Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

This is an Admin / Moderator NO GO ZONE. You're on your own.

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by GRTfast » Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:48 pm

Kevin Johnson wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:38 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:06 pm
...
It's not these reports that I accept at face value, it is the scientific studies and reports published in peer reviewed journals that I accept as the best explanations for the observations we make. I posted this for the Trump sycophants on this site.

The thing about science is, you don't have to accept it at face value. If you have sufficient understanding, you can review the data and methods yourself, and you can replicate the results.

If you think the majority of the scientific community is in on some grand conspiracy, all in an effort to get cash, you are literally out of your mind (not you specifically, "you" in general). I'm not sure if you've ever worked with any scientists, but in general they are some of the most educated, honest people you will ever meet, and have a level of professionalism and integrity far beyond the average person. The idea that they are liars and con artists (as many on this site have suggested) is ludicrous.

You seem like a rational person so far, so I'm not sure what your position is, I'm just letting you know where I am coming from.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=e ... ding&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=e ... ant+propos
I’ve never claimed that there aren’t isolated cases of self serving, or grant money driven scientists. If you want to be taken more seriously than EG, you’ll need to show unequivocally that the vast majority are like this, and are all in league to lie to everyone, solely for the purpose of making money. You’ll need to show that most, if not all scientists are evil.

Kevin Johnson
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7350
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:41 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by Kevin Johnson » Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:58 pm

GRTfast wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:48 pm
...

I’ve never claimed that there aren’t isolated cases of self serving, or grant money driven scientists. If you want to be taken more seriously than EG, you’ll need to show unequivocally that the vast majority are like this, and are all in league to lie to everyone, solely for the purpose of making money. You’ll need to show that most, if not all scientists are evil.
Did the links in Google Scholar argue that there are isolated cases or ... is this a false dichotomy? Just review the peer-reviewed articles to be safe... :wink:

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by GRTfast » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:00 pm

Kevin Johnson wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:58 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:48 pm
...

I’ve never claimed that there aren’t isolated cases of self serving, or grant money driven scientists. If you want to be taken more seriously than EG, you’ll need to show unequivocally that the vast majority are like this, and are all in league to lie to everyone, solely for the purpose of making money. You’ll need to show that most, if not all scientists are evil.
Did the links in Google Scholar argue that there are isolated cases or ... is this a false dichotomy? Just review the peer-reviewed articles to be safe... :wink:
How do you know these articles aren’t written by a bunch of evil lairs bent on deceiving everyone for money? Have you reproduced their results yourself? :wink:

Kevin Johnson
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7350
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:41 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by Kevin Johnson » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:19 pm

GRTfast wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:00 pm
Kevin Johnson wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:58 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:48 pm
...

I’ve never claimed that there aren’t isolated cases of self serving, or grant money driven scientists. If you want to be taken more seriously than EG, you’ll need to show unequivocally that the vast majority are like this, and are all in league to lie to everyone, solely for the purpose of making money. You’ll need to show that most, if not all scientists are evil.
Did the links in Google Scholar argue that there are isolated cases or ... is this a false dichotomy? Just review the peer-reviewed articles to be safe... :wink:
How do you know these articles aren’t written by a bunch of evil lairs bent on deceiving everyone for money? Have you reproduced their results yourself? :wink:
About a year and a half ago I did a very cursory search of published results. If nothing else, the scientists and researchers who taught me made very sure that I could use a library. In case it does not jump off the page and bite you, the interesting data came from a NOAA vessel.
Re: Anti Warming News
Post by Kevin Johnson » Sat Jan 07, 2017 9:36 pm

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10 ... 2.0.CO%3B2

OCTOBER 1997 N O T E S A N D C O R R E S P O N D E N C E J O U R N A L O F A T M O S P H E R I C
A N D O C E A N I C T E C H N O L O G Y VOLUME 14 1237

Hull-Mounted Sea Surface Temperatures from Ships of Opportunity
W. J. EMERY, K. CHERKAUER,* AND B. SHANNON
Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
R. W. REYNOLDS
Coupled Model Project, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Washington, D.C.
13 March 1996 and 2 August 1996

Page 1242 wrote:
The second installation was on the NOAA R/V Malcolm
Baldridge. This ship was selected specifically because
of the thermosalinograph (TSG), which takes water
samples from the bow bubble, several meters below
the ocean surface, and records temperature and salinity.

