Global Warming---Oops!!

[Edial]

Interesting. Personally I know about it because of the scientists. Scientists like Roger Revelle, Hans Suess, Jim Hansen, Peterson, Karl, Broecker and of course during my schooling getting my degrees in geology. And a while working at Columbia University's earth science organization.

But you have to understand that most of the people do not know a difference between Hans Suess and Dr Seuss.

And I JUST looked it up and the first thing that popped up to my search is that ...
31,487 American scientists do not agree with the 97% of scientists you have mentioned.
Global Warming Petition Project

I'm not saying I didn't learn anything from Al Gore, but if all I used was Al Gore I'd be in a pretty weak position.

Everything Al Gore spoke about I went and looked up the REAL science.

I highly recommend forgetting Al Gore. It only makes ones points look superficial.

How can I forget Al Gore if scientists you have mentioned do not debunk him?

You are an engineer, you can easily handle the REAL stuff.

Well, engineers are not like scientists.
Scientists work off the hypothesis and then try to prove of disprove it.
Many, many scientists are stuck on the hypothesis level for a very long time.

Engineers, we work with solid data.
We build based on solid data.
That's all we do.
If you are an engineer, no guess work may be a part of your approach.
That is why I am questioning.

It looks to me that this is still a theory which never left the hypothesis desk.

Not really. Because all the earth scientists I've worked with and around and all the papers I've read in the real science don't even mention Al Gore.

If you can find a systematic study of who disagreed with Al Gore, then please present it.

I personally couldn't care less about Al Gore and I'm guessing all the scientists couldn't either.

But I have now found a statement from over 31000 American scientists who do not agree with Al Gore.
Apparently scientists do care.

What parts do you want them to disagree with? Al Gore may have painted a hyperbolic picture on SOME aspects but on many he was just reporting what the scientists have already found.

Future predictions range even within the hardcore science community. Jim Hansen has taken some pretty strong positions about our potential future.

I don't know.
They are the scientists.
Many scientists disagree.

LOL. Just asked her. SHe pointed out that NSF funding comes out due to Congressional oversight of the budget.

Constitution fail!

Well, the way the government works with all the special interests and lobbyists, and this and that ... if a vice President wants to pull a string all he has to do is pull. The reaction to a pull might not be overnight, but it is being sensed in a year or two ... depending on the election yccle.

Then how on earth could you make the insinuation that the numbers are lying??????

No, no... I am not insinuating the numbers are lying.
I am saying the numbers so not make sense.

This is a meaningless point. Can you tell me where you get some implicit agreement between the scientists and everything YOU disagree with over Al Gore's statements?

This is just smeared out mushy non-thought.

Well, I'm allowed to a non-thought or two.

Happy New Year.
Are you celebrating tonight?

 

[Edial]

If you google 'scientists who disagree with global warming' - you will find more scientists that disagree than agree. But they are never brought out.

I know, I found these ... and that was my first try ...
Global Warming Petition Project

 

[SharonL]

Here is the latest update - Scientists forced to admit global warming not true.

Antarctic crew build ice helipad to help rescuers | Mail Online

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The Al Gore thing might be relevant to a discussion of political policy related to global warming but when it comes to the science of the issue or if it's actually happening or not Al Gore is irrelevant. The "global warming is fake because Al Gore says things that are wrong sometimes" type arguments are a non sequiter.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Here is the latest update - Scientists forced to admit global warming not true.

Antarctic crew build ice helipad to help rescuers | Mail Online

That isn't what that article says. If you'd read the article and the thread, you'd understand that.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Today about 97% of the earth's climate scientists disagree with YOU.

Source?

 

[1Sam15]

Source?

HERE

And

HERE

TWO UNRELATED studies, using COMPLETELY DIFFERENT methodologies.

 

[1Sam15]

Here is the latest update - Scientists forced to admit global warming not true.

Antarctic crew build ice helipad to help rescuers | Mail Online

Sharon, do you know why the ice is thick in Antarctica now?

I could have sworn I posted the reasons scientists are seeing this.

Do you wish to ignore this?

The ice is thick around the Antarctic likely because of a couple of reasons:

1. The ozone depletion has caused stratospheric cooling which has altered wind patterns. Sometimes these push the ice well out into the oceans.

2. There is a MASSIVE ice loss on parts of Antarctica (likely due to global warming) which is dumping masses of fresh water into the Southern Ocean which is altering the MIXING dynamics of the water around Antarctica

If anything this is just as would be expected if the science is right.

