Space, Climate Change, and the Real Meaning of Theory. Real Scientists and Empirical Evidence?

a reply to: glend

Appeals to authority(even if that authority has zero climatological experience) is a logical fallacy. It is not more valid than thousands upon thousands of independent peer reviewed studies.

a reply to: projectvxn

Which the side that is pushing for taxes is also for, maybe not of them because I wouldn't doubt for a second there are the ones that just see the profit in that route.

Again the only reason I would ever be for the taxes is because it could be a way to get those that are ignoring the problems to actually go to the solutions you are talking about.

What else will get them to change from the status quo?

a reply to: projectvxn

"Appeals to authority(even if that authority has zero climatological experience) is a logical fallacy."

Protest isn't a fallacy, its a democratic right of the people.

"It is not more valid than thousands upon thousands of independent peer reviewed studies."

And with the trillions that will be achieved from carbon trading derivatives and carbon tax they will finance 1000's more studies (aka Gravy train)..

a reply to: glend

And with the trillions that will be achieved from carbon trading derivatives and carbon tax they will finance 1000's more studies (aka Gravy train)..

Those studies have been largely independent.

That said I do agree that cap and trade and other similar oppressive tax scheme are nothing more than a means to enrich certain companies and individuals at the expense of our standard of living. I can promise you that not a single cent will go to any actual scientists. Carbon credits and cap/trade legislation was never based on any of the science done by real scientists.

a reply to: projectvxn

Government has always censored science by only funding research that supports its agenda so nothing is independent at all. Canada for example has brought in laws to force senior scientists to obtain permission from the government before speaking with reporters here which many believe was done to silence climate scientists.

The world runs on greed not truth. That's a fact of life which you need to learn (I am not just talking climate science).

a reply to: glend

The world runs on greed not truth. That's a fact of life which you need to learn (I am not just talking climate science).

First, don't start acting like you have knowledge no one else does.

Secondly, produce PROOF of this otherwise it's just another BS conspiracy theory.

a reply to: glend

The carbon trading/tax is just a red herring in my opinion.

Ignore the science and observations, cry tax scam, then smuggly proclaim human induced climate change is a scam to levy more taxes and hinder industrial progress.

a reply to: jrod

UN needs it carbon tax to fund a third level of government but it looks like they made their run too late. Many climatologist expect worlds weather to go south in coming years. They still trying tell people its warming even though China has experienced colder weather in years; Ukraine and Russia hit by extreme cold snap and heavy snow; And this year, it even snowed in Sydney, Australia for the first time in 180 years.

Their scare tactics will soon fall on death cold ears.

a reply to: glend

No it didn't snow in Sydney this year. It snowed in the Blue Mountsins outside Sydney, something that does happen occasionally.

The global average temperature is warming. Some places may experience cooler weather, but the global average is increasing.

I'm sure this has been told to you before, and I'm sure you've chosen to ignore this so you can reiterate your denier position.

a reply to: cuckooold

Off cause its warming, thats why Antarctic Maximum Sea Ice Extent Breaks Streak of Record Highs link, Off cause one might suggest that arctic loosing ice and Antarctica gaining ice might be result of the recently discovered
Pacific Decadal Oscillation here. But we shouldn't let science get in the way of a tax scheme eh.

BTW why don't you global warmers demand 100% solar power generation by 2025. Guessing the oil industry that now profits from selling gas for power generation won't be happy. But you two weren't suppose to be friends anyway no?

Heard Al Gore purchased some more oil wells. Makes one laugh.

a reply to: glend

Oh boy...

You went for the Al Gore inference.

Also lets throw in some oil company crap.

First, I don't demonize oil companies. We need them and we will continue to need them in the future.

You have yet to link to any peer reviewed articles on the matter.

So I'll do you the favor and present for your consideration the follow on Antarctic ice loss

www.nature.com...


You're continuing to make inferences without any evidence to connect those inferences. You, like the "sources" you present, are connecting loose facts to form a whole picture with jigsaw puzzle pieces that don't fit.

Why is it so hard to believe that a greenhouse gas that is opaque to IR is contributing to the overall warming trend?

a reply to: projectvxn

Antarctica is gaining ice link which is hard to deny given Antarctica ice extent is largest on record ever.

a reply to: glend

Seems like you didn't read the whole article, might want to do that if you want to use it as 'proof' this all is a scam.

a reply to: glend

Please read your own source in its entirety.

a reply to: Sremmos80

What are you talking about when you write "proof of a scam". I was replying to a comment that said Antarctica is loosing ice which I provided a link from NASA that stated Antarctica was gaining ice. So you read the article AGAIN because it clearly states "The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said."

Now if climate does warm and places like Siberia turn into grasslands will that prove GW from CO2 true? If it does in your mind then you will need explain away why the same thing occurred 10,000 years ago when woolly mammoths fed of the grasslands of Siberia. Cleaarly climate change is the NORM not the exception.

