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  

    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 6

    2024 Player Reviews: #24 Trent Rivers

    The premiership defender had his best year yet as he was given the opportunity to move into the midfield and made a good fist of it. Date of Birth: 30 July 2001 Games MFC 2024: 23 Career Total: 100 Goals MFC 2024: 2 Career Total:  9 Brownlow Medal Votes: 7 Melbourne Football Club: 6th Best & Fairest: 350 votes

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 2

    TRAINING: Monday 11th November 2024

    Veteran Demonland Trackwatchers Kev Martin, Slartibartfast & Demon Wheels were on hand at Gosch's Paddock to kick off the official first training session for the 1st to 4th year players with a few elder statesmen in attendance as well. KEV MARTIN'S PRESEASON TRAINING OBSERVATIONS Beautiful morning. Joy all round, they look like they want to be there.  21 in the squad. Looks like the leadership group is TMac, Viney Chandler and Petty. They look like they have sli

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports 2

    2024 Player Reviews: #1 Steven May

    The years are rolling by but May continued to be rock solid in a key defensive position despite some injury concerns. He showed great resilience in coming back from a nasty rib injury and is expected to continue in that role for another couple of seasons. Date of Birth: 10 January 1992 Height: 193cm Games MFC 2024: 19 Career Total: 235 Goals MFC 2024: 1 Career Total: 24 Melbourne Football Club: 9th Best & Fairest: 316 votes

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons

    2024 Player Reviews: #4 Judd McVee

    It was another strong season from McVee who spent most of his time mainly at half back but he also looked at home on a few occasions when he was moved into the midfield. There could be more of that in 2025. Date of Birth: 7 August 2003 Height: 185cm Games MFC 2024: 23 Career Total: 48 Goals MFC 2024: 1 Career Total: 1 Brownlow Medal Votes: 1 Melbourne Football Club: 7th Best & Fairest: 347 votes

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 5

    2024 Player Reviews: #31 Bayley Fritsch

    Once again the club’s top goal scorer but he had a few uncharacteristic flat spots during the season and the club will be looking for much better from him in 2025. Date of Birth: 6 December 1996 Height: 188cm Games MFC 2024: 23 Career Total: 149 Goals MFC 2024: 41 Career Total: 252 Brownlow Medal Votes: 4

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 9

    2024 Player Reviews: #18 Jake Melksham

    After sustaining a torn ACL in the final match of the 2023 season Jake added a bit to the attack late in the 2024 season upon his return. He has re-signed on to the Demons for 1 more season in 2025. Date of Birth: 12 August 1991 Height: 186cm Games MFC 2024: 8 Career Total: 229 Goals MFC 2024: 8 Career Total: 188

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 7

    2024 Player Reviews: #3 Christian Salem

    The luckless Salem suffered a hamstring injury against the Lions early in the season and, after missing a number of games, he was never at his best. He was also inconvenienced by minor niggles later in the season. This was a blow for the club that sorely needed him to fill gaps in the midfield at times as well as to do his best work in defence. Date of Birth: 15 July 1995 Height: 184cm Games MFC 2024: 17 Career Total: 176 Goals MFC 2024: 1 Career Total: 26 Brownlow Meda

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 8

    2024 Player Reviews: #39 Koltyn Tholstrop

    The first round draft pick at #13 from twelve months ago the strongly built medium forward has had an impressive introduction to AFL football and is expected to spend more midfield moments as his career progresses. Date of Birth: 25 July 2005 Height: 186cm Games MFC 2024: 10 Career Total: 10 Goals MFC 2024: 5 Career Total: 5 Games CDFC 2024: 7 Goals CDFC 2024: 4

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 9
  • Tell a friend

    Love Demonland? Tell a friend!

×
×
  • Create New...