OT - Who is your favorite climate scientist?

JohnInCarolina

TEXASBGE2018 said:

Honest question here. Can any of the folks that feel the earth is getting warmer provide statistics that aren't looking at a specific 10, 20, or 30 year period of time? I would think in order to get a true picture of whether or not we are all going to die in an inferno in the next 50 years we would need to see data recorded over the last few centuries right?

If someone is using such a small historical window to claim their argument as fact it seems awfully sketchy. Given that we haven't been recording this information with relative frequency beyond at best the last 100-150 years I would say instead of being hysterical maybe we should take a step back, monitor the data for the next oh say 100 years and our great great grandchildren can begin to maybe get some kind of idea as to whether or not "Climate change" is indeed happening due to mankind or is it perhaps just a cyclical change that naturally occurs with the earth. I don't know the answers and I'm not claiming to.

I just know that since I was a kid, here in Texas, winters have always been around the 40s to 60s depending on the day. The summers are always hot and occasionally we deviate from that. Nor am I saying we should just pollute the earth for the sake of it. I guess what I'm saying is that there are a lot of people that stand to make a lot of money or gain a lot of political power by fear mongering and rather than caving shouldn't we just observe and do our best not to potentially add to the problem?

I'm wary to get into this with you, because the fact of the matter is that just about all of this can be answered by picking up a book on the subject and reading it.   Happy to point you to one that is written for the lay person if you're interested.   

Anyway... we have temperature measurements going back a century.  Beyond that what we have are proxy data.  This is data that can be used to infer (with a reasonable degree of uncertainty) as to what the temperatures have been dating back centuries, in fact millenia.  In other words, we can reconstruct the temperature record with some degree of confidence.  

The notion that this is just a "natural" effect often comes up.  The problem with this argument is that... we understand what the natural forcings are.  For example, we understand that a big one is ... the sun.  But we can also measure solar intensity and we understand how it is fluctuating.  The same goes for all other types of natural forcings.  We pretty much understand how they work, and if you were to only account for them alone... the Earth should actually be in a cooling phase right now.  It is only when you account for the sensitivity to CO2 and other greenhouse gases that you can reasonably explain what's happening with the mean global temperature.  

By the way, there are other examples where we have used science to diagnose a problem at the Earth-system level, and then instituted policy changes to affect a better outcome.  We have generally not insisted on an arbitrary waiting period of 100 years until we have a reasonable degree of certainty to take action.  Scientific predictions don't necessarily require some arbitrary, fixed timeframe across all of physics to be useful or trustworthy.

GrillSgt

Yeah, let's wait another 300 years so we can have the definitive answer as to what is exactly driving this, then we can be assured we can approach it with a true scientific certainty.

TEXASBGE2018

@JohnInCarolina ok, fair reply. Again, I'm not assuming to know. That's why I asked the question. Dunno that I need a "lay person" book to understand it, any book would do. I just know that lately I've been reading more and more occurrences of how NOAA, NASA and several other international organizations have had to adjust their models due to the fact that the historical temperature's they were using to model their data have now been proven incorrect. Maybe it doesn't change the overall result substantially all I am saying in this case is that even the people who are the supposed experts at this stuff get it wrong.  

WesJohnson

GrillSgt said:

Even though they have both been smothered with great disdain we would be in a much better place if we had heeded the warnings of Al Gore. 

What if we had heeded the warnings of Tipper Gore's war on heavy metal?  I bet there'd be a lot more hip hop in your life (or my God your kid's lives!) and I bet that would eat most of you up inside.  Next thing you know my son's asking your daughter to prom on a balmy 80F evening in February and there's nothing you can do to stop it.  

TEXASBGE2018

GrillSgt said:

Yeah, let's wait another 300 years so we can have the definitive answer as to what is exactly driving this, then we can be assured we can approach it with a true scientific certainty.

