He thought his beliefs about global warming were based on science. Science proved him wrong |310|

Status
Not open for further replies.
I gotta ask... Is anyone paying you to be here? You seem to exhibit many symptoms of a paid government disinfo agent... But maybe I'm just a little paranoid. :)
"symptoms" ??? Gosh thanks for that. How kind.
Yeah, that'd be paranoia and/or a vivid imagination. :)

Then again, if I was, I wouldn't being admitting to it, now would I? So unfortunately there is nothing I can say or do that can help you resolve your own paranoia, if that is what it is. Sorry about that.

Meanwhile I'm simply offering ~15 years of distilled personal research and knowledge I have gained about this topic that includes not just the science, or environmentalists and listening to all the naysayers/denialists be they scientists or bloggers but looking at where each side is coming from while learning about psychology, cognitive science, about beliefs and rhetoric, the media and all that jazz. I also know how multinational corporations work from the inside with some good experience and expertise in management, marketing and business finance etc.

And I am quite ok with people thinking (or saying) I am full of it and am deluded or don't have a clue. That's fine by me. I'm not going to argue about it. It's just not worth it. People believe and think and imagine whatever they are going to. All I am offering is a few handy tips that have worked for me over the years. Try those out or ignore them, it really doesn't matter to me, because I don't care one way or the other. I have nothing to prove here and have nothing to sell. At any moment I'll just shut up and will move along without a second thought.

The predominant groupies can then have at it and lol. No biggy. Cheers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To them, global temperatures have remained essentially static for at least the past several thousand years.

Them? Climate scientists do not say that nor imply it, nor believe it. This is called creating a strawman argument. Making false claims that X said this when they have never ever said it, and then accusing them for being wrong about arguments they have never made. It's logical fallacy:101 iow.

Tell that to the National Science Foundation, one of the major players in the US Government's climate research funding:

Weather changes all the time. The average pattern of weather, called climate, usually stays the same for centuries if it is undisturbed. However, Earth is not being left alone. People are taking actions that can change Earth and its climate in significant ways. Carbon dioxide is the main culprit.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/overviews/earth-environ/earth_q01.jsp

So much for an even-handed, unbiased approach to climate change attribution. It makes you wonder if they think the Little Ice Age was caused by humans too.

As for the reasonable possibility that natural variability plays more than a very minor role, how about these paragraphs from the Government's US Global Research Program:

Evidence from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans, collected by scientists and engineers from around the world, tells an unambiguous story: the planet is warming, and over the last half century, this warming has been driven primarily by human activity—predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.
http://www.globalchange.gov/climate-change

Multiple lines of independent evidence confirm that human activities are the primary cause of the global warming of the past 50 years. The burning of coal, oil, and gas, and clearing of forests have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than 40% since the industrial revolution, and methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture and other human activities add to the atmospheric burden of heat-trapping gases.

Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a background of natural variations in climate, change is not uniform over time: short-term fluctuations in the long-term upward trend are natural and expected. Nonetheless, global temperatures are still on the rise and are expected to rise further. Climate change will accelerate significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase.
http://www.globalchange.gov/climate-change/whats-happening-why

It's no wonder responsible and dedicated researches who dare to challenge government group-think have to turn to private organizations for funding. A really appalling state of affairs
.

Doug
 
Last edited:
Tell that to the National Science Foundation, one of the major players in the US Government's climate research funding:

Weather changes all the time. The average pattern of weather, called climate, usually stays the same for centuries if it is undisturbed. However, Earth is not being left alone. People are taking actions that can change Earth and its climate in significant ways. Carbon dioxide is the main culprit.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/overviews/earth-environ/earth_q01.jsp

So much for an even-handed, unbiased approach to climate change attribution.

How about these paragraphs from the Government's US Global Research Program:

Evidence from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans, collected by scientists and engineers from around the world, tells an unambiguous story: the planet is warming, and over the last half century, this warming has been driven primarily by human activity—predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.
http://www.globalchange.gov/climate-change

Multiple lines of independent evidence confirm that human activities are the primary cause of the global warming of the past 50 years. The burning of coal, oil, and gas, and clearing of forests have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than 40% since the industrial revolution, and methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture and other human activities add to the atmospheric burden of heat-trapping gases.

Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a background of natural variations in climate, change is not uniform over time: short-term fluctuations in the long-term upward trend are natural and expected. Nonetheless, global temperatures are still on the rise and are expected to rise further. Climate change will accelerate significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase.
http://www.globalchange.gov/climate-change/whats-happening-why

It's no wonder responsible and dedicated researches who dare to challenge government group-think have to turn to private organizations for funding. A really disgusting situation.

Doug
Seriously, words matter.

You say: Climate scientists say global temperatures have remained essentially static for at least the past several thousand years.

and to prove this you then quote the NFS who says: The average pattern of weather, called climate, usually stays the same for centuries if it is undisturbed.

Are you serious? Do you not see what you have done here? Totally different subject matter and over two different time frames. Like hello? If this is the best you can do, really, I suggest you give it up now.

"Multiple lines of independent evidence confirm that human activities are the primary cause of the global warming of the past 50 years."
and
"Climate change will accelerate significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase."

Yes that's right. They do say that. It's true too. It's called physics. So?

Saying the "main culprit" does not mean the ONLY culprit or more than all the other causes combined.

Saying "predominantly" does not mean ONLY or more than all the other causes combined either.

Words matter. Getting the semantics right should be step one in trying to understand what other people, academic papers, and institutions really mean.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for the clarifications, Diogenes. I was aware of the complications with both graphs.

If you knew they were wrong I think it would have been better not to post them.

There is a lot more literature on this subject. As well as the unquestionable errors, there are more subtle problems with the work you are quoting. Regarding the GISP2 papers, there is the question of how representative measurements at this particular site are. Other workers have concluded that they are not representative, in terms of the global average temperature.

This is quite a technical subject, and obviously the modelling of future developments is even more so. To be honest I doubt whether there is much usefulness in online discussions like this among lay-people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Out of interest, what about the theory that global warming is caused by solar activity while CO2 increases are secondary? Has it been disproved?
In solving problems involving multiple variables with secondary and tertiary vectors for manifestation there is a tried and true overview. Long-term prediction is of minimal accuracy (see chaos theory). That said - the case for pollution from human industrial activity causing short-term environmental issues is supported with exceptionally strong data.

Carbon dioxide isn't even the worst actor in trapping solar radiation.

Methane (CH4) is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted in the United States from human activities. In 2013, CH4 accounted for about 10% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Methane is emitted by natural sources such as wetlands, as well as human activities such as leakage from natural gas systems and the raising of livestock. Natural processes in soil and chemical reactions in the atmosphere help remove CH4 from the atmosphere. Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is more than 25 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.

Globally, over 60% of total CH4 emissions come from human activities. - EPA

Even if the idea that long-term weather changes aren't really happening is true - gaining command and control of industrial pollution is worth every dollar spent by human culture. We are making a difference in reducing methane.
 
Last edited:

Okay, sorry for accusing you of being an "agent". But you must understand how you come across in this thread... You play the victim, love to appeal to your own authority/experience/disinterested objectivity, malign the opposition or describe them with pejoratives, love to appeal to other authorities, post a lot links and instead of digging into the actual controversies over the data (which I would be interested to dig into) you again appeal to authority, talk a lot while saying little. Make emotionally charged statements designed to evoke an emotional response, ignore and side-step legitimate arguments, employ rhetorical tactics then feign ignorance of them (i.e. the Hitler reference).

I know you wanted to sidestep the hitler issue Hurmanetar, but that is not about hitler himself .. it's all about how dumb and stupid and gullible people are when manipulative button pushing rhetoric/sophistry is used. Nothing has changed in human nature since the 1930s imo. The issue wasn't that hitler was some kind of genius and powerful figure. The issue that people who listened to what he said and believed it were just idiots. But the biggest idiots were those in the military who also listened to him and obeyed him and did what they were told as he destroyed all of Europe in the process. The history of Hitler is a good example to use regarding BS and Sophistry because at least 99% of the planet now realise he was talking shit and full of shit.