I beg of you to actually TRY to understand that the scientists are not as ignorant of this science as you may wish they were or you yourself are.

There is a simple cure for ignorance, and like God's grace you have to understand that you are in need of the cure before you can get it, but once that is understood the cure is freely given to you!

JUST READ.

 

[1Sam15]

No, no, no.
Don't take it the wrong way!
I simply did not want to get involved into Bush debates.
How would it look like if an admin gets involved in that.
Go on, please.

My apologies.

 

[1Sam15]

I appreciate this.

But the sources are working for some reason off a hypotheses that warming is due to CO2.

Actually those sources don't just go with CO2. In fact these analysis roll in a WIDE variety of POSITIVE FORCINGS.

AND Negative forcings. As many forcings as we are aware of.

Why not solar flares?

Indeed the models DO take into account solar activity. We have many measure of solar output. Right now the numbers don't add up to make solar forcings as predominant as anthropogenic materials (greenhouse gases mostly).

Look at what the Russians said in 2007 ... (just looked it up) ...
Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming | Russia | RIA Novosti

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060," he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again.

They said in 2007 that temperatures would decrease in 2012-2015.

Nothing I've read apart from this finds such a strong factor for the sun. Certainly not when taken in total for the last couple decades of warming.

I looked it up and temperatures did decrease last year.

The key factor to remember here is that looking at year-over-year for one or two years is not going to give you a good view. There's "noise" in the data. If you look at the sum total of the data you'll see it jump all over the place but generally around an increasing trend.

There may be other forcings which are causing the current "plateau" (I've read one paper that hypothesized the Pacific ocean cycles causing the current plateau or perhaps Chinese pollution. But also note this is not the ONLY long "pause" in the data set. There have been several.

Unfortunately all the stuff that appears to have been driving the climate for the past 50 years is still in play.

From the 1940's to the 1970's the temperature actually DID drop. This was likely due to human pollution (likely sulfate aerosols) which, when we finally cleaned up the air so we could breathe again, the warming due to our greenhouse gas emissions kept going as if nothing had happened.

It was like having a cancer and a broken leg. We set the leg and it healed but suddenly the cancer was more apparent.

So, why not solar flares like the Russians say and not CO2?

As I said, nothing I've read indicates that solar factors are dominant other than this. But since I'm not a solar expert and I've only recently heard about this particular academic I cannot definitively address this point.

 

[1Sam15]

But you have to understand that most of the people do not know a difference between Hans Suess and Dr Seuss.

This is understood. But it is important to remember that the meat puppets and talking heads really aren't where the action is.

Imagine for a moment if I, an atheist, decided to run a bible-study class. And then suppose I opted to rely only on non-theologians' writings. I didn't even consult the bible when running the bible study class.

It would be somewhat like that. Sure the theologians I quoted may be making legitimate reference to the bible but it doesn't mean I'm getting at the meat.

And I JUST looked it up and the first thing that popped up to my search is that ...
31,487 American scientists do not agree with the 97% of scientists you have mentioned.
Global Warming Petition Project

The Petition Project is famously unreliable. While they finally got under control the "fake" entries (at one point the Spice Girls were listed in the Petition Project along with a wide variety of silly joke entries), but there's really no control over the input on the Petition Project.

Further there's vanishingly few actual climate scientists on the petition (or the last time I saw the data).

In addition the folks who ran the Petition Project, if I recall correctly played some shennanigans by making it seem like they were aligned with the National Academy of Sciences. A claim so viciously FALSE that the NAS took a relatively rare step to PUBLICALLY DISAVOW ANY ASSOCIATION with this. (It was because of Fred Seitz's involvement in the Petition Project). It seems from what I recall that the organizers worked to make it really look like they were associated.

So when you pull all that together you have a pretty dodgy and distrustful set.

How can I forget Al Gore if scientists you have mentioned do not debunk him?

Because Al Gore presented the scientists data. However he may have said things that were extrapolations in terms of specific upcoming disasters. That part is still well on the edges of the science.

Most scientists will present the data quite conservatively and not necessarily spell out the worst case scenarios.

Some, like Hansen, will get a bit more strident.

Right now it is anyone's guess how bad it will get....but there's a HIGH PROBABILITY it won't be "good" by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, engineers are not like scientists.
Scientists work off the hypothesis and then try to prove of disprove it.
Many, many scientists are stuck on the hypothesis level for a very long time.

