Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Climate Change Causing Uptick in Storms?

bcorners
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 9:08:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Interesting topics - are we jumping to conclusions or are there really more tornadoes now then there used to be? Or are we just more connected?

http://www.time.com...
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 12:18:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 9:08:40 AM, bcorners wrote:
Interesting topics - are we jumping to conclusions or are there really more tornadoes now then there used to be? Or are we just more connected?

http://www.time.com...

This is why it is never a wise move to look at one year's worth of data and try to draw meaningful correlations with Global Climate Change. It opens the door to the kind of thinking that the "skeptical" community undertakes. When the snow falls they trot out the "Let's laugh at agw" cartoons and call it a day.

The real problem is this isn't how the science works. The science of AGW resides in "time series analyses" which require a lot of time to see the trends.

The point you make about our being more "connected" is also probably spot on. The impression is all these disasters are occuring all over now because we see them on CNN or the 24 hour news shows immediately. In the past we may only have been aware of what was happening nearby or had to wait to hear about big things until the news trickled through.

The AGW skeptics (at least the largely scientifically untrained mass that makes up the core of the agw skeptics movement) will be easily swayed by popular press impressions while filtering out what they find inconvenient. The worst thing serious agw folks can do is the same thing. It lends credence to trash-science and it allows the skeptics to keep peddling their "today was cool! Al Gore are a LI4R!!!!"

It helps maintain the even dispassionate discussion. The science is scary enough as it is without adding poor analyses on top of it.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 2:57:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 12:18:15 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/17/2012 9:08:40 AM, bcorners wrote:
Interesting topics - are we jumping to conclusions or are there really more tornadoes now then there used to be? Or are we just more connected?

http://www.time.com...

This is why it is never a wise move to look at one year's worth of data and try to draw meaningful correlations with Global Climate Change. It opens the door to the kind of thinking that the "skeptical" community undertakes. When the snow falls they trot out the "Let's laugh at agw" cartoons and call it a day.

One thing science does not do is show a bias toward one group when the other does the same thing. Both skeptics and believers in AGW cherrypick data. They both use short term and long term graphs depending on which specific argument they are defending.

But, if it's your position that it's about the trend, then you would have to agree that solar activity best correlates with temperature rise.

Also, look at NASA's GISS satellite data and their 5 year averages on global temperature. Temperature average has remained constant for at least 10 years.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:42:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Humanmade Pollutants May Be Driving Earth's Tropical Belt Expansion: http://www.sciencedaily.com...

That's awesome! We will have more places to visit during the winter months! Better weather for more people! Etc.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:49:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 4:42:45 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Humanmade Pollutants May Be Driving Earth's Tropical Belt Expansion: http://www.sciencedaily.com...

That's awesome! We will have more places to visit during the winter months! Better weather for more people! Etc.

What a great idea! Oops, except we do have that needly little problem that sometimes global warming can cause or exaccerbate global extinctions. We have history: The End Permian Extinction wherein about 95% of the earth's lifeforms died out is thought by some scientists to have either been caused by or made much worse due to global warming.

But hey, hope springs eternal,eh? And those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it...but I'm sure that doesn't apply to stuff like this!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 5:06:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 4:49:41 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
What a great idea! Oops, except we do have that needly little problem that sometimes global warming can cause or exaccerbate global extinctions.
Aren't 98% of all living species that ever existed extinct? Seems like a normal trend to me. Besides, it's natural selection, no?

We have history: The End Permian Extinction wherein about 95% of the earth's lifeforms died out is thought by some scientists to have either been caused by or made much worse due to global warming.
I'm sure you'll find an anthopogenic reason for it, no doubt.

But hey, hope springs eternal,eh? And those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it...but I'm sure that doesn't apply to stuff like this!
That would be great if one KNEW something rather than THOUGHT something to be true.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 5:53:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 12:18:15 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/17/2012 9:08:40 AM, bcorners wrote:
Interesting topics - are we jumping to conclusions or are there really more tornadoes now then there used to be? Or are we just more connected?

http://www.time.com...

This is why it is never a wise move to look at one year's worth of data and try to draw meaningful correlations with Global Climate Change. It opens the door to the kind of thinking that the "skeptical" community undertakes. When the snow falls they trot out the "Let's laugh at agw" cartoons and call it a day.

The real problem is this isn't how the science works. The science of AGW resides in "time series analyses" which require a lot of time to see the trends.

The point you make about our being more "connected" is also probably spot on. The impression is all these disasters are occuring all over now because we see them on CNN or the 24 hour news shows immediately. In the past we may only have been aware of what was happening nearby or had to wait to hear about big things until the news trickled through.

The AGW skeptics (at least the largely scientifically untrained mass that makes up the core of the agw skeptics movement) will be easily swayed by popular press impressions while filtering out what they find inconvenient. The worst thing serious agw folks can do is the same thing. It lends credence to trash-science and it allows the skeptics to keep peddling their "today was cool! Al Gore are a LI4R!!!!"

It helps maintain the even dispassionate discussion. The science is scary enough as it is without adding poor analyses on top of it.

The very same thing could be said about you and your position
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 9:26:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 5:06:30 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Aren't 98% of all living species that ever existed extinct? Seems like a normal trend to me. Besides, it's natural selection, no?


That's an interesting view. It seems that when history isn't convenient for some folks they laugh at it.

I'm sure you'll find an anthopogenic reason for it, no doubt.

Why would I? DO YOU BELIEVE THERE WERE PEOPLE IN THE PERMIAN?

LOL! Are you sure you are following the details of the debate when it comes to climate change?

That would be great if one KNEW something rather than THOUGHT something to be true.

As opposed to skeptoids who just "know" all this science they don't really understand is bogus, eh?
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 9:28:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

The very same thing could be said about you and your position

You mean my position of attempting to rely on the most robust science? Is that problematic for you?

I know "time series analysis" is complex so I understand that some skeptics like to avoid it (icky detailed mathematics and stuff).
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 8:24:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 4:42:45 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Humanmade Pollutants May Be Driving Earth's Tropical Belt Expansion: http://www.sciencedaily.com...

That's awesome! We will have more places to visit during the winter months! Better weather for more people! Etc.

I'm all for global warming. Think of how much of Russia and Canada can be opened up. Also, more CO2 in the atmosphere means crops grow much better and can tolerate much more hostile conditions. It's a double benefit :)

All I have to say is that we should enjoy the warming while it lasts, because we're heading down into a global cooling stage in a couple to a few years/

Within 2 years, we're going to predict ice ages like we were in the 50s and 60s. To me, cold has a lot more things to complain about since you can at least go outside and feel good for a time in the heat.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 8:59:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm all for global warming. Think of how much of Russia and Canada can be opened up. Also, more CO2 in the atmosphere means crops grow much better and can tolerate much more hostile conditions. It's a double benefit :)

You can always hope! Of course the potential downsides include:

1. Collapse of the U.S. agricultural infrastructure (we already see plant hardiness zones moving northward: http://www.thedailygreen.com...)