Page 1246 wrote:
The intake temperature series observations
are indicated by boxes that show a very early
distinct bias from the hull sensors of about -2 to -4 degrees C.
As shown by later comparisons in this series, the bias
in the early part of the record was not constant and later
dropped to about zero with the intake temperatures corresponding
closely to the hull temperatures at least for
the northbound leg of the trip. Thus, the problem with
the intake temperatures was lack of consistency over
time.
.
~~~~
Comment:

Fascinating. I thought intake temperatures were supposed to be consistently registering too high.
In this tabulation of actual data with the empirical manifestation of the empirically verified laws of thermodynamics this is not the case.

Perhaps the historical record shows a consistently lower intake temperature and that data should be -- cough -- 'adjusted' upwards?
I am sure the literature is replete with similar observations and recommendations based on the empirical evidence as it stands and not where we wish it to be.

I hope we are scientists and not cooks.

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by 86_regal » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:58 pm

GRTfast wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:00 pm
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm

I'll concede the global cooling scare was NOT the prevailing concern in the scientific community in the 70's...
Good, you're being reasonable. So far, I am finding you to be reasonably reasonable, and that's a good thing. :wink:
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm
You've glossed over my more important point. Even AFTER having actually read a majority of the data from previous posts, I have no idea how to corroborate OR duplicate the findings of these papers AND NEITHER DO YOU!
Actually, I do have some idea because I work with some fairly complex numerical modeling methods in my profession, and i am involved in some fairly intense experimentation, data collection, analysis, and simulations. While I haven't performed the exact data collection, analysis, and experimentation as the climate scientists and physicists who work on these issues, I understand their methodology fairly well.
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm
To assert that the increases in man made CO2, aerosols, methane and other various greenhouse gase emissions having resulted in a 1.8*C global AIR temp increase, a .55*C ocean temp increase and a 17cm increase in ocean levels since 1880, the data used to collect it and the models used to predict future trends ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN an assertion of more frequent muffler bearing failures, reductions in headlight fluid service life and the increased likihood of whackaman failures using MY data and methodologies provided to someone who has LITTLE OR NO KNOWLEDGE or exposure to an automobile!
One's ignorance of a topic has no bearing on the truth of the matter.
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm
With that said, how do you KNOW that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas? Have YOU physically DUPLICATED those findings?
"Know" is a funny word. Knowledge is a subset of believe. If we proportion our level of belief to the level of evidence, the knowledge means a belief that has overwhelming evidence. All that said, I have performed this experiment myself, which shows that co2 is in fact a greenhouse gas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm
How do YOU KNOW how much MAN MADE CO2 gas has been emitted to the atmosphere? HAVE YOU MEASURED IT?
I have not, but many many people have, it has been independently verified over and over. The methods by which is it measured are published, and I could measure it if I wanted to. So could you. Do you really think it is a reasonable position to only believe things that you directly observe? You really do think all the scientists are part of one big conspiracy don't you? Why do you believe that? Have you directly observed it? :shock:
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm
Do you KNOW how much MORE greenhouse gases exist in the environment NOW THAN IN 1880? Did YOU PHYSICALLY COLLECT AND TREND THIS DATA.
Same answer as above.
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm
IF CO2 concentrations HAVE increased AND have contributed to global increased temperatures, have YOU COLLECTED ice samples from the polar caps to quantify global CO2 concentrations over decades? Centuries? Millennia?
Same answer as above.
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm
I'm NOT actually asking you to do any of this. I AM actually saying that since virtually ALL come up short of the means and resources to duplicate or "fact check" such findings, we're stuck with having to accept the data on faith..
Faith is a funny word. I define it as the excuse someone gives when they don't have any good reason for their belief. I have trust that is proportional to the evidence. I don't believe that the world's scientists are a bunch of lying conspiracy theorists because there is no evidence to support that. I work with many scientists and engineers and the over arching commonality is integrity and a pursuit of truth. That is my experience. Because of this experience, and because I understand the physics and methodologies that comprise the science and the findings, I think the amount of "faith" I need to believe the scientists is the same amount I need to believe that gravity is going to make a cup fall when I drop it.

