Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[CPCFTW]

Science proper:

The U.S. government, the largest employer of climatologists, suggests:

24 hours of meteorology or atmospheric science courses

3 hours ordinary differential equations

6 hours of college physics or 9 hours of physical sciences, including chemistry

Statistics and computer science are also recommended. Statistics is helpful in computing and analyzing data, and many climatologists are running models on supercomputers.

Good oral and written communication skills are important in most careers. Composition, grammar and literature courses can aid in these skills.

Wow that's like almost 2 years of college/university... Scientists.

[waldo]

You will have to explain yourself because the term 'organized deniers' is a insult and does not convey any useful information.

huh! You know... like the Heartland Institute, like SPPI, like NIPCC, like Koch Industries, like Friends of Science, like the U.S. Republican Party, like Americans for Prosperity, like the George C. Marshall Institute, like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, like a brazillion other groups of... organized deniers.

[waldo]

a survey of actual Climatologists experts on the issue is 97% believe human-induced warming is occurring...if you have cardiac health issues you consult a cardiologist, not a podiatrist...

97% of dentists say you should get a check up every 6 months.

97% of chiropractors say you should get your back cracked every 6 months.

97% of naturopaths say you should buy $40 mud and rub it on your face.

97% of car salesmen say you should buy a car.

Should I go on?

yes, please do. You can reinforce you don't understand the distinction between science proper and policy extensions/recommendations... the so-called 'belief' versus policy/advice.

Oh sorry I thought we were talking about climatologists, not science proper.

Science proper:

Wow that's like almost 2 years of college/university... Scientists.

feel free to substitute climatologists for science proper... either way it shows your intended point was a monumental failure - that you don't understand the distinction between "belief and policy/advice".

[eyeball]

... Scientists.

Ryhmes with leftists. Funny dat.

[CPCFTW]

feel free to substitute climatologists for science proper... either way it shows your intended point was a monumental failure - that you don't understand the distinction between "belief and policy/advice".

If I replace the "say"'s with "believe"'s in my original quote, will MLW esteemed member waldo be happy hey?

Do you think naturopaths don't believe in what they do (or even if they didn't, would they admit to it in a poll)?

Edited October 3, 2012 by CPCFTW

[waldo]

...that you don't understand the distinction between "belief and policy/advice".

If I replace the "say"'s with "believe"'s in my original quote, will MLW esteemed member waldo be happy hey?

ya think? No - sorry... you still need to work on your "should's"! This is hard for you, isn't it?

97% of climatologists believe human-induced warming is occurring

97% of dentists

believe

you should get a check up every 6 months.

97% of chiropractors

believe

you should get your back cracked every 6 months.

97% of naturopaths

believe

you should buy $40 mud and rub it on your face.

97% of car salesmen

believe

you should buy a car.

Should I go on?

[wyly]

97% of dentists say you should get a check up every 6 months.

97% of chiropractors say you should get your back cracked every 6 months.

97% of naturopaths say you should buy $40 mud and rub it on your face.

97% of car salesmen say you should buy a car.

probably the most pointless post of the day...

Should I go on?

please do...you can have both the first and second most pointless post of the day...

Edited October 3, 2012 by wyly

[bleeding heart]

Again - the context matters. In this case people did not choose the word - they were chosen for them and they had to choose between "very great danger", "moderate danger" and "little danger" so the middle category is going capture a wide ranges of views. I don't think you can say the everyone in the moderate group believes it is a serious problem. I would concede that some people in that group do see it as serious.

Then this is a clear step back from

Yet the same survey says that 59% of scientists believe is not a serious problem which is more or less in line with my views.

[TimG]

Then this is a clear step back from

Only if you step back from your assertion that all people in the middle group think that the problem is serious.

[bleeding heart]

Only if you step back from your assertion that all people in the middle group think that the problem is serious.

Uh, no.

For the record, I certainly concede that some people in that middle group may not think the problem to be serious; and further, I assume they hold to varying degrees of thought, from "not terribly serious" to "quite serious." (We can only speculate, based on profoundly inexact terms.)

But why my concession (or lack thereof, were that the case) should affect your opinion on the facts of the matter is...a mystery, frankly.

"Perhaps "winning" debate points is your only prerogative...which is your business, but not what I had assumed about you.

In a similar vein, I'd also point out that you conveniently included the missing 2% as part of your argument, arriving at the (now abandoned) 59%.

I also note that you made something of the "fact" that "a minority" of scientists thought the matter serious...where you now concede the possibility that it could well be a majority (needing only about 25% of the 44% to change your perspective dramatically).