2. Unintended consequences beyond our imagining (if as the skeptoids say we know so little, I'm curious why they also think we know enough to know things won't be so bad. Again, I point the readers to the End Permian extinction. But hey, history is for suckers, right? Gamblers know the big win is around the corner)


All I have to say is that we should enjoy the warming while it lasts, because we're heading down into a global cooling stage in a couple to a few years/

Well, if you want to invoke information about what we know from earth's history (which skeptoids like to trot out without any real background in it) then do please remember that back in 1981 Imbrie and Imbrie noted: ""Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years." (SOURCE: Imbrie, J, J Z Imbrie (1980). "Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations". Science 207 (4434): 943–953) so I would ask where that ice age is if it started 6000 years ago. In the interim we've had a quite heft bit of warming. But maybe the skeptoids know something about the science that the scientists don't?


Within 2 years, we're going to predict ice ages like we were in the 50s and 60s.

Couple of points:

1. What you are probably actually referring to is the 1960's-1970's when a couple of news outlets were latching onto scientist views of how ice ages go and suggestions of how we were supposed to be heading into another ice age

2. At no time during this period was there more publications about cooling than warming. You want the hard numbers? Between 1965-1979 there were 42 peer reviewed science papers discussing global WARMING but only 7 discussing global cooling. If you like there's a nice paper by Peterson in 2008 that ran these numbers: http://ams.confex.com...

To me, cold has a lot more things to complain about since you can at least go outside and feel good for a time in the heat.

Are you actually serious here? It's hard to tell.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:26:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You can always hope! Of course the potential downsides include:

1. Collapse of the U.S. agricultural infrastructure (we already see plant hardiness zones moving northward: http://www.thedailygreen.com...)

The United States is #1 in food production by a pretty wide margin. We throw away at lest a quarter of the food we produce if I remember the statistic right. I think we could afford to lose some of our food. If anything, it would force us to stop turning corn into god-awful Ethanol and use it as it's intended.

2. Unintended consequences beyond our imagining (if as the skeptoids say we know so little, I'm curious why they also think we know enough to know things won't be so bad. Again, I point the readers to the End Permian extinction. But hey, history is for suckers, right? Gamblers know the big win is around the corner)

You have a point. Climate is far too advanced for us to predict at this point since we always chase the past and don't ever make good long term predictions in our brief history studying global climate trends.

But, I'm just talking about as general rules. Melting of ice sheets releases humidity into the air, which means plants get much more water from the air. If you're not from the US (forgot if you were or not), you would be surprised at how incredibly dry our breadbasket is.

Really,our long term problems will have little to do with warming in that region considering the water table is going down rapidly, which has to do more with our overuse of the land.

Well, if you want to invoke information about what we know from earth's history (which skeptoids like to trot out without any real background in it) then do please remember that back in 1981 Imbrie and Imbrie noted: ""Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years." (SOURCE: Imbrie, J, J Z Imbrie (1980). "Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations". Science 207 (4434): 943–953) so I would ask where that ice age is if it started 6000 years ago. In the interim we've had a quite heft bit of warming. But maybe the skeptoids know something about the science that the scientists don't?

Not sure what point you're trying to make with this, but the general idea is that climate changes whether or not we're involved in it, so I just say enjoy the ride because it's going whether we hump trees or drive SUVs like Al Gore.

Within 2 years, we're going to predict ice ages like we were in the 50s and 60s.

Couple of points:

1. What you are probably actually referring to is the 1960's-1970's when a couple of news outlets were latching onto scientist views of how ice ages go and suggestions of how we were supposed to be heading into another ice age

It was more than a couple of news outlets, and they were written the entire pan of that time.

2. At no time during this period was there more publications about cooling than warming. You want the hard numbers? Between 1965-1979 there were 42 peer reviewed science papers discussing global WARMING but only 7 discussing global cooling. If you like there's a nice paper by Peterson in 2008 that ran these numbers: http://ams.confex.com...

I'm talking about the alarmist view and how it changes. If you look at global temperature records from meteorlogical records, the temperatures didn't look so scary, but the media made it so. It has done the same with GW.

It's only when the alarmist view of warming prevailed that we started seeing big money and big politics get involved into something that was just science. These two entities have contanimated the science to the point where the scientists participate in this fear mongering by cherrypicking very questionable data in order to paint a picture that isn't really there.

Are you actually serious here? It's hard to tell.

I live near Phoenix, AZ, one of the hottest cities on Earth in the summertime. It routinely gets above 115F in July (over 120 heat index very often). Tons of people are out in it.

I lived in Tennessee before I lived here, and I was born and raised in Ohio. Anything below 30 degrees and you seldom see anyone out walking or doing anything unless they have to.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 11:23:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The United States is #1 in food production by a pretty wide margin. We throw away at lest a quarter of the food we produce if I remember the statistic right. I

Well that's a strange way to look at it. I am from the midwest and I now live in California. Our agricultural infrastructure is far more fragile than you may know. Cali is good because it has extended growing seasons. But water is scarce and throw in a few more major droughts and the rest of the country pays dearly for it.

But, I'm just talking about as general rules. Melting of ice sheets releases humidity into the air, which means plants get much more water from the air. If you're not from the US (forgot if you were or not), you would be surprised at how incredibly dry our breadbasket is.

By "breadbasket" I assume you mean California, because the historic farmland in the midwest on the east side of the 100th meridian are not that dry.

Really,our long term problems will have little to do with warming in that region considering the water table is going down rapidly, which has to do more with our overuse of the land.

So is the thinking that if we eliminate recharge of the aquifers by courting possible multi-year droughts due to agw that that will be "OK" so long as we destroy our agriculture by overuse of the aquifers? Again strange thought process.

Not sure what point you're trying to make with this, but the general idea is that

Of course not! It's obvious what my point was: you want to say we are going into a cooling phase, the only evidence of that would be based on milankovich and glacial cycles which are now about 6000 years overdue.

But again, I know it's scary when scientific details are raised in the debate.

climate changes whether or not we're involved in it, so I just say enjoy the ride because it's going whether we hump trees or drive SUVs like Al Gore.


Here's a syllogism for you:

1. Gunshot wounds to the head often result in death
2. Bob is dead
3. Bob was obviously shot in the head

Does that sound right? I'm a PhD geologist, I probably have forgotten more about the earth's history than many on here knew to begin with. That doesn't mean that anthropogenic factors CAN'T play a role.

