Global Warming Revisited

[Izzy.nyc]

Originally Posted by BVS

Have to be a member.

Isn't the whole website a comic site?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Not horrible. They use big words you have to sound out like the New York Times.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

That data came from scientist all over the globe, not just one group.

And I can't remember correctly, was that story about NASA? And I don't think the story was about the process more than the presenting.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[the iron horse]

"They laughed at Joan of Arc, but she went right ahead and built it anyway."

~Gracie Allen

[Izzy.nyc]

Originally Posted by BVS

That data came from scientist all over the globe, not just one group.

And I can't remember correctly, was that story about NASA? And I don't think the story was about the process more than the presenting.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

The story was regarding the nasa emails that were uncovered, stating data was manipulated to produce some of the results you speak of.

I personally don't deny the concept of climate change, I just don't think the effect of industrialized nations on an already natural process has been clearly defined, based on the studies and discussions I've had. But again, that's just me.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Izzy.nyc]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

"They laughed at Joan of Arc, but she went right ahead and built it anyway."



~Gracie Allen

Lol


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[elevated_u2_fan]

Watch California Dry Up Right Before Your Eyes In 6 Jaw-Dropping GIFs

[Moser]

Most of the skepticism towards anthropogenic contributions to global warming seems to based on questioning the credibility of the scientific reports which is quite offensive when one regards the amount of work and critique one has to do to publish a study.

An article can involve any where from 3-5 years of research, and then several months to write up. Then the author submits a manuscript along with a submission fee of usually on the order of $500 - $1000 to a journal. The editor of the journal passes the manuscript to reviewers who are experts in the field that critique the research to the maximum extent possible. The author then has to make revisions to their methodology or work harder to produce stronger evidence for their hypothesis. The revisions are then sent back to the reviewers, who then ask for more revisions, or make a recommendation on whether the manuscript should be accepted for rejected. Only after the manuscript is accepted by experts in the field is the manuscript then published as an article in the journal. The entire submission process can take up to a year or two.

Let's be clear. Research integrity is the #1 goal in atmospheric research. We don't try to bullshit you. There is no collective conspiracy on global warming. We can't even bullshit ourselves without being torn to pieces.

I'm currently working on a study that tries to pick apart the effects of entrainment modification on cumulus clouds. Currently, I am held up by a little bug in my code that is affecting my boundary conditions. It probably will not affect my overall conclusions, but I have to be certain, so I will not continue unless I can fix this little dinky issue. If I don't fix it, I am sure someone else will be highly critical of my conclusions. Trust me, I and everyone I know in the atmospheric field really cares about the quality of their results.

Now if someone wants to debate the actual science behind the current scientific consensus, then I will try to find the patience to argue with somebody who is not qualified to make arguments. I'm not trying to be elitist, but it is hard to argue with somebody who doesn't know basic dynamics, microphysics, radiative transfer, and thermodynamics.

[LuckyNumber7]

^ what he said. Being someone :/ being in a very similar field, I completely understand.

It's not being an elitist, it's being factual. Simple thermodynamics isn't something that's actually simple to someone who isn't a chemist, physicist, or engineer. So, in reality, if you're not one of those, your skepticism is much more likely to be based on irrationality, hearsay, and distrust.

[the iron horse]

I remain skeptical and think this might be remembered as one of the biggest hoaxes in history.

Dr Benny Peiser says public are more sceptical about climate change and global warming | Nature | News | Daily Express

[Izzy.nyc]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

^ what he said. Being someone :/ being in a very similar field, I completely understand.

It's not being an elitist, it's being factual. Simple thermodynamics isn't something that's actually simple to someone who isn't a chemist, physicist, or engineer. So, in reality, if you're not one of those, your skepticism is much more likely to be based on irrationality, hearsay, and distrust.

Can this apply to the Ebola thread?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

I remain skeptical and think this might be remembered as one of the biggest hoaxes in history.



Dr Benny Peiser says public are more sceptical about climate change and global warming | Nature | News | Daily Express

Or a celebration of ignorance, and you'll be remembered with the flat earthers.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by BVS

Or a celebration of ignorance, and you'll be remembered with the flat earthers.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I have been reading both sides of the issue for years. I haven't bought it.
Time will tell.

