SURVEY: Manmade Global Climate Change -- Fact or Fiction?

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

Give the alarmists time, it will change to that when their current BS continues to be shown as falsehoods.

Wrong again. In fact, just the opposite is the case:

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative

 

Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. 

This conservative bias, say some scientists, could have significant political implications, as reports from the group – the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – influence policy and planning decisions worldwide, from national governments down to local town councils.

As the latest round of United Nations climate talks in Doha wrap up this week, climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/

[Becker]

Why is this poll closed for new votes? I would like to vote for the alternative based on science and against simple mindedness.

[Monomial]

How about including an option of:

 

I really have absolutely no idea if the current climate change is primarily the result of anthropogenic factors or not, but the greenhouse effect is simple physics, and dumping tons of greenhouses gasses into an already unstable climate is damned stupid no matter what is primarily responsible for the shift.

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Monomial said:

How about including an option of:

 

I really have absolutely no idea if the current climate change is primarily the result of anthropogenic factors or not, but the greenhouse effect is simple physics, and dumping tons of greenhouses gasses into an already unstable climate is damned stupid no matter what is primarily responsible for the shift.

 

It's also acidifying or de-alkalizing the oceans.  Which is really bad for any multicellular organisms that have shells which means that it's pretty much terrible either directly or indirectly for about 99 percent of multicellular organisms.

[zappalot]

It is beyond the imagination of the deniers that something they can not see can have an impact on something like the climate. It is simply a law of physics. 

 

NEVER before in the at least 800.000 years CO2 exploded to levels where it is now (400 ppm). It is not 10 or 20% higher then the average of the last million years it is hundreds % higher. Just facts, my dear deniers...

[ThaiWai]

There are I believe 12 manmade vehicles (give or take) on Mars and Mars is also "warming".  Are you telling me that 12 electric vehicles (mostly dead) on Mars changed the climate there? Exactly.

[zappalot]

15 minutes ago, ThaiWai said:

There are I believe 12 manmade vehicles (give or take) on Mars and Mars is also "warming".  Are you telling me that 12 electric vehicles (mostly dead) on Mars changed the climate there? Exactly.

So one single scientist (Abdussamatov) believes the sun is the cause. Such a luck for you and even more luck you could find one...

 

Actually this is what science says to your posted claim (it is just a myth):

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642-climate-myths-mars-and-pluto-are-warming-too/

Edited July 30, 2017 by zappalot

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, ThaiWai said:

There are I believe 12 manmade vehicles (give or take) on Mars and Mars is also "warming".  Are you telling me that 12 electric vehicles (mostly dead) on Mars changed the climate there? Exactly.

First off, the evidence for long term warming on Mars is extremely weak. Basically it's based on 2 photos, one taken in 1977 and the other in 1999.  The earlier one showed Mars with a higher albedo (reflectivity) than the 1999 photo. The higher the albedo, the cooler the planet. This thing is, Mars climate is largely driven by dust and wind.  The first photo was taken shortly after a big dust storm. So that increased the albedo. The second one was taken in a more usual time, after winds had swept the dust away.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm

In addition, climate scientists don't deny that the cycles of the sun have an effect on climate. Before the mid 1970s the pattern was quite clear. But after that, some other big effect began to emerge which obscured the effects of the solar cycles. That big thing was anthropogenic global warming.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/

[zappalot]

30 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

climate scientists don't deny that the cycles of the sun have an effect on climate. 

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/

 

Your claim is misleading - warming caused by the cycles of the sun could be recognized only in the stratosphere in heights exceeding in average at least 12 km, at the equator even 20 km...

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

17 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

I do think I will follow the opinion of 97% of the world's scientists.

The world's climate scientists, who want to keep the funding coming in...

Taxation and funding is behind this and nobody has the kahunas to talk about the population explosion.

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

The world's climate scientists, who want to keep the funding coming in...

Taxation and funding is behind this and nobody has the kahunas to talk about the population explosion.

 

The people who don't have the kahunas to talk about population growth are overwhelmingly come from the right wing. It's not the democrats who are proposing to defund Planned Parenthood or threatening to cut off funding from all family planning groups overseas who have any connection to abortion at all.

[pegman]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The people who don't have the kahunas to talk about population growth are overwhelmingly come from the right wing. It's not the democrats who are proposing to defund Planned Parenthood or threatening to cut off funding from all family planning groups overseas who have any connection to abortion at all.

They have faith so no need for rational thought. You would have better success trying to convince a chipmunk. 

[chrissables]

18 hours ago, Ulic said:

Those who do not believe in man made global warming must also believe

that pollution of the worlds oceans with plastic is also a hoax. After all they

are simply too big and can certainly take everything we dump in it. Just look

at the air pollution in Beijing, India, Indonesia, if you think we cant affect the

atmosphere.  