Edited October 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

I also note that you made something of the "fact" that "a minority" of scientists thought the matter serious...where you now concede the possibility that it could well be a majority (needing only about 25% of the 44% to change your perspective dramatically).

You are ignoring the other side of the coin: cybercoma's claim that 85% of the scientists felt the problem that serious enough to require action. By your own admission we have no idea what the middle group thinks on action - only that they did not want to identify with the extremes on either side. Therefore, if you have a problem with my claim that 59% of the respondents think the problem is not serious you should have a the same problem with cybercoma's claim that 85% support his view.

My personal view is combining groups in kinds of studies is usually deceptive. I only did it because I was responding to cybercoma's attempt at distortion.

Edited October 3, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

how obtuse are you? Truly... just how dense are you? You make a most bold and direct assertion qualifying the monetary impact measurement of climate change on developing countries; qualifying the measurement to, as you say, "at best inaccurate and leaning more towards arbitrary".

This is getting funnier and funnier. You still don't understand!!! The bold statement I made basically says, "Climate scientists cannot measure which % of climate related disasters are caused by man-made climate change." In other words I say, "Man lacks the ability to accurately measure..." This is a statement of something not existing, or something not having happened. It cannot be proven by citation. It's not a matter of me not wanting to cite something. It's a matter of the logical impossibility of proving that something doesn't exist. The only thing that can be firmly proven is its existence.

If you make a statement, rather, a most bold and direct assertion, asking you to provide a citation to support your assertion is nothing more than a basic request to have you substantiate your statement.

For most people, asking for a citation is just that. For you, it's more like a crutch. Since you have trouble wrapping your head around a simple back and forth argument, you hide behind your citation requests and your insults. Sure, you obviously read about a lot about this stuff, but unfortunately you lack the ability to take this knowledge and form it into a coherent set of arguments.

Your "non-existence... non-existent" nonsense flies in the face of a veritable cottage industry working overtime to churn out reports/studies on cost attachments associated with climate change... hey now, I also understand this is a favoured topical pursuit for insurance companies - go figure!

We're not looking for the costs associated with climate change. We're looking what % of natural climate related disasters (ie. drought, flood, hurricane, typhoon etc...) are attributable to man-made emissions. If you have some proof showing that someone anywhere has been able to accurately or reliably measure this sort of thing, please put it forward, otherwise my claim can stand.

Here's a few more bold assertions I'm going to make:

Santa isn't real.

Crab People don't live at the bottom of the ocean.

Irradiating yourself won't give you super powers.

You want citations?

Edited October 3, 2012 by Moonbox

[wyly]

This is getting funnier and funnier. You still don't understand!!! The bold statement I made basically says, "Climate scientists cannot measure which % of climate related disasters are caused by man-made climate change." In other words I say, "Man lacks the ability to accurately measure..." This is a statement of something not existing, or something not having happened. It cannot be proven by citation. It's not a matter of me not wanting to cite something. It's a matter of the logical impossibility of proving that something doesn't exist. The only thing that can be firmly proven is its existence

insurance companies have no qualms measuring increased damage, it's what they do and risk assessment is "their science"...damage from catastrophic weather events is up significantly and tracking nicely with increased temps...insurance companies don't care much about science their world is all about profit and number crunching....

[TimG]

insurance companies don't care much about science their world is all about profit and number crunching

Yes - they don't give a damn about climate change - all they care is whether their claims are going up. There are many many reasons to explain the increase in claims that has NOTHING to do with climate change. The only insurance companies which care about climate change are those that see it as a political tool justify rate increases which, in turn, pushes the public to demand more government subsidies in places like Florida.

Scratch a company claiming that climate change is a problem and you will always find a rent seeker looking for government money.

Edited October 3, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

insurance companies have no qualms measuring increased damage, it's what they do and risk assessment is "their science"...damage from catastrophic weather events is up significantly and tracking nicely with increased temps...insurance companies don't care much about science their world is all about profit and number crunching...

This is the type of statement that requires citations. Show us please where the insurance companies have been able to accurately measure how CO2 emissions have correlated with atmosphere related natural disaster damages.

There are two problems with this. First, climate scientists haven't seemed to be able to reliably predict increases/decreases in temperature aside from longer term general trends. Second, the information on atmosphere-related catastrophes in the 60's, 70's and even 80's was poorly documented in the developing world, so making comparisons to today is difficult.

