Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#3,877
#3,877
As a guy who maintains RADAR systems and computers I am coming to the conclusion that I am more in tune with science than most climate change whack jobs.
 
#3,884
#3,884
Rifleman said:
I'm not sure if you are trolling here, or if your IQ is really this low.

Your own post says he is a blogger not a research scientist. How is that "demonstrably false"?

Where is a list of his peer-reviewed research exactly?

It looks like he did a couple of student-level conference presentations while in grad school, where incidentally he failed to advance to dissertation (perhaps the one peer-review he ever faced) and he has done some work on counting the number of scientists who agree with him, but he has no fundable research in the sciences.

Also, I don't think you know what the word "blurb" means, unless that was just intended to be an onomatopoeia standing in for the generally nonsensical character of your speech as you drool over your bowl of mush in whatever ward for the mentally debilitated they keep you in.
Click to expand...

Rifleman, you said the comment was authored by “an blogger with zero credentials and no peer-reviewed research or funding for research.” The first author is a scientist at Tetra Tech (a major global environmental and engineering consulting firm which, by the way, does tons of private research) who also blogs for The Guardian. Not all postgraduates intend to go into academia – not the ones who want to make money anyway. And the co-authors between them have well over 100 academic publications. So yes, your statement is false.

I see you nonchalantly declined my invitation to discuss the contents of Lu’s paper for the fifth or sixth time now. For such an internet tough guy you sure are reluctant to put any bite in your bark.

blurb –noun-1.a brief advertisement or announcement, especially a laudatory one:

Seems to apply to post #3855. If not, you can kiss my :shaking2: anyway. English isn’t my first language
 
#3,885
#3,885
volinbham said:
My primary issue with your responses is how you simply refuse to acknowledge the ideological motivation behind AGW folks as well.
Click to expand...
My primary issue with your primary issue is the way people conflate actual climate science with the stuff you hear in the media, pop culture, the political arena, etc., and more generally the way environmentalists are conflated with hippies, ecosocialists, and worse. I don’t deny that there are hard greens in this country, but the notion that academic science itself is a hard green movement is wrong and offensive.
volinbham said:
The blog post you included is a perfect example - it moves freely from science into punditry while treating both as the same. It practically accuses another scientist (Dr. Lu) of bad intentions simply because his work is counter to their dogma. I'll note that the flaws they point out are not limited to "contrarian" research but similar methodological flaws have been pointed out in supportive research (though it is always minimized by those in the club).
Click to expand...
The Guardian article doesn’t accuse Lu of bad intentions. And yes, like I said earlier, flawed science (in all fields) does get through peer review sometimes. But that isn’t the end-all be-all. After publication the work can be scrutinized by the rest of the scientific community. It has to stand the test of time, and in this case, simply hasn’t. Why aren’t more (or any) contrarians taking up Lu’s position? Even Rifleman’s Nature article completely contradicts Lu.
volinbham said:
I found it very ironic that they quote their own vanity site while complaining about vanity outlets for "contrarian" sites and publications. That site is a laugh riot in unsupported statements presented as fact. (a common denier tactic?)
Click to expand...
They’re referencing shoddy journals like Energy and Environment or Pattern Recognition in Physics which even receive criticism from climate contrarians for poor standards, and aren’t listed on scopus, web of science, etc. Skeptical Science is thoroughly referenced with links to primary literature.
volinbham said:
The primary point I agree with from Rifleman is that you appear to be closed minded to any research that conflicts with your view (even going as far to trash the motives of respected and qualified researchers - done throughout this thread - if they don't fit the view). If you are fighting the fight for science you should open your mind and recognize the warts and ideological dogma in ALL sides of the debate; not just the side that doesn't match your world view.
Click to expand...
I’ve given SandVol and co. the benefit of the doubt much more often than they’ve deserved and have read numerous papers for them. Even ones from Enery and Environment. Even ones authored by serial science denier and former tobacco shill Fred Singer. I read Lu’s paper, the critiques, Lu’s response to the critiques, and even some of the works Lu cites. Don't give me that Galileo gambit. I never grouped Lu with the proven shills or even chronic contrarians. I’m just telling you the paper is indeed flawed.
volinbham said:
Why don't we ever see this response to the countless people who use a hot day or week in the Summer as proof of or the direct result of AGW?
Click to expand...
You’ve got to be kidding me. Who exactly are these “countless people”? Me? Anyone in this thread? Any scientists? Al Gore maybe. It’s unfortunate that the media plays into this by doing climate change stories every time there’s a significant weather event, but scientists always caution that a single weather event doesn’t mean anything. You don’t see me posting about all the recent super typhoons.

The score of skeptics using the “hurrdurr it’s cold out global warming is crap” argument vs. us using the opposite is not remotely close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,886
#3,886
NOAA matches NASA, JMA October results

2014 Boils Toward Warmest Year Ever with Three More Records Broken

Even if it's freezing in your personal universe, Earth as a whole just broke three "warmest" records and is likely to see 2014 go down as the warmest since record keeping began in 1880, scientists reported Thursday.

Driven by record warm oceans, combined sea and land temperatures in October were the warmest on record, according to data released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. On top of that, January-October was the warmest first 10 calendar months, while November 2013 to October 2014 was the warmest 12-month block.

