Global Warning/Climate Change

When it just doesn't fit anywhere else.
Neto
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Postby Neto » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:51 am

Robert wrote:
JimFoxvog wrote:It is the heat waves that may become more severe and frequent that endanger human life.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/killer-heat-grows-hotter-around-the-world/
While scientists are still deciphering if particular heat waves, such as the ones in Pakistan and India, could be tied to climate change, it is accepted science that heat waves, broadly speaking, will become more frequent, intense and prolonged with global warming.


So they still do not know if they are tied to it, but warn that it will cause massive deaths if it goes to 7 C higher mean, which the IPCC projects a max of 3 C raise by 2100.

I see sensationalism.

Again, I grew up and worked in factories without A/C in Texas. We had 100 F days for 30-90 days in a row. We got the humidity off the Gulf Coast and it would be 90%+ some of those days. We still played basketball during lunch outside. After we were done, we would stand in front of a fan for a about 2 minutes, but after that, back to work.


I grew up in northeast Oklahoma, called 'Green Country' locally. That means humidity. We did not have A/C, not in the house or in the car. The summer temperatures (especially in July) would slowly build, until it would pretty much not cool off at night anymore. During summers while in college, and after I graduated, I worked in a plating shop. Most of the tanks in there were steam heated, just shy of boiling temps. So if it was 100 outside, it would be 120 or so inside. It took some time to adjust, I suppose, but I got on OK in that setting, although we had a salt tablet dispenser in the shop, too. Now the guys that were, umm, a bit on the *stout* side didn't do as well.
0 x

Bootstrap
Posts: 2397
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Postby Bootstrap » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:29 pm

Wayne in Maine wrote:Your source is skepticalscience.com which is not a peer reviewed journal but rather a global climate alarmist site, it is run by John Cook, who is not a climate scientist.


Yes, I was responding to your post which was based on The Daily Caller (a very political news and opinion website). I assume you don't consider that a peer reviewed science journal, And "alarmist" is a strange word to use for someone who basically summarizes the findings of mainstream scientists.

John Cook does get feedback from many climate scientists, who write many of the articles and are interviewed in some of the videos, and unlike your Daily Caller article, it refers directly to the original peer-reviewed research articles. Can't find that in The Daily Caller. I would regard him as a science writer who specializes in climate change.

And one nice thing about Cook's site is that it indexes the standard arguments that come up over and over again, linking to answers from the primary literature. That saves time. And his explanations are often simple enough for non-specialists to understand. That's important. Has anyone else noticed how often these posts are just the same repeated claims when they shows again in the political media? Not much reason to regard them as anything new. Or scientific.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?

Bootstrap
Posts: 2397
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Postby Bootstrap » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:56 pm

If anyone is looking for a 12 page overview on climate change and climate skeptics that is fairly easy to read, with lots of graphics and a good bibliography, I like this one:

The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism

It's written on about a high school level. John Cook, who wrote it, is a cognitive scientist, so his expertise is actually in how people process information. He has applied that to climate science with the aid of many climate scientists and other scientists.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?

User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Anabaptist Seeker
Contact:

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Postby Wayne in Maine » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:50 pm

Bootstrap wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:Your source is skepticalscience.com which is not a peer reviewed journal but rather a global climate alarmist site, it is run by John Cook, who is not a climate scientist.


Yes, I was responding to your post which was based on The Daily Caller (a very political news and opinion website). I assume you don't consider that a peer reviewed science journal, And "alarmist" is a strange word to use for someone who basically summarizes the findings of mainstream scientists.

The Daily caller piece is opinion. I did not use it to cite scientific data. You used a graphic from an advocacy site to suggest that sea level measurements and predictions by... (I'm not sure by whom, skepticalscience.com is blacklisted by our company's AV) match. There is an awful lot left out of that plot (like the natural periodicity of the rate of sea level rise).
0 x

User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Anabaptist Seeker
Contact:

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Postby Wayne in Maine » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:56 pm

Bootstrap wrote:If anyone is looking for a 12 page overview on climate change and climate skeptics that is fairly easy to read, with lots of graphics and a good bibliography, I like this one:

The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism

It's written on about a high school level. John Cook, who wrote it, is a cognitive scientist, so his expertise is actually in how people process information. He has applied that to climate science with the aid of many climate scientists and other scientists.

