World's top physicist and "climate change"

[MongGrel]

Personally, I do believe the worlds population is out of control.

The only way it is being maintained at the moment is advanced farming, the oceans are being depleted.

Underdeveloped countries kill people on a regular basis non stop, developed countries have college graduates working at McDonalds.

I won't be alive long enough to worry about it much I guess.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

By all means post some peer reviewed studies that show climate change is not only not happening but also a hoax (or either one by itself). Or are you expecting us to prove a negative?

You are right though, science does change, it's just that it doesn't change on whim, changes are based on predictions that are tested to be either true or false. It's why the climate change model is continuously being updated, but the underlying agreement remains the same. We know what's happening, we just can't accurately predict it. Considering what affects the climate an how those effects are variable, I think it's pretty reasonable to understand how no perfect climate change model has been created yet.

It's settled or STFU. We are wrong a lot but you can't question us. And this is a reasonable position.

 

[ivwshane]

It's settled or STFU. We are wrong a lot but you can't question us. And this is a reasonable position.

That would be a straw man, would you like to try again?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

That would be a straw man, would you like to try again?

That's not what a straw man is. I didn't make this up to attack it. People are literally pulling the "consensus" and "science is settled" cards. Literally. What place does this have in science? How does this follow the scientific method? How is this even science?

 

[ivwshane]

That's not what a straw man is. People are literally pulling the "consensus" and "science is settled" cards. Literally.

It's certainly not a position I've held or one I used in the quote of me that you used. So unless you were quoting me by accident, you did indeed use a straw man.

You asked another poster to respond to the OP using logic and reasoning and you pointed out his use of a logical fallacy. I then pointed out your use of a logical fallacy and now I'm asking you to respond in the same manner you requested

Science is rarely settled but that doesn't mean we can ignore the science that has been done, especially if that science has been peer reviewed and verified by other scientist who are using the scientific method.

So, do you have peer reviewed studies that show climate change isn't happening and/or is a hoax? What about peer reviewed studies that show man has zero effect on the climate?

 

[mikeymikec]

Obozo

It would be nice to get the word filter enabled on this forum, but just for terms like this (quoted)... and variations on "Micr0$h4ft".

 

[fskimospy]

That's not what a straw man is. I didn't make this up to attack it. People are literally pulling the "consensus" and "science is settled" cards. Literally. What place does this have in science? How does this follow the scientific method? How is this even science?

How is this not part of science? It's used in basically every scientific study that exists. Much like with evolution, the evidence for man forced climate change through CO2 emissions is so overwhelming that when conducting further research, it is generally taken as a given in order to save time and focus on new areas of inquiry that aren't as well understood. That's what the science being 'settled' means.

It in no way means people are somehow prohibited from disproving that link, but until someone does there's not much point in discussing it further.

Climate change deniers are a lot more like creationists than they want to think. They view people accepting overwhelming evidence as some sort of closed minded dogmatism when it's just sensible people who have no interest in constantly re-proving the obvious to cater to someone else's ideology.

 

[Greenman]

How is this not part of science? It's used in basically every scientific study that exists. Much like with evolution, the evidence for man forced climate change through CO2 emissions is so overwhelming that when conducting further research, it is generally taken as a given in order to save time and focus on new areas of inquiry that aren't as well understood. That's what the science being 'settled' means.

It in no way means people are somehow prohibited from disproving that link, but until someone does there's not much point in discussing it further.

Climate change deniers are a lot more like creationists than they want to think. They view people accepting overwhelming evidence as some sort of closed minded dogmatism when it's just sensible people who have no interest in constantly re-proving the obvious to cater to someone else's ideology.

Or it could be that some people are suspicious of questionable data gathering methods and altered historical records. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical of a science that's manipulated to achieve the desired result.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

UAH satellite data with more robust calculation method along with correction for orbital decay (diurnal drift adjustment).

 

[dank69]

You are a glutton for punishment aren't you? You are attempting to have a conversation with a turnip.

