Superstorms coming?
Danny Lemieux on Feb 07 2011 at 6:51 am | Filed under: Climate change
Are we entering the next ice age?
One of the foundations of scientific inquiry is skepticism. Contrary to what some believe, science is not about consensus but about leaving all doors of inquiry open to all possibilities. It takes only one point of evidence to disprove an entire theory. Progress in science has occurred largely because of breakthrough insights made by individuals, not committees. Another aspect of science is that it is the study of realities much bigger than ourselves: to think otherwise is hubris. We use science to understand the world around us, we use technology to try and manipulate such knowledge to our benefit. However, not all things are within our control. Third, scientific progress depends upon skepticism. Skepticism is good, because it constantly puts conventional wisdom to the test. Conformity to conventional wisdom doesn’t equate with progress.
This is why I present the link below (h/t, http://qando.net/). It provides a different perspective on our future and explanations for many of the weather and climate phenomena we have been witnessing. It provides a very dark and troubling alternative vision of our future. The points it raises are ones of which scientists were already well aware during my university days many years ago. Thus do I know that it contains at least a kernel of truth.
The thrust of this linked article is that we are about to lose the earth’s magnetic shield, resulting in massive and destructive climate disruption that could be civilization altering and plunge us into the next ice age.
http://salem-news.com/articles/february042011/global-superstorms-ta.php
Scared yet?
Well, this article just appeared in an MSM publication published for people who are likely to be only vaguely aware of its scientific merits. Many of the points made in the article appear logically presented and certainly square with information of which I am already aware. However, the article lacks the rigorous detail needed for me to make any judgment of its merits. It is sensational and manipulative. The citations include publications that I consider of highly dubious quality (Scientific American, National Geographic). It does not cite countervailing points of view (which I can be sure exist).
Do I believe the conclusions implied in this article? Nope. Do I disbelieve them? Nope.
I will thus file away the information as evidence of an alternate hypothesis to explain the weather and climate changes that we have observed in our world. A third hypothesis to anthropogenic climate change is solar cycle theory, which also predicts a period of protracted global cooling). It’s a hypothesis that demands a healthy skepticism rather than a frantic reaction. However, it does broaden the terrain of debate on climate change.
I shall file it under “interesting, possibly true”.
Email This Post To A Friend
79 Responses to “Superstorms coming?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The connection between climate and the Earth’s magnetic field is plausible, but still speculative.
Knudsen & Riisager, Is there a link between Earth’s magnetic field and low-latitude precipitation?, Geology 2009.
At this point, scientists do not consider a pole reversal imminent, nor do they believe that the magnetic field disappears when it does.
NASA: Earth’s Inconstant Magnetic Field
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/29dec_magneticfield.html
Climate is not only more complex than you imagine, it is more complex than you can imagine. (I stole that–mostly).
There is, as far as I can tell, no way to know the effects of a pole reversal or to predict if one is about to occur because a pole reversal has never occurred/been observed in recorded history. Why, how, and what would result from such an event is unknown and unknowable. One would expect, however, that there would be large variations in magnetic field strength during the transition from one (reasonably) stable state (north magnetic pole in northern hemisphere) to another stable state (north MP in southern hemisphere). Since the earth’s magnetic field provides protection from cosmic rays (which seem to affect cloud formation and hence climate), etc., it is not a huge stretch to suggest that “bad things” may happen, including climate effects.
The contention that magnetic field variations affect climate is refreshing. After enduring years of assertions, based on nothing but dreams of socialist glory and simplistic thinking, that the earth’s climate is primarily controlled by the concentration of a scarce gas (about 0.04% of the atmosphere) that weakly absorbs infrared radiation at a few wavelengths, it is good to see someone acknowledging how little we know about why the climate varies so much. In 10,000 years, the earth has gone from miles of ice year round over my home (in Ohio) to occasional 100 deg F days in summer and no one has any clear idea why.
There is no agreement of why we enter, or leave, ice ages. We cannot predict, with more than flip of coin accuracy, weather a few days ahead over a small area. But because it suits the political (and financial) goals of politicians and politicized “scientists”, they pretend that they can predict, to several decimal places accuracy, the temperatures of the entire planet centuries from now.
One example: The so-called “consensus” on climate stated explicitly that variations in solar output had negligible effects on climate (see IPCC report). This assertion is ridiculous on its face but was based on the conclusion that the sun’s output does not vary meaningfully. Even without contradictory evidence, perhaps because our solar output data only goes back a few decades or because the IPCC cherry picked one article on the subject and ignored contradictory evidence (in addition, sun spot frequency data going back hundreds of years show “something” varies in the sun dramatically, on short and long time frames, even if we have no idea of the exact pattern and less of causes or meaning), this smacks more of a primitive religious belief than a scientific position. We accept that solar output varies greatly over the life of a star. Why would we base our climate science on medium term solar constancy when this is contrary to both some observations and common sense?
In short, climate “science” is currently at a position relative to understanding climate as alchemy was 400 years ago to understanding chemistry. We know very little, understand less and are unwilling to even acknowledge (for political reasons) how ignorant we are.
Apropos of global ice ages and the politics thereof, Niven and Pournelle’s novel *Fallen Angels* is up at the Baen Free Library:
http://www.baen.com/library/067172052x/067172052x.htm
Our friend Zachriel purports to speak for all scientists when he says that “scientists do not consider a pole reversal imminent” then links to an article that says:
“Sometimes the field completely flips. The north and the south poles swap places. Such reversals, recorded in the magnetism of ancient rocks, are unpredictable. They come at irregular intervals averaging about 300,000 years; the last one was 780,000 years ago. Are we overdue for another? No one knows.”
In other words, it might be imminent. In fact, the article ends with the idea that the scientist now monitoring the pole around the north pole might be able to watch the reversal from Tahiti.
See this is why Humanities majors shouldn’t help their 5th graders with their homework. They freak out. All things are possible but only a few are probable to the extent we should concern ourselves. We study many things, we speculate about many things, we control very few things. Plus, as with non-anthropomorphic global warming the pole reversal is beyond human control. So without God, they must run screaming into the night lamenting the evil that lies in men’s souls that such things could happen.
A little note for the Left and others who don’t understand science. There are no scientific facts, there are only theories that currently best conform to the observed evidence. While improbable, it is possible that tomorrow or the next day all we think we know of gravity will be tossed asunder by new and better insight. The same with evolution, with astrophysics, with climate, with the very air we breath. And for the longest time, the “consensus” will be that it didn’t and isn’t happening.
Don Quixote: In other words, it might be imminent.
iimminent: ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one’s head, from the Latin imminent-, imminens, present participle of imminēre to project, threaten.
