CID1990 wrote:
The "practically the entire scientific community" thing is a pro-AGW talking point but it is fallacious on many levels.
Again, consensus is what is being pushed in the climate science community but consensus is not what drives good science. It leads to the abandonment of scientific discovery - this is why this "entire scientific community" refuses to try to identify the reasons why the climate models are not lining up with the observed results- because their minds have been made up and theres as much orthodoxy to it as there is science. The real inconvenient truth here is that none of the climate models from your "entire scientific community" have been correct. This in and of itself does not mean that AGW isnt a real phenomenon- but it definitely calls into question the actual impact.
The whole debate comes down to where people's meal tickets are coming from- the government (which always has an interest in expanded scope and power) or big industry (which has an interest in seeing AGW debunked regardless of whether it exists or not). If your vast majority of scientists were saying that there is no AGW and there were outliers like Bengsston complaining about professional and internal pressures to get on board with that I would be just as skeptical.
CID for the win.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
89Hen wrote:I have an outing next Friday. Forecast right now is 71, partly cloudy with a 10% chance of rain. Let's see what it turns out. I can't lose either way.
89Hen wrote:Friday forecast now 65 with T-Showers, chance of rain 60%. So we've gone from a great day on the course, to shit. Hopefully will change again.
89Hen wrote:Deteriorating by the minute. Now 64, rain and thunder, chance of rain 70% with the added "potential for heavy rainfall" in bold letters.
So we're one day out. Current forecast is now 63 with AM rain, chance of rain 100%. Interesting that they removed the "potential for heavy rainfall" note beacuse on the 10pm news last night they said we could get 3-5 inches of rain.
Kalm, I don't think this means they are always wrong, but considering I picked a random day 10 days ago and the forecast changed almost every day, maybe I was correct in this case. Our forecasts around here absolutely BLOW.
Rained hard enough last night to wake me up several times. We got 3-4" overnight and it looks like the rain will end by 11am and actually become partly sunny and 73 by mid to late afternoon. So in a way, both forecasts were equally right and wrong. Still not sure if the course will be open for our 1pm shotgun.
It doesn't have to be a collective conspiracy or fraud, kalm. Scientists can be affected by group think, peer pressure, a lack of understanding of statical logic, or just plain bias.
Back when the saturated fat-heart disease hypothesis was being tested, data from countries like France were tossed because they didn't jive with the a priori conclusion of that study. After that it was pretty much a consensus that saturated fat was bad, more and more people started using vegetable oils in cooking, and the first "food pyramid" comes out saying you should eat a lot of grains and fewer fats. Now a lager amount of data and more hard science have debunked the first food pyramid. Was there a conspiracy here? Probably not, just sloppiness and carelessness.
When you cannot predict things like CO2 levels, sea levels, and temperature over time, that means that there is something you haven't accounted for that is affecting those things that aren't negligible. How can you say that whatever these things are haven't played a role in temperature changes over time and to what degree?
And people like JMUDJ will point to ocean heat content but that data only goes back a few decades. Apparently it's okay to use that as a reason for why the average atmospheric temperatures haven't changed much since 1998 but don't suggest a net transfer of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere could've played a role in the supposedly unprecedented level of warming in the 20th century that was attributed to cow farts and cars.
And egos come in all shapes and sizes and scientist are not immune. From how Yosemite was carved to disagreements over the demise of the dinosaurs to static universe to psychology's blank slate theory, many scientist will fight tooth and nail for their academic reputation no matter how wrong they are, especially if there is broad "consensus" at the time that they are correct.
89Hen wrote:Rained hard enough last night to wake me up several times. We got 3-4" overnight and it looks like the rain will end by 11am and actually become partly sunny and 73 by mid to late afternoon. So in a way, both forecasts were equally right and wrong. Still not sure if the course will be open for our 1pm shotgun.
Rain cleared out and it was bright and sunny before noon, one of the best weather afternoons you could ask for. The course didn't have cart paths the whole way around, so we ended up having to hoof it. Was a struggle to carry all that beer.
Can we give Michael Mann the ability to respond here?
(Remember T, this is just opinion )
I read it and I looked for the part where the eminent climatologist author addresses Bengsston's concerns over observed climate not behaving according to the "settled science" models.
I can't find that part. Can you give me a paragraph number?
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
Can we give Michael Mann the ability to respond here?
(Remember T, this is just opinion )
I read it and I looked for the part where the eminent climatologist author addresses Bengsston's concerns over observed climate not behaving according to the "settled science" models.
I can't find that part. Can you give me a paragraph number?
