Jump to content

Science Not Settled


Recommended Posts

Been in the weather field for over 40 years. A few observations:

 

1. Weather/climate is a cycle of cycles of cycles of cycles..... To infer AGW after only a few years of warming on our 4.5 Billion year old planet is like infering a bull market based on a one second up-tick in the DOW. The glacial ice/deep ocean record has been/can be sliced and diced by whoever wants to prove their point. Cherry picking data is not science. Data minipulation by E. Anglia in the U.K. a good example.

 

2. Prof Mann's (Penn State) Hockey stick is a perfect example of model "blow-up". Current 10-Day forecast models (U.S. GFS, the European and Canadian) will sometimes blow-up by day 5 or 6. The sub grid point energy is aliaised resulting in feedback problems within the model....i.e. it "blows up" showing unrealistic outcomes like Hurricance strength low pressure systems in the center of the U.S. The hockey stick is a classic feedback blow-up, especially since the model is run out to 2050, and should be ignored.

 

3. The fact we've had little or no warming over the last 15 years, near record sea ice in the Artic this year, near record low sloar max and many other

non-AGW outcomes further undermines the "augument is over" hurbris. The definition keeps changing Man-Made GW, AGW, Climate change. What are they going to call it if we enter a global cooling period (Global cooling is a result of Global warming).

 

4. Make no mistake, this is a politcal/social agenda looking for scientific support. First clue is the astute climate expert Uncle Al receiving a Nobel prize; second clue is involvement by the U.N. Hollywood, and the far left. All scientists who support GW; if you recieve grant money to prove GW, please sit down. If your a scientist who support GW due to political/social reasons, please sit down. If any are left, please prove with REAL science.

 

5. It would be an absolute travisty to divert/redistribute Trillions of dollars before rational, non-political, real science-based discussion takes place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

True, but that's all I am willing to do for you at the moment.     I have already explained how they leave important facts out.   I'm sure at some point, I will explain why something posted by e

It might not be accurate or true, but just because it is a "vanity publication" doesn't make bad or wrong either.   That is where your logocal fallacy arises. Automatically assuming it to be bad, un

Congratulations. That gives you expertise in weather.     No, it's not.   What data manipulation? No investigation (and there were several) found manipulation.   One model blows up, th

Been in the weather field for over 40 years.

Congratulations. That gives you expertise in weather.

 

 

A few observations:

 

1. Weather/climate is a cycle of cycles of cycles of cycles..... To infer AGW after only a few years of warming on our 4.5 Billion year old planet is like infering a bull market based on a one second up-tick in the DOW.

No, it's not.

 

The glacial ice/deep ocean record has been/can be sliced and diced by whoever wants to prove their point. Cherry picking data is not science. Data minipulation by E. Anglia in the U.K. a good example.

What data manipulation? No investigation (and there were several) found manipulation.

 

2. Prof Mann's (Penn State) Hockey stick is a perfect example of model "blow-up". Current 10-Day forecast models (U.S. GFS, the European and Canadian) will sometimes blow-up by day 5 or 6.

One model blows up, therefore all models blow up. Got it. Protip: stop using all modern technology. It relies on models.

 

3. The fact we've had little or no warming over the last 15 years, near record sea ice in the Artic this year,

Given that those are not true in any way, I don't see how you can call them facts.

 

Most of the warming has been in the ocean, and sea ice has decidedly not set any record this year.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/arctic-sea-ice-update-unlikely-to-break-records-but-continuing-downward-trend/#.UjMzDxYrRX0

 

"The icy cover of the Arctic Ocean was measured at 2.25 million square miles (5.83 million square kilometers) on Aug. 21. For comparison, the smallest Arctic sea ice extent on record for this date, recorded in 2012, was 1.67 million square miles (4.34 million square kilometers), and the largest recorded for this date was in 1996, when ice covered 3.16 millions square miles (8.2 million square kilometers) of the Arctic Ocean."

 

So it's nowhere near the largest recorded value. The volume is also down; what spatial extent we have is getting thinner.

 

4. Make no mistake, this is a politcal/social agenda looking for scientific support. First clue is the astute climate expert Uncle Al receiving a Nobel prize; second clue is involvement by the U.N. Hollywood, and the far left. All scientists who support GW; if you recieve grant money to prove GW, please sit down. If your a scientist who support GW due to political/social reasons, please sit down. If any are left, please prove with REAL science.

That's funny, most are still standing. Scientists aren't given money to find a particular result, they are given money to investigate a certain problem. Ergo they don't get money to prove GW.

 

Make no mistake: the social agenda claims are a denialism smokescreen.

 

 

5. It would be an absolute travisty to divert/redistribute Trillions of dollars before rational, non-political, real science-based discussion takes place.

Real science discussion has been happening for years. The waste of money has already begun and will only get worse the longer people delay action by promulgating lies and deceit.

The bottom line here is that the basic science is settled. The actual experts who study this for a living are in widespread agreement. It's the non-experts, sniping from the sidelines who are not, and they have to rely on lying and misrepresentation, or simply lack understanding of basic science, in their disagreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee. Wonder what side of the discussion your on.

