~ The key word here is "could". These scientists are out of work without "could" - or "possibly". There are scientists independent from government / politics that admit the truth : We are guessing at best and know less about how much humans contribute to global weather than we care to admit. Everything is speculation and scientific opinion / consensus. The UN would serve a better purpose facilitating world peace and ending human rights abuses. Mother Nature is unpredictable.
I don't know what made you think climate predictions have been wrong: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-models-got-it-right-on-global-warming/ https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/05/18/climate-models-accuracy/ You should read the IPCC reports, too, as they are a synopsis of climatology from science organizations around the world. Obviously, the above are US and science is not limited to the US. ==> The actual situation is that the main models have been been showing LESS warmig than has actually been taking place. If anything, they are low!
~ I would be more concerned with communist China's rise in power and their shoddy handling of a virus laboratory in Wuhan.
Interesting. There WILL be more pandemics. There is no question of that. What we need to do there is to take the steps to prepare our defense. There is no indication that we have even CONSIDERED doing that since Trump killed the effort when he because president. So far, our federal level is treating it like it is a partisan political issue inside the US. And, they are fighting AGAINST medical science!!
The first IPCC report was in 1990 - 30 years ago. The paragraph below is part of the executive summary on sea level rise. An average global sea level rise of 18 cm or 7 inches was projected for 2030. In the 2001 IPCC report, 2 cm/decade of global mean sea level rise was projected. Between 1990 and 2012, 3.3 cm/decade was observed. The 1990 projections were too high and the 2001 projections were too low. I doubt your source of information based his/her analysis on the 1990 IPCC report. I didn't see anything about the San Francisco Bay area in the report. Notice that the assessment did not project a mean global sea level rise exceeding 1 meter by 2100. For the IPCC Business-as Usual Scenario at year 2030 global-mean sea level is 8-29 cm higher than today, with a best-estimate of 18 cm At the year 2070, the rise is 21 - 71 cm, with a best-estimate of 44 cm Most of the contribution is estimated to derive from thermal expansion of the oceans and the increased melting of mountain glaciers and small ice caps On the decadal time scale, the role of the polar ice sheets is expected to be minor, but they contribute substantially to the total uncertainty Antarctica is expected to contnbute negatively to sea level due to increased snow accumulation associated with warming A rapid disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet due to global wanning is unlikely within the next century For the lower forcing scenarios (B,C and D) the sets of sea level rise projections are similar, at least until the mid 21st century On average these projections are approximately one third lower than those of the Business as Usual Scenario Even with substantial decreases in the emissions of the major greenhouse gases, future increases in temperature and consequently, sea level are unavoidable - a sea level rise commitment - due to lags in the climate system This present assessment does not foresee a sea level rise of >1 metre during the next century Nonetheless, the implied rate of rise for the best-estimate projection corresponding to the IPCC Busmess-as-Usual Scenario is about 3-6 times faster than over the last 100 y From Climate Central December 2012 https://www.climatecentral.org/news/ipcc-predictions-then-versus-now-15340 Sea-Level Rise The fate of the world's coastlines has become a classic example of how the IPCC, when confronted with conflicting science, tends to go silent. Projection: In the 2001 report, the IPCC projected a sea rise of 2 millimeters per year. The worst-case scenario in the 2007 report, which looked mostly at thermal expansion of the oceans as temperatures warmed, called for up to 1.9 feet of sea-level-rise by century's end. A “king tide” leaves parts of Sausalito, Calif., flooded in 2010. Disagreement over the impact of ice-sheet melting on sea-level rise has led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to omit their influence and thus underestimate sea-level rise in recent reports, a pattern the panel repeats with other key findings. Credit: Yanna B./flickr. Today: Observed sea-level-rise has averaged 3.3 millimeters per year since 1990. By 2009, various studies that included ice-melt offered drastically higher projections of between 2.4 and 6.2 feet sea level rise by 2100. Why the miss? IPCC scientists couldn't agree on a value for the contribution melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets would add to sea-level rise. So they simply left out the data to reach consensus. Science historian Naomi Oreskes calls this – one of IPCC's biggest underestimates – “consensus by omission.”