If you feel different, that's your prerogative, but I don't think you are being rational.
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm
I have no interest in MAJOR government energy policy legislation based on data that can only be accepted on faith...
I thought we were talking about the science, not the politics. Accepting the science is a separate issue from what the government should do about it. Rejecting the science because you don't like what the government might try to do in light of the findings is an intellectually bankrupt position. I think you know better.
In addressing your last point only. As I've stated initially, I'm SKEPTICAL of the Science BECAUSE it is funded IN LARGE PART by POLITICS. To ascribe intellectual bankruptcy in light of questioning data funded by those having politically vested interests in a particular outcome is, well... to call it naive would be an understatement...

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by 86_regal » Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:04 pm

GRTfast wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:00 pm
Kevin Johnson wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:58 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:48 pm
...

I’ve never claimed that there aren’t isolated cases of self serving, or grant money driven scientists. If you want to be taken more seriously than EG, you’ll need to show unequivocally that the vast majority are like this, and are all in league to lie to everyone, solely for the purpose of making money. You’ll need to show that most, if not all scientists are evil.
Did the links in Google Scholar argue that there are isolated cases or ... is this a false dichotomy? Just review the peer-reviewed articles to be safe... :wink:
How do you know these articles aren’t written by a bunch of evil lairs bent on deceiving everyone for money? Have you reproduced their results yourself? :wink:
Thank you for inadvertently reinforcing my point...

If this indesputible, unshakable, evidence, data, modeling you revere were above Scientific "reproach", why would you even waste your breathe asking these questions?

Why is political self interest considered more virtuous than economic self interest?

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4247
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by exhaustgases » Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:17 pm

Climate change is a political agenda to remove liberty and things from our possession. It is a social political teaching, full of lies, and the sun is not allowed to be a cause. Only thing the Marxist colleges say that causes it is "MAN". Well there always has to be truth in a huge deception, man does engineer it. I've given plenty of proof.

In here your buddy brennon talks about using stratospheric injection ie chemtrails.. wake up idiot

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6644
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by David Redszus » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:06 am

The following is reprinted from the Guardian. It comments on the state of recognition in the field of science
or the lack thereof.
A small group of scientists will achieve international stardom this week. They will learn they
have won Nobel prizes in physiology, chemistry and physics, and their lives will be transformed.
Each will win hundreds of thousands of pounds and they will be feted as infallible sages on
science – and other topics outside their expertise.

But many now question this deification of scientists and believe Nobel prizes are dangerously
out of kilter with the processes of modern research. By stressing individual achievements, they
say, Nobels encourage competition at the expense of cooperation. They want the system to be changed.

“The Nobel prizes have strayed far from the vision their founder had for them, and they badly
need to be reorganised,” said cosmologist Brian Keating, of the University of California, San Diego.
“They reward an outdated version of science.”

Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, president of the Royal Society and joint winner of the 2009 chemistry
Nobel, is also critical. In his book Gene Machine, he says that “the [Nobel] prize has increasingly become
a lottery” and is part of a global awards system “beset by cronyism”.

Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, has argued that the Nobel prize skews the public’s idea about
which sciences are important. “Only three sciences get Nobel awards: chemistry, physics and
physiology,” said Lord Rees. “Mathematics is ignored, as are computing, robotics and artificial
intelligence as well as environmental sciences.”

Keating is also critical of the Nobel awards committee’s intense secrecy. “You do not know
who else was nominated for a prize, nor do you learn who did the nominating,” he said. “You
just get a pronouncement from the mount, a sacred process like the naming of a new pope.”

Nobel prizes for science, peace and literature were established by the Swedish arms manufacturer
Alfred Nobel in his will. Since 1901, more than a billion dollars has been given to laureates, creating
a prize that has become “the world’s most prestigious award”, according to Keating.

Early recipients included Marie and Pierre Curie, Paul Dirac and Albert Einstein, who worked at a
time when individual scientists could make breakthroughs in quantum physics and relativity. There
were still some “terrible omissions”, as Ramakrishnan points out. Dmitri Mendeleev, creator of the
periodic table of elements, and Lise Meitner, who discovered nuclear fission, should have
won Nobels but did not.

Worse, regulations later imposed by the Nobel prize committee increased the injustices – in particular,
the rule that states that no more than three people can win an individual science Nobel. The problem
triggered by this ruling is illustrated by the prize given in 2013 to Peter Higgs and François Englert
for theoretical work that led to the discovery, in 2012, of the sub-atomic particle that was named
the Higgs boson and which plays an important role in the distribution of mass in the universe.

In fact, six scientists, including Higgs and Englert, did key theoretical work. Of these, Britain’s
Tom Kibble, who died in 2016, was as strong a Nobel candidate as any of the others, said Rees.
For his part, Keating plumped for Gerry Guralnik, of Brown University, Rhode Island, another
member of the Higgs six, as being the best candidate for a Nobel. Neither was selected.

Last year’s physics Nobel recognised the first observation of gravitational waves, a discovery
outlined in a paper signed by more than 1,000 scientists. The prize honoured only three of them.
As Ramakrishnan says: “The rule of three is inappropriate today.” Keating agreed: “Apart
from leading to examples of scientific injustice, the rule of three reinforces the layperson’s
impression that science is done by one or two lone geniuses – usually white males – working
without vast support networks behind them.”

At the same time, the myth of the lone genius elevates a few Nobel winners to a godlike state –
and that is harmful, said the Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes. “It reflects a mistaken
view of science, attributing supernatural powers and wisdom to individual scientists, when modern
science is very much a group affair.”

Rees agreed: “Even the best scientists have narrow expertise, and their opinions on general
topics carry no special weight. It is possible to find a laureate to support almost any cause,
however eccentric, and some exploit their status.”

Winners who have triggered consternation for utterances outside their fields of expertise include
the Norwegian Ivar Giaever, who won a physics Nobel – in 1973 – for work on superconductivity
but who denies Earth is affected in any way by global warming.

“Another appalling example is William Shockley, who exploited his status as a Nobel winner to
promote racist ideas of intelligence, about which he had no expertise and clearly no wisdom,”
added Oreskes.

However, critics say there is one easy way to improve matters – because there is a precedent
for giving Nobel prizes to organisations as well as individuals. In 2007, Al Gore won the Nobel
peace prize along with the entire Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their work on
global warming. The Red Cross has also won peace prizes.“So there is a perfectly good example
within the Nobel prize system of groups being allowed to receive awards,” said Keating. “The
teams that cooperated to discover gravitational waves and the Higgs boson could have been
honoured and the cult of the lone genius circumvented. That is the kind of change we need.”

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by GRTfast » Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:30 am

Kevin Johnson wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:19 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:00 pm
Kevin Johnson wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:58 pm


Did the links in Google Scholar argue that there are isolated cases or ... is this a false dichotomy? Just review the peer-reviewed articles to be safe... :wink:
How do you know these articles aren’t written by a bunch of evil lairs bent on deceiving everyone for money? Have you reproduced their results yourself? :wink:
About a year and a half ago I did a very cursory search of published results. If nothing else, the scientists and researchers who taught me made very sure that I could use a library. In case it does not jump off the page and bite you, the interesting data came from a NOAA vessel.
Re: Anti Warming News
Post by Kevin Johnson » Sat Jan 07, 2017 9:36 pm

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10 ... 2.0.CO%3B2

OCTOBER 1997 N O T E S A N D C O R R E S P O N D E N C E J O U R N A L O F A T M O S P H E R I C
A N D O C E A N I C T E C H N O L O G Y VOLUME 14 1237

Hull-Mounted Sea Surface Temperatures from Ships of Opportunity
W. J. EMERY, K. CHERKAUER,* AND B. SHANNON
Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
R. W. REYNOLDS
Coupled Model Project, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Washington, D.C.
13 March 1996 and 2 August 1996

Page 1242 wrote:
The second installation was on the NOAA R/V Malcolm
Baldridge. This ship was selected specifically because
of the thermosalinograph (TSG), which takes water
samples from the bow bubble, several meters below
the ocean surface, and records temperature and salinity.

Page 1246 wrote:
The intake temperature series observations
are indicated by boxes that show a very early
distinct bias from the hull sensors of about -2 to -4 degrees C.
As shown by later comparisons in this series, the bias
in the early part of the record was not constant and later
dropped to about zero with the intake temperatures corresponding
closely to the hull temperatures at least for
the northbound leg of the trip. Thus, the problem with
the intake temperatures was lack of consistency over
time.
.
~~~~
Comment:

