Six jours

Cite, please.

Six jours

Those aren't climate scientists, they're mathematicians, geologists, and physicists. So they don't count.

But again, there is no such thing as a scientific paper with which everyone agrees. Science is not a popularity contest.

Roody

I noticed that some of the experts you cited on icecap.us are TV weathermen. So they must be right.

Actually, to some extent science is a popularity contest. I'm not referring to the popularity of the scientists, but to the popularity of their data and explanations. GW has already won that contest. We've moved beyond the point of arguing whether it exists. It does exist. The Reality Express has left the station, leaving a few flat-earthers behind on the platform. Bye-bye!

The questions that remain have to do with the severity of warming, how long we have to prepare for it, how we can adapt, and especially how we can reduce GHG emissions in order to reduce the severity of climate change. So, you can either jump on the train or get run over by it. I care no more about deniers of global warming than I care about those who possess scientific evidence that the universe is only 6,666 years old. The best thing to do with crackpots is ignore them. The grownups are talking, so please be quiet.

ericy

Well let me give you an example. Let's say that your doctor tells you that you have lung cancer, and you want a 2nd opinion. So you would suggest that it is entirely valid to call your dentist. He's a doctor, right (DDS = Doctor of Dental Surgery)? His opinion ought to be just as good as any other doctor... .

Or does the existence of the Flat Earth Society mean that there is controversy over the general shape of the planet Earth?

I have a graduate degree in Physics from MIT, and I know quite well what my limitations are. I never studied climate science - it wasn't even close to my field, but we did numerical modeling of other things, so the basic techniques that they use are very familiar to me. Nonetheless, the people who have worked in the field for years have intuition and experience that the rest of us simply don't have. They know what the state of the art in the field is, and they can tell us what they believe the applicability and the limitations of the computer models are, and would be much better equip to critically analyze the results that others may publish.

I have an idea. Why don't you read the Douglass paper in its entirety, and write a critique for us. Not just cut-and-paste something from the conclusions, read it, understand it, and explain to us what the strengths and shortcomings of their approach are, and explain to us why that paper is more correct that the tons of others that are out there. Basically to prove to us that a layman's opinion ought to hold just as much weight as someone trained in the field.

You can grasp at straws all you want. There will always be points of disagreement and all that, but as time goes on the models get better, the arguments become more and more convincing, and the rest of the world is moving forward.

Six jours

One thing that continually zooms by you and yours is the fact that I'm not a "denier". I don't know the truth about global warming, and I don't think the truth is known. I just know religion when I see it, and "global warming" as practiced by the laypeople meets a surprising number of those criteria -- including the "We've got The Truth and you don't" and "Ignore the non-believers; they'll see who's right when they end up in hell" bits.

Roody

I'm ignoring the non-believers. You're ignoring the data and strongly supported conclusions.

Six jours

Like I already said, most of the scientists on both sides of the issue are not climatologists. A corrected version of your example would be "Your dentist, audiologist, and podiatrist all tell you you have brain cancer. Your chiropractor says you don't. Three vs. one; that proves you have brain cancer."

I have an idea too. Why don't you read the Douglass paper in its entirety, and write a critique for us. Not just cut-and-paste something from the conclusions, read it, understand it, and explain to us what the strengths and shortcomings of their approach are, and explain to us why that paper is less correct that the tons of others that are out there. Basically to prove to us that a layman's opinion ought to hold just as much weight as someone trained in the field.

Six jours

Yes, I can see that by the dozens of replies you've made to them.

No, I'm looking at all the data and pointing out that there is disagreement within the scientific community as to the degree, cause, and potential effects of global warming. That this draws the ire of the global warming faithful is another characteristic of a religion.

ericy

Which is why when I speak about consensus, I always qualify it as being a consensus amongst climatologists.

You are the one that believes that this paper is correct and significant, and that non-climatologists are just as qualified as everyone else to analyze these things. I argue that since climatologists have more experience, that they are most qualified to analyze these things - Roody and I already provided a link to a critique of the paper on www.realclimate.org.

lyeinyoureye

I wouldn't go as far as to say it draws the ire of the CC (Climate Change since GW is something of a misnomer) faithful so much as it draws the ire of those who believe the negative impacts of CC are of a large enough magnitude and likely enough to address, especially if we proceed at our current pace.

P.S. Create a yes/no/T/F graph like in the video for those who are selling commodities where the profits are strongly tied to Carbon emissions and post it up.

ericy

Oh, please. Are you being deliberately thick, or are you being fed misinformation. Or is it both. Or is it that you hate the messenger. Or love to argue. I can't tell which.

