T
TheCuriousCat
Guest
I know this is a radical idea, but you can actually look it up yourself if you are interested. There thousands of papers to choose from.
Pope Francis urges UN conference to ‘act without delay’ on climate change
- Status
L
lynnvinc
Guest
This might help to find these - read the chapters in the most recent IPCC report in the Science section – ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ – one can go to topics, esp those of interest – see their citations & get the original studies on which they are based. Or just go thru their citation lists.
That will bring one up to 2012. For articles after that one can go to the various science journals & search for “climate change” or do a google scholar search - scholar.google.com , click the down arrow & go to “advanced search,” the specify date range & topic (either in the title or text).
For more basic background info, one can go to the links at realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
What I do is read a newsfeed on CC-related news, & when there is a study mentioned of interest to me, I look it up (at least the abstracts will be available at no cost) - see ecointernet.org/eiclimaterss.xml
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Perhaps everyone could look past the debate over is there a human reason for climate change, to
How can we mitigate, hinder, slow, or adapt to whats presently going on.
Unfortunately , the debate is distracting from the real problem.
Practical solutions are needed. Ie grow different crops or varietals that are more successful where once they would have foundered. Grape growers are adapting well to these shifts. For example.
How can we mitigate, hinder, slow, or adapt to whats presently going on.
Unfortunately , the debate is distracting from the real problem.
Practical solutions are needed. Ie grow different crops or varietals that are more successful where once they would have foundered. Grape growers are adapting well to these shifts. For example.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Exactly. The fossil fuel industries & investors would like us to continue debating rather than tackling the problem. And in a way we are all caught up in a fossil-fuel supported economy & lifestyle, so I can understand the reluctance to face the problem & address it.
Some 27 yrs ago when I told my husband I wanted to do what we could to reduce our GHG contributions, he became concerned it might mean sacrificing our lifestyle or spending money (as a boy he had nearly starved to death in India, so it was understandable he had such fears). I told him I would only do those things that didn’t cost or that short- or long-term would save us money, without lowering our lifestyle.
27 years later we have done just that, reducing our GHG emissions 60% or more below our 1990 emissions, and saving us $1000s, without lowering our living standard, even increasing it. And we have more to do to reduce.
E
Ender
Guest
Is that the new scientific approach? I look at the reasonableness and validity of the arguments.
In many cases this is exactly right. This is what makes Watts site so valuable: information and arguments are presented in a way that is well within the comprehension of the normal layman.
First, logic is not all that difficult comprehend. As for understanding the science, that is not always necessary. You’re searching for difficulties that don’t always exist. This debate is not inscrutable except to the highly trained. It didn’t take much to debunk Al Gore, nor for that matter is there much doubt that Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph is bunk as well, its prominence with the IPCC notwithstanding.
Now you’re just inventing complaints out of whole cloth. Really, this should demonstrate even to you that your objections are unwarranted. It was on Watts site, for example, that I read about the NOAA document (which was linked to) that first raised the concern about the hiatus in global warming and the validity of the climate models. This was back in 2009. That is, his site simply publicized the fact that NOAA itself was concerned about their inability to reconcile the model predictions with historical fact.
Your objections are not based on any observation you have to make about Watts site, they are simply your impressions of a site with which you appear completely unfamiliar.
You don’t know what he “proposes.” He has posted thousands of articles, most by contributors other than himself. I would say pick one and dissect it, but you’ve already claimed that laymen lack that ability, which brings up the point: if you’re not capable of understanding what is being said, how can you assert that what is said is false?
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You and I are not qualified to assess the reasonableness of technical arguments. And the problems are technical, not logical. So basic logic won’t be sufficient.
If you look closely enough at Watts’ arguments, you can always find a technical point where you have to trust someone who knows the science.
As I said, the arguments that “discredit” climate science are not of this type. Indeed it is highly unlikely, just from a reasonableness point of view that they could be of this type. For if they were, most of the climate scientists would see them too. How do you explain why you and I should so easily see something that has escaped the majority of climate scientists? Are they all devoid of logical thought? Or are they all under the control of some giant conspiracy…
Al Gore is not a climate scientists. He does not have the scientific discipline to measure his words carefully on these issues like a scientist would. It is irrelevant to this discussion that you can find things Al Gore said about climate change that were untrue.
