2015 Was Hottest Year in Historical Record <yawn>

Discussion in 'Global Issues' started by Grizz, Jan 21, 2016.

  1. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Smile
    I find it fascinating that people would bring up what was written 25 years ago.... When there was little research... And then claim that discrepancies between the science of then and now are because of manipulation, as opposed to 25 years of research yielding a fuller understanding of the processes involved
     
  2. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Conspiracy is your word but not what is going on. No one disputes that CO2 has risen. All of the dispute revolves around whether the CO2 sensitivity is the range the IPCC claims and there is great debate around that. Many scientists claim it is lower. What is going on politically has nothing to do with science and is being driven by activists in the green community. What is going on politically is damaging science. What goes on in the media is not what is going on in science since the media is looking for headlines but often leave out very crucial details. What happens with only a few scientist activists is just as bad which is outlined in the climategate emails. There is no worldwide conspiracy, just some bad actors in science that have moved into politics and a political community looking for more power and money.
     
  3. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If there is no worldwide conspiracy, then why do the vast majority of scientists working in the field, scientific publications and scientific organizations agree on AGW?
     
  4. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not more right now its all according to the heat is hiding in the deap oceans argument. If the heat goes into the oceans then its not problem as its no more than a rounding error int terms of energy. Its only in the atmosphere where it is even remotely significant.



    lol without it we'd all be dead.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Its green and it talks. No one is going to invalidate their entire field of study.
     
  5. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At least we can agree on that much. I've been in too many "No, seriously, the greenhouse effect is a real thing" and "Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas" debates.

    Climate science would still exist without AGW, and plenty of people are willing to pay for anti-AGW research. Many of the people working in the field have physics backgrounds and could easily make more money in the private industry. Hell, I've researched the pay scale for climate scientists, and I'm on roughly the same pay scale path with little more than a BA. Like I said, one of the worst money making schemes out there. Plus, how many scientists have you talked to? I don't know very many who are in it for the money, and if they were in it for the money, there are easier ways to make more.
     
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which vast majority? The scientists you want to believe or the one's you don't? I don't know if you don't realize that this CO2 hysteria is mainly a Western phenomenon but now that the Western countries have promised billions of redistribution to developing countries you will find more climbing aboard the money train.
     
  7. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually no it wouldn't. There might be people who call themselves such but prior to AGW "climate science" was a sub-field of geography limited to a few university basements. Without AGW there is no need for most of these people and their jobs to even exist.
     
  8. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The vast majority of scientists working in the field. Denialist scientists are a rarity. And again, it isn't hysteria to say that C02 is a greenhouse gas and we have contributed a lot of it. And no, I don't buy that it is a "Western phenomenon."
     
  9. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol, sorry, but I've actually met several physicists working in the field. Looking at the publications, I don't see many people whose specialty is "geography," and there are plenty of ways for geographers to make money. Judging from the people who contribute volunteer hours to research, and the number of nonprofits involved (including nearly every scientific organization and publication that has commented on the subject), this is one of the more untenable conspiracy theories. There's no way all of these people are going to jump on board and bury the competition just to try to save a tiny handful of basement jobs.
     
  10. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The billions pumped into this has made significant inroads into self promotion like Michael Mann of the infamous hockey stick. Most of the money has gone into climate models but much as gone to institutions that live by government funding so there is an interest in keeping the money train going. This is much more complicated than a simple conspiracy like the warmists like to label it.
     
  11. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Climate change did indeed begin as a geography specialty as temperature trends started as geographical recordings. Climate change now is an amalgam of specialties where no one person has a grasp on the total picture. AGW is so amorphous and murky that anything can be claimed and blamed on it since none of it can be proven or disproved. The huge tally of failed predictions should tell you something about it if you pay attention.
     
  12. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only "failed predictions" I've seen trumpeted by denialist has been the occasional media comment (typically involving Al Gore). Other than that, the only time I've seen predictions "fail" is when people "fail" to look at the full ranges provided or "fail" to recognize that the predictions involve specific CO2 ppm values. We can't escape the physics. C02 traps in heat. There is no global conspiracy among scientists of multiple disciplines to fake findings and bury objections in order to save a few basement jobs.
     
  13. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In a lab CO2 traps heat in a lab. We haven no idea how significant this effect is when dealing this a chaotic environment like the atmosphere. It could be saturated. It could cause a stronger negative feedback. This is why so many medical studies that had strong in vitro results cant be reproduced when tested on humans. In a lab drug X did Y to the cell but when placed into the complicated system of the human body drug X failed to do Y.
     
  14. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is a first principle that no one argues about but CO2 itself is not strong enough to trap the amount being claimed as the hypothesis depends on a multiplying factor involving water vapor (the major greenhouse gas). What is debated is how it actually works in a coupled non-linear chaotic system that no one fully understands at this time. With all the known unknowns and unknown unknowns and the limitations of computer technology, nothing can be claimed as an absolute. Much of this is guesswork at this point so when the politicians claim the 'science is settled' they are blowing smoke.

    Yes, many failed predictions by politicians based on what they have been told by the IPCC and NOAA but there have been the scientific AGW predictions that have not come to fruition either.

    March 2000 - &#8220;Children just aren&#8217;t going to know what snow is,&#8221; he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined &#8220;Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.&#8221; ~ David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

    2001 - &#8220;milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.&#8221; ~ IPCC

    You can claim anything.

    A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues,&#8221; ~ White House Science &#8220;Czar&#8221; John Holdren

    How about the climate models and experts predicting that rising CO2 emissions would increase global temperatures, which would melt the ice in Antarctica? The problem for global-warming theorists is that the opposite happened. Indeed, sea ice in Antarctica is off the charts, consistently smashing previous record highs on a near-daily basis.

    There is lots more of this.
     
  15. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More media quotes . . . and nothing from peer reviewed sources? There's something that was easy to predict. Antarctica is losing land ice but gaining sea ice; it should also be noted that an area can get warmer (as the Antarctic has) and still have more precipitation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PUmKHBtnlA&feature=youtu.be
     
  16. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
  17. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
  18. Grizz

    Grizz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Messages:
    4,787
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's in the papers they publish and the statements of the various scientific organizations they belong to.

    Since you're unaware of it, Climatology or climate science is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time. It is a science, unlike homeopathy or other sham supposed sciences. But, nice try in doing your best to diminish its validity. Won't fly, tho.

    Take another look - it is you and other deniers who allege some worldwide conspiracy theory, not me.



    So, what you're telling me, and the rest of the world, is that while there are some accurate measurements (maybe or maybe not), the overall temps are little more valid than throwing darts at a temp chart. Yet, all the governments of the world accept them. Why? Gotta be a conspiracy, right?
     
  19. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep, after the failed science predictions of a melting Antarctica.
     
  20. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your "failed science predictions" are nothing more than media comments. It's a joke to think that more precipitation is somehow disproof of AGW. Even your own link comments that, even with Antarctic sea ice, sea levels are rising. (And remember that melting land ice will have more of an impact on sea levels than sea ice will).
     
  21. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You evidently don't believe the scientists that claimed them then do you? Isn't it funny how you can claim anything and blame it on AGW?

    2007 - Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?&#8221;..&#8216;At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.'&#8221; ~ NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally

    2007 - Global Warming Will Bring Violent Storms And Tornadoes, NASA Predicts ~ Science Daily

    Now, can you site any past predictions that has been accurate?
     
  22. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I don't agree with quote mining and avoiding peer reviewed science and citing only media comments as "research." You should read the whole article that your Zwally quote comes from (come to think of it, you should really start linking to your sources).
     
  23. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah, the old 'peer review' claim again as if peer review is fact and not some scientists opinion or the fact that very few peer reviewed papers stand the test of time. How about Michael Mann's peer reviewed paper on the now discredited hockey stick?
     
  24. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you just want to quote mine media sources, you can't ascribe those quotes to AGW consensus. It's the same intellectually dishonest technique employed by young earth creationists. Again, you should actually read the article that the Zwally quote comes from. The hockey stick is far from discredited.
     
  25. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a reason I use quotes.

    &#8220;Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.&#8221; Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000
     

Share This Page