Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

It really made me happy to see some of the science boards were even more messed up then the sailing threads here at CF.

Genuinely? Why on earth would that make you "happy"?

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

Sayre's Law: "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."

Having once been an academic, I can agree with you. Here's a funny little verse on the subject, and no truer word:


Francis Bret Harte. 1839–1902

The Society upon the Stanislaus

I RESIDE at Table Mountain, and my name is Truthful James;
I am not up to small deceit or any sinful games;
And I 'll tell in simple language what I know about the row
That broke up our Society upon the Stanislow.

But first I would remark, that it is not a proper plan
For any scientific gent to whale his fellowman,
And, if a member don't agree with his peculiar whim,
To lay for that same member for to "put a head" on him.

Now nothing could be finer or more beautiful to see
Than the first six months' proceedings of that same Society,
Till Brown of Calaveras brought a lot of fossil bones
That he found within a tunnel near the tenement of Jones.

Then Brown he read a paper, and he reconstructed there,
From those same bones, an animal that was extremely rare;
And Jones then asked the chair for a suspension of the rules,
Till he could prove that those same bones was one of his lost mules.

Then Brown he smiled a bitter smile, and said he was at fault,
It seemed he had been trespassing on Jones's family vault;
He was a most sarcastic man, this quiet Mr. Brown,
And on several occasions he had cleaned out the town.

Now I hold it is not decent for a scientific gent
To say another is an ass,—at least, to all intent;
Nor should the individual who happens to be meant
Reply by heaving rocks at him, to any great extent.

Then Abner Dean of Angel's raised a point of order, when
A chunk of old red sandstone took him in the abdomen,
And he smiled a kind of sickly smile, and curled up on the floor,
And the subsequent proceedings interested him no more.

For, in less time than I write it, every member did engage
In a warfare with the remnants of a palæozoic age;
And the way they heaved those fossils in their anger was a sin,
Till the skull of an old mammoth caved the head of Thompson in.

And this is all I have to say of these improper games,
For I live at Table Mountain, and my name is Truthful James;
And I 've told in simple language what I know about the row
That broke up our Society upon the Stanislow.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by StuM

Strange, perception is everything.

I'm seeing an ever increasing number of former alarmists coming to their senses and realising what a con it all is.

This includes a growing number of scientists and even environmentalist who "become" sceptical at the end of their careers when they no longer have to tow the party line.

Here's yet another scientist who has become sceptical, with his reasons which are well worth reading.
(Adjunct professor at Compton College, Santa Monica College, El Camino College, and Loyola Marymount University teaching Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science._

The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever | Daily Wire

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by StuM

Here's yet another scientist who has become sceptical, with his reasons which are well worth reading.
(Adjunct professor at Compton College, Santa Monica College, El Camino College, and Loyola Marymount University teaching Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science._

The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever | Daily Wire

Many scientists have been/are skeptical, but most of them are not experts in the climate science field. Being an adjunct professor of science does not automatically make one a climate science expert.

One of Van Biezen's concerns is that temperatures didn't rise from ~1945-1975, even while CO2 levels kept rising. Climate modelers have accounted for that apparent anomaly with the increase in human-generated aerosols after WWII.



Why did climate cool in the mid-20th Century?

Although temperatures increased overall during the 20th century, three distinct periods can be observed. Global warming occurred both at the beginning and at the end of the 20th century, but a cooling trend is seen from about 1940 to 1975. As a result, changes in 20th century trends offer a good framework through which to understand climate change and the role of numerous factors in determining the climate at any one time.

Early and late 20th century warming has been explained primarily by increasing solar activity and increasing CO2 concentrations, respectively, with other factors contributing in both periods. So what caused the cooling period that interrupted the overall trend in the middle of the century? The answer seems to lie in solar dimming, a cooling phenomenon caused by airborne pollutants.

The main culprit is likely to have been an increase in sulphate aerosols, which reflect incoming solar energy back into space and lead to cooling. This increase was the result of two sets of events.

1. Industrial activities picked up following the Second World War. This, in the absence of pollution control measures, led to a rise in aerosols in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere).
2. A number of volcanic eruptions released large amounts of aerosols in the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere).

Combined, these events led to aerosols overwhelming the warming trend at a time when solar activity showed little variation, leading to the observed cooling. Furthermore, it is possible to draw similar conclusions by looking at the daily temperature cycle. Because sunlight affects the maximum day-time temperature, aerosols should have a noticeable cooling impact on it. Minimum night-time temperatures, on the other hand, are more affected by greenhouse gases and therefore should not be affected by aerosols. Were these differences observed? The answer is yes: maximum day-time temperatures fell during this period but minimum night-time temperatures carried on rising.