Perhaps that ticket in your pocket for tomorrow’s lottery is a winner, but you wouldn’t say your winning was imminent. More particularly, Earth’s magnetohydrodynamics is a chaotic system, and there are a lot of unknown variables. It is quite possible that such a flip will occur tomorrow, but there is no reason based on history and what is known at this point to think so.
garyp: There is, as far as I can tell, no way to know the effects of a pole reversal or to predict if one is about to occur because a pole reversal has never occurred/been observed in recorded history. Why, how, and what would result from such an event is unknown and unknowable.
That is very much an overstatement. Though, there is still a lot unknown, the history of such reversals can be reconstructed. That’s why we know that these reversals occurred, after all.
garyp: But because it suits the political (and financial) goals of politicians and politicized “scientists”, they pretend that they can predict, to several decimal places accuracy, the temperatures of the entire planet centuries from now.
No reputable scientist claims to be able to do that.
garyp: Why would we base our climate science on medium term solar constancy when this is contrary to both some observations and common sense?
We don’t. Rather, solar radiation doesn’t explain the observed global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Now you get into areas where everybody laughs hysterically, Charles begins buying up ocean-front property, and everybody gets a pleasant moment’s amusement. (I don’t presume to know: I wasn’t there.)
Maybe the coming to a close of the current Mayan age does in fact mean something. Maybe Einstein was right in his assertion that what he and Charles Hapgood called an ‘earth crust displacement’ did happen, and does happen every now and then, and may be expected to happen again. (That displacement is different – and, so Einstein thought – a much more frequent occurrence than the magnetic pole flip.
The precursors to both are likely the same: unprecedented (though one should hesitate to use that word, practically nothing is truly unprecedented – we just haven’t seen it, and disbelieve reports from our ancestors) storms, sea level displacements, climate change (obviously), etc. The mechanism is that the lithosphere, the entire outer crust of the earth, may be displaced at times and move over the hot interior like the skin of an orange or a potato would, if it were to become detached, float atop the soft interior. Precipitating conditions not understood, and despite Einstein’s interest (now almost sixty years old) and the comment that somebody oughtta investigate it (said comment courtesy of John Wright, president of the American Geographical Society), nobody did.
Everybody forgets – or, as is more likely – is never is taught that the human race has grown to its current state in a time that is far more the exception than it is the norm. In the wake of the last Ice Age, these past 10,000 or so years have been an interregnum of unusual earthly peace and quiet. The planet’s been unusually quiet, and so has the outer universe. The human race has grown up in a time of moderate temperatures; stable climate; very little massive world-changing volcanic activity (unless it was indeed Toba that took the race down to a few thousand or so, the genetic “bottleneck” of not so very long ago); no life-ending asteroid or cometary strikes (the scars of them are everywhere, but none have arrived while we’ve been struggling along on the surface); and the world continues to warm post-Ice Age – which it should probably do so for about another millennium, whether Al Gore likes it or not. It’s been a kindly time – unusually so. We have taken full advantage.
But the geological history would seem to be that it doesn’t last forever.
What happened to aliens, Danny. Don’t aliens get an equal share in this pot pie?
In reply to Zach’s comments on my post:
GaryP: There is, as far as I can tell, no way to know the effects of a pole reversal or to predict if one is about to occur because a pole reversal has never occurred/been observed in recorded history. Why, how, and what would result from such an event is unknown and unknowable.
Zach: That is very much an overstatement. Though, there is still a lot unknown, the history of such reversals can be reconstructed. That’s why we know that these reversals occurred, after all.
The indented paragraphs below, taken from a post at WUWT, came from a Wikipedia article on the subject of MP reversal. While I didn’t read this until after making my above comments, I think they clearly support my points. We know MP reversals have occurred (based on rock magnetism measurements), but we have no idea what the symptoms of an impending reversal might be because we have never observed one directly and we also have no idea what the consequences of such a reversal might be because a MP reversal has never occurred during recorded history.
Zach, I think you may have read Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” once too often and what you are really distressed by are my comments on Global Warming (or whatever the nom de jour is).
The reason that “solar radiation doesn’t explain observed global warming” (as you mention in your reply to my comments) is that the IPCC purposely excluded solar variability from consideration as a possible explanation for global warming. This exclusion was based on a single article that “adjusted” the satellite data on solar output in a manner that the primary repository of that data felt was suspect, to say the least. The rest of the literature is more supportive (surprise, surprise) that the Sun may just have a little to do with our climate. I think that eliminating the Sun from climate was another of those “hide the decline” things that Warmists seem to love so much.
First the Warmists declare, without any basis in fact, that (1) CO2 is the only thing driving climate and (2) no one should study any other possible climate drivers because of (1) and anyone who does study other possible climate drivers is a “denier” because we already told you what drives climate and nothing else matters so “LA LA LA, we can’t hear you.” Whatever the IPCC does, it doesn’t do science. And that goes for the entire Warmist cabal.
garyp: There is, as far as I can tell, no way to know the effects of a pole reversal or to predict if one is about to occur because a pole reversal has never occurred/been observed in recorded history. Why, how, and what would result from such an event is unknown and unknowable.
garyp: The indented paragraphs below, taken from a post at WUWT, came from a Wikipedia article on the subject of MP reversal. While I didn’t read this until after making my above comments, I think they clearly support my points.
Wikipedia: Because the magnetic field has never been observed to reverse by humans with instrumentation, and the mechanism of field generation is not well understood, it is difficult to say what the characteristics of the magnetic field might be leading up to such a reversal.
The Wikipedia article doesn’t say that we don’t know anything, or that we can’t know anything, even in principle. (Notably, the statement in Wikipedia is a conjunctive.) That’s why we said your comment was an overstatement.
garyp: IPCC purposely excluded solar variability from consideration
Lockwood & Fröhlich, Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature, Proceedings of the Royal Society 2007: “Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.”
Nor does the IPCC ignore solar variability, but points out that “the direct effect of solar variation, through changes in total irradiance, is known to be small,” and that there are no large feedback mechanisms known to make it significant enough to explain the observed warming trend.
Foukal, al., Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth’s climate, Nature 2006: “we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century” (though they do say that u/w and plasma effects can’t be ruled out).
Here, if we’re going to play Zach’s little game, let’s do it with gusto.
The excerpt below was taken from http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/solar_daleo_Lockwood_and_Frolich_Review.pdf
“The authors of a newly published paper on the role of the sun’s variability on global temperatures overstate their case that there has been no impact of solar variations on the earth’s temperature history during the past several decades. Antithetically, changes to the sun are generally known to influence the earth’s climate on all time scales, from eons to hours. However, the difficulty comes in trying to fully measure the magnitude of the sun’s variability and then to understand how such changes result in changes to the earth’s climate.
