Jump to content

Vote: for reinstating Climate Change back Onto the G-20 agenda !!!



Recommended Posts

Posted

thanks for that...

did you miss this part of article ?

Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.

"The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."

and ....did you miss this part of the article ?

Deep ocean warming contributed virtually nothing to sea level rise during this period.

Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up.

hmmm unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up ? Interesting language - I scoured the article for the bit about "desperate hypothesis" but I couldn't seem to find it anywhere.

You might need to re-read the post of mine you are replying to. I said NASA disputed that the heat was going into the ocean and have since provided a link. The desperate hypothesis bit was my observation.

Posted

You might need to re-read the post of mine you are replying to. I said NASA disputed that the heat was going into the ocean and have since provided a link. The desperate hypothesis bit was my observation.

Actually - only the deep ocean is not heating - the top part half of the ocean is - but as pointed out in the article - it does not account for the cumulative lack of heating in the atmosphere.

I was being factitious - I haven't resorted to casting colourful observations on scientific opinion as I am far from qualified to do so - To my mind there is scientific consensus on where there is heading. Have all the predictions been correct - absolutely not. Has there been some alarmists entering the debate - absolutely. Has there been scientific reasons for why certain modeling has not been as accurate as it should be. Absolutely.

My frustration with this debate is the argument - in the casting of doubt on the entire science because certain parts of the models have not played out exactly as expected. New papers are being published regularly that shift predictions that were made and forward new views that will alter previous models - NASA in the article you linked pointed out specifically says that this paper does not throw suspicion on climate change itself ( which you chose to ignore) - the scientific community (well 97%) are not suggesting for a moment that the outlook is any less glum or that extent of the problem is any less.

I will retire from this debate with you as I cannot envisage either us changing our position on the Science.

  • Like 1

Posted

...... - the scientific community (well 97%) are not suggesting for a moment that the outlook is any less glum or that extent of the problem is any less.

just to be a little bit picky (or anal) but i find this "97% of the scientific community" to be a bit of a hoary old chestnut

i don't understand what it means. it is too vague, even unscientific

97% of scientists don't even work in the field of climate science

many scientists who do work in this field only work in very specialised sub-sections

how many years working as a scientist gets you included in this group

what is the defintion of a "scientist" anyway

and what exactly are they all agreeing on (apart from general statements like "climate change is real")

yep a bit anal, but that's just me. i hate generalised sweeping statements that just get thrown around in any context

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

just to be a little bit picky (or anal) but i find this "97% of the scientific community" to be a bit of a hoary old chestnut

i don't understand what it means. it is too vague, even unscientific

97% of scientists don't even work in the field of climate science

many scientists who do work in this field only work in very specialised sub-sections

how many years working as a scientist gets you included in this group

what is the defintion of a "scientist" anyway

and what exactly are they all agreeing on (apart from general statements like "climate change is real")

yep a bit anal, but that's just me. i hate generalised sweeping statements that just get thrown around in any context

Several surveys have been conducted of peer reviewed papers on the subject of global warming/climate change, the most notable being a survey of just under 12,000 papers published between 01-11. This resulted in a consensus of 97.1% supporting the theory of human induced climate change. This figure is consistent with other similar surveys.

Links below.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-

http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Edited by P-man
Posted

Several surveys have been conducted of peer reviewed papers on the subject of global warming/climate change, the most notable being a survey of just under 12,000 papers published between 01-11. This resulted in a consensus of 97.1% supporting the theory of human induced climate change. This figure is consistent with other similar surveys.

Links below.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-

http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

so, as i suspected it was not "97% of all scientists"......thanks

from the 2 surveys of peer reviewed literature 32% and 64% endorsed AGW

Posted

Actually - only the deep ocean is not heating - the top part half of the ocean is - but as pointed out in the article - it does not account for the cumulative lack of heating in the atmosphere.

I was being factitious - I haven't resorted to casting colourful observations on scientific opinion as I am far from qualified to do so - To my mind there is scientific consensus on where there is heading. Have all the predictions been correct - absolutely not. Has there been some alarmists entering the debate - absolutely. Has there been scientific reasons for why certain modeling has not been as accurate as it should be. Absolutely.