I disagree, pollution of the water can be seen, as of the air too. But to what degree if any it is causing global warming is a valid question. 

 

What also helps the skeptics cause is idiots like Al Gore making films and pushing them factual documentaries, they are not.

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, chrissables said:

I disagree, pollution of the water can be seen, as of the air too. But to what degree if any it is causing global warming is a valid question. 

 

What also helps the skeptics cause is idiots like Al Gore making films and pushing them factual documentaries, they are not.

As I noted above, the tendency of official bodies that address the question of global warming is, if anything too conservative. So yes there is a question of how fast it's progressing but not that it's happening. In addition the acidification of the oceans is not a subject that is open to legitimate questions.

And as is far too usually the case, instead of presenting data, you offer insults instead.

[chrissables]

10 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

As I noted above, the tendency of official bodies that address the question of global warming is, if anything too conservative. So yes there is a question of how fast it's progressing but not that it's happening. In addition the acidification of the oceans is not a subject that is open to legitimate questions.

And as is far too usually the case, instead of presenting data, you offer insults instead.

Insults, Gore i presume you mean? 

 

He lied / distorted the truth, he deserves being insulted.

 

Had he lies become fact , the rise in sea level for example, Pattaya's beach road would be under water. 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

[pegman]

10 hours ago, Becker said:

Why is this poll closed for new votes? I would like to vote for the alternative based on science and against simple mindedness.

The site is getting maintenance so that could be the reason

[zappalot]

2 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

The world's climate scientists, who want to keep the funding coming in...

Taxation and funding is behind this and nobody has the kahunas to talk about the population explosion.

 

So what you are saying is that scientists find the results the politicians want to hear, right?

 

Then, after Trump was voted in, cutting funding for science: do the scientists reverse their findings? Not a single one.

 

Maybe I was just not able to find it: is there any proof for your statement? Anywhere any evidence?  I never have seen sth. substantial from deniers... 

[ilostmypassword]

26 minutes ago, chrissables said:

Insults, Gore i presume you mean? 

 

He lied / distorted the truth, he deserves being insulted.

 

Had he lies become fact , the rise in sea level for example, Pattaya's beach road would be under water. 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

In that case,  a person who writes this:

"I disagree, pollution of the water can be seen, as of the air too. But to what degree if any it is causing global warming is a valid question. "

which flies in the face of scientific consensus, also deserves being insulted. Yet somehow I manage to refrain from doing so.

And i noticed that you didn't even address the issue of ocean acidification.

 

Also, the person who ruled on the validity of Gore's claims was a high court judge, not a climate scientist.

[Ahab]

This little tidbit from one of the IPCC's own reports, it is in the part with the science so no one reads it (described in the last paragraph of Section 14.2.2.2 in Chapter 14 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report). The report states: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

 

In other words, the IPCC report authors believe that forecasting long-term trends in climate is impossible. Why hasn't Al Gore ever highlighted this particular point.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

This little tidbit from one of the IPCC's own reports, it is in the part with the science so no one reads it (described in the last paragraph of Section 14.2.2.2 in Chapter 14 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report). The report states: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

 

In other words, the IPCC report authors believe that forecasting long-term trends in climate is impossible. Why hasn't Al Gore ever highlighted this particular point.

And I guess you just took this quote on faith without examining the context. Here's what follows:

"The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system�s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis."http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/index.php?idp=505

 

In other words, no specific outcome can be predicted. There is a range of outcomes based on probability. This is how science works on complex models. And as it has been shown, the predictions so far of the IPCC have been consistently too conservative about the effects of anthropogenic global warming.

 

[Ahab]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

And I guess you just took this quote on faith without examining the context. Here's what follows:

"The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system�s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis."http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/index.php?idp=505

 

In other words, no specific outcome can be predicted. There is a range of outcomes based on probability. This is how science works on complex models. And as it has been shown, the predictions so far of the IPCC have been consistently too conservative about the effects of anthropogenic global warming.

 

Predictions based on modeling of complex systems, with many unknown variables will never be "science". Science needs experimentation and observations to be validated, and a computer model (no matter how high tech) will never be a substitute for this.  It is a only guess based on the best available guess on what the input parameters should be, and how much affect each input parameter has over temperature, and this will never be accurate to 0.01 degrees a century from now, no matter how powerful a supercomputer is used. The theory is that CO2 has increased and this increase will/has caused temperature changes. The problem that I have is that CO2 levels continue to rise but temperatures have not risen a corresponding amount in the last twenty years or so.  Observations I can buy, computer models spitting out results for 50 or 100 years from now.... not so much.

