TheSkepticChristian Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 CFR that Zakuska spends hours as described above. Put up the references for you claim or retract. If you don't I will report. See page 34 of the PDF http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751602000866
Zakuska Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 Zakuska spends hours online trying to find anything that contradicts the consensus. He just sits there with the hopes of disproving important scientific theories. Among those respondents with climate expertise who have published their climate research, Zakuska own survey found that 93 percent agreed that humans have contributed significantly to global warming over the past 150 years (78 percent said it's mostly human-caused, 10 percent said it's equally caused by humans and natural processes, and 5 percent said the precise degree of human causation is unclear, but that humans have contributed. Even his original 52% claim is still high enough for us to take Global Warming seriously. 93% of published experts is not the same thing as "93% of scientists." It excludes a whole swath of Scientists and scews the perceived meaning.
TheSkepticChristian Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) 93% of published experts is not the same thing as "93% of scientists." It excludes a whole swath of Scientists and scews the perceived meaning. and I am interested to learn climate science from the climate experts, not from other types of scientists like computer scientists. I am only interested in the climate researchers doing real scientific research about climate change. Edited October 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
ERayR Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 that is your big assumption. The past tells us about the consequence of rapid climate change. No assumption on my part. Computer models are constructed to test a hypothesis given a set of assumptions (variables). If one wants to change the output change the variables (assumptions). So no it is not my assumption that what comes out of a computer model depends on the assumptions plugged into the model. It is what really happens. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 No assumption on my part. Computer models are constructed to test a hypothesis given a set of assumptions (variables). If one wants to change the output change the variables (assumptions). So no it is not my assumption that what comes out of a computer model depends on the assumptions plugged into the model. It is what really happens. The evidence doesn't come from computer models, ask the climate researchers.
jkwilliams Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) 93% of published experts is not the same thing as "93% of scientists." It excludes a whole swath of Scientists and scews the perceived meaning. Given that the AMS includes TV and radio weather personalities and requires only a bachelor's degree, publication in the field is a good indicator of who should be considered a scientist. Edited October 16, 2015 by jkwilliams
ERayR Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 See page 34 of the PDF http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751602000866 That has nothing to do with the time Zakuska spends online looking things up. I want you to show me that Zakuska really does spend hours looking for climate change contradictions.
Zakuska Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 and I am interested to learn climate science from the climate experts, not from other types of scientists like computer scientists. I am only interested in the climate researchers doing real scientific research about climate change. Did you miss this from the conclusion? Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence. The two groups least likely to be convinced of this were the nonpublishing climate scientists and nonpublishing meteorologists/ atmospheric scientists, at 65% and 59%, respectively. In the middle were the two groups of publishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists at 79% and 78%, respectively.
Zakuska Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) The evidence doesn't come from computer models, ask the climate researchers. I did ask the "climate researchers": Climate Change Computer Models Under Attackfrom the Washington Post (Registration Required)... The computer models used to predict climate change are far more sophisticated than the ones that forecast the weather, elections or sporting results. They are multilayered programs in which scientists try to replicate the physics behind things such as rainfall, ocean currents and the melting of sea ice. Then, they try to estimate how emissions from smokestacks and auto tailpipes might alter those patterns in the future, as the effects of warmer temperatures echo through these complex and interrelated systems.To check these programs' accuracy, scientists plug in data from previous years to see if the model's predictions match what really happened. But these models still have the same caveat as other computer-generated futures. They are man-made, so their results are shaped by human judgment.This year, critics have harped on that fact, attacking models of climate change that have been used to illustrate what will happen if the United States and other countries do nothing to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Climate scientists have responded that their models are imperfect, but still provide invaluable glimpses of change to come.<snip>Climate scientists admit that some models overestimated how much the Earth would warm in the past decade. But they say this might just be natural variation in weather, not a disproof of their methods.http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/climate-change-computer-models-under-attack Edited October 16, 2015 by Zakuska
ERayR Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 The evidence doesn't come from computer models, ask the climate researchers. Again you show your lack of understanding. Computer models are what is used to forecast trends. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) Did you miss this from the conclusion? meteorologists are not necessarily climate scientists, but 78% is still high enough. 78% said it was mostly human, but the other 15% said that humans significantly contribute.So that means that 93% of the relevant AMS believes that humans significantly contribute. 93 percent agreed that humans have contributed significantly to global warming over the past 150 years (78 percent said it's mostly human-caused, 10 percent said it's equally caused by humans and natural processes, and 5 percent said the precise degree of human causation is unclear, but that humans have contributed Again you show your lack of understanding. Computer models are what is used to forecast trends. not necessarily. Edited October 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
ERayR Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 The evidence doesn't come from computer models, ask the climate researchers. No computer models? What are they doing using voodoo rituals casting bones?
thesometimesaint Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 The deniers are free to publish in any publication they want. The paucity of articles in publications like Nature, and Science should tell you something. Or are you trying to convince others of the Grand Conspiracy Theories of Evil Liberal Scientists Trying to Take Over the World?
