Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

NASA "scientists" talk about global warming epidemic danger


Forums Forums Science and Technology NASA "scientists" talk about global warming epidemic danger

This topic contains 5 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  Advocatus 1 month ago.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #296445

    They speak for themselves: more climate chaage athiests.

    #296446

    So long as you keep it in your bubble you can believe whatever baby crap you want.

    This has nothing slander and political straw men.  –  That’s not science.

    ===============

    Wanna Debate?

     
    <div id=”post-body-7542994626096122904″ class=”post-body entry-content”>
    <div><b>(Sd3) Mr.GOP don’t buy Jim Steele’s Fraud – LandscapesAndCycles</b></div>
    <div></div>
    <div>https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/07/mrgop-dont-buy-jim-steele-fraud.html</div>
    <div></div>
    <div><i>My FourCornersFreePress column wasn’t the place for a line by line response, but I did want to write one up to help me gather my thoughts before composing my column.  I’m sharing it here, because this version gives me another opportunity to share all sorts of valuable supporting evidence.  I’ll be posting the FCFP column itself in a week or so.</i></div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b>Climate Science isn’t Settled, by Mr. GOP</b><b> </b></div>
    <div>Four Corners Free Press – Letters to the Editor, March, 2018</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>Mr.GOP takes issue with “We need real dialogue about climate” by Peter Miesler.</div>

    1. Mr.GOP: It seems that the “science” is settled.

    <div>Damned straight, the fundamentals are as settled as the promise of tomorrow morning’s sunrise!   I wonder what the scare-quotes are for?</div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b>The fundamentals of our <i>global heat and moisture distribution engine</i> and society’s influence are </b><b>well understood</b><b>!</b>  The explainable known physical certainties far outweigh the remaining uncertainties!</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>Tragically the well understood certainties are constantly being deliberately ignored or lied about by contrarian types, thus our Mr. GOP winds up profoundly ignorant of down to Earth physical processes. Here’s a sampling of that climate science.</div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b>‘Climate models are unproven’ ? </b><b> </b><b>  </b></div>
    <div><b>Actually, GCM’s </b>(Global Circulation Models)<b> have many confirmed successes under their belts.</b><b>  </b></div>
    <div><i>By </i><i>Coby Beck</i><i> on Nov 20, 2006</i></div>
    <div></div>
    <div>http://grist.org/article/climate-models-are-unproven/</div>
    <div>… <b>In 1988, </b><b>James Hansen</b> of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official “coming out” to the general public of anthropogenic global warming.</div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b>Twelve years later, he was </b><b>proven remarkably correct</b><b>, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo. …</b></div>
    <div>Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:</div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b> •  models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been </b><b>observed</b><b>;</b></div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b> •  models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree — but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been </b><b>observed</b><b>;</b></div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b> •  models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now </b><b>observed</b><b>;</b></div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b> •  models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has </b><b>been detected</b><b>;</b></div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b> •  models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;</b></div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b> •  models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and </b><b>this is indeed happening</b><b>;</b></div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b> •  and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct. …</b><b>  </b>  (Read the full article for the details)</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>2)  Mr.GOP: The author has used one pro-global warming expert.</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>This is pure political nonsense.</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>To say Dr. Trenberth’s talk, or my column, is one person’s opinion denies the truth that we are sharing the collective understanding of a global community of experts.</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>Dr. Trenberth was describing the distillation of the combined work of many generations and tens of thousand of scientists world wide.</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>“Pro” global warming?  Mr. GOP’s unhinged politics is showing.  Please GOP, get real!  Nobody with any appreciation for this climate monster we have unleashed is “Pro warming.”</div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b>Dr. Trenberth and the community of scientists are Pro Science!  Science is about Pro Truth and Pro Learning by assessing the data to the best of their understanding and abilities.</b></div>
    <div></div>
    <div>UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial</div>
    <div></div>
    <div><iframe src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/b_WLArrksB4″ width=”480″ height=”270″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=””></iframe></div>
    <div>Published on Aug 24, 2015</div>
    <div>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_WLArrksB4</div>
    <div>Prof Alley discusses the motivation of scientists.</div>
    <div>Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate?</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>3)  Here’s my expert for rebuttal: <u>Landscape & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism</u>, by Jim Steele.</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>Amazing, “here’s my expert,” Jim Steele.  Seriously?  Jim?  Expert?  Boy would I like to hear GOP’s definition of what an expert is.  Anyone who says what one wants to hear, is an expert?  Is that how it is?</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>Lets do an experiment, Go ahead and Google Jim Steele and see what comes up, then try Dr. Kevin Trenberth.  Ah ha, right at the top, http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/</div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b>Kevin Trenberth’s education:</b></div>
    <div>Sc.D Atmospheric Science/Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1972</div>
    <div>B.Sc HONS First Class Mathematics, University of Canterbury, 1966</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>Research topics include:</div>

