1. Welcome to Georgia Tech Swarm! JOIN US and be a part of the SWARM! GO JACKETS! THWg!

2015 Warmest Year on Record

Discussion in 'The Swarm Lounge' started by cyptomcat, Jan 20, 2016.

  1. ClydeBrick

    ClydeBrick Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    847
    I have really enjoyed reading the threads on climate change - however, I am not going to engage anyone on the climate change subject. My interest goes beyond just the AGW debate, I am interested in @AE 87 's points about how people relate to the science (which has broader implications beyond the AGW debate).

    As an addendum to 87's points, here is a link - to an opinion piece in a decidedly non-scientific source - that alleges even a different type of problem with "Big Science". In it, the allegation against Big Science is not one of "faith" but of human nature and the problems that come from revering the 'establishment'. Interestingly, the AGW debate is not even mentioned.

     
    AE 87 likes this.
  2. TennesseeJacket

    TennesseeJacket Jolly Good Fellow

    Messages:
    47
    It's going to be a hot,dry Summer here in SE Tennessee. It's already in the mid 80s which is a bad sign in my opinion
     
  3. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,573
    Thanks for the link.

    Just for a bit of clarity on my position. I accept Thomas Kuhn's interpretation of development within science as initially explained in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and clarified in subsequent essays.

    Kuhn identified "normal science" as the situation in which scientists within a community operate within a paradigm or the constraints of a scientific theory. The paradigm or theory establishes the givens of the discipline which are, at best, confirmed by observations. After a paradigm is established, encountering observations that don't fit does not automatically overturn the paradigm but simply raises questions to be addressed and investigated. He described the abandonment of one paradigm for another as a revolution because it requires looking at the world in a completely different way.

    When I spoke of faith, I was referring to the disposition of those outside the scientific community who accept the community's conclusions without understanding the paradigm and the degree to which the evidence is confirming or dis-confirming.

    Anyway, I agree that this new topic is interesting (and probably deserved a different thread).
     
    ClydeBrick likes this.
  4. JacketFromUGA

    JacketFromUGA Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,894
  5. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,573
    LOL
     
    Whiskey_Clear likes this.
  6. MWBATL

    MWBATL Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    5,225
    Ahhh, we need the global warming to protect us all from the coming Ice Age anyways...relax......
     
  7. jacket71

    jacket71 Jolly Good Fellow

    Messages:
    19
    Actually, the 97% number is a misnomer. The percentage comes from the respondents to a Uof Chicago grad students survey that was sent to hundreds or thousands of scientists...forgot the actual number...but was responded by <50 and 97% of them agreed. This number has been ballyhooed as gospel but is in actuality non-scientific and a non-starter to the facts. With the proliferation of government backed studies since Gore, the grants are going to those scientists that support the Global Warming line..or is it now Climate Change.

    I have been involved in this arena for several years and the private, non-grant supported data tells a different story.
     
    Whiskey_Clear and AE 87 like this.
  8. Northeast Stinger

    Northeast Stinger Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,430
    I would be curious about that for one reason. The biggest opponents of global warming data, from my understanding, have been those in the fossil fuel industry. Yet, in spite of their generally consistent public position (and dark money to certain political candidates and causes) leaks of internal documents and reports from former CEOs have indicated that their private research on the topic pretty much mirrored government research.

    This is just one of many examples I have run across over the years from Fortune Magazine:

    http://fortune.com/2015/06/05/shell-climate-change/
     
  9. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Banned

    Messages:
    13,638
    Lol.....so individuals, within "big oil", that expressed an open mindedness toward AGW.....prove that AGW is fact and also a cover up by big oil? That's pretty rich.

    IMO, some of that declared open mindedness was an attempt at political correctness.....some of it was big oil vs coal fire production. Do the big company conspiracy theorists doubt big oil might try and take economic advantage over stricter coal regulation?

    None of this supports AGW as a scientific theory.
     
  10. Northeast Stinger

    Northeast Stinger Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,430
    Very puzzling statement given that the politically correct position for the fossil fuel industry is to downplay global warming. I can think of no other more politically correct statement than the one perpetuated by them for decades.
     
  11. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Banned

    Messages:
    13,638
    Those 97 comments cited were not widespread from energy producers. Few though they were, I think they were an attempt to show that they cared about environment in face of large public perception they did not. More clear?
     
  12. Northeast Stinger

    Northeast Stinger Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,430
    Yeah, I just don't buy it. Sorry. They have been doing advertising for years to explain how they care about the environment, all while denying global warming.
     
  13. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Banned

    Messages:
    13,638
    Oh I don't expect you to buy what they are selling ;)

    On the other hand....I care about the environment....but don't believe AGW alarmism.....I also want cheap relatively clean energy....which I think we have for the most part currently. And I don't want to see that regulated away needlessly.
     
  14. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,573
    [​IMG]

    When NASA keeps making the past colder (comparing 1999 to 2016) and is making the present warmer than satellite records, it's hard for me to take them seriously.

    In 2012, the IPCC reported a 10 year hiatus:
    [​IMG]

    However, if you look at NASA's 2016 data, that hiatus is gone.

    smdh
     
    Whiskey_Clear and bwelbo like this.
  15. JacketFromUGA

    JacketFromUGA Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,894
    Actually it was in 2015 that the hiatus was poked at. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632.full

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...atus_new_research_shows_it_doesn_t_exist.html

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...aa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/

     
  16. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    16,445
    There have been 4 different peer reviewed scientific studies this year which all independently concluded there has been no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming. We are in our ELEVENTH year since a Cat-3 hurricane or larger has hit the US - the longest streak in history (by far). There are more areas on earth without reliable (or any) temperature readings than there are with them. Many areas that do have temperature readings have had their measurements compromised over time because of where those now live (more and more cement cities and so on). The environmental lobby missed a great opportunity years ago by attacking this from a pollution angle and a 'and if it helps reduce impact on overall climate its a bonus'. Instead, they have gone at this from a political angle and its backfired to the point nobody trusts scientists anymore. Really, when someone gets money from pro-environment organizations and governments, knows what results are necessary to keep the money coming, and so on, that violates a bunch of different basic scientific tenants.
     
    Whiskey_Clear likes this.
  17. Northeast Stinger

    Northeast Stinger Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,430
    This is not new. Social scientists have long documented that Americans are rather unique among industrialized nations in the degree to which average citizens do not trust scientists. I personally think the advent of the internet has made this even worse by giving a false equivalency to all theories regardless of standing in the scientific community.
     
    GTNavyNuke likes this.
  18. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Banned

    Messages:
    13,638
    Lol. Fool me once ( next ice age coming) shame on you. Fool me twice (AGW), shame on me.

    So Americans have less trust in scientists than other nationalities?......maybe Anericans aren't as dumb, comparatively, as I thought.:cigar:
     
  19. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,573
    [​IMG]

    The point I was trying to make was apparently not obvious. In 2012, the IPCC which has largely been the voice in favor of AGW, spoke of a 10 year period with no significant warming. Now, we have NASA publishing data that shows significant warming over that period and hiding the fact that this warming is not reflected in the satellite data.

    When I read Orwell's 1984 as a teenager I scoffed at the idea that people could watch government change the facts of history and put up with it. On this forum, I've encountered people who not only put up with it but believe it every time it's changed. Four years ago, "it is just a pause, a hiatus, nothing to worry about, the science is strong." Now: "the pause never happened." Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain or the satellites in orbit.
     
    Whiskey_Clear likes this.
  20. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,573

Share This Page