My advice? He's a lost cause.

Fixed

 

[Newell Steamer]

And, if we were to find a physicist who said climate change DOES exists, the opposition would say; "That's not a climatologist - his/her opinion does not matter."

 

[shira]

Meanwhile, back at the laboratory, Japan's climate agency is reporting that September 2015 was the warmest September on record, 0.15 degrees C above #2 September 2014.

The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in September 2015 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.50°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.82°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.63°C per century.

Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)

1st. 2015 (+0.50°C), 2nd. 2014 (+0.35°C), 3rd. 2013 (+0.26°C), 4th. 2012 (+0.25°C), 5th. 2009, 2005 (+0.22°C)

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And, if we were to find a physicist who said climate change DOES exists, the opposition would say; "That's not a climatologist - his/her opinion does not matter."

Some believe that we know enough about the fundamental drivers of climate change (such as aerosols, clouds, and ocean-atmosphere coupling) in order to "scientifically" justify apocalyptic predictions...and some don't believe this is the case. Contentious issue is contentious issue. It essentially all boils down to just how much bullshit an extremist is willing to believe.

 

[thraashman]

And, if we were to find a physicist who said climate change DOES exists, the opposition would say; "That's not a climatologist - his/her opinion does not matter."

The amusing thing is that this physicist actually DOES believe climate change exists and that it is largely man made.

From one of his writings.

One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.

 

[cbrunny]

Did not know that Dyson was worlds top physicist. Going to buy vacuum now.

 

[fskimospy]

Contentious issue is contentious issue. It essentially all boils down to just how much bullshit an extremist is willing to believe.

That's the funny thing though, it's not actually a scientifically contentious issue. It's a POLITICALLY contentious issue, which unfortunately means people stop listening to science when it tells them things they don't want to hear.

It does boil down to how much bullshit deniers are willing to believe though. If you have any ideas on how to crack the wall of denial I'm really open to hearing them, as science has sadly failed pretty miserably on that front.

 

[Jaskalas]

The argument presented is "Climate models failed".
They haven't... if we look at surface station data.

The real argument should be which temperature record should be trusted?
Because if the surface station data is allowed to stand, then we have a real problem.

 

[squirrel dog]

I'm going with the old timer with the killer belt .

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's the funny thing though, it's not actually a scientifically contentious issue. It's a POLITICALLY contentious issue, which unfortunately means people stop listening to science when it tells them things they don't want to hear.

It does boil down to how much bullshit deniers are willing to believe though. If you have any ideas on how to crack the wall of denial I'm really open to hearing them, as science has sadly failed pretty miserably on that front.

The door swings both ways my friend.

 

[K7SN]

And, if we were to find a physicist who said climate change DOES exists, the opposition would say; "That's not a climatologist - his/her opinion does not matter."

Climate change does exist; it has existed since the earth cooled enough to have a climate. If you wish to argue there is no such thing as climate change then explain the Pleistocene, the Cambrian period and generally Geochronology of the earth is a long running example of climate change.

The Cambrian world differed greatly from that of the present, but it was also quite different from the preceding Proterozoic Eon (2.5 billion to 541 million years ago) in terms of climate, geography, and life. Average global temperatures during much of the Neoproterozoic Era (1 billion to 541 million years ago) were cooler (around 12 °C [54 °F]) than the average global temperatures (around 14 °C [57 °F]) of the present day, whereas the global temperature of Cambrian times averaged 22 °C (72 °F). Low temperatures during the Neoproterozoic helped to sustain a series of worldwide events known as the Sturtian (748 to 713 million years ago), Marinoan (650 to 600 million years ago), and Gaskiers (595 to 565 million years ago) glaciations. Climate studies suggest that Cambrian temperatures were the norm for most of the Phanerozoic Eon (the last 541 million years), and these were exceeded only by a brief increase during the Permian Period near the end of the Paleozoic Era. Cooler periods, similar to the average global temperature of the present day, occurred during the end of the Ordovician, Late Carboniferous, Early Permian, Late Jurassic, and Early Cretaceous periods, as well as near the end of the Oligocene Epoch."