    • Interannual variability of climate and El Niño
    • Climate change and global warming
    • The heat and energy cycles
    • The water cycle and atmospheric moisture budget
    • The mass of the atmosphere
    • Datasets and reanalysis
    • The global climate observing system
    • Hurricanes and climate change

    <div>One area of greatest impact has been in resolving outstanding issues concerning the global heat and energy budget of planet Earth. He has improved estimates of heat, energy and water transports within the atmosphere to a point where, when combined with top-of-atmosphere observed radiation, they now provide estimates of ocean heat transports as a residual that agree well with directly observed values. …</div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b>Kevin Trenberth’s Publications:</b></div>
    <div>The total from November 2016 is 62 books or book chapters, 257 journal articles published, 4 submitted, 23 technical notes, 120 proceedings or preprints, and 81 other articles, plus 4 videos, for a total of 543 publications plus 4 videos and many blogs.</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>On the Web of Science, there are over 29,160 citations and an H index of 78 (78 publications have 78 or more citations). On Google Scholar, there are over 61,255 citations and an H index of 103 ( or 68 since 2012) …</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>Now try “<b>Jim Steele </b>- scientist”, hmmm, nothing.  Jim Steele the wrestler, no, the British Officer, no, at Wiki, nothing.  Oh wait, here we go.</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>Jim Steele, the ex-camp director for the San Francisco State College’s Sierra Nevada Field Camp, bingo.  A trail guide for college students, a bird watcher of some local repute, a general biology education, nothing of distinction.  Though he makes much of his “instructor emeritus” status.</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>Repeated searches at Google Scholar for Jim Steele show nothing, because it seems he’s never done real science, though I know he’s read a bunch, as have I, but than I don’t claim to be smarter than the experts. <i> </i></div>
    <div></div>
    <div><i>If anyone claims Jim has a peer reviewed paper in a real science journal, please do share a citation in the comments. </i><i> </i></div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b>So my question:</b> By what sort of standard does Mr. GOP equivocate this scientific nothing Steele, with Dr. Trenberth, a man of proven extraordinary intelligence who’s accomplished outstanding pioneering science in an incredibly complex scientific field?</div>
    <div></div>
    <div><i>{Incidentally </i> “Landscape & Cycles” <i>was GOP’s spelling, a simple but revealing oversight.  From his other words I suspect Mr. GOP’s appreciation for our planet’s complex biosphere doesn’t get any deeper than the film on a soap bubble, so that “Landscape”, “Landscapes”, makes no difference.  Tragic.}</i></div>
    <div></div>
    <div>4)  Mr.GOP: Excellent book with ample references to support his arguments.</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>Hmmm, considering “expert” means nothing to Mr. GOP, it’s no surprise “excellent” is equally misused.  Jim does weave many good yarns, I’ll give him that.  It’s the disregard for truth and hiding the complete story that I find contemptible.</div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b>In a nutshell, Jim Steele proposes that landscapes and natural cycles are more powerful drivers of global warming than our insulating atmosphere and humanity’s profligate fossil fuels burning that continues adding extra GHG insulation at a frightening rate. </b></div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b>Jim’s intellectual underpinning is his self-certain, yet never explained opinion rejecting CO</b><b><sub>2</sub></b><b> science. He maintains it’s a hoax with political underpinnings. Something his Republican audiences want to hear, so he never needs to explain his super-natural assertion.</b></div>
    <div></div>
    <div>Steele has parlayed his general environmental studies background to travel around the world learning about various wildlife studies with an eye towards finding errors to exploit.</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>5)  Mr.GOP: Long story short, the science is not settled.</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>Please think about what a nonsensical sentence that is.</div>
    <div>Of course the science is not settled.</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>Uncertainties definitely exist.  Get real GOP, nothing in our lives has ever, or will ever, be “settled” – we do the best we can with what we know.  That’s why our only smart choice is to HONESTLY learn about the learned expert opinion.</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>Before his untimely passing, Dr. Stephen Schneider give an excellent talk, it’s quite different from the shrill denunciations of the GOP crowd and as timely today as the day it was given.Tr</div>
    <div></div>
    <div><iframe src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/mmlHbt5jja4″ width=”459″ height=”344″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=””></iframe></div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b>Climate Change: Is the Science “Settled”?</b></div>
    <div>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmlHbt5jja4</div>
    <div></div>