No, what we should instead do is bankrupt our country and the rest of the world fighting to fix something that we aren't even sure we will be able to fix. That wont lead to mass death and starvation at all will it? Oh wait now I sound like a lunatic.....

JohnInCarolina

TEXASBGE2018 said:

@JohnInCarolina ok, fair reply. Again, I'm not assuming to know. That's why I asked the question. Dunno that I need a "lay person" book to understand it, any book would do. I just know that lately I've been reading more and more occurrences of how NOAA, NASA and several other international organizations have had to adjust their models due to the fact that the historical temperature's they were using to model their data have now been proven incorrect. Maybe it doesn't change the overall result substantially all I am saying in this case is that even the people who are the supposed experts at this stuff get it wrong.  

Well now I need to ask what you've been reading because this just isn't true.  

GrillSgt

I was a soldier in Tipper's army. I'm wondering if she and Al will show up at the John Prine concert in Muhlenberg Co. in July. They better get on their bikes now.

fishlessman

im just going to put the blame on these new thermometers the mercury ones worked better

bgebrent

JohnInCarolina said:

Of those I have met: David Archer, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt.

Of those I have yet to meet: Jim Hansen.

+1 for Jim Henson.

JohnInCarolina

TEXASBGE2018 said:

GrillSgt said:

Yeah, let's wait another 300 years so we can have the definitive answer as to what is exactly driving this, then we can be assured we can approach it with a true scientific certainty.

No, what we should instead do is bankrupt our country and the rest of the world fighting to fix something that we aren't even sure we will be able to fix. That wont lead to mass death and starvation at all will it? Oh wait now I sound like a lunatic.....

This is another unfortunate misconception: the notion that the only way to address climate change will result in a loss of jobs or exorbitant expense to the US taxpayer.   Again, it's just not true, and we have plenty of recent evidence to support that.  Lots of growth in the renewable energy sector of late, not to mention natural gas exploration which has only been a boon to our country economically.  

It also neglects the significant expense associated with doing nothing and having to impose climate mitigation strategies going forward.  As just one small example, it really is not difficult to foresee the serious economic impact of hurricanes with increased intensity.  

TEXASBGE2018

JohnInCarolina said:

TEXASBGE2018 said:

@JohnInCarolina ok, fair reply. Again, I'm not assuming to know. That's why I asked the question. Dunno that I need a "lay person" book to understand it, any book would do. I just know that lately I've been reading more and more occurrences of how NOAA, NASA and several other international organizations have had to adjust their models due to the fact that the historical temperature's they were using to model their data have now been proven incorrect. Maybe it doesn't change the overall result substantially all I am saying in this case is that even the people who are the supposed experts at this stuff get it wrong.  

Well now I need to ask what you've been reading because this just isn't true.  

Well here are just a couple that I could find. One is older.

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/#d2741f361843

DoubleEgger

TEXASBGE2018 said:

GrillSgt said:

Yeah, let's wait another 300 years so we can have the definitive answer as to what is exactly driving this, then we can be assured we can approach it with a true scientific certainty.

No, what we should instead do is bankrupt our country and the rest of the world fighting to fix something that we aren't even sure we will be able to fix. That wont lead to mass death and starvation at all will it? Oh wait now I sound like a lunatic.....

I see you took the bait. Fish On! 

JohnInCarolina

TEXASBGE2018 said:

JohnInCarolina said:

TEXASBGE2018 said:

@JohnInCarolina ok, fair reply. Again, I'm not assuming to know. That's why I asked the question. Dunno that I need a "lay person" book to understand it, any book would do. I just know that lately I've been reading more and more occurrences of how NOAA, NASA and several other international organizations have had to adjust their models due to the fact that the historical temperature's they were using to model their data have now been proven incorrect. Maybe it doesn't change the overall result substantially all I am saying in this case is that even the people who are the supposed experts at this stuff get it wrong.  

Well now I need to ask what you've been reading because this just isn't true.  

Well here are just a couple that I could find. One is older.

