Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
fizzymagic on February 16, 2015 at 1:03 am
I have a PhD in physics from an Ivy League school. Im an experimentalist. Ive done low-energy particle, atomic, and nuclear physics for around 30 years at a national laboratory that also employs a prominent member of The Team.
I have seen first-hand the results of placing too much confidence in models. As an experimentalist, the only authority I completely trust is Nature herself. Until a model has been very exhaustively confirmed, it should be treated with an enormous amount of skepticism.
The physics of CO2 is well-established, and there is no doubt that in the absence of other effects increasing CO2 will warm the planet. The null hypothesis should be warming as would be predicted for the TCS and ECS for CO2 acting alone.
However, the claims of the catastrophists are entirely based on models with very finicky positive feedbacks. The amplification of the CO2 warming is therefore, to my mind, extremely uncertain.
I guess that makes me a lukewarmer. I still believe that the burden of proof is on climate science community to prove that the amplification processes will in fact amplify the warming resulting from CO2.
Two things make me assert that the burden of proof has not been met: first, the scientific behavior of the climate science community has been execrable. Acceptance of clearly erroneous papers, such as those from Mann et al., pasted-together climate reconstructions, a tendency to jump on every temperature blip as proof of imminent catastrophe, etc. all serve to show that the community is less interested in communicating the truth than it is in maintaining a narrative of impending doom.
Second, specific predictions have been made from climate models that have not come to pass. The standard excuse now is that the timescales have been too short, but no such qualifications were stated when the original predictions were made. Until climate models have been unambiguously confirmed by experiment, I believe that it is unwise to rely on them for policy purposes.
geronimo on February 16, 2015 at 7:00 am
Im and engineer with MSc in computer sciece which I did to convert from a transmissions system engineer to work on the coming together of communications and computing in 1978. I an a naturally sceptical person, but my scepticism of global warming was cemented before I really knew what it was all about by a headline in the South China Morning Post saying that 2500 scientists had signed off on catastrophic global warming.
Id read about the theory of runaway warming in a Patrick Moore (astronomer) book which explained the intense heat on Venus as a result of the CO2 atmosphere trapping the heat, so was familiar with the properties of that gas.
It didnt take long to realise that the theory was flawed and dependent upon feedbacks caused by water vapour to be catastrophic. As there is to this day no body of knowledge that I know of about the formation of clouds, with their concomitant negative feedbacks, caused by this water vapour I smelled a rat. So the water vapour will only cause warming I dont think so.
I looked into the IPCC and found that the body of the reports were filled with uncertainties, which changed to certainties in the SPMs. It dawned on me that this wasnt a scientific issue but a political one. I now think its political but additionally quasi-religious.
Then came Climategate and the unthinkable became reality. The scientists really were fiddling to get the right results, ruining the careers of people who had different scientific views and refusing to show where the data and workings for the papers used by the IPCC came from.
The subsequent whitewashes confirmed the the science was acting in the service of politics (Richard Linden).
Then came the failed forecasts with global warming changing to climate change, climate disruption and the symptoms including anything and everything, when its patently obvious that if we hadnt been told it was warming we wouldnt know. Yet there were senior climate scientists, sometimes doing a complete volte face on previous prognostications, making excuses for each and every failed forecast, or simply saying they never made them.
Half of the warming in the 20th century occurred before CO2 was a problem, yet no on in the scientific community has a reason for this, and the pause has continued with an increase of 8% of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is still no credible explanation for it, and it actually took the climate science community over a decade to admit there was one.
Its a political quasi-religious cult, and it will be 50 years or more before it fades away. Unfortunately.
Another testimony to the ignorance of climate science shown by citing a ignorant person, Heissonear.
Another testimony from one who is no longer prey to the Global Warming propaganda.
Oh dear Heissonear- a meteorologist stating his ignorance that climate is not weather!
..
Why promote erroneous GCM Propaganda?
.
Now we have a nuclear physicist thinking that he knows about climate science, Heissonear .fizzymagic
Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.
geronimo is a computer engineer ignorant about climate science. He is so ignorant that he thinks that science does not have uncertainties
.
Why promote erroneous GCM Propaganda?
On the flip side of the coin, climate contrarians have predicted anything from minimal warming to rapid global cooling. Their predictions have generally been terribly inaccurate, and yet the same people who have made these wrong predictions are still treated as credible experts by certain segments of the media. It seems as though their history of inaccurate predictions has no effect on their credibility. When scientists with a history of inaccurate predictions are treated with the same credibility as those who have made accurate predictions, that’s a problem.