I didn't side step the issue. I think it was obvious that you were being very hypocritical to use the rhetorical tactic of associating "deniers" with a super-villain in the same paragraph that you decried rhetorical tactics. I've employed some rhetorical tactics against you, but more in the spirit of fighting fire with fire, I suppose. Your argument about the gullibility of the public applies all around. People buy into CAGW/CCC because they trust their authorities as you continue to encourage them to do. If you were a German in the 1930's it is highly likely would have been a Hitler supporter - he did a lot for Germany in a few short years. And let's remember that back then the "science" was settled on eugenics. Hitler learned a lot from the Americans where 33 states forcibly sterilized people.

When presented with the militant tyrannical rhetoric of the climate change Marxists who want to arrest and prosecute scientists for offering a dissenting opinion, you ignore and then assert that it is deniers who are on the tyrannical side of things. If you are not aware of what you are doing here and how you are doing it, then you are basically a fundamentalist apologist for a religion with an incurious outlook on some highly relevant information to this debate, and it would benefit you to expand your horizons a little.

You seem completely immune to the idea that there is a globalist elite with agendas to expand and centralize power and significantly reduce the population despite the quotes and evidence presented earlier which you claim is cherry-picking. It's not cherry-picking. The globalist elite are not shy about their goals and talk about them all the time. Just one example, Obama's science adviser, John P. Holdren co-authored the book, Ecoscience in which radical population control measures were proposed such as forced abortion and putting sterilizing chemicals in the food and water supply. In your mind, there is no power hungry psychopathic global elite; there are only individual disunited corporations interested only in expanding profits. This is a failure to understand human nature and the history of power struggles on spaceship earth.
 
Just thought y'all might be interested ... Oil industry knew of 'serious' climate concerns more than 45 years ago

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/13/climate-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

The oil industry’s knowledge of dangerous climate change stretches back to the 1960s, with unearthed documents showing that it was warned of “serious worldwide environmental changes” more than 45 years ago.

The Stanford Research Institute
presented a report to the American Petroleum Institute (API) in 1968 that warned the release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels could carry an array of harmful consequences for the planet.

The emergence of this stark advice follows a series of revelations that the fossil fuel industry was aware of climate change for decades, only to publicly deny its scientific basis.

“Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000 and these could bring about climatic change,” the 1968 Stanford report, found and republished by the
Center for International Environmental Law, states. “If the Earth’s temperature increases significantly, a number of events might be expected to occur including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels, warming of the oceans and an increase in photosynthesis."

And here we bloody well are.
 
Just thought y'all might be interested ... Oil industry knew of 'serious' climate concerns more than 45 years ago

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/13/climate-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

The oil industry’s knowledge of dangerous climate change stretches back to the 1960s, with unearthed documents showing that it was warned of “serious worldwide environmental changes” more than 45 years ago.

The Stanford Research Institute
presented a report to the American Petroleum Institute (API) in 1968 that warned the release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels could carry an array of harmful consequences for the planet.

The emergence of this stark advice follows a series of revelations that the fossil fuel industry was aware of climate change for decades, only to publicly deny its scientific basis.

“Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000 and these could bring about climatic change,” the 1968 Stanford report, found and republished by the
Center for International Environmental Law, states. “If the Earth’s temperature increases significantly, a number of events might be expected to occur including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels, warming of the oceans and an increase in photosynthesis."

And here we bloody well are.

Here we bloody well are in 2016. Have we seen "significant" change?

How many degrees has the earth warmed since 1968 and how high has the sea risen? What is the 95% CI bracket on that number? How have data collection methods changed over the last 50 years and how has the data been "adjusted"?
 
That's false. It is.
No, it isn't.

That's false.
Nope. True.

That's false.
No, it's not.

Every climate scientist knows that already and have done for at least 100+ years.
I should hope so. In any case, I wasn't claiming climate scientists didn't know that...in fact, I hadn't mentioned climate scientists at all.

But you've brought them into it, so let's see...

