login
An inconvenient truth on Global Warming? (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-09-25 12:48 PM in reply to: 0 |
Elite  6387    |  Subject: RE: An inconvenient truth on Global Warming?Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by tuwood As I mentioned in my previous post, both from a temperature range and a rate of change standpoint, the temperature changes of the 20th century do fall within historical patterns. Our current temperature is roughly recovering back to what it was ~1000 years ago prior to the "little ice age". Let me ask you this Tony: are you this passionate over the Big Bang Theory... Perhaps that's a bad example. OK, let's say Astro Physics. My guess is you find it interesting, but don't give much thought about it. I'm sure you do not spent much time on the internet searching for things to prove it wrong. Earth's climate is no different. It is something that is very interesting, but I don't plan my day around it. It's just an interesting subject and all the interactions that take place to keep our fish bowl going. What get's everyone's panties in a twist is politics. And the changes they want to make based on predictions and assumptions. Does for me. I can't really fathom spending the kind of money they want when they can't tell me what return I will get for it if ANY. But as far as looking for things that prove GW... well they are just like things that disprove it... what ever you look for, that's what you will find. Totally different because nobodies trying to tax me and my family based on the big bang theory. If AGW was purely a scientific discussion about is the earth warming or cooling then it would be a fun academic exercise. But when the scientists 10 years ago tell me it's going to heat up X with 97% certainty and it doesn't happen I have to raise an eyebrow and question things. If it goes on another 10 years and doesn't heat up any more I'll have to raise another eyebrow. That's the whole point Tony, this isn't a scientific discussion for you, it is a political one. A political one you disagree with. You are biased. So how you look at the scientific data is biased. It just is. And that is fine, I understand it. Human nature. It just get's funny though when you go about finding stuff to prove it wrong... you are looking for it. Whether or not they found the Boson Higgs particle probably does not keep you up much at night either... but that too took tax money to do. It's pretty interesting, but nobody is trying to change my way of life over it. The moment this subject became political, then it was over. It's nothing more than arguments over questionable data produced by those with questionable motives.... on BOTH sides. But I would say especially those that have the most to loose... the ones that have the established revenue streams... others may HOPE to get revenue streams off it in the future... but the ones that make revenue off it right now... fossil fuels... ya, they like what they have and fully intend to keep it. Questionable motives. Edited by powerman 2013-09-25 12:49 PM |
| 2013-09-25 1:04 PM in reply to: powerman |
Pro 9391  Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: An inconvenient truth on Global Warming? Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by tuwood As I mentioned in my previous post, both from a temperature range and a rate of change standpoint, the temperature changes of the 20th century do fall within historical patterns. Our current temperature is roughly recovering back to what it was ~1000 years ago prior to the "little ice age". Let me ask you this Tony: are you this passionate over the Big Bang Theory... Perhaps that's a bad example. OK, let's say Astro Physics. My guess is you find it interesting, but don't give much thought about it. I'm sure you do not spent much time on the internet searching for things to prove it wrong. Earth's climate is no different. It is something that is very interesting, but I don't plan my day around it. It's just an interesting subject and all the interactions that take place to keep our fish bowl going. What get's everyone's panties in a twist is politics. And the changes they want to make based on predictions and assumptions. Does for me. I can't really fathom spending the kind of money they want when they can't tell me what return I will get for it if ANY. But as far as looking for things that prove GW... well they are just like things that disprove it... what ever you look for, that's what you will find. Totally different because nobodies trying to tax me and my family based on the big bang theory. If AGW was purely a scientific discussion about is the earth warming or cooling then it would be a fun academic exercise. But when the scientists 10 years ago tell me it's going to heat up X with 97% certainty and it doesn't happen I have to raise an eyebrow and question things. If it goes on another 10 years and doesn't heat up any more I'll have to raise another eyebrow. That's the whole point Tony, this isn't a scientific discussion for you, it is a political one. A political one you disagree with. You are biased. So how you look at the scientific data is biased. It just is. And that is fine, I understand it. Human nature. It just get's funny