@557 says: "Sagan predicted several degrees C rise in temp by 2050 with 1985 levels of emissions." Sagan says: "...the present rate of increase of minor infrared absorbing gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, that there will be a several centigrade degree temperature increase on the Earth’s global average by the middle to the end of the next century. “ NOW do you understand why quoting is indispensable? I'm not going to say these posters lied, or anything like that. But, you see how science denialism works? They most likely took the headline from some science denialist website, and didn't bother to check if it was true until they had to quote it. THIS lack of basic due diligence is what science denialists have always counted on to spread their disinformation. This is why they have succeeded only among those who likewise fail to do their due diligence. It is disturbing that a gigantic figure in popularizing science like Sagan can be attacked by intellectual midgets like the people who make a living out of those science denial webpages. I'm not referring to these two posters, mind you. I'm talking about the puny minds who FEED this nonsense into the general public through their webpages. There has been an AGW scientific consensus for over 20 years. To anybody who doesn't want to take the time to do their own research, that's all you need to know. This consensus didn't exist in 1985. But great minds like Sagan already suspected that scientific research would catch up with what was already pretty apparent. Science DID catch up (four decades ago) and now REALITY itself has caught up, as the EFFECTS that were expected are now happening.
No, I quoted Sagan directly. Here it is again. He clearly claims a several degree rise C based on 1985 emission rates. This is clearly in error. We won’t see that rise with an over doubling of emissions. Not a spot on prediction as the poster claimed. Not even in the ballpark. And the claim was that every prediction since 1970 was correct. This simply isn’t so as Sagan’s prediction from 1985 is off by orders of magnitude. Sagan was wrong. Doesn’t mean he was a bad dude. Doesn’t mean AGW isn’t real. Just means the claim every prediction since 1970 has been spot on is patently FALSE. The ONLY person who has attacked Sagan is PF member mamooth. He claimed Sagan was irrelevant to climate science because he was primarily an astrophysicist. He claims being an expert on planetary greenhouse gasses doesn’t qualify Sagan as a climate scientists or make him credible. I have been defending Sagan. Only die hard climate alarmists are attacking Sagan. Both mushroom and I have been defending him. SMH. Sagan said exactly what I claimed. Thanks for admitting it. Here’s another post of mine on Sagan from this thread explaining why he was wrong. “I brought up Carl Sagan in the context of the claim predictions of warming since 1970 have been spot on. In 1985 Sagan said the best predictions were a several degree Celsius rise by 2050 (or 2100). Not a particularly specific prediction. He was clear that was based on the current rate of fossil fuel use at the time. So we can find new predictions that foretell a 4°C rise by 2100. Is that “several”? But the biggest problem is emissions have essentially doubled from fossil fuels since 1985. So even if we see 4°C increase by 2100 and 4° is “several” he was off by a factor of at least 2. Just pointing out predictions since 1970 have not been spot on. That is all. It’s fun to say stuff like that but the evidence is contrary to the unsubstantiated opinion.”
You sure did! It required me to demand it more than once, but you finally did. And as soon as you did, we could all see why it took so much effort for you to show it. But that's how we all now know he DIDN'T say what you claimed. Again, in case anybody missed it: @557 says: "Sagan predicted several degrees C rise in temp by 2050 with 1985 levels of emissions." Sagan says: "...the present rate of increase of minor infrared absorbing gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, that there will be a several centigrade degree temperature increase on the Earth’s global average by the middle to the end of the next century. “ End of story!
Yes. The end. It doesn’t matter how much of his statement you edit out it is incorrect. What do you think you are accomplishing by editing out his statements? He claimed the prediction was based on 1985 emissions. Emissions have doubled and his prediction of temp rise is still wrong. He claimed the prediction was based on the 1985 rate of increase of greenhouse gasses. The rate was about 1.12 ppm/year in 1985. Today it’s about 1.72 ppm/year and his prediction of temp rise is still wrong. Both emissions and rate of greenhouse gas additions to the atmosphere have increased since 1985 and the temp predictions still isn’t accurate. Sagan was wrong. What I said is correct. You are wrong. It’s sad you know so little about climate change. I can’t believe you don’t know additional atmospheric CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels. I can’t believe you don’t know rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 has changed since 1985.
And here you are paraphrasing it, to steer it in a completely different direction. And in closing... Consensus means nothing, it is not science. It is opinion. And science is not based on opinion. For over a century, it was "consensus" that blacks and all races other than whites were inferior. So that alone should tell you hoe absolutely saying something is a "consensus" is. Yet another example of evading what you do not like, and outright rejecting it no matter what evidence is presented. You know, it's not all that hard to just go "Yep, old Dr. Sagan was wrong there". Hell, Dr. Sagan himself was able to do that without a problem. But this obsession with defending absolutely everything, even when it has been proven to be wrong is why I consider most screaming to be anti-science and hucksters.
Essentially the exact same reason he admitted the theory he helped create and promoted about "Nuclear Winter" was busted. They made a prediction based upon their models and understanding. Then the number of oil wells blown up was over double what was expected, and burned for far longer than they ever expected. According to their models, the world would have been thrown into another ice age. But he had the integrity to admit they were wrong, the theory was wrong, and their models were wrong. I distrust most of the AGW crowd because they can never admit they were wrong in anything, ever. They just double down yet again, spin, and change the models until they do fit what is happening. And I find it rather insulting to Dr. Sagan when they do this then drag him up, because he was man enough to admit he was not perfect and made mistakes. Something they are incapable of doing.
