Global warming scepticism

Interesting read;

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

 

Absolutely the data sets must be adjusted for numerous factors in order to determine what's happening. What do you think scientists do all day?

You seem to be thinking that getting an accurate current reading is the whole objective. But, a primary issue here is to detect change. That means using existing data from older methods in the smartest way possible - we don't have time machines. So, measuring the heat added by the ship engines provides a way of connecting modern measurements to measurements collected by ships.


As to water temp vs air temp, please do some reading on the up coming El Nino. When oceans warm, it affects our climate (and weather) in significant ways.

 

So, you thought they were right before then they change the data and now you think they are right now. LOL. BTW: thanks for bringing up the much more significant natural variability.

 

No. I stated that using historic data is a requirement when detecting change. Using historic data (such as that of 1 or 20 years ago) requires correlating current data from more advanced measurement technology and the older methods and technology.

Doing that requires taking into account large numbers of variables - everything from the solar and other cycles to known deficits in individual measurement instruments - such as individual buoys.

All these factors must be taken into account in order to make a valid numeric statement concerning how much change has taken place.

You just failed to understand what is required to accomplish that.

Plus, you are focusing on one effort when there are similar efforts going on in scientific organizations in every first world nation (and more). This one study will be considered as just that - one study.

 

i read it a year ago, tol is out of his element

i agree with mann, hayhoe, powell and other climate scientists

here's a better read: http://www.jamespowell.org

 

LOL, its that type of attitude that has helped lose the AGW argument for the warmists. Cook has so been mortally debunked that Cook's paper falls into the realm of propaganda. I read Cook's paper and went through the entire methodology in a thread in this forum, others have as well, and its in many sites. The same for other of those "literature survey" claims.

The entire approach is so tainted that its mere mention is met with disdain, even if you do turn up a well reasoned paper using the method it will be simply disregarded. You are not going to win any converts using such an approach. But keep trying, its about the only argument warmists have.

 

you obviously don't know what you're talking about



The True Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming

"I've brought my previous study up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming."

~ James Lawrence Powell

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

see the full article here

James Lawrence Powell

I was born in Berea, Kentucky and graduated from Berea College with a degree in Geology.

I hold a Ph.D. in Geochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and several honorary degrees, including Doctor of Science degrees from Berea College and from Oberlin College. I taught Geology at Oberlin College for over 20 year.

I served as Acting President of Oberlin, President of Franklin and Marshall College, President of Reed College, President of the Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia, and President and Director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History.

President Reagan and later, President George H. W. Bush, appointed me to the National Science Board, where I served for 12 years. Asteroid 1987 SH7 is named for me.

I have written eleven books, the most recent of which is Four Revolutions in the Earth Sciences: From Heresy to Truth, published by Columbia University Press. In 2015 I was elected a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI).

I am Executive Director of the National Physical Science Consortium.

http://www.jamespowell.org/Bio/bio.html[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

LOL, if you have "won" the AGW argument, then why are you facing so much resistance from everyone?

And you lose again, go find the thread about Cooks paper, one of the big ways it was debunked was that people posted links to numerous peer reviewed papers that rejected AGW. Yet your guy only found ONE? LOL, another "literature survey" fail.

 

So what you are saying is that changing the better temperature readings from Bouys designed for climate recordings to match more problematic ship intake temperatures never designed for climate recordings is an advancement? Well, go figure. Tell you what, it is an advancement for government and the upcoming Paris meeting. Other than that, it is no advancement for science.

BTW, the bouy readings reflect the same change (or lack of) as the satellite records and the reason they needed to be changed. Can't have the actual temperature record deviate from the agenda.

You have been duped. Like the scientist Klaus-Eckert Puls said:

But hey, you have the MEDIA and POLITICIANS on your side. LOL

 

Posting a link to a denier website and asking people to "make up your own mind" is the same thing as asking people to appoint themselves amateur scientists. As far as I am concerned, if I have a rocket science problem I need solved, I will call a real rocket scientist. Same thing with climate science, I am going to defer to the real scientists. Keep in mind that the Koch brothers, and others like them, are funding much of the denier "science" that is out there.

 

Consensus has nothing to do with science but with politics and media. You should know better. Like the scientist Klaus-Eckert Puls said.

The unwashed massed don't check much beyond what the media tells them.

 

If it is the difference you are interested in (the change) then it makes no difference which side of the equation you modify - unless there is some other factors which have not reached this discussion we're having.

You are picking out a miniscule detail about which you have NO knowledge, and suggesting that is invalidating science as it is being carried out all over the world.

Doesn't that sound just a little bit insane to you?

And, yes, this one study can not possibly shatter the world of climatology. So, again, why are you so wound up about it?

 

This isn't a good representation.

Scientific method has NO means of proving something to be true. The strongest it has to offer is still open to refutation. And, the largest rewards in science go to those who succeed in refuting ideas that have been accepted.

Scientific method is founded on repeated experimentation and repeated attempts to prove falsehood. Proofs of falsehood get significant reward. Nobody can even name Einstein's contemporaries who defended the theories of physics that Einstein invalidated. Today, anyone who could refute anthropogenic warming would be similarly rewarded.

As a theory holds up under that pressure, confidence in it is increased.

You can deny that this increased confidence is related to consensus, but consensus is far closer to what scientific method is about than is the notion that science could prove something to be true - since it can not.

So, waiting for anthropogenic warming to be "proven" is nonsense. The most science can do is show that it is super highly likely in the eyes of the vast majority of climatologists, unable to be refuted by those working hard to do so - which is where we are TODAY.

 

Amen.

These crazies want us to believe that any person who can log into a political board successfully is qualified to judge NOAA, NASA, all of our notable universities, all independent science organizations working on climatology and all similar activity around the world.

That would be hilarious if it didn't matter.

 

climate scientists aren't resisting, it's gullible idiots, republicans and big oil that are resisting

 

It is evident that you don't know what is behind the current and new datasets that all come from one paper that suddenly, after 18 years, made the lack of warming go away as opposed to the rest of the records from other methods like satellites.

- - - Updated - - -

So basically with failure after failure confidence increases. That is the state of climate science hijacked by politics. Why be right when you can gain power?

 

you're describing the gop's situation

 

Not surprised that you focus on politics in a science related thread about climate change. After all, that is what it has become instead of real science.

 

[/QUOTE]
2013 is not today. Have you seen the polls on how many are interested in GW? Have you?

 

I didn't know one had to be a scientist to read a thermometer. Really, that is your stance?

 

we are. Period. See physical experience helps align one's view. When it is 20 below zero in an area that expects 20 below zero and it happens thirty years apart, it's really tough to sell the whole global thing. See you don't get that. Peoples life experiences matter more than lousy journalism and poor data manipulation.

 

My stance is that climate science requires more training and education than simply being able to "read a thermometer". Unless a person is a real scientist, then their opinion doesn't carry the weight of a real expert. If you needed surgery, are you going to get a real surgeon or would you let someone like Rush Limbaugh do the operation?

 

How is it that you know better than the experts? Isn't that kind of silly?

 

i'm pointing out the truth

it's the same situation as today

yes

 

so what is it the scientists do when they read a thermometer? hmmmm. looks like 70 degrees, well maybe, well maybe not, let's take it to a lab and see, yep 70 degrees, lines up with one we have in the building. WTF does your response even mean. Face it, you lose. LOL on your feeble attempt to make something up.