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/#d2741f361843

Right, I have no doubt that articles such as this exist, they're just outright wrong if not highly misleading.  One hint of this for you should be that neither of those are actually written by... scientists.  

I can also point you to articles that provide evidence the Earth is flat if you like.  There are a lot of those around.  You just won't find any written by any self-respecting geophysicists.  

TEXASBGE2018

JohnInCarolina said:

This is another unfortunate misconception: the notion that the only way to address climate change will result in a loss of jobs or exorbitant expense to the US taxpayer.   Again, it's just not true, and we have plenty of recent evidence to support that.  Lots of growth in the renewable energy sector of late, not to mention natural gas exploration which has only been a boon to our country economically.  

It also neglects the significant expense associated with doing nothing and having to impose climate mitigation strategies going forward.  As just one small example, it really is not difficult to foresee the serious economic impact of hurricanes with increased intensity.  

Again, I'm not advocating doing nothing I said instead of rushing to conclusions we should step back a bit and monitor it while we implement things that wont perhaps make matters worse. Common sense changes are fine. But trying to move to 100% renewable energy or even 50% in the next 20 years like some have suggested is not only idiotic, its not feasible. Hence why I made the statement about a lot of people potentially making a lot of money. I bet if you looked deep enough into it. The people advocating for doing nothing and moving forward the way we've been. A lot of them are backed by oil companies.  On the other end the ones wanting 100% renewable energy are probably backed by these renewable energy companies. The average person doesn't believe or give a rip about climate change. That's reflected in polling data out there on the interwebs.

YEMTrey

I don't have just one favorite:

TEXASBGE2018

DoubleEgger said:

TEXASBGE2018 said:

GrillSgt said:

Yeah, let's wait another 300 years so we can have the definitive answer as to what is exactly driving this, then we can be assured we can approach it with a true scientific certainty.

No, what we should instead do is bankrupt our country and the rest of the world fighting to fix something that we aren't even sure we will be able to fix. That wont lead to mass death and starvation at all will it? Oh wait now I sound like a lunatic.....

I see you took the bait. Fish On! 

What can I say, at the moment I'm in the mood.

JohnInCarolina

What makes this topic difficult is just how politicized it has become.  And unfortunately, like all things political these days in the US, confirmation bias plays a huge role.  You can find just about anything online that will help confirm just about any pre-conceived notion that you want to believe.  It can be incredibly difficult for people who don't have any formal training in the sciences to make heads or tails from the information.  

lkapigian

The climate has been and always will be changing since the beginning of time. Nothing new here to see, move along 

TEXASBGE2018

JohnInCarolina said:

TEXASBGE2018 said:

Well here are just a couple that I could find. One is older.

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/#d2741f361843

Right, I have no doubt that articles such as this exist, they're just outright wrong if not highly misleading.  One hint of this for you should be that neither of those are actually written by... scientists.  

I can also point you to articles that provide evidence the Earth is flat if you like.  There are a lot of those around.  You just won't find any written by any self-respecting geophysicist.  

Ok, not scientists, fine. One is a government report and the other is using NOAA's and NASA's own facts against them from a reputable news organization.

JohnInCarolina

TEXASBGE2018 said:

JohnInCarolina said:

This is another unfortunate misconception: the notion that the only way to address climate change will result in a loss of jobs or exorbitant expense to the US taxpayer.   Again, it's just not true, and we have plenty of recent evidence to support that.  Lots of growth in the renewable energy sector of late, not to mention natural gas exploration which has only been a boon to our country economically.  

It also neglects the significant expense associated with doing nothing and having to impose climate mitigation strategies going forward.  As just one small example, it really is not difficult to foresee the serious economic impact of hurricanes with increased intensity.  