The only science skepticalscience.com is skeptical of is any scientist or study that contradicts Cook's contrived "97% consensus" (Cook is the original author of the analysis of papers where he concluded there is a 97% consensus that humans are the main cause of global warming).
1 x

MaxPC
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Full time RVers
Affiliation: Catholic
Contact:

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Postby MaxPC » Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:20 pm

Wayne in Maine wrote:The only science skepticalscience.com is skeptical of is any scientist or study that contradicts Cook's contrived "97% consensus" (Cook is the original author of the analysis of papers where he concluded there is a 97% consensus that humans are the main cause of global warming).

Agreed. :up: :up:
0 x
Max (aka Plain Catholic)
Psalm 105

Bootstrap
Posts: 2397
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Postby Bootstrap » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:18 pm

Wayne in Maine wrote:The Daily caller piece is opinion. I did not use it to cite scientific data. You used a graphic from an advocacy site to suggest that sea level measurements and predictions by... (I'm not sure by whom, skepticalscience.com is blacklisted by our company's AV) match.

It's pretty easy to track down the data for that graphic if you like, the links are there on the website.

Skepticalscience is very detailed about the data. John Cook does have an opinion, but it's very much in keeping with mainstream science and he provides links to the original research - usually telling us what the range of opinion is among mainstream scientists. He is essentially saying we should believe the scientists. The IPCC is the only group that does a systematic, peer-driven review of the entire scientific literature on the subject, and his opinion is largely that scientists understand what scientists do.

And one of the things that is clear, if you look at it, is that we are mostly rehashing questions that were around 10 years ago, with little new data that would change a scientist's mind. I can understand people who say they don't believe science. I don't understand people who say that the IPCC is not accurately summarizing the state of science as climate scientists understand it.

Wayne in Maine wrote:The only science skepticalscience.com is skeptical of is any scientist or study that contradicts Cook's contrived "97% consensus" (Cook is the original author of the analysis of papers where he concluded there is a 97% consensus that humans are the main cause of global warming).


Again, let's look at the data. Here's how he summarizes the paper:

The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.


He back this up with 7 studies.

Image
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?

User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Anabaptist Seeker
Contact:

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Postby Wayne in Maine » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:52 pm

Bootstrap wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:The Daily caller piece is opinion. I did not use it to cite scientific data. You used a graphic from an advocacy site to suggest that sea level measurements and predictions by... (I'm not sure by whom, skepticalscience.com is blacklisted by our company's AV) match.

It's pretty easy to track down the data for that graphic if you like, the links are there on the website.

Skepticalscience is very detailed about the data. John Cook does have an opinion, but it's very much in keeping with mainstream science and he provides links to the original research - usually telling us what the range of opinion is among mainstream scientists. He is essentially saying we should believe the scientists. The IPCC is the only group that does a systematic, peer-driven review of the entire scientific literature on the subject, and his opinion is largely that scientists understand what scientists do.

He is in keeping with mainstream science according to how he defined mainstream vs "deniers". He cites original research, but only that which backs up his conclusions. He is saying essentially that we should believe the scientists whom he considers mainstream.

And one of the things that is clear, if you look at it, is that we are mostly rehashing questions that were around 10 years ago, with little new data that would change a scientist's mind. I can understand people who say they don't believe science. I don't understand people who say that the IPCC is not accurately summarizing the state of science as climate scientists understand it.

Wayne in Maine wrote:The only science skepticalscience.com is skeptical of is any scientist or study that contradicts Cook's contrived "97% consensus" (Cook is the original author of the analysis of papers where he concluded there is a 97% consensus that humans are the main cause of global warming).