Yes the earth has warmed. Yes there are natural cycles. Guess what? Starting about 150 years ago humans really dug in and started pumping gigatons of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. Enough, in fact, to change the isotopic composition of the C in the atmosphere almost exactly as one would expect from the rampant burning of fossil fuels!

It was more than a couple of news outlets, and they were written the entire pan of that time.

Not really. And again, the Peterson article finds 7 (s-e-v-e-n) scientific articles talking about global cooling vs 42 scientific articles talking about warming.

If you think this means there was some major concensus in the 60's and 70's about global cooling you'll have to cite just SOMETHING!

I'm talking about the alarmist view and how it changes. If you look at global

Why is that skeptics always run away from their points and start with "What I'm talking about is..." rather than actually backing up their points?

YOU claimed there was all this talk in the "50's and 60's" about global cooling. I'm pointing out that your "impression" seems to be off. I've posted detailed analysis of this "meme". And now you have to run away to saying what you're "really" talking about and it has nothing to do with the original point? Interesting.

temperature records from meteorlogical records, the temperatures didn't look so scary, but the media made it so. It has done the same with GW.


The meteorological records actually do look kinda scary. We're talking global averages. That's a pretty big thing.

It's only when the alarmist view of warming prevailed that we started seeing big money and big politics get involved into something that was just science. These two

Here's some more history for you on this topic:

the original hypothesis came out in 1898 with Arrhenius. It was picked up again in earnest in the 1950's 1960's by Roger Revelle after his groundbreaking research with Hans Seuss on ocean CO2 dynamics. At that time Revelle started approaching the public and government about the topic.

Most skeptics only know a couple things about the history of AGW and that's mostly limited to Al Gore and maybe (maybe) Jim Hansen in the 1980's.

This topic has been under investigation for longer than most of us on this board have been alive.

entities have contanimated the science

Only problem with this is that NO ONE SEEMS TO BE ABLE TO FIND ACTUAL EVIDENCE for this claim! Repeated investigations have failed to find fraud. The absolute WORST that has so far been found by the skeptoids is that one group drug its feet in complying with FOIA. That's it. No fraud, no bad activities with the data. In fact Cucinelli on his witch-hunting trip in Virginia got his behind handed to him!

The very minute you guys come up with ACTUAL EVIDENCE of wrong doing, please by all means bring it up!

But just saying science is "contaminated" is just trash talk.

; to the point where the scientists participate in this fear mongering by cherrypicking very questionable data in order to paint a picture that isn't really there.


Yeah, yeah, yeah. Heard it all before. Somehow anonymous skeptoids on the intarwebs know so much more than the vast, vast majority of earth and climate scientists all over the world!

It are amazing!

I live near Phoenix, AZ, one of the hottest cities on Earth in the summertime. It routinely gets above 115F in July (over 120 heat index very often). Tons of people are out in it.

And that means...what?

I lived in Tennessee before I lived here, and I was born and raised in Ohio. Anything below 30 degrees and you seldom see anyone out walking or doing anything unless they have to.

Yeah? Oh, are you saying there are different climates in different places?

Sorry, but I don't get your point. (HINT: This is why surface temperature trends on a global and hemispheric basis are usually presented in terms of "anomalies" rather than raw temperature data. It's always good to understand the topic !)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 1:15:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 9:26:23 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/17/2012 5:06:30 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Aren't 98% of all living species that ever existed extinct? Seems like a normal trend to me. Besides, it's natural selection, no?
That's an interesting view. It seems that when history isn't convenient for some folks they laugh at it.
Correction: it's 99.9% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. Care to explain how that's inconvenient to my point, genius?

I'm sure you'll find an anthopogenic reason for it, no doubt.
Why would I? DO YOU BELIEVE THERE WERE PEOPLE IN THE PERMIAN?
No, but why would that stop you?

LOL! Are you sure you are following the details of the debate when it comes to climate change?
Which debate, there are many? Or are you referring to the one where Roy cleaned your clock?

That would be great if one KNEW something rather than THOUGHT something to be true.
As opposed to skeptoids who just "know" all this science they don't really understand is bogus, eh?
That goes for BOTH sides, bub. But it especially goes for those that profess the sky to be falling.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 1:30:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 12:18:15 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/17/2012 9:08:40 AM, bcorners wrote:
Interesting topics - are we jumping to conclusions or are there really more tornadoes now then there used to be? Or are we just more connected?

http://www.time.com...

This is why it is never a wise move to look at one year's worth of data and try to draw meaningful correlations with Global Climate Change. It opens the door to the kind of thinking that the "skeptical" community undertakes. When the snow falls they trot out the "Let's laugh at agw" cartoons and call it a day.

The real problem is this isn't how the science works. The science of AGW resides in "time series analyses" which require a lot of time to see the trends.

The point you make about our being more "connected" is also probably spot on. The impression is all these disasters are occuring all over now because we see them on CNN or the 24 hour news shows immediately. In the past we may only have been aware of what was happening nearby or had to wait to hear about big things until the news trickled through.

The AGW skeptics (at least the largely scientifically untrained mass that makes up the core of the agw skeptics movement) will be easily swayed by popular press impressions while filtering out what they find inconvenient. The worst thing serious agw folks can do is the same thing. It lends credence to trash-science and it allows the skeptics to keep peddling their "today was cool! Al Gore are a LI4R!!!!"

It helps maintain the even dispassionate discussion. The science is scary enough as it is without adding poor analyses on top of it.:

The Gobi desert has twice been an ocean, twice been a tropical rainforest, and twice been a desert.

I've found seashells in Flagstaff, AZ, which is 7,000 feet above sea level.

All because of anthropogenic global warming, I presume! :)

Earth changes, climate changes, in predictable and cyclical patterns.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 8:21:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Gobi desert has twice been an ocean, twice been a tropical rainforest, and twice been a desert.

I've found seashells in Flagstaff, AZ, which is 7,000 feet above sea level.

All because of anthropogenic global warming, I presume! :)

In your circles does this pass for "insightful"? Just curious. It's boring and has nothing to do wit the topic.

Here let's try that syllogism again:

1. Gunshot wounds to the head often result in death
2. Bob is dead
3. ERGO Bob suffered a gunshot wound to the head

Do YOU see any problem with the logic there?


Earth changes, climate changes, in predictable and cyclical patterns.

yes, earth changes, but you know what? The way we KNOW the earth has had different climates is a field called PALEOCLIMATOLOGY. It was developed completely independently of the AGW hypothesis...and YET IT IS USED TO SHOW HOW SOLID THE SCIENCE OF MODERN AGW ACTUALLY IS!