I choose to listen to climatologists because there are so many armchair scientists out there who write all kinds of stuff. Some makes sense, and some of it doesn't, and some is utter nonsense. I don't have time to read and debunk them all, and it isn't my job to try - filtering out the non-climatologists is an easy way to restrict the discussion to things which at least have a chance at making sense.

To start with, we have the retreat of glaciers all over the planet, and the reduction in sea ice in the Arctic. No computer models required, and widely reported. The treatment of ice melting is one area where the computer models don't accurately predict things, and where more work is needed, but it isn't encouraging that the ice is melting far faster than the models would predict.

Secondly, scientists have taken ice cores in the Arctic and Antarctic and using trapped air bubbles, they have measured CO2 concentrations going back hundreds of thousands of years, and they are also able to deduce information about the climate for the same period, and a strong correlation is clearly apparent.

Six jours

You are fabricating "what I believe" out of thin air.

The people writing for realclimate have doctorates in physics, mathematics, geology, and geophysics. The lead authors for the paper published in the International Journal of Climatology have doctorates in physics and atmospheric science. So your attempt at poisoning the well seems vaguely silly.

Roody

Arguing about the specializations of the scientists studying global warming is a waste of time. Climatologists aren't the only ones with credentials to study in this field. Some of the most important studies (of the ice and sediment core samples) are done by paleontiologists. The original discovery, in the 19th century, that CO2 blocks infrared energy was made by chemists, and chemists are still doing a lot of work in the field. Physicists study radiation and energy balance. Computer scientists help to make the climate models. Meteorologists observe and describe how weather patterns are changed, and also make many of the basic temperature measurements. Oceanographers, geologists, biologists and other specialists are also important.

TV weathermen and the president of the weather channel on icecap.us--not so much.

Six jours

The glaciers that are in retreat have apparently been doing so since the mid 19th century. https://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/064.htm

And many glaciers are currently advancing, which lends support to the possibility that other factors are at work.
https://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

As for the ice sheets, many are growing, including the Greenland icecap https://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1485573.htm, and the Antarctic ice sheet. https://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20...uthseaice.html

Innacurate is innacurate, no matter how much you might like the result.

And as any scientist will tell you, correlation is not causation. There is a credible argument that increased atmospheric Co2 is a result of gloabl warming, not a cause.

Regardless, it has been pointed out that as a layperson, I cannot understand the complexities of environmental science. This is undoubtedly true, and is why I reserve judgment on the whole matter. I wonder, though, how my fellow laymen can be so sure of their judgements on the same matter.

Six jours

How droll. There are four authors listed in the International Journal of Climatology paper. David H. Douglass, PhD in physics. John R. Christy, PhD in atmospheric science. Benjamin D. Pearson, physics grad student. S. Fred Singer, PhD in physics.

It looks as though your argument is that icecap.us is the host I used for the Journal of Climatology paper, and that icecap.us is also host to an op-ed in which the author referenced the founder of the Weather Channel (who also happens to be a meteorologist) and is therefore not a trustworthy source. I hope that I am wrong, as that would be about the silliest argument I have ever seen.

Roody

You would be well served by your own perceptions and intellect, if you weren't so proud of your inherent skepticism. If a truck was rolling toward you on your bike, I think you would reserve judgment and just sit there because "it might not hit me after all."

Six jours

I don't take pride in my skepticism so much as marvel at the slack-jawed credulity displayed by the global warming faithful. The history of humankind is positively brimming with doomsday predictions, but despite the fact that none of them have happened, we're still suckers for new ones.

If that's the game, then you must be positive that you will someday be hit by a truck because you have actually seen trucks before.

El Julioso

I wouldn't be so heavy-handed in using the term "faith." Faith indicates a belief held without empirical evidence to support it. Religion is based on faith, as are the assertions of the Flat Earth Society. Climate Change is based on a massive amount of empirical evidence, so those who act according to its conclusions don't do so out of faith.

Yeah, and almost all of those were based on faith, and any new ones based on faith are likewise not worth taking seriously. Some doomsday scenarios weren't based on faith and still didn't happen - like the Cold War nuclear holocaust - but I don't think that even you would argue that two militant, nuke-producing nations which hate each other isn't a "doomsday scenario" worth taking seriously.

I think he'd say that one should be careful to avoid getting hit by a truck because there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that getting hit by trucks kills people. It isn't 100% proven - after all, everyone who has ever died following a truck accident may have actually just had a heart attack right before the truck hit them - but based on the evidence, it's reasonable to avoid speeding trucks due to a high probability that they aren't conducive to one's health.

So based on the evidence, what actions would you say are reasonable to take? To ignore the climate change evidence and continue to pollute as we are? Or to heed the warnings of the CC movement and strive to reduce GHG emissions?

