Tweet
Originally posted by Dave Stalwart
View Post
-
Iceberg calving is caused by ......wait for it........glacier expansion. -
Yeah I was a lot more proud of my cleverness than I was interested in this actual thread. I just put it here rather than starting a new thread.Comment
-
Now entering a "space age record cold"? https://www.iceagenow.info/headed-fo...asa-scientist/Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!Comment
-
Two new studies, one from Finnish scientists and one from Japanese scientists, seem to indicate that "Man-made climate change doesn't exist in practice". Of the 0.1 degree Celsius increase, they only attribute 0.01 degree to anthropogenic causes (10% or less of the increase), having discovered that galactic cosmic rays increase low-level cloud cover, creating an umbrella effect.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...exist-practiceThis has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.
The full study: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
This isn't to say that everything that has come before is bogus, but that the science isn't as "settled" as we've been told and there is much more study to be done before we spend trillions upon trillions of dollars in an attempt to solve a problem that isn't understood as well as some have thought.Last edited by RoyalShock; July 12, 2019, 10:29 AM.Comment
-
If you're swayed by a six page "study" that lacks peer-review (and really any discussion of how or from where they obtained their data...), well... you probably weren't going to believe what the vast, vast majority of scientists have to say on the subject regardless.Originally posted by RoyalShock View PostComment
-
How many of those vast vast majority have published one page, let alone six. But yet they are to be believed?"I not sure that I've ever been around a more competitive player or young man than Fred VanVleet. I like to win more than 99.9% of the people in this world, but he may top me." -- Gregg Marshall 12/23/13 :peaceful:
---------------------------------------
Remember when Nancy Pelosi said about Obamacare:
"We have to pass it, to find out what's in it".
A physician called into a radio show and said:
"That's the definition of a stool sample."Comment
-
That’s not a very interesting critique of the paper. Slightly more interesting is that the study starts off with an abstract stating that they will “disprove” the IPCC climate model. As a reader, it’s pretty clear that this paper is going to have a bias. I would assume that this paper would be sent back for editing based on that alone. A better hypothesis statement would be something like, “Cloud covering may be a more significant variable in temperature increase than previously estimated.”Originally posted by jdshock View Post
On the other hand, the lead author has been publishing (in peer-reviewed journals) on the climactic effects of cloud covering for over a decade. Here’s one from the International Review of Physics from 2011. It’s 11 pages, so hopefully it will suffice:
Something that EVERYONE should know regardless of if you’re a climate denier or a climate alarmist: The ACTUAL warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant, as pointed out by this paper. As CO2 increases, it’s actual warming decreases. The idea behind CO2 induced warming is two fold: There is a historical correlation between CO2 and temperature increase, and there is a hypothesis that the increase in CO2 sets off a series of positive feedback loops. There is certainly some evidence for this, but the earliest climate models from around 1990 would have been closer to accurate if they had said the temp will remain constant, rather than the 6-9 degrees C by 2030.
One last note: The IPCC report is not peer-reviewed by scientist. The politician paper is selected by politicians.
Livin the dreamComment
-
It's not an "interesting" critique? In what way? You actually believe it was accurate to refer to the 6 page paper as a "full study"? And it doesn't bother you that it lacks an explanation of the underlying data? Yes the author has been publishing on the subject for a decade, which is why 80% of the citations in the new paper were citations to previous works of the author. It's not new, interesting, or compelling science in any way. It's silly to act like this paper proves the science isn't settled.Originally posted by wufan View Post
That’s not a very interesting critique of the paper. Slightly more interesting is that the study starts off with an abstract stating that they will “disprove” the IPCC climate model. As a reader, it’s pretty clear that this paper is going to have a bias. I would assume that this paper would be sent back for editing based on that alone. A better hypothesis statement would be something like, “Cloud covering may be a more significant variable in temperature increase than previously estimated.”
On the other hand, the lead author has been publishing (in peer-reviewed journals) on the climactic effects of cloud covering for over a decade. Here’s one from the International Review of Physics from 2011. It’s 11 pages, so hopefully it will suffice:
We have this conversation every time, but these are not affirmative reasons to believe any skeptic. These are not defenses of the shoddy science used by skeptics. These are not reasons to disbelieve the current scientific consensus.Originally posted by wufan View Post
People who don't want to believe the scientific consensus go out looking for articles that support their own viewpoint (to be fair, every side does it, but there aren't enough liberals on this particular board for it to be an issue here). If I did the same, I'd have 10 studies in my side's favor for every one that gets posted on here. But to re-bump this thread every three months to say "look, new science came out" is disingenuous. The majority of the articles/research/data that have come out since October 2018 (when this thread was last bumped) have been in my side's favor.