“In a new paper, authors Lockwood and Fröhlich seem to ignore these difficulties and uncertainties, dismissing any work on this complex subject that doesn’t agree with their pre‐conclusions.
“For instance, in a series of papers published within the past two years, researchers Scafetta and West have concluded that the solar variations may have been responsible for 10 to 30 percent of the observed global surface temperature increase from 1980‐2002. Lockwood and Fröhlich fail even acknowledgment of these widely‐publicized findings. This is but one example of the inadequacies of the research of Lockwood and Fröhlich.”
Did Zach just claim that they were going to reverse entropy and create a perpetual motion machine?
We put together a small symposium on magnetic reversal 25 years ago. It is a fascinating subject, and I know of at least three separate theories of why it occurs, all of which are quite well founded. The most interesting one is associated with gravitational effects, and postulates that the reversal is a normal periodic event. What came as a surprise to me was that there were concrete predictions on when it would occur. These varied from within 4,000 to 40,000 years. None of the participants, which included a variety of fields, really disagreed with this proposition. As to what it would cause, that would be speculation. It does appear though that the effects are not that profound to life.
There is some interesting and useful coverage of this at this site: http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/
I read about the shifting magnetic shield some years ago in a book Don Quixote loaned me (although, funnily, neither of us can remember what the book was). It freaked me out so much, that I stopped reading the book only halfway through. I then decided to ignore it entirely, because there was nothing I could do to change the situation. Sometimes, going ostrich or turtle is the only way to go.
In my neck of the woods it is a well known fact that a carefully shaped hat made of tin foil can counter even the most dramatic effects of magnetism.
I think you need a Faraday’s cage for that Martel.
Charles Martel: Here, if we’re going to play Zach{riel}’s little game, let’s do it with gusto.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/solar_daleo_Lockwood_and_Frolich_Review.pdf
The implication of garyp’s comment “IPCC purposely excluded solar variability from consideration” was that they had simply ignored it, which is not the case. Rather, scientists are quite aware that solar output changes over time, and climate models include solar forcing.
Scafetta & West, Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record, Geophysical Research Letters 2006: “Since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone.”
Ymarsakar: Did Zach just claim that they were going to reverse entropy and create a perpetual motion machine?
No idea what that means. Entropy can and does increase locally.
In pages 7 through 11 of the link I gave above, D’Aleo cites Scafetta extensively in refuting Lockwood and Frolich, including erroneous interpretation of the mathematical model.
(I have now, with one wave of my hand, sent Zach scurrying to Google in search of a counter link that will prove once and for all that he is the best darned beater of dead horses ever seen on this blog! He will return after a hasty scouring of “cites” in 5, 4, 3, 2. . . .)
Zach, I am no solar scientist, but that Lockwood paper appears to me to be focused on changes in solar radiation — that is, the electromagnetic radiation that we experience as light and heat here on earth. Even if, as they claim, such changes are not enough to explain climate change on earth, that is hardly the end of the story of the sun’s multifarious effects on the earth and their potential relationship with our climate.
Changes in the sun’s magnetic field, for instance, directly affect the number of cosmic rays that strike the earth’s surface. (Apparently the field is protective — when it’s stronger, few get through; when it’s weaker, more do.) This may affect the formation of water droplets in the atmosphere which, in turn, may affect cloud cover on earth, which in turn may make the climate warmer or colder — but which? This is, ahem, not well understood, as scientists say when they don’t know. Climatologists don’t know nearly as much about how clouds work in climate as they might wish, and as a result, amazing as it may seem, many of the climate models used to predict climate change just leave them out. The solar wind has weakened recently to the lowest level recorded since accurate measurement began. Why? not well understood. What effect might this have on our climate? Not well understood — natch!
And for another magnetic phenomenon, the scientists Livingston and Penn have been monitoring the magnetic fields of sunspots and have discovered that the fields are diminishing at a rate that — if it continues — will cause the spots to vanish entirely by about 2015. Why is this happening? Not well understood. Will it continue? Not well understood. What will happen if sunspots do disappear? Not well understood — but last time they disappeared for a prolonged period, during the 70-year Maunder Minimum in the 17th century, their absence coincided with a downright chilly time here on earth, at least in Europe and North America — as did two previous periods of missing sunspots, the Dalton and Sporer Minimums. Causation or just correlation or causation? Not well understood — though it appears that changes in the sun’s ultraviolet light may affect air and ocean currents here on earth, leading to changes in storm patterns and temperatures.
The IPCC report did not mention or attempt to account for any of this, or for the many, many other unknowns about how the sun works, why it works that way, and how it interacts with the earth; they talked about one study that measured one aspect of the sun’s output and then closed the subject as if that were all that mattered. People who are so afraid to admit that they don’t know what they don’t know that they have to pretend that they do know all there is to know are not to be trusted — especially when they are scientists.
Mrs Whatsit: The IPCC report did not mention or attempt to account for any of this, or for the many, many other unknowns about how the sun works,
That is incorrect.
IPCC, 1.4.3 Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4-3.html
IPCC, 2.7.1 Solar Variability
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-7.html
IPCC, 2.7.1.3 Indirect Effects of Solar Variability
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-7-1-3.html
In any case, the globe is warming, and the only models that can account for it including carbon-forcing. No model based on solar variability, solar wind, orbital perturbations, changes in the Earth’s magnetic field or any of a number of ad hoc objections have been able to explain the observations.
Moderation queue, please.
Even a casual Googling, such as “critiques of the IPCC position on solar variability,” yields a treasure trove of ripostes to Zach’s touching (yet increasingly out of touch) belief in the integrity of the IPCC and the AGW agenda. Here’s one:
http://www.carlineconomics.com/files/pdf/end_comments_7b1.pdf
Keep stompin’ that dead equine, kid!
Related… the latest insanity, tomfoolery, and plain ol’ stupidity from… drum roll, please… Paul Krugman!
<wait for applause as he steps to center stage. be polite!>
From an article on current food shortages:
But the evidence tells a different, much more ominous story. While several factors have contributed to soaring food prices, what really stands out is the extent to which severe weather events have disrupted agricultural production. And these severe weather events are exactly the kind of thing we’d expect to see as rising concentrations of greenhouse gases change our climate — which means that the current food price surge may be just the beginning.
Link to article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Is he being just plain stupid, or slyly deceitful?
In a sense he is right, in a very slippery sense, when he says: “these severe weather events are exactly the kind of thing we’d expect to see as rising concentrations of greenhouse gases change our climate”
The problem is that we would “expect to see” this only over decades. Even the most diehard AGW scientists expect no more than 0.1 or 0.2 degrees rise in temperature PER DECADE. It is entirely unnoticeable to human detection. To claim any single year’s weather events compared to the prior year are “significant” is outright ridiculous. Hell, even compared to the prior five or ten years, it’s ridiculous. Even if you believe in AGW, it’s outrageously ridiculous. These are changes – even if true – that occur over a large period of time. They are worried about effects fifty years from now… or a hundred years from now, given that rolling back the cumulative effects would be harder and harder the longer you waited.
(Kind of like our problem here in Book’s domain with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare… the longer you wait, the more impossible it gets to avoid the collapse of a bankrupt U.S.A.)
Even if you want to believe that variations have a shorter time-period effect, we have been actually cooling since 1998… so how does that explain the food shortages, which are of recent occurrence, and primarily due to the diversion of basic foodstuffs to ethanol production? Even that doesn’t work.
Paul Krugmain *ought* to be smart enough to see these things. I should not be smarter than Paul Krugman; I’m a lowly software consultant, for crying out loud!
So that leaves: Either Krugman is merely a devoted drinker of great volumes of the Kool-Aid, or he is being deceitful.
Zach, all you’ve done is prove my point. The fact that climatologists can’t build models to explain climate change without building in carbon forcing MAY indicate that carbon forcing is the cause. But those models won’t explain all the constant and dramatic climate change that took place on earth in the geological eons that came before we came along to start up with our puny little carbon forcing efforts. That should suggest to any thinker not blinded by bias that there is something going on that we don’t understand — more likely many somethings — that isn’t built into the models because we don’t know what it is.
Did you actually read the abstracts you cited to me? I don’t have the training to understand the scientific concepts under discussion in anything but a superficial way, but I can read intelligently enough to see that every one of those abstracts expressed plenty of doubt — doubt you ignore, as does the IPCC. For instance, here is the last sentence of your third citation, expressing in succinct scientific jargon precisely the point I was trying to make in my earlier comment by repeating over and over again, “Not Well Understood”:
“While there have been advances in the direct solar irradiance variation, there remain large uncertainties. The level of scientific understanding is elevated to low relative to TAR for solar forcing due to direct irradiance change, while declared as very low for cosmic ray influences (Section 2.9, Table 2.11). ”
“The level of scientific understanding is elevated to low . . . for solar forcing . . . [and] very low . . . for cosmic ray influences” What a great — and honest — way to put it!
Charles Martel: Even a casual Googling, such as “critiques of the IPCC position on solar variability,” yields a treasure trove of ripostes to Zach{riel} touching (yet increasingly out of touch) belief in the integrity of the IPCC and the AGW agenda.
The question wasn’t whether the IPCC was right, or even had integrity. The issue was whether scientists have considered solar variation, solar wind, magnetic fields, etc. And they have. So the previous comments to the contrary were incorrect.
Charles Martel: Here’s one: http://www.carlineconomics.com/files/pdf/end_comments_7b1.pdf
Carlin is an economist, not a climatologist.
Mike Devx: Even the most diehard AGW scientists expect no more than 0.1 or 0.2 degrees rise in temperature PER DECADE.
As global warming has been occurring for some time, that represents a great deal of energy, many zetajoules.
Mike Devx: To claim any single year’s weather events compared to the prior year are “significant” is outright ridiculous. Hell, even compared to the prior five or ten years, it’s ridiculous.
The changes over short timespans are usually swamped by natural variation. It’s only over longer time spans that any clear pattern can usually be determined. (However, it is possible that singular events, such as the disruption of ocean currents, could occur that might immediately change the planet’s weather patterns.)
Mrs Whatsit: The fact that climatologists can’t build models to explain climate change without building in carbon forcing MAY indicate that carbon forcing is the cause.
Scientists are quite aware of the limitations of modeling. That’s why it took so long for a consensus to emerge, even when the evidence was already pretty clear. In particular, the effect of carbon on the ability of the Earth to shed heat is reasonably well-understood. The question remaining, is how that excess heat will affect the climate.
Mrs Whatsit: But those models won’t explain all the constant and dramatic climate change that took place on earth in the geological eons that came before we came along to start up with our puny little carbon forcing efforts.
Now you’re arguing that climatologists haven’t considered the geological history of climate. Turns out that paleoclimatology is a very active field of study, and impacts directly on the science of climate change.
Mrs Whatsit: For instance, here is the last sentence of your third citation, expressing in succinct scientific jargon precisely the point I was trying to make in my earlier comment by repeating over and over again, “Not Well Understood”:
There’s a lot not understood about climate. That’s why scientists continue to study the problem. However, it is known that the globe is warming, and that atmospheric carbon is a major contributor of this warming trend.
DrJohn, over at Flopping Aces, does a great by-the numbers takedown of AGW hysteria.
http://floppingaces.net/2011/02/06/2010-the-hottest-year-on-rec-never-mind-reader-post/
Meanwhile, Sinan Unur tracks the worrisome decline of an endangered species, the global temperature sensor: http://blog.qtau.com/2010/05/dude-where-is-my-thermometer.html
Watch the animation. As they say with computer models and statistics: garbage in, garbage out!
Probably not to worry, though. It seems global temperature sensors abhor cold and have exhibited useful adaptive behavior in seeking out warm shelters:
http://climateobserver.blogspot.com/2009/09/urban-heat-island-effect.html
Someone once wrote that the end of a religion or ideology is always marked by pretzel-like contortions by true believers to cram square pegs of ideology into round holes of reality.
Like Charles M said, let them keep kicking those dead equines.
Once again you illustrate my point. “it is known that the globe is warming, and that atmospheric carbon is a major contributor of this warming trend.” No, it’s not. It is thought that atmospheric carbon MAY be a contributor to the warming trend that was apparent during the 19th and 20th centuries and may or may not have stopped around the beginning of the 21st. It’s not “known” as an absolute certainty that carbon did contribute to this, nor is it “known” whether any contribution it did make was major, minor, or somewhere in between. We ”know” quite a lot about how carbon dioxide behaves in a test tube; that does not mean we “know” anywhere near as much about how it behaves in the complexities of the atmosphere, and no honest scientist claims that we do. Blind insistence that the doubt that’s all around you doesn’t exist won’t make it go away.
“We ”know” quite a lot about how carbon dioxide behaves in a test tube; that does not mean we “know” anywhere near as much about how it behaves in the complexities of the atmosphere…”
Nor do we know much about how carbon dioxide behaves in the soil, vegetation and aquatic environments. Neither does Zach, as they once stated on these pages that human beings are “carbon dioxide neutral”.
Don’t think so.
For Zach’s edification, plants fix carbon dioxide into carbohydrates and proteins (I let them dangle in the wind on this one). Animals eat the fixed carbohydrate and protein of plants to create body mass over a lifetime and excrete solid carbon as waste on a daily basis. When the body decays, only a small amount returns as CO2. Soils bind CO2. Oceans absorb CO2, which is fixed by aquatic plants into protein and carbohydrate and which is absorbed and calcified by mollusks into coral and shells, which eventually sediment into limestone. Carbon cycles.
When high levels of CO2 are produced (as happens when growth zones expand and extend during warming periods, temporary surpluses occur which are eventually sequestered out as the system returns to equilibrium.
Many AGW believers, of course, are in this for ideological (anti-Capitalists) or monetary (Gore, Soros) gain. True believing eco-fanatics like to freak-out over fluctuations that, in a more reasoned and better-educated age, were considered as normal. I don’t consider them much different than the poor, deluded Jesus-look-alikes that used to parade the pages of the New Yorker comics in sandled feet, wearing placards scrawled with “Repent – the end is near!”
“Carlin is an economist, not a climatologist.”
And you, sir, are an uncredentialed video game buff who refers to himself in the first person plural. Your point is?
Carling is an economist, not a climatologist.
And the American (scientific, as opposed to Gore) godfather of global warming, Jim Hansen, is a what? (Hint: not a climatologist.)
And Noam Chomsky, famous lefty political scientist, has his degrees in what? (Hint: it ain’t poly-sci. Or even economics.)
And Howard Zinn, famous lefty political scientist and philosopher-general has his degrees in what? (Hint: oddly enough, neither political science nor philosophy. And despite his frequent learned delvings into economies, not economics, either.)
And there on my TV is the old community agitator himself, lecturing the Chamber of Commerce on how to run their businesses, invest in their business futures, and spend their money to grow their businesses. He does this based on his vast experience in running what? (Hint: it ain’t ever been a business.)
Zach, it’s going to be a kind of tough this late in the game to start pretending that qualifications are meaningful to people on your side of the aisle.
“Cariling” – Jeez. I cannot type on a laptop kleyboard for some reason – no idea why. Obviously the name is “Carlin.”
JJ, “ouch!”.
And let’s not forget the Leader of the UN’s IPCC Report project, Rajenda Pauchari – railroad engineer.
Danny L: And let’s not forget the Leader of the UN’s IPCC Report project, Rajenda Pauchari – railroad engineer.
Wasn’t Rajenda a big shot in that George Lucas ‘Star Wars’ movie? He played the Stormtrooper standing by Obi Wan’s car when they were heading to the cantina. Rajenda is making a CAREER out of saying, “Move along. Nothing to see here… move along.”
I think he was in that ol’ Wizard Of Oz movie too. You know, when they’re in the Environmentally Friendly Green Palace of Democrats, and Toto runs over to the booth and pulls on the cloth to expose George Soros frantically pulling the levers and pushing the buttons? Wasn’t it Rajenda’s voice that boomed, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”
As to the IPCC, the InterPlanetary Collection of Climate-kooks…
Mrs Whatsit: Blind insistence that the doubt that’s all around you doesn’t exist won’t make it go away.
There is a strong consensus within the scientific community that the globe is warming. You say not. But it is our blind insistence, not yours.
Danny Lemieux: Neither does Zach, as they once stated on these pages that human beings are “carbon dioxide neutral”.
We stated that respiration is generally carbon neutral. Humans aren’t carbon neutral because they are burning what used to be sequestered carbon. As we said before, some organic carbon is sequestered, such as in peats or as carbonates. The vast majority of the biomass is carbon neutral.
Danny Lemieux: Oceans absorb CO2, which is fixed by aquatic plants into protein and carbohydrate and which is absorbed and calcified by mollusks into coral and shells, which eventually sediment into limestone. Carbon cycles.
Carbon can be sequestered naturally. This is obvious, as that is the source of fossil fuels. However, this is a slow process and is not sufficiently robust to prevent CO2 from accumulating in the atmosphere.
Danny Lemieux: When high levels of CO2 are produced (as happens when growth zones expand and extend during warming periods, temporary surpluses occur which are eventually sequestered out as the system returns to equilibrium.
Yes, the system will return to some sort of equlibrium, though at a higher temperature. That’s fundamental thermodynamics.
Danny Lemieux: Someone once wrote that the end of a religion or ideology is always marked by pretzel-like contortions by true believers to cram square pegs of ideology into round holes of reality.
Danny Lemieux: I don’t consider them much different than the poor, deluded Jesus-look-alikes that used to parade the pages of the New Yorker comics in sandled feet, wearing placards scrawled with “Repent – the end is near!”
Scientists are just a bunch of deluded, corrupt eggheads.
“There is a strong consensus within the scientific community that the globe is warming. You say not. But it is our blind insistence, not yours.”
Zach contends, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, that global warming IS caused by man. But note the clever omission of that fact even as he pretends to objectively restate the thesis.
“Scientists are just a bunch of deluded, corrupt eggheads.”
Hmmm, fallacy of extrapolating the general from the particular, Zach. Danny’s talking about the AGW hoaxsters, not the scientists who’ve been poking holes in the theory with their eyes closed.
So how come Zach doesn’t believe in WMDs, which have evidence backing it and are real, vs climate change?
Zachriel: Carling is an economist, not a climatologist.
jj: And the American (scientific, as opposed to Gore) godfather of global warming, Jim Hansen, is a what? (Hint: not a climatologist.) And Noam Chomsky, famous lefty political scientist, has his degrees in what? (Hint: it ain’t poly-sci. Or even economics.) And Howard Zinn, famous lefty political scientist and philosopher-general has his degrees in what?
Danny Lemieux: And let’s not forget the Leader of the UN’s IPCC Report project, Rajenda Pauchari – railroad engineer.
Didn’t cite any of those people. Pachauri is an administrator. Jim Hansen, though, is a recognized expert on planetary atmospherics. By the way, that doesn’t mean Carling is not correct, but his article is just a rehashing of arguments that have already been addressed.
The question raised was that scientists hadn’t considered solar wind, solar variation, or any of a number of ad hoc objections. When shown that these effects have been considered, that they are often incorporated in climate models, and that scientists continue to actively study these matters, it doesn’t elicit the expected adjustment.