Again, let's look at the data (Source:https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm. Here's how he summarizes the paper:

The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.


He back this up with 7 studies.

ImageSource:https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/studies_consensus.jpg


And the source for this objective data and these unbiased graphics supporting Cook's methodology and conclusions is Cooks own blog skepticalscience.com
0 x

Bootstrap
Posts: 2397
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Postby Bootstrap » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:29 pm

Wayne in Maine wrote:He is in keeping with mainstream science according to how he defined mainstream vs "deniers". He cites original research, but only that which backs up his conclusions. He is saying essentially that we should believe the scientists whom he considers mainstream.


You keep saying this kind of thing, but surely mainstream science is what you find in:

  • Peer-reviewed journals
  • What university departments teach on the subject
  • Scientific associations
  • Comprehensive literature reviews
  • Lay-level general purpose science magazines like Scientific American, National Geographic
  • Governmental science agencies like NASA, NOAA, etc.

There's a reason that you cite The Daily Caller. You're going to have a hard time finding scientific associations or peer-reviewed journals or even just everyday lay-level science magazines that support denialism.

So sure, it's valid to say that you don't really believe what scientists are saying. You can believe whatever you want.

But saying that scientists don't know how to do real science is a bit of a stretch. If your opinion is really what mainstream scientists believe, please start citing sources like the ones given above. I cannot find mainstream scientific sources that agree with you.

I keep seeing statements like these in all of the above sources.

Scientific American wrote:The American Association for the Advancement of Science, or AAAS, made a rare foray into the climate debate Tuesday, releasing a report reiterating what many scientific bodies have already said:

The evidence is overwhelming. Temperatures are going up. Springs are arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Seas are rising. Rainfall and drought patterns are changing. Heat waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The oceans are acidifying.

"The science linking human activities to climate change is analogous to the science linking smoking to lung and cardiovascular diseases. Physicians, cardiovascular scientists, public health experts and others all agree smoking causes cancer," the AAAS wrote in its report, "What We Know."
1 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?

Bootstrap
Posts: 2397
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Postby Bootstrap » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:43 am

Wayne in Maine wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:He back this up with 7 studies.

ImageSource:https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/studies_consensus.jpg


And the source for this objective data and these unbiased graphics supporting Cook's methodology and conclusions is Cooks own blog skepticalscience.com


Wrong. The graphics are from that site, but the studies are from 7 different researchers, and their studies were all done before Cook's study. And this is what I find so frustrating - people just make up facts and blurt them out without checking them, but these statements are really emotional statements, not statements of fact. To refute what scientists say scientifically, you have to do the same kind of work they do, look at the data, check the facts, have your findings scrutinized by scientists.

Of course, all of the studies mentioned in the graphic are just an attempt to assign a number to the degree of consensus among scientists, and they are not about the core science - the more meaningful way to look at this is to carefully read the IPCC reports and understand how they go about comparing the results of every relevant published paper in a peer-reviewed journal. That's how the consensus is built.

And it's not a "personal blog". It's a non-profit science education organisation, run by a global team of volunteers, which has won a number of awards and is widely endorsed in the scientific community. It is basically an index into the research organized by (1) an overview of the findings of climate science, and (2) the main arguments against climate change that you find in popular media. Scientists like it because it does a good job of communicating mainstream science to the general public.

I was in attendance at a panel discussion at the Fall 2010 American Geophysical Union Conference with panelists Dr. Richard Sommerville, Susan Hassol, and Chris Mooney. Each of these participants is a giant in their own right. The room was overcrowded and a dividing wall had to be removed to double the seating capacity. The topic of the conversation was how to communicate climate science effectively. During that panel discussion and the interaction with the crowd that followed, Skeptical Science was mentioned four separate times as the premier repository for science information and communication strategies. The persons extolling Skeptical Science were noteworthy climate scientists who recognized the important role the website plays in the international discussion.


It's funded by donations.

There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any political organisations or groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?


Return to “Other”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest