Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Blasphemer!!! We know everything there is to know about the earth's climate and 97% of scientists agree that 100% of climate change is caused by human activity. This non-sense of the sun affecting the earth's climate has to stop.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Let's do keep in mind that "97% of the world's scientists" is pure fiction. It is true that 95% of the people who were paid to sign a document, the alternative being to lose their jobs, actually signed it. It also true that the vast majority of those signatories are not scientists, but rather socialist bureaucrats. It is also true that the 5% of the people who refused to sign the document even in the face of such a threat were, in fact, meteorologists. And there you have the "truth that is global warming."
Fascinating stuff! He analyzes the situation quite well. Ridley's essay also points out the magnitude of the problem: You need thousands of words, a certain amount of intelligence and education, and dedicated, interested audience to tell the truth, but only a salacious sound bite to tell a lie.
I am not disagreeing with his conclusions but ask him to explain WWI and WWII, the two largest manmade carbon release in history ... and temperatures dropped!
Originally posted by Officer of EngineersView Post
I am not disagreeing with his conclusions but ask him to explain WWI and WWII, the two largest manmade carbon release in history ... and temperatures dropped!
There is a third possibility: that it’s real, partly man-made and not dangerous. This is the “lukewarmer” school, and I am happy to put myself in this category.
If, as he believes and nature repeatedly suggests, climate sensitivity is on the low end then the climate response to external forcings is not necessarily going to dominate natural weather patterns. Thus, despite periods of high co2 output during a cold period the effect is not large enough (or response not strong enough) to change the natural trend. This would be consistent with his position.
Originally posted by Officer of EngineersView Post
I am not disagreeing with his conclusions but ask him to explain WWI and WWII, the two largest manmade carbon release in history ... and temperatures dropped!
Oh that can be easily explained.
WW1 resulted in the warming in the 1930s. WW2 resulted in the warming of 1960s. Both combined will result in the warming of up to 4C by 2100. Our children and grandchildren may not know what snow is by then. Hurricanes will be more frequent and fierce. Flood, earthquake, locusts, the plague....etc.
We're doomed! DOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!
Only one way to solve this impending apocalypse. We must give money to the government because the bureaucrats are smarter than us and know how to save our souls from damnation.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
I, too, find myself confusticated by Matt Ridley's "lukewarmer" stand. In contrast with his otherwise quite rational presentation of the issues, he labels himself as a "lukewarmer" without further elaboration or explanation.
How to stop the global warming scam in one swell foop: Pass (and rigorously enforce) a federal Truth in Science law making it a felony crime to deliberately falsify scientific data delivered to or in the name of the United States federal government, with a minimum sentence of seven years in a federal penitentiary, irrevocable loss of all benefits derived from the federal government, and fines equal to the damage done by the false data. Add in lawyerisms to remove all possible protections and indemnifications from prosecution or penalty including diplomatic immunity, establish the same penalties for taking any action to cause the criminal act to occur (including penalties for lawyers, judges, and media personalities who attempt to thwart justice), and whatever silly loopholes you can think of. Double the penalties for elected officials and appointed bureaucrats.
I, too, find myself confusticated by Matt Ridley's "lukewarmer" stand. In contrast with his otherwise quite rational presentation of the issues, he labels himself as a "lukewarmer" without further elaboration or explanation.
How to stop the global warming scam in one swell foop: Pass (and rigorously enforce) a federal Truth in Science law making it a felony crime to deliberately falsify scientific data delivered to or in the name of the United States federal government, with a minimum sentence of seven years in a federal penitentiary, irrevocable loss of all benefits derived from the federal government, and fines equal to the damage done by the false data. Add in lawyerisms to remove all possible protections and indemnifications from prosecution or penalty including diplomatic immunity, establish the same penalties for taking any action to cause the criminal act to occur (including penalties for lawyers, judges, and media personalities who attempt to thwart justice), and whatever silly loopholes you can think of. Double the penalties for elected officials and appointed bureaucrats.