Our current temperature world wide is around 14 to 15 degrees Celsius and is variations of that temperature are still within current chaotic state of the post-Pleistocene earth.

The point is that the levels of carbon dioxide is increasing a little but the earths natural response to increased carbon dioxide is increased vegetation growth and in geologic time the banking of carbon due to increased hydrocarbon clutter (downed trees, prairies, bogs, etc.) has kept us in this chaotic state for almost 12 millenniums, the previous chaotic state or the Pleistocene had more dramatic swings with ice flows (glaciers) over most of Canada and much of the northern parts of the lower 48 states. These periods of glaciation waxed and waned over a period of 1.8 million years; that was a different chaotic state.

The real question is do we have enough data and knowledge to know if even understand the current chaotic state and are we in danger of a paradigmatic switch to another chaotic state.

Raising the average temperature of the earth's exterior by 5 degrees Celsius would put us into a new chaotic state but would it be warming or cooling state. The Elephant in the corner is the engine in this chaotic state involves warm equatorial waters heading toward the north pole and warming Europe, North America, northern Asia and southern equatorial currents warming the southern hemisphere land masses except Antarctica which is surrounded by a circle of currents much like Indians around a wagon train. The earth's response is to stop the currents flowing, make much of Europe and Canada colder and well "Global Cooling"

My humble opinion (Yes I don't text) is that man is pushing the limits of our current chaotic state and we will have marginal changes (more storms, more cold and more heat) in different areas of the world as we melt banked water overland (who cares about the artic ocean, it is floating) and reduce the total area of land (Goodbye Bangladesh) and man will retreat from the rising waters and put more stress on the existing land.

At sometime we may (not will) break out of our current chaotic state and something dramatic might (not will) occur which in the new state might be global cooling, global warming or global rapid fluctuations without a discernible trend.

To paraphrase some Native Americans traditions man should live today with an eye to the future of the 7th generation (say 140 years) and we are not doing that on earth today. We are prodding the climate change bear.

 

[Subyman]

YES! Charts in the thread!

I think he's not all wrong. There certainly are "alarmists" that take away from the legitimate research. That doesn't mean there isn't a very real issue though. I've seen propaganda from both sides. He goes overboard with his dismissal of actual research though.

IMO, I believe there are too many scientists giving an "opinion" on the matter while very few actually dive into the technical details and create weather models, collect samples, and do the leg work. This can create an echo chamber where 1000 people cite the same paper and instantly new research becomes gospel. I don't see this as much in other fields, but climate change is red-hot right now so it is natural.

 

[K7SN]

The argument presented is "Climate models failed".
They haven't... if we look at surface station data.

The real argument should be which temperature record should be trusted?
Because if the surface station data is allowed to stand, then we have a real problem.

Less than a degree - evidence suggests that a wider variation in global temperatures has occurred in the last 11,700 years and a graph of the last thousand years (And we do have data for weather in places going back 2,000 years) there would be no discernible trend.

I'm sure those of you that have an opinion that is resident to examining all the facts won't be convinced that the sky isn't falling; fortunately there are those who look at all the possibilities, not just those in vogue.

 

[fskimospy]

The door swings both ways my friend.

That's a movie.

LOOK OUT, THE ALIEN INVASION ALARMISTS ARE COMING:

 

[Indus]

Well about every post I've seen from you since I've been here is BS, so what the hell I guess.

You can't even make a burrito right.

You're being too nice man. He doesn't have enough IQ to make PBJ sandiwch right.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's a movie.

Meanwhile some folks want global warming "deniers" to be put on trial for treason (Robert Kennedy, Jr.) and for crimes against humanity (Hansen). There is no denying that this continuous stream of "believer" FUD is having an impact well beyond apocalyptic movies.