The introduction of pollution control measures reduced the emission of sulphate aerosols. Gradually the cumulative effect of increasing greenhouse gases started to dominate in the 1970s and warming resumed.

As a final point, it should be noted that in 1945, the way in which sea temperatures were measured changed, leading to a substantial drop in apparent temperatures. Once the data are corrected, it is expected that the cooling trend in the middle of the century will be less pronounced.

[StuM]

"Once the data are corrected, it is expected that the cooling trend in the middle of the century will be less pronounced."

Love it! Oh the irony again

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by StuM

"Once the data are corrected, it is expected that the cooling trend in the middle of the century will be less pronounced."

Love it! Oh the irony again

What I 'love' is the way deniers ignore the main points and latch on to a minor subnote that may or may not support their contention.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

What I 'love' is the way deniers ignore the main points and latch on to a minor subnote that may or may not support their contention.

I'm not going to waste my time refuting the "main points" of any article copied from Skeptical Science.

Why do you guys keep using that alarmist mouthpiece as a prime reference for your arguments? We all know how unskeptical and unscientific it really is.

[GordMay]

An interesting study, FWIW:

“... Free-market worldviews are an important predictor of the rejection of scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications, such as climate science, but not necessarily of other scientific issues. Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, is associated with the rejection of all scientific propositions tested ...”

The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science ➥ PLOS ONE: The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science

[Salty Mike]

Climate change (Global Warming) if there is such a thing is caused by bottled water and holding tanks. Let all the water loose and things will return to normal...

Just what is normal?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by StuM

I'm not going to waste my time refuting the "main points" of any article copied from Skeptical Science.

Why do you guys keep using that alarmist mouthpiece as a prime reference for your arguments? We all know how unskeptical and unscientific it really is.

The wonderful thing about skepticalscience is that there are very few benefits, if in fact any, to climate change listed in their multitude of arguments for use against the contrarians.

Now, this means that either anthropogenic climate change is unique in all history, aside from perhaps snowball earth, in that the cons overwhelmingly exceed the pro's by a statistically near improbable value, or that they're just sprouting crap for the most part by cherry picking worst case scenarios and representing them as fact. I'm kind of leaning towards the latter conclusion.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by GordMay

An interesting study, FWIW:

“... Free-market worldviews are an important predictor of the rejection of scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications, such as climate science, but not necessarily of other scientific issues. Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, is associated with the rejection of all scientific propositions tested ...”

The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science ➥ PLOS ONE: The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science

Another Lewpaper!

And a re-analysis:

Conspiracist Ideation as a Predictor of Climate-Science Rejection

"Reanalysis of the survey data sets of Lewandowsky, Oberauer, and Gignac (2013) and Lewandowsky, Gignac, and Oberauer (2013) indicates that the conclusions of those articles—that conspiracist ideation predicts skepticism regarding the reality of anthropogenic climate change—are not supported by the data. Nonlinear relationships were overlooked in both analyses, and this resulted in model misspecification. The authors used structural equation modeling (SEM) assuming linear relationships between the variables, and it is essential to test this assumption (Bentler & Chou, 1987, p. 86; Ullman, 2007, p. 683). In this Commentary, we show, using nonparametric local regression, that this assumption does not hold for the relationship between conspiracist ideation and views on climate science, the relationship that produced one of the central claims of both articles and the majority of the press interest (e.g., Corner, 2012; Pearlman, 2012)."

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Salty Mike

Climate change (Global Warming) if there is such a thing is caused by bottled water and holding tanks. Let all the water loose and things will return to normal...

Just what is normal?

According to the alarmists, it appears that the last years of the Little Ice Age are "normal".

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by StuM

I'm not going to waste my time refuting the "main points" of any article copied from Skeptical Science.

Why do you guys keep using that alarmist mouthpiece as a prime reference for your arguments? We all know how unskeptical and unscientific it really is.

Given your position, I'm not surprised.

[GordMay]

And Lewandowsky's (et al) rejoinder to Dixon and Jones

➥ The robust relationship between conspiracist cognition and rejection of (climate) science

➥ Sign In

This is fun.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by StuM

I'm not going to waste my time refuting the "main points" of any article copied from Skeptical Science.

Why do you guys keep using that alarmist mouthpiece as a prime reference for your arguments? We all know how unskeptical and unscientific it really is.

Do the links to the published papers not count?
How can they be unscientific?

Just a few...
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publicat...additivity.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter2.pdf
Perturbation of the northern hemisphere radiative balance by backscattering from anthropogenic sulfate aerosols* - CHARLSON - 2002 - Tellus A - Wiley Online Library