Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??
- Thread starter AK-47
- Start date
You must have been a lousy student in school.
Please pay attention, as this has been answered numerous times. Changes in the climate are not unique to the past 200 years.
Here's the New York Times' Andrew Revkin on a study that is more recent than anything you cited that says the Medieval Warm Period was global:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...m-a-cool-baseline/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
---
The information I cited came directly from the IPCC's AR5 report, and was quoted in media reports (in both left-leaning and right-leaning media) throughout the world. I didn't cherry pick anything.
There has been a pause for at least 15 years -- one that the IPCC never predicted. Refusing to accept the facts makes you a "denier."
Thank you Captain Obvious, no one here has made that claim. Something tells me that wasn't the answer to the question but you're good at giving non answers.
It mot that there is a change, but there is a rate of change that the natural world will not have the resources to respond to without great cost to the human race.
Au contraire. It continues to be implied in repeated questions that ask for alternate theories to explain changes in the climate.
No one disputes that climate changes. Whether or not empirical evidence will ever be found that supports the premise that man-made CO2 is a primary driver of changes in the climate is another matter.
Meanwhile, here's a blast from the past: The 2012 interview with scientist and environmental hero James Lovelock, where Lovelock conceded that the expected warming of the planet has not occurred:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change
Speaking of school, you might want to go back and learn about science.
The theory of CO2 driven climate change is well supported by evidence and therefore is well supported by the scientific community. The scientific community will not throw out a theory that does a pretty good job (not the spectacularly garbage you try and claim) unless they have a better theory.
So where is your theory that something other than CO2 is driving global warming? Are there even any scientists who believe that? Hell, every complaint I've heard in the scientific community is over HOW MUCH global warming is affected by CO2, not over whether it has a large impact.
Implied? Only to you and your bunkie AK. The questions about alternate theory is simply a way of commenting on no throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Would you mind quoting where in that lengthy article where Lovelock says what you claim.
At the bottom of the article it says this;
It would appear to me he's simply saying he does't think it's as bad as he initially thought, not that it doesn't exist, or that it should be ignored.
I did, but I'm happy to quote it again.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change
The scientific method is clear: A hypothesis does not become an accepted theory until it is supported by evidence and results can be replicated. An accepted theory would allow you to make accurate predictions.
It's funny, by the way, that a guy who claims to have such a firm belief in the scientific method was so willing to accept the very unproven premise that the IPCC's missing temperatures must have gone into the deep ocean.
Plenty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
I did, but I'm happy to quote it again.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change
The scientific method is clear: A hypothesis does not become an accepted theory until it is supported by evidence and results can be replicated. An accepted theory would allow you to make accurate predictions.
It's funny, by the way, that a guy who claims to have such a firm belief in the scientific method was so willing to accept the very unproven premise that the IPCC's missing temperatures must have gone into the deep ocean.
Plenty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
The quote reminds me of Henny Youngman's response when he was asked, 'how's your wife? To which he responded, 'compared to what'?
Lovelock doesn't really quantify 'much'. The temperature rose and relative to what has happened since the beginning of the written records, it's still rising.
As for your concept of the scientific method, I can't seem to find anyone who thinks along the same line. Even the summary supplied by Wiki doesn't seem to jive with you.
Overview
According to Morris Kline,[4] "Modern science owes its present flourishing state to a new scientific method which was fashioned almost entirely by Galileo Galilei." Dudley Shapere[5] takes a more measured view of Galileo's contribution.