though when you go about finding stuff to prove it wrong... you are looking for it. Whether or not they found the Boson Higgs particle probably does not keep you up much at night either... but that too took tax money to do. It's pretty interesting, but nobody is trying to change my way of life over it. The moment this subject became political, then it was over. It's nothing more than arguments over questionable data produced by those with questionable motives.... on BOTH sides. But I would say especially those that have the most to loose... the ones that have the established revenue streams... others may HOPE to get revenue streams off it in the future... but the ones that make revenue off it right now... fossil fuels... ya, they like what they have and fully intend to keep it. Questionable motives. You make a valid point, but I could easily use the same rationale for the AGW industry and even the IPCC itself. If hypothetically speaking AGW was a total scam and no science backing it, the IPCC would be shut down and there would be a lot of unemployed "scientists". The IPCC also gets a lot of pressure and influence from government bodies which shouldn't have anything to do with science. I'm not suggesting the IPCC is this big corrupt cabal trumping up science, because that's not true. I'm merely saying there is just as much interest in keeping AGW running from a financial/industry standpoint as there is to make it go away. If anything the arguments somewhat mute each other out as far as I'm concerned. I don't see it as a "political issue" so much as I see it as a science issue. I was all aboard the AGW train for probably a decade and sucked it all in. Where I started to question things was the alarmist nature that so many had taken. I think my first questioning was more along the lines of "is it really a bad thing if the earth were to warm up 4 or 5 degrees" and then I just kept digging. Yes, I have an inherent distrust in the government when it comes to them taking my money. I think you share that distrust to a certain extent, so I do admit that I tend to be a little more skeptical of the government backed side of the house, but I don't think that necessarily makes it "political" for me. I think there are just as many people who are skeptical of anything that's not government, so I wouldn't call that political on their part either. I genuinely do try to understand the science, which isn't easy I'll admit. I'll continue following it and as mentioned before, we'll all get to see it play out. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, and our winters are a little cold here anyways so I'm ok with it. <joking> |
| 2013-09-30 8:52 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: An inconvenient truth on Global Warming? I've spent a little time going through the IPCC's AR5 report they released. It's been kind of interesting how both sides have reacted to the report. One piece I found pretty interesting is this little nugget in reference to the climate sensitivity to CO2. In the past 4 reports they always put up a number, but due to so many contradictory studies, the "consensus" seems to not be there. A best estimate for climate sensitivity — unarguably THE most important climate change variable — is no longer provided, due to mounting contradictory evidence on whether the climate system really cares very much about whether there are 2, or 3, or 4, parts of CO2 per 10,000 parts atmosphere. YET…the IPCC claims their confidence has DOUBLED (uncertainty reduced from 10% that 5%) regarding their claim that humans are most of the cause behind the warming trend in the last 50 years or so:
I just saw this linked from Drudge this morning as well. “Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.” Oh well, time to go read about the government shutting down. lol |
| 2013-09-30 4:05 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: An inconvenient truth on Global Warming? Originally posted by tuwood I've spent a little time going through the IPCC's AR5 report they released. It's been kind of interesting how both sides have reacted to the report. One piece I found pretty interesting is this little nugget in reference to the climate sensitivity to CO2. In the past 4 reports they always put up a number, but due to so many contradictory studies, the "consensus" seems to not be there. A best estimate for climate sensitivity — unarguably THE most important climate change variable — is no longer provided, due to mounting contradictory evidence on whether the climate system really cares very much about whether there are 2, or 3, or 4, parts of CO2 per 10,000 parts atmosphere. YET…the IPCC claims their confidence has DOUBLED (uncertainty reduced from 10% that 5%) regarding their claim that humans are most of the cause behind the warming trend in the last 50 years or so:
