The First Crack in the Iceberg Of Global Warming...

[Redworm]

Not only is extreme cold a possible outcome of a destabilized climate - yknow, polar caps melting and altering the salinity of the oceans which disrupt the ocean currents that help to regulate the planet's temperature - but methods of collection and analysis are FAR better than they were just a couple decades ago.

With the total stored fossil fuels in so many inaccessible places, it's unlikely that we could ever return a sufficient amount of carbon to the atmosphere to create the climate responsible for their initial storage.

¿que?

 

[ZeroJunk]

but methods of collection and analysis are FAR better than they were just a couple decades ago.

As they certainly will be in the future. Why can I see Al Gore pontificating about global warming as he throws a cheeseburger wrapper out the window.

 

[Redworm]

Of course they will, however the vast majority of the data collected and analyzed to date very strongly suggests that future analysis will still point to the same conclusion. Just because technology advances doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion will make a 180. It's far more likely that it'll simply be supported by even more data.


And for the last frakking time, NO ONE GIVES A DAMN ABOUT AL GORE.

Stop throwing his name into the argument as if it in ANY way invalidates the science or adds credence to your own argument. It doesn't.

 

[homefires]

Hoooooooo Raaaaaaaaa! Just the association of his name ,kills any validity.

The Nobel Prize will never carry any weight again!

 

[JaserST4]

It's supported by so much evidence that for it to be wrong would probably alter some of the basic framework of how we understand the planet itself.

Isn't that how it always works? I too was taught about the inevitable global cooling, that was the consensus then. We were also taught, by consensus, that we were quickly running out of fossil fuel. I think that's when the government drones first realized there was a cottage industry to be built and funded with alarmism by consensus, growing like a cancer.

That being said, theoretical physics is a fuzzy field. Comparing that with climatology is a bit silly. At least with climatology effects can be observed, measured, recorded, analyzed. The bulk of Einstein's work on the nature of the universe doesn't go much farther than a blackboard.

I think many would say that physics is more predictable than climate. The laws of physics don't change. I also don't think many physicists would agree that their work has no real world application.
]quote]So yes, the current consensus on climate change is as much a scientific fact as anything in science can be considered a fact.[/quote]That revelation is only given to the true believers among us. My faith must be too weak.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Just because technology advances doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion will make a 180. It's far more likely that it'll simply be supported by even more data.

Yep. That's what they were saying back then about the coming ice age.


Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore...........

 

[Redworm]

The Nobel Prize will never carry any weight again!

You got that right.

 

[JaserST4]

NO ONE GIVES A DAMN ABOUT AL GORE.

Blasphemy! May the anointed one forgive thy trespass.

 

[Redworm]

Yep. That's what they were saying back then about the coming ice age.


Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore...........

Oh they were? Let's see it then.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Here is the first one that comes up on a search.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/newsweeks-1975-article-about-the-coming-ice-age

 

[Redworm]

Isn't that how it always works? I too was taught about the inevitable global cooling, that was the consensus then. We were also taught, by consensus, that we were quickly running out of fossil fuel. I think that's when the government drones first realized there was a cottage industry to be built and funded with alarmism by consensus, growing like a cancer.

For the umpteenth ****ing time: one of the likely results of an unstable climate is rapid cooling, partially due to disruption of the oceanic currents. If you want to keep harping about what you learned in science class and pretend that it doesn't go any deeper than a simple catch phrase, you go right ahead and revel in ignorance. Those of us that are willing to take the time to learn about the world around us and have an interest in figuring out what's going on realize that such arguments are rooted in the grade-school science classes that you seem to be stuck in.

I think many would say that physics is more predictable than climate. The laws of physics don't change. I also don't think many physicists would agree that their work has no real world application.

Theoretical physics is not the same as classical physics. The laws of physics don't change but in theoretical physics sometimes they don't even apply. Quantum mechanics, physical cosmology and a wide variety of other disciplines that rely almost entirely on mathematical models are not as concrete as other, more observable fields.

I didn't say the work of physicists has no real world application. Could you at least try to argue honestly?

That revelation is only given to the true believers among us. My faith must be too weak.