According to David Lindberg, Aristotle (4th century BCE) wrote about the scientific method even if he and his followers did not actually follow what he said. Lindberg also notes that Ptolemy (2nd century CE) and Ibn al-Haytham (11th century CE) are among the early examples of people who carried out scientific experiments. [8] Also, John Losee writes that "the Physics and the Metaphysics contain discussions of certain aspects of scientific method", of which, he says "Aristotle viewed scientific inquiry as a progression from observations to general principles and back to observations."[9]
The scientific method is the process by which science is carried out.[10] Because science builds on previous knowledge, it consistently improves our understanding of the world.[11] The scientific method also improves itself in the same way,[12] meaning that it gradually becomes more effective at generating new knowledge.[13][14] For example, the concept of falsification (first proposed in 1934) reduces confirmation bias by formalizing the attempt to disprove hypotheses rather than prove them.[15]
The overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct.[16] There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, they are better considered as general principles.[17] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (or to the same degree), and are not always in the same order. As noted by William Whewell (1794–1866), "invention, sagacity, [and] genius"[18] are required at every step:
Formulation of a question: The question can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in "Why is the sky blue?", but can also be open-ended, as in "How can I design a drug to cure this particular disease?" This stage also involves looking up and evaluating evidence from previous experiments, personal scientific observations or assertions, and/or the work of other scientists. If the answer is already known, a different question that builds on the previous evidence can be posed. When applying the scientific method to scientific research, determining a good question can be very difficult and affects the final outcome of the investigation.[19]
Hypothesis: An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain the observed behavior of a part of our universe. The hypothesis might be very specific, e.g., Einstein's equivalence principle or Francis Crick's "DNA makes RNA makes protein",[20] or it might be broad, e.g., unknown species of life dwell in the unexplored depths of the oceans. A statistical hypothesis is a conjecture about some population. For example, the population might be people with a particular disease. The conjecture might be that a new drug will cure the disease in some of those people. Terms commonly associated with statistical hypotheses are null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. A null hypothesis is the conjecture that the statistical hypothesis is false, e.g., that the new drug does nothing and that any cures are due to chance effects. Researchers normally want to show that the null hypothesis is false. The alternative hypothesis is the desired outcome, e.g., that the drug does better than chance. A final point: a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.
Prediction: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing. The less likely that the prediction would be correct simply by coincidence, the stronger evidence it would be if the prediction were fulfilled; evidence is also stronger if the answer to the prediction is not already known, due to the effects of hindsight bias (see also postdiction). Ideally, the prediction must also distinguish the hypothesis from likely alternatives; if two hypotheses make the same prediction, observing the prediction to be correct is not evidence for either one over the other. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be mathematically derived using Bayes' Theorem.)
Testing: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from an hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Agreement does not assure that the hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal problems. Karl Popper advised scientists to try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if they arise from experiments that avoid risk.[21] Experiments should be designed to minimize possible errors, especially through the use of appropriate scientific controls. For example, tests of medical treatments are commonly run as double-blind tests. Test personnel, who might unwittingly reveal to test subjects which samples are the desired test drugs and which are placebos, are kept ignorant of which are which. Such hints can bias the responses of the test subjects. Furthermore, failure of an experiment does not necessarily mean the hypothesis is false. Experiments always depend on several hypotheses, e.g., that the test equipment is working properly, and a failure may be a failure of one of the auxiliary hypotheses. (See the Duhem-Quine thesis.) Experiments can be conducted in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars (using one of the working rovers), and so on. Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments address highly specific topics for reasons of practicality. As a result, evidence about broader topics is usually accumulated gradually.
Analysis: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take. The predictions of the hypothesis are compared to those of the null hypothesis, to determine which is better able to explain the data. In cases where an experiment is repeated many times, a statistical analysis such as a chi-squared test may be required. If the evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required; if the experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is not strong enough for high confidence, other predictions from the hypothesis must be tested. Once a hypothesis is strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on the same topic. Evidence from other scientists and experience are frequently incorporated at any stage in the process. Depending on the complexity of the experiment, many iterations may be required to gather sufficient evidence to answer a question with confidence, or to build up many answers to highly specific questions in order to answer a single broader question.