Fascinating. I thought intake temperatures were supposed to be consistently registering too high.
In this tabulation of actual data with the empirical manifestation of the empirically verified laws of thermodynamics this is not the case.

Perhaps the historical record shows a consistently lower intake temperature and that data should be -- cough -- 'adjusted' upwards?
I am sure the literature is replete with similar observations and recommendations based on the empirical evidence as it stands and not where we wish it to be.

I hope we are scientists and not cooks.
I still don't get how you extrapolate from this, to the idea that all the science is garbage, either intentionally or by mistake. You're jumping from A to Z without showing B through Y. I just don't get it. Until you can divorce your judgement from the outcome that you want to be true, you're going to be extremely biased. Do you think I have some kind of vested interest in accepting the science on the topic? I make my living maintaining, modifying, and upgrading (mostly) fossil fuel power plant generators. Most of my hobbies involve fossil fuels. I have a big block hotrod that I built from scratch which gets 11 MPG, and has zero emissions control devices. I understand skepticism, but I don't understand the denial of facts that are slapping you in the face. It seems like your position is based on emotion, and you attempt (rather successfully) to present it in an intellectual manner.
Last edited by GRTfast on Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by GRTfast » Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:37 am

Kevin Johnson wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:38 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:06 pm
...
It's not these reports that I accept at face value, it is the scientific studies and reports published in peer reviewed journals that I accept as the best explanations for the observations we make. I posted this for the Trump sycophants on this site.

The thing about science is, you don't have to accept it at face value. If you have sufficient understanding, you can review the data and methods yourself, and you can replicate the results.

If you think the majority of the scientific community is in on some grand conspiracy, all in an effort to get cash, you are literally out of your mind (not you specifically, "you" in general). I'm not sure if you've ever worked with any scientists, but in general they are some of the most educated, honest people you will ever meet, and have a level of professionalism and integrity far beyond the average person. The idea that they are liars and con artists (as many on this site have suggested) is ludicrous.

You seem like a rational person so far, so I'm not sure what your position is, I'm just letting you know where I am coming from.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=e ... ding&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=e ... ant+propos
This is from the the first paper listed in your top link:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3071700/

Involvement with private industry and behavior
Involvement with private for-profit companies was related to a greater likelihood of engaging in two misbehaviors and a lower likelihood of one ideal-type behavior. Those with private interests were more likely than those without private interests to report that they had engaged in one of the 10 most serious misbehaviors (P = .005) and to have engaged in misconduct (i.e., FFP; P = .004; Table 2), and they were less likely to have always reported financial conflicts (P < .001; Table 3).



What is your point exactly?

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by GRTfast » Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:41 am

86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:04 pm

Thank you for inadvertently reinforcing my point...


If this indesputible, unshakable, evidence, data, modeling you revere were above Scientific "reproach", why would you even waste your breathe asking these questions?
I was being "ironical". Lighten up. :lol:

Also, it's not indisputable. There is a process for disputing it... it's called the scientific method. You disagree with the results? You think they are wrong? You think they are lying? You want anyone to believe you? Do the work. Prove it.
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:04 pm
Why is political self interest considered more virtuous than economic self interest?
Who suggested that? I'd say the virtuosity of any self interest it tied to the harm one's actions cause.

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by GRTfast » Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:47 am

David Redszus wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:06 am
The following is reprinted from the Guardian. It comments on the state of recognition in the field of science
or the lack thereof.

Rees agreed: “Even the best scientists have narrow expertise, and their opinions on general
topics carry no special weight. It is possible to find a laureate to support almost any cause,
however eccentric, and some exploit their status.”
This is why I chuckle when non-climate scientists opinions about climate science are trotted out by the denier crowd.

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by GRTfast » Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:52 am

86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:58 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:00 pm
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm

I'll concede the global cooling scare was NOT the prevailing concern in the scientific community in the 70's...
Good, you're being reasonable. So far, I am finding you to be reasonably reasonable, and that's a good thing. :wink:
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm
You've glossed over my more important point. Even AFTER having actually read a majority of the data from previous posts, I have no idea how to corroborate OR duplicate the findings of these papers AND NEITHER DO YOU!
Actually, I do have some idea because I work with some fairly complex numerical modeling methods in my profession, and i am involved in some fairly intense experimentation, data collection, analysis, and simulations. While I haven't performed the exact data collection, analysis, and experimentation as the climate scientists and physicists who work on these issues, I understand their methodology fairly well.
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm
To assert that the increases in man made CO2, aerosols, methane and other various greenhouse gase emissions having resulted in a 1.8*C global AIR temp increase, a .55*C ocean temp increase and a 17cm increase in ocean levels since 1880, the data used to collect it and the models used to predict future trends ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN an assertion of more frequent muffler bearing failures, reductions in headlight fluid service life and the increased likihood of whackaman failures using MY data and methodologies provided to someone who has LITTLE OR NO KNOWLEDGE or exposure to an automobile!
One's ignorance of a topic has no bearing on the truth of the matter.
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm
With that said, how do you KNOW that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas? Have YOU physically DUPLICATED those findings?
"Know" is a funny word. Knowledge is a subset of believe. If we proportion our level of belief to the level of evidence, the knowledge means a belief that has overwhelming evidence. All that said, I have performed this experiment myself, which shows that co2 is in fact a greenhouse gas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm
How do YOU KNOW how much MAN MADE CO2 gas has been emitted to the atmosphere? HAVE YOU MEASURED IT?
I have not, but many many people have, it has been independently verified over and over. The methods by which is it measured are published, and I could measure it if I wanted to. So could you. Do you really think it is a reasonable position to only believe things that you directly observe? You really do think all the scientists are part of one big conspiracy don't you? Why do you believe that? Have you directly observed it? :shock:
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm
Do you KNOW how much MORE greenhouse gases exist in the environment NOW THAN IN 1880? Did YOU PHYSICALLY COLLECT AND TREND THIS DATA.
Same answer as above.
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm
IF CO2 concentrations HAVE increased AND have contributed to global increased temperatures, have YOU COLLECTED ice samples from the polar caps to quantify global CO2 concentrations over decades? Centuries? Millennia?
Same answer as above.
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm
I'm NOT actually asking you to do any of this. I AM actually saying that since virtually ALL come up short of the means and resources to duplicate or "fact check" such findings, we're stuck with having to accept the data on faith..
Faith is a funny word. I define it as the excuse someone gives when they don't have any good reason for their belief. I have trust that is proportional to the evidence. I don't believe that the world's scientists are a bunch of lying conspiracy theorists because there is no evidence to support that. I work with many scientists and engineers and the over arching commonality is integrity and a pursuit of truth. That is my experience. Because of this experience, and because I understand the physics and methodologies that comprise the science and the findings, I think the amount of "faith" I need to believe the scientists is the same amount I need to believe that gravity is going to make a cup fall when I drop it.

If you feel different, that's your prerogative, but I don't think you are being rational.
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:29 pm
I have no interest in MAJOR government energy policy legislation based on data that can only be accepted on faith...
I thought we were talking about the science, not the politics. Accepting the science is a separate issue from what the government should do about it. Rejecting the science because you don't like what the government might try to do in light of the findings is an intellectually bankrupt position. I think you know better.
In addressing your last point only. As I've stated initially, I'm SKEPTICAL of the Science BECAUSE it is funded IN LARGE PART by POLITICS. To ascribe intellectual bankruptcy in light of questioning data funded by those having politically vested interests in a particular outcome is, well... to call it naive would be an understatement...
The problem is, you're "questioning" isn't genuine, even if you believe it is.

You ask the "questions" without doing anything to actually figure out the answer, or to show that the information your skeptical of is actually a lie perpetrated by a giant group of clandestine scientists hell bent on doing all of this for grant money. You're faking an intellectual position (and maybe you aren't even aware of it) in order to keep your world view in line with what you want to be true.

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by GRTfast » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:02 am


Kevin Johnson
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7350
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:41 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by Kevin Johnson » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:12 am

GRTfast wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:30 am
...

I still don't get how you extrapolate from this, to the idea that all the science is garbage, either intentionally or by mistake. ...
:lol: You're VERY wide of the mark here. I do NOT think that all the science is garbage, either intentionally or by mistake. I actually do get very upset when it is corrupted by design or, sadly more often, ignorance or laziness. I picked a VERY specific area of empirical observation where data has been 'adjusted' and shown how it contradicts raw data. Not just any raw data, mind you, but from a vessel equipped, directed by and ostensibly adhering to the high standards of NOAA.

I specifically want original data preserved and available for subsequent analysis: not permanently adjusted and the source destroyed and/or concealed. Intentionally or not, the latter ARE hallmarks of garbage science.

Here's an article about paleontology that illustrates the back and forth movement/controversy within real science; the article holds another reference to astrophysics (see if you can find it): https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 60454.html

Post Reply