No, I don't think your faith has anything to do with it. If you want such things to be revealed to you then take up the challenge and become a climatologist. Learn the science behind it. Study it for yourself. Come back to me once you've written your dissertation and tell me if you still think it's a conspiracy.

 

[Redworm]

Here is the first one that comes up on a search.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/newsweeks-1975-article-about-the-coming-ice-age

A selection of studies by a handful of researches decades before reliable methods of collection and analysis were available. Compared to dozens of reports published by a multitude of organizations representing hundreds of independent scientists and using satellite data, core samples and modern computing power.

“Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

That was not a consensus. Try again.

 

[ZeroJunk]

RW, I can take out my 1974 vintage textbooks and get a little chuckle. You will eventually do the same.

I am not saying that you are wrong, but would caution you about being so sure that you are right.

 

[ZeroJunk]

A selection of studies by a handful of researches decades before reliable methods of collection and analysis were available

Can you not see that same statement being made by some windbag a few decades in the future?

 

[Redworm]

RW, I can take out my 1974 vintage textbooks and get a little chuckle. You will eventually do the same.

I am not saying that you are wrong, but would caution you about being so sure that you are right.

I would love to see them, actually. A lot of stuff taught back then was erroneous, partly because there wasn't nearly as much standardization over what the states were allowed to teach to young, impressionable mind. Now such things are still not perfect but they're a hell of a lot better under the watchful eye of education researchers and people that actually know the material they're putting into these books.

Again, I'm not claiming anything is ironclad but the overwhelming amount of evidence is pointing to the same conclusion. What you linked to wasn't a report about overwhelming evidence examined by hundreds of scientists around the world in various fields.

Can you not see that same statement being made by some windbag a few decades in the future?

With about the same likelihood that a few decades in the future we'll be told plate tectonics was wrong or that dinosaurs and man walked the earth together.

Sure, it could happen. But is it likely? We'll ask the Vulcans.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

No, claims are not "the exact opposite". For something to be researched thoroughly and then completely redacted a few years later is ridiculously rare. Scientists do not contradict themselves on a constant basis. They are often multiple groups doing the same research and coming to slightly different conclusions; more research is done and the conclusions are usually consolidated.

If you can't see the crap that scientists proclaim and then redact on a constant basis, I won't do any good listing them all in front of you. The eggs was a tiny example of many.

Just because you read an article says a study "suggested" something and then a year later read another article about another study that "suggested" something else does not mean anyone is passing these things off as laws.

I'm not passing them of as laws. I'm telling you that scientists can't make up their mind because there's evidence that contradicts what they claim all the time. It's plain as day that scientists in general can't stake claim of "scientific fact" because there will usually be contradicting evidence.

No, but overwhelming evidence does make something as close to a fact as it can possibly be.

Yep, and that's why you and the scientists that you agree with CANNOT call it a fact that we're in Global Warming. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades....NOT our extremely complex climate prediction...

I suggest you look a little deeper into that because you're misinterpreting the things you've heard. You're reacting to a punchline to a joke, to something that's essentially a watered down urban myth.

I'm willing to bet you were too young when all the wish wash of "suggestive findings" in the '70's and '80's were abound. Otherwise, you'd understand all the garbage that scientists have proclaimed, suggested, or (pick your favorite lawyer term here) have presented. Take the eggs issue again. First, it was a craze to separate the yolk from the white for a much "healthier" meal. Then, it was eat only two a week....then, they're nutritious for you...

Yes they most certainly do. How much of the science have you studied in order to draw that conclusion?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe long enough to see that they can't even draw their own conclusions with a PHD and all. What do I know? I'm just a silly knuckle dragger hillbilly...

I've never said it was black and white but when the evidence is so overwhelming on one side it becomes pretty clear which side to trust.

Like we trusted the scientists back in the '70's when the big next Ice Age was coming? Don't give me "that was thirty years ago" stuff. They thought they had it nailed on their theory just like they think they have it nailed now about GW...

And, based on your graph, it appears that you draw your overwhelming evidence that has happened in the past few years. Everybody elses stats prove otherwise on the GW "fact"...

yknow, polar caps melting and altering the salinity of the oceans which disrupt the ocean currents that help to regulate the planet's temperature - but methods of collection and analysis are FAR better than they were just a couple decades ago.