This model underlies the scientific revolution.[22] One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of forming questions and subsequently testing them,[23] an approach which was advocated by Galileo in 1638 with the publication of Two New Sciences.[24] The current method is based on a hypothetico-deductive model[25] formulated in the 20th century, although it has undergone significant revision since first proposed (for a more formal discussion, see below)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
There's more, but we've all seen how much trouble you have reading english. Feel free to read though and see if you can find 'anything' there that agrees with your concept.
You are cherry picking.
The footnote from the page of the IPCC you quoted makes that very clear, your argument only works from one possible date.
That is the definition of cherry picking.
The fact you continue to use cherry picked dates as your argument despite the fact that the paper you quoted it from warns against using those dates makes it doubly dishonest.
Why do you continue to just parrot these fossil fuel funded talking points?
You're being a bit too precious. Lovelock makes it absolutely clear that the predicted increases in temperature that were supposed to be caused by man-made CO2 didn't materialize and that the alarming predictions about global warming were wrong.
Try reading your own Wiki quote a bit more carefully. Wiki agrees with me.
The IPCC's reference to the 1998-2012 time period speaks to the most current period that has been measured. The dates were selected by the IPCC, not by me. You don't know what the phrase "cherry picking" means.
Furthermore, I'm happy to take a look at longer-term results and see how they compare with the 1990 predictions. I'll get to it this evening, but I can assure you the result will be the same for the IPCC (remember, in 1990, the IPCC was predicting temperature changes of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade).
And your assertion that the IPCC is using "fossil fuel-funded talking points" is a bit difficult to believe, even for a "conspiracy theorist" like me.
Fail.
The most recent figures include 2013, the fourth warmest year on record.
And the IPCC report specifically speaks against the cherry picking argument.
And according to the report we are experiencing the 0.2 c increase they predicted.
Wrong on all accounts
On the contrary. It is the IPCC that appears to be guilty of cherry picking dates.
Let's explore this a bit.
Here is the entire paragraph that Groggy lives to cite from the IPCC's AR5 report (Page 15):
"The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012)."
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
So, while the IPCC concedes that the short-term predictions were wrong, it claims the long-term trend "agrees" with the predictions.
Really??
According to the IPCC, the rate of warming since 1951 has been 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade (Page 5). As well, if you look at footnote 5 at the bottom of Page 5, it says the trend since 1995 has been 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade.
Yet, in 1990, the IPCC predicted the warming increases in this century would be 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade (first page of the Executive Summary): http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf
Even by 2007, the IPCC was predicting temperature increases of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
So, regardless of whether you use 1951 or 1995 as your starting point, you find the IPCC's revised per-decade predictions were off by about 50 per cent, and its original predictions were off by about 60 per cent.
The IPCC's predictions have been completely off, regardless of whether you use the short-term or long-term trends. The comparisons over the long term look a little better than the short term -- but the predictions were still spectacularly wrong.
Hey groggy, since you claim to understand the IPCC data so well, why dont you predict for us based on IPCC data which of the following summer's we're supposed to get here in Toronto this year:
1. Normal summer
2. Hotter then normal summer
3. Colder then normal summer
Fairly straight forward question, groggy. And since you claim to be so much more intelligent than most of us, you should have no problem answering it :eyebrows:
1. Normal summer
2. Hotter then normal summer
3. Colder then normal summer
Fairly straight forward question, groggy. And since you claim to be so much more intelligent than most of us, you should have no problem answering it :eyebrows:
Natural
FAST
Every thing in nature goes in cycles, and given enough time, always averages out.
FAST
So what the average?
Something tells me it won't include humans. Since we've only been here ~million years, a scratch mark on the timeline of earth's history. Bummer.
You seem to have missed the fat that the world is getting warming, hence the term Global Warming.
Straightforward answer.
You are asking for weather predictions, we are talking about climate predictions.
Start another thread if you want to talk weather.
For climate prediction: the planet will probably be warmer this year then last and we probably will have more extreme weather events.
AK still hasn't got the basics down and can't remember, no matter how many times it's explained, the difference between climatology and meteorology.