You're saying climate scientists know the sun is the primary driver of climate, and have known that for 100+ years. So why are they futzing around with secondary, minute effects from atmospheric trace gases? A tiny fraction of a percent change in solar luminance would have far more drastic consequences on climate than any possible greenhousing or other atmospheric(and thus secondary, at most) conditions. The difference is so great, they should never have begun really looking at terrestrial mechanisms until they had a firm grasp on the solar ones....a grasp which they most decidedly don't have. Claim "that's false" all you want, but it is true. Solar science is all observation, no pontification...because we don't know enough about it to pontificate with credibility, yet.
So, having almost no understanding of Solar cycles and "solar climate" as it were, it makes absolutely no difference if "every climate scientist has known for 100+ years" that the Sun is the primary driver of climate, or if every climate scientist was actually completely unaware of the existence of such a thing as the Sun--either way, it wouldn't go into their precious models.
Which means they've been trying to model a dynamic system without taking into account the primary source of energy for that system.

So yeah. That's not gonna work. Extrapolating from such models is about as scientific and reliable as faith-healing, except that faith-healing actually works, sometimes.

All in all, it's actually worse, not better, that "every climate scientist has known for 100+ years" that the Sun is the primary driver. That means they are knowingly pushing garbage data.

Not most but many. Variations in many other known things of the past including the Sun and solar system astronomy easily explain almost all shifts in the past climates quite well. Science builds upon itself - errors and misunderstandings are culled as new data and knowledge comes to hand. That is the case for modern AGW/CC as well as for major shifts in paleoclimate of the past. Yes, oddly enough to some, the scientists involved in modern climate science know about all this accumulated knowledge and include it in their own research and literature where appropriate. They also read other scientific papers and speak with each other outside their particular field. And they know all about the Sun and it's influence on earth's climate.
Again, it is one thing to know about the influence, and another thing entirely to have the knowledge and understanding necessary to model that influence precisely enough such that accurate(repeat, accurate) predictions can be made.

What is happening today is unprecedented. The current drivers of AGW/CC since 1850 are not the same as they were in the past. However, the laws of physics and chemistry have not changed one bit.
...and mankind's grasp on those laws changes by the day. Fortunately for you, the implications of that can be successfully unrealized. What fun!

I'm disappointed that you entirely ignored my closing paragraph. Disappointed, but not surprised.

Oh well. You said "the current drivers of AGW/CC since 1850 are not the same as they were in the past."
That statement is hilariously incorrect in my opinion, as well as being actually impossible to determine given the current state of understanding of climate.
Even so, let's take it as given, a hypothetical. Are the older, permanent, longterm historical drivers not still there, underneath this new massive anthro-influence? Of course they are.
Let's then say you get to implement all the measures and controls you people want to implement in order to "stop climate change". Let's further assume that these measures and controls actually work as advertised(a huge stretch on the ol' credulity-meter, I know, but bear with me), such that eventually mankind has little to no influence on the climate whatsoever. That means mankind also has little to no energy output and/or ability to shape his surroundings.

That also means, those old, longtimer drivers of Climate are back in charge. So climate continues to change. Eventually, it becomes catastrophic, like it has so many times in the past. Mankind has no ability to do anything about it, having hobbled himself in order to protect the climate from being destroyed.
So the climate, and mankind, are destroyed. Win!! High-fives all around.


Its sort of like fleeing to the rear car in a runaway train, hunkering down, and cowering there. You put the most possible distance between yourself and the inevitable crash, but you'll still be in the crash and will most likely perish.
Perhaps a better strategy would be to run to the front of the train and attempt to get control of it.
 
So why are they futzing around with secondary, minute effects from atmospheric trace gases?
I suggest you read the literature (eg https://scholar.google.com.au/ ) which answers your question and explains it adnauseum.
Or go to a genuine science based website and read their explainers/FAQs and ask questions about what is confusing to you. eg http://www.realclimate.org/
Or go on Youtube and watch lectures by climate scientists that talk about the multitude of aspects to the science and what they have learned and the many specifics that they still need to more research and data collection done.
Or go to the IPCC and read all the Summary Reports, and read up on specific Scientists being quoted and see their more recent published papers. eg start here http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml until you get to the end of the AR5 Report.
Or look into doing a free online course. They are chock full of good information and assist the public in understanding the scientific process, the history of the science and the planet, plus how to think clearer about the topic eg Prof Richard Alley's Penn State course on "Energy, the Environment, and Our Future" https://www.coursera.org/course/energy
Good luck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[QUOTE="Stephen Wright]
Even if the idea that long-term weather changes aren't really happening is true - gaining command and control of industrial pollution is worth every dollar spent by human culture. We are making a difference in reducing methane. [/QUOTE]

