just normal variations.

                Proud Member of Da Blonde's Axis of Evil, Adam's Dirty Dozen, Dee Dee's Goon Squad, Tweb's In-Crowd, The Brood of Vipers & Exorcised by Ty & Dee Dee, and the only person who ever banned rogue06!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  What would actually change my mind? Actual global warming evidence that can't be handwaved away as "weather" - Like the ice cap melting completely away. coastlines disappearing.
                  So, you've neatly set a standard that can't possibly be met in your own lifetime. The definition of climate is literally the typical weather of a location or season (and i just looked that up to confirm). You're asking for evidence of changing climate that doesn't involve weather.

                  Put graphically:
                  0b88bcc19e197d6b64419753b99cf344--planet-earth-climate-change.jpg
                  (That came out of a government report; i've kept the image but lost the source, sorry - was NOAA).

                  All of that - the cold events that keep happening, and the warm ones that are getting more frequent, are weather. Climate change isn't creating new weather; it's altering the probabilities for these (and many other) events to occur.

                  And, as i'm sure you're aware, melting ice is a very energy-intensive process, and so happens slowly; ocean level rise is similar. You won't see coastlines disappear quickly. Instead you'll see things like what are happening in Miami and Norfolk, where high tides start bringing floods that didn't used to happen. Those floods will creep up by an inch or two a decade, but coastlines won't suddenly disappear.

                  So, as i suspect, there's no way possible i can convince you you're wrong.
                  "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Because it is a great story to get funding and to push their agendas through, just like here.
                    So, the oil companies were making their funding dependent upon showing climate change was real?

                    And, while i'm asking questions, do you think that climate researchers in the US are getting more funding as a result of this?

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    AGW seems to be a great tool to push through things like socialism and austerity measures.
                    Hang on. You do realize that austerity budgeting and socialism are largely incompatible, right?

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Question: how much has the sea level risen in the last 100 years? and how much can be shown to be due to AGW?
                    A bit under a foot. Attribution, i'd have to look up; would you consider the contribution due to glacial/ice cap melt to be climate driven, or an indirect effect?

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Show me some models from say 20 years ago, what they predicted and then show me what has actually happened. I remember Gore predicting we would have no ice caps in the summer by 2013. And don't just say "well Gore isn't a scientist" because he wasn't just making up stuff out of thin air, he was getting his information from climatologists and their models.
                    Closest i can come conveniently is 2004, which provides this:
                    cmp_cmip3_sat_ann-1.jpg
                    The IPCC Third Assessment Report is 2001, which is closer to your desired time frame, but is also something like 11 volumes long. If you'd like me to dig through it and look for any particular information, i will, but it'll take some time
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Well it would help to show me that he IS lying and where.
                      ok, let's do this then:
                      NOAA does a reasonable job on the weather, but has been subject to much criticism for its handling of climate and is often accused of “cooking the data” for ideological reasons, related to energy policy.
                      NOAA's temperature record is nearly identical to that produced by other organizations. It has no role in energy policy, and therefore the end of that sentence is just bizarre.

                      Once it is realized that CO2 has only minor effects, if any, on climate change,
                      Completely unsupported assertion, and one that runs counter to pretty much all scientific evidence.

                      NOAA must use more transparency and not only announce data adjustments, but explain them so that reasonable people of goodwill will understand.
                      NOAA announces its adjustments in the peer reviewed literature, and makes its scientists available to the press to explain them.

                      Not many people really believed that NCDC’s work was correct.
                      Pretty much every scientist did, given that all it was doing was incorporating records that had already been published in the peer reviewed literature. It was a completely fabricated public controversy about a study that was scientifically uncontroversial.

                      he editor of Science went to great lengths to promote the paper, issuing a press release and giving the NCDC paper special handling.
                      Science has indicated the paper got no special handling. In addition, Science issues press packs for 10 or more papers it publishes every single week. He's trying to mislead you into thinking that as a big deal, when it's normal operations.

                      Science magazine had “egg on its face.”
                      Science remains one of the two most respected journals in all of science.

                      Its editor went on to another prestigious position, as president of the National Academy of Sciences.
                      Her move was completely unrelated to this; pretty much anyone would make that switch, because her new position is far more prestigious. I'd personally jump at that opportunity.

                      This official record shows a warming at the beginning of the 20th century and also at the end. The first warming is genuine, the second warming is an artifact, based on an incomplete analysis of all of the available data.
                      Again, the NOAA analysis has been validated by numerous independent ones. This is simply false, and a claim that's complete unsupported by Singer — you seem to be refusing to hold him to the same standard you're holding me to.