I just saw this linked from Drudge this morning as well. “Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.” Oh well, time to go read about the government shutting down. lol Tony, you're befuddled because you're misunderstanding the process of how we know we're warming the climate and you're making the mistake of assuming that a small tweak to the lower bound of the possible sensitivity or a deviation between modeled and observed temperatures for a few years somehow negates everything we've learned about the physics of the atmosphere over the last 200 years and thousands of studies documenting the effects we're seeing. And all without suggesting any kind of viable alternate explanation. For one, the fact that there's no consensus on a single best estimate for sensitivity is relatively meaningless. What that means is that because of the possible range of estimates they can't pin down one single number as the best estimate. What is doesn't mean is that there's no idea of what's going on or that there's no idea of the possible range of sensitivity. Quite the opposite in fact. Directly from the report, "estimates of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on multiple and partly independent lines of evidence from observed climate change, including estimates using longer records of surface temperature change and new palaeoclimatic evidence, indicate that there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C. They complement the evaluation in Chapter 9 and support the overall assessment in Chapter 12 that concludes between all lines of evidence with high confidence that ECS is likely in the range 1.5°C–4.5°C ." This slightly lowers the lower range by 0.5*C which isn't all that big of a deal, although they do note that "some recent studies suggest a low climate sensitivity (Chylek et al., 2007; Schwartz et al., 2007; Lindzen and Choi, 2009). However, these are based on problematic assumptions, for example, about the climate’s response time, the cause of climate fluctuations, or neglect uncertainty in forcing, observations, and internal variability". So while a lower sensitivity is maybe less likely, the studies right now say it's possible, which is why there's no consensus view on one, single value and more research is needed to pin it down better. But there's no saying a 1.5*C response will be a walk in the park anyway, especially since there's no indication we'll stop at a doubling of CO2. But again, if GHG's had no effect on climate, the sensitivity to a doubling of it would be exactly zero, yet no one is saying that and there is no evidence for it. And yes, the models are flawed, but every model by definition is flawed, in the same way that no map is a 100% accurate representation of reality either (for a great overview of climate models check this out). But somehow we still use maps and find them useful. You're making the same mistake as above and assuming that just because a model isn't 100% accurate that it isn't useful or informative and that just isn't true. For one thing, many actually DO account for heat transfer to the deep ocean and DO predict "hiatus" periods of 10-15 years where warming plateaus. They're all within the range of uncertainty, albeit on the low side. And again, note that that just means warming has slowed down, it doesn't mean temperatures have returned to their previous average. We haven't seen that for about 28 years. Where they have trouble is in predicting the timing of the hiatus periods, in large part because they're driven by internal variability, which is difficult to predict. But the long term trends produced by the models match our real world observations really well, which is much more important than whether they can accurately model a specific 10 year period. Since we know the earth has continued to retain additional heat (in the oceans), that the warming has continued, if anything, the discrepancies should be a cause for greater concern since it implies that somewhere in the not too distant future the surface temperatures will return to the overall trend of the last few decades which means a pretty good jump is on the way. But more importantly, it misunderstands the way that climate change is attributed to us. Models are just one piece of the puzzle. There are multiple, independent lines of evidence that are evaluated and arguably other lines of evidence such as paleoclimate studies, fingerprinting studies and especially observational studies are more important than models in attributing the rise in temperature we're seeing to the extra CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere. And while models have been improving, evidence from other lines has just been piling up and piling up to the point now where there's so much of it that there's just no other forcing that can explain all the effects we're seeing on atmospheric & ocean temperatures, circulations and extremes, sea level rise, ocean acidification and on and on. |
| 2013-09-30 6:09 PM in reply to: drewb8 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: An inconvenient truth on Global Warming? Originally posted by drewb8 Originally posted by tuwood I've spent a little time going through the IPCC's AR5 report they released. It's been kind of interesting how both sides have reacted to the report. One piece I found pretty interesting is this little nugget in reference to the climate sensitivity to CO2. In the past 4 reports they always put up a number, but due to so many contradictory studies, the "consensus" seems to not be there. A best estimate for climate sensitivity — unarguably THE most important climate change variable — is no longer provided, due to mounting contradictory evidence on whether the climate system really cares very much about whether there are 2, or 3, or 4, parts of CO2 per 10,000 parts atmosphere. YET…the IPCC claims their confidence has DOUBLED (uncertainty reduced from 10% that 5%) regarding their claim that humans are most of the cause behind the warming trend in the last 50 years or so:
