Global warming

[BenedictGomez]

Congratulations on your multiple science degrees. They are clearly not related to climate science or climate modelling.

Neither are yours (and lucky for you given it's the "16th Century philosophy" or "Theater arts" degree of the science world).

If calling you out on a topic you clearly don't understand (climate modelling) makes me arrogant, than so be it.

Nope, no arrogance there.

And given how almost inconceivably poorly those climate models have performed, one wonders how much the climate modelers "clearly" understand.

 

[BenedictGomez]

But at least his carbon footprint is low... oh... wait...

My favorite Al Gore greatest hit was when he sold his "environmentally conscious" TV network to one of the largest petroleum interests on planet earth.

My belly ached for days from laughing so hard!

 

[benski]

2 things.

1. Climate is long term. In terms of climate a decade is a small unit of measure.

2. the 10 warmest years on record have all been within the last 20. so the earth is warming.

 

[fbrissette]

I assume you are eminently qualified on the topic of climate science?

My name has been put on the '97% of scientists who believe in climate change' list. I've done research and published dozens of paper in journals such as: Climatic Change and International Journal of Climatology. I'm not a climate scientist/modeller (my field is hydrology/hydrometeorology) but I've worked with climate scientists, climate modellers and climate model outputs for the past 20 years. What's your qualification ?

With the rainfall forecasts, I woke up on the wrong foot and decided to call bullshit on your bullshit. Clearly that was a mistake and I'll go back to my 'don't react to that BS' mode.

 

[VTKilarney]

You can definitely see the mood on this forum change when the weather goes bad. See all of last winter, for example.

 

[fbrissette]

And given how almost inconceivably poorly those climate models have performed...

It's with blanket statements like these that you keep on discrediting yourself.

 

[bdfreetuna]

With the rainfall forecasts, I woke up on the wrong foot and decided to call bullshit on your bullshit. Clearly that was a mistake and I'll go back to my 'don't react to that BS' mode.

I think Jay Peak should hold up ok with their 191" snowfall total by January 9.

 

[fbrissette]

I think Jay Peak should hold up ok with their 191" snowfall total by January 9.

Jay Peak totals are on the optimistic side. There is however a solid 4-5 feet on the ground at higher altitudes that would translate to anywhere between 10 to 14 feet of snow. They are actually not that far off for upper elevations. There is half of that at the base (1800 feet) and almost nothing at Montgomery Center (200 feet).

I'm not worried about losing snow. The freeze-up will however ruin everything till the next snowfall. Backcountry conditions are incredible right now, especially considering it's early January. I'm not of fan of icy slopes at tunaspeed.

 

[BenedictGomez]

It's with blanket statements like these that you keep on discrediting yourself.

Funny thing about science - if you're infrequently, occasionally, frequently, or often, wrong, you just may want to check your theory (or at least not be so dogmatically certain about it).

 

[BenedictGomez]

My name has been put on the '97% of scientists who believe in climate change' list.

Is your name on any other bogus lists of dubious origin and ambiguously unverifiable mathematical calculation?


http://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenerg...on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#2f7c91977c6c

 

[dlague]

2 things.

1. Climate is long term. In terms of climate a decade is a small unit of measure.

2. the 10 warmest years on record have all been within the last 20. so the earth is warming.

Were there warmer years say like between 12,000 and 22,000 years ago when a major glacial retreat was happening?

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Jully]

Is your name on any other bogus lists of dubious origin and ambiguously unverifiable mathematical calculation?


http://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenerg...on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#2f7c91977c6c

Woah now. That article that you just linked is very far from supporting the claim you just made. There are numerous surveys that have gone out that have found that 97%, 4 of them in the graph produced in that Forbes article.

Whatever survey fbrissette signed was not of "dubious origin" or unverifiable calculation... that's ridiculous. It was a survey, and has likely been published with transparent methodology and might even be cited in that Forbes piece.

The point of the article as I understood it was: Is the number misused? Yes. Are there actually numerous 'lists' floating around? Yes. Do whatever percent of scientists supporting the notion of anthropogenic CC have varying opinions? Yes. However there is still a story (though not as catchy) and more importantly, in the published literature with a modicum of respect (as in any journal with an impact score higher than like 0.1) there have been an exceedingly small number (I have not done a full blown systematic review so I cannot say for certain that it is 0) of studies done that cast any doubt onto the basic climate change assertions.