In any case, here's an interesting tidbit:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

It seems that the frequency and severity of hurricanes striking the USA has been significantly lower over the last couple of decades than it was in the 1900-1960 periods.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Moonbox

[TimG]

First, climate scientists haven't seemed to be able to reliably predict increases/decreases in temperature aside from longer term general trends. Second, the information on atmosphere-related catastrophes in the 60's, 70's and even 80's was poorly documented in the developing world, so making comparisons to today is difficult.

Actually, people have done the work (as difficult as it is) and come to the conclusion that there is NO evidence that climate change is affecting disaster losses.

See link

[wyly]

This is the type of statement that requires citations. Show us please where the insurance companies have been able to accurately measure how CO2 emissions have correlated with atmosphere related natural disaster damages.

There are two problems with this. First, climate scientists haven't seemed to be able to reliably predict increases/decreases in temperature aside from longer term general trends. Second, the information on atmosphere-related catastrophes in the 60's, 70's and even 80's was poorly documented in the developing world, so making comparisons to today is difficult.

In any case, here's an interesting tidbit:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

It seems that the frequency and severity of hurricanes striking the USA has been significantly lower over the last couple of decades than it was in the 1900-1960 periods.

what a F***'in hypocrite...who made this statement ..."Climate scientists cannot measure which % of climate related disasters are caused by man-made climate change." In other words I say, "Man lacks the ability to accurately measure..."...where is your citation

you throw out claims left right and center without citation because in denierworld opinion equals fact, CO2 isn't a GHG because in denierworld opinion is all that matters, facts that show the opposite are irrelevant...

[wyly]

Yes - they don't give a damn about climate change - all they care is whether their claims are going up. There are many many reasons to explain the increase in claims that has NOTHING to do with climate change. The only insurance companies which care about climate change are those that see it as a political tool justify rate increases which, in turn, pushes the public to demand more government subsidies in places like Florida.

Scratch a company claiming that climate change is a problem and you will always find a rent seeker looking for government money.

ah yes there it is, tim reveals his international conspiracy theory...it's all a socialist plot to steal our money right tim, a secret organization led by margret thacher and al gore...

everyone(tens of millions) is in on the plot, yet only tim has the inside info on this nefarious plot...

tim the non scientist knows more about climate science than 97% of the worlds experts on climatology...

tim has inside information on international plots using climate change to defraud, there are conspiracies everywhere...

[Moonbox]

what a F***'in hypocrite...who made this statement ..."Climate scientists cannot measure which % of climate related disasters are caused by man-made climate change." In other words I say, "Man lacks the ability to accurately measure..."...where is your citation

Instead of spazzing and wetting your bed, how about you take a deep breath and read back my last half-dozen or so posts.

It's idiotic on the most fundamental level to ask for someone to prove that something doesn't exist or that something hasn't happened. I'll let that sink in for a minute or two and maybe you'll realize how pathetic your statement is. No wonder you and waldo are on the same side of this debate. Both of you are good at reading a little bit on a subject and then spazzing out on the forums, but neither of you can follow simple logical principles and maintain a rational line of thought.

Until someone can show me that climate scientists have been able to accurately, consistently and reliably measure what I've claimed they cannot, my point will stand. It's much like my saying "Aliens don't exist". I don't need to prove/cite that they don't exist. The statement stands until someone's proven the existence of an alien.

I know it really sucks to have the whole 'citation please' mechanism used against you, but you guys are the last people who should be calling anyone hypocrites until you put your money where your whiney little mouths are.

[WIP]

Half of Great Barrier Reef lost in past 3 decades

Australia's Great Barrier Reef is a glittering gem -- the world's largest coral reef ecosystem -- chock-full of diverse marine life. But new research shows it is also in steep decline, with half of the reef vanishing in the past 27 years.

Katharina Fabricius, a coral reef ecologist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science and study co-author, told LiveScience that she has been diving and working on the reef since 1988 -- and has watched the decline. "I hear of the changes anecdotally, but this is the first long-term look at the overall status of the reef. There are still a lot of fish, and you can see giant clams, but not the same color and diversity as in the past."

To get their data, Fabricius and her colleagues surveyed 214 different reefs around the Great Barrier Reef, compiling information from 2,258 surveys to determine the rate of decline between 1985 and 2012. They estimated the coral cover, or the amount of the seafloor covered with living coral.

That overall 50-percent decline, they estimate, is a yearly loss of about 3.4 percent of the reef. [Photos of Great Barrier Reef Through Time]..............

I don't know if you live in Australia, but you might have heard that in recent years, the disaster tourism phenomena that inspires some rich tourists who travel to get a chance to see the last of endangered species....apparently to brag to their friends about, have added the Great Barrier Reef to the disaster tourism brochure of must sees before they're dead and gone. So, I suspect that many in Australia who are tuned in to environment issues have already been aware that the Reef is in trouble.