And I pose two of my questions in one of my very first post that has YET to be answered:

1. Who's to say what climate is normal?
2. Who's to say that slow, steady climate change if acceptable compared to quick change is better? Maybe mother nature intends to have abrupt changes to cycle out certain species or perform its own "population control".

The answer is very easy. I have it. Normal everyday people have it. But, the pro GW scientists probably don't. And they never will due to their tunnel vision and arrogance...

 

[ZeroJunk]

Astrophysics, Population Problems, Human Physiology, Histology come to mind. They weren't necessarily erroneous, just so much more has been learned.

A large part of being an intelligent person is what you know. Perhaps a larger part is being able to separate what you believe from what you know. The older you get the less you know.

 

[Redworm]

If you can't see the crap that scientists proclaim and then redact on a constant basis, I won't do any good listing them all in front of you. The eggs was a tiny example of many.

I don't see it because it doesn't happen on a constant basis. What you think are scientists turning around in their opinions is the process itself; different researches coming to different conclusions based on newer data and refining their knowledge of the issue. That is how science works. Just because you're only seeing the tip of the iceberg and acting like a few newspaper articles that you read frak knows how many years ago are somehow representative of the scientific community doesn't mean your claim has any validity.

So yeah, list them. It's spring break and there's nothing good on tv tonight. The egg thing is not a valid example. It's the punchline to a comedy routine made funny by the fact that most people have never actually looked into it. If you want to actually argue the egg issue then find the reports and read them.

I'm not passing them of as laws. I'm telling you that scientists can't make up their mind because there's evidence that contradicts what they claim all the time. It's plain as day that scientists in general can't stake claim of "scientific fact" because there will usually be contradicting evidence.

I didn't say you were. But you're acting like these articles you're reading that are snippets of published reports or press releases are somehow binding.

No, there won't "usually" be contradicting evidence. Sometimes there will be. Sometimes there will be supporting evidence. Sometimes there will be evidence that slightly alters the conclusion. Sometimes there will be evidence that invalidates everything around it. But it's not "usually" contradictory. Again, it's not that scientists can't make up their minds, it's that the process requires continued research and new evidence can alter conclusions.

But yes, one can make a claim of scientific fact if virtually all of the data examined by a whole gaggle of researches all points to the same damn conclusion.

Yep, and that's why you and the scientists that you agree with CANNOT call it a fact that we're in Global Warming. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades....NOT our extremely complex climate prediction...

Yes, we can. That's how science works. The evidence supporting it is, once again, overwhelming. And it's agreed upon by the majority of the community. The chances of it being completely wrong are infinitesimally small.

I'm willing to bet you were too young when all the wish wash of "suggestive findings" in the '70's and '80's were abound. Otherwise, you'd understand all the garbage that scientists have proclaimed, suggested, or (pick your favorite lawyer term here) have presented. Take the eggs issue again. First, it was a craze to separate the yolk from the white for a much "healthier" meal. Then, it was eat only two a week....then, they're nutritious for you...

"Suggestive findings" are just that. Suggestive findings. They are not a consensus. If you and the rest of the population was duped by news reports then it's your own damn fault, not the nutritionists and biologists that made those findings.

Unless you were actually reading the published reports yourself then you have absolutely no foot to stand on in claiming to know what scientists were and were not saying.

You don't trust the media when they report on guns but you'll trust them to report on food?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe long enough to see that they can't even draw their own conclusions with a PHD and all. What do I know? I'm just a silly knuckle dragger hillbilly...

So in other words, none? I'm sorry but if you don't understand the process of scientific research then nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise unless you make an effort to learn about it yourself.

PhDs are not out there arbitrarily changing their minds. Learn how the process works, understand that research takes time and recognize that what you've read in high school and in the magazines does not direct the actual information or the statements by the scientific community.

Like we trusted the scientists back in the '70's when the big next Ice Age was coming? Don't give me "that was thirty years ago" stuff. They thought they had it nailed on their theory just like they think they have it nailed now about GW...

No, they hadn't.