It is one of many projections made in this area. Some are more accurate than others. None of them are perfect. This proves nothing.
You exaggerate the degree and importance of these “doubts”. Of course scientists have doubts. That is what they are supposed to do. But what Watts can do is publicize these documents along with his interpretation that the whole thing is bunk, something NOAA certainly did not say. But the layman, reading these technical publications, might easily be led to think that’s what they are saying.
When Watts proposes that climate change may be exactly what the IPCC says it is, then I will not assert that he is false. But when he (or any of the other posters on his blog) assert global warming is a hoax, I will say it is false.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Speaking of the dev-oil…
Real Climate is currently discussing the shenanigans of CC denialist websites like Watts’.
For instance re the adjusted climate figures we discussed earlier – the raw (unadjusted) data actually shows more warming than the adjusted data (which I had thought was the case but couldn’t remember).
“A denier favorite is to suggest that NASA deliberately adjusts temperatures upward to exaggerate global warming. An absurd conspiracy theory, as demonstrated by the basic fact that the net effect of the data adjustments is to reduce global warming. The next figure shows this. If climate scientists were trying to exaggerate global warming they’d show you the unadjusted raw data!” from realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/01/the-nasa-data-conspiracy-theory-and-the-cold-sun/?wpmp_tp=1
It discusses other deceptive tricks the denialist sites use to fool the unwary, as well.
Real Climate is currently discussing the shenanigans of CC denialist websites like Watts’.
For instance re the adjusted climate figures we discussed earlier – the raw (unadjusted) data actually shows more warming than the adjusted data (which I had thought was the case but couldn’t remember).
“A denier favorite is to suggest that NASA deliberately adjusts temperatures upward to exaggerate global warming. An absurd conspiracy theory, as demonstrated by the basic fact that the net effect of the data adjustments is to reduce global warming. The next figure shows this. If climate scientists were trying to exaggerate global warming they’d show you the unadjusted raw data!” from realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/01/the-nasa-data-conspiracy-theory-and-the-cold-sun/?wpmp_tp=1
It discusses other deceptive tricks the denialist sites use to fool the unwary, as well.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
When did NOAA and NASA start? It sure wasn’t in 1880 for either of them. So to the extent they purport to tell us what the temps were in 1880, they’re getting it from some source other than their own measurements.
And, of course, scale matters. 1880 wasn’t all that far distant in time from the Little Ice Age, and it’s not ridiculous to believe the earth has been warming since then. And if one uses a scale with tiny measurements, it looks more dramatic than one with larger increments. This scale shows about a one degree difference over 120 years. I have seen other graphs, constructed differently, that show a nearly flat line from 1880 to now. And it doesn’t tell us what the average highs and lows are, either, from different geographical regions. It tells us nothing about the conditions prevailing in any of them or whether there are differences from place to place. Is the change the same in some man-made hardpan desert in Kazakhstan as it is in a virgin tall grass prairie in Kansas? There is no possibility of that, in reality.
Maybe there are ongoing, very careful, adjustments for such things going on constantly. But since 1880? No.
And jiggering the graphs to increase the visual drama make one suspicious of the whole thing.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Do some research on “temperature reconstructions” to learn about how highly developed this science is.
Scale does matter - especially the scale of the** rate of warming**. If you look at that you will see that the rate of warming has actually been increasing lately. If this were just the tail end of natural warming from the Little Ice Age, we would expect the rate to be tapering off. But it is not. In fact this rate of warming has not been seen since well before the Little Ice Age, so that can be eliminated as a cause.
Those graphs have compressed the visual scale to make it difficult to see the changes. But that does not have any bearing on the underlying numerical data. Graphs are only a tool to display data. That is why it important to know how to read a graph and now just be led by visual impression.
The graph is of average global temperature. The data you mentioned are merely components of that average, but taken individually they do not say anything definitive about the average.
The graphs are not “jiggered”. They accurately represent the numerical data from which they were drawn. But if you don’t trust graphs, just go the numerical data printed in long columns and read them. They will tell the same story.
- Status