Mike Devx: As to the IPCC, the InterPlanetary Collection of Climate-kooks
The IPCC is a scientific body that reviews and assesses research on climate.
Ymarsakar: So how come Zach{riel} doesn’t believe in WMDs, which have evidence backing it and are real, vs climate change?
Sure there are WMD in the world. The U.S. has plenty of them.
Scientists may or may not be deluded and corrupt (often enough they’re both, just like everybody else), but science – despite what Al Gore and you apparently think – is not done by consensus. It wasn’t a vote that determined that the earth does in fact travel around the sun, and it wasn’t a vote that determined that the earth is not in fact the center of the universe. Had those two propositions been put to votes of contemporaries at the time they were proposed, they’d have lost. So much for ‘consensus.’ Most of your actual historical scientific advances from Gallileo to Stephen Hawking have been made by flying in the teeth of the contemporary consensus. Consensus never advanced knowledge – people who don’t agree with it do. And as a byproduct they have also, repeatedly, demonstrated that science is not done by consensus. Everybody in the world knew you couldn’t burn salt water in your car, too - until John Kanzius proved you can.
And yes, I don’t know how much time you’ve ever spent among scientists, but they are not a breed apart. They have the same concerns as everyone else, and – just like everyone else – require a roof over their heads and something to eat every day. They are in daily competition to secure grants, teaching posts, lab posts, field posts, equipment funds, assistant funding, etc. They have to impress someone to make a living too. The scientists who suggested that cigarettes weren’t especially bad for you weren’t evil guys who went home and beat their wives and kicked their dogs, nor were they devoid of ability. But they were paid for delivering a product to their bosses. And if, to take the world’s most obvious example, you are a geologist and you want to work on a dig in Egypt, you kiss the asses of those who run Egyptology, despite that they’ve been wrong, and mis-dating practically everything since practically the day that their profession came into being. But they own Egypt. So you temper your language and moderate your views so as not to call them idiots too overtly, because that would only cost you your berth at the dig.
The IPCC has bought into the idea of anthropogenic global warming. They control the world’s largest funding spigot. Therefore, if you want some of their money to continue to do whatever it is you do, you find ways to agree with their #1 sacred cow. Either enthusiastically (if you can generate enthusiasm), or somewhat less so if you can’t – to whatever extent you feel doesn’t make you into a complete goddam fool, you endorse the viewpoint that pays.
It would be lovely if science were ‘pure’ (over-used term) – but it isn’t. It’s a business, like everything else. And you don’t get far if you approach the government, NASA, the IPCC, or East Anglia and say: “I think you’re full of s***, and I’d like you to give me a grant to prove it,” now, do you?
“Deluded, corrupt eggheads?” Of course. The corruption’s built-in by the need to secure funding, and anyone who really does believe their own BS is by definition deluded. Eggheads? Well, I don’t know. Hansen always struck me as more of a blockhead. He’s pretty thick.
The IPCC is a political body – not a scientific one, Zach. Most of the world’s scientists (a consensus?) recognize this.
But you think no WMDs existed in Iraq that justified the invasion or do you think the invasion was justified on the WMD ground, Zach?
The thing is, scientists are bad politicians and businessmen. So when you input them into the world politics situation, they tend to either get used or they become assimilated. Either way, they stop being scientists on the “pure knowledge” path.
It’s something the Religion of Science people don’t accept, because they believe knowledge is obtainable by Faith Alone.
Zachriel wrote, “There is a strong consensus within the scientific community that the globe is warming. You say not.”
How utterly dishonest of you. I certainly did not say that the globe is not warming; I said just the opposite (“It is thought that atmospheric carbon MAY be a contributor to the warming trend that was apparent during the 19th and 20th centuries and may or may not have stopped around the beginning of the 21st”). My comments, as you know full well, addressed doubts as to the REASONS why the globe has warmed, which, no matter how many times you jump up and down and holler “consensus,” nevertheless remain in scientific doubt. I thought you were better than such sophistry; now that I see my mistake, I won’t waste any more time on this discussion.
jj: Scientists may or may not be deluded and corrupt (often enough they’re both, just like everybody else), but science – despite what Al Gore and you apparently think – is not done by consensus.
That’s right. An appeal to authority can always be answered by referring to the evidence. But that doesn’t mean that such a consensus doesn’t exist or that scientists haven’t considered solar variation, solar wind, and other ad hoc explanations, as claimed above.
Zachriel: There is a strong consensus within the scientific community that the globe is warming. You say not.
Mrs Whatsit: How utterly dishonest of you. I certainly did not say that the globe is not warming;
Though we meant to refer to anthropogenic climate change, you certainly did suggest, contrary to the views of most climatologists, that the globe was not warming, here:
Mrs Whatsit: It is thought that atmospheric carbon MAY be a contributor to the warming trend that was apparent during the 19th and 20th centuries and may or may not have stopped around the beginning of the 21st.
Mrs Whatsit: My comments, as you know full well, addressed doubts as to the REASONS why the globe has warmed, which, no matter how many times you jump up and down and holler “consensus,” nevertheless remain in scientific doubt.
You made this claim:
Mrs Whatsit: The IPCC report did not mention or attempt to account for any of this {e.g. solar magnetic field}, or for the many, many other unknowns about how the sun works
As shown above, that was not correct. Yes, as you point out, there is still a lot unknown, but as far as anyone has been able to show, those mechanisms cannot account for the observations without also including the effects of human contributions of carbon to the atmosphere.
Perhaps you have reading comprehension difficulties? How does writing about a “warming trend that was apparent” during two centuries and now “may or may not have stopped” suggest to you that I don’t think the globe is warming? Wiggle as you may, it’s plain that you found it necessary to misrepresent my views because you were unable to respond what they actually are. You are not a thinker or a debater, you’re a sophist, and until you do something about your reasoning abilities (finish college, maybe?) you are way out of your league in discussions of this kind.
Mrs Whatsit: How does writing about a “warming trend that was apparent” during two centuries and now “may or may not have stopped” suggest to you that I don’t think the globe is warming?
If the globe has stopped warming, then the globe is not warming. In any case, we meant to refer to anthropogenic climate change.
Mrs Whatsit: You are not a {snip}
Not an argument.
Mrs Whatsit: You are not a {snip}
“Not an argument.”
Very much an argument, since it has been shown over and over again that you are incapable of original thought or non morte-main writing, and that you always avoid responding when your fallacies or lack of logic get called out. In a court of law, those patterns would add up to the conclusion that Mrs. Whatsit reached.
“Not an argument” : neither are yours.
