a winter for the ages?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Apollo14
Do you not think that they may have looked at this more closely than you? With better scientific reasoning?

For one thing, many of you are talking about weather and snow. Not about measurable CO2, CO2 in oceans, ice measurements, atmospheric changes, ocean levels.

Not taking any position here, but when the public hears of climate change, they do think about weather and snow, not CO2 levels, because that's not weather or climate, after all.

And, when politicians touch any issue, it turns into a massive Charlie Foxtrot. Hence, politics and climate change are OT here.
wink.gif
 
I am retired from the telecom field, The Sunspots affect commutations at times as well.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
. . . And, when politicians touch any issue, it turns into a massive Charlie Foxtrot. Hence, politics and climate change are OT here.
wink.gif



That is the most salient comment of all.

I'm sure that modern climate science started out with the very best of intentions.

But once the politics and the money and the opportunity to control people hijacked things, it has turned into an ugly polarized mess, with actual science now a footnote. There are armies of foot soldiers employed to debunk and keep their herds in line.

There's an entire universe going outside this pale blue dot that impacts it, yet the knee jerk reaction is to think it all goes on within a few feet of the surface (about as far as one sees, a lot like the flat-earthers did).

When I hear someone declare "settled science" about anything, I think of a prominent 19th Century English physicist who smugly declared all science discovered and known. PC and the "97%ers" were strong then, too. Then a few years later, Rutherford shattered that myth. Einstein later made it a laughable footnote.

I find the comments here, and the states where they are originating, quite interesting indeed.
 
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: Garak
. . . And, when politicians touch any issue, it turns into a massive Charlie Foxtrot. Hence, politics and climate change are OT here.
wink.gif



That is the most salient comment of all.

I'm sure that modern climate science started out with the very best of intentions.

But once the politics and the money and the opportunity to control people hijacked things, it has turned into an ugly polarized mess, with actual science now a footnote. There are armies of foot soldiers employed to debunk and keep their herds in line.

There's an entire universe going outside this pale blue dot that impacts it, yet the knee jerk reaction is to think it all goes on within a few feet of the surface (about as far as one sees, a lot like the flat-earthers did).

When I hear someone declare "settled science" about anything, I think of a prominent 19th Century English physicist who smugly declared all science discovered and known. PC and the "97%ers" were strong then, too. Then a few years later, Rutherford shattered that myth. Einstein later made it a laughable footnote.

I find the comments here, and the states where they are originating, quite interesting indeed.

+2 As an amateur astronomer who has conducted several hundred public star parties over the past 16 yrs, I was continually amazed at the cluelessness of adults in particular regarding our solar system, the Sun and the big picture. Most kids understood it better. Many adults no longer remembered why we have seasons and that it DOES make a difference which side of the Sun we're on.

What's truly a tragedy is the widespread lack of basic science education & critical thinking today. Instead, everything has been politicized to the point that open discussion is no longer open. I've participated in enough debates to see it time and time again: Their arguments lack any critical thinking and they quickly fold when confronted with facts.

As an example, there are actually those that believe that when they sign up for renewable energy pools and pay a higher rate to support it, that's the only type of electricity source coming into the kWhr meter and powering their house!

Don't laugh...I'm not kidding!

El Sol drives all weather on Mother Earth. Without her, we'd be a very dark frozen block of saltwater. It's very, very, very cold in space plus it's the most perfect vacuum ever. Thank God for gravity and our molten core, else we might have wound up like Mars.

Yesterday's flower children are today's blooming idiots!
 
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
I find the comments here, and the states where they are originating, quite interesting indeed.


What do you find interesting about the states where various comments originate?
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Apollo14
Do you not think that they may have looked at this more closely than you? With better scientific reasoning?

For one thing, many of you are talking about weather and snow. Not about measurable CO2, CO2 in oceans, ice measurements, atmospheric changes, ocean levels.

Not taking any position here, but when the public hears of climate change, they do think about weather and snow, not CO2 levels, because that's not weather or climate, after all.

And, when politicians touch any issue, it turns into a massive Charlie Foxtrot. Hence, politics and climate change are OT here.
wink.gif



Many people, be they left wing or right wing, climate skeptics or not, do not have the time nor capacity to evaluate all the evidence. I agree the worst thing they could do is listen to politicians or a media who are driven by headlines. But the failure of the media and politicians doesn't mean that alternative sources of information which the internet has enabled in a way unimaginable just a decade or so ago, should be the only source of reference. And taking this information plus individual observations or data points to form conclusions, by people on both sides, and using that to believe what one wants to believe, constitutes an intellectual laziness that generates somewhat understandable scorn from those who do seek out information on both sides of the argument.