[chrissables]

55 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

In that case,  a person who writes this:

"I disagree, pollution of the water can be seen, as of the air too. But to what degree if any it is causing global warming is a valid question. "

which flies in the face of scientific consensus, also deserves being insulted. Yet somehow I manage to refrain from doing so.

And i noticed that you didn't even address the issue of ocean acidification.

 

Also, the person who ruled on the validity of Gore's claims was a high court judge, not a climate scientist.

Al Gore is not a scientist, both him and the high court judge would have been given advice, i wonder who advised Gore?

 

The fact is sea levels did not rise.

 

I am not a scientist, i have agreed the air and the seas are noticeably polluted. If the like of Gore and in fact any government spokesman would stop the scare tactics, (Gore) especially, people would pay far more attention to the issues. Also taxing us will not stop anything, just build resentment. 

[ThaiWai]

10 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

"In addition, climate scientists don't deny that the cycles of the sun have an effect on climate."

Good enough for me, thanks for agreeing.

[ThaiWai]

11 hours ago, zappalot said:

So one single scientist (Abdussamatov) believes the sun is the cause. Such a luck for you and even more luck you could find one...

 

Actually this is what science says to your posted claim (it is just a myth):

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642-climate-myths-mars-and-pluto-are-warming-too/

You tomayto I say tomahto

 

 

[bert bloggs]

Of course the Fact that Al Gore was a lying money making toad did not help the global warming fanatics .

[ThaiWai]

1 hour ago, chrissables said:

Al Gore is not a scientist, both him and the high court judge would have been given advice, i wonder who advised Gore?

 

The fact is sea levels did not rise.

 

I am not a scientist, i have agreed the air and the seas are noticeably polluted. If the like of Gore and in fact any government spokesman would stop the scare tactics, (Gore) especially, people would pay far more attention to the issues. Also taxing us will not stop anything, just build resentment. 

Al Gore is however a BILLIONAIRE who gets rich off global warming.  Wonder why he supports the theory so strongly??

Edited July 31, 2017 by ThaiWai

[Si Thea01]

14 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Wrong again. In fact, just the opposite is the case:

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative

 

Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. 

This conservative bias, say some scientists, could have significant political implications, as reports from the group – the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – influence policy and planning decisions worldwide, from national governments down to local town councils.

As the latest round of United Nations climate talks in Doha wrap up this week, climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/

For goodness sake, give me a break with the alarmist rubbish.  You happen to have your religion (Global warming beliefs) I have my opinion and never the twain shall meet.  So please, do not quote any more clap trap or lecture me on the rubbish you want to proffer.

 

And please note . I believe in Climate Change, it has been occurring for billions of years and over the past few thousand years and we're still all here despite all the doomsday soothsayers and their unpredictable predictions.  So if you believe, good on you but I don't  and do not want to get into a free for all over it. 

[ilostmypassword]

18 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

For goodness sake, give me a break with the alarmist rubbish.  You happen to have your religion (Global warming beliefs) I have my opinion and never the twain shall meet.  So please, do not quote any more clap trap or lecture me on the rubbish you want to proffer.

 

And please note . I believe in Climate Change, it has been occurring for billions of years and over the past few thousand years and we're still all here despite all the doomsday soothsayers and their unpredictable predictions.  So if you believe, good on you but I don't  and do not want to get into a free for all over it. 

This venue is called a forum. It's purpose is to allow an open exchange of views and criticisms of them. If you don't want to be contradicted, don't post in the first place. And no, I place my trust in science, not religion. If anyone has a religion here it's you, who cleaves to a belief unsupported by science.. 

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

And I guess you just took this quote on faith without examining the context. Here's what follows:

"The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system�s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis."http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/index.php?idp=505

 

In other words, no specific outcome can be predicted. There is a range of outcomes based on probability. This is how science works on complex models. And as it has been shown, the predictions so far of the IPCC have been consistently too conservative about the effects of anthropogenic global warming.

 

Absolutely!

 

pointless discussing statistics, theories and chaotic systems here. Pure maths background is a prerequisite 

 

The point is, if something is in unstable equilibrium, don't kick it!

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

 

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theory

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution

 

Just a standard deviation! I'm a sic sigma!

Edited July 31, 2017 by Grouse

[zappalot]

2 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

For goodness sake, give me a break with the alarmist rubbish.  You happen to have your religion (Global warming beliefs) I have my opinion and never the twain shall meet.  So please, do not quote any more clap trap or lecture me on the rubbish you want to proffer.

 

And please note . I believe in Climate Change, it has been occurring for billions of years and over the past few thousand years and we're still all here despite all the doomsday soothsayers and their unpredictable predictions.  So if you believe, good on you but I don't  and do not want to get into a free for all over it. 

It all has been occurring for billions of years and over the past few thousand years.

 

Right.

 

Yet people with open eyes see a difference here...