    (February 4, 2010) Stephen Schneider, professor of biology at Stanford and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment, unpacks the political and scientific debates surrounding climate change.

    __________________________________________________________________________
    <div></div>
    <div>Science is about learning, its about gathering and processing evidence.</div>
    <div>Resolving scientific puzzles has always resulted in understanding more details, even as those details also reveal a whole new suite of questions worth asking.</div>
    <div></div>
    <div><b>The Relativity of Wrong</b></div>
    <div>By Isaac Asimov,</div>
    <div>The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44</div>
    <div>http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm</div>
    <div></div>
    <div>{This continues at https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/07/mrgop-dont-buy-jim-steele-fraud.html}</div>
    <div></div>
    </div>
    <div class=”post-footer”></div>
     

     

     

    #296447

    If anyone wants to know about the science

    http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

    Here’s a thumbnail profile of the panel.

    HISTORY

    The IPCC was set up in 1988 by the UN’s World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and Environment Programme (UNEP).

    Its mandate is to give policymakers neutral, science-based updates about global warming—its impacts, and scenarios for bringing the problem under control.

    An intergovernmental body, the IPCC currently counts 195 nations as members.

    ORGANISATION

    Based in Geneva, the panel is chaired by South Korea’s Hoesung Lee, an expert on the economics of change.

    Its reports are compiled by thousands of atmospheric scientists, climate modellers, oceanographers, ice specialists, economists and public health experts, mostly drawn from universities and research institutes. They work on a volunteer basis.

    The IPCC does not conduct new research but trawls through thousands of published studies and summarises key findings, indicating degrees of likelihood and confidence.

    “You can think of it as the biggest peer-review exercise in the world,” said Jonathan Lynn, IPCC’s head of communications.

    ASSESSMENT REPORTS

    Every five or six years the IPCC produces vast overviews—typically 1,500 pages long—of published . The first came out in 1990, the most recent in 2014.

    The next is due in early 2022, ahead of a crucial reevaluation by governments of their efforts.

    Three separate teams, or “working groups”, look at the physical science of global warming; ; and options for tackling the problem.

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-ipcc-world-authority-climate-science.html#jCp

    #296448

    Lausten
    Participant

    I don’t want to add to the click count for this lecture. Is he actually referencing Jim Steele? He argues like someone who is off his meds. I don’t know how anyone can take him seriously.

    #296464

    No Lausten, I just tossed that in there – different talking head, same bullshit.

    #296483

    Advocatus
    Participant

    I generally find watching You tubes to be a waste of time.  If you really have an argument, post the text here so that we can take time to talk about it.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.