Climate and Weather

Wez said:
You do realize the day-to-day staff in charge of the military don't change with every new President, right?

A doctrine of half truths and fairy tales is the currency of the fossil fuel funded GOP.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

"Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming."




Nobody that I know of in this forum is qualified to dispute anything. See the link above if you want actual science on what's happening to sea levels. I haven't seen anyone here finding a need to defend Gore, he's a politician, not a scientist.

Why do you feel a need to dispute what Science tells us?
Click to expand...
Anyone who refers to that link has not done any homework.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
1) Palanisamy links to a Ph.D. dissertation. Strictly speaking, dissertations are not peer reviewed, they are approved (or, in rare and sad instances, not) by an institutional thesis committee. However, the thesis is indeed buttressed by a number of peer reviewed papers, which is what the CNS should be linking to if they want to direct the reader to peer reviewed studies. The quoted parts in CNS come from the summary. I doubt this Kenneth Richards ("no tricks") bothered to read much beyond this first page. A more comprehensive view of the work dealing with regional variability in sea level rise (the part CNS focused on) can be obtained if one examines Chapter 4 starting on page 143 of the thesis document. Here the context of the work is presented quite nicely. The author is wishing to understand how forced and unforced processes contribute to regional differences in sea level that are superimposable upon the larger global pattern of mean sea level rise. A number of case studies are presented in the chapter, each of which has specific regional influences (themoclines, wind patterns, land mass rise/subsidence) that are not necessarily anthropogenic in nature. In fact there is a good general discussion of steric processes related to the planetary energy balance (many of which are thought to be strongly correlated with anthropogenic factors) that are driving mean sea level rise (thermal expansion as a main culprit) that is informative reading. I imagine the student would be overjoyed if they were to find out that the writing they spent months crafting was appreciated and valuable to somebody.

2) Bordbar links to a EGU (European Geoscience Union) abstract. It is a conference proceeding and is not a peer reviewed study. My admittedly quick read here was that this study similarly focuses on regional variability. In fact, the quoted part in CNS deals with the authors' concern with how to assess larger global trends in the midst of strong regional variation (this is the “Further, such variability strengthens in response to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations, which may further hinder detection of anthropogenic climate signals in that region” part. Like E stated earlier, the intention is fairly clear even in the limited context of the abstract.

3) Dangendorf also links to an EGU abstract (the same meeting, I'd bet $10-big money for me-the posters were right beside each other).

4) Hansen is a response to a comment on a paper published in the Journal of Coastal Research. Whether comments and responses are peer reviewed varies on editorial policy. Typically, if the editor thinks the comments are reasonable they do not bother the reviewers to referee the subsequent commentary. If one takes the time to track back the initial paper the rationale of the study is again, an in this case even more forcefully, made clear. "We wish to emphasize that our study does not intend to test the long array of possible effects of global warming (steric expansion of seas, redistribution of water from melting icecaps and glaciers), other effects of anthropogenic redistribution of Earth's water resources (groundwater mining, water storage, etc.), or effects of such changes on sea level and Earth's rotational velocity." Quotation from JCS (2015). 31:1041-1056.

If any of the relevant articles are not freebies and one wishes to look at them let me know.
Click to expand...
There is no question that there is disagreement, and debate on the theory of AGW.
 
Bernie Sanders said:
There is no question that there is disagreement, and debate on the theory of AGW.
Click to expand...

Of course there is fossil fuel funded disagreement. In the field of science, the only disagreement is the extent to which mankind is having on our environment and what the long term effects may be. You have clearly chosen the denial camp and so far you've given no valid reason for having done so, other then you don't like the politics behind Global Warming.
 
Wez said:
Of course there is fossil fuel funded disagreement. In the field of science, the only disagreement is the extent to which mankind is having on our environment and what the long term effects may be. You have clearly chosen the denial camp and so far you've given no valid reason for having done so, other then you don't like the politics behind Global Warming.
Click to expand...
I'm in the camp that disputes the extent to which mankind has an effect on climate.
 
Bernie Sanders said:
I'm in the camp that disputes the extent to which mankind has an effect on climate.
Click to expand...

That's fine, do as you please, I just gotta wonder why? I understand AGW get politicized way too much by both parties and being overly alarmist is not necessary, but to choose to not only ignore, but to argue against, what the consensus of actual scientists are seeing in their studies, seems strange to me.

You and others here have quoted sources that have been debunked and are clearly spreading a false narrative. To me, it just seems that most people who argue against AGW, are doing it not because they are scientists, but because they have chosen to believe that AGW is a left wing conspiracy.
 
To think all these people had to do to avoid this calamity of rising sea levels was to give up fossil fuels and monitor CO2 levels..... :cool:




BBwcAwk.img


Wild weather at Cardigan Bay in Wales periodically strips away sand and uncovers an unusual sight: an ancient forest of tree stumps. In 2014 an especially powerful set of storms exposed much of the forest, giving us amazing views of the ancient trees, which died over 4500 years ago as sea levels rose and salt water inundated the land. Archaeologists also found a wooden walkway dating to between 3000 and 4000 years ago; perhaps the local people built it in an attempt to deal with rising seas.
 
Wez said:
Of course there is fossil fuel funded disagreement. In the field of science, the only disagreement is the extent to which mankind is having on our environment and what the long term effects may be. You have clearly chosen the denial camp and so far you've given no valid reason for having done so, other then you don't like the politics behind Global Warming.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a denial camp. What Camp were you in when you vacationed to Hawaii using ,literally tons of, fossil fuels. Are you not funding the fossil fuel industry? What a dilemma.
 
Lion Eyes said:
To think all these people had to do to avoid this calamity of rising sea levels was to give up fossil fuels and monitor CO2 levels..... :cool:
Click to expand...

Because our planet has changed in the past, we should ignore what is happening now with the industrial revolution. Is it hard to breath with your head in the sand?

LookingUplink.jpg~c200
 
Wez said:
Because our planet has changed in the past, we should ignore what is happening now with the industrial revolution. Is it hard to breath with your head in the sand?

LookingUplink.jpg~c200
Click to expand...
I'll have to take your word about breathing with ones head in the sand Wez...
I live in the foothills of Camarillo.
If I list my home for sale, should I list it as beachfront property?
The earth has been warmer, much warmer and the earth has been cooler.
It will continue to cool and warm as it has for millions of years...
I'll ponder the listing....:cool:
 
  1. 10. Spending on "energy goods and services" as a share of US consumer spending has been at or below what percent in the last 8 months for the first time in history?
    Scored 0 of the 1 point
    1. 8Your answer
    2. 16
    3. 4
    4. 12
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top