Again, I'm not advocating doing nothing I said instead of rushing to conclusions we should step back a bit and monitor it while we implement things that wont perhaps make matters worse. Common sense changes are fine. But trying to move to 100% renewable energy or even 50% in the next 20 years like some have suggested is not only idiotic, its not feasible. Hence why I made the statement about a lot of people potentially making a lot of money. I bet if you looked deep enough into it. The people advocating for doing nothing and moving forward the way we've been. A lot of them are backed by oil companies.  On the other end the ones wanting 100% renewable energy are probably backed by these renewable energy companies. The average person doesn't believe or give a rip about climate change. That's reflected in polling data out there on the interwebs.

Who are the climate scientists being backed by?  

alaskanassasin

My carbon footprint is bigger than yours!

TEXASBGE2018

JohnInCarolina said:

What makes this topic difficult is just how politicized it has become.  And unfortunately, like all things political these days in the US, confirmation bias plays a huge role.  You can find just about anything online that will help confirm just about any pre-conceived notion that you want to believe.  It can be incredibly difficult for people who don't have any formal training in the sciences to make heads or tails from the information.  

Couldn't the argument be made that you are doing that as well? That was my point. Instead of assuming that because someone is a scientist they are automatically 100% correct 100% of the time maybe we should observe and factually report the actual results. Not manipulate them to fit a desired conclusion, but present the hard data without assuming you have to make it so a "lay person" can understand it.

JohnInCarolina

TEXASBGE2018 said:

JohnInCarolina said:

TEXASBGE2018 said:

Well here are just a couple that I could find. One is older.

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/#d2741f361843

Right, I have no doubt that articles such as this exist, they're just outright wrong if not highly misleading.  One hint of this for you should be that neither of those are actually written by... scientists.  

I can also point you to articles that provide evidence the Earth is flat if you like.  There are a lot of those around.  You just won't find any written by any self-respecting geophysicist.  

Ok, not scientists, fine. One is a government report and the other is using NOAA's and NASA's own facts against them from a reputable news organization.

The government "report" is actually a press release from Lamar Smith's committee in the house.  I am assuming that you understand that partisan press releases aren't exactly the most reliable source of information.

The second piece is not a news piece but rather an opinion piece that is penned by someone who heads up a foundation.  You might want to do some reading into that foundation and exactly what it's advocating before putting much stock in it.  

Learn to think critically.  

JohnInCarolina

TEXASBGE2018 said:

JohnInCarolina said:

What makes this topic difficult is just how politicized it has become.  And unfortunately, like all things political these days in the US, confirmation bias plays a huge role.  You can find just about anything online that will help confirm just about any pre-conceived notion that you want to believe.  It can be incredibly difficult for people who don't have any formal training in the sciences to make heads or tails from the information.  

Couldn't the argument be made that you are doing that as well? That was my point. Instead of assuming that because someone is a scientist they are automatically 100% correct 100% of the time maybe we should observe and factually report the actual results. Not manipulate them to fit a desired conclusion, but present the hard data without assuming you have to make it so a "lay person" can understand it.

I have never once suggested that just become someone is a scientist that they are automatically 100% correct 100% of the time.  You are reading things into my posts that simply aren't there.  

GrillSgt

I don't think anyone is accepting this because A scientist proclaimed this to be so. It's closer to 100% of climate scientists have proclaimed it to be factual than it is to 90%. So you want to wait to address the issue until it actually is 100% of climate scientists? Not prudent.

JohnInCarolina

This has been a ton of fun as usual but I actually do have real work to do today.  Off to bigger and better things...  

GATraveller

GrillSgt said:

I don't think anyone is accepting this because A scientist proclaimed this to be so. It's closer to 100% of climate scientists have proclaimed it to be factual than it is to 90%. So you want to wait to address the issue until it actually is 100% of climate scientists? Not prudent.

Every time I see the word "prudent" I think of a thousand points of light.

thetrim

I planted three trees today, so I'm taking a private jet to Denver next week.

YEMTrey

Aren't we all going to burn up in a nuclear war before this anyways?!

GrillSgt

Bwahahaha, I did a quick search for the gif but I still can't figure out how to post one that works. Tougher thing than this climate science stuff.