0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
the majority of scientists – although by no means all – working in the field of climate science kind of agree - leading to the unequivocal conclusions in the recent IPCC report
Fortunately there is very little science in climate "science", so the world continues to enjoy the benefits we toilers at the bench and observers of nature bring to it.
Anthropogenic global warming is widely recognised as the third world religion, with more believers and less evidence than Buddhism. Unfortunately like its big brothers Christianity and Islam, politicians use it to justify decisions that would otherwise rank somewhere between stupid and evil, and a lot of crooks make money out of it.
The fundamental flaw in the AGW argument is threefold. First, there is no meaningful definition of "mean global temperature", the very parameter that believers try to predict. Second, there are no useful measurements of anything that might be related to it before 1970, and even recent data is subject to "corrections". Third, the only reliable historical proxy, ice core data, clearly shows that carbon dioxide concentration lags behind atmospheric temperature so cannot be the causative factor. No amount of modelling or consensus can override the truth.
Quotethe majority of scientists although by no means all working in the field of climate science kind of agree - leading to the unequivocal conclusions in the recent IPCC reportScience is about facts, not consensus. The overwhelming consensus was in favour of a geocentric universe, a flat earth, four elements, indivisible atoms, phlogiston, aether, and the impossibility of manned flight (let alone lunar exploration). As for "what can be done about it?" the consensus in 1955 was that the UK would need "about five computers" to solve all the government's problems. Credible science will eventually kill AGW, not the other way around. A few months ago a Canadian group announced the growth of some plants that had been buried under a glacier for 500 years. The scientifically interesting point is not that the glacier is now retreating, but that it was a lot warmer 500 years ago (i.e. well within recorded history) when the CO2 level was presumably a lot less, in order for the plants to be there at all. That's science.
the majority of scientists although by no means all working in the field of climate science kind of agree - leading to the unequivocal conclusions in the recent IPCC report
there are plenty of long standing temperature time series that are well understood which can be used, although these are not global, merely indicative
even though there was evidence for global warming, temperatures had not risen as much as expected.It made me wonder if there could be a tipping point. Or if there is any process involved with global warming that compensates or acts like a buffer, so to speak, minimizing temperature change but only to a point and then might abruptly fail?
[Is there] any process involved with global warming that compensates or acts like a buffer?
Perhaps it is part of a natural downward trend of the temperatures as part of a 30 or 60 year cycle. However, if the temperatures don't actually drop, but rather stay steady, then the next upswing may be significant. Temperatures may in fact rise in a stepwise fashion.
Obviously the data 100+ years old is of marginal quality, but it is the best that we have.
I wonder if the topic title is being looked at the wrong way round...Climate science is clearly a relatively young science, but for an area of science that sets out to model such complex systems I'd argue it is doing remarkably well.Since this topic is about damage to the perception of science (can I assume as perceived by the public and not by other scientists), this isn't really a discussion that belongs in environmental science but rather a general discussion point.So, turning the question around, should we wonder if climate science is just the latest of many areas of scientific enquiry through its history that have fallen foul of general public mistrust or misconception of science and the scientific method?
Has this changed the way people see scientists or the findings that are published?
The recent stall in warming has been attributed to more heat going into the oceans, and that may well be the case
I think the suggestion that the laws of physics have suddenly changed
QuoteThe recent stall in warming has been attributed to more heat going into the oceans, and that may well be the caseI think the suggestion that the laws of physics have suddenly changed, which is what this statement amounts to, is either a profound insight that most of us have missed, or an indication of arrogance and ignorance coming to the defence of a dead dogma.
The recent slowing in atmospheric warming has happened at a time when there have been an increased number of La Niña events in which cold ocean currents reach the surface which don't normally do so
Looking at the El Niño/La Niña graphs for the last few years,There were several strong El Niño events during the 80's and 90's when the temperatures were rapidly increasing. Since 2000, it has indeed trended a bit more towards ENSO neutral sea surface temperatures, but that seems to contrast more with the heavily positive period earlier. And, several of the years in the last decade have been weakly ENSO positive.
Another measurement of sea temperatures is the sea surface height, which is largely based on thermal expansion. Most graphs seem to indicate a similar rate of rise in sea levels before 2000 and after 2000.
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGINIt looks like they changed the normalization curves by about 0.4° to 0.6°C over the lat 80 years, although the 81 to 2010 is slightly lower than the 76 to 2005 lines.So much of our climate is based on longer cycles that it is hard to get a good snapshot of what is happening in a few decades.The best way is to evaluate forward predictions, but we are changing our world so quickly that it is hard to wait to see if the predictions actually pan out.
but the links lead to blank pages and error messages. It looks as if you can get their data on a CD,
For some reason, O3 is produced in high altitudes when it would otherwise be too dense of a gas to make it out of the lower troposphere.
there are endless things we don't know, yet some claim to be able to work them out with mathematics that is beyond 99.9% of the worlds population.. and how do we agree it is proof?
I would like to redirect this conversation back to the topic of peer reviews.. These are a significant part of the scientific process, and with the events around the university of east anglia, how can we keep believing everything to be true that the only argument for is 'We all agree', the speed of light, the existance of gluons, photons, dark matter, the motion of the galaxies..
Most of the people who believe......would be only too happy to believe the opposite if that belief could be sustained.
Chinese manufacturing industry.
Carbon credit traders.
Governments that impose passenger taxes and fuel levies.
Research councils that give taxpayers' money to fund climate research and nuclear fusion.
..... Oh the list goes on!
QuoteMost of the people who believe......would be only too happy to believe the opposite if that belief could be sustained. Substitute "original sin" for "climate change" and you have the basis for a very profitable religion! The trick is to present an untestable hypothesis as fact, then sell the snake oil.
The Irish air travel tax is three euros (£2.50) per passenger, per flight, but will be abolished from April 2014.Ryanair said the abolition helped to "restore Ireland's competitiveness". The tax was introduced at Irish airports almost five years ago. The airline said that that during that period, "traffic at the main Irish airports had declined from 30.5m passengers in 2008 to 23.5m in 2012".