It does surprise me that when we are on a forum where it is well known that things can be going wrong with vehicles that are not noticeable by most people, and that collection of data in a systematic fashion with scientific methods for interpreting it are required to make predictions of future outcomes with varying levels of certainty, that on such a site, we don't see the irony of so readily disagreeing with such expertise based on levels of data and analysis of many magnitudes less than the full time experts.

I'm sorry but there are just too many smart people in public non profit roles eg universities, in industry, in major companies with a lot of intellect (eg Google and lots of CEOs), in too many countries, and there are too many negative incidences of climate change eg islands who are facing imminent loss of habitability due to rising sea levels, that I will take all that expertise and evidence over posters with far lesser backgrounds saying "sun spots".
 
As long as there are people who can make money on it "Climate Change" will be relentlessly pushed by those who favor it and attacked by those who do not believe or support it.

It's the hottest (pun intended) money making opportunity out there...
 
Originally Posted By: Apollo14
Many people, be they left wing or right wing, climate skeptics or not, do not have the time nor capacity to evaluate all the evidence. I agree the worst thing they could do is listen to politicians or a media who are driven by headlines.

And, of course, the media is not a good place to get an education about anything. Car stories, justice stories, scientific stories, you name it, are all rife with errors. And when people cannot trust the source of their information (politicians or the media), they don't trust the message, either.

When a subject is rather dense, we're going to get conspiracy theories on both sides of the issue and, unfortunately, some wacky conclusions on both sides.
 
Originally Posted By: Apollo14
To all the skeptics pulling individual bits of data, do you not wonder why 97% of scientists disagree with you?

That 97% has been debunked many times by many people:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...nsensus-claims/

Pure disinformation which is typical of AGW proponents.

Originally Posted By: Apollo14

Do you not think that they may have looked at this more closely than you? With better scientific reasoning?

You mean like computer models which have ALL been proven to be wrong? Or changing historical temperature records to make their case look better? Or.....
 
Originally Posted By: Apollo14
. . . I'm sorry but there are just too many smart people in public non profit roles eg universities, . . .


You've got to be kidding. Those are the biggest whores of all. Some will reach whatever conclusion will ensure that the grant is renewed. Follow the stinking, filthy money. That will lead you to their true masters.

"Sun spots?". That was someone else's over-simplified Joe Sixpack label. Same as labeling "sea level" as somehow meaningful evidence of climate change. There's a mountain of science and complex physical processes driving either indicator. And that's all they are, indicators. As I stated, and as stated in the scientific journal link, sunspots are indicators of far more complex solar processes that are now rapidly changing in a historically unusual way. It's presently a VERY big deal to those in astrophysical and solar physics circles. Even NASA has completely pivoted on it in the last year. But to some, all they take away is "sun spots". Or "sea level". Really deep thinking either way.

Not many here are willing to commit the effort to really dive deep into either side's methodology. But they sure can talk ad infinitum about centistrokes and calcium and zinc levels in a lubricant as if it were quantum mechanics! So we wind up with simpleton conclusions on complex matters.

But I've learned there is no way one side will sway the other on this issue, not at this point. Both sides have their armies of scientists and debunkers hard at work. It will rage on, and the money will be spent, and wasted. And some will suffer as a result of those who were wrong. We'll know who's right in about 20 more years. And then history will apply the final labels.

I just happen to think what the solar physicists are saying will trump what climate scientists say when it all shakes out. A well-insulated house ultimately gets just as cold at night if the heater breaks.

So we will agree to disagree, and to poke some gentle jest at each other.

BTW, Where was the picture of all the climate scientists, and their rescuers, trapped in the Antarctic ice in that SA comedy article?
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar

WHAT?

How come it looks like an average (aka mean) warming of 0.24* ?
When you actually look at the Y axis numbers, you see that the high goes +0.8, while the low goes -0.1. Looks like quite a bit warmer vs colder. Who's side is this graph supposed to support?

A longer term view:
clip_image0041.jpg


Quote:
In fact the cross plot below covering over the period mentioned there were two hiatuses totaling 35 years out of the total 56 years (nearly two-thirds of the time), exhibiting no or very little correlation between CO2 and global mean temperature.

clip_image0062.jpg


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/12/a-look-at-carbon-dioxide-vs-global-temperature/

Temperatures went up only about 1/3 of the time, even while CO2 continually increased.
 
Originally Posted By: Anduril
Winter could not be further from my mind right now

hot_zpsd27dd2ae.png



Low tonight is 37...I'll take that right now.
 
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: Apollo14
. . . I'm sorry but there are just too many smart people in public non profit roles eg universities, . . .


