Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Hot in Herre

86 posts in this topic

Posted

Well let's just give up on controlling the economy until all that's settled then

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Complex problem is complex. Correlation is hard enough with this science, kinda reminds me of economics. No one thing is the smoking gun but don't tell global warming loons that.....

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

Yes exactly. I work with very complex models on a weekly basis and the amount of variance and uncertainty is astounding. And yet the models I work with are nowhere near as complex as what we are tackling here. The act itself of measuring man's effect on the globe is astronomically difficult. Yet not only have we decided that man is the cause of global warming we have extrapolated the massive and catastrophic damage that is iminent.

 

People just don't seem to get how absurd this is on a basic level especially in the face of a decade of data manipulation, half-truths and botched predictions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

the statement is 97% of climate scientists believe in climate change, according to various scholarly studies.  Do you think this s statement is flawed from a practical stand point?  If so, please explain.  http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus has some info if you were unaware of the facts regarding this statement, which is understandable considering the great lengths the media seems to go to in order to present a "balanced" view that is not supported by the science nor the scientists investigating this.

 

Everyone believes in "climate change" and there are a bunch of these studies that have come up with the 97-98% survey results, where either there is no detail on the questions asked or the questions themselves are meaningless.

 

Here are a bunch of other surveys. Could be equally as meaningless. Who knows.

 

A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.
 
A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. And while 89% believe that global warming is occurring, only 30% said they were very worried.
 
A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”
 
A 2009 report issued by the Polish Academy of Sciences PAN Committee of Geological Sciences, a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentioned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes exactly. I work with very complex models on a weekly basis and the amount of variance and uncertainty is astounding. And yet the models I work with are nowhere near as complex as what we are tackling here. The act itself of measuring man's effect on the globe is astronomically difficult. Yet not only have we decided that man is the cause of global warming we have extrapolated the massive and catastrophic damage that is iminent.

People just don't seem to get how absurd this is on a basic level especially in the face of a decade of data manipulation, half-truths and botched predictions.

How dare you, you flat-earther! ;). Watch out for World's End, it's pretty tricky but don't worry I have plenty of rum.

Yeah it would impossible to separate human impact from non. Variables would have little stability due to the unpredictable nature of nature, humans, and other unforseen changes with the planet.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Holla all the scientists we got up in heah

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A survey of TV weathergirls? Is this a joke?

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Everyone believes in "climate change" and there are a bunch of these studies that have come up with the 97-98% survey results, where either there is no detail on the questions asked or the questions themselves are meaningless.

 

Here are a bunch of other surveys. Could be equally as meaningless. Who knows.

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

 

Have you read the studies in question? Several of them looked for implicit endorsement in publications or written support to the IPCC.  The one study of a survey I know asked the question (and this was following a question on if the scientist thought the planet was warming): Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?  While the Forbes link and others have taken issue with the sample size in this survey, I think it's important to realize it is not he ONLY evidence that climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are responsible for some large part of climate change.

 

Your Forbes link goes on to say we should trust experts in a field - which I agree with, and that's why studies like this one are so important.  I do not really think that meteorologists, for instance, would be familiar with the literature, much as I am not; I wouldn't trust the opinion of 100 ecologists on climate science topics more than I would 100 climate scientists. 

 

The Forbes article was either written before or blatantly ignores the agreement found in more than a dozen scientific associations, foreign and domestic, to provide evidence of skepticism from a group in the Polish Academy of Sciences, except that the very same academy a few years later joined as a signature on a statement expressing concern over implications of climate change on human health and the need to address some of those issues now.  The first line reads: It is widely agreed that human activities are changing Earth’s climate beyond natural climatic fluctuations.

 

I DO think skeptical debate is useful, but for the most part the scientific community studying global warming has moved past the question of if humans are impacting the climate to how are we impacting it and what might be ways to mitigate it at this point in time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

I DO think skeptical debate is useful, but for the most part the scientific community studying global warming has moved past the question of if humans are impacting the climate to how are we impacting it and what might be ways to mitigate it at this point in time. 

 

Agree with this.  I think there is little doubt that Humans are having a negative impact on the environment, the only real question is how much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

...

You are falling for what most people are and that is the conclusion that humans are responsible for the majority of global warming. You are a stats guy so you should know what statistical significance is. It has nothing to do with big numbers. If you ask a bunch of scientists if something is significant it is different that asking a bunch of laypeople if something is significant. It's the same as materiality in my line of work which is often miniscule compared to the overall picture. And beyond natural climatic fluctuations is no different.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You are falling for what most people are and that is the conclusion that humans are responsible for the majority of global warming. You are a stats guy so you should know what statistical significance is. It has nothing to do with big numbers. If you ask a bunch of scientists if something is significant it is different that asking a bunch of laypeople if something is significant. It's the same as materiality in my line of work which is often miniscule compared to the overall picture. And beyond natural climatic fluctuations is no different.

 

Are you familiar with the literature at all?

 

Because you seem to be taking the stance "Well, climate is just too complex so there's no way models could help predict anything at all, these scientists are full of bullshit," and having read several of the papers that examined alternatives to mostly human causes, as well as reading through some of the more popularly cited major papers attributing climate change to humans, I am pretty much in favor of listening to the experts here.

 

edit: To clarify, I wasn't trying to wave my finger at you or something about how much I know - rather, I was curious what your take on the literature itself was, because your statements sounded more like someone that was unfamiliar with it than someone that was - no offense intended - but if you had actually read it I wanted to know what your thoughts on the general body of evidence and what not.  I understand if you don't have time to read into it etc, not many people do... i didn't read as much as I would have liked to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Everyone believes in "climate change" and there are a bunch of these studies that have come up with the 97-98% survey results, where either there is no detail on the questions asked or the questions themselves are meaningless.

 

Here are a bunch of other surveys. Could be equally as meaningless. Who knows.

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

 

Informal surveys may have the problems you stated, scientific papers however do not.  The Cook paper mav linked to earlier is very clear in its definitions and classifies published papers based on their conclusions

 

 

We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. Written criteria were provided to raters for category (table 1) and level of endorsement of AGW (table 2). Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).

 

Then they emailed paper authors to directly ask them to rate their own paper's position on anthropogenic global warming

 

 

We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites