Northwest Passage

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

that delves into landscheidt's studies
https://landscheidt.wordpress.com/20...or-amp-events/

Looks like it's from 2012, but that may be considered "new" when it comes to climate science. Dunno. The article mentioned that the scientist heading up the core sample project is deceased. When Jack returns I'm sure he'll trash him regardless.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

. "Rich scientist" is mostly an oxymoron. Rich oilman, rich politician...not so much.

We don't need to know absolutely. It's sufficient to know with a high degree of certainty whether something within our control has made the difference or not. AGW has spoilt what would have otherwise been newhaul's predicted cooling period.

first off your comment about rich scientists . Well if you are pro agw you are more likely to be rather well off if not outright a million are off of their " agw study "
Do a favor and explain how 2018 was the fourth warmest 2017 was #3 2016#2 ( tied with 2014) and 2015 was #1 ( and yes these numbers have as the official reports say ) adjusted for El Nino and la Nina.
We are at the beginning of a cooling period that should last for the next 20 to 30 years .
Hopefully not more or people will be starving to death in droves.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Looks like it's from 2012, but that may be considered "new" when it comes to climate science. Dunno. The article mentioned that the scientist heading up the core sample project is deceased. When Jack returns I'm sure he'll trash him regardless.

of course he will .

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Even when it comes to the ultimate issue of whether it's fossil fuels or natural forces, I don't think there's many scientists who say it's absolutely one or the other. We mostly hear that from pseudo-scientists on the internet and those in the media, and then it's naturally -- but often falsely -- ascribed to the scientists themselves.

You are still firmly entrenched in Stage Two denialism. Which is that you claim that there is so little scientific agreement about Climate Change that we cannot possibly make educated decisions.

Many, many, many individual scientists and scientific organizations have EXPLICITLY stated that global warming is serious, and that it is caused by the human-mediated release of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. Below is a list of a few statements by well-known scientific organizations.

Over the last 1/2-dozen years, or so, I've posted the conclusions of hundreds of scientific studies each supporting one facet or another of human-caused climate change. Typically, each of those studies represents the research of a handful to hundreds of different scientists. Collectively, what I've posted might represent the scientific opinions of thousands of scientists, each corroborating AGW. And for every article I posted there are many others that I didn't post for for fear of overwhelming the thread with scientific "cut and paste", which you have complained about regularly. (I wonder why?)

You and Newhaul (and a few other like-minded posters) have only mentioned a handful of dissenting scientists, and often those scientists are commenting in areas beyond their own areas of expertise. Yet you continue to advocate for "equal time" and "too much uncertainty to make any decisions".


The Causes of Climate Change | NASA

Climate Change | NOAA
see also FAQs

Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes | IPCC

Climate Change: Evidence and Causes | jointly produced publication of The US National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society

Causes of climate change | European Commission

The Science of Climate Change | A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Turkish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

first off your comment about rich scientists . Well if you are pro agw you are more likely to be rather well off if not outright a million are off of their " agw study "

Do a favor and explain how 2018 was the fourth warmest 2017 was #3 2016#2 ( tied with 2014) and 2015 was #1 ( and yes these numbers have as the official reports say ) adjusted for El Nino and la Nina.

We are at the beginning of a cooling period that should last for the next 20 to 30 years .

Hopefully not more or people will be starving to death in droves.

Notice 2016 was El Niño and two of the subsequent years were La Niña.

It would sure be nice if just chanting over and over that the earth is cooling would actually make it so [emoji3]

[jackdale]

I will do it now. Landscheidt is an astrologer. Just Google his name to verify that.

Originally Posted by Exile

Looks like it's from 2012, but that may be considered "new" when it comes to climate science. Dunno. The article mentioned that the scientist heading up the core sample project is deceased. When Jack returns I'm sure he'll trash him regardless.

[jackdale]

BTW I am in Juan de Fuca. Still have cell coverage

Originally Posted by jackdale

I will do it now. Landscheidt is an astrologer. Just Google his name to verify that.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I will do it now. Landscheidt is an astrologer. Just Google his name to verify that.

astronomy astrology and astrophysics are all related
Btw the alignment of the planets ( astrology ) has a profound effect on the sun

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-sun...of-the-planets

btw your beloved Michael Mann is not a climate scientist. And yet he made millions off of the global warming schitck .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

BTW I am in Juan de Fuca. Still have cell coverage

motoring or tacking your butt off ?
It really sucks to be running to weather with winds on your nose .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I will do it now. Landscheidt is an astrologer. Just Google his name to verify that.

I did. He was "a German author, astrologer and amateur climatologist."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Landscheidt

But Wiki lists 5 articles on solar activity & climate change that were peer-reviewed. That must make him OK, right?

He "was one of the more scientific contributors to the field of astrology in the 20th century," [emphasis mine] and . . .

"In later decades he was known as a radical climatologist who operated outside the academic institutions and made bold predictions, many of which were quite accurate. Landscheidt studied philosophy and natural science, earned a doctorate at the University of Gottingen, had a career as West German High Court Judge, and was the director of the Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity."

Can't vouch for the guy beyond what I read in his Wiki, but misrepresenting him as just an "astrologer" is more than a little deceptive. Unless you think a doctorate degree, published studies, and a high court judicial career renders him unfit to contribute to the field of climate science. So your comment that he is [sic] an astrologer is correct, but you have once again ignored the rest of the story in an attempt to discredit.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

I did. He was "a German author, astrologer and amateur climatologist."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Landscheidt

But Wiki lists 5 articles on solar activity & climate change that were peer-reviewed. That must make him OK, right?

He "was one of the more scientific contributors to the field of astrology in the 20th century," [emphasis mine] and . . .

"In later decades he was known as a radical climatologist who operated outside the academic institutions and made bold predictions, many of which were quite accurate. Landscheidt studied philosophy and natural science, earned a doctorate at the University of Gottingen, had a career as West German High Court Judge, and was the director of the Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity."

Can't vouch for the guy beyond what I read in his Wiki, but misrepresenting him as just an "astrologer" is more than a little deceptive. Unless you think a doctorate degree, published studies, and a high court judicial career renders him unfit to contribute to the field of climate science. So your comment that he is [sic] an astrologer is correct, but you have once again ignored the rest of the story in an attempt to discredit.

good ol Paul Harvey
https://youtu.be/QblkQ-J6zio

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This is both misleading and backwards. The "other side" has pretty compelling evidence that human activity has and is increasing the level of CO2 and that warming is occuring because of that.

No dispute that they have a lot of evidence. Almost every climate scientist in the world has been working on it, with new ones no doubt signing up for grad school programs and hoping to join the effort. How "compelling" it is amounts to your opinion, of course, and doesn't mean that's the state of the actual science. How is my comment "misleading & backwards?" I haven't tried to misrepresent the breakdown between scientists in the maj. & min. camps. I think you're unduly influenced by your own preconceptions.

Spencer is pushing his "natural forces" hypothesis as a plausible justification for his bias against the conclusions around AGW. But until someone produces the same quality of work that identifies and quantifies those "natural forces", and can show how they cause, contribute to, or will counteract the unprecedented rapidity of the CO2 increase and/or the observed warming, it's little more than hand-waving. I hope Spencer and all other competent scientists continue to do quality work, and then we will have a better idea of the relative contributions of human vs other contributions. But we shouldn't just be standing around waiting for it, if there are factors within our control now.

Your analysis assumes it's even possible to identify and quantify those natural forces since it depends on accurate historical data which largely doesn't exist. So according to Spencer anyway, most scientists believe CO2 is responsible for the warming

"because (as they have told me) they can’t think of anything else that might have caused it. Significantly, it’s not that there is evidence nature can’t be the cause, but a lack of sufficiently accurate measurements to determine if nature is the cause. This is a hugely important distinction, and one the public and policymakers have been misled on by the IPCC. * * * It’s not that the IPCC’s claim that humans cause global warming is somehow untenable or impossible, it’s that political and financial pressures have resulted in the IPCC almost totally ignoring alternative explanations for that warming. [Emphasis mine].

https://www.masterresource.org/clima...limate-change/

I don't even get the impression that Spencer has necessarily ruled out the possibility that man-made CO2 is to blame:

"Unlike the global marching army of climate researchers the IPCC has enlisted, we do not walk in lockstep. We are willing to admit, “we don’t really know”, rather than mislead people with phrases like, “the warming we see is consistent with an increase in CO2”, and then have the public think that means, “we have determined, through our extensive research into all the possibilities, that the warming cannot be due to anything but CO2”. [Emphasis mine].

Isn't this last comment in bold the essence of the mainstream argument? It's the difference between direct cause & effect vs. a process of elimination.

Of course I do not accept the idea that the scientific process or institutions are seriously corrupt or corrupting, and that the few outliers who oppose the findings obtained by and endorsed by the "process" are therefore somehow less tainted than the majority.

Don't worry, we KNOW! No problem from me on your beliefs & opinions, just want to try and get you (and others) to stop ignoring or mischaracterizing alternative or dissenting views. Like this theme you've been advancing about a "few outliers." Maybe some validity when compared to the numbers on the majority/mainstream side, but neither one of us know how many fill the minority ranks. I'm sure it can be fairly called lopsided, but that doesn't prove that it's a "few" compared to "thousands." That's potentially misleading if not backed up, and even if true doesn't "prove" anything in its own right.

All I see above are attempts to whittle away at the validity of the prevailing conclusions. It remains a puzzlement why you continue to ascribe perverse motivations to science, but ignore that selfish motives are far more prevalent in the organizations aligned against the findings of CC: the fossil fuel industry and their lobbies, and political organizations. Unlike scientific organizations, the very definitions of business, lobbies and politics put self-interest foremost, and they have orders of magnitude more money at stake. "Rich scientist" is mostly an oxymoron. Rich oilman, rich politician...not so much.

Again, this is mostly your own preconceived notions talking, not reasonably objective logic & reason. It's no different from some saying that it's all a big lefty soshulist () conspiracy to do away with the capitalist system. It is true that there are fossil fuel interests funding research to challenge the dominant theory, and also true that there are hardcore lefties trying to use CC to advance a radical political agenda. But that doesn't mean the actual science being produced by either adherents or skeptics is automatically tainted. That can only be judged on its scientific merit, not what internet pundits or the media say.

It also sounds like you're failing to understand human motivation. There are a few scientists who have apparently cashed in from their notoriety, but most don't go into academia & research for money but for recognition, prestige, career advancement, and of course intellectual curiosity and a desire to help the environment. If it was about money these same people would be using their smarts in the private sector. None of the scientists pursuing evidence in support of the mainstream position are cashing in personally from grant money as far as anyone has been able to determine (except for one obviously corrupt one who got busted). And this includes skeptics like Spencer despite his (unpaid) associations with Heartland and the fossil fuel industry. So I for one am not ascribing "perverse" motivations to the people doing the bulk of the research, but certainly even you can see the potential for erroneous conclusions when a disproportionate number of scientists in the field are only laboring to prove one side of what has been a lengthy, evolving, and highly complex scientific debate.

We don't need to know absolutely. It's sufficient to know with a high degree of certainty whether something within our control has made the difference or not. AGW has spoilt what would have otherwise been newhaul's predicted cooling period.

Too early to make that claim (either way)! You make a reasonable case for Jack's "Precautionary Principle." But I'm only seeing the required "high degree of certainty" from the pundits and the media, and not within the science itself. I'm also not yet seeing a lot of realism from advocates like yourself, and not even a thought to weighing the pros & cons as is required with any policy proposal of consequence. Until/unless that happens, I'm confident mankind can and will adapt, and I'm frankly more concerned about other environmental issues, like the problem of microplastics in the oceans.

[Exile]

Spencer's comment on the impact of the human-caused additions to atmospheric CO2 (yes, I botched it):

"The total amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere in the last 100 years has upset the radiative energy budget of the Earth by only 1%. How the climate system responds to that small “poke” is very uncertain. The IPCC says there will be strong warming, with cloud changes making the warming worse. I claim there will be weak warming, with cloud changes acting to reduce the influence of that 1% change. The difference between these two outcomes is whether cloud feedbacks are positive (the IPCC view), or negative (the view I and a minority of others have).

So far, neither side has been able to prove their case."

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Exile

I didn't post the short, cursory Spencer interview -- obviously designed for laymen -- to "prove" anything, but only to demonstrate that CC is not without controversy as you seem to believe. There are no references to published works because the interview is obviously not a formal scientific paper.
.

If what he stated were actually based on any solid science then yes. But they aren't, there really is no significant doubt that the planet is warming very quickly and the only smoking gun in the house that fits the observations (wbich are way over natural variability) is human released greenhouse gasses. That's not a controversial statement.
Unlike Spencer statements...
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm
Least he's earning his cash from heartland et al by trying to spread doubt where there is none.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by conachair

If what he stated were actually based on any solid science then yes. But they aren't, there really is no significant doubt that the planet is warming very quickly and the only smoking gun in the house that fits the observations (wbich are way over natural variability) is human released greenhouse gasses. That's not a controversial statement.
Unlike Spencer statements...
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm
Least he's earning his cash from heartland et al by trying to spread doubt where there is none.

None of your skepticalscience.com characterizations of Spencer's quotes as "climate myths" or "what the science says" cite sources. What part of the "science" says what? There are more objective sources out there if you'd like to become more well-rounded on the issue.

You first need to determine what is "natural variability" before you can conclude that we are "way over." There's no proof that human released greenhouse gases are a direct cause of recent warming temps. That undisputed fact on its own makes the issue controversial. There's even controversy over whether the planet is warming at all. If it is, then there's further controversy over amounts. Jackdale's recently posted "crazy polar bear" article cited a 1ºC avg. increase over the past 140 years, but I recall the IPCC stating it was higher.

We've gone over the issue before, and nobody produced any evidence that Spencer was being compensated monetarily or otherwise for his association with Heartland. If you have anything credible to the contrary, then you should definitely post it. Best if it's a source not utterly biased & partisan like skepticalscience.