 

 

Yes, of course. Pointing out egregious errors of fact should always be equated with having an underlying agenda, something other than wanting to get the facts straight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And exactly what are your qualifications? The discussion is far from over and the science has not been settled,

 

The data he's quoting is out there for anyone to check. And swansont won't take the bait on an Appeal to Authority argument, so I'll do it for him. He's a physicist for the US Naval Observatory, so his access to and knowledge of the data is superlative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cut and paste is not a substitute for experience and knowledge. His credentials are solid for a physicist, but not for an atmospheric scientist (myself) or a climate scientist. It's time to dig a little deeper. Explore both side of the debate without any preconcived notions or emotions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cut and paste is not a substitute for experience and knowledge. His credentials are solid for a physicist, but not for an atmospheric scientist (myself) or a climate scientist. It's time to dig a little deeper. Explore both side of the debate without any preconcived notions or emotions.

 

I've known Tom a long time now. I've read everything he's ever written here about climate change. I've checked both sides of the debate and I can say that swansont's arguments have never been tainted with emotion, and he never preconceives his conclusions. He's not cutting and pasting, he's providing citation for his argument, which is good practice.

 

I can't say the same about you. swansont posted some refutations of your stance and your responses were underwhelming, and seemed much more tainted by the emotions you accuse him of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately for me, identifying blatantly false statements ( e.g. little or no warming over the last 15 years, near record sea ice in the Artic this year), specious reasoning (weather models blow up after a week, therefore all models are unreliable), and a basic misunderstanding of science funding and protocol do not require any advanced knowledge of climate science.

 

The tactics are well-known, seeing as they are a rehash of tobacco and creationism, so recognizing them is also not difficult. Even if I had no clue about the science (and I do have at least some clue), I would be strongly inclined to doubt the side that had to rely on intellectual dishonesty to try and advance their position.

 

I have dug deeper than what you see here — this is not the beginning of my inquiry. But I have also smelled what you are shoveling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right on the sea ice...my bad. It's 78% larger than last year, but just a tad below the 1981-2010 avg. On the models. I worked with these everyday. For example, the American Global Forecast System (GFS), which is one of 3 global models. The resolution of the model varies in each part of the model: horizontally, it divides the surface of the earth into 35 or 70 kilometre grid squares; vertically, it divides the atmosphere into 64 layers and temporally, it produces a forecast for every 3rd hour for the first 192 hours, after that they are produced for every 12th hour. Alot of "horsepower" is required to crunch the temp, RH, pressure at each grid point every 3 hours. The sub grid energy is alised horizonatly and vertically and sometime the energy feedbaack "blows" the model up. Seen it hundreds of times. Prof Mann's hockey stick (30 yrs from now) screams feedback/blow-up. If his model was based on the effects of water vapor and not CO2 it would be believeable.

 

Last 15 yrs: Try these: http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7m6ecjNSJToAcbJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2I4MWVpBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDA0OV8x/SIG=15v9ju876/EXP=1379132190/**http%3a//www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2259012/Global-warming-Met-Office-releases-revised-global-temperature-predictions-showing-planet-NOT-rapidly-heating-up.html

 

://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7myDcTNSWx0AJKVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0Yjcxb3M5BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDA0OV8x/SIG=13t89tujh/EXP=1379131907/**http%3a//www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/

Link to post
Share on other sites
And exactly what are your qualifications?

My qualifications for noticing that your OP there was pile of garbage consist of an ability to read English prose and reason from evidence - plus I've been following the Arctic sea ice and the temperature curves for a while, so I know that essentially every assertion of fact you made was in error.

 

But by all means wave credentials - they don't impress me, but they make a much better argument than the rest of that posting.

 

For sure, that would be better persuasion than crap like this:

 

Your right on the sea ice...my bad. It's 78% larger than last year, but just a tad below the 1981-2010 avg.

It's "you're", the ue of the average is invalid, and the cherry picked interval for the "average" is kind of obviously deceptive even if the usage had been valid.

 

 

 

Prof Mann's hockey stick (30 yrs from now) screams feedback/blow-up. If his model was based on the effects of water vapor and not CO2 it would be believeable
Mann's hockey stick was a reconstruction of already happened events - a graph of the atmospheric temperatures that had already occurred, as estimated from proxie records and such from the past along wtih instrumental readings from modern times. It was not based on CO2 levels fed into a predictive model.

 

So "your bad" again. Try posting your diploma and resume, see if that works.

Edited by overtone
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your level of condescension is quite unbecoming, especially from a senior member. Surprised you didn't use all Caps. Either case, the time period temps are available does not lend itself to any meaningfully analysis (10K yrs vs let's say even the last 1M years). This type of fluctuation has never occurred before? Mann did try and stick this uptrend on increasing CO2. Without a statistically relevant time period how the heck can assign a cause? The issue reminds me of the 1970s proclamation of another Ice age or how about the Ozone hole scam...haven't heard much about that lately have we. There are too many unknowns...I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, Again, lets not spend Trillions of dollars until the science it settled. One more thing:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

We mainly just need a steady state for societal integrity reasons. I don't think anyone can deny that humanity hasn't had some kind of impact on the environment. The planet is pretty adaptable, human societies are not. More than a few have vanished due purely to environmental reasons.