Comment
-
You were dismissive without merit. You said it wasn’t peer reviews and it was short. That’s all you said. This is a position paper against the IPCC’s publication. That is new, despite all the work that has been done to contradict it. You are dismissing it because of some sort of zealotry despite not understanding the science.Originally posted by jdshock View Post
Livin the dreamComment
-
It not being peer reviewed is a true statement. That can be a red flag. Because it can be a red flag, I went to the source to see if it was a concern. It was not. It therefore has no merit and was an attempt to dismiss the paper without merit.
Was it short? I don’t know. It was shorter than many articles I’ve read, but my wife performs peer review of scientific literature for journals, so I asked her. She stated that most ground breaking articles are 15 pages or longer, but most of what she reviews is 5 to 10 pages. So, probably on the shorter side. Is that a red flag? Absolutely not.
Both of those arguments are logical Galicia’s, and they are obviously without merit.
The data gathering...that wasn’t in your initial dismissal, so you literally said nothing else at the time of my response. Is that a valuable critique? No. He has six peer reviewed papers. Yes, most of them were his own, but he is the worlds foremost expert, and he obviously did the research. Check his papers.
I agree that it wasn’t a full, new study. I didn’t see where that was stated, but I also didn’t read the related news article. I would call this a survey of previous studies and a contrast to how the IPCC ignored it. You literally posted garbage in the boys playing girls sports thread as proof that women can compete with men, and now you are critiquing this...poorly.
Should this article change your opinion on if climate change is settled science? It depends on what you mean when you say; what is climate change, how much is anthropomorthic, and what settled means? Please elaborate. Let’s see if we agree. -
It feels like more and more frequently there are moments like this where I just can't even participate in the discussion here because we're such worlds apart. I honestly, truly cannot understand at all. What could you possibly mean that it wasn't in my initial criticism? It's literally in my first post... And it's just incredibly disingenuous to act like it's meritless to question where the data comes from. There's none. Zero. Absolutely nothing is stated about how they got their cloud data. It's not science.
-
-
Whoa!!! This IS the scientific consensus. There was a study done that stated that 97% of scientific articles stated that there IS anthropomorphic climate change. This article EXPLICITLY states there is anthropomorphic climate change. If this article were reviewed for that study, it would be an affirmative article.Originally posted by jdshock View Post
Why are are you suggesting that this is shoddy science? What about it is incorrect, and why are you disagreeing with the concensus?Livin the dreamComment
-
I am serious. The reason I presented that is because you went into the scientific consensus. Articles like this were affirmative to the consensus because it states that some temperature changes are due to man made CO2, even if it goes on to state it’s negligible. -
That is just not true. The primary studies on the subject define "implicit rejection" as a paper that "implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming." https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...8/2/024024/pdf
So, no, the primary studies would not subsequently call this "full study" which says "anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice" an affirmative response. That's incorrect.
Also, it's anthropogenic climate change. There's no such thing as anthropomorphic climate change. I wasn't going to say anything because I knew what you meant. But if we're going to actually argue about the underlying science and data, it seems pretty silly to do so using the incorrect terminology. -
This study is highly contentious. Here’s a Forbes Article that explains the concerns:
Here’s one from the guardian:
-
-
Here’s the thing:
Anthropomorphic climate change is real. What portion of the temperature change do you believe is due to man, and what portion of it do you believe is due to CO2? What should be done about it?
Those are are the questions that are not settled. There is science on this that comes out all the time (both directions). Few make drastic claims like this one does, but this one does point out that the climate models are not robust and should lead you to ask what evidence could be generated that would lead you to rethink your assumptions.Livin the dreamComment
-
Everything is in presentation. "I can see Russia from my house" becomes a joke, and "there are fish literally swimming in the streets of Miami" becomes fact.Comment
-
The biggest problem with this discussion and how CO2 emissions affect climate change is that whatever the US can do to reduce our own emissions will be a drop in the bucket to what the rest of the world is doing in increasing them. What I read about a week or so ago ranked the top 25 countries in fossil fuel generated CO2 emissions in 2017. It also looked at what those levels were in 1992.
Yes, by far, we had the largest emissions 15 years ago. However, the level we were at in 1992 increased to the article's current study year (2017) was only a 1.8% increase. We have been passed by China like we were standing still.
Assuming the CO2 emissions is a problem, all countries, particularly China will need to be on board. Not saying we could even do this quickly, but if we could reduce our emissions to the general level per person of that of Russia, Japan, and Germany (#4, 5, and 6 in total emissions), that would reduce our overall emissions by a third or about 1,700 million metric tons per year. However, if China increased their level per person to that same level, they would increase by more than a third or about 5,000 million metric tons. This does not mention a country like India who is currently #3 in emissions, but currently only at 1/5 the level per person. If they were to only increase to half the per person level used above, that would be an increase of 3,700 million metric tons.Comment
-
Earlier this week it came out that the Green New Deal wasn’t really about climate:
Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.87e9e2a0bd36
This is an unfortunate example of how some progressives don’t view climate change as an existential threat, but as a political means to change the power structure.
i do think that if they believed that the end was near, they’d be pretty gung ho on nuclear.Livin the dreamComment
Comment