If “we” meant to refer to anthropomorphic climate change, perhaps “we” should have said so and stopped there, instead of stamping “our” feet and insisting that “our”mischaracterization of what I said was accurate. ”May or may not have stopped” does not mean “stopped.”
Mrs Whatsit: ”May or may not have stopped” does not mean “stopped.”
Temperature Anomalies 2010
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/images/map-blended-mntp-201001-201012.png
So I take it, Zach, that you believe WMDs exist, just that it wasn’t the case in Iraq in 2001-3.
So, given that, what makes you think Global Warming is different? Why does it only need to exist if certain scientists say so. If GLobal Warming exists, like WMDs, then it doesn’t matter if some scientists are faking it. You should be broadcasting to the world which scientists are faking it or not.
So why are you protecting them and keeping such unscientific methods in the darkness?
Here is an interesting expose of NOAA’s “cook the figures” approach to climate analysis.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
Getcher popcorn ready. There are a lot arguments here which remind me of the Second Law, i.e., the one dealing with entropy. Delta S and all those good things. It is one matter to state “scientists say,” and another matter entirely to actually argue in the manner of a scientist.
jj: Everybody in the world knew you couldn’t burn salt water in your car, too - until John Kanzius proved you can.
If you mean electromagnetic radiation can cause water to dissociate, then yes, but it doesn’t produce net energy.
Mrs Whatsit: ”May or may not have stopped” does not mean “stopped.”
We apologize if we didn’t clearly represent your position.
jj: The IPCC is a political body – not a scientific one, Zach{riel}. Most of the world’s scientists (a consensus?) recognize this.
That is not correct. Like all committees, it has elements of politics, but it’s still a scientific body.
jj: It is one matter to state “scientists say,” and another matter entirely to actually argue in the manner of a scientist.
Which brings us to the gist of the thread. We are not making a scientific argument. We are making an appeal to authority.
Everyone relies on valid appeals to authority. When you want a medical opinion, you don’t ask a car mechanic. When you want a mechanical opinion, you don’t ask a medical doctor. If you have doubts about a medical opinion, you ask other doctors, or research medical resources. Even scientists rely on authority. Most citations in the literature are to previous results that the individual researcher has more than likely never verified. Questioning authority is reasonable. Rejecting uncomfortable findings without cause is not. (Nor is it conservative to reject and undermine long-established institutions without sufficient justification.)
There is a consensus within the scientific community that the climate is changing and that human technology is a significant factor. Unfortunately, unlike Newtonian Mechanics or evolutionary theory, the evidence requires complex mathematical and computer models. Consequently, a direct scientific argument requires being able to examine and test these models, something not available to general readers. Hence, reliance on the appeal to authority. These are the objections raised on this thread:
* There is no consensus. In fact, nearly every major scientific organization accepts anthropogenic climate change.
* Scientists have overlooked several relevant factors with regards to climate change. In fact, scientists have investigated and continue to investigate these mechanisms.
* Scientific disagreement. Consensus does not require unanimity. Significant contrary opinions are published, but they have yet to undermine the fundamental findings, and tend to just nip at tangential issues. Indeed, when one objection doesn’t seem to convince anyone, the contrarians just move on to another ad hoc objection. Most of what you see in the popular press just rehashes arguments made many times before.
* Ad hominem.
Contrary to common opinion, ad hominem is not a fallacious attack on an appeal to authority. If it turns out the medical doctor has had his license suspended, then our reliance on his expert opinion is undermined — even if he has made the correct diagnosis. We simply won’t trust it without confirmation from an independent expert.
Charles Martel (quoting): Not surprisingly, the blatant corruption exposed at Britain’s premiere climate institute was not contained within the nation’s borders.
Except that several independent investigations have concluded that there was no evidence of corruption or fraud or any such thing.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/east-anglia-climate-scientists-l.html
Furthermore, any claim of corruption would have to include the national academies of many different nations, with entirely different and independent systems, many of whose governments, such as China’s, have no interest in another serious environmental problem to confront as they continue to industrialize.
“Climate change is real… It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).”
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Which brings up another point. When the original environmental movement in the U.S. gained momentum in the last century, many people thought that trying to control pollution was an unfair intrusion on the private sphere (even though they were dumping into public water and air), and that pollution controls would ruin the economy, that it was being pushed by a bunch of socialist hippies. Instead, as history showed, those nations with strong non-governmental sectors controlled population, leading to cleaner air and water; and very importantly, those nations that did not press forward with environmental controls, such as within the Soviet sphere, are now saddled with an inefficient and polluting infrastructure that are no longer competitive. They now import more efficient and non-polluting technology.
Similarly, green technology is efficient technology, using less oil, fewer mineral resources, and avoiding environmental degradation. Those nations that implement the next wave of industry will lead. Others will follow.
Gringo: There are a lot arguments here which remind me of the Second Law, i.e., the one dealing with entropy.
As the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not in doubt for ordinary phenomena, not sure your point.
… those nations with strong non-governmental sectors controlled pollution …
>>If you mean electromagnetic radiation can cause water to dissociate, then yes, but it doesn’t produce net energy.>>
Neither does ethanol.
I’ll translate:
—Yes, I will continue to parrot other people’s words. When you call me on it, I will continue to tediously publish canned explanations of an appeal to authority until you dolts get it!
—Yes, I run this room. I will continue to reject anything I do not consider an argument and define words as I choose to define them. Despite the fact that I have yet to get the definition for ad hominem right, I will continue to push mine and you will accept it.
—No, I am not as hung up on style as you people are. I realize that while I can never be as engaging or original (or even use English as properly) as a Danny, jj, Mike, SADIE, Oldflyer, and so many more, I will continue pounding at you with my dead prose until repetition wears you knuckledraggers down.
—So, yes, I will continue scrupulously avoiding offering an original essay or observation on this site because that would force me to show you that I cannot think on my feet and have no real convictions of my own.
>>those nations that did not press forward with environmental controls, such as within the Soviet sphere, are now saddled with an inefficient and polluting infrastructure that are no longer competitive. They now import more efficient and non-polluting technology.>>
You mean … like China??
Gringo: There are a lot arguments here which remind me of the Second Law, i.e., the one dealing with entropy.
Zachriel: As the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not in doubt for ordinary phenomena, not sure your point.
Translation: The Second Law states in most general terms that the entropy of the universe is always increasing. My opinion is that many of the arguments here increase entropy , increase disorder.
No, Zach, I mean precisely what I said.
John Kanzius made salt water burn, producing a flame, that can drive a piston. It can also be used to boil water, just like a nuclear reactor in a power plant does. We call that flame “energy.” I’m sorry you never heard of it.