And, based on your graph, it appears that you draw your overwhelming evidence that has happened in the past few years. Everybody elses stats prove otherwise on the GW "fact"...

Which graph? I've posted a number of them. But more importantly, I have actually read the IPCC report in its entirety. So I have actually made a concerted effort to understand the issue at hand instead of relying on news articles and talking heads to tell me what to think.

And I pose two of my questions in one of my very first post that has YET to be answered:

1. Who's to say what climate is normal?
2. Who's to say that slow, steady climate change if acceptable compared to quick change is better? Maybe mother nature intends to have abrupt changes to cycle out certain species or perform its own "population control".

The answer is very easy. I have it. Normal everyday people have it. But, the pro GW scientists probably don't. And they never will due to their tunnel vision and arrogance...

Coulda sworn I'd gotten to those, maybe I missed them.

1. Depending on how far along the geologic time line you're looking there is really no such thing as "normal" climate. However when localized and compared to various other times we can see that there are long periods of stable climate and that it tends to change at a predictable rate. So while there may not be a "normal" climate for the earth over it's 4.5 billion year history but there is a pretty solid idea as to what the "normal" climate is supposed to be right now.

2. Mother nature cannot "intend" anything. The earth is not intelligent, we have no evidence to the idea that it has any sort of consciousness in order for it to have "intention" of anything at all.

We know full well that rapid, unstable climate is bad for biodiversity and it's especially bad for human civilization. Who's to say? US. We, as a species, know that sea level rise puts the lives of millions at risk. We, as a species, know that massive die-offs in niches could result in entire sections of food chains falling apart.

Now if these changes were shown as completely natural, this would be a different argument. Then I'd agree that we don't really have a right to alter the course of the earth's climate, that we should adapt to it rather than try to mess with it. But they're not shown as completely natural. The changes are compared to our pollution and they match up. The natural forces that dictate climate change have been taken into account and shown to not have enough impact by themselves to be causing the current changes.

So you can go on thinking that you and everyday people have an answer to something this complex but it won't make you right.

 

[Redworm]

Astrophysics, Population Problems, Human Physiology, Histology come to mind. They weren't necessarily erroneous, just so much more has been learned.

A large part of being an intelligent person is what you know. Perhaps a larger part is being able to separate what you believe from what you know. The older you get the less you know.

Exactly. And the more we learn about this the better.

But we can't simply sit back and shrug our shoulders until generations hundreds of years in the future are able to say they know everything that could possibly be known about the Earth's climate. Right now the science points in one direction. Virtually all of the science in astrophysics point to the same conclusions about black holes and quasars. Virtually all of the science in human physiology point to the same conclusion about Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Virtually all of the science in biology points to the same conclusion about evolution. Virtually all of the science in geology points to the same conclusion about plate tectonics.

And in that same vein, virtually all of the science in climatology points to the same conclusion about climate change.

 

[73 Jock]

NO ONE GIVES A DAMN ABOUT AL GORE.

Stop throwing his name into the argument as if it in ANY way invalidates the science or adds credence to your own argument. It doesn't.

Hoooooooo Raaaaaaaaa! Just the association of his name ,kills any validity.

The Nobel Prize will never carry any weight again!

The disciples of the religion of Global Warning would prefer that we don't think about Al Gore. They don't want us to consider that Al Gore's mis-information campaign casts "inconvenient" charges of bias against their loftly claims of pure science, as represented by the Nobel Foundation.

It is important to note that Gore did not win a science prize. The Nobel Foundation awards science prizes in four fields: Physics, Chemistry, Medicine and Economics. While Gore presents his work as science, his Nobel Prize was awarded in the field of Peace.

from NobelPrize.org:
In addition to humanitarian efforts and peace movements, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded for work in a wide range of fields including advocacy of human rights, mediation of international conflicts, and arms control.

and Gore's prize was specifically for:

"...their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

They didn't award him a science prize because they knew the science was unsupportable. "Efforts to build up and disseminate geater knowledge" is a euphemism for "pursue our political agenda" and even that scarcely meets their own Peace requirements described above.

Gore turned out to be an inconvenient embarrassment to science by exposing their political agenda.