If the former, keep in mind that pollution has been proven to cause a great deal of problems not even related to climate change - ground level ozone, acid rain, water supply contamination, and respiratory illnesses to name a few.

ericy

Well you are the one that posted the link. I could only assume that you did so because you felt it to be relevant and correct. If you believed it to be irrelevant or incorrect, it would have saved a lot of time if you had stated that right from the start .

ericy

The problem is that there are many out there who are deliberately trying to muddy the water. Be it right-wing think tanks, or stuff written by lobbyists for the coal/oil/natural gas industry. There are also political partisans and pundits out there pushing this agenda. Or there are people who just refuse to believe, and there are people who hate Al Gore. All of them try and make their stuff look scientific - people with the time and energy can dig into the backgrounds of the people involved and figure out what they are up to. Restricting choice to climatologists is one way of filtering out the nonsense with a relatively small amount of work.

Although if you look back far enough, meteorology and climatology were at one point offshoots of Physics (as were any number of other things). Gradually as time has gone one, these have become specializations of their own, with their own academic departments.

As you noted before, these people are unbelievably thick and impervious to any sorts of arguments, and I am starting to see the value in simply ignoring them .

There are many examples throughout science of ideas that are initially controversial, that later become accepted as mainstream as more and more information becomes available, more and more people are convinced. The same is true here as well - now the deniers are reduced to trying to use individual papers to try and insist that there is no consensus.

4fingerwoo

Six jours,

I too am skeptical about the global warming movement. It definitely has a bit of zealotry running through it.

As a physician, I've noted over the years many examples of medical "facts" that in a few years turned out to be false. For instance, it was believed that a high fiber diet decreases the risk of colon cancer. It turns out that the latest studies indicate that this is in fact NOT true. Or the whole mega dose vitamin craze...turns out large doses may be harmful (yes, some small and poorly designed studies show otherwise, but the best studies show that some megadose vits can be detrimental to ones health and actually may increase the risk of certain cancers...). My approach to global warming is that we simply don't have enough data to know with a high degree of certainty. That being said, I commute to work 50% of the time on bike in order to stay in shape and to keep the environment as clean as possible

We just don't know yet about global warming and there are many people who have jumped on the global warming bandwagon absolutely convinced that the end is near...

Roody

Most of those medical studies were flawed to start with, and were accepted by the public and clinical practicioners, but never by qualified sientists. In fact, it was skeptical scientists who did followup studies that demonstrated things like the inutility of megadose vitamins. In the case of these medical fads, it was the public and the media that jumped on the bandwagon, while the scientific community urged restraint until controlled studies were completed and replicated. Now, in the case of global warming, we're seeing the opposite. he scientific community is convinced that the controlled studies have already been done and replicated with followup studies. Almost every qualified scientist is convinced to a statistical certainty that anthropogenic warming is occurring, and it does pose a threat to the life we want for ourselves and our children. It is the media and the public who are the skeptics in this case, who refuse to accept sound evidence. Who do you think is really better qualified to interpret the scientific evidence--the public and media who repeatedly jump on every pseudoscientific fad, or the inherently skeptical scientific community?

4fingerwoo

Roody,

Good points.

I have to differ about scientists though. Like it or not we are all humans and as such we are inherently biased in our viewpoints. Scientists included. I used to think that scientists were this group of detached Spock-like individuals from which all things logical emminated. Well, that's just not true. We all, like it or not, have to realize that we all have a world view. And everything that we look at is colored, no matter how hard we try. We all have beliefs and it takes certain a amount of "faith" to "believe" the various theories that trickle down into the consciousness of the general public.

Again, I have no stake in anything petroleum. I just think and know for a fact that scientists can and do have their own personal and political biases that can influence their conclusions. They are often times not as detached as we would like them to be ideally.

Six jours

I posted it in response to Roody's claim that there weren't any such studies. I make no claim to its "correctness", as you have already noted that us laypeople can't possibly understand any of it.

For someone who claims to have a higher degree, you sure need to have a lot of stuff explained to you.

JusticeZero

We don't know with absolute certainty that Co@ is the cause of climate change, though we know it is very strongly correlated and seems to be the likely suspect. We don't know with complete certainty that stopping GHG emissions will solve the problem.
We do, however, have a lot of research indicating in great detail that the models show that the effects correlated with GHG's are going to collectively bend the world's population over and make them squeal like a pig. We also know that the observed effects appear in a number of cases to be EVEN WORSE THAN THE MODELS.

It is entirely justified to take immediate action NOW, and continuing to research, rather than stand around sitting on our collective thumbs just on the off chance that the majority of research was wrong.