CID1990 wrote:
I read it and I looked for the part where the eminent climatologist author addresses Bengsston's concerns over observed climate not behaving according to the "settled science" models.
I can't find that part. Can you give me a paragraph number?
The article was about Mcarthyism.
AH!
So nothing to do with climate science. Got it.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
AGW skeptics argue that the science is skewed with specific examples. That observable weather does not line up at all with the models of the last 20 years is significant, but critics of people like Bengsston will criticize him and others for everything except the science. The Huffpo article is typical in that it features a climate scientist criticizing Bengsston not because he is wrong, but because of his associations and when they occurred. Of course, you find nothing ironic about a climate scientist penning an article for HuffPo that has nothing to do with science. You'd think these "Settled Sciencers"TM would have an answer for people like Bengsston that involves... oh I don't know.... SCIENCE?
I get the point perfectly, and your article illustrated it beautifully.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
kalm wrote:
You're still confused but I'm pulling for ya.
I'm not confused at all.
AGW skeptics argue that the science is skewed with specific examples. That observable weather does not line up at all with the models of the last 20 years is significant, but critics of people like Bengsston will criticize him and others for everything except the science. The Huffpo article is typical in that it features a climate scientist criticizing Bengsston not because he is wrong, but because of his associations and when they occurred. Of course, you find nothing ironic about a climate scientist penning an article for HuffPo that has nothing to do with science. You'd think these "Settled Sciencers"TM would have an answer for people like Bengsston that involves... oh I don't know.... SCIENCE?
I get the point perfectly, and your article illustrated it beautifully.
It was a response to tman's comments regarding Mann (the author of this article) from earlier in the thread.
AZGrizFan wrote:
Again, remember when they said sea levels were going to rise 20 feet?
1981, ICE CAP MELTING FORECAST A global mean temperature rise of 3.6 F could cause a rise of 9F at Antarctica melting the Ice Sheet and raising sea levels by 15 to 20 feet and flooding25% of Florida and Louisiana within a span of 100 years or less.
And now?
And this rise is accelerating, said Tal Ezer, a researcher at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va.
His colleague, Larry Atkinson, said computer models suggest that if this acceleration continues at the same pace, the rise along the East Coast — from North Carolina to Massachusetts — could be 5.3 feet (1.6 meters) by 2100.
That is a model that is FOUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE off. THAT's the "catastrophic" predictions that I"m talking about. And I'm not real good with numbers, but I fail to see how a sea level that rises 1.5 inches per DECADE can go up 5.3 FEET in 10 decades. 1.5" x 10 = 15 INCHES which is a long fucking ways from 5.3 feet.
But that's global warming math.
Z, these two models do not equate. The first model you reference is and IF-THEN model. IF the global temperature were to increase by 3.6 F above preindustrial temperatures THEN sea levels could rise 15 to 20 feet in the span of 100 years. The second model you reference says that sea levels will rise by 5 feet by 2100 based. Do you see the difference? We have not yet reached a 3.6 F increase (~1.4 F above preindustrial currently). So, in short, both of these models are valid
BTW, this is the 1981 temperature model aligned with physical data collected since the publication. Pretty spot on.
AZGrizFan wrote:
Again, remember when they said sea levels were going to rise 20 feet?
And now?
That is a model that is FOUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE off. THAT's the "catastrophic" predictions that I"m talking about. And I'm not real good with numbers, but I fail to see how a sea level that rises 1.5 inches per DECADE can go up 5.3 FEET in 10 decades. 1.5" x 10 = 15 INCHES which is a long fucking ways from 5.3 feet.
But that's global warming math.
Z, these two models do not equate. The first model you reference is and IF-THEN model. IF the global temperature were to increase by 3.6 F above preindustrial temperatures THEN sea levels could rise 15 to 20 feet in the span of 100 years. The second model you reference says that sea levels will rise by 5 feet by 2100 based. Do you see the difference? We have not yet reached a 3.6 F increase (~1.4 F above preindustrial currently). So, in short, both of these models are valid
BTW, this is the 1981 temperature model aligned with physical data collected since the publication. Pretty spot on.
JMU DJ wrote:
Z, these two models do not equate. The first model you reference is and IF-THEN model. IF the global temperature were to increase by 3.6 F above preindustrial temperatures THEN sea levels could rise 15 to 20 feet in the span of 100 years. The second model you reference says that sea levels will rise by 5 feet by 2100 based. Do you see the difference? We have not yet reached a 3.6 F increase (~1.4 F above preindustrial currently). So, in short, both of these models are valid
BTW, this is the 1981 temperature model aligned with physical data collected since the publication. Pretty spot on.