We have not seen changes in climate that have not occurred in the recent past.

a reply to: glend

You're misreading, recall the remainder of the quote that you excised:

“But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

Also, pfft:

That's old, too. What was the departure this year?

February had a departure of 1.21°C. Look where that is on this chart.

a reply to: Greven

Really! You have a chart from skeptical science who is owned by self-employed cartoonist John Cook, who likes to draw red lines on charts and you call that science. So the skeptical science website is saying since 2004 the temperature has increased more than 1.21°C. I knew you people were gullible but you taking it to a whole new level. The IPCC if I am not mistaken has said global temperature has risen about 0.8 °C since 1880's.

Edit... Sorry but I don't believe sea level is rising at increasing rates. I believe Professor Nils-Axel Mörner when he states....

.The raw data from the TOPEX/POSEIDON sea-level satellites, which operated from 1993-2000, shows a slight uptrend in sea level. However, after exclusion of the distorting effects of the Great El Niño Southern Oscillation of 1997/1998, a naturally-occurring event, the sea-level trend is zero.
. The GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites are able to measure ocean mass, from which sea-level change can be directly calculated. The GRACE data show that sea level fell slightly from 2002-2007.
. These two distinct satellite systems, using very different measurement methods, produced raw data reaching identical conclusions: sea level is barely rising, if at all.
' Sea level is not rising at all in the Maldives, the Laccadives, Tuvalu, India, Bangladesh, French Guyana, Venice, Cuxhaven, Korsør, Saint Paul Island, Qatar, etc.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Greven

Really! You have a chart from skeptical science who is owned by self-employed cartoonist John Cook, who likes to draw red lines on charts and you call that science. So the skeptical science website is saying since 2004 the temperature has increased more than 1.21°C. I knew you people were gullible but you taking it to a whole new level. The IPCC if I am not mistaken has said global temperature has risen about 0.8 °C since 1880's.

Edit... Sorry but I don't believe sea level is rising at increasing rates. I believe Professor Nils-Axel Mörner when he states....

.The raw data from the TOPEX/POSEIDON sea-level satellites, which operated from 1993-2000, shows a slight uptrend in sea level. However, after exclusion of the distorting effects of the Great El Niño Southern Oscillation of 1997/1998, a naturally-occurring event, the sea-level trend is zero.
. The GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites are able to measure ocean mass, from which sea-level change can be directly calculated. The GRACE data show that sea level fell slightly from 2002-2007.
. These two distinct satellite systems, using very different measurement methods, produced raw data reaching identical conclusions: sea level is barely rising, if at all.
' Sea level is not rising at all in the Maldives, the Laccadives, Tuvalu, India, Bangladesh, French Guyana, Venice, Cuxhaven, Korsør, Saint Paul Island, Qatar, etc.

That's really funny, given that you didn't even source your chart at all. Do you know what 'present' is defined as on that identical (save for the red line) chart of yours?

Also, funny thing, it's gotten warmer since 2010. January–June 2016 global land surface temperature was 1.76°C (3.17°F) above the 20th century average. Mostly this is from earlier in the year. It cooled down from 1880 to 1910, then started warming again. Just comparing June 1880 with June 2016, there's a difference of 1.07°C.

You're citing a study that claims sea levels are rising, but you want to dismiss part of that study and not the whole?

a reply to: glend

I love when you all find one scientist to cling to but then ignore plethora of others that disagree.
Which I am sure will be followed by "Well those ones are just paid to say things!"
And then I google that guy and every webpage that has his study is selling some kind of book or DVD about how AGW is bunk.

So once again, as with most climate change topics on ATS, it turns into a pissing contest with deniers cherry picking bits and pieces, and not reading their sources.

I'll quote again from the original article from a real authority of climate science.

www.newyorker.com...

As a scientist, I would like to think that the political discussion of climate change and how to mitigate its worst effects would be sober and fact-based. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Climate-change deniers in the United States have done a first-class job in spreading confusion and misinformation. As a result, many prominent politicians insist, and get away with insisting, that climate change is a hoax, a mantra that has gained some credibility through sheer repetition. Climate deniers are also fond of saying that global warming is not resolved in science or is “just” a theory. This is a perfect example of Orwellian Newspeak which also flies in the face of three hundred years of scientific progress, in which intellectual argument and conviction must be based on facts and substantiated theories, rather than personal beliefs or biases.

And from NASA.

July 2016 was the warmest July in 136 years of modern record-keeping, according to a monthly analysis of global temperatures by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

Because the seasonal temperature cycle peaks in July, it means July 2016 also was warmer than any other month on record. July 2016’s temperature was a statistically small 0.1 degrees Celsius warmer than previous warm Julys in 2015, 2011 and 2009.

It seems there is no real argument to be had with the deniers as they either ignore the science, deflect, or cherry pick articles to suit their agenda.

Probably it's not even worth arguing with the willfully ignorant, but better to focus on the absolute reality of climate change, and how it can best be negated, if this is possible.