The IPCC is absolutely a political body. That in fact is correct. Perfectly so. A majority of scientists in the world do not belong to it. They don’t because they see it as an overt politicization of science. You have a couple of thousand who do contribute to it – and a couple of million who have no interest. As I said, consensus, anyone? According to a preponderance of the world’s supply of scientists, the IPCC “reports” have about the approximate value of any other piece of toilet paper.
Where the hell did I say what you quote me as saying in #57?
I don’t know what you know, Zach – it doesn’t seem to be history; it certainly isn’t economics; and your concept of science goes no deeper than anyone with a computer and a mouse that points to google can do.
As all True Believers, you are iron-clad. You can be faced with emails from your heroes at East Anglia that say: “Let’s fake this temperature data and lie to everybody on the planet about it” – and conclude that this not evidence of fraud. Which says some things about you – all of them interesting, few of them good.
I don’t have time to help you, and you aren’t interesting enough to compel my further attention.
Zachriel explains the proper orthodox approach to scientific inquiry:
Which brings us to the gist of the thread. We are not making a scientific argument. We are making an appeal to authority.
An appeal to authority is valid when
* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.
Then, they cite the IPCC Report as “authority”.
OK…I get it: our chains are being yanked. We’ve been pranked! I have to admit though, this really has been too funny. I do have to doff my hat to you, Zach. Good show. We fell for it.
When you want a mechanical opinion, you don’t ask a medical doctor.
Zach’s obviously never heard of a second opinion. I guess under Zach’s and Obama’s federal healthcare, you only get the government’s “opinion” on what you need for your health. That should be enough for you, right.
So to continue on that vein, it’s like Zach is saying there is only one doctor and his opinion is the only one that matters. These other people that call themselves doctors that say the surgery isn’t necessary? Oh those, aren’t “real doctors”. The only “real doctor” is the doctor Zach is using as an authority to decide that the surgery is “necessary”.
That’s basically how Zach set it up. The question isn’t who uses authority. The question is, why is there only one authority Zach believes is valid.
Hey Danny, at least Zach has stopped trying to address my irrefutable points any more. That’s got to stand for something.
jj: John Kanzius made salt water burn, producing a flame, that can drive a piston.
There is no available combustion energy in salt water. Kanzius used electromagnetic radiation to dissociate the water into hydrogen and oxygen, which then burned. All the energy came from the electromagnetic radiation.
jj: Where the hell did I say what you quote me as saying in #57?
That would have been Gringo.
jj: You can be faced with emails from your heroes at East Anglia that say: “Let’s fake this temperature data and lie to everybody on the planet about it” – and conclude that this not evidence of fraud.
And yet four independent investigations found no evidence of fraud. That’s the problem with the conspiracy theory. It not only requires the cooperation of every major scientific organization, but investigative bodies, as well.
Danny Lemieux: Then, they cite the IPCC Report as “authority”.
The national academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan and Russia “recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
Zachriel: When you want a medical opinion, you don’t ask a car mechanic. When you want a mechanical opinion, you don’t ask a medical doctor. If you have doubts about a medical opinion, you ask other doctors, or research medical resources.
Ymarsakar: Zach{riel}’s obviously never heard of a second opinion.
Try reading it again.
YM, Zach has become very boring.
It’s the same fatuous MO. They can’t think for themselves.
No point in continuing this thread…it’s like trying to explain colors to the color blind.
We move on.
Danny Lemieux: They can’t think for themselves.
We can think. We can fast. We can wait.
Hive mind, I tell ya. It’s not even a prototype yet, so no thinking possible.
Danny Lemieux: Then, they cite the IPCC Report as “authority”.
Zachriel: The national academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan and Russia “recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
Was this this the “authoritative” IPCC Report which stated that the glaciers in the Himalayas were going to melt in 30 years, a prediction which has since been definitively refuted? Does “international scientific consensus” believe that a report which contains utter nonsense like the melting of Himalayan glaciers is “authoritative?” Does “international scientific consensus” believe that the revealing of fudged data means that there is no need to revisit conclusions based on fudged data?
At least Zachriel is consistent here with the call to authority. Doesn’t want to treat the issue of fudged data emanating from the IPCC, perhaps because he has little or no experience with culling conclusions from arrays of data and thus has no independent perspective on the issue of fudged data.
Also note that said call to authority has no documentation regarding at what time those “national academies” had allegedly vetted the IPCC- before or after fudged data et al?
IMHO, if “international scientific consensus” were as large as Zachriel claims, such 90-100% of such national academies would have gotten on board.
In any event, “consensus” is not how scientific arguments are resolved. They are resolved by deciding which models best fit the facts, not by a popularity vote.
Hah!
It also helps when “models” actually work other than in the minds of their creators, Gringo.
If all you got is popularity, Gringo, then that’s the only avenue left to work. What else does the LEft have going for them, virtues?
We are the Borg. Based on the latest information from our infallible Consensus Horde, the home base of the Federation, San Francisco, is located just west of Malibu Beach on Oregon’s”Sun Coast.”
LOL
There was that episode in Star Trek where they time traveled back to SF.
Try this theory on for size…
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-delusion-can-be-psychologically.html
Gringo: Was this this the “authoritative” IPCC Report which stated that the glaciers in the Himalayas were going to melt in 30 years, a prediction which has since been definitively refuted?
The IPCC is not infallible. Yes, the paragraph in question incorrectly represented the scientific findings, and they have corrected the mistake. There are undoubtedly other errors in such a huge undertaking. Why would you think otherwise?
Gringo: Does “international scientific consensus” believe that a report which contains utter nonsense like the melting of Himalayan glaciers is “authoritative?”
Himalayan glaciers have melted significantly, and this process is expected to accelerate. This could affect water supply for one-sixth of the world’s population.
Gringo: Does “international scientific consensus” believe that the revealing of fudged data means that there is no need to revisit conclusions based on fudged data?
There is no evidence of fudged data.
Gringo: Also note that said call to authority has no documentation regarding at what time those “national academies” had allegedly vetted the IPCC- before or after fudged data et al?
There is no evidence of fudged data. The IPCC merely created a comprehensive review. Do you have evidence that the national academies have retracted their recognition of the consensus?
Gringo: IMHO, if “international scientific consensus” were as large as Zachriel claims, such 90-100% of such national academies would have gotten on board.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_organizations
Gringo: In any event, “consensus” is not how scientific arguments are resolved.
That’s right. It’s the evidence that decides. All the evidence points to humans having a large effect on the world’s climate. No contrary claims have held up under scientific scrutiny.