Global warming... real or make believe? - Page 18 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Anything from household gadgets to the Large Hadron Collider (note: political science topics belong in the Environment & Science forum).

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#14968347
Drlee wrote:Your number from your (unnamed) source was what? 1.5 to 4.5 Celsius? Well that would be 2.7 to 8.1 Fahrenheit. An do you know what Sivad? That is right in the range my source (NOAA).


:lol: You just don't know when to quit. The range you cited does include the likely range but so does the temperature range from the vacuum of space to the surface of the sun, neither of them however are the correct estimates according to the IPCC. The range I gave is the IPCC most likely estimate.

But wait. Didn't Sivad say "the numbers had been revised down? Well sport. Not really.


Uh, yes really. They were revised upward in the forth assessment and revised back down in the fifth.

And look at those numbers. Do they look familiar? They should. They are the ones you quoted as being new. It would appear that my four year old article either came out after your report OR the numbers have not changed.


The estimate did change twice and your range is incorrect because it includes all estimates from all scenarios. But feel free to keep parading your incompetence, if you want to keep making a fool of yourself then by all means, continue. :D
#14968350
Sorry guy. You are just wrong. But then you admit to being an "amateur" and amateurs are frequently wrong.

You have also come to the erroneous conclusion that you are arguing with me. You are not. You are arguing with the NOAA. I have not proposed a single thing from my own research.

You really need to get a grip. I fear you are becoming angry. It is not good for you to become angry. And I do assert THAT on my own authority.

Now let's see what the next windmill you try to fight turns out to be.

Oh, by the way, answer POD's questions.
#14968351
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, we discussed that and found that 2 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit is about 1.5 to 8 degrees Celsius.


It's actually about 1C - 6C. The point is it's not the likely range, it's the range of all possibilities under every scenario. Anything above 4.5C is unlikely, anything above 6C is extremely unlikely.



How so?


The models assume greater sensitivity than what we have reason to believe(that's why they're all running too hot).
#14968352
Drlee wrote:
You have also come to the erroneous conclusion that you are arguing with me. You are not. You are arguing with the NOAA. I have not proposed a single thing from my own research.



No I am arguing with you, you're quoting shit you don't understand and that does not apply to anything we're discussing.
#14968356
Sivad wrote:It's actually about 1C - 6C. The point is it's not the likely range, it's the range of all possibilities under every scenario. Anything above 4.5C is unlikely, anything above 6C is extremely unlikely.


Sure, I do not really care about the exact upper range.

The models assume greater sensitivity than what we have reason to believe(that's why they're all running too hot).


You think the models are incorrect when it comes to calculating the level of forcing due to CO2?
#14968359
Pants-of-dog wrote:You think the models are incorrect when it comes to calculating the level of forcing due to CO2?


Curry has raised that question but I haven't seen any real debate on it.
#14968367
Sivad wrote:Curry has raised that question but I haven't seen any real debate on it.


I am not interested in what Curry thinks.

Are you saying that the models cannot correctly determine temperature changes from CO2 radiative forcings?
#14968377
There is no point in arguing with these liberals because they believe everything Al Gore said about global warming.
We now know that his predictions have been proven wrong, and so will the predictions of these other crackpots on global warming.
#14968448
There is no point in arguing with these liberals because they believe everything Al Gore said about global warming.
We now know that his predictions have been proven wrong, and so will the predictions of these other crackpots on global warming.


This is your only ally Sivad. You are in great company.

So you assert the models are wrong but post no support other than Judity Curry's blog.

I am disinclined to attack someone with Curry's background. There is no doubt that she has the academic chops to have a strong opinion. Nevertheless. She has been overwhelmingly criticized by those who are qualified to either agree with her or not. Sivad seems to rest his entire hope in her calculations (which are actually suppositions) and, as he did with the antivaxers, hitch his wagon to the iconoclasts.

Climate myths by Curry: What the Science Says Usage
Curry has claimed that "Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010. Of course we know that:

Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was one of the the hottest recorded.

She claimed that : "Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature"


We know that: The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.


She claimed that: "IPCC is alarmist"

We know that there are:

"Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response."

Curry claims: "There is no consensus"

We know that 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

So this is the background against which we are to take her assertions as fact. I am not inclined to agree with someone so clearly out of the mainstream.

Most telling is this:

She said: "what the heck does the ‘climate change consensus’ even mean any more? The definition of climate change consensus is now so fuzzy that leading climate change skeptics are categorizing themselves within the 97%."


What we know: the scientist self-ratings survey included in Cook et al. (2013) found a 96% consensus that humans are responsible for most of the current global warming, among papers that explicitly quantified whether or not humans were responsible. (This was not originally stated in the paper, but can be seen in the anonymized raw data of The Consensus Project.)

The contrarian Roy Spencer did claim to be part of the "97% consensus". The number 97% was produced with different criteria but The Consensus Project database shows that his claim is false. (Judith Curry herself did have two old papers among the 97%, but has published no papers stating whether or not humans cause most of the observed warming.)


So I put that together with her obvious attempt to discredit the entire IPCC report with only the decline in northern tree rings as her citation and she gets pushed out of the credibility box. She retired basically claiming that everyone else is crazy.

Dr. Michael Mann, a leading (if not the leading person in this field said)
"She has played a particularly pernicious role in the climate change denial campaign, laundering standard denier talking points but appearing to grant them greater authority courtesy of the academic positions she has held and the meager but nonetheless legitimate scientific work that she has published in the past," he said. "Much of what I have seen from her in recent years is boilerplate climate change denial drivel."


So I am disinclined to believe her assertions. (I refuse to grant that they are evidence without the collaboration, which she fails to present.)

In short, she is a populist denier. She is the darling of industry looking to protect profit. I do not even assert that industry is deliberately sabotaging climate science as so many do but rather simply grasping at straws to maintain they profitable but dangerous behavior. But that is bad enough.

I have taken unpopular positions before and survived the criticism. She is doing the same. The difference is that she appears to be intransigent in the face of new and old evidence. She has staked her reputation and livelihood on her denial point of view and can't move from it.

So this is the source against which we are to balance 97% of the climate science community. She looses. So does Sivad.
#14968507
Drlee wrote:This is your only ally Sivad. You are in great company.



Yeah, I don't go by authority or consensus because I'm not a babbitt and I don't appeal to the crowd because I'm not an intellectually bankrupt fraud. The reality is there are plenty on pofo that don't believe the hype and if we're going just by numbers then the alarmists are losing. Badly. :lol:


Drlee wrote:Cook et al. (2013) found a 96% consensus that humans are responsible for most of the current global warming


Cook et al cooked the stats.

#14968513
Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983[1] until his retirement in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has criticized the scientific consensus groupthink about climate change and what he has called "climate alarmism."

#14968544
Baseless claims. You have a short supply of them.

I am glad you mentioned Lindzen. Employee of the Cato Institute. Received money from Peabody Coal. Feeding off of Trumps idiotic followers. Good choice. This guy is so bad that even a fellow MIT professor takes him down. He is just about as discredited as a guy can be.

But you go ahead and trot out your politicians and pop scientists. I'm going with the serious researchers. Not someone who considers Larry King appearances published work. He is trotted out by conservative groups like a 7 year old who can sing. Too bad he doesn't do research on climate science and has not for many years. I am sure he is making a good living working for industry.

You are going down fast Sivad.
#14968552
Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you or do you not think that the models are capable of calculating a decent set of ranges for climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing?


There's good reason to doubt the accuracy and reliability of climate models, that's all that matters.




#14968559
Sivad wrote:There's good reason to doubt the accuracy and reliability of climate models, that's all that matters.


Such as?

Anyway, since the value you gave for no feedback CO2 forcing was derived from climate models. Are you now saying the value you gave was made with an inaccurate and unreliable set of models.
#14968566
Pants-of-dog wrote:Such as?


:knife:

Anyway, since the value you gave for no feedback CO2 forcing was derived from climate models. Are you now saying the value you gave was made with an inaccurate and unreliable set of models.


No, I'm saying that it's unclear whether the models can accurately and reliably derive that specific value. Objections to the accepted value have been raised by qualified and competent individuals but I would need to see the issue hashed out in more detail before arriving at an opinion.
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21

Burnett: Trump loves to issue threats then do not[…]

Fighting In Ice Hockey

^ So this thread became just like an ice-hockey ma[…]

@Finfinder So, now that we understand how your[…]

dualy noted. :| “We believe climate change is r[…]