Data released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed where the records fell, in large part due to record warm oceans:

Warmest October: The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces was the highest on record for an October at 58.4 degrees F, or 1.3 degrees above the 20th century average and topping the previous record (2003) by 0.02 degrees.
Warmest first 10 calendar months: The surface temperature for January-October was 58.6 degrees, 1.22 degrees above average and topping the previous record set (1998 and 2010) by 0.04 degrees. Ocean temperatures by themselves were 1.03 degrees above average, the highest on record for this period, beating the previous record (1998) by 0.05 degrees.
Warmest 12-month block: The period of November 2013-October 2014 averaged 58.2 degrees, 1.2 degrees above the norm, breaking a record set just a month ago for warmest 12-month period.

October was "the sixth consecutive month where the ocean has been record warm," Deke Arndt, chief of climate monitoring at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, told reporters. And the average ocean temperatures for each of those months "have all been the warmest for that month on record."

"The oceans have been generally warming over time," he said, especially this year, which he called "quite warm compared to even the warmest part of that history."

"Clearly the oceans are driving the warmth that we’ve seen around the planet," Arndt added.

And since the U.S. is only 2 percent of the planet, the current freeze and earlier relatively cool temperatures in the eastern half of the country don't amount to much in terms of global temperatures.
Click to expand...
Alright I'll stop flogging this dead horse for now
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,889
#3,889
Speaking of shoddy journals...

Journal Accepts Paper Reading “Get Me Off Your ****ing Mailing List”
Fooling these pseudo-journals has become a bit of a sport lately, but this looks like the most extreme example yet.

Funny as it is, the existence of these sorts of journals is no joke. Good scientists have probably missed jobs in favor of people with resumes padded like this. Moreover, dubious medical cures and climate change denial published in these places sometimes gets a run in popular media with people thinking it has been genuinely peer reviewed.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,893
#3,893
He also "loves science Sexually". Only my total moron friends on Facebook like that stupid "I effing love science" website. Seriously lose all credibility when that website is used.

Oh and his link still doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,894
#3,894
VolsNSkinsFan said:
He also "loves science Sexually". Only my total moron friends on Facebook like that stupid "I effing love science" website. Seriously lose all credibility when that website is used.

Oh and his link still doesn't work.
Click to expand...
In case that wasn't clear, you have to edit the link. Or check out this article on the same story. Or just glance at the “paper”. The figures are a nice touch.

IFLS covers sexy science news like the hawt action in your last post. Looks like you'd enjoy it
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,895
#3,895
the website is a joke and you lose creditibility posting stuff from it.

Anyway NOAA just put out their long term winter forecast and they are calling for a warm winter. We will see
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,897
#3,897
BartW said:
My primary issue with your primary issue is the way people conflate actual climate science with the stuff you hear in the media, pop culture, the political arena, etc., and more generally the way environmentalists are conflated with hippies, ecosocialists, and worse. I don’t deny that there are hard greens in this country, but the notion that academic science itself is a hard green movement is wrong and offensive.

The Guardian article doesn’t accuse Lu of bad intentions. And yes, like I said earlier, flawed science (in all fields) does get through peer review sometimes. But that isn’t the end-all be-all. After publication the work can be scrutinized by the rest of the scientific community. It has to stand the test of time, and in this case, simply hasn’t. Why aren’t more (or any) contrarians taking up Lu’s position? Even Rifleman’s Nature article completely contradicts Lu.

They’re referencing shoddy journals like Energy and Environment or Pattern Recognition in Physics which even receive criticism from climate contrarians for poor standards, and aren’t listed on scopus, web of science, etc. Skeptical Science is thoroughly referenced with links to primary literature.

I’ve given SandVol and co. the benefit of the doubt much more often than they’ve deserved and have read numerous papers for them. Even ones from Enery and Environment. Even ones authored by serial science denier and former tobacco shill Fred Singer. I read Lu’s paper, the critiques, Lu’s response to the critiques, and even some of the works Lu cites. Don't give me that Galileo gambit. I never grouped Lu with the proven shills or even chronic contrarians. I’m just telling you the paper is indeed flawed.

You’ve got to be kidding me. Who exactly are these “countless people”? Me? Anyone in this thread? Any scientists? Al Gore maybe. It’s unfortunate that the media plays into this by doing climate change stories every time there’s a significant weather event, but scientists always caution that a single weather event doesn’t mean anything. You don’t see me posting about all the recent super typhoons.

The score of skeptics using the “hurrdurr it’s cold out global warming is crap” argument vs. us using the opposite is not remotely close.
Click to expand...

If you have a problem with conflation of actual science and punditry then you would recognize that very thing is happening in both the Guardian article and on the Skeptical Science website.

As for people making the "it's hot this summer so it must be global warming" it happens every summer and every hot day in Spring. I've seen it from Congressional members and national newscasters to name a few. So yes it happens quite often but just never seems to merit a "tsk, tsk, tsk" blog post from the Washington Post. I wonder why.
 
#3,899
#3,899
Antarctic ice thicker than previously thought, study finds | Environment | The Guardian

Dr Guy Williams, from IMAS, said the research is an important step in gauging changes to Antarctic ice.

“Sea ice is an important indicator of the polar climate but measuring its thickness has been tricky,” said Williams, the report’s co-author. “Along with the satellite data, it was a bit like taking an X-ray of the ice, although we haven’t X-rayed much of it, just a postage stamp.

“The key thing is that this is a game changer because it was previously very challenging to measure ice depth. We were limited to visual observation from the decks of ships or ice cores and take measures.

“It was a lot of hard work and quite crude, which means we were biased towards thinner ice. It was a bit like a doctor diagnosing a condition by prodding the skin.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top