Just passing through... figured someone may have posted something about Sea Turtles turning all female due to climate change... or pesticides being responsible for colony collapse disorder. Eh...
AGW skeptics argue that the science is skewed with specific examples. That observable weather does not line up at all with the models of the last 20 years is significant, but critics of people like Bengsston will criticize him and others for everything except the science. The Huffpo article is typical in that it features a climate scientist criticizing Bengsston not because he is wrong, but because of his associations and when they occurred. Of course, you find nothing ironic about a climate scientist penning an article for HuffPo that has nothing to do with science. You'd think these "Settled Sciencers"TM would have an answer for people like Bengsston that involves... oh I don't know.... SCIENCE?
I get the point perfectly, and your article illustrated it beautifully.
It was a response to tman's comments regarding Mann (the author of this article) from earlier in the thread.
Peddle faster.
Oh ok I get it now. This thread is about McCarthyism.
I still can't understand why a climate scientist is arguing the finer points of timing and McCarthyism... I mean, is that all he's got?
I mean.... shouldn't he be blinding us with SCIENCE?
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
On the coast of North Carolina and at other so-called "hotspots" along the U.S. East Coast, sea levels are rising about three times more quickly on average than they are globally, researchers reported during a session devoted to sea level rise.
That's the fastest rise in the world.
"What we're seeing here is unique," said Asbury Sallenger, an oceanographer at the U.S. Geological Survey in St. Petersburg, Fla.
And this rise is accelerating, said Tal Ezer, a researcher at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va.
His colleague, Larry Atkinson, said computer models suggest that if this acceleration continues at the same pace, the rise along the East Coast — from North Carolina to Massachusetts — could be 5.3 feet (1.6 meters) by 2100.
Sea levels on this stretch of land have climbed as much as 1.5 inches (3.7 centimeters) per decade since 1980, while globally they've risen up to 0.4 inches (1.0 cm) per decade, according to a study by Sallenger published in June.
That is a model that is FOUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE off. THAT's the "catastrophic" predictions that I"m talking about. And I'm not real good with numbers, but I fail to see how a sea level that rises 1.5 inches per DECADE can go up 5.3 FEET in 10 decades. 1.5" x 10 = 15 INCHES which is a long fucking ways from 5.3 feet.
But that's global warming math.
DJ, you conveniently omitted the most telling (and damning) sentence in the post:
JMU DJ wrote:Z, these two models do not equate. The first model you reference is and IF-THEN model. IF the global temperature were to increase by 3.6 F above preindustrial temperatures THEN sea levels could rise 15 to 20 feet in the span of 100 years. The second model you reference says that sea levels will rise by 5 feet by 2100 based. Do you see the difference? We have not yet reached a 3.6 F increase (~1.4 F above preindustrial currently). So, in short, both of these models are valid
BTW, this is the 1981 temperature model aligned with physical data collected since the publication. Pretty spot on.
The 5 foot sea rise is not referencing the first model. It's all contained in the second quote. Sea levels along the East Coast are allegedly rising 4 times faster than the world in general...i.e., at a rate of 1.5" per DECADE, on average, as opposed to .4" / DECADE global average, and allegedly at an increasing rate (whatever that means....1" the first decade? 1.5" the 2nd decade? 2" the 3rd decade?) For the sea to then rise 5.3 FEET by 2100 (just 8.5 DECADES away), if it's risen just 1.5"x3.5 Decades = 5.25", at that rate of increase we would see sea level increases of just 12.75" in 8.5 decades...NOT 63.6" as inferred in the article. Even assuming an increasing rate of rise, you'd get nowhere NEAR 64" by 2100. Sea levels would have to rise an AVERAGE of 7.5" PER DECADE over the next 8.5 decades to get anywhere near their number. It's just flawed, biased, global warming math at its finest....and it's why global warming apologists have NO integrity left.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
That's the closest I could come to modeling a sea level rise at an increasing rate that came close to 63" in 10 decades (8.5 more)...The first three numbers are a guess for the 80's, 90's and 2000's, and the rest is built off that assumption.
Utterly ridiculous math. All the way around.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
That's the closest I could come to modeling a sea level rise at an increasing rate that came close to 63" in 10 decades (8.5 more)...The first three numbers are a guess for the 80's, 90's and 2000's, and the rest is built off that assumption.
Utterly ridiculous math. All the way around.
I agree. The climate change alarmists are their own worst enemy.
FWIW I believe the earth is getting warmer, and I believe that we are somewhat responsible. But nobody knows exactly what is going to happen and spitting out worst case scenarios that don't come true undermines the issue.
)