I just saw this linked from Drudge this morning as well. “Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.” Oh well, time to go read about the government shutting down. lol Tony, you're befuddled because you're misunderstanding the process of how we know we're warming the climate and you're making the mistake of assuming that a small tweak to the lower bound of the possible sensitivity or a deviation between modeled and observed temperatures for a few years somehow negates everything we've learned about the physics of the atmosphere over the last 200 years and thousands of studies documenting the effects we're seeing. And all without suggesting any kind of viable alternate explanation. For one, the fact that there's no consensus on a single best estimate for sensitivity is relatively meaningless. What that means is that because of the possible range of estimates they can't pin down one single number as the best estimate. What is doesn't mean is that there's no idea of what's going on or that there's no idea of the possible range of sensitivity. Quite the opposite in fact. Directly from the report, "estimates of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on multiple and partly independent lines of evidence from observed climate change, including estimates using longer records of surface temperature change and new palaeoclimatic evidence, indicate that there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C. They complement the evaluation in Chapter 9 and support the overall assessment in Chapter 12 that concludes between all lines of evidence with high confidence that ECS is likely in the range 1.5°C–4.5°C ." This slightly lowers the lower range by 0.5*C which isn't all that big of a deal, although they do note that "some recent studies suggest a low climate sensitivity (Chylek et al., 2007; Schwartz et al., 2007; Lindzen and Choi, 2009). However, these are based on problematic assumptions, for example, about the climate’s response time, the cause of climate fluctuations, or neglect uncertainty in forcing, observations, and internal variability". So while a lower sensitivity is maybe less likely, the studies right now say it's possible, which is why there's no consensus view on one, single value and more research is needed to pin it down better. But there's no saying a 1.5*C response will be a walk in the park anyway, especially since there's no indication we'll stop at a doubling of CO2. But again, if GHG's had no effect on climate, the sensitivity to a doubling of it would be exactly zero, yet no one is saying that and there is no evidence for it. And yes, the models are flawed, but every model by definition is flawed, in the same way that no map is a 100% accurate representation of reality either (for a great overview of climate models check this out). But somehow we still use maps and find them useful. You're making the same mistake as above and assuming that just because a model isn't 100% accurate that it isn't useful or informative and that just isn't true. For one thing, many actually DO account for heat transfer to the deep ocean and DO predict "hiatus" periods of 10-15 years where warming plateaus. They're all within the range of uncertainty, albeit on the low side. And again, note that that just means warming has slowed down, it doesn't mean temperatures have returned to their previous average. We haven't seen that for about 28 years. Where they have trouble is in predicting the timing of the hiatus periods, in large part because they're driven by internal variability, which is difficult to predict. But the long term trends produced by the models match our real world observations really well, which is much more important than whether they can accurately model a specific 10 year period. Since we know the earth has continued to retain additional heat (in the oceans), that the warming has continued, if anything, the discrepancies should be a cause for greater concern since it implies that somewhere in the not too distant future the surface temperatures will return to the overall trend of the last few decades which means a pretty good jump is on the way. But more importantly, it misunderstands the way that climate change is attributed to us. Models are just one piece of the puzzle. There are multiple, independent lines of evidence that are evaluated and arguably other lines of evidence such as paleoclimate studies, fingerprinting studies and especially observational studies are more important than models in attributing the rise in temperature we're seeing to the extra CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere. And while models have been improving, evidence from other lines has just been piling up and piling up to the point now where there's so much of it that there's just no other forcing that can explain all the effects we're seeing on atmospheric & ocean temperatures, circulations and extremes, sea level rise, ocean acidification and on and on. Yeah, but still... |
