Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
behaviour???

Big freeze could signal global warming 'pause

688 posts in this topic

Set against this are many thousands of scientific papers - of which the vast majority will have significant merit even if some are subsequently shown to be in error later.

Br Cornelius

And there are just as many that claim its a hoax 31,000 American scientists or the 130 in Germany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there are just as many that claim its a hoax 31,000 American scientists or the 130 in Germany

I love the 31,00 number. An online petition set up by a paid lobbyist with almost no climate scientists represented. Not very credible. When you consider the bunkum science which accompanies the petition it gets even worse. Consider that the paper was published in a very strange medical journal which displays a very right wing agenda (ie anti abortion, anti public health provision, etc, etc).

It was the first thing I came across 3yrs ago when I tried to convince myself that Global Warming was a hoax. It was also the first thing I threw out on closer investigation.

Here is a bit of background information to place it in context;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Set against this are many thousands of scientific papers - of which the vast majority will have significant merit even if some are subsequently shown to be in error later.

Br Cornelius

it seems like there has been many errors, made up numbers, almost no by review process by skeptics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems like there has been many errors, made up numbers, almost no by review process by skeptics.

Made up numbers and errors by sceptics?

Soon and Baliunas?

Sceptic Von Storch said McIntyre got his figures incorrect with the hockey stick?

Lindzen and Monckton's bad maths?

Gerlich and Tscheuschner's straw man greenhouse effect?

Inohofe lying in congress about NOAA data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I saying there is no AGW, no. I just don't know. I just don't find groups like the IPCC credible. you have the IPCC Chairman Pachauri being asked to resign, Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and Michael Mann, director of the Penn State under investigation.

Matt here is three I found within the last few days.

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

And now for Amazongate

Climate scandal more widespread

Now we can go back and attack sources, people ect, but I don't see this getting any where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I saying there is no AGW, no. I just don't know. I just don't find groups like the IPCC credible. you have the IPCC Chairman Pachauri being asked to resign, Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and Michael Mann, director of the Penn State under investigation.

Matt here is three I found within the last few days.

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

And now for Amazongate

Climate scandal more widespread

Now we can go back and attack sources, people ect, but I don't see this getting any where.

I went and read the amazongate link. It stated that an experiment was conducted which said that just three years of drought was enough to cause a 10% die off which is broadly in support of thbe original claim. Droughts of 3 years plus are not uncommon and likely to become much more common.

Frankly the report is trying to build a scandel out of a generally factual account of what could happen if a relatively short drought took hold. There are reasons why a rainforest is more resistant to drought in that it generates its own weather system and so drought is less common - but a global shift in precipitation is a very real possability in a warmed future.

The precidents support historic events in the form of the Sahara going from green and wooded to desert.

It seems that there is a concerted effort among the skeptical press to interpret good scientific speculation in the most unfavorable light possible. These are uncertain times and it is important to point out the possible outcomes of our actions.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went and read the amazongate link. It stated that an experiment was conducted which said that just three years of drought was enough to cause a 10% die off which is broadly in support of thbe original claim. Droughts of 3 years plus are not uncommon and likely to become much more common.

Frankly the report is trying to build a scandel out of a generally factual account of what could happen if a relatively short drought took hold. There are reasons why a rainforest is more resistant to drought in that it generates its own weather system and so drought is less common - but a global shift in precipitation is a very real possability in a warmed future.

The precidents support historic events in the form of the Sahara going from green and wooded to desert.

Heres another source with more info Amazongate: new evidence of the IPCC's failures yeah I know, I'm sure you see nothing wrong here, I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time.

It seems that there is a concerted effort among the skeptical press to interpret good scientific speculation in the most unfavorable light possible. These are uncertain times and it is important to point out the possible outcomes of our actions.

Br Cornelius

I agree, why tell everyone that the planet is warming based on scientific speculation? theres nothing wrong with being skeptical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres another source with more info Amazongate: new evidence of the IPCC's failures yeah I know, I'm sure you see nothing wrong here, I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time.

I agree, why tell everyone that the planet is warming based on scientific speculation? theres nothing wrong with being skeptical.

The case is well made that droughts as short as 3yrs can kill a substantial proportion of rainforest (10% with that figure likely to rapidly rise thereafter). It is factually supported extrapolation from that empirical data. Nothing is "proven" but a very strong case has been made.

Empirical data certainly represents a better point to base a model on than thin air speculation which is the whole point of the science of climatology over agenda driven PR.

And there you go again - using a politically motivated paper as a source. It does your case absolutely no good to quote opinion pieces from a Tory rag like the Telegraph.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case is well made that droughts as short as 3yrs can kill a substantial proportion of rainforest (10% with that figure likely to rapidly rise thereafter). It is factually supported extrapolation from that empirical data. Nothing is "proven" but a very strong case has been made.

Empirical data certainly represents a better point to base a model on than thin air speculation which is the whole point of the science of climatology over agenda driven PR.

That report was done by an advocacy group, the World Wildlife Fund. you call that science?

And there you go again - using a politically motivated paper as a source. It does your case absolutely no good to quote opinion pieces from a Tory rag like the Telegraph.

Br Cornelius

I found over 100 articles covering Amazongate, many of them are politically motivated but then again so is AGW.

IPCC claims on Amazon, ice not based on science

First Climategate, Then Glaciergate, Now Amazongate and ...

My link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Empirical data certainly represents a better point to base a model on than thin air speculation which is the whole point of the science of climatology over agenda driven PR.

That report was done by an advocacy group, the World Wildlife Fund. you call that science?

I found over 100 articles covering Amazongate, many of them are politically motivated but then again so is AGW.