This is precisely the logic I have a problem with. Control of industrial pollution is a worthy goal, but not because of the weather, but because of its multiple other effects on the environment - purity of water and air, its effects on food and so on. If pollution is the target - the efforts must be focused on that, not a proxy based on a shaky foundation which may have reducing pollution as the side-effect.
 
Last edited:
Out of interest, what about the theory that global warming is caused by solar activity while CO2 increases are secondary? Has it been disproved?
In the modern era? Yes. It is not the Sun causing the current warming anomaly.
 
I suggest you read the literature (eg https://scholar.google.com.au/ ) which answers your question and explains it adnauseum.
Or go to a genuine science based website and read their explainers/FAQs and ask questions about what is confusing to you.
Or go on Youtube and watch lectures by climate scientists that talk about the multitude of various aspects to the science and what they have learned and the many specifics that they still need to more research and data collection done.
Or go to the IPCC and read all the Summary Reports, and read up on specific Scientists being quoted. eg start here http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml until you get to the end of the AR5 Report.
Or look into doing a free online course. They are chock full of good information and assist the public in understanding the scientific process, the history of the science and the planet, plus how to think clearer about the topic eg Prof Richard Alley's Penn State course on "Energy, the Environment, and Our Future" https://www.coursera.org/course/energy
Good luck.

Can you provide 2 or 3 peer reviewed papers that would be good for us to examine? I'm sure they're out there, but I haven't been involved in this debate for 15 years like you, so I need a good starting place. The IPCC reports are marketing. Not a good starting place. I don't see why this is an unreasonable request. If someone asked me why I am a proponent of psi, I could provide many peer reviewed papers.

The papers and graphs Doug linked to provided substance for real investigation and debate. I learned something new about ice core temperatures.

You keep going back to the IPCC marketing material, but it requires that we trust the selected participants and the process. It provides vague information that is not suitable for a skeptically minded person to make an informed decision.

Not cherry picking, I went to the IPCC report link you provided and looked at sea level rise. It states that the scientists who were polled say it is "highly likely" the sea level has risen over the last hundred years "despite numerous problems of globally coherent secular changes in sea level based on tidal measurement."

How much has it been changing? They think maybe 1-2 mm per year. Do you realize how difficult it must be to tease out a 1-2 mm/year value from tidal measurements? What is the CI? They don't say. What is the cause? "...The uncertainties are very large..."

Why should I bother reading any more of this non-scientific rubbish? Give me a few peer reviewed studies that you think make a good case for AGW/CC so that I can review and make my own decision rather than leaving that to "the experts".
 
We are making a difference in reducing methane.
Yes. Re the Ref: "Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2),"
That is correct. The ghg warming effect of methane (CH4) is much higher than most other gasses including CO2. However when the methane breaks down over several years/decades depending on variables, the #1 thing left over is CO2 which still lasts a few thousand years in the atmosphere. On top of that is the CH4 natural gas being burned for energy, the same thing happens, it makes long lasting CO2.

This brings in the subject of "tipping points" and frozen methane that persists in soils and in the seas which is likely to be released en-mass if temps air and oceans rise over the + 2C avg marker. Some scientists, especially a few in Russia, see this as a very serious short term threat, while other/most scientists think that is overblown or not yet based on sufficient hard data and solid science analysis. The arguments abound and can have been quite pointed at times.

What the scientists do not know for sure is exactly when a number of tipping points could be reached and then what the aggravated effects (positive feedbacks) could be upon the climate after that, such as a massive nth hemisphere release of methane from the soil and underwater in the arctic zone. Then there are events like volcanoes or lava flows that are unpredictable or a Sun that either suddenly heats up or cools slightly unexpectedly. What they seem to know with some certainty mathematically is the sustained increasing CO2 and other ghg levels in the atmosphere and their direct effect on ongoing warming over time. It's known that a % of all those GHGs is from human activity and that human activity is the only thing under human control. Everything else is in the laps of the gods and the laws of Physics and Chemistry and Time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Give me a few peer reviewed studies that you think make a good case for AGW/CC so that I can review and make my own decision rather than leaving that to "the experts".

This seems such an odd way of going about things. If you have the expertise to pass judgment on whether the majority of climate scientists are right or wrong about global warming, why would you need to ask an anonymous poster on an Internet discussion board to tell you what papers to look at? Surely finding the papers to look at is the easy bit?
 
I suggest you read the literature<snip>
Or go to a genuine science based website<snip>
Or go on Youtube and watch lectures by climate scientists<snip>
Or go to the IPCC<snip><snip><snipperoo>
Good luck.
Wow. Look at all the advice! Thanks!!

I feel compelled to respond in kind. My advice to you is, look up the definition of a rhetorical question.

They are great literary and conversational devices. However, I'd caution against using them when engaged in discourse with the.... err....mentally ossified...as they sometimes take them literally.

In any case, I await with baited breath your responses to the remainder of my previous post!
 
Not cherry picking, I went to the IPCC report link you provided and looked at sea level rise. --- "...The uncertainties are very large..."
Good points there. Let me explain why I think the FAR (First Assessment Report) of 1990 is useful today. The science, conclusions and musings there are totally out of date now. But look at your take-way quote where it stated clearly "The uncertainties are very large." Now that is not what the "denier" side of the debate claim that the IPCC reports have said - across the blogosphere all number of assertions going back to these early IPCC reports in 1990s claiming the IPCC reports said the opposite, or asserted definitive "projections and predictions" of what would be happening in 2010 or 2015. Fact is the IPCC reports do not say what so many claim they did.

Now knowing this or even a small part of it is, imo, really valuable because it should at least encourage people to start questioning all the Strawman arguments and disinformation and distortions that have been put up by "denier activists" and "Pro-agw/cc activists" that are totally wrong and very manipulative of the avg lay person .... who usually only wants to know what is true, what is false and what is unknown at this point.

The majority of people who have lack respect for the IPCC (and/or don't understand what the summaries are intended to provide) have issues, imo and experience, because they have been manipulated by untruths for 2 decades now. I can't prove this to you, you have to see it and work it out for yourself imo. Why believe me? I don't have the time or energy to point out every single false claim ever made about the IPCC reports. There are many websites that do this well. Skeptical science and realclimate do a good job, but it's not easy to do. The "try line" keeps moving, the science output keeps changing, the mode of criticisms keeps changing. Things that were logically with facts debunked a decade ago keep being rebirthed like Zombies in the the next new blog site or website or by some political ideological activist.

But by reading the IPCC reports, and I mean skimming them is usually enough - SKIP those parts that are incomprehensible to you personally, just move on - each individual will see some things they didn't know before and it will help them better understand a whole lot of things about the IPCC and the agw/cc topic, what the scientists have really said, how often uncertainties and unknowns have been spoken about openly and clearly. By taking one topic of interest, eg sea level rise in the IPCC reports, and then looking at that issue in each of the 5 reports over time you will see for yourself how that has unfolded over 25 years in the level of understanding of scientists, the complexities of it, the difficulties, and how their conclusions and "predictions and projections" have changed over time, and WHY.

That is not to say that I or anyone is telling people they should believe these IPCC reports as gospel, because they are not. But you should at least notice the repeated comments in them that tell the reader to NOT believe what is in them as 100% perfect or certain - ever! A reader can then also see where these reports openly say where their thinking and conclusions have changed and why. The IPCC reports are also helpful because they have been written for "lay people" ie policy makers/politicians, and they are not that smart overall, right? :)

They have glossaries as well as all the basic concepts and they are very consistent in how they speak about things unlike out there in cyberspace. That's a good grounding to get the gist of the lingo or semantics of agw/cc and the scientific jargon. Without that no one can really comprehend it if you really wish to know about it to make up your own mind for yourself. It just takes time. It's critical to know what the IPCC reports mean when or if they use the words such as - forecast, projection or prediction - where they apply and when they don't and where they do NOT even use such words in the first place - but thousands of websites will tell you they have, when they did not.

Once one has such a basic grounding then you can go look deeper into published papers and compare what is said in them vs how the IPCC summarizes that info from multiple papers. And you can also go to a site like realclimate and read what some climate scientists say about xyz IPCC report, where they disagree with it and why, what new research must be done or what is coming soon. One can then read their rejections of the hyperbole and false claims made by non-scientists and the outlier scientists and where they disagree and why. There is always raging debates going on in all of the agw/cc fields, of how to improve their outputs and be more accurate, and yet that doesn't mean there isn't a core consensus among the majority - and most of those would probably agree it's the #1 issue confronting humanity in the long term through this century. A large segment (not all & maybe not even most?) then also think that the time for action is now because if nothing changes asap then in a few decades it will not matter what humanity does in regard ghg in the atmosphere and the other human drivers of agw.

Again, I am saying to read the IPCC reports. I am not saying to mindlessly believe everything they say. They are still cherry-picked summaries of selected published papers - the real credible data and science is to be found in those papers - various papers are rejected for inclusion for many valid reasons at the time - it doesn't mean they were "wrong" or "flawed" nor banished for not being in agreement with the "consensus". See https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.shtml

Can you provide 2 or 3 peer reviewed papers that would be good for us to examine?
Not really. I have read a few hundred and wouldn't know where to start. Starting at the IPCC reports is good because you can chase down the references in there on topics you are interested in. My approach was not to look at everything. Long ago I selected 3 key fields: Arctic sea ice, Reefs ecosystems and Energy Use v GHGs - I focused on those and skimmed the rest. Later I became interested in GenIV nuclear and solar/wind energy, the psychology/social sciences and public communication etc. where I had a look for myself and then dropped it once I understood what was going on. I'm leaving it to the experts in each field to progress their own special interests.

Some papers cost fees to read in full, others are free. Usually the older papers can be found elsewhere online - search for the title and first noted author - or use the digital code eg "doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00106.1" in the Article Citation. Why not start at the Fyfe paper I referenced a few pages back? about the "hiatus/pause" and go from there - follow your own nose and instincts time permitting, and don't be in a hurry. :)
See the right column on www.realclimate.org for historical info eg http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/on-mismatches-between-models-and-observations/ Again, simply read it, you don't have to believe it.
or http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/
or http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378013001477
or http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/386437/18523516/1338570204210/comparisoneffects.png?token=F+On3hVqFywnIrEld5EZ1lS6wzM= :)

Or some deeper stuff eg " As a Professor of Organisational Studies at The University of Sydney Business School, [...] I have led a major research project into business responses to climate change. This has included issues of corporate environmentalism and corporate citizenship as political myths, justification and compromise in corporate responses to the climate crisis, and the role of identity and emotion in managerial reactions to climate change."
Crisis or Catastrophe? https://climatepeopleorg.wordpress.com/2013/07/13/were-fcked-conceptualising-catastrophe/

In my year 12 I did a full year Geography Project on this https://books.google.com.au/books/a...ace_of_the_E.html?id=jcJBykEDQkYC&redir_esc=y I got an 'A'.
or http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6435.1956.tb00463.x/abstract and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1957.59.6.02a00150/pdf

Something makes no sense to me in cutting down the Amazonian jungles in order to grow chickpeas to ship to the UK and Europe to raise chickens. It's what I call senseless idiocy. There's a lot of that about today, imo. So, nothing has changed since the 50s or 70s, not before nor since.

My personal take away message from looking at agw/cc science and society in general is that the most likely first obvious catastrophic impact of agw/cc will be mass starvation events on a rolling global scale as broad acre farming fails and the fish stocks continue to collapse - I think this will occur long before temperatures get uncomfortable or the sea-level rises.

Who knows? But I can confidently predict one thing will occur one way or another (irrespective of the correctness of agw/cc science) in the next couple of decades - change - and lots of it. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top