sculptor well, (IMHO) if you want to model what the potential future events will be, you need to have extremes of both ends (the good and the bad) to insure all bases are covered... especially in a highly complex system like climate and weather. Incorporating all the models insures we watch everything in the complex system and will eventually lead to better and better models of future events, which will then help us isolate what is relevant and what isn't (to future models and prediction) consider the weather forecasting and their ability today ... (not the typical "celebrity" on the boob-tube - the actual in the trenches professional) in our area, the weather is spot on accurate for three days, but then the models can get wonky (but are usually pretty good for the week - just not as accurate as the 3-day forecast). if you watch the history of weather modeling it shows a similar approach as current climate models. this is IMHO on that issue, so it could be wrong... but considering that the models keep improving, it is far more likely than assuming "careless and uninformed" My biggest question for you is about this exchange what evidence is there that someone is uninformed? or careless? this is one thing i've been trying to understand in the scientific method, when someone produces a paper (or experiment, etc), scientists compete to show each other up - here is a great explanation (if you want, you can skip ahead to the 2:50 mark): this means when there is a bad paper out there, and someone can show it as being bad, the original paper is then "debunked" (or corrected, or retracted, or adapted... whatever the case may require) ... whereas if it is a good paper, it ends up being validated (etc) this is one reason that i try not to accept singular papers or findings as evidence of anything except something of interest (or to prove a point that there is evidence of at least a direction to investigate). so, you have said and then you added a singular person of interest... but you still haven't actually provided any evidence of your statements, especially the uninformed, narrowly educated or careless parts this is why i was a little taken aback by your comment "I could be wrong (though that ain't likely)" [sic] so, we are back to the not supported by evidence point also note: the manner with which your posts were given implied a conspiratorial overtone and thus conveyed the potential source of your problem, hence my links either your source is biased and conspiratorial or presenting this in a manner that is intentionally conspiratorial this is discussed the following article: http://arstechnica.com/science/2014...refuse-to-accept-climate-change-ill-informed/ important part
Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it and best wishes to those who don't! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now to the topic at hand... The problem seems to be in the finding of accurate and current data that can be used to make an informed opinion. For example: The Earths magnetosphere has been in serious decline for quite some time, various reports indicate between 10% to 40 % reduction in field strength (?) Much has been said that solar luminosity has remained relatively stable with reasonably current data available however the latest magnetosphere data published online is over a year old and very disturbing in it's indicated trends and potential outcomes. Obviously if magnetosphere protection from solar influences is reducing then we can have a situation where by the planets climate is seriously affected yet the solar outputs remain stable. It is when relevant and current data is "missing" from the web that challenges the conspiracy theorist into action. Obviously data is being collected by those concerned but is not being published to the pubic domain. A consp. Theorists would ask: Why is that so? What aren't they telling the world? etc (paranoia fueling a negative counter theory) Essentially the consp. theorists asks : "What is missing?" "Are the reports complete?" and then believes based on his results. ie. the magnetosphere presented a problem well before 2007, seemingly declared a potential disaster in 2014 and then nothing since appears to have been is published... With this sort of information missing it is little wonder that AGW theorist have an understandable credibility issue by those who search the web for insight into climate change phenomena. Including those who make the decisions as to what action to take. ( a politician would have to be up there regarding consp. theorising btw) Obviously it is important when attempting to form a balanced opinion, that both what is published and what isn't are both considered.
Whoever is responsible for his opinions on this subject is full of bullshit nonsense. IE overflowing intellectual dishonesty.
How do you conclude that? The Earth's magnetic field is constantly changing, and former changes can be measured readily by measuring magnetization of sediments. There has been no correlation to previous - and even wider - variations in the magnetosphere and climate. Do you have evidence that indicates that there is a link?
Just a quick post for now... some reference perhaps... We should get some results from the SWARM project published in July 2016 (?) A Danish study conducted by a team at the Tech. Uni Denmark lends weight to Hennik Swensamrk's theory on cosmological impacts on climate
Are there any studies published that indicate whether the CO2 horse has bolted or not? In other words: What happens (models) if we cease CO2 emissions immediately? Has the planets average temp already reached it's maximum given the existing levels of CO2, or are we too late? Is climate science refusing to tell the full nasty story? ( re: it's modelling )
just for you: "It's ungodly warm out there," said Reinhardt, 26, after taking a break from the action, his winter hood pulled down. "I'm overheating." Christmas in New York 2015
This subject and discussion is based on the lack of knowledge by reading. Read Tim Ball's book and relise then the sham that it is. Climate Change is obviously happening but not because of CO2 emissions; by us. But typically most get there info from the web; rather from books; you know the complete story; ........anyway just read a book or two please. You do READ THE WEB sites, so why not read a book on the topic. Just saying river
Well, books have one or two authors, and don't sell well if they are just repeating the broadly accepted by experts POV. I prefer pier-reviewed papers with four or five "main stream" expert authors. Especially to some one like Tim Ball, frequent paid speaker at Heartland (originally paid by tobacco industry to support publishers of papers telling smoking did no harm) and now has collected more than half a million dollars from Exxon alone.
Temperatures keep rising for a few decades as more heat is trapped by the AGW gases we have already emitted. Eventually CO2 levels drop, the energy budget starts returning to balance and temperatures plateau and then drop. Estimates I have seen put the time at about 40 years until the temperature starts to decline. Definitely not. I think the IPCC estimates are about the best we've got right now. All the other predictions have been grossly inaccurate. Needless to say, they describe a range of probabilities; we might see more warming than predicted and we might see less, but odds are it will be close to the IPCC prediction (as it has been so far.)
Yes, Tim Ball's book is a sham; it's been discredited in several ways. He has already had to retract several of his claims when it was proven he was lying. Fortunately there are a lot of other good books out there. Here are a few: The Weather Makers - How man is changing the climate and what it means for life on Earth Climate of Uncertainty The Hot Topic - what we can do about global warming However, the very best way to get up-to-date, peer reviewed work is through the journals Science and Nature.
"comfortable" is not the correct word, especially when reading about global warming and its causes;* more correct would be "confident" that I am not being mislead by an author like Tim Ball who is paid by Exxon, via the Heartland Institute, is a better word. *There is little comfort in facts about global warming.
Sure. Here are two. He claimed he was the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years. Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at Lethbridge, said he was lying. Ball sued him. During the court case, several expert witnesses testified against him, pointing out that not only was Ball lying about his background, but that he "never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming," and that he "is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist." When it was revealed that Ball had indeed lied, Ball withdrew his lawsuit and retracted his claims. In a published article Ball claimed that Andrew J Weaver, another climate scientist, would not be involved in the production of the IPCC's next report because he had concerns about its credibility. That was also shown to be a lie (he was in fact involved) and the publisher retracted the article.
His website, that you linked to, was full of misrepresentations, garbage, poor reasoning, deception, and some flat out lies. This was demonstrated to you at the time, with quotes and so forth. Why would anyone read a book by such an obvious con?