 

Much of what nature throws at us isn't preventable. In contrast controlling emissions is relatively easy.

 

 

Generally we don't lose research once it is completed. Not like a number of the more transient boondoggles out there. In a number of areas we actually have greater efficiencies as a result. Waste to Resource, along with processing improvements.

 

Getting late local time, take my random thoughts as you will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, thanks for that piece citing Fox News. It's reassuring to know there's still hope and that people know which sources to trust on these important issues.

 

 

 

On another note, the IPCC will release a report in the next week or so that shares the following:

 

"Science is more certain than ever that the majority of the warming since 1950 has indeed been caused by human activity — burning fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas," Cullen [vice president and chief climatologist for Climate Central, a nonprofit science journalism organization based in Princeton, N.J.] told reporters in a news briefing on Sept. 13.

"More certain than ever," by the way, refers to the fact that we are more than 95% certain at this point about the human cause.

 

http://www.livescience.com/39763-ipcc-report-faq.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As a scientist, you should be clearly aware that the Daily Mail newspaper is not a peer reviewed source.

 

A peer reviewed meta-analysis of 11,944 peer reviewed studies on climate change show that the actual observations regarding anthropogenic climate change are overwhelmingly in agreement, and as time goes by the level of agreement of peer reviewed data increases:

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024

 

x7nhdnhr-1368602659.jpg

Would you care to share an actual scientific study contradicts the above data, rather than an anecdotal newspaper article about the opinions of politicians?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please see para 4 of my orginal post. The science is not settled.

 

!

Moderator Note

Unacceptable. Your paragraph 4 is nothing but a conspiracy claim, trivially refuted, that uses a Begging the Question fallacy to assume things you can't support.

 

Please address the questions posed to you - citations from publications other than the popular press would be a distinct benefit to your case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please see para 4 of my orginal post. The science is not settled.

Para 4 is baseless.

Science knows that science is not settled.

It is (as was pointed out earlier) just like the creationists' "mantra" that Science doesn't know everything.

Well, of course it doesn't. If it did, it would stop.

 

So, your best shot at redeeming this lost-cause thread is to cite yourself, then state something blindingly obvious (but irrelevant).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't say the studies were not real science. However, what have the scientists reviewed and agreed to. That an uptick of temperature over the last 1K years within a 4.5B record is unrepresented (really) and "caused" by increasing levels of CO2 (no other possible causes?). The FACT global temperature have been fairly flat the last 15 years, even though CO2 has continued to increase, hints the entire AGW premise may be flawed. The science is not settled.

Edited by Wxman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Make no mistake, this is a politcal/social agenda looking for scientific support.

And yours seems to be a political/industrial agenda looking for brand appeal:

 

The discussion is far from over and the science has not been settled,

Again, lets not spend Trillions of dollars until the science it settled.

The science has not been settled.

The science is not settled.

The science is not settled.

A+ for the sound byte. I know good branding when I see it. Worthy of Siegel+Gale, truly.

 

Btw, bumper stickers would be the ultimately ironic choice to spread this message.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paragraph 1 is really all that has to be stated. We could study human development of the Atlantic coast and make projections about continental drift, of course with the usual qualifiers of might, could, possibly and maybe, thereby making a mockery of science in general and geology in particular.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't say the studies were not real science.

 

Err, yeah you did. You challenged us to provide you with "real" science, claiming that a proportion was biased. You therefore insinuated that the studies I provided were somehow biased or verbatim from you not "real" science. I was asking for you to substantiate why these studies did not meet the criteria of your challenge, as it sounded awfully like an invocation of the no true Scotsman logical fallacy.

 

 

 

However, what have the scientists reviewed and agreed to. That an uptick of temperature over the last 1K years within a 4.5B record is unrepresented (really) and "caused" by increasing levels of CO2 (no other possible causes?).

 

Come on, really? If you'd even read the first paragraph of the abstract you'd have your answer.

 

 

 

The FACT global temperature have been fairly flat the last 15 years, even though CO2 has continued to increase, hints the entire AGW premise may be flawed.

 

A "FACT" which is trivially refuted by data: All of the warmest 10 years on record were in the last 15 years - relatively "flat" but record breaking is rather astoundingly contradictory. http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2013/01/16/nasa-2012-was-9th-warmest-year-on-record-the-9-warmest-years-have-all-occurred-since-1998/

 

Screen-Shot-2013-01-16-at-12.28.17-AM.pn

 

 

 

The science is not settled.

 

If I repeat "I have a pet Stegosaurus" over and over it unfortunately won't make it so. As previously cited, the data reported in the literature is in an astounding state of confirmation.

 

 

 

Paragraph 1 is really all that has to be stated.

 

It's a good thing that it's not an accrate representation of how climate science is conducted then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.