Reading is fun

Confessions of a climate change denier

As time goes on, I believe less and less that humans have caused us to reach the verge of a climate change tipping point. I used to believe in global warming but here's the thing; I keep reading articles written by pro climate change authors and it's becoming clearer and clearer from the data that the certainty they ascribe to an anthropogenic climate change tipping point is more uncertain than ever. We are now in the period the climate change scientists call the pause. The “pause” is the term global warming adherents use to describe the past 18 to 26 years in which actual global temperatures haven't risen to the levels predicted by their models by a sizable margin.

As more former climate change believers begin to doubt, the warmists are relying more on a shrill narrative than on science to convince the rest of the world that manmade climate change is real. Now year after year as the actual data which contradicts the warmist models piles up, the only thing still predictably rising is the virulent rhetoric the warmist truthers are using to desperately cling to their crumbling narrative.

Take for example the words of Phil Plait who in May 2014 wrote for Slate magazine, “The scientific argument about the existence of climate change itself is long since over. The evidence is in, and it’s real. To deny that is as fundamentally wrong as denying the Earth is round.” Well, the conclusion that the earth is round isn't based upon statistical models that have a 20-year track record of inaccuracies.

During the same 20-year period in which climate models continued to miss the mark and create more uncertainty, the International Panel on Climate Control (IPPC) continued to increase the certainty of their own estimates regarding the accuracy of their conclusions.



The IPPC went from putting no numerical assessment on their accuracy ten years ago to a 66 percent chance that climate change is anthropogenic five years ago until today where they conclude there is a greater than 90 percent chance that global warming is manmade. That means the correlation coefficient between the inaccuracies of their models and the self-proclaimed accuracy of their conclusions is high indeed.

Based upon that very high level of correlation, we can project that if an additional 20 years of data which doesn't conform with their models occurs then the IPCC will be 99.99 percent certain that global warming is manmade.

It's not that I don’t believe the physics of carbon dioxide and other naturally occurring or manmade greenhouse gases which trap heat, or that the climate is constantly changing. The more I read about humans being the primary reason the climate has changed and that such change is nearing the tipping point, the less I believe those making the arguments. In the past several months I have read several dozen articles by climate change scientists published in various media and posted on blogs and other websites. The problem is their arguments are: one, more rhetoric and less science; two, highly alarmist despite contradictory results; and three, they purposefully understate the economic cost of their proposed solutions.

A typical argument you read from a warmist truther is “I am a scientist, and several thousand other scientists agree with me; therefore I am right and you are wrong” despite contradictory data. Where is the science in that? If these same scientists could offer a reasonable explanation as to why the actual data doesn’t conform to their models it would be a lot more convincing; not that they haven't tried. The latest theory to explain the “pause” is that all the missing heat is trapped in the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean but not in any of the other oceans. This recent theory is based on a single study with a relatively small sample size and single network of data gathering instruments.

Many warmists hastily conclude this single small study of the Atlantic Ocean is proof global warming is real after all; never mind earlier they claimed that they originally came to the conclusion that global warming was real only after examining tens of thousands of data points being run over and over again through hundreds of models, over many many years.

Never mind the actual surface temperature results don't conform to these models predictions; never mind more accurate studies have shown the polar bear population is thriving, never mind that they predicted polar ice caps would be gone by 2015.

I suppose all of that global warming rhetoric would be benign except based on that rhetoric in the coming months and years we will all be forced to pay thousands of dollars and have a reduced standard of living to offset the effects of a problem that is by the day becoming more uncertain.

The earth after all is most definitely round and no amount of shrill rhetoric will make it otherwise.

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

I have been reading both sides of the issue for years. I haven't bought it.

Time will tell.



Reading is fun



Confessions of a climate change denier



As time goes on, I believe less and less that humans have caused us to reach the verge of a climate change tipping point. I used to believe in global warming but here's the thing; I keep reading articles written by pro climate change authors and it's becoming clearer and clearer from the data that the certainty they ascribe to an anthropogenic climate change tipping point is more uncertain than ever. We are now in the period the climate change scientists call the pause. The “pause” is the term global warming adherents use to describe the past 18 to 26 years in which actual global temperatures haven't risen to the levels predicted by their models by a sizable margin.