| 2013-09-30 6:24 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: An inconvenient truth on Global Warming? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Yeah, but still... Nuts. I knew I didn't write enough... |
| 2013-09-30 6:34 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: An inconvenient truth on Global Warming? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by drewb8 Yeah, but still... Originally posted by tuwood I've spent a little time going through the IPCC's AR5 report they released. It's been kind of interesting how both sides have reacted to the report. One piece I found pretty interesting is this little nugget in reference to the climate sensitivity to CO2. In the past 4 reports they always put up a number, but due to so many contradictory studies, the "consensus" seems to not be there. A best estimate for climate sensitivity — unarguably THE most important climate change variable — is no longer provided, due to mounting contradictory evidence on whether the climate system really cares very much about whether there are 2, or 3, or 4, parts of CO2 per 10,000 parts atmosphere. YET…the IPCC claims their confidence has DOUBLED (uncertainty reduced from 10% that 5%) regarding their claim that humans are most of the cause behind the warming trend in the last 50 years or so:
I just saw this linked from Drudge this morning as well. “Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.” Oh well, time to go read about the government shutting down. lol Tony, you're befuddled because you're misunderstanding the process of how we know we're warming the climate and you're making the mistake of assuming that a small tweak to the lower bound of the possible sensitivity or a deviation between modeled and observed temperatures for a few years somehow negates everything we've learned about the physics of the atmosphere over the last 200 years and thousands of studies documenting the effects we're seeing. And all without suggesting any kind of viable alternate explanation. For one, the fact that there's no consensus on a single best estimate for sensitivity is relatively meaningless. What that means is that because of the possible range of estimates they can't pin down one single number as the best estimate. What is doesn't mean is that there's no idea of what's going on or that there's no idea of the possible range of sensitivity. Quite the opposite in fact. Directly from the report, "estimates of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on multiple and partly independent lines of evidence from observed climate change, including estimates using longer records of surface temperature change and new palaeoclimatic evidence, indicate that there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C. They complement the evaluation in Chapter 9 and support the overall assessment in Chapter 12 that concludes between all lines of evidence with high confidence that ECS is likely in the range 1.5°C–4.5°C ." This slightly lowers the lower range by 0.5*C which isn't all that big of a deal, although they do note that "some recent studies suggest a low climate sensitivity (Chylek et al., 2007; Schwartz et al., 2007; Lindzen and Choi, 2009). However, these are based on problematic assumptions, for example, about the climate’s response time, the cause of climate fluctuations, or neglect uncertainty in forcing, observations, and internal variability". So while a lower sensitivity is maybe less likely, the studies right now say it's possible, which is why there's no consensus view on one, single value and more research is needed to pin it down better. But there's no saying a 1.5*C response will be a walk in the park anyway, especially since there's no indication we'll stop at a doubling of CO2. But again, if GHG's had no effect on climate, the sensitivity to a doubling of it would be exactly zero, yet no one is saying that and there is no evidence for it. And yes, the models are flawed, but every model by definition is flawed, in the same way that no map is a 100% accurate representation of reality either (for a great overview of climate models check this out). But somehow we still use maps and find them useful. You're making the same mistake as above and assuming that just because a model isn't 100% accurate that it isn't useful or informative and that just isn't true. For one thing, many actually DO account for heat transfer to the deep ocean and DO predict "hiatus" periods of 10-15 years where warming plateaus. They're all within the range of uncertainty, albeit on the low side. And again, note that that just means warming has slowed down, it doesn't mean temperatures have returned to their previous average. We haven't seen that for about 28 years. Where they have trouble is in predicting the timing of the hiatus periods, in large part because they're driven by internal variability, which is difficult to predict. But the long term trends produced by the models match our real world observations really well, which is much more important than whether they can accurately model a specific 10 year period. Since we know the earth has continued to retain additional