My frustration with this debate is the argument - in the casting of doubt on the entire science because certain parts of the models have not played out exactly as expected. New papers are being published regularly that shift predictions that were made and forward new views that will alter previous models - NASA in the article you linked pointed out specifically says that this paper does not throw suspicion on climate change itself ( which you chose to ignore) - the scientific community (well 97%) are not suggesting for a moment that the outlook is any less glum or that extent of the problem is any less.

I will retire from this debate with you as I cannot envisage either us changing our position on the Science.

thats right nutB, its not exactly like we've all been thru one of these before, to have the experience to know the playbook exactly.

Posted

thats right nutB, its not exactly like we've all been thru one of these before, to have the experience to know the playbook exactly.

I think that this is sometimes lost in the whole debate.

The goal posts will move, there will be corrections to modelling and learnings as we go forward. As yet, I have not read of any corrections or shifts that has forced climate scientists to suggest that the problem of climate change is a myth.


Posted (edited)

so, as i suspected it was not "97% of all scientists"......thanks

from the 2 surveys of peer reviewed literature 32% and 64% endorsed AGW

You do understand the difference between 97% of all scientists and 97% of all papers, right?

You do understand the difference between not expressing an opinion and not having an opinion?

Whether an opinion on a particular cause (like AGW) is an outcome of a study would need to take into account the parameters of that study. The paper by Cook et al isn't that fine grained (one that was would take forever and probably wouldn't add much understanding anyway). I can't see the Guardian article. Maybe it says something else but I doubt it would allow the kind of equation you're making between scientists and scientific papers.

Edit typo

Edited by Dr John Dee
Posted

so, as i suspected it was not "97% of all scientists"......thanks

from the 2 surveys of peer reviewed literature 32% and 64% endorsed AGW

i should have qualified - 97% of "climate scientists" ( still pretty generic)

Posted

You do understand the difference between 97% of all scientists and 97% of all papers, right?

You do understand the difference between not expressing an opinion and not having an opinion?

Whether an opinion on a particular cause (like AGW) is an outcome of a study would need to take into account the parameters of that study. The paper by Cook et al isn't that fine grained (one that was would take forever and probably wouldn't add much understanding anyway). I can't see the Guardian article. Maybe it says something else but I doubt it would allow the kind of equation you're making between scientists and scientific papers.

Edit typo

yes, i do understand all that dr john

and i hope that you understand that the constant quoting by people of "97% of all scientists" is misleading and a corruption of the original findings

that's all i am pointing out. there is enough sloppy and exaggerated reporting on both sides

Posted

getting closer but no cigar

You disagree with NASA's statement ( from their website) ?

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

Posted

yes, i do understand all that dr john

and i hope that you understand that the constant quoting by people of "97% of all scientists" is misleading and a corruption of the original findings

that's all i am pointing out. there is enough sloppy and exaggerated reporting on both sides

except the 97% figure has been around a lot longer than this paper's findings. Whether it's accurate or not is another matter, but that's not down to misrepresenting Cook et al.

Posted (edited)

except the 97% figure has been around a lot longer than this paper's findings. Whether it's accurate or not is another matter, but that's not down to misrepresenting Cook et al.

the term 'all scientists" being unqualified and undefined is the main issue for me. it is hyperbolic and unnecessary

btw i'm quite satisfied that the vast majority of scientists who work in the climate related sciences endorse AGW (for whatever reasons)

(I still think the 97% bit includes a bit of window dressing, but this was a secondary issue)

Edited by daisycutter

Posted

Geeze you're reaching a bit DC. I think it's safely assumed that it's 97% of climate scientists. No-one is asking neurochemists whether they think climate change is happening.

Posted

Geeze you're reaching a bit DC. I think it's safely assumed that it's 97% of climate scientists. No-one is asking neurochemists whether they think climate change is happening.

when i started on post #103 my opening statement was "just to be a little bit picky (or anal) " :) so, yes you could say i'm reaching

you and i might know(or presume) that neurochemists (whatever they are) and labrats are not included but the great unwashed probably don't make that distinction

"all scientists" sounds much more powerful and convincing than "all climate scientists" or "all published climate scientists" ..... marketing 101

Posted

the term 'all scientists" being unqualified and undefined is the main issue for me. it is hyperbolic and unnecessary

btw i'm quite satisfied that the vast majority of scientists who work in the climate related sciences endorse AGW (for whatever reasons)

(I still think the 97% bit includes a bit of window dressing, but this was a secondary issue)

No argument from me on any of this, DC. In the end the numbers of who says what are far less important than the processes of scientific verification/falsification involved (and how these are carried out and evaluated by scientists, not the rabble that thinks it knows what it's talking about because it read some web page or other).


Posted

when i started on post #103 my opening statement was "just to be a little bit picky (or anal) " :) so, yes you could say i'm reaching

you and i might know(or presume) that neurochemists (whatever they are) and labrats are not included but the great unwashed probably don't make that distinction

"all scientists" sounds much more powerful and convincing than "all climate scientists" or "all published climate scientists" ..... marketing 101

the vast majority of those in the know ?

Posted

the vast majority of those in the know ?

another loaded question, nut?

i'll let wrecker respond

[you know, sometimes you can be too close to something to see the forest, and too incentivised to support a conclusion]

[lol - just stirring the pot, nut]

Posted

another loaded question, nut?

i'll let wrecker respond

[you know, sometimes you can be too close to something to see the forest, and too incentivised to support a conclusion]

[lol - just stirring the pot, nut]

I prefer to think of my philosophy's as confused but content.

Posted

Several surveys have been conducted of peer reviewed papers on the subject of global warming/climate change, the most notable being a survey of just under 12,000 papers published between 01-11. This resulted in a consensus of 97.1% supporting the theory of human induced climate change. This figure is consistent with other similar surveys.

Links below.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-

http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

P-man I can't open the first link and I am really not buying into the 2nd.

I feel like I am arguing belligerently against AGW because I keep disagreeing with everything but I am open minded on the topic and was once a massive believer. I just changed my mind when the evidence shifted.

The 97% of scientists study has been widely debunked. You only need to google it to see the number of papers on it. I post a link only because you did as well.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming/print

I am happy to argue any of the points but really don't want to get into an argument over who can post the most supporting links.

Posted

I will retire from this debate with you as I cannot envisage either us changing our position on the Science.

I respect that and agree arguing with someone who has a closed mind is not worth your time (or mine).

I will say though that if the evidence changes I will change my mind. Right now whilst the real world data flies in the face of the IPCC predictions I am happy to be in the "Denier" camp.

  • Like 1
Posted

well that must be it then!!!

b027_bush_mission_accomplished_205008172

dee-luded I don't know why I am even replying to you but for the record a picture of George Bush in no way disproves the hiatus, acknowledged by the IPCC and visible in the graphs posted in this thread.

Posted

dee-luded I don't know why I am even replying to you but for the record a picture of George Bush in no way disproves the hiatus, acknowledged by the IPCC and visible in the graphs posted in this thread.

George Dubbya is a colossal gumby though... makes me think more warmly of our Tony ( but that's for another thread !) ;)

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Demonland Forums  

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles  

    UP IN LIGHTS by Whispering Jack

    Those who watched the 2024 Marsh AFL National Championships closely this year would not be particularly surprised that Melbourne selected Victoria Country pair Harvey Langford and Xavier Lindsay on the first night of the AFL National Draft. The two left-footed midfielders are as different as chalk and cheese but they had similar impacts in their Coates Talent League teams and in the National Championships in 2024. Their interstate side was edged out at the very end of the tournament for tea

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Special Features

    TRAINING: Wednesday 20th November 2024

    It’s a beautiful cool morning down at Gosch’s Paddock and I’ve arrived early to bring you my observations from today’s session. DEMONLAND'S PRESEASON TRAINING OBSERVATIONS Reigning Keith Bluey Truscott champion Jack Viney is the first one out on the track.  Jack’s wearing the red version of the new training guernsey which is the only version available for sale at the Demon Shop. TRAINING: Viney, Clarry, Lever, TMac, Rivers, Petty, McVee, Bowey, JVR, Hore, Tom Campbell (in tr

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Monday 18th November 2024

    Demonland Trackwatchers ventured down to Gosch's Paddock for the final week of training for the 1st to 4th Years until they are joined by the rest of the senior squad for Preseason Training Camp in Mansfield next week. WAYNE RUSSELL'S PRESEASON TRAINING OBSERVATIONS No Ollie, Chin, Riv today, but Rick & Spargs turned up and McDonald was there in casual attire. Seston, and Howes did a lot of boundary running, and Tom Campbell continued his work with individual trainer in non-MFC

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    2024 Player Reviews: #11 Max Gawn

    Champion ruckman and brilliant leader, Max Gawn earned his seventh All-Australian team blazer and constantly held the team up on his shoulders in what was truly a difficult season for the Demons. Date of Birth: 30 December 1991 Height: 209cm Games MFC 2024: 21 Career Total: 224 Goals MFC 2024: 11 Career Total: 109 Brownlow Medal Votes: 13 Melbourne Football Club: 2nd Best & Fairest: 405 votes

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 12

    2024 Player Reviews: #36 Kysaiah Pickett

    The Demons’ aggressive small forward who kicks goals and defends the Demons’ ball in the forward arc. When he’s on song, he’s unstoppable but he did blot his copybook with a three week suspension in the final round. Date of Birth: 2 June 2001 Height: 171cm Games MFC 2024: 21 Career Total: 106 Goals MFC 2024: 36 Career Total: 161 Brownlow Medal Votes: 3 Melbourne Football Club: 4th Best & Fairest: 369 votes

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 5

    TRAINING: Friday 15th November 2024

    Demonland Trackwatchers took advantage of the beautiful sunshine to head down to Gosch's Paddock and witness the return of Clayton Oliver to club for his first session in the lead up to the 2025 season. DEMONLAND'S PRESEASON TRAINING OBSERVATIONS Clarry in the house!! Training: JVR, McVee, Windsor, Tholstrup, Woey, Brown, Petty, Adams, Chandler, Turner, Bowey, Seston, Kentfield, Laurie, Sparrow, Viney, Rivers, Jefferson, Hore, Howes, Verrall, AMW, Clarry Tom Campbell is here

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    2024 Player Reviews: #7 Jack Viney

    The tough on baller won his second Keith 'Bluey' Truscott Trophy in a narrow battle with skipper Max Gawn and Alex Neal-Bullen and battled on manfully in the face of a number of injury niggles. Date of Birth: 13 April 1994 Height: 178cm Games MFC 2024: 23 Career Total: 219 Goals MFC 2024: 10 Career Total: 66 Brownlow Medal Votes: 8

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 3

    TRAINING: Wednesday 13th November 2024

    A couple of Demonland Trackwatchers braved the rain and headed down to Gosch's paddock to bring you their observations from the second day of Preseason training for the 1st to 4th Year players. DITCHA'S PRESEASON TRAINING OBSERVATIONS I attended some of the training today. Richo spoke to me and said not to believe what is in the media, as we will good this year. Jefferson and Kentfield looked big and strong.  Petty was doing all the training. Adams looked like he was in rehab.  KE

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    2024 Player Reviews: #15 Ed Langdon

    The Demon running machine came back with a vengeance after a leaner than usual year in 2023.  Date of Birth: 1 February 1996 Height: 182cm Games MFC 2024: 22 Career Total: 179 Goals MFC 2024: 9 Career Total: 76 Brownlow Medal Votes: 5 Melbourne Football Club: 5th Best & Fairest: 352 votes

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 8
  • Tell a friend

    Love Demonland? Tell a friend!

×
×
  • Create New...