ERayR Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 CFR that Zakuska spends hours as described above. Put up the references for you claim or retract. If you don't I will report. I am still waiting for my CFR. I'll tell you what I think it is painfully obvious that you were exaggerating I will withdraw my request and let you off.
ERayR Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) The deniers are free to publish in any publication they want. The paucity of articles in publications like Nature, and Science should tell you something. Or are you trying to convince others of the Grand Conspiracy Theories of Evil Liberal Scientists Trying to Take Over the World? Nope something much worse. A bunch of well intentioned fools. Edited October 16, 2015 by ERayR 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) I am still waiting for my CFR. I'll tell you what I think it is painfully obvious that you were exaggerating I will withdraw my request and let you off. I don't know if I am exaggerating, let's ask him. I really don't care what he and you think about me. No computer models? What are they doing using voodoo rituals casting bones? climate scientists study the past to learn about the future. No need for computer models. Edited October 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
ERayR Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) climate scientists study the past to learn about the future. No need for computer models. You really have no idea how climate scientist work do you? Edited October 16, 2015 by ERayR
ERayR Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 I don't know if I am exaggerating, let's ask him. I really don't care what he and you think about me. And you really don't know if you are exaggerating about the rest either. I do not waste time thinking about you. It is your ideas that I think about. I am sure that were I to agree with everything you say we could get on famously.
Zakuska Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) You really have no idea how climate scientist work do you? Apparently he's in denial like so many others... Scientists say they don't need models to know that the world is warming: There is plenty of real-world evidence, gathered since the mid-1800s, to suggest that. "There's no climate model in that conclusion," said Christopher Field, of the Carnegie Institution for Science in California. There are more than a dozen such models running around the world: mega-computers whose job is creating a virtual Earth.These usually combine a weather simulation with other programs that mimic effects of rain and sun on the land, currents in the ocean, and emissions of greenhouse gases. First, these models imagine all the factors interacting within a "grid box" -- an imaginary cube of land, water and sky that might be 60 miles long and 60 miles wide. Then, the computer imagines effects in one box spilling into the next, and so on. As the model runs, imaginary cold fronts sweep over virtual oceans, simulating weather at rates such as five years per day. In some cases, the models are re-run with different weather conditions, until a pattern emerges in global temperatures. The pattern is the point. It is man's signature, a guide to what could happen in the real world. All the major climate models seem to show that greenhouse gases are causing warming, climate scientists say, although they don't agree about how much. A 2007 United Nations report cited a range of estimates from 2 to 11.5 degrees over the next century. "It's an educated, scientifically based guess," said Michael Winton, an oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "But it's a guess nonetheless." Raining on their parade But Warren Meyer, a mechanical and aerospace engineer by training, said that climate models are highly flawed. He said the scientists who build them don't know enough about solar cycles, ocean temperatures and other things that can nudge the earth's temperature up or down. He said that because models produce results that sound impressively exact, they can give off an air of infallibility. But, Meyer said -- if the model isn't built correctly -- its results can be both precise-sounding and wrong."The hubris that can be associated with a model is amazing, because suddenly you take this sketchy understanding of a process, and you embody it in a model," and it appears more trustworthy, Meyer said. "It's almost like money laundering."Last month, a Gallup poll provided the latest evidence of a public U-turn on climate change. Asked if the threat of global warming was "generally exaggerated," 48 percent said yes. That was up 13 points from 2008, the highest level of skepticism since Gallup started asking the question in 1997. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/05/AR2010040503722_3.html Edited October 16, 2015 by Zakuska
cinepro Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 This issue of Dialogue Magazine has some interesting articles on the history of LDS attitudes towards scientific and alternative medicine: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/archive/issue-details/?in=47
