Just now on the news 6

[enginesrus]

The experts are saying there are more baseball home runs because of climate change.

 

[SwinnyGG]

I just quoted the news

You didn't quote anyone. You mentioned 'the experts' and have now mentioned 'the news' without any context or actual information at all.

Who exactly? You can't even link an article. Lame. As I've said in 9 million of your previous useless posts, bring data.

 

[enginesrus]

Okay here you go SwinnyGG.

All that was needed is a simple search.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...more-home-runs-and-climate-change-is-helping/

 

[TugboatEng]

We always hear about climate change experts. Can anybody here name one?

 

[SwinnyGG]

You, according to you.

 

[TugboatEng]

I can't. I don't even know what would qualify one to be called a climate change experts. Is there an accreditation process?

 

[SwinnyGG]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

 

[TugboatEng]

That's a list of climate intellectuals.

 

[SwinnyGG]

I'll give you credit, the mental gymnastics you'll conduct to prevent ever having to acknowledge that you might possibly be wrong about anything are impressive.

 

[TugboatEng]

You gave me a list of names of people that have made observations about climate or head agencies that say things about climate. Would you call the CEO of Boeing an aircraft expert?

Also, is Wikipedia a credible source?

 

[bradrs]

Al Gore invented climate change after he invented the internet, so it is tough to dispute his expertise in either subject.

 

[SwinnyGG]

You gave me a list of names of people that have made observations about climate or head agencies that say things about climate

Oh really?

A few of the job titles/areas of study from names on that list:

-director of Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Studies, former chief scientist of NASA
-Lead author, IPCC Third Assessment Report
-Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
-climatologist at The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research
-polar climatologist, first director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center
-atmospheric scientist, emeritus professor at Stony Brook University
-professor of Physical Climate Change at University of Leeds
-hydroclimatologist, hydrologic impacts of climate change, snowfall/snowmelt responses, water adaptation strategies, consequences of sea level rise
-oceanographer and climate modeller, founding director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
-glaciologist and climatologist specializing in major climatic shifts
-meteorologist and former vice-president of the World Meteorological Organization
-cryosphere-hydrosphere-lithosphere interactions, and sea level rise and its impact on human populations
-boundary layer research, hydrometeorology and environmental impact research, and weather forecasting
-glaciologist and hydrologist, former director of the Nansen Environmental Research Center (NERSC), Bergen, Norway and research director of the Climate Change and Glaciology Laboratory (at CECs), Valdivia, Chile. Former Vice President of the International Commission on Snow and Ice Hydrology (under IAHS).
-global geodynamic modeling and ice sheet reconstructions; atmospheric and oceanic waves and turbulence
-terrestrial processes in global and regional climate modelling, model evaluation and earth systems approaches to understanding climate change
-professor at the University of Neuchâtel and senior scientist at Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL.
-climatologist, was an author for the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
-climate physicist and oceanographer, director of IBS Center for Climate Physics
-regional climate change projections for Australia. A lead author of the IPCC third and fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change.
-paleoclimatologist, senior scientist at GKSS

That list is not a list of people who saw some clouds and said 'oh hmm that seems weird, I suppose I'll make a tiktok about it because I'm sure it's global warming'

That is a list which is comprised of actual scientists who are actively engaged in climate-related fields of study.

Also, is Wikipedia a credible source?

For a list of names of people that can be easily verified to actually exist? Let's go ahead and hear your certainly fallacious argument about why it wouldn't be.

While we're at it, here are some more Wiki links for you. I know you know what these are already because you're putting them all to work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier's_reply

 

[TugboatEng]

A list of climate profiteers. Have any of their predictions been correct? You would fire any engineer with such a terrible track record.

Here are some thoughts form a climate scientist.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~bklinger/Warming/warminghome.html

Why is Barry Klinger excluded from your list?

 

[SwinnyGG]

Here are some thoughts form a climate scientist.

Did you ready any of the information in the link you just provided? Allow me to quote directly from Mr. Klinger:

There is virtually no controversy among experts - even among those who are skeptical of human influence on temperature - that humans are making big changes in the chemistry of the atmosphere

Despite these problems, we have confidence in the existence of large warming trends, which are seen in very different data sets, including measurements taken with land-based weather stations, ship-based seawater observations, and satellite data.

The importance of this greenhouse effect to the atmosphere is uncontroversial.

Doubling the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will warm the Earth by something like 2-4oK.

Thus human-induced changes in CO2 and other gases are expected to make a small change in the absolute temperature of the Earth, but one which is larger than any in recorded history and which may bring massive changes to ecosystems and society.

The ability of models to reproduce 20th century warming is a sign that the models are not wildly inaccurate. However, they do not allow us to be any more definitive, due to a number of factors.

Strangely enough, it can be easier to predict things further in the future than closer.

From 1990 to 2010, observed Global Mean Surface Temperature increased at a rate of .12oC/decade, within the range implied by the climate models reported in 1990.

Therefore human activity is the best hypothesis for explaining global warming.

No climate model has reproduced 20th century warming by incorporating these alternatives rather than greenhouse gas increases. Whatever the shortcomings of climate models, they have been more extensively tested than the non-existent simulations demonstrating a different mechanism. Any skepticism about model-based evidence for a human cause applies doubly to other hypothesized causes backed by little more than speculation.

Some individual scientists, including meteorologists and physicists, argue that humans have a relatively small effect on climate. While these scientists receive great attention in the popular press and in Congress, they seem to be a small minority among climate researchers.

Surveys of scientists in climate-related fields have found high levels of agreement that humans are likely to be causing global warming. For instance, among published members of the American Meteorological Society (Stenhouse et al., 2013),

75%: global warming at least about half caused "by human activity",
5%: global warming not happening or mostly caused "by natural events",
20%: various levels of uncertainty.

In conclusion, the main scientific bodies and a large majority of scientists in climate-related fields believe that much of global warming is caused by humans. A small minority disagrees.

Are you done yet? Do you truly not recognize how ridiculous your position is?

 

[TugboatEng]

Are you saying his information isn't credible and that's why he was excluded from your Wikipedia list?

 

[TugboatEng]

If you weren't so busy misinterpreting my comments you would know that I have posted some about alternative climate change. It's an interesting model that makes a few assumptions. Primarily that human emissions mostly affect the bottom of the atmosphere and the top of the oceans. It uses enthalpy in its models. The conclusion is that our energy consumption is the cause of the heating and not CO2. It supports the idea that we need to reduce consumption. I stand on that side of the argument. CO2 reduction hasn't been proven to reduce energy consumption. Controversialy, it also says that nuclear is not a solution due to its very low efficiency.

 

[SwinnyGG]

I'll quote again.

No climate model has reproduced 20th century warming by incorporating these alternatives rather than greenhouse gas increases. Whatever the shortcomings of climate models, they have been more extensively tested than the non-existent simulations demonstrating a different mechanism. Any skepticism about model-based evidence for a human cause applies doubly to other hypothesized causes backed by little more than speculation.

 

[TugboatEng]

What do you think that means?

 

[SwinnyGG]

From your own source, for the third time:

No climate model has reproduced 20th century warming by incorporating these alternatives rather than greenhouse gas increases. Whatever the shortcomings of climate models, they have been more extensively tested than the non-existent simulations demonstrating a different mechanism. Any skepticism about model-based evidence for a human cause applies doubly to other hypothesized causes backed by little more than speculation.

 

[TugboatEng]

So he admits to shortcomings in the climate models...

 

[GregLocock]

Shortcomings? I'll say so.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?