Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by NeilFawcett, Nov 25, 2009.
As in without numbers.
It is subjective and interpretive.
Just thought I would mention Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC was on hardtalk last night, haven't seen it myself yet, but link here..
Though I think I glean from scanning this thread at times the IPCC aren't exactly held in high regard on here
its subjective as opposed to objective you mean in that its described without numbers (pictures and words only). I doubt that is the method of climate science or its projections. Numbers are given, years for Arctic ice free summer sea ice etc, ok within limits etc such as sea level rise but still quantitative more so than qualitative.
The central premises of ACC is physics. W/m2 etc but due to uncertainties its not nailed 100%, no but its more accurate than not.
I get the impression that its either right or wrong to some of you here, black or white type analysis which I see as far from what is being suggested by ACC.
What we know is there was a warming trend, what we don't know, and cannot prove with any certainty, what caused it and whether it will continue, let alone whether it was our actions, or more pointedly 'green house gas' emissions.
Emotional appeals about polar bears not having anywhere to live just cloud the issue.
With Climate Science there seems to be a large amount of interpretation (for good or for ill), at which point we have to trust the value judgements of the scientists interpreting the data. What the whole original Climategate scandal was about is that scientists have acted unethically and disreputably, which damages the science. Or at the very least, opens it up to unfounded skepticism.
We just don't know, and little has changed since the debate started.
Edit: I didn't mean 'damages the science', I meant 'damages the scientist's ability to authoritatively present the science'.
It is a hypothesis or a theory, that is how science works. Sorry but I am finding it hard to argue with you when you need to go so down to basics.
I agree with ignoring the past but at the same time you can't do it by country either seeing as some have 10x the people. Suerly per person is the fairest way.
I disagree with Yamahahaha and Hola on this one. I would summise that your looking in the wrong places for the information you require. I dont see what Polar Bears have got to do with the peer reviewed science on Glacial, Ice sheet and sea ice loss.
ACC is a theory going back to around the 1850s, no science has refuted GHG theory successfully or in fact undermines it.
The human influence on climate, has many want to define is not a full fledged theory, but a hypothesis.
Nobody refutes that greenhouse gases (I hate acronyms) play an important role, what many of us are saying is that there is so much more we do not understand, and that it is needed to keep on researching. And that the process has to be driven by science and not by politics (which is the case right now).
Absolutely. I agree and have been saying similar for some time, much to the consternation of certain others.
Have fun trying to explain it, you'll need it.
Yes they are continuing to research but enough is known about GHG theory to know that Co2 is the major forcings and hence we need to cut fossil fuel burning with immediate effect.
Nah, have been lurking enough to know there is no way to convince cosmo. You know well that is the problem with fanatics, if he would go and dedicate himself, study physics, chemistry and biology, then he would stop throwing indoctrination.
And cosmo, we know something, not enough! Never enough!
We know more than enough to know what needs to be done but I doubt we will do it even if we could.
This illustrates just how little we know and how unknown the variables are in regard to predicting sea level rise or the causes for it.
Again I disagree because the paleoclimatic record shows the limits for numerous reasons of warming. You said 5 meters was a disgrace but how can it b if we don't know much as u put it?
So you disagree with Elizabeth Colville, Brian Beard, Alberto Reyes, and David Ullman and Oregon State University researchers Robert Hatfield and Joseph Stoner, and supported by UW-Madison and the National Science Foundation based on what exactly?
No I disagree with your comment on knowing nothing. There are better articles and analysis around from what I can tell. WAIS is more water bound than Greenland.
So you do disagree with them as I was only reiterating what they said themselves based on their peer reviewed research.
I suggest that you have an issue with me personally that you really need to deal with, either that or you really don't know anything and are simply disagreeing with me because you think I am stating something contrary based on what you think my position is. It wouldn't be the first time you disagreed with a non-sceptic paper just because I posted it only to quote that paper or the research it relates to or indeed the scientists who wrote it to support your (oops sorry.... Real Climate's) opinion.
No Castiel I have no issue with you per se but with what you are stating. First 5 meters was obscence due to it being Hansens work and you then go all political with his taking money interjection. Then you say how little we know about ice sheet dynamics (which I have stated here already in a previous post) so 5 meters cannot be ruled out as you have stated now can it??????
You want it all ways as deniers do, in fact you are arguing that we dont know and yet 5 meters is ruled out and alarmist (I suppose). So which is it Castiel?
You're right, we just don't know. They could grow by 5 metres!
I assume that's what you're getting at.
Separate names with a comma.