One point that should be made clear (and wasn't in the press report on this study) was mentioned by one of the researchers being interviewed on a public radio program over the weekend: the Crown of Thorns Starfish which is devastating the Reef builders, is flourishing because of overfishing removing their natural predators, and the starfish is better suited to the degraded water quality of the last 30 years than other species. The negative effects of ocean acidification are just starting to take their toll on the Reef and will lead to their complete extinction in a matter of a few decades.

[WIP]

Right. A big deal these days is just cutting the rate of increase.

Given that we just passed 7 billion on our way to a possible 16 billion by the end of this century, all of whom will want to eat and stay warm, and many of whom will want jobs and cars, actually reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere in any meaningful way seems a bit of a dream to me.

Two things: there will never be 16 billion people in the world to begin with, because the intensive world agribusiness system that requires oil-based fertilizers, mined phosphates, and overtaxing and depleting topsoil and available ground water supplies, is not even able to adequately feed the 7 billion people who are on Earth right now! And those 7 billion who all want cars, are as likely to get them as I am to get my gold-plated toilet seat.

[WIP]

Similarly, I'm claiming that climate scientists, for various reasons I hope you can fathom, aren't able to accurately determine which % of climate-related disasters are attributed to man-made climate change. If this is not true, then please show us, because I cannot prove that something did not happen/does not exists.

How about it's an irrelevant point to begin with? Because I could say the same thing about a bodybuilder or a football player taking steroids: no one can determine what percentage of athletic performance is attributable to natural abilities and training, and what percentage was due to the increased muscle-building capacity of taking artificial testosterones.

So, the same thing can be said about the weather (and should!) We do know that ever 1 degree celcius increase in global average temperature allows the atmosphere to hold an additional 7% more water vapour. Add that to the extra heat energy, and it's easy to see that raising the global average temperatures acts like injecting steroids into the bodies of elite athletes.

[WIP]

Which is why I say this is all about redistribution and/or funding a huge worldwide bureaucracy. Not about climate. If you ask the typical 4th world thug about climate he won't know what the discussion is about.

And how does redistribution and the creation of a global bureaucracy negate the reality that human activity is changing the climate?

[WIP]

We'll reach 7.5 billion within a couple years.

There aren't enough resources left. That is, if human civilization as we know it collapses (which is what you're hoping for), and centuries down the road a new civilization tries to industrialize, they won't be able to do it. All the easy to access resources are gone. There are still a lot of resources, but they are in hard to access places, which require a lot of science and technology to exploit, and getting to that level of technology requires having had easy to access resources first. This is our one and only shot. And some of us are working to make the best of it, rather than sitting around complaining.

One and only shot for what? If we're tracking happiness and personal satisfaction, the industrial revolution marked a great leap backwards for the human race. Whatever kind of civilization is sustainable for the long term future, it's not one that requires hoovering out all of the natural resources in the ground.

[wyly]

Instead of spazzing and wetting your bed, how about you take a deep breath and read back my last half-dozen or so posts.

It's idiotic on the most fundamental level to ask for someone to prove that something doesn't exist or that something hasn't happened. I'll let that sink in for a minute or two and maybe you'll realize how pathetic your statement is. No wonder you and waldo are on the same side of this debate. Both of you are good at reading a little bit on a subject and then spazzing out on the forums, but neither of you can follow simple logical principles and maintain a rational line of thought.

Until someone can show me that climate scientists have been able to accurately, consistently and reliably measure what I've claimed they cannot, my point will stand. It's much like my saying "Aliens don't exist". I don't need to prove/cite that they don't exist. The statement stands until someone's proven the existence of an alien.

I know it really sucks to have the whole 'citation please' mechanism used against you, but you guys are the last people who should be calling anyone hypocrites until you put your money where your whiney little mouths are.

which is why your on the same side as the scientifically challenged www, cpc, tim...you display zero ability for critical thinking...you cannot add energy/warming without consequences...it's impossible...you don't need to be a physicist or chemist, to understand this, a understanding of a 8th grade science is the only requirement...claiming there is no evidence becomes idiotic...you asking for a citation is ridiculous as wwwtt asking for evidence that co2 is a ghg...

more energy=more warming=more extreme weather...it can do nothing else,there must be a reaction...you claiming otherwise and not providing a citation for such a ridiculous claim is hypocritical...

Edited October 3, 2012 by wyly