Yep. Now they have started a whole thread about this and are trashing the IPCC as they turn themselves inside out trying to convince us Sagan was correct.
Michael Crichton was a great Science Fiction writer. Pretty lousy with Science FACT though. "The Andromeda Strain" will always be among one of the best SF Novels I've ever read, though.
And all you are basically saying is you do not agree with him, therefore he must be wrong. But that's alright, Vice President Al Gore has been attacking him for decades saying he is a "Science fiction writer". Of course, both of them are actually Harvard alumni. But as Al Gore has a BA degree in Political Science, Michel Crichton actually has his BS in biological anthropology, and became an MD. And served his post-doctoral fellowship at the Salk Institute. But yes, he knows nothing of science.
Makes no difference if I agree with him or not. What matters is that science didn't agree with him. And, if he'd lived a few more years, he would have had to admit that reality didn't agree with him either.
Wait, science agrees that consensus and popular opinion is the most important thing in actual science? Oh please, give me some references to back that bowl of wet coprolite up with. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-you-say-science-is-right-youre-wrong/ Once again, you are confusing "science" with "what you believe in". And trying to "cancel" anybody that does not agree with you. That is not science, that is religion trying to pretend it is science. Like Scientology or Christian Scientists. No matter what the name is, those are religions and no actual "science".
The first thing I will tell a physics denier is that other people in other areas of Earth have noticed cooler summers and colder winters. The second thing I will tell a physics denier is that consensus is not science, and neither is religious chanting. The third thing I will tell a physics denier is that you do NOT understand the science. You deny it. You discard it in favor of a wacky religion. Religious belief. There is no "the climate on earth". Earth has MANY climates. Climate is merely a subjective characterization of something [such as weather or politics] (e.g. "hot and dry", "cool and rainy", "tense and chaotic", etc) and is not measurable in any way nor is it in any way a unit of measurement. Much of this is religious belief. Some is history. Carbon dioxide, and they still do. Oil and natural gas form naturally underground, where the correct conditions for their formation are present. This still happens today. Fossils are not used for fuel. They don't burn very well. This process still occurs today just as it has occurred in the past. "Hundreds of millions of years" is more religious belief. For "understand[ing] the science", you sure espouse A LOT of religious beliefs instead of science.
Such as the completely pseudo-religious nonsense about most of the US being underwater. Yes, it is true. But it also has not a damned thing to do with sea levels. That has to do with the Laramide Orogeny, which took a large part of the North American Plate and thrust it up to a mile and more upwards. Much of it had once been the Western Interior Seaway. So unless he is trying to claim that the ocean levels were over a mile higher than they are now, anything even close to that is complete coprolite. But it does show their complete lack of understanding of actual science, and instead preferring to believe in pseudo-religious beliefs
And the first thing I'd tell you is only an exceedingly tiny group DENY warming. Some of us just notice that the warning is on the order of 0.13C per decade. And I'd respond that science is not based on consensus - science is based on disagreement and disproving current dogma. BTW that "consensus" argument has taken some big hits recently because of misstatements and data manipulation. We know that.
Hell, they scream that I am a "denier", and I say that things are going to get a hell of a lot warmer, wetter, and sea levels rise a hell of a lot more than all of their screaming claims. We are going to lose most of Florida in the next thousand years or so, and nothing can be done about it. Because that has happened in every interglacial. That is why I see things like the massive amount of work being done to "Save New Orleans" as ultimately futile. It is already sinking, and sea levels are going to continue to rise. The smartest thing to do would be to write it off, and start trying to save what can be saved by moving it to higher ground. I absolutely love the scare tactics they all try to use. Like this one. I look at that and laugh, when they go on about "if sea levels were to rise". There is absolutely no "if" there, they will rise. They have risen to those levels during every single interglacial, and will do so again this time. Miami is literally built upon multiple interglacial coral reefs.
You don't hear screaming from a huge portion of us who understand the process and understand that temps ARE CREEPING up at about .2C per decade. Open levels are rising at a few mm per year. It will be more than a few hundred years before any of the scenarios even get close.
Which in 1,000 years is 5 meters. And there are other things at play like crustal rebound, the fact that a lot of coastal regions are actually sinking in addition to the ocean rise, and more. We are just lucky that the majority of the ice sheets have already vanished, with no more massive glacial lakes held back by ice dams like Glacial Lake Missoula, which flooded huge parts of the Pacific Northwest repeatedly over thousands of years. Imagine the effect on sea level if Lake Superior was to suddenly empty into the ocean every couple of years.
Then I must ask you: Where is the additional thermal energy that is required to increase Earth's temperature coming from? I see no reason to believe that Earth's temperature is increasing even on the order of 0.13C per decade. A better way to phrase this would be to say that science is based on falsifiable theories (and their formalization into laws via mathematics). IOW: science is a set of falsifiable models that predict nature. That's all that science is, and that is the best way to accurately express what science is. Correct.