Now the common rebuke of that is that the entire community is corrupt and they will never publish something in those journals that contradicts their claim. However, the same exact argument can be levied against those denying climate change. There also happens to be a lot more to gain for those denying it, as in oil companies, and a lot more money involved. So you're left with trusting your own ability to interpret arguments and studies. I personally have never seen anything even remotely resembling a study, published in a journal or not, that comes close to discrediting the primary assertions of climate change and when the topic is widely accepted and not debated in most other developed countries, the ability to defend the null hypothesis gets harder and harder.

The scientific community, however, has widely failed in communicating this though due to reasons already mentioned by you and others (arrogance, Gore, etc). Now, just like this thread, the debate in the U.S. has degraded to nothing but name calling.

 

[fbrissette]

Funny thing about science - if you're infrequently, occasionally, frequently, or often, wrong, you just may want to check your theory (or at least not be so dogmatically certain about it).

Why do you keep talking about weather models outputs? What is it that makes them useful (despite being wrong often) but discredit them as climate models?

(Assuming you know that a climate model is essentially the same frickin thing as a weather model minus the assimilation process)

 

[Jully]

Were there warmer years say like between 12,000 and 22,000 years ago when a major glacial retreat was happening?

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app

Yes. Even more relevant, during the Eocene (> 30 million years ago) global temperatures were much much hotter. There are no ice core records that old, but there are records of diatoms from the bottom of the ocean floor that can give an accurate temperature approximation of the temperature of the ocean floor (that matches both today's records and ice core records for periods of overlap).

These diatoms show a seafloor temperature of > 10C during the Eocene and a matching atmospheric CO2 approximation of > 1000ppm. For reference we currently have a seafloor temperature ~ 2C depending on which ocean you look at.

 

[fbrissette]

Were there warmer years say like between 12,000 and 22,000 years ago when a major glacial retreat was happening?

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app

Your confusing Mikankovitch cycles with anthropogenic forcing. This is a dumb argument as these are two different well understood things.

 

[BenedictGomez]

The point of the article as I understood it was: Is the number misused? Yes. Are there actually numerous 'lists' floating around? Yes. Do whatever percent of scientists supporting the notion of anthropogenic CC have varying opinions? Yes.

The point of the article is that the "97%" figure is unsubstantiated at best, and an intentional canard at worst. That it's probably something more like 81% to 85%. So while a strong majority, that isn't nearly as impressive as 97%.

But as with all things Global Warming, we must "stretch the truth" and lie about it to bolster our case. Curiously by the way, in science we dont "stretch the truth" and lie about things to bolster our case.

 

[Jully]

The point of the article is that the "97%" figure is unsubstantiated at best, and an intentional canard at worst. That it's probably something more like 81% to 85%. So while a strong majority, that isn't nearly as impressive as 97%.

Depending on how you phrase the question, sure. But you said that the list fbrissette was on was of "dubious origin and ambiguously unverifiable" which is almost certainly false... There are numerous methodologically sound surveys that have been done that have found a 97% consensus. The Forbes article cited 4 of them.

 

[fbrissette]

Thanks Jully for a fair analysis of this terrible article.

Is that the best you can come up with BG? An pseudo scientific analysis in Forbes from a retired oil industry guy ?

 

[bdfreetuna]

No way 97% but it doesn't really matter. The fact is science is once you claim "science is settled", it's not science anymore.

American Meteorolical Society survey on global warming
http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=24574

More than 1000 Scientists Dissent over IPCC global warming claims
http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-t...t-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284

 

[BenedictGomez]

Why do you keep talking about weather models outputs? What is it that makes them useful (despite being wrong often) but discredit them as climate models?

Because even though computer models are "wrong often", as you point out, the weather models tend to be okay inside of 5 days.

That doesn't mean that I trust computer climate models outside of 5 or 50 years (or 500 years). Crazy I know. It's almost like I'm extrapolating that increased error magnitude might potentially grow with the variable of increased time.

Depending on how you phrase the question, sure. But you said that the list fbrissette was on was of "dubious origin and ambiguously unverifiable" which is almost certainly false... There are numerous methodologically sound surveys that have been done that have found a 97% consensus. The Forbes article cited 4 of them.

There are many sources that could be linked to to shred that 97% propaganda, it's not merely Forbes, but did you read the entire article? It also pointed out how flimsy the claim is, often based on assumptions inferred as an agreement at best. It's a silly claim, and yes, when something cannot be proven, but is stated (repeatedly) as a fact anyway, that is not mathematically sound. And simply as an aside, on its' face, I think common sense should tell you that 97% of scientists do not believe in man-made global warming.