Go Back   This Blue Marble, a Global Current Events Discussion Forum > Main Floor > Science Center > Environmental News

Environmental News Discuss weather, climate, and earth changes here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-18-2012, 01:09 PM   #1
Ought Six
Dismember
 
Ought Six's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 35,164
Blog Entries: 15
Thanks: 176
Thanked 390 Times in 326 Posts
Arrow Shock Poll: Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...ming-skeptics/
__________________
* I have the right to live, thus I have the right to defend my life from attackers who would take it from me.
* I have the right to my private property, thus I have the right to defend my property from thieves who would take it from me.
* I have the right to self-determination, thus I have the right to defend my liberty from tyrants who would take it from me.
* The only usable tools for these tasks are guns, and thus I have the right to shoot anyone who would take my guns from me.
Ought Six is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 12:39 AM   #2
Ross
Senior Level 6
 
Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 9,471
Thanks: 838
Thanked 1,396 Times in 795 Posts
I read that survey several days ago and refrained from posting comment
because only 27% ( from memory ) of meteorologists within that
organization responded . That is still a fair sample size but without knowing
why the others did not respond I was reluctant to draw conclusions .

I was wondering which side of the debate would use and abuse first and
assumed it would be the AGW crowd but presumably they decided their
standard line of "97% of climate scientists say ..." would have been placed in jeopardy .
__________________
All paper is a short position on gold.

“Gold is money. Everything else is credit.”
.
Ross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 04:05 PM   #3
Kassy
Eurothrash
 
Kassy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: EU ~ NL ~ 0 0 0
Posts: 8,422
Thanks: 237
Thanked 260 Times in 215 Posts
89% of responders belief global warming is happening, 59% of those attribute it to humans which gives a slight minority to skeptics. 52% of meteorologists belief in AGW.
__________________
Free hugs
Kassy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 05:19 PM   #4
Sysiphus
Senior Level 5
 
Sysiphus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seattle, Bastion of Liberalism
Posts: 6,248
Thanks: 86
Thanked 302 Times in 208 Posts
I am a member of the AMS and took the survey. I believe GW it is happening, but am skeptical about carbon emissions or mankind generally being the cause. And, I don't think we should be spending money trying to prepare for it - more than enough time to adapt in the ordinary course.
Sysiphus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 05:32 PM   #5
Kassy
Eurothrash
 
Kassy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: EU ~ NL ~ 0 0 0
Posts: 8,422
Thanks: 237
Thanked 260 Times in 215 Posts
Just out of curiosity how can GW be happening if it's not carbon emissions or mankind?

It's not from the sun so that leaves the systems response?
__________________
Free hugs
Kassy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 06:03 PM   #6
dharma
balrog
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,504
Thanks: 333
Thanked 748 Times in 395 Posts
Just a guess, but I'd say the same way it's been happening since the last ice age.
dharma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 07:18 PM   #7
Kassy
Eurothrash
 
Kassy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: EU ~ NL ~ 0 0 0
Posts: 8,422
Thanks: 237
Thanked 260 Times in 215 Posts
That assumes a business as usual model which isn't true.

We changed the game by burning buried carbon.
__________________
Free hugs
Kassy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 09:21 PM   #8
Ought Six
Dismember
 
Ought Six's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 35,164
Blog Entries: 15
Thanks: 176
Thanked 390 Times in 326 Posts
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kassy View Post
That assumes a business as usual model which isn't true. We changed the game by burning buried carbon.
That is an assumption, not a fact. Saying it does not make it so.
__________________
* I have the right to live, thus I have the right to defend my life from attackers who would take it from me.
* I have the right to my private property, thus I have the right to defend my property from thieves who would take it from me.
* I have the right to self-determination, thus I have the right to defend my liberty from tyrants who would take it from me.
* The only usable tools for these tasks are guns, and thus I have the right to shoot anyone who would take my guns from me.
Ought Six is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2012, 12:00 AM   #9
dharma
balrog
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,504
Thanks: 333
Thanked 748 Times in 395 Posts
What Ought said. The numbers don't agree with you.

Personally I think it's devil-worshipping teenagers that have angered the gods. My evidence is as good as yours.
dharma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2012, 08:18 AM   #10
Ross
Senior Level 6
 
Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 9,471
Thanks: 838
Thanked 1,396 Times in 795 Posts
Kassy said ...
Quote:
Just out of curiosity how can GW be happening if it's not carbon emissions or mankind?

It's not from the sun so that leaves the systems response?
Your question assumes the environmental producers and consumers of
CO2 are in balance .

If you really want a tour de force on the fallacy of human assumptions
about CO2 production watch this video by Professor Salby .

For those with no time to watch Prof Salby shows that the
conventional means to measure the human CO2 component
( determined by level of atomspherice C02-13 Isotope )
is flawed which in turn invalidates our most basic assumptions
about what has been happening . He goes further to show
the rise in CO2 experienced recently is primarily due to
natural sources .

Or to put it slightly differently .... climate is driving CO2 levels
not CO2 driving temperature .





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03...ature=youtu.be
__________________
All paper is a short position on gold.

“Gold is money. Everything else is credit.”
.

Last edited by Ross; 03-21-2012 at 08:51 AM.
Ross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2012, 04:23 PM   #11
Kassy
Eurothrash
 
Kassy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: EU ~ NL ~ 0 0 0
Posts: 8,422
Thanks: 237
Thanked 260 Times in 215 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross View Post
Kassy said ...


Your question assumes the environmental producers and consumers of
CO2 are in balance .
In your translation maybe but it's not so.

Mainly i'm curious about Sysiphus' input because he's a good representative of the survey and the response is interesting. If you belief there is global warming there must be a driver.