Engineers usually work to APPLY the science. It is like a lawyer and a forensic scientist. The forensic scientist is developing the details of what likely went down at the crime scene....the lawyer then takes the data and applies it to present the case and "build" a conviction (or aquittal).

But even engineers deal with "tolerances" and noise in the data. The data is never perfect. And therein lies the quibbles.

If you are an engineer, no guess work may be a part of your approach.
That is why I am questioning.

But at the end of the day if you come up with a spec you have "tolerances". Since no construction or engineered material will be perfectly to spec.

Well, the way the government works with all the special interests and lobbyists, and this and that ...

The problem arises that in order for this to be the case we have to invoke "conspiracy" type theories which cannot explain how unrelated, non-US researchers across the globe and over the past 60 years have all seemed to arrive (or at least about 97% of them) at the conclusion that agw is a correct hypothesis.

It is a pretty strong hypothesis. The basics of the science are solid and the world's climate scientists seem to believe it to a nearly unprecedented level.

No, no... I am not insinuating the numbers are lying.
I am saying the numbers so not make sense.

Actually the numbers do make sense. I'm not a climate scientist but I've attempted to run the numbers myself and I've plotted a lot of the data for myself and they really do tend to pass the 'sniff test'.

Well, I'm allowed to a non-thought or two.

As are we all.

Happy New Year.
Are you celebrating tonight?

The wife and I are planning on a boring evening at home. We went out to a movie earlier and had a nice dinner.

Have a Happy New year!

 

[Edial]

...

The wife and I are planning on a boring evening at home. We went out to a movie earlier and had a nice dinner.

Have a Happy New year!

Happy New Year to both of you.

 

[USincognito]

But you have to understand that most of the people do not know a difference between Hans Suess and Dr Seuss.

And I JUST looked it up and the first thing that popped up to my search is that ...
31,487 American scientists do not agree with the 97% of scientists you have mentioned.
Global Warming Petition Project

The problem with the petition project is it's easy for people to sign on to something. It's a lot harder to actually produce data and an analysis of papers over 20 years shows 97% support for AGW.

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.​

 

[USincognito]

Here is the latest update - Scientists forced to admit global warming not true.

Antarctic crew build ice helipad to help rescuers | Mail Online

 

[USincognito]

The Petition Project is famously unreliable. While they finally got under control the "fake" entries (at one point the Spice Girls were listed in the Petition Project along with a wide variety of silly joke entries), but there's really no control over the input on the Petition Project.

It’s easy for pseudoscientists to mislead people » Opinion » The Edmond Sun

It'll be a cold day in Antarctica before you convince me that eminent scientist, a giant in his field actually, I.C. Ewe is a fake.

 

[Edial]

BTW, why don't you check that thread ... remember?
You might have a surprise waiting for you

 

[Edial]

But don't you see the humongous irony of this?
Even the leader of this experiment says "We're stuck in our own experiment?"

Scientists Who Set Out to Prove Global Warming Trapped in Ice - Townhall.com Staff 12/31/2013 11:13 AM

Nathan Harden | Dec 31, 2013
Chris Turney, who holds the title of “professor of climate change” at New South Wales University in New Zealand set out on a sea voyage with the aim of proving that the polar ice is melting due to global warming. Then his ship got stuck in the ice. “We’re stuck in our own experiment,” said the leader of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition. He and 73 crew members aboard the the Russian ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy became stranded when their ship became trapped in the very ice they had set out to prove was melting.

 

[USincognito]

{quoting townhall.com}...ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy became stranded when their ship became trapped in the very ice they had set out to prove was melting.

Is this a quote from anyone on this ship or is this the townhall.com author's spin?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Today about 97% of the earth's climate scientists disagree with YOU.

Source?

 

[Edial]

Is this a quote from anyone on this ship or is this the townhall.com author's spin?

You truly believe they falsified the quote?

This is what I copied from that article ...

Chris Turney, who holds the title of “professor of climate change” at New South Wales University in New Zealand set out on a sea voyage with the aim of proving that the polar ice is melting due to global warming. Then his ship got stuck in the ice. “We’re stuck in our own experiment,” said the leader of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition. He and 73 crew members aboard the the Russian ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy became stranded when their ship became trapped in the very ice they had set out to prove was melting.