IPCC claims on Amazon, ice not based on science

First Climategate, Then Glaciergate, Now Amazongate and ...

My link

Doing a Google search and finding a 100 cross referencing blogs is not credible research.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing a Google search and finding a 100 cross referencing blogs is not credible research.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That report was done by an advocacy group, the World Wildlife Fund. you call that science?

I found over 100 articles covering Amazongate, many of them are politically motivated but then again so is AGW.

IPCC claims on Amazon, ice not based on science

First Climategate, Then Glaciergate, Now Amazongate and ...

My link

Doing a Google search and finding a 100 cross referencing blogs is not credible research.

Br Cornelius

They are news sites and I don't think work done by the World Wildlife Fund is reliable science.

Edited by Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are news sites and I don't think work done by the World Wildlife Fund is reliable science.

Here is a reference to a real scientific source on the effects of El Nino type drought;

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0p2jqte1umex2lny/

Took me all of 1minuite to find a real source with no ties to the WWF.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a reference to a real scientific source on the effects of El Nino type drought;

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0p2jqte1umex2lny/

Took me all of 1minuite to find a real source with no ties to the WWF.

Br Cornelius

What the hell are you talking about, we are talking about how the IPCC got its information.

Lets try and stay on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell are you talking about, we are talking about how the IPCC got its information.

Lets try and stay on topic.

I was talking about the validity of the claim that a relatively short drought could cause sever die off of rainforests, and I have supported my positions which was in line with the IPCC claim. I am on topic and supply relevant evidence - rather than politically motivated opinion pieces.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking about the validity of the claim that a relatively short drought could cause sever die off of rainforests, and I have supported my positions which was in line with the IPCC claim. I am on topic and supply relevant evidence - rather than politically motivated opinion pieces.

Br Cornelius

"Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000). It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas."

Now notice the (Rowell and Moore, 2000) thats an advocacy group, the World Wildlife Fund. now why is a politically motivated group being used as a source of scientiffic research?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000). It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas."

Now notice the (Rowell and Moore, 2000) thats an advocacy group, the World Wildlife Fund. now why is a politically motivated group being used as a source of scientiffic research?

The scientific consensus of Ecologists is very much in support of the position taken. I would guess that Rowell and Moore were creating an executive summary of the scientific papers on the subject of drought effects on the Tropical rainforests.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scientific consensus of Ecologists is very much in support of the position taken. I would guess that Rowell and Moore were creating an executive summary of the scientific papers on the subject of drought effects on the Tropical rainforests.

Br Cornelius

Rowell and Moore are part of an advocacy group called the World Wildlife Fund.

Science is not a democratic process I don't care what the scientific consensus is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is based off of observations. . . the scientific consensus is based on the collective observations of the scientists in question. It isn't a democracy, it's how many people actually see what's true or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is not a democratic process I don't care what the scientific consensus is!

It seems you position is one of opinion over observed facts. Truth seems to be a matter of opinion for you.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is based off of observations. . . the scientific consensus is based on the collective observations of the scientists in question. It isn't a democracy, it's how many people actually see what's true or not.

No thats wrong, if you went back to the year 1400, I'm sure the scientific consensus would be that the world is flat. not to mention all the global warming/cooling claims there was. the scientific method requires an experiment. an experiment requires a control. in order for something to be considered a scientific fact, it must be tested in the scientific method. it should be an open process, peer review of such research papers with some skepticism is needed.

- The Times (24 Feb 1895) COLD "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again"

- Time (10 Sep 1923) COLD “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age”

- New York Times (NYT) (18 Sep 1934) COLD “MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age”

- NYT (27 Mar 1933) WARM “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise”

- Time (2 Jan 1939) WARM “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.”

- Time (24 Jun 1974) COLD “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”

- NYT (21 May 1975) COLD “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable”

- Time (9 Apr 2001) WARM “cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.”

- NYT (27 Dec 2005) WARM “Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming”

Source

Ask a Question

Do Background Research

Construct a Hypothesis

Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

Communicate Your Results

Steps of the Scientific Method

Notice that looking for information in advocacy groups to validate your conclusion isn't listed.

Edited by Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems you position is one of opinion over observed facts. Truth seems to be a matter of opinion for you.

Br Cornelius

We do not say something is a fact based on a consensus of what scientists believe. thats more in the lines of faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do not say something is a fact based on a consensus of what scientists believe. thats more in the lines of faith.

Since you have shown no empirical facts to back up your claims (at least you haven't brought any to the table), I suppose thats the only position open to you.

I know who's case looks more like faith from where I am standing (shoulder to shoulder with the consensus of informed scientific opinion).

Notice the difference there "informed", "fact based opinion" ;) .

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you have shown no empirical facts to back up your claims (at least you haven't brought ajny to the table), I suppose thats the only position open to you.

I know who's case looks more like faith from where I am standing (shoulder to shoulder with the consensus of informed scientific opinion).

Notice the difference there "informed", "fact based opinion" ;) .

Br Cornelius

I'm not the one making the claim that man is causing global warming. its up to those scientists to back up such claims and using information from advocacy groups, material that never went threw a rigorous peer review process. mountaineering magazine or the World Wildlife Fund don't seem like reliable sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not the one making the claim that man is causing global warming. its up to those scientists to back up such claims and using information from advocacy groups, material that never went threw a rigorous peer review process. mountaineering magazine or the World Wildlife Fund don't seem like reliable sources.

Yes but you are choosing to ignore the wealth of scientific research which supports that position. It is either that or you are totally ignorant of it.

You are focusing on a very small cross section of the research which just about supports skeptism. This is classic "quote mining" as a mindset.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.