Nope, not under any circumstance. There is very little if anything in science that is 100% verifiable so the 'falsify' argument simply means majority opinion. Under that law any paper currently published arguing against AGW would immediately lead to conviction. Any paper disagreeing with the evil nature of trans fats likewise, until last year.
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Nope, not under any circumstance. There is very little if anything in science that is 100% verifiable so the 'falsify' argument simply means majority opinion. Under that law any paper currently published arguing against AGW would immediately lead to conviction. Any paper disagreeing with the evil nature of trans fats likewise, until last year.
Au contraire; that is absolutely incorrect. The results of scientific measurements are always 100% verifiable and never subject to opinion. Instruments are instruments. Readings are readings. Data are data. Majority vote, which is 100% politics and 0% science, only comes into play in odd interpretations the data, ever. Suppression of applicable data is clearly a deliberate suppression of the facts, and must be a felony crime.
Au contraire; that is absolutely incorrect. The results of scientific measurements are always 100% verifiable and never subject to opinion. Instruments are instruments. Readings are readings. Data are data. Majority vote, which is 100% politics and 0% science, only comes into play in odd interpretations the data, ever. Suppression of applicable data is clearly a deliberate suppression of the facts, and must be a felony crime.
Explain the multiverse theory. Hell, explain Steven Hawkins' Imaginary Time.
I, too, find myself confusticated by Matt Ridley's "lukewarmer" stand. In contrast with his otherwise quite rational presentation of the issues, he labels himself as a "lukewarmer" without further elaboration or explanation.
I thought he elaborated on it pretty well. What are you confused about?
These scientists and their guardians of the flame repeatedly insist that there are only two ways of thinking about climate change—that it’s real, man-made and dangerous (the right way), or that it’s not happening (the wrong way). But this is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility: that it’s real, partly man-made and not dangerous. This is the “lukewarmer” school, and I am happy to put myself in this category.
He believes climate sensitivity (the amount of warming we should expect from a doubling of co2) is low.
The IPCC actually admits the possibility of lukewarming within its consensus, because it gives a range of possible future temperatures: it thinks the world will be between about 1.5 and four degrees warmer on average by the end of the century. That’s a huge range, from marginally beneficial to terrifyingly harmful, so it is hardly a consensus of danger, and if you look at the “probability density functions” of climate sensitivity, they always cluster towards the lower end.
What is more, in the small print describing the assumptions of the “representative concentration pathways”, it admits that the top of the range will only be reached if sensitivity to carbon dioxide is high (which is doubtful); if world population growth re-accelerates (which is unlikely); if carbon dioxide absorption by the oceans slows down (which is improbable); and if the world economy goes in a very odd direction, giving up gas but increasing coal use tenfold (which is implausible).
But the commentators ignore all these caveats and babble on about warming of “up to” four degrees (or even more), then castigate as a “denier” anybody who says, as I do, the lower end of the scale looks much more likely given the actual data.
He recognizes the lack of positive feedback that is supposed to amplify warming
The assumption is that modest warming from carbon dioxide must be trebly amplified by extra water vapour—that as the air warms there will be an increase in absolute humidity providing “a positive feedback”. That assumption led to specific predictions that could be tested. And the tests come back negative again and again. The large positive feedback that can turn a mild warming into a dangerous one just is not there. There is no tropical troposphere hot-spot. Ice cores unambiguously show that temperature can fall while carbon dioxide stays high. Estimates of climate sensitivity, which should be high if positive feedbacks are strong, are instead getting lower and lower. Above all, the temperature has failed to rise as predicted by the models.
Actually, almost all of the skeptical scientists I'm familiar with are lukewarmers.
Au contraire; that is absolutely incorrect. The results of scientific measurements are always 100% verifiable and never subject to opinion. Instruments are instruments. Readings are readings. Data are data.
If only it was that simple. What is the global average temperature anomaly right now according to raw data?
Tweet
Comment