                      Second, while the warming may exist in the surface record of weather stations, it does not exist in the atmospheric record.
                      There are definitely differences between the two, which is not surprising given that they measure completely different things. And it's worth noting that the satellite record has actually had several major errors that were large enough to completely reverse the trend once they were corrected.

                      Scientists are at a loss in trying to explain the puzzling ineffectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
                      Again, false. The planet seems to be warming as expected, so they're not even trying to explain this.

                      NOAA has not tackled this problem, likely because of ideological reasons.
                      No, NOAA is aware of physics, and knows that the greenhouse effect exists.

                      There is still a discrepancy and disagreement between NOAA’s surface record and all other records of temperature in the last decades of the 20th century.
                      False.


                      ll other data — including proxy data, such as tree rings, ice cores, ocean and lake sediments — show no warming between 1977 and 1997.
                      We don't use proxy data for this, because we have actual temperature data. Sediments and ice cores don't even have the temporal resolution needed to evaluate a 20 year period. Most of this garbage i've already seen from bloggers, but this is just deranged, and i have no idea where he's gotten it from.

                      We conclude that the reported surface warming does not really exist but is an artifact of instrumentation changes.
                      I'm not sure who "we" is or what they base that conclusion on, but it hasn't stood up well to more recent history.

                      So, there we have it. A mix of misleading statements, statements that are only true within a small community of non-scientist bloggers, some outright falsehoods, a lot of completely unsupported claims, and a tiny bit of insanity.

                      Do not listen to anything Fred Singer has to say. If he happens to be right about something, it's by accident.
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        The rise in CO2 in the Oceans reflects the rise in the CO2 in the atmosphere, and the potentially devastating impact on the oceans. The monitoring in 2019 shows a worsening trend.

                        Source: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/06/see-the-drastic-toll-climate-change-is-taking-on-our-oceans/



                        See the drastic toll climate change is taking on our oceans
                        For World Oceans Day, we look at the impact our carbon emissions are having, from the shore to the deep sea.


                        BY KENNEDY ELLIOTT
                        The massive amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that have entered our atmosphere since the Industrial Era began in the 18th century have had significant effects on the world’s oceans.

                        Solar energy striking Earth is either reflected back into space or absorbed and then radiated back as heat. Greenhouse gases trap some of that heat. Because they are accumulating in the atmosphere, excess heat is accumulating too, and the Earth is warming.

                        “Greenhouse gases like carbon amplify the amount of excess heat left over because they prevent heat energy from releasing from Earth’s system,” says oceanographer Tim Boyer of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

                        Excess heat trapped in the atmosphere by our greenhouse gases spreads into the oceans. They've absorbed about 90 percent of that heat. As a result, they've been warming steadily for a long time.

                        Sea surface temperatures over the last several decades reflect such warming, but are also sensitive to weather events like hurricanes and El Nino. That explains why temperatures fluctuated from one year to the next as far back as the mid-1800s.


                        Along with the warm air itself, the heat absorbed by the oceans melts ice in the polar regions, releasing fresh water that accounts for more than half of all sea level rise; the rest is attributed to the expansion of seawater as it warms. “This has obvious effects on coastal area flooding and real estate,” says NOAA oceanographer Andrew Allegra, as well as implications for marine life.

                        The oceans don't just soak up excess heat from the atmosphere; they also absorb excess carbon dioxide, which is changing the chemistry of seawater, making it more acidic. “Ocean acidification is one simple and inescapable consequence of rising atmospheric CO2 that is both predictable and impossible to attribute to any other cause,” says oceanographer John Dore of Montana State University.

                        “Almost every aspect of marine biology—from bacteria to blue whales—is in some way influenced by the acid-base balance of seawater itself,” he says. “The effects on other marine life are harder to predict, but it could take thousands of years or more to undo what we are presently doing to ocean pH.

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          There are other examples of the "consensus" rejecting new ideas. Copernicus for example.
                          The thing is, while Copernicus may have been right--well, sort of, he had the basic idea that the Earth goes around the Sun right, but got a lot of the specifics wrong--the available evidence at the time was insufficient to prove him right. Even Galileo, a century later and with better evidence, didn't have answers to some of the criticisms of heliocentrism. That came later with new evidence, and then as a result of that new evidence, heliocentrism gained ground and became the dominant viewpoint.

                          That's not really a valid analogy for this situation. I mean, if we're going to use Copernicus for this argument, then we might as well throw out all of science. The Earth is round? Well, sure, the current evidence says that, but something new might come along to disprove it. Viruses cause diseases? Well, sure, the current evidence says that, but what if we uncover something that proves that to be incorrect? That's all that invoking Copernicus can do, to claim the possibility that new evidence down the right might prove a widely held belief wrong. And if we dismiss scientific claims simply on that rationale, then we might as well throw out everything because anything could feasibly be disproven as new evidence is acquired.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                            So, the oil companies were making their funding dependent upon showing climate change was real?

                            And, while i'm asking questions, do you think that climate researchers in the US are getting more funding as a result of this?
                            More? I am thinking they are getting funding. If there were no global warming, they wouldn't have funding.


                            Hang on. You do realize that austerity budgeting and socialism are largely incompatible, right?
                            uh no. I am talking about such things as the "green new deal" which is a socialist plan that relies on taking away things such as cows, airplanes, powerplants, etc, and making the public more reliant on the government for everything. They couldn't push such things through if there weren't a crisis they could point to.

                            A bit under a foot. Attribution, i'd have to look up; would you consider the contribution due to glacial/ice cap melt to be climate driven, or an indirect effect?
                            The charts I have seen show about 7 inches in the last 100 years, (200 mm) and the rise is steady, not an increasing curve like you would expect if global warming was causing it over the last few decades.


                            https://climate.nasa.gov/system/char...Level_left.gif


                            Closest i can come conveniently is 2004, which provides this:
                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]39420[/ATTACH]
                            The IPCC Third Assessment Report is 2001, which is closer to your desired time frame, but is also something like 11 volumes long. If you'd like me to dig through it and look for any particular information, i will, but it'll take some time
                            I am not sure what that chart is showing. Where is the actual temperature on that chart?

                            Proud Member of Da Blonde's Axis of Evil, Adam's Dirty Dozen, Dee Dee's Goon Squad, Tweb's In-Crowd, The Brood of Vipers & Exorcised by Ty & Dee Dee, and the only person who ever banned rogue06!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                              ok, let's do this then:

                              NOAA's temperature record is nearly identical to that produced by other organizations. It has no role in energy policy, and therefore the end of that sentence is just bizarre.


                              Completely unsupported assertion, and one that runs counter to pretty much all scientific evidence.


                              NOAA announces its adjustments in the peer reviewed literature, and makes its scientists available to the press to explain them.


                              Pretty much every scientist did, given that all it was doing was incorporating records that had already been published in the peer reviewed literature. It was a completely fabricated public controversy about a study that was scientifically uncontroversial.


                              Science has indicated the paper got no special handling. In addition, Science issues press packs for 10 or more papers it publishes every single week. He's trying to mislead you into thinking that as a big deal, when it's normal operations.


                              Science remains one of the two most respected journals in all of science.


                              Her move was completely unrelated to this; pretty much anyone would make that switch, because her new position is far more prestigious. I'd personally jump at that opportunity.


                              Again, the NOAA analysis has been validated by numerous independent ones. This is simply false, and a claim that's complete unsupported by Singer — you seem to be refusing to hold him to the same standard you're holding me to.


                              There are definitely differences between the two, which is not surprising given that they measure completely different things. And it's worth noting that the satellite record has actually had several major errors that were large enough to completely reverse the trend once they were corrected.


                              Again, false. The planet seems to be warming as expected, so they're not even trying to explain this.


                              No, NOAA is aware of physics, and knows that the greenhouse effect exists.


                              False.



                              We don't use proxy data for this, because we have actual temperature data. Sediments and ice cores don't even have the temporal resolution needed to evaluate a 20 year period. Most of this garbage i've already seen from bloggers, but this is just deranged, and i have no idea where he's gotten it from.


                              I'm not sure who "we" is or what they base that conclusion on, but it hasn't stood up well to more recent history.

                              So, there we have it. A mix of misleading statements, statements that are only true within a small community of non-scientist bloggers, some outright falsehoods, a lot of completely unsupported claims, and a tiny bit of insanity.

                              Do not listen to anything Fred Singer has to say. If he happens to be right about something, it's by accident.
                              OK thanks. THat is too much to respond to point by point but I will take a look.

                              I notice that chart has a HUGE temperature increase in the first half of the 20th century. Then it leveled off and now it is rising again. Since we had far fewer people back then, what cause that rise? And why did it flatten out during the most industrial period 1950-1980?

                              Proud Member of Da Blonde's Axis of Evil, Adam's Dirty Dozen, Dee Dee's Goon Squad, Tweb's In-Crowd, The Brood of Vipers & Exorcised by Ty & Dee Dee, and the only person who ever banned rogue06!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                OK thanks. THat is too much to respond to point by point but I will take a look.

                                I notice that chart has a HUGE temperature increase in the first half of the 20th century. Then it leveled off and now it is rising again. Since we had far fewer people back then, what cause that rise? And why did it flatten out during the most industrial period 1950-1980?
                                warming at the turn of the century was because the "Little Ice Age" ended in the late 1800's.
                                "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                                "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X