View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17744 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
KC--the answer lies in part with those who wish to play "gotcha". they are willing to do so with garbage, NW's posting. The Russian study is not garbage, but it remains to be seen what it means. That hasn't, of course, stopped the right wing/oil company pr machine from blasting it out to every right winger in American, along with their spin on it. I'm surprised that mrgybe resisted the temptation to chant "gotcha."
It is, of course, why the credibility of sources matters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ex-AccuWeather.com Chief Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi stated specifically today that not only do recent events like this cold spring, Hurricane Sandy, etc. NOT relate to GW but that the globe has cooled over the last year.
Want hard proof of his expertise? Simple: Media Matters is so afraid of his professional credibility that they labelled him "Fox News's Disgraced Meteorologist" because he considers GW a lot of hot air. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643
|
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To avoid misunderstanding, and to make my position clear;
1) I am not 'locked' into a side on the global warming (I object to changing it to climate change - the issue is WARMING) subject. I want to know the truth.
2) I started as a doubter owing to my rudimentary (by professional standards) geological knowledge of earths history, and an interest in Viking history and the Greenland settlements in past warmer times. The indication to me was that the 'warming' of the 20th century was simply a return to 'normal' temps, after a cooler period.
3) I accepted the majority global warming consensus when statistics for the late 20th century appeared ti prove that it was real. (Along with the majority of informed opinion..)
4) That has now been thrown back into doubt by a) the 'pause' in warming over the last 15 years which nobody predicted, or can with any certainty account for, and b) by new research, such as this Russian study, which can be said to actually explain the cessation in warming, along with our current trend to colder and longer lasting winters. (Warming theory cannot do so!)
5) We have to go where proven fact from expert and REPUTABLE unbiassed sources takes us.If that means changing sides again, in the face of newer evidence, so be it. Is anybody, other than the biassed, claiming this Russian study is somehow fraudulent? If so present your evidence! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have no side either GT. I understand that colder winters in places have always been predicted by the models that that GW advocates use.
Four year trends are a speck in the noise of climate science data as well.
The Russian study is taking sun data in isolation and comparing it to historical data to create a partial very limited model that might suggest some of the answers. If you spoke with the authors I bet they have not made up their minds with certainty either. They are just crunching numbers and proposing trends.
It is complex and evolving science. We need a LOT more numbers to crunch. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643
|
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We are in agreement in not clinging to sides, and going where evidence leads K.C.
But the key stated prediction in this Russian study is that the coming cooling solar cycle, for which they claim there are already indications, will override global warming by a considerable order of magnitude.
That is a very bold prediction indeed, and if it proves to be true, it will put global warming to bed for the next 200+ years or so.
They are putting their reputations on the line, and the next 20 to 40 years will prove them either right, or wrong. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I bet they will evolve their models like nearly every other climate scientists.
They might easily find a trend on the other side in some other data set they examine as they continue to publish research.
Your reputation in serious science is not tarnished from a single evolving model you are using having imperfections. Your brilliance in analyzing data in just as important.
Einsteins Theory of Gravity seems wrong along with lots of other work he did.
His rep seems strong, if the number of T shirts with his picture in Maui are any indicator. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mac wrote: | NW30 obviously has no interest in science or the credibility of his postings.
*edit*
But NW30 is determined to show us that Mencken was correct. |
Wrong again mac, I'm not convinced about AGW, that's it, I'm not arrogant enough to think that we could control or effect the climate patterns. And this is a subject that I love to be the devil's advocate on, because to the believers, it's like a religion.
Also, there is more than enough "gotcha" to go around on both sides, some of the stuff that I come across as being blamed on AGW can be hysterical, like this.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/11/cnn-anchor-blames-asteroid-on-global-warming/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wynsurfer
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 Posts: 940
|
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why is it arrogant to think that our actions may have an effect on our planet? We are burning substances that have taken many millions, possibly billions of years to form in a few hundred years! I find it hard to believe that anyone is foolish enough to believe that this will not have an impact on our planet. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9293
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
slinky wrote: | Why is it arrogant to think that our actions may have an effect on our planet? We are burning substances that have taken many millions, possibly billions of years to form in a few hundred years! I find it hard to believe that anyone is foolish enough to believe that this will not have an impact on our planet. |
I didn't say that, you are talking pollution, I'm all for measures to try to keep that at a minimum.
But that doesn't require a carbon tax, or not allowing the Keystone pipeline, or not drilling in Anwar, those are over the line measures, that I believe, won't effect the planet in a negative way, all things considered. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|