heat (in the oceans), that the warming has continued, if anything, the discrepancies should be a cause for greater concern since it implies that somewhere in the not too distant future the surface temperatures will return to the overall trend of the last few decades which means a pretty good jump is on the way. But more importantly, it misunderstands the way that climate change is attributed to us. Models are just one piece of the puzzle. There are multiple, independent lines of evidence that are evaluated and arguably other lines of evidence such as paleoclimate studies, fingerprinting studies and especially observational studies are more important than models in attributing the rise in temperature we're seeing to the extra CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere. And while models have been improving, evidence from other lines has just been piling up and piling up to the point now where there's so much of it that there's just no other forcing that can explain all the effects we're seeing on atmospheric & ocean temperatures, circulations and extremes, sea level rise, ocean acidification and on and on. lol, yeah, but still... For the record, I'm more befuddled trying to figure out which scientists to believe. You make a very compelling case Drew, but I still am having a tough time believing the politically backed IPCC because they seem to be batting a pretty low historical percentage in their predictions. The science is what the science is, but they continue to struggle making sense of it. I was just reading an article supporting AGW and it went on about the 17 year pause is insignificant because you have to look at trends over 30 years plus. I then go over to a skeptic site and they give multiple examples of the IPCC using short term trends of 8-10 years when the data backs up their theory. It's just a confusing mess as far as I'm concerned. When the temperatures start going back up I'll be a lot more inclined to "believe" than when the temperatures keep going down. I may still argue that it's better to have a warmer planet though. |
| 2013-09-30 6:34 PM in reply to: drewb8 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: An inconvenient truth on Global Warming? Originally posted by drewb8 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Yeah, but still... Nuts. I knew I didn't write enough...
|
| 2013-09-30 8:19 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: An inconvenient truth on Global Warming? Originally posted by tuwood There you go, now you're starting to sound like a modern, enlightened skeptic. lol, yeah, but still... For the record, I'm more befuddled trying to figure out which scientists to believe. You make a very compelling case Drew, but I still am having a tough time believing the politically backed IPCC because they seem to be batting a pretty low historical percentage in their predictions. The science is what the science is, but they continue to struggle making sense of it. I was just reading an article supporting AGW and it went on about the 17 year pause is insignificant because you have to look at trends over 30 years plus. I then go over to a skeptic site and they give multiple examples of the IPCC using short term trends of 8-10 years when the data backs up their theory. It's just a confusing mess as far as I'm concerned. When the temperatures start going back up I'll be a lot more inclined to "believe" than when the temperatures keep going down. I may still argue that it's better to have a warmer planet though.  Luckily for you, those types of effects are something I actually know more about and I can tell you warmer is definitely not better. I don't know your source for saying the IPCC has a low percentage with their predictions but I haven't seen any evidence that it's misinterpreting the science or or making any hugely wrong predictions or anything. As far as I know, depsite all the skeptics poring over every word, in the thousands of pages of the last report one error was found regarding predictions about Himalayan glaciers. They would have you believe that this one error casts doutb on everything else without any evidence of that, which is nuts. The only real consequence was that it made the peer review process for the newest report even more rigorous, meaning its conclusions are even more sound. Remember, IPCC doesn't conduct or even fund any research, they don't run any models. It's a bunch of experts who assess the current state of the science and synthesize what the current understanding of the various aspects is. It's interesting because it IS political, but what ends up happening is that if anything, its conclusions end up being more conservative than the general understanding because in order to get a consensus the findings get watered down. |