As more former climate change believers begin to doubt, the warmists are relying more on a shrill narrative than on science to convince the rest of the world that manmade climate change is real. Now year after year as the actual data which contradicts the warmist models piles up, the only thing still predictably rising is the virulent rhetoric the warmist truthers are using to desperately cling to their crumbling narrative.



Take for example the words of Phil Plait who in May 2014 wrote for Slate magazine, “The scientific argument about the existence of climate change itself is long since over. The evidence is in, and it’s real. To deny that is as fundamentally wrong as denying the Earth is round.” Well, the conclusion that the earth is round isn't based upon statistical models that have a 20-year track record of inaccuracies.



During the same 20-year period in which climate models continued to miss the mark and create more uncertainty, the International Panel on Climate Control (IPPC) continued to increase the certainty of their own estimates regarding the accuracy of their conclusions.







The IPPC went from putting no numerical assessment on their accuracy ten years ago to a 66 percent chance that climate change is anthropogenic five years ago until today where they conclude there is a greater than 90 percent chance that global warming is manmade. That means the correlation coefficient between the inaccuracies of their models and the self-proclaimed accuracy of their conclusions is high indeed.



Based upon that very high level of correlation, we can project that if an additional 20 years of data which doesn't conform with their models occurs then the IPCC will be 99.99 percent certain that global warming is manmade.



It's not that I don’t believe the physics of carbon dioxide and other naturally occurring or manmade greenhouse gases which trap heat, or that the climate is constantly changing. The more I read about humans being the primary reason the climate has changed and that such change is nearing the tipping point, the less I believe those making the arguments. In the past several months I have read several dozen articles by climate change scientists published in various media and posted on blogs and other websites. The problem is their arguments are: one, more rhetoric and less science; two, highly alarmist despite contradictory results; and three, they purposefully understate the economic cost of their proposed solutions.



A typical argument you read from a warmist truther is “I am a scientist, and several thousand other scientists agree with me; therefore I am right and you are wrong” despite contradictory data. Where is the science in that? If these same scientists could offer a reasonable explanation as to why the actual data doesn’t conform to their models it would be a lot more convincing; not that they haven't tried. The latest theory to explain the “pause” is that all the missing heat is trapped in the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean but not in any of the other oceans. This recent theory is based on a single study with a relatively small sample size and single network of data gathering instruments.



Many warmists hastily conclude this single small study of the Atlantic Ocean is proof global warming is real after all; never mind earlier they claimed that they originally came to the conclusion that global warming was real only after examining tens of thousands of data points being run over and over again through hundreds of models, over many many years.



Never mind the actual surface temperature results don't conform to these models predictions; never mind more accurate studies have shown the polar bear population is thriving, never mind that they predicted polar ice caps would be gone by 2015.



I suppose all of that global warming rhetoric would be benign except based on that rhetoric in the coming months and years we will all be forced to pay thousands of dollars and have a reduced standard of living to offset the effects of a problem that is by the day becoming more uncertain.



The earth after all is most definitely round and no amount of shrill rhetoric will make it otherwise.

Dude, you're wrong. That's all.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

I have been reading both sides of the issue for years. I haven't bought it.

Time will tell.



Reading is fun



Confessions of a climate change denier



As time goes on, I believe less and less that humans have caused us to reach the verge of a climate change tipping point. I used to believe in global warming but here's the thing; I keep reading articles written by pro climate change authors and it's becoming clearer and clearer from the data that the certainty they ascribe to an anthropogenic climate change tipping point is more uncertain than ever. We are now in the period the climate change scientists call the pause. The “pause” is the term global warming adherents use to describe the past 18 to 26 years in which actual global temperatures haven't risen to the levels predicted by their models by a sizable margin.



As more former climate change believers begin to doubt, the warmists are relying more on a shrill narrative than on science to convince the rest of the world that manmade climate change is real. Now year after year as the actual data which contradicts the warmist models piles up, the only thing still predictably rising is the virulent rhetoric the warmist truthers are using to desperately cling to their crumbling narrative.



Take for example the words of Phil Plait who in May 2014 wrote for Slate magazine, “The scientific argument about the existence of climate change itself is long since over. The evidence is in, and it’s real. To deny that is as fundamentally wrong as denying the Earth is round.” Well, the conclusion that the earth is round isn't based upon statistical models that have a 20-year track record of inaccuracies.



During the same 20-year period in which climate models continued to miss the mark and create more uncertainty, the International Panel on Climate Control (IPPC) continued to increase the certainty of their own estimates regarding the accuracy of their conclusions.







The IPPC went from putting no numerical assessment on their accuracy ten years ago to a 66 percent chance that climate change is anthropogenic five years ago until today where they conclude there is a greater than 90 percent chance that global warming is manmade. That means the correlation coefficient between the inaccuracies of their models and the self-proclaimed accuracy of their conclusions is high indeed.



Based upon that very high level of correlation, we can project that if an additional 20 years of data which doesn't conform with their models occurs then the IPCC will be 99.99 percent certain that global warming is manmade.



It's not that I don’t believe the physics of carbon dioxide and other naturally occurring or manmade greenhouse gases which trap heat, or that the climate is constantly changing. The more I read about humans being the primary reason the climate has changed and that such change is nearing the tipping point, the less I believe those making the arguments. In the past several months I have read several dozen articles by climate change scientists published in various media and posted on blogs and other websites. The problem is their arguments are: one, more rhetoric and less science; two, highly alarmist despite contradictory results; and three, they purposefully understate the economic cost of their proposed solutions.



A typical argument you read from a warmist truther is “I am a scientist, and several thousand other scientists agree with me; therefore I am right and you are wrong” despite contradictory data. Where is the science in that? If these same scientists could offer a reasonable explanation as to why the actual data doesn’t conform to their models it would be a lot more convincing; not that they haven't tried. The latest theory to explain the “pause” is that all the missing heat is trapped in the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean but not in any of the other oceans. This recent theory is based on a single study with a relatively small sample size and single network of data gathering instruments.



Many warmists hastily conclude this single small study of the Atlantic Ocean is proof global warming is real after all; never mind earlier they claimed that they originally came to the conclusion that global warming was real only after examining tens of thousands of data points being run over and over again through hundreds of models, over many many years.



Never mind the actual surface temperature results don't conform to these models predictions; never mind more accurate studies have shown the polar bear population is thriving, never mind that they predicted polar ice caps would be gone by 2015.



I suppose all of that global warming rhetoric would be benign except based on that rhetoric in the coming months and years we will all be forced to pay thousands of dollars and have a reduced standard of living to offset the effects of a problem that is by the day becoming more uncertain.



The earth after all is most definitely round and no amount of shrill rhetoric will make it otherwise.

I don't care if you've bought it, the better question to ask is if you understand it?

You claim to read both sides but for years I've seen you posts opinion pieces like that above, and never really post the science. So that makes me wonder if you really understand, or do you just follow the opinions of those websites that share your agenda, or are you ultimately trying to prove that all science is just a hoax?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

Which is the underlying problem of any denier.

The scientific community does not reject the idea. The scientific community isn't always right, of course. But, at the same time, you're in no position to talk unless you can speak the scientific language of proof.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Which is the underlying problem of any denier.

The scientific community does not reject the idea. The scientific community isn't always right, of course. But, at the same time, you're in no position to talk unless you can speak the scientific language of proof.

Reading is fun.

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims | Global Research

[stray dog]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Reading is fun.

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims | Global Research

what is global research and what do they do?

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Reading is fun.



More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims | Global Research

Notice how most of those scientists aren't climatologists. 97% of climatologists agree that climate change is happening. The science is settled. You're willfully ignorant of the actual science behind climate chance. Accept that you're wrong and move on. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/sci...climate-change


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[KhanadaRhodes]

not to mention...more than 1000 scientists? big whoop. think about how many scientists there are in the world (every field of science, every country, every continent)...suddenly that number doesn't seem so impressive. science is a pretty big umbrella and the word scientist a blanketed statement in this instance imo. i wouldn't consider people who study magnesium and magnets to be at all qualified to speak about global warming.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Reading is fun.

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims | Global Research

Do some reading yourself. So less than 1% dissent?

I'm convinced.