You are no doubt familiar with the paleoclimate estimates of CO2 climate sensitivity, right? Guess what? They fit in with what we find in modern times...onl today guess who is pumping in GIGATONS of CO2 into the atmosphere? Yup, humans.

So if I may be so bold as to ask: if you think you know so much about how the earth has changed, why do you think paleoclimate data can be used to firm up AGW without AGW also being a good hypothesis?

It's like believing in hammers, but when someone says they are going to build a house using a hammer suddenly hammers aren't real?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 8:26:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"A new model simulation of Atlantic hurricane activity for the last two decades of this century projects fewer hurricanes overall, but a slight increase in intensity for hurricanes that do occur. Hurricanes are also projected to have more intense rainfall, on average, in the future."
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

No increase in storms possible increase in the power of them.

"Gore says that 2004 set a new record for the number of typhoons striking Japan. It did not. The trend in the number of typhoons, and of tropical cyclones, has fallen throughout the past 50 years. The trend in rainfall from cyclones has also fallen, and there has been no trend in monsoon rainfall."
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...

No trend possible decrease since it has gotten warmer.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 8:30:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Correction: it's 99.9% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. Care to explain how that's inconvenient to my point, genius?

YES! Because 99.9% of all species didn't go extinct at one time in the geologic record.

I know geology is so inconvenient. But the point I was making was that the End Permian extinction event was one in which many scientists think global warming played a role and it was one in which 95% of earth's life forms were decimated.

The fact that you can't differentiate between THAT point and your point about 99.9% of all species says a huge amount.

Which debate, there are many? Or are you referring to the one where Roy cleaned your clock?

Which would that be? The one where the MS in Math and Statistics couldn't even get the name of the statistical test right? (He called it "component analysis", but statisticians call it "Principal component analysis"), well I don't see my clock being cleaned right at this moment (as of last check it's 10-8, advantge me).

No I was referring to your point about 99.9% of the species extinct. Which has nothing to do with the point I was making about the End Permian Extinction.

That goes for BOTH sides, bub.

Well, to be fair to me, I do have a BS, MS and PhD in geology (organic geochemistry and coal were my things), worked at one of the leading oceanographic research facilities that you might read about occasionally in the debates on global warming (although I wasn't involved in the CO2 studies or global temp studies, I did meet some of the players), and I have worked as a chemist for the past 15 years, so I'm not wholly in the dark on the science.

I am not a climatologist, but at least I can read some of the science with something of a background. I don't know what other debators' background is.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 8:38:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 8:30:43 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
Correction: it's 99.9% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. Care to explain how that's inconvenient to my point, genius?

YES! Because 99.9% of all species didn't go extinct at one time in the geologic record.

That's arguing global warming will hurt them, I would like you to note warm periods make most species prosper and evolve, humans also prospered in warm periods i.e. medieval warming period.


I know geology is so inconvenient. But the point I was making was that the End Permian extinction event was one in which many scientists think global warming played a role and it was one in which 95% of earth's life forms were decimated.

It is for you, read the first IPCC's assessment, and look at NOAA graphs. It proves a skeptics point of natural warming. Also, warming also helps people and species. i.e. roman warm period.


The fact that you can't differentiate between THAT point and your point about 99.9% of all species says a huge amount.


Which debate, there are many? Or are you referring to the one where Roy cleaned your clock?

I think Thaumaturgy won both of those, I am planning to debate him on a similar topic on a later date.


Which would that be? The one where the MS in Math and Statistics couldn't even get the name of the statistical test right? (He called it "component analysis", but statisticians call it "Principal component analysis"), well I don't see my clock being cleaned right at this moment (as of last check it's 10-8, advantge me).

No I was referring to your point about 99.9% of the species extinct. Which has nothing to do with the point I was making about the End Permian Extinction.

That goes for BOTH sides, bub.

Well, to be fair to me, I do have a BS, MS and PhD in geology (organic geochemistry and coal were my things), worked at one of the leading oceanographic research facilities that you might read about occasionally in the debates on global warming (although I wasn't involved in the CO2 studies or global temp studies, I did meet some of the players), and I have worked as a chemist for the past 15 years, so I'm not wholly in the dark on the science.

I am not a climatologist, but at least I can read some of the science with something of a background. I don't know what other debators' background is.

I have read science too, read two books on it, and everything you are saying is refuted by investigative reporting and scientists themselves.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 8:39:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 8:59:18 AM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
I'm all for global warming. Think of how much of Russia and Canada can be opened up. Also, more CO2 in the atmosphere means crops grow much better and can tolerate much more hostile conditions. It's a double benefit :)

You can always hope! Of course the potential downsides include:

1. Collapse of the U.S. agricultural infrastructure (we already see plant hardiness zones moving northward: http://www.thedailygreen.com...)

2. Unintended consequences beyond our imagining (if as the skeptoids say we know so little, I'm curious why they also think we know enough to know things won't be so bad. Again, I point the readers to the End Permian extinction. But hey, history is for suckers, right? Gamblers know the big win is around the corner)


All I have to say is that we should enjoy the warming while it lasts, because we're heading down into a global cooling stage in a couple to a few years/

Well, if you want to invoke information about what we know from earth's history (which skeptoids like to trot out without any real background in it) then do please remember that back in 1981 Imbrie and Imbrie noted: ""Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years." (SOURCE: Imbrie, J, J Z Imbrie (1980). "Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations". Science 207 (4434): 943–953) so I would ask where that ice age is if it started 6000 years ago. In the interim we've had a quite heft bit of warming. But maybe the skeptoids know something about the science that the scientists don't?


Within 2 years, we're going to predict ice ages like we were in the 50s and 60s.

Couple of points:

1. What you are probably actually referring to is the 1960's-1970's when a couple of news outlets were latching onto scientist views of how ice ages go and suggestions of how we were supposed to be heading into another ice age

2. At no time during this period was there more publications about cooling than warming. You want the hard numbers? Between 1965-1979 there were 42 peer reviewed science papers discussing global WARMING but only 7 discussing global cooling. If you like there's a nice paper by Peterson in 2008 that ran these numbers: http://ams.confex.com...

Navigate the site a little: http://www.friendsofscience.org...


To me, cold has a lot more things to complain about since you can at least go outside and feel good for a time in the heat.

Are you actually serious here? It's hard to tell.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 8:40:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We detect more tornadoes than we used to, but the number doesn't seem to be changing.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Notice in the next graph, with new doppler systems implemented in the 90's, more F0 tornadoes were reported each year. That's what contributes to the idea that we now have more total tornadoes.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Another view, Figure 1 shows the number rising in the 90s, but being static since then.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov...
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 10:26:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 8:40:41 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
We detect more tornadoes than we used to, but the number doesn't seem to be changing.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

looks like a downward trend to me


Notice in the next graph, with new doppler systems implemented in the 90's, more F0 tornadoes were reported each year. That's what contributes to the idea that we now have more total tornadoes.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Another view, Figure 1 shows the number rising in the 90s, but being static since then.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 8:23:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well that's a strange way to look at it. I am from the midwest and I now live in California. Our agricultural infrastructure is far more fragile than you may know. Cali is good because it has extended growing seasons. But water is scarce and throw in a few more major droughts and the rest of the country pays dearly for it.

I know very much how fragile it is and I am genuinely concerned about it. But, what I'm saying is that we grow so much food that it would take a mammoth collapse for us to worry about a food shortage.

By "breadbasket" I assume you mean California, because the historic farmland in the midwest on the east side of the 100th meridian are not that dry.

I'm talking about where we're relying on the aquifer andthe area surrounding it.

It has a very shortwet season. It's classified as a savannah, I believe.

So is the thinking that if we eliminate recharge of the aquifers by courting possible multi-year droughts due to agw that that will be "OK" so long as we destroy our agriculture by overuse of the aquifers? Again strange thought process.

No, my contention is that we probably have no control over global climate combined with the fact that it's not an immediate problem. The aquifer, depending on what we do, might last a few more decades, but that is far more important than trying to change something that is impossible tochange (because we're not the cause of global climate change).

Not sure what point you're trying to make with this, but the general idea is that

Of course not! It's obvious what my point was: you want to say we are going into a cooling phase, the only evidence of that would be based on milankovich and glacial cycles which are now about 6000 years overdue.

But again, I know it's scary when scientific details are raised in the debate.

Speaking of scientific details, you might want to look at GISS satellite data and see the flattening of the warming curve for yourself. This flattening is probably due to the decline in solar irradiation over the last couple decades. It has more to do with the sun than it does weak greenhouse gases found in trace amounts.

Here's a syllogism for you:

1. Gunshot wounds to the head often result in death
2. Bob is dead
3. Bob was obviously shot in the head

Does that sound right? *self gratification* ... That doesn't mean that anthropogenic factors CAN'T play a role.

Your syllogism shows eactly the problem I have with global warming. People think that just because both CO2 and temperature are going up, that CO2 rise must have to do with temperature rise. Never mind the fact that CO2 has remained constant for most of recorded history, and temperatures have fluctuated a good deal during that time, including much more rapid changes than we see today.

Yes the earth has warmed. Yes there are natural cycles. Guess what? Starting about 150 years ago humans really dug in and started pumping gigatons of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. Enough, in fact, to change the isotopic composition of the C in the atmosphere almost exactly as one would expect from the rampant burning of fossil fuels!

I think it's safe to say we've had a fingerprint on the Earth's CO2 concentration. I won't argue this. Isotopic concentrations aren't the absolute final word, but it is an extremely strong indicator at least of the fact that what we are adding is not being put back into the Earth that quickly.

CO2 is not a strong greenhouse gas. There are many gases that absorb and re-radiate heat much more effectively. Water vapor is far more abundant in the atmosphere and absorbbs almost 10 times the heat that CO2 does. Also water vapor can vary much more heavily than CO2.

Albedo, and the sun are also more effective than CO2 at determining global temperature.

Not really. And again, the Peterson article finds 7 (s-e-v-e-n) scientific articles talking about global cooling vs 42 scientific articles talking about warming.

If you think this means there was some major concensus in the 60's and 70's about global cooling you'll have to cite just SOMETHING!

Never said anything about a consensus. I'm talking about the alarmist view and how it evolves. The alarmist view right now is global warming, an that's where the money and attention goes.

Why is that skeptics always run away from their points and start with "What I'm talking about is..." rather than actually backing up their points?

YOU claimed there was all this talk in the "50's and 60's" about global cooling. I'm pointing out that your "impression" seems to be off. I've posted detailed analysis of this "meme". And now you have to run away to saying what you're "really" talking about and it has nothing to do with the original point? Interesting.

Even though more scientists were correct (in hindsight) about talking about global warming, that wasn't the prevailing topic with the media, and it wasn't the word that was heard most.

I am simply pointing the view that is trying to control the masses. I don't think we knew enough to make a big deal out of warming or cooling back then. Now, it's an issue.

The meteorological records actually do look kinda scary. We're talking global averages. That's a pretty big thing.

I' m talking about at the time those articles were written. There was nothing scaring anyone, but the media blows everything up into something big.

Here's some more history for you on this topic:
(history)

My original statement that the science was corrupted by the politics of the 70s onward with the tree hugger movement still stands. I never doubted the history.

entities have contanimated the science

Only problem with this is that NO ONE SEEMS TO BE ABLE TO FIND ACTUAL EVIDENCE for this claim! Repeated investigations have failed to find fraud. The absolute WORST that has so far been found by the skeptoids is that one group drug its feet in complying with FOIA. That's it. No fraud, no bad activities with the data. In fact Cucinelli on his witch-hunting trip in Virginia got his behind handed to him!

The very minute you guys come up with ACTUAL EVIDENCE of wrong doing, please by all means bring it up!

But just saying science is "contaminated" is just trash talk.

Using the term "scientific consensus" when there is none, cherrypicking proxy data, lots of evidence. We haven't even found a tropospheric hotspot yet, and people are saying the measurements are done and the science is settled. Not so.

That's why the United States didn't pass Kyoto Protocol, because of "skeptoids" of the "consensus"

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Heard it all before. Somehow anonymous skeptoids on the intarwebs know so much more than the vast, vast majority of earth and climate scientists all over the world!

I don't claim to know more than scientists. If it weren't for their peer review of posted data sets on the subject. Peer review and skepticism are part of the scientific process, am I right?

I shouldn't say that around AGW peeps though. I might be called a "climate denier" (or, same as holocaust denier!)

And that means...what? (about TN weather)

Warming is better than cooling. Feels better, and is more tolerable.

Sorry, but I don't get your point. (HINT: This is why surface temperature trends on a global and hemispheric basis are usually presented in terms of "anomalies" rather than raw temperature data. It's always good to understand the topic !)

Again, I wasn't using this to show a lack of global warming. Look at the context of my paragraphs please (or just ask).

I am simply saying that warming is better than cooling in how pleasant it is
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 11:13:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
No, my contention is that we probably have no control over global climate combined with the fact that it's not an immediate problem. The aquifer, depending on what we do, might last a few more decades, but that is far more important than trying to change something that is impossible tochange (because we're not the cause of global climate change).

You do realize aquifers often have "recharge", right? That courting drought say by changing the environment can negatively impact aquifer recharge, right?

Speaking of scientific details, you might want to look at GISS satellite data and see the flattening of the warming curve for yourself.

Yes, I've seen that! And again, when one windows down a multi-decade time series trend short enough you can find all kinds of things in it.

This is why it is a gross error to look only at a short window of time in the temperature trend.

Never mind the fact that CO2 has remained constant for most of recorded history,

The last time CO2 was THIS high was 15 million years ago (http://www.sciencedaily.com...)

and temperatures have fluctuated a good deal during that time, including much more rapid changes than we see today.

Again, if you read the IPCC you will see that scientists already agree that natural forcings are real. If you read the NOAA Paleoclimatology site you can see that they have a lot of data on this topic! (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...)

CO2 is not a strong greenhouse gas. There are many gases that absorb and re-radiate heat much more effectively. Water vapor is far more abundant in the atmosphere and absorbbs almost 10 times the heat that CO2 does. Also water vapor can vary much more heavily than CO2.

But as you no doubt know; when excess water goes into the atmosphere it can easily come back out quickly (we call it "precipitation" in scientific circles, but regular people may call it "rain" or "snow", etc.) CO2 doesn't have the same luxury. It relies on the carbon cycle to re-establish its levels.

AND CO2 obviously can cause heating which can cause the atmosphere to be able to hold more water, ergo...

Water is a "feedback" moreso than a forcing and helps increase the general impact of other greenhouse gases.

Never said anything about a consensus. I'm talking about the alarmist view and how it evolves. The alarmist view right now is global warming, an that's where the money and attention goes.

YOU talked about the predictions in the "50's and 60's" as if it were something common at the time. But actually in the 60's and 70's the talk was still around global warming, but only a couple of articles came out talking about cooling.

You want "alarmism"? That's a great case because Newsweek and Time picked it up and ran with it and now today, 40 years or more later we have to contend with skeptics rolling it out as if it were of some "importance" at the time, certainly as if it somehow calls into question the judgement of the scientists. As if they vaccilate wildly.

Even though more scientists were correct (in hindsight) about talking about global warming, that wasn't the prevailing topic with the media, and it wasn't the word that was heard most.

That's called "alarmism", and "skepticism based on ignorance". Again just because Newsweek and Time and the NYT picked up a story and put it out there does not mean that most of the scientists were thinking that way.

Remember a lot of people have no scientific training whatsoever, so I don't really care what they "think" they hear based on the non-science journalism outlets.

My original statement that the science was corrupted by the politics of the 70s onward with the tree hugger movement still stands. I never doubted the history.

It doesn't appear to stand on the facts. Clearly the global cooling discussion of the 60's and 70's was not scientifically relevant as you wished, now you want to recapture some of the point by somehow moving away from your original point?

Using the term "scientific consensus" when there is none

What would you consider a "consensus"? Because right now it is at about 97% (remember there are TWO studies only ONE of which is a poll-based study!).

Do you guys need it to be 100.0000....0% perfect agreement? (Hint: that seldom happens in science.)

I don't claim to know more than scientists. If it weren't for their peer review of posted data sets on the subject. Peer review and skepticism are part of the scientific process, am I right?

Was that peer reviewed?

I shouldn't say that around AGW peeps though. I might be called a "climate denier" (or, same as holocaust denier!)

I work very hard to NOT use the term "denier" precisely because it is a bad term overall. I prefer "skeptic" for those with some scientific knowledge and "skeptoid" for those who want to be skeptical about science they don't even begin to understand.

Warming is better than cooling. Feels better, and is more tolerable.

Not to me. That could be why I did my honeymoon in Iceland and Norway, why I volunteered to do the most recent pilot trial in Finland in January. Why I'm ridiculously happy right now in southern England with dreary cool weather.

I am simply saying that warming is better than cooling in how pleasant it is

That's wrong on so many levels. This is a global warming discussion which means ecosystems that don't adapt to the rapid warming fast enough suffer, and the ecosystems that rely on those ecosystems suffer.

Let's talk "interesting scenarios" for a bit. You no doubt know the questions around the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic, right? The gulf stream is part of this. It could be (emphasize could) that the rapid melting of the Greenland Glaciers that appears to be ongoing will flood the N. Atlantic with fresh water causing a reorganization of the "THC". The Thermohaline conductor has reorganized in the past for various reasons (Broeker has a good paper on this).

What happens in this wonderfully warmed world? Well say goodbye to Western Europe's economies as most of the reason that high latitude western Europe is as "balmy" (lol) as it is is because of the energy brought up to those latitudes by the THC. Shut off the heat and things get hard to take real fast. And right now a lot of Europe is teetering on the brink of economic collapse because of HOUSING bubbles!

Warming better? Yeah, for Europe, until the warming causes the THC to shut down at which point the overall global warming will not be sufficient to make up the loss of heat from the THC.

It's all degrees. The devil lies in the details.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 12:19:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You do realize aquifers often have "recharge", right? That courting drought say by changing the environment can negatively impact aquifer recharge, right?

I go back to my point that, again, we probably have no control over droughts and wet years. This is why water conservation techniques, not trace weak greenhouse gases, should be controlled.

Yes, I've seen that! And again, when one windows down a multi-decade time series trend short enough you can find all kinds of things in it.
This is why it is a gross error to look only at a short window of time in the temperature trend.

AGW people use the window of when humans started the Industrial revolution, despite the fact that we pumped very little CO2 into the atmosphere at the temperatures started rising.

And, again, with the increase in solar activity over the past 300 yeas, the only separation from the trend is from 1950 onward.

Never mind the fact that CO2 has remained constant for most of recorded history,

The last time CO2 was THIS high was 15 million years ago (http://www.sciencedaily.com...)

That's why I said "most"

My point is that CO2 has little effect on global temperatures. Otherwise, global temperature wouldn't have varied as much as we see in the MWP, LIA, and Bronze Age.

Again, if you read the IPCC you will see that scientists already agree that natural forcings are real. If you read the NOAA Paleoclimatology site you can see that they have a lot of data on this topic! (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...)

I've been reading a ton of NOAA and NASA articles and charts since I've gotten involved in AGW discussions years back. Really, this is my favorite page in it

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Basically it says that the science is not nearly done to a satisfactory end.

Despite that, we're told that man-made climate change and CO2 based temperature rise are causing more intense storms.

But as you no doubt know; when excess water goes into the atmosphere it can easily come back out quickly *high school terminology* CO2 doesn't have the same luxury. It relies on the carbon cycle to re-establish its levels.

AND CO2 obviously can cause heating which can cause the atmosphere to be able to hold more water, ergo...
Water is a "feedback" moreso than a forcing and helps increase the general impact of other greenhouse gases.

Even with the slight cooling effect of cloud cover, Water Vapor still heats the Earth much more than CO2. Water is a greater cause of warming because of the very feedback you mentioned.