You've got to be kidding. Those are the biggest whores of all. Some will reach whatever conclusion will ensure that the grant is renewed. Follow the stinking, filthy money. That will lead you to their true masters.

"Sun spots?". That was someone else's over-simplified Joe Sixpack label. Same as labeling "sea level" as somehow meaningful evidence of climate change. There's a mountain of science and complex physical processes driving either indicator. And that's all they are, indicators. As I stated, and as stated in the scientific journal link, sunspots are indicators of far more complex solar processes that are now rapidly changing in a historically unusual way. It's presently a VERY big deal to those in astrophysical and solar physics circles. Even NASA has completely pivoted on it in the last year. But to some, all they take away is "sun spots". Or "sea level". Really deep thinking either way.

Not many here are willing to commit the effort to really dive deep into either side's methodology. But they sure can talk ad infinitum about centistrokes and calcium and zinc levels in a lubricant as if it were quantum mechanics! So we wind up with simpleton conclusions on complex matters.

But I've learned there is no way one side will sway the other on this issue, not at this point. Both sides have their armies of scientists and debunkers hard at work. It will rage on, and the money will be spent, and wasted. And some will suffer as a result of those who were wrong. We'll know who's right in about 20 more years. And then history will apply the final labels.

I just happen to think what the solar physicists are saying will trump what climate scientists say when it all shakes out. A well-insulated house ultimately gets just as cold at night if the heater breaks.

So we will agree to disagree, and to poke some gentle jest at each other.

BTW, Where was the picture of all the climate scientists, and their rescuers, trapped in the Antarctic ice in that SA comedy article?


Food for thought. So what do you think is the root cause for these happenings?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/27/world/climate-rising-seas.html?_r=0

Quote:
The government of Kiribati says the intrusion of salt water caused by rising sea levels has contaminated fresh water supplies and crop soil, and President Anote Tong has predicted that his country will become uninhabitable in 30 to 60 years. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, all the residents of Kiribati, along with other low-lying island states such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, could be forced to flee as a result of climate change. “Entire populations could thus become stateless,” the agency wrote.

The remote nation, more than 1,200 miles south of Hawaii and 3,800 miles northeast of Australia, has already purchased 6,000 acres on the neighboring island state of Fiji to protect its food security as the sea encroaches on its arable land — and possibly, in the future, to relocate its residents.
 
I like this site: http://www.skepticalscience.com

You will find a lot of skeptics who come to the site, cherry pick data, and then get schooled by real science.

This is an extract by a scientist having to put someone in their place:

Originally Posted By: Stephen Baines
If you agree global warming is happening across the atmosphere, oceans and cryosphere all together, then you are forced (due to conservation of energy) to presume that the heat balance for the planet is changing. There are only three ways that change can happen: increasing output or radiation from the sun, reduced albedo due to lower atmospheric aerosols, and increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. All other causes of net heating that we know of are trivial.

The warming since 1970 has occured despite no net change in solar output, and maybe a slight decline. There was also fairly frequent volcanic production of aerosols that should have cooled the earth. The only major forcing that changed over this period were greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O). The lack of correlation between warming and the other natural factors that could warm the earth is just as important as the correlation of warming with CO2.

Scientists aren't satisfied with that though. They also found the effect of CO2 on climate is entirely consistent with physics — in fact this knowledge predates the correlation between CO2 and temp. You simply cannot build a physical climate model that reproduces the current warming from variations in solar radiation and volcanic aerosols alone. People have tried.

Scientists then found fingerprints in the stratospheric cooling, spectral profiles of IR emission to space and back to earth, and in relative heating of nights and days that are consistent with hypothesis that the change is due to the greenhouse effect. The warming is also consistent with climate sensitivities estimated from warming events in the historical past, and in the paleo record.

So, to argue against the observed changes being anthropogenic, you are left to somehow argue that CO2 is not human derived. Unfortunately, the human origin of atmospheric CO2 has been proven beyond doubt using multiple lines of evidence well before the IPCC was even formed - in fact that knowledge was one of the reasons the IPCC was formed!

That is the basis of the scientific consensus. You have to realize that sometimes scientific findings align simply because nature is giving us a clear signal, and this is one of the clearest I've seen in my experience as a scientist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Z
My birds are spoiled and get a hot tub....
Replies
3
Views
454
ZZman
Al
Out of Hospital
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
bbhero
sloinker
What are your inherent biases?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Kira
dogememe
Used EV Tax Credit Issues
Replies
10
Views
904
dogememe
C
Mens PSA, Prostate health
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
3K
SammyChevelleTypeS3
Back
Top