Zakuska Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) There's an article about Herbal medicine here too:http://ldsmag.com/article-1-12566/ Brigham Youngs G-G-G-Grand son runs this business in Lehi Utah for natural healing with "Essential oils". (ie Bibilical oils, frankensence, Murr, Hyssop, et al.)https://www.youngliving.com/en_US The 12 oils used for healing in the Bible:https://www.youngliving.com/en_US/products/essential-oils/collections/twelve-oils-of-ancient-scripture-kit They have a Farm down in Mona Utah, as well as France and Ecuador. Where they grow the plants for their oils. I worked for them for a year and can attest to the fact their products really work. One oil blend they have is called "Theives" the story goes that there were 4 theives in France during the time of the Black plague. They would rob the dead plague victims but never got the plague. They were eventually caught and in return for no death penalty the judges got their Essenital Oil blend recipe that helped them not contract the Plague. It was published throughout Europe and this helped halt the march of the Plague. (So the story goes) Legend of the Theiveshttp://www.secretofthieves.com/four-thieves-vinegar.cfm Intresting fact that few know: When King tuts tomb was discovered it had already been robbed. The thing is the grave robbers left all the Gold but they took all the "essential oils" that were buried with him. My Great grandmother has a recipe for Kancer[sic] sour medicine given to her by Brigham Young. The main ingredient is gun powder. Probably because of the Zinc. Most modern medicine and drugs came from people who took the old "folk medicines" and worked out how to purify and commercialize them. Edited October 16, 2015 by Zakuska
TheSkepticChristian Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) You really have no idea how climate scientist work do you? Yes I do. You don't. http://www.umces.edu/al/story/2013/aug/02/looking-past-predict-climate-future Please tell us how do you know? Did you see it on Fox News? Apparently he's in denial like so many others... Computer models are useful, but not necessary. The evidence does not come from computer models. Edited October 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Storm Rider Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 I guess I will join in the offshoot of the topic. There has never been a recognized period of static weather since the earth has been studied. The weather has always changed from getting very cold to getting very warm. What amazes me is that I have never heard who was to blame for all those other changes. Who make the weather change? If it is not important who made the weather change then why are we so concerned about who is making the weather change now? The fact that is changing has not....changed. The weather is not static. I have never read a single, reputable scientist proclaim that the weather would stop changing by killing every human that is alive today. So if we remove man from the equation will the weather continue to change? Yes! What is the problem again? 2
Stargazer Posted October 16, 2015 Author Posted October 16, 2015 Hindsight is sometimes so much clearer, isn't it??? But, we can only live in the now. God knows this, and I'm sure your wife knows this, too. "We do what we could with what we knew at the time, and when we know better, we do better." Paraphrased from Maya Angelou and my mom Yeah, it is. And so is reading much more deeply about something before one makes authoritative-sounding pronouncements about it. I went to bed last night thinking that I might have prevented my wife from using a treatment that might actually have helped her with her colon cancer, and I felt somewhat dismayed about it. This morning my further reading dispelled my dismay as I discovered that the artemisinin derivative which had been shown to be possibly effective for colon cancer was not actually present in the wormwood she was using. She was taking doses of Artemisia absinthium, which apparently has little or no artemisinin. I am relieved to discover this. Although I wish I had done some research which might have found the information about artemisinin three years ago -- I don't know if that data was available at that time, however.
TheSkepticChristian Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) The weather is not static. I have never read a single, reputable scientist proclaim that the weather would stop changing by killing every human that is alive today. So if we remove man from the equation will the weather continue to change? Yes! What is the problem again? Everybody knows the weather is not static. The problem is that the global average temperature is increasing rapidly, in the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. The Permian Mass Extinction 251.9 million years ago, otherwise known as “The Great Dying,” was the closest this planet has come to extinguishing all complex life on Earth. Around 90% of all species died out in this single event, a worse toll even than the Cretaceous extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs. For years the cause of the Permian Mass Extinction has been linked to massive volcanic eruptions in Siberia. Volcanic CO2 and a cocktail of noxious gasses combined with burning coal and geothermally-baked methane emissions to enact a combination of toxic effects and, most importantly, ocean acidification and global warming. It led to a world where equatorial regions and the tropics were too hot for complex life to survive. That’s a fact so astonishing it bears repeating: global warming led to a large portion of planet Earth being lethally hot on land and in the oceans! The cascading extinctions in ecosystems across the planet unfolded over 61,000 years, and it took 10 million years for the planet to recover! For comparison, our distant ancestors separated from apes only 7 million years ago. Question During snowball earth our entire planet was covered by a kilometer-thick layer of ice, and the sun was much dimmer than today. What ended snowball Earth 635 million years ago? and why did Earth become warmer than today? Edited October 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Recommended Posts