There was no scientific consensus on global cooling in the 1970's. The majority of climate scientists were more concerned about global warming than global cooling. This is supported by the number of papers written supporting or implying support for global: warming, cooling, or taking a neutral stance. These are all papers from peer reviewed science journals. The paper described below also showed that the papers supporting global warming were cited much more often than those supporting global cooling. From Skeptical Science https://skepticalscience.com/70s-cooling-myth-tricks-part-I.html "Ten years ago, Thomas Peterson, William Connolley and John Fleck published a paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society which looked back at the climate science of the 1970s: "The Myth of the Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" (hereafter called PCF0. The goal of the paper was to look at the peer-reviewed literature of the time to see what scientists were saying about the future projections of climate. In the decades since the 1970s, some "skeptics" of global warming/climate change have made claims that "all the scientists" in the 1970s were predicting "global cooling" or an "imminent ice age". But, the PCF08 survey of papers from 1965 to 1979 showed that while there were some concerns about future "cooling", especially at the beginning of the time period, there were many more concerns about future warming caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide." Figure 1. The number of papers classified as predicting, implying, or providing supporting evidence for future global cooling, warming, and neutral categories. During the period from 1965 through 1979, the PCF08 literature survey found 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers. (Peterson 200
TLTR Not necessary to spam the sight with your propaganda that nobody will read. If I have time in the next day or two I'll see if there's a way I can dig up the article on the internet. For now you'll just have to take my word for it. Why would I lie?
As I suspected. one layer deep, and all you have is what you've already posted. That you can't answer simple questions... is telling.
And yet the facts of the case, and the history are out there for you to read, all by yourself. But should you find big words you don't understand, you can ask about them. The nice folks here on the forum can help you out.... LOL
Asking for a supported, scientific answer to a question of science is not what's telling. That's an absolutely obvious necessity. Claiming something about science with ZERO reference to science is what is telling.
What I said was that an MD is the pinnacle of the US education system. It is the most difficult and rigorous degree possible. It is 8 years of formal education. Crichton blew through med school while writing fiction novels the whole time. You assert that climatologists have greater training in chemistry than MDs? Talk about utter nonsense, pfffft! Climatology is not chemistry nor is it physics. It is not a serious discipline and should never be confused with science. I am familiar with the process. The subject of a doctoral dissertation rarely advances new knowledge beyond what is known to date. The dissertation is reviewed by his or her advisor, another prof from the same department and a third prof from a related but separate discipline. There are of course some variations on this. The verbal defense is generally just a formality since it only comes after the faculty advisor has approved to that candidate that the dissertation is satisfactory. PhD doctoral dissertations are not routinely published in peer reviewed journals. It is even less likely that a dissertation would be published in the field of climate science since these papers invariably demand at least 12 authors. Generally, a PhD requires 7 to 9 years to complete and as you correctly point out, class requirements generally end after the 5th to 6th year. Biochem PhDs require continuing classes similar to med school, as an example of at least one exception. A PhD in chemical engineering typically requires a BS that takes four years, an MS that takes two more, and 3 years of work for one's advisor. This is about the same for all engineering doctorates, mathematics, physics and chemistry. I assert that the MD program is more rigorous because the classes never end and the curve never dips - MD programs shred students even in their fourth year. Don't confuse my separate arguments about how to deal with AGW if it is correct versus my arguments that AGW is not science. Don't confuse the IPCC public policy Trojan horse AGW with science. I am not basing my opinion on AGW and its mitigation based simply on Mike Crichton's positions. Here, for example is a review of Mike C's "State of Fear" by the Brookings Institution, a public policy government lobbying firm masquerading as a dot edu. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/michael-crichton-and-global-warming/ This article's critique of MC's urban heat island argument I accept. Its critique of MC's argument regarding global average temperature decreasing from 1940 to 1970 I do not accept. If the climate models can't account for the 1940-1970 cooling then how can it say with certainty that future cooling trends won't again override warming trends? Because, wait for it, it's the CO2 stupid! Get it? At the current 420ppm/dryair level it's time to just roll a spliff and pray to Bob Marley for redemption. There is no escape unless you grab a Coors and head for the mountains. No amount of unknown cooling factors will overcome the certainty of CO2 increases, currently at the highest levels in 800,000y according to 3rd effect inferences on other super marginal trace analysis. So, Sandalow can't explain the cooling, yet he is certain that any future cooling forces will surely be insufficient to overcome the CO2 warming forces. Volcanic eruptions are known to release huge amounts of CO2, SO2. Changes in solar radiation, there it is again: IPCC AR5 reported that overall RF from solar was modeled with low confidence. More, wtf was the more cooling forces? Sandalow - climate expert, or think tank hack? Here's some pure unadulterated ****ery from the article: The article, from 2005, asserts that the media do not overplay global warming, because if you search Lexus-Nexus nine years prior you will find that Madonna was 80 times more frequent than global warming? Wassup, Sandalow and Brookings lost their Lexus-Nexus license? He couldn't do a 2005 comparative analytic?
Jeez, with a name like skepticalmike I would think you would be a bit more skeptical of a government led organization that determines the state of knowledge on climate science. What other UN groups moderate scientific research, or socio-economic research papers in lockstep controlled symposiums? Is there an IPUF? The Intergovernmental Panel on Unified Field Theory? How about the IPOG? The Intergovernmental Panel on Oil and Gas? What group at the UN is leading the research into how the world supplies itself with potable water? Pffft... AGW....
I don't even slightly agree, as I pointed out. Not only that, but the practice of medicine is closer to engineering than it is to science. Also, I don't see it as a relevant idea. Being trained in one field does not mean one has any right to claim expertise in some other field. Climatology is all about chemistry and physics. For example, how our atmosphere works is a very serious topic. I don't see anything of interest to the issue here. Remember that your claim is that MDs are better climatologists than climatologists are. These are preposterous and absolutely unsupportable claims that amount to conspiracy theory. Good! Climate models have done a very good job of prediction and have undergone significant testing. Your question isn't uninteresting, but I'd have to see an actual source that confirms your claims. And, I'm certainly not ready to consider your "acceptance" of this blog as significant. The author does seem interesting, but he is clearly highly orientd to policy and is limited to his BS and law degree. I don't see a justification for surrendering. And, why are you going to Sandalow for that science? Climatologists the world over are VERY aware of these factors. If you want to dispute the science you have to do more than tell my you don't believe it. I don't know what your point is here. I'm not the one who brough up Sandalow and his BS degree. I'm not the one who brough up MC and his fiction novel. And, the idea that those sources are better than the combined sources that went into the various IPCC reports or what both NOAA and NASA are saying hits me as a little bit nutty.
MC was a great polymath. You don't get it, don't care, don't like it, whatever. I'm done debating it with you. I didn't reference **** about Sandalow's education. I attributed him because he wrote the hit piece for Brookings. Climatologists are not very aware of these factors. Or, if they are, they are completely blowing off increasing the fidelity of other factors in the models. Why is that? From the IPCC AR5, the most recently completed comprehensive AGW report, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf A lot of times here on PF I read through entire threads, but of course most folks don't. Did you catch my post on #66? http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/science-denial.577368/page-3#post-1072044974 I am not a meteorologist, but I am aware that ground fog occurs at night and in the morning. You will be hard pressed to find fog on the ground at 4pm local anywhere on Earth. Similarly, I am all but certain that the nighttime sky has more cloud cover than the daytime sky. And it isn't modeled because they *assume* it isn't a factor. Have *you* read a lot of the IPCC reports? The Earth's surface is reportedly 70% water. How does the IPCC determine the state of knowledge on factors that are unaccounted for. What is the science on vertical water currents in the oceans? How much has the water warmed at the bottom of the sea? What do inferred trace measurements reveal of the historical vertical mixing components of the oceans? How do climate models explain the ice ages? Good *******n. If "science" is going to claim to know about heat, but not about cold then it is not science.
Look, you're pitching a reasonably smart sci fi author as reviewed by some guy with a BS degree and policy expeience atainst the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, organizations overseas, our major universities, and beyond. Then, you go on to suggest that climatologists don't know basic facts about our climate and atmosphere!!! Then, you ask questions that MC and your guy with the BS degree knew nothing about AT ALL - even 10 years ago when MC was alive!! And, you want me to RESPECT that?? Come on! Let's be a little more serious than that.