Except for the feedback is better explained and correlated with solar activity, lower albedo due to melting ice ... ice that has probably retreated since before the Industrial Revolution. CO2 is a minor player in this. As a trace atmospheric gas measured in parts per million, it can't warm the Earth as effectively as other changes we see.

YOU talked about the predictions in the "50's and 60's" as if it were something common at the time. But actually in the 60's and 70's the talk was still around global warming, but only a couple of articles came out talking about cooling.

It was common. I never once saw people talking bout warming temperatures except for one time I saw a time magazine article posted by someone in the early 50s talking about a warmer Earth. But, if you look at the media that was out at thetime that people have posted, you'll see a majority of it was about cooling until the 70s.

You want "alarmism"? That's a great case because Newsweek and Time picked it up and ran with it and now today, 40 years or more later we have to contend with skeptics rolling it out as if it were of some "importance" at the time, certainly as if it somehow calls into question the judgement of the scientists. As if they vaccilate wildly.

Coming to a conclusion based on your own source's admission of incomplete science 'is' bad judgment.

That's called "alarmism", and "skepticism based on ignorance". Again just because Newsweek and Time and the NYT picked up a story and put it out there does not mean that most of the scientists were thinking that way.
Remember a lot of people have no scientific training whatsoever, so I don't really care what they "think" they hear based on the non-science journalism outlets.

Never said that most scientists thought that way. I'm talking about the amount of articles that were pumped through the main media.

As far as "non science" if you go by the data and not the alarmists (Gore, etc...) you'll see that they don't really have much evidence for the bold statements made.

It doesn't appear to stand on the facts. Clearly the global cooling discussion of the 60's and 70's was not scientifically relevant as you wished, now you want to recapture some of the point by somehow moving away from your original point?

In the 70s, as I said, when the environmental movement really went into max gear, politicians jumped on the bandwagon. You saw Global Warming and other things become bigger and bigger issues. The birth of the EPA (a good thing), crackdown on littering, ect... When big money and big politics and the UN got involved, there was so much money dumped into finding results that the money influenced the science.

What would you consider a "consensus"? Because right now it is at about 97% (remember there are TWO studies only ONE of which is a poll-based study!).

I would consider a consensus when the science has reached the point where it can't be rationally argued by anyone. Since your own source (NOAA) says the science is incomplete, there's still a ton to argue about.

Was that peer reviewed? (about peer reviews)

I think that I've done my fair share in looking at the data for and against AGW. I'm not obligated to look at every review of the review.

I work very hard to NOT use the term "denier" precisely because it is a bad term overall. I prefer "skeptic" for those with some scientific knowledge and "skeptoid" for those who want to be skeptical about science they don't even begin to understand.

And, what term would one use to describe a believer who doesn't know the science? Um... believer-oid?

Because mud slinging is preferable to arguing to some, I guess (ssuming that's what you were doing).

Not to me. That could be why I did my honeymoon in Iceland and Norway, why I volunteered to do the most recent pilot trial in Finland in January. Why I'm ridiculously happy right now in southern England with dreary cool weather.

People in the states mostly disagree, even those in AZ.

That's wrong on so many levels. This is a global warming discussion which means ecosystems that don't adapt to the rapid warming fast enough suffer, and the ecosystems that rely on those ecosystems suffer.

Let's talk "interesting scenarios" for a bit. (THC explanation)

The Atlantic currents aren't just light switches that turn on and off. It takes time for these currents to weaken and disappear. Western Europe will undoubtedly adapt by then. Yeah, you might talk to your great grandkids about it being a few degrees warmer with not-as-bad winters, but it's nothing that people won't slowly adapt to.

After all, it's nothing we can likely d anything about.

It's all degrees. The devil lies in the details.

Or, the lack of them, which is the entire problem with predicting climate when science is nowhere near done.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 1:40:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What would you consider a "consensus"? Because right now it is at about 97% (remember there are TWO studies only ONE of which is a poll-based study!).

I would consider a consensus when the science has reached the point where it can't be rationally argued by anyone. Since your own source (NOAA) says the science is incomplete, there's still a ton to argue about.

Sounds like you want 100% perfect consensus. Sorry science doesn't usually work that way with most things. A few things yeah. As an example in 1982 I had a mineralogy prof who was an older fellow who had some unstated "concerns" about plate tectonic theory. That's an indication that there will always be skeptics. Not that skepticism is ipso facto a view to truth all the time.

I think that I've done my fair share in looking at the data for and against AGW. I'm not obligated to look at every review of the review.

Did you remove reference to the "thermodynamic impossibility" article? I thought you had posted that old cannard about greenhouse effect is impossible. That's what I was referencing.

And, what term would one use to describe a believer who doesn't know the science? Um... believer-oid?

Probably.

Because mud slinging is preferable to arguing to some, I guess (ssuming that's what you were doing).

Not mudslinging. Actually being as positive as I can. But still maintaining some differentiator. Skeptoids like to talk about the value of skepticism in science but since they are skeptoids they don't any real scientific background and don't have a framework to know what is good skepticism what is meaningless skepticism.

The Atlantic currents aren't just light switches that turn on and off. It takes time for these currents to weaken and disappear. Western Europe will undoubtedly adapt by then. Yeah, you might talk to your great grandkids about it being a few degrees warmer with not-as-bad winters, but it's nothing that people won't slowly adapt to.

You can always hope! Wallace Broecker seems to see evidence of relatively rapid changes which he indicates in his paper would not be as easily adaptable as you think. (http://www.climate-talks.net...) But hey, Wallace Broecker is only a world-renouned expert on ocean and climate from Columbia Univ. What would he know?

After all, it's nothing we can likely d anything about.

Again you can hope?

Or, the lack of them, which is the entire problem with predicting climate when science is nowhere near done.

Science is NEVER done. The fact that it is never done is what creationists use to debate it. I would hope that isn't how skeptics debate the science.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 2:09:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sounds like you want 100% perfect consensus. Sorry science doesn't usually work that way with most things. A few things yeah. As an example in 1982 I had a mineralogy prof who was an older fellow who had some unstated "concerns" about plate tectonic theory. That's an indication that there will always be skeptics. Not that skepticism is ipso facto a view to truth all the time.

That's not what I said. The numbers are strong in AGW's favor, but there are factors that contribute to that. That's why I add in wen no rational arguments can be used. For example: Given the facts, there is no rational argument to say that the Earth is flat.

When there is no rational argument to say that man hasn't caused or noticably influenced global climate change, then, again, THAT is a consensus. But, because the issue is still being argued and evidence is still being collected about past global climate -- evidence that is incomplete according to NOAA.

Did you remove reference to the "thermodynamic impossibility" article? I thought you had posted that old cannard about greenhouse effect is impossible. That's what I was referencing.

I never referenced anything about thermodynamic impossibility. You must have me misplaced with someone else.

Because mud slinging is preferable to arguing to some, I guess (ssuming that's what you were doing).

Not mudslinging. Actually being as positive as I can. But still maintaining some differentiator. Skeptoids like to talk about the value of skepticism in science but since they are skeptoids they don't any real scientific background and don't have a framework to know what is good skepticism what is meaningless skepticism.

The most positive you can be is to not mudsling.

Nobody here is claiming to be writing scientific papers for posts. We are posting the work of others, and that is what I have done. I don't collect and interpret data and then graph it, edit it, etc... I rely on people who do so.

That's what GISS is for, that's what NOAA is for, and both of them support my arguments about AGW, and the evidence is mounting.

Again, I take no credit. I'm just the messenger, so slinging mud at me because I'm not something I never claimed to be is fruitless on your part.

You can always hope! Wallace Broecker seems to see evidence of relatively rapid changes which he indicates in his paper would not be as easily adaptable as you think. (http://www.climate-talks.net...) But hey, Wallace Broecker is only a world-renouned expert on ocean and climate from Columbia Univ. What would he know?

The paper you're pointing to makes the change only look abrupt , but the charts span thousands of years. The Greenland/Santa Barbara chart shows that this probably happened over a few decades. We could certainly have something adapted before then.

It's just more alarmist logic, and even the writer of the article uses it.

Again you can hope?

Hope is expensive with less than 20% chance of working, and this is assuming 50/50 manmade climate change.

Instead of hoping, we should worry about stuff in the environment that are real concerns and that we can control, that we know for a fact we have an mpact on, like overfishing the seas.

Science is NEVER done. The fact that it is never done is what creationists use to debate it. I would hope that isn't how skeptics debate the science.

It's never done, you're right, but in this case, there are key parts of the theory that just don't fit yet. Combined with the fact that we don't even have good proxy data coverage, why even attempt to draw the silly conclusion that man has caused this? There are so many parts of this theory that have yet to be accounted for.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 2:43:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The most positive you can be is to not mudsling.

How is it mudslinging to say to someone who has no scientific understanding of the topic that their "skepticism" is probably not grounded and hence they cannot take the mantle of "skeptic" in service to science?
Again, I take no credit. I'm just the messenger, so slinging mud at me because I'm not something I never claimed to be is fruitless on your part.

I am not slinging mud at you. If you rely on critiques that are largely disavowed by the majority of scientists and don't have an underlying factual basis apparent then I am in no way mudslinging to say this is not good "skepticism". Certainly not the kind of skepticism we value in science.

I can be skeptical of many things which I don't understand. That does not make it a virtue on my part. Nor does it make the scientists who ignore me unvirtuous because they are supposed to value "skepticism".

The paper you're pointing to makes the change only look abrupt , but the charts span thousands of years.

At least one of the lines in the paper indicates very short terms of time only a few decades or less. (it's early on in the paper, first page I believe). And you will note Broecker's conclusion that this could result in very strong problems for populations which is in direct contradiction to your wish for everyone to "slowly adapt".

It's just more alarmist logic, and even the writer of the article uses it.

Yeah. Suddenly a world expert on this stuff is someone you blow off? Weren't you the one who said we all rely on experts in this discussion? Wally Broecker has been around the block quite a bit.

I had the rare opportunity to briefly meet him when I was working at the facility he works at (Lamont Doherty). I was a lowly chem tech, but it was kinda cool to meet a big name like that.

Instead of hoping, we should worry about stuff in the environment that are real concerns and that we can control, that we know for a fact we have an mpact on, like overfishing the seas.

This is another standard skeptic cannard. It's not like we should ignore global climate change because there are OTHER issues to deal with. Arguably if the vast majority of the world's climate professionals think its real and think it could have serious impacts and our ability to deal with it may be "time-limited", it must be prioritized highly.

It's never done, you're right, but in this case, there are key parts of the theory that just don't fit yet.

And those parts are what the 3% of the world's climate scientists use to leverage doubt for the skeptic cause.

Strangely enough there's so much data that about 97% of the world's climate researchers and experts feel this is real science. But it's not 100% so I guess we'll have to wait.

Because the skeptics who are not scientists SURELY will find the smoking gun soon! SURELY!

Combined with the fact that we don't even have good proxy data coverage, why even attempt to draw the silly conclusion that man has caused this? There are so many parts of this theory that have yet to be accounted for.

Since you earlier said we all rely on experts in this debate, can I ask why you now wish to deny the work of the vast majority of experts in this field?

Seems to me you want doubt for doubt's sake. That's good. It has worked for creationists for decades. Unfortunately it doesn't really work when time might be running out for us to do something.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 3:23:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 2:43:11 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
I am not slinging mud at you. If you rely on critiques that are largely disavowed by the majority of scientists and don't have an underlying factual basis apparent then I am in no way mudslinging to say this is not good "skepticism". Certainly not the kind of skepticism we value in science.

Condescending attitude and sarcasm are much more valuable scientific tools, aren't they?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:54:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Condescending attitude and sarcasm are much more valuable scientific tools, aren't they?

Sorry, but when I came on here I assumed that the level of knowledge from the skeptical side would be a bit higher than what I've seen on other boards. I am frustrated that many of the obviously intelligent people on here fall for the same skeptoid memes that I see pervasive on the intarwebs.

It is tiring for a scientist to have to watch people repeat information that has been debunked or has perfectly legitimate responses from authoritative sources time and again.

I apologize for being snarky but I was disappointed in the level of response here.

I am in the last throes of a debate with RoyLatham on how good or bad the Hockey stick is in science, and while I relied almost exclusively on peer reviewed journal articles he relied mostly on non-science blogs and wikipedia citations, yet his votes are getting that our sources were "equivalent".

He followed the standard issues of the debate:

1. Attempting to impress only to realize that I was going to bring in details in direct contradiction to that, so he left that to go after appeals to authority
2. Then he delved into the "conspiracy theory" aspects of how a small cabal of researchers somehow run the world of science journals that have been around for more than a century

You see where I'm coming from? Science and the details that make up science are lost.

On this board and countless others those of us who are not professionals in this field talk so big, yet at the same time the world's climatologists almost to a person (97%) are trying to tell us this is all likely very real.

I would love it if science played a role in the skeptical position but it simply doesn't. It is largely driven by "popular culture memes" promulgated in blogs, pop press books, FoxNews type outlets and "doubt for doubt's sake" approaches to the science.

It looks for all the world like the exact same debate we have with creationists and young earthers! And I really hoped that more rigor would be involved in the debate elsewhere.