Since he doesn't attribute it to human CO2 emissions or carbon levels going up i wonder what he would think to be the cause.

The sun isn't very active so the only reasonable other explanation would be that we're just coming out of the ice age & that's why it's happening.

Now

Quote:
If you really want a tour de force on the fallacy of human assumptions
about CO2 production watch this video by Professor Salby .
Good description.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/murr...bon-cycle.html
__________________
Free hugs
Kassy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2012, 09:10 PM   #12
Pablo Escobar
Senior Level 1
 
Pablo Escobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,714
Thanks: 28
Thanked 139 Times in 98 Posts
Global Warming = Sample Bias

duh.

Kassy, surely you understand how sample bias can create any data series you want to show.

I can prove global warming exists just as easily as global cooling exists. It's all on "innocent" sample bias techniques.
Pablo Escobar is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Pablo Escobar For This Useful Post:
shalym (03-27-2012)
Old 03-22-2012, 05:33 PM   #13
Kassy
Eurothrash
 
Kassy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: EU ~ NL ~ 0 0 0
Posts: 8,422
Thanks: 237
Thanked 260 Times in 215 Posts
Oh you can mistreat any dataset as much as you like. It's relatively easy to get away with it if there are no easy ways to compare.

In science another group should construct a similar data set & find the same effect. If they think up there own ways to measure it'll remove some sampling bias etc.

With climate change we have so many things to put together that sampling bias isn't really an option.

We have many sorts of measurements (land records, satellite records, tree rings, ice cores, historical records).
We have a decline in ice cover in the arctic, loss of multiyear ice.
We have glaciers retreating in many place.
We have seasons going out of sync. The growing season for plants is starting much earlier then a decade ago here & that dataset comes from biologists.
We have some pretty interesting melting areas in Russia.
We managed an increase in carbon which beats the PETM.

And far more.

The planet doesn't do sampling bias but it responds in a confusing way.
__________________
Free hugs
Kassy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 06:54 PM   #14
Pablo Escobar
Senior Level 1
 
Pablo Escobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,714
Thanks: 28
Thanked 139 Times in 98 Posts
Increase in temperature recordings is sample biased due to the "official" stations being at airports, formerly in fields away from city centers, now surrounded by temperature raising concrete metropolis's.

Decline in ice cover in artic? Yes. Increase in ice cover, Antartic? Yes. Sample bias strikes again.

Incease in glaciers in Himilayain mountains is estimated to double the decrease in glaciers in other areas. Sample Bias

Warmer than normal winter in North America, but colder than normal in North Asia. Sample Bias.

Increase in CO2? What is the cause and what is the effect?
Pablo Escobar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 07:03 PM   #15
Ross
Senior Level 6
 
Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 9,471
Thanks: 838
Thanked 1,396 Times in 795 Posts
Kassy ... I am not saying there has been no temperature increase and
nor are most serious skeptics .

Quote:
Oh you can mistreat any dataset as much as you like. It's relatively easy to get away with it if there are no easy ways to compare.
The IPCC + Goddard add "adjustments" . It is pure fraud and has
been proven many times. Here are some of the many many examples
http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/01/d...tory-revision/

Quote:
In science another group should construct a similar data set & find the same effect. If they think up there own ways to measure it'll remove some sampling bias etc.
It is virtually impossible for other groups to put together the entire global historical data set .
Quote:
With climate change we have so many things to put together that sampling bias isn't really an option.
That is how we know temperature change has been exaggerated .

Kassy you have made many further points and it is just too much
work/time to respond . The reason this fraud continues is not because
of the scientific evidence it is because of the scientific approach to
deception and the massive money being fed in to this gravy train .
__________________
All paper is a short position on gold.

“Gold is money. Everything else is credit.”
.
Ross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 07:23 PM   #16
Pablo Escobar
Senior Level 1
 
Pablo Escobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,714
Thanks: 28
Thanked 139 Times in 98 Posts
I firmly believe politicians decided to jump on the global warming bandwagon, not because they think humans are causing it, but because they thought it was the simplist way to argue for reduction in carbon based energy use......

They got on the wrong horse, and it threw them.

Next time, just tell the freaking truth. Human society cannot continue in its present form consuming carbon based energy it such massive scale and quantities.
Pablo Escobar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 07:43 PM   #17
Ross
Senior Level 6
 
Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 9,471
Thanks: 838
Thanked 1,396 Times in 795 Posts
Quote:
I firmly believe politicians decided to jump on the global warming bandwagon,
not because they think humans are causing it, but because they thought it
was the simplist way to argue for reduction in carbon based energy use......
I think you are granting politicians way too much intelligence , honesty and
planning ability . Most politicians are focused on one thing "re-election"
and they will buy cooperation from any dangerous political interest group with
Taxpayer money . The Greens figured the more noise they make the
more money they would get and it worked perfectly .
__________________
All paper is a short position on gold.

“Gold is money. Everything else is credit.”
.
Ross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2012, 05:49 PM   #18
Kassy
Eurothrash
 
Kassy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: EU ~ NL ~ 0 0 0
Posts: 8,422
Thanks: 237
Thanked 260 Times in 215 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross View Post
Kassy you have made many further points and it is just too much
work/time to respond . The reason this fraud continues is not because
of the scientific evidence it is because of the scientific approach to
deception and the massive money being fed in to this gravy train .
No need to respond per point now since they'll come along in new threads & we can pick them up there. My point is the amount of data pointing the same way which makes the whole bias point less likely.
__________________
Free hugs
Kassy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
global, meteorologists, poll, shock, skeptics, warming

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.