| 2013-09-30 9:57 PM in reply to: drewb8 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: An inconvenient truth on Global Warming? Originally posted by drewb8 Originally posted by tuwood There you go, now you're starting to sound like a modern, enlightened skeptic. lol, yeah, but still... For the record, I'm more befuddled trying to figure out which scientists to believe. You make a very compelling case Drew, but I still am having a tough time believing the politically backed IPCC because they seem to be batting a pretty low historical percentage in their predictions. The science is what the science is, but they continue to struggle making sense of it. I was just reading an article supporting AGW and it went on about the 17 year pause is insignificant because you have to look at trends over 30 years plus. I then go over to a skeptic site and they give multiple examples of the IPCC using short term trends of 8-10 years when the data backs up their theory. It's just a confusing mess as far as I'm concerned. When the temperatures start going back up I'll be a lot more inclined to "believe" than when the temperatures keep going down. I may still argue that it's better to have a warmer planet though. Luckily for you, those types of effects are something I actually know more about and I can tell you warmer is definitely not better. I don't know your source for saying the IPCC has a low percentage with their predictions but I haven't seen any evidence that it's misinterpreting the science or or making any hugely wrong predictions or anything. As far as I know, depsite all the skeptics poring over every word, in the thousands of pages of the last report one error was found regarding predictions about Himalayan glaciers. They would have you believe that this one error casts doutb on everything else without any evidence of that, which is nuts. The only real consequence was that it made the peer review process for the newest report even more rigorous, meaning its conclusions are even more sound. Remember, IPCC doesn't conduct or even fund any research, they don't run any models. It's a bunch of experts who assess the current state of the science and synthesize what the current understanding of the various aspects is. It's interesting because it IS political, but what ends up happening is that if anything, its conclusions end up being more conservative than the general understanding because in order to get a consensus the findings get watered down. So it's a lot like arguing with your wife? |
| 2013-09-30 10:21 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: An inconvenient truth on Global Warming? Originally posted by Left Brain Talk about inconvenient truths...Originally posted by drewb8 Originally posted by tuwood There you go, now you're starting to sound like a modern, enlightened skeptic. lol, yeah, but still... For the record, I'm more befuddled trying to figure out which scientists to believe. You make a very compelling case Drew, but I still am having a tough time believing the politically backed IPCC because they seem to be batting a pretty low historical percentage in their predictions. The science is what the science is, but they continue to struggle making sense of it. I was just reading an article supporting AGW and it went on about the 17 year pause is insignificant because you have to look at trends over 30 years plus. I then go over to a skeptic site and they give multiple examples of the IPCC using short term trends of 8-10 years when the data backs up their theory. It's just a confusing mess as far as I'm concerned. When the temperatures start going back up I'll be a lot more inclined to "believe" than when the temperatures keep going down. I may still argue that it's better to have a warmer planet though. Luckily for you, those types of effects are something I actually know more about and I can tell you warmer is definitely not better. I don't know your source for saying the IPCC has a low percentage with their predictions but I haven't seen any evidence that it's misinterpreting the science or or making any hugely wrong predictions or anything. As far as I know, depsite all the skeptics poring over every word, in the thousands of pages of the last report one error was found regarding predictions about Himalayan glaciers. They would have you believe that this one error casts doutb on everything else without any evidence of that, which is nuts. The only real consequence was that it made the peer review process for the newest report even more rigorous, meaning its conclusions are even more sound. Remember, IPCC doesn't conduct or even fund any research, they don't run any models. It's a bunch of experts who assess the current state of the science and synthesize what the current understanding of the various aspects is. It's interesting because it IS political, but what ends up happening is that if anything, its conclusions end up being more conservative than the general understanding because in order to get a consensus the findings get watered down. So it's a lot like arguing with your wife? |
| 2013-10-01 1:23 PM in reply to: 0 |
| Extreme Veteran 406 | Subject: RE: An inconvenient truth on Global Warming? Originally posted by tuwood In other words, who is to say (Al doesn't count) all this global warming is a bad thing. ughhh..... Edited by Bodaggit 2013-10-01 1:27 PM |
| 2013-10-01 3:21 PM in reply to: Bodaggit |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: An inconvenient truth on Global Warming? Originally posted by Bodaggit Originally posted by tuwood In other words, who is to say (Al doesn't count) all this global warming is a bad thing. ughhh.....
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK