The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

[thesometimesaint]

How can that even be quantified? That is a total assumption and not a very good one. Studies have shown that increase in temp and CO2 yield better and more plentiful crops.

 

CFR

[ERayR]

, it is easy to say what every you want 

 

It certainly is.  On this we agree.

[ERayR]

CFR

 

Try growing tomatoes in the middle of an Idaho winter.  I know it is inane but it summarizes the core of your CFR  so well.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Try growing tomatoes in the middle of an Idaho winter.  I know it is inane but it summarizes the core of your CFR  so well.

 

The weather and climate are not the same thing 

[thesometimesaint]

Try growing tomatoes in the middle of an Idaho winter.  I know it is inane but it summarizes the core of your CFR  so well.

 

Try growing tomatoes in California in the middle of a drought. Right about now we could use some of that winter in Idaho weather. Projected high here today is 91 degrees, and no rain.

[ERayR]

Try growing tomatoes in California in the middle of a drought. Right about now we could use some of that winter in Idaho weather. Projected high here today is 91 degrees, and no rain.

 

Right now the difference between CA and ID is it is colder in ID.

[pogi]

 I respect the scientists like Richard Lindzen that disagree with the consensus

 

Thanks for the referral, I have been reading some of his stuff. 

 

Here are some interesting quotes:

 

As to the science itself, it’s worth noting that all predictions of warming since the onset of the last warming episode of 1978-98—which is the only period that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) attempts to attribute to carbon-dioxide emissions—have greatly exceeded what has been observed. These observations support a much reduced and essentially harmless climate response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

 

World leaders proclaim that climate change is our greatest problem, demonizing carbon dioxide. Yet atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have been vastly higher through most of Earth’s history. Climates both warmer and colder than the present have coexisted with these higher levels.

 

With respect to climate, we have had 17 years without warming; all models show greater tropical warming than has been observed since 1978; and arctic sea ice is suddenly showing surprising growth. And yet, as the discrepancies between models and observations increase, the IPCC insists that its confidence in the model predictions is greater than ever.

 

"I feel that my field is being raped, and someone should do something about it," he says.

 

Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about.  It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.

 

 

In attempting to convince the public to accept the need to for the environmental movement’s agenda, continual reference is made to consensus. This is dishonest not because of the absence of a consensus, but because the consensus concerning such things as the existence of irregular (and small compared to normal regional variability) net warming since about 1850, the existence of climate change (which has occurred over the earths entire existence), the fact that added greenhouse gases should have some impact (though small unless the climate system acts so as to greatly amplify this effect)over the past 60 years with little impact before then, and the fact that greenhouse gases have increased over the past 200 years or so, and that their greenhouse impact is already about 80% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 are all perfectly consistent with there being no serious problem. Even the text of the IPCC Scientific Assessment agrees that catastrophic consequences are highly unlikely, and that connections of warming to extreme weather have not been found. The IPCC iconic statement that there is a high degree of certainty that most of the warming of the past 50 years is due to man’s emissions is, whether true or not, completely consistent with there being no problem. To say that most of a small change is due to man is hardly an argument for the likelihood of large changes.

 

[pogi]

Here is an excellent article from Lindzen in which he highlights this disturbing threat from congressman Raul Grijalva:

 

“Research disputing alarm over the climate should cease lest universities that employ such individuals incur massive inconvenience and expense—and scientists holding such views should not offer testimony to Congress.”

 

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/richard-s-lindzen-the-political-assault-on-climate-skeptics-1425513033

[thesometimesaint]

The entire western US could use a lot more rain/snow.  In Alaska they've had to move the Iditarod.further north because of heat and low snow levels.

http://www.seattletimes.com/life/travel/wheres-the-snow-alaskas-iditarod-has-to-move-north/

Edited March 27, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[pogi]

The entire western US could use a lot more rain/snow.  In Alaska they've had to move the Iditarod.further north because of heat and low snow levels.

 

The entire eastern states could use a lot less snow, while "arctic sea ice is showing surprising growth."

 

You anecdotal scare tactics are misleading and non-scientific.  We have had seasonal variations across the earth from the beginning of time.  Focusing on one or two regions is a myopic perspective. 

[pogi]

His interpretation does not explain why the stratosphere is cooling, but the planet is warming. 

The many sets of data are not assumptions. 

 

Note: Pogi says the oceans are not warming, it is easy to say what every you want 

 

To be fair, I do not take credit for the research that throws doubt on oceanic warming: 

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf

 

To say that "the planet is warming" is indeed an assumption based on incomplete data and models. 

Even "data" is an assumption based on many factors.  For example, the link I have here shows different data.  Data is not always accurate but is always based on certain assumptions. 

Edited March 27, 2015 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

The entire eastern states could use a lot less snow, while "arctic sea ice is showing surprising growth."

 

You anecdotal scare tactics are misleading and non-scientific.  We have had seasonal variations across the earth from the beginning of time.  Focusing on one or two regions is a myopic perspective. 

 

For better or worse the US is not the entire globe. 2014 was the hottest on record with 9 of the last 10 years exceeding the previous years records. .

SEE http://www.livescience.com/49479-2014-earths-hottest-year.html

 

Arctic Sea Ice

SEE http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

Your Pollyanna tactics are mind-blindingly obtuse and disingenuous. The reality is they had to move the Iditarod further north. Further temperatures are warmer world wide in 2014.

SEE  https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrTcdhhnhVVypsAHVQnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBsOXB2YTRjBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw--?p=map+of+warmer+temperatures+2014&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dmap%2Bof%2Bwarmer%2Btemperatures%2B2014%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla&w=438&h=326&imgurl=worldviewofglobalwarming.org%2Fimages15%2FNOAA2014WorldTemperatureMap.jpg&size=110KB&name=NOAA2014WorldTemperatureMap.jpg&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fworldviewofglobalwarming.org%2F&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fworldviewofglobalwarming.org%2F&type=&no=2&tt=118&oid=43f44b8f9cb66550cf75028a8ad45313&***=to+agree+to+reduce+global+warming+pollution+at+contentious+climate+...&sigr=114pmdubo&sigi=125nnu3ev&sign=10v1rff81&sigt=1034t694l&sigb=13biiavo7&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

CFR

Really saint? What is the purpose of a green house? And you darn well know I am right about CO2. We have been over this before.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Try growing tomatoes in California in the middle of a drought. Right about now we could use some of that winter in Idaho weather. Projected high here today is 91 degrees, and no rain.

Drought is a lack of water. If you water your tomatoes they will do better in heat than the cold. I think that is the point.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thanks for the referral, I have been reading some of his stuff. 

 

Here are some interesting quotes:

This sums up my feelings on the matter to a T.

[ERayR]

Drought is a lack of water. If you water your tomatoes they will do better in heat than the cold. I think that is the point.

 

Yes but tss is good at fancy footwork and dodging. 

[pogi]

For better or worse the US is not the entire globe. 2014 was the hottest on record with 9 of the last 10 years exceeding the previous years records. 

 

 

I agree with your first sentence, that was MY point to be fair. 

 

Second sentence is yet another assumption that shows just how gullible we really are.

 

And yet some more great stuff from Lindzen (excellent referral, thanks again!):

 

Lindzen, 74, has issued calm dismissals of warmist apocalypse, reducing his critics to sputtering rage.

 

Last week, government agencies including NASA announced that 2014 was the “hottest year” in “recorded history,” as The New York Times put it in an early edition. Last year has since been demoted by the Times to the hottest “since record-keeping began in 1880.”

 

But that may not be true. Now the same agencies have acknowledged that there’s only a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year on record. And even if it was, it was only by two-100ths of a degree.

 

Lindzen scoffs at the public-sector-generated hysteria, which included one warmist blogger breathlessly writing that the heat record had been “shattered.”

 

“Seventy percent of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.”

 

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/21/mit-climate-scientist-global-warming-believers-a-cult/

Edited March 27, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

Thanks for the referral, I have been reading some of his stuff. 

 

Here are some interesting quotes:

 

Lindzen is a retired atmospheric physicist. I disagree with Lindzen, his views are flawed and he realized that some of his views are wrong. Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees the planet as a whole is getting warmer. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate. However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming. A team of UK climate experts has published a critique of a talk given by Richard Lindzen here 

 

https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange/Public/pdfs/Opinion%20pieces/Critique%20of%20Lindzen%27s%20lecture.pdf

Edited March 27, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

Yes but tss is good at fancy footwork and dodging. 

 

What is causing the drought? While we don't know for sure yet, more and more scientists are arguing Global Warming as the long term cause.

SEE http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24904396/california-drought-whats-causing-it

[TheSkepticChristian]

To say that "the planet is warming" is indeed an assumption based on incomplete data and models. \

 

I disagree See post 523

Edited March 27, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

What is causing the drought? While we don't know for sure yet, more and more scientists are arguing Global Warming as the long term cause.

SEE http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24904396/california-drought-whats-causing-it

 

 

El Nino, El Nina according to many meteorologists. At least in years gone by.

[thesometimesaint]

 

I agree with your first sentence, that was MY point to be fair. 

 

Second sentence is yet another assumption that shows just how gullible we really are.

 

And yet some more great stuff from Lindzen (excellent referral, thanks again!):

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/21/mit-climate-scientist-global-warming-believers-a-cult/

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

To say that "the planet is warming" is indeed an assumption based on incomplete data and models. 

Even "data" is an assumption based on many factors.  For example, the link I have here shows different data.  Data is not always accurate but is always based on certain assumptions. 

 

Your new hero disagrees with you. He agrees the planet as a whole is getting warmer. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate. However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.

 

"Global average surface temperature has very probably warmed by about 0.7°C" - Lindzen  

 

I disagree with Lindzen on many points, but he is much better than John Casey. 

 A team of UK climate experts has published a critique of a talk given by Richard Lindzen here 

https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange/Public/pdfs/Opinion%20pieces/Critique%20of%20Lindzen%27s%20lecture.pdf

[thesometimesaint]

El Nino, El Nina according to many meteorologists. At least in years gone by.

 

What is causing the El Nino, La Nina cycle?

SEE http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html

 

Global Warming and the El Nino, La Niuna cycle

SEE http://phys.org/news/2013-09-global-strength-el-nino.html

 

Of course there is a lot more to learn and futures learning may falsify what we now believe. But this is what the evidence shows so far.

Edited March 27, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[pogi]

Your new hero disagrees with you. He agrees the planet as a whole is getting warmer. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate. However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.

 

"Global average surface temperature has very probably warmed by about 0.7°C" - Lindzen  

 

I disagree with Lindzen on many points, but he is much better than John Casey. 

 A team of UK climate experts has published a critique of a talk given by Richard Lindzen here 

https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange/Public/pdfs/Opinion%20pieces/Critique%20of%20Lindzen%27s%20lecture.pdf

 

I don't think that anybody disagrees that the earth has been warming over the last century+, I have acknowledged that several times throughout this thread.  What I disagree with is the hype that there has been continued warming for the past 17 years or so.  On average, there has been no warming for almost two decades now, and Lindzen agrees with me on that point.  You can claim that it is all going to the deep ocean but that is debatable and even the IPCC is not sold on the idea - that is just one of a couple theories they throw around to explain their failures, yet they claim that their confidence in their models is stronger than ever.  To claim that surface winds are causing the deep ocean to warm up is idiotic to me.  The data suggest to me that temperatures are following normal patterns that are only minimally affected by increased levels of C02. 

 

I also agree that C02 is a green house gas which is rising due to human activity and have acknowledged that several times on this thread.  His theory about tropical cirrus clouds aside (don't know enough about it yet), I have found that Lindzen and I agree that the effects of C02 on global warming is over-exaggerated.  Just from the ice caps chart alone, I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the polar regions are heading for around a 10 degree celsius drop in temperatures.  Climbing C02 levels have not historically affected these natural trends of falling temperatures.  Man caused C02 will only have a minor to moderate effect on this cooling trend in my opinion.  I think that extra blanket will be a welcomed comforter in the next several hundred years. 

Edited March 27, 2015 by pogi