But then the question is how valid was the science that was funded by these fossil fuel interests?
The fundamental problem is effectively denial of the greenhouse effect.Putting aside papers where Soon was only a minor contributing author, and the hopelessly slanted forecasting principles papers with Green and Armstrong (see here for why they add nothing to the discussion), most of Soons work has been related to finding correlations of a very specific solar reconstruction (see figure below) to some observational time-series. There are very real criticisms that can be made of the solar forcing time-series he uses, and of course, of the cherry picking of specific time-series without mentioning that correlations to others (such as the global mean) are very low, but even accepting all that, there is a much more fundamental problem.
...
Answer: That would be you, HeissonearWho is in denial now?
- 20 February 2015 Heissonear: ignorance about there being no evidence for AGW
- 23 February 2015 Heissonear: Global warming is not natural variability!
- 22nd February 2015 Heissonear: Climate models reproduce the past and are confirmed by observations
- 22nd February 2015 Heissonear: the hockey stick graph has been confirmed from several proxy sources.
- 22nd February 2015 Heissonear: CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW
- 22nd February 2015 Heissonear: A 9798% consensus that humans are causing global warming exists
- 22nd February 2015 Heissonear: IPCC SAR Chapter 8 was written according to the procedural rules.
- 23rd February 2015 Heissonear: Climate is not weather
It is easy to see, Heissonear, that you are not living on Earth...meaningless text snipped...
The consequences of climate change become increasingly bad after each additional degree of warming, with the consequences of 2°C being quite damaging and the consequences of 4°C being potentially catastrophic.
.
1. Independent thinking based on examination
2. Verses following other people's thinking and conclusions
3. Accepting group and consensus based truth
4. Verses investigative truth seeking
5. Herd association
6. Verses associate through independent examination
7. Looking up to those with worldly credentials without critical review
There are many differences in how people derive what they know and which side they stand on contentious matters.
It's not hard to see the error of the manmade over promotion of "Catastrophic" Global Warming story.
Some where it says "do not be deceived or misled". When Jesus physically carried the cross He experienced facing it, looking in the eye those who were misled.
.
One of these days you are going to present some actual science, Heissonear, and astound everyone reading this threadOn one of the current threads over on WUWT ...snipped fact less text...
The recent slowdown in global warming has brought into question the reliability of climate model projections of future temperature change and has led to a vigorous debate over whether this slowdown is the result of naturally occurring, internal variability or forcing external to Earth’s climate system. To address these issues, we applied a semi-empirical approach that combines climate observations and model simulations to estimate Atlantic- and Pacific-based internal multidecadal variability (termed “AMO” and “PMO,” respectively). Using this method, the AMO and PMO are found to explain a large proportion of internal variability in Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures. Competition between a modest positive peak in the AMO and a substantially negative-trending PMO are seen to produce a slowdown or “false pause” in warming of the past decade.
Except that it's science, there's data, there's tests, and there's proof. You're the religious one accepting the faith of denialism and just posting assertion after assertion like the above Bulverism without any evidence whatsoever.On one of the current threads over on WUWT there have been 440 posted comments over the last 24 hours. A sizable discussion ongoing, including posts coming from well known CAGW promoters; the discussion is lively.
Bandwagon poster of propaganda don't know what "new learning in scientific discovery is about. In essence "they have already arrived"!!! CAGW is settled science, they say. And calamity has already started.
Not.
Misdirected and not learning as time goes by about what the new observations appear to be showing.
Any new to them has to be confirmation to what they already figured out in times past. So it's not new but confirming observations.
It was interesting to see how Bandwagon propaganda was "applied" to those posters trstimonies, those who use to be CAGW believers but have individually investigated the issue and found CAGW is unfounded.
Those who do not openly investigate whatt the CAGW Bandwagon primotes are simular to convert s that get programed in how to respond to ever issue others present, like Jehovah Witnesses and Latter Day Saints (Mormans) do to those with different beliefs. Once these "devout followers" are "indoctrinated that is all you hear from them; like Morman missionaries they have an answer from their "correct position" for every point other who differ present to them.
We now have Alarmists mimicking known behavior of religious Extremists towards others they talk to.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?