Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@MontereyJack,

No. Facts are not opinions.

I realize that progressives find facts extremely inconvenient, but they are not opinions.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Peer review should be designed to ensure good science, not to suppress facts that are inconvenient to the progressive narrative.

You don't know what "peer" means, I think.
And/Or you have an a different opinion to what has been done by academics traditionally since the first "peer reviewed" paper was published in 1731.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

The usual goal of peer review is to ensure good science.

Using peer review to ensure bad science is a novel approach.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Peer review has to do with "good science" - that's why those qualified members of a profession within the relevant field refuse sometimes faked or incomplete data etc.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Normally yes. But in the case of climate journals, peer review is instead being used to block data that is inconvenient to the leftist narrative.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

It's precisely their function to block publication of shoddy, inaccurate or manipulated data.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

That is why it is such a problem when climate journals instead block quality data and publish shoddy data.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Your opinion is known since years.

1 Reply

Climate Change Affected Australia’s Wildfires, Scientists Confirm

Quote:

Confirming what had been widely suspected, researchers have found that human-caused climate change had an impact on Australia’s recent devastating wildfires, making the extremely high-risk conditions that led to widespread burning at least 30 percent more likely than in a world without global warming.

The researchers said the full influence of climate change on the fires was probably much greater, but that climate simulations, which form the basis of this type of study, underestimate trends in extreme heat in Australia compared with real-world observational data.

“We’re very sure that is a definite number we can scientifically defend,” said the lead author of the study, Geert Jan van Oldenborgh of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, referring to the 30 percent figure.

But the real influence of climate change on the recent fire season in Australia is greater, he added. “We think it is much larger than that, but we can’t prove that until we find out why there is this discrepancy between the observations and the climate models.”

The research is the latest in a growing subfield of climate science: attribution studies that look for links, or the lack of them, between climate change and specific weather-related events, often within weeks of an event. The studies usually compare models of current conditions to those of the world around 1900, before large-scale emissions of carbon dioxide and other planet-warming gases began.

The Australian study was conducted, like many others, by an international group of scientists called World Weather Attribution. It was made public on Wednesday before being peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal, but scientists with the group said it followed what are now well-established practices for such studies.
... ... ...

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Rest assured that no quality data has been blocked from publication. Even the decade-old snowpack article you presented as an example was actually published.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I am not assured of that at all. There clearly is an effort to block data that is inconvenient to the left. And there is also clearly acceptance of this effort to block data.

I see no reason to trust climate "science" given the current state of things.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Your opinion is known since years.

Yes. I was complaining about this at least as far back as 2012.

Are you of the opinion that it is a good thing for climate journals to block the publication of data that they find inconvenient?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

You have zero reliable information on climate science. You just ignore it because you swallow big oil propaganda hook line and sinker.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

You have zero reliable information on climate science.

Neither does anyone else.

Olivier5 wrote:

You just ignore it because you swallow big oil propaganda hook line and sinker.

No I don't. I ignore it because it is clear that the "scientists" are basing their conclusions on cherry-picked data.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Oh I know something on climate science.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Your knowledge is based on cherry-picked data.

In other words, what you "know" is unlikely to be true.

Like Ronald Reagan once said:

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Eunice Newton Foote, an American scientist, physicist, inventor, and women's rights campaigner from Seneca Falls, NY, experimented with glass tubes of different gases exposed to sunlight in 1856. She noted that the warming effect of the sun was greater for compressed air than for an evacuated tube, and greater for moist air than dry air. "Thirdly, the highest effect of the sun's rays I have found to be in carbonic acid gas." (carbon dioxide)

She continued: "An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature; and if, as some suppose, at one period of its history, the air had mixed with it a larger proportion than at present, an increased temperature from its own action, as well as from increased weight, must have necessarily resulted."

In 1859, Irish physicist John Tyndall investigated the absorption of infrared radiation in different gases. He found that water vapor, hydrocarbons like methane (CH4), and carbon dioxide (CO2) strongly blocked the radiation, while oxygen did not.

In 1896 Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius calculated the effect of a doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide to be an increase in surface temperatures of 5–6 degrees Celsius.

So you think they faked their data huh? Why don't you expose some glass tubes to sunlight, just to check?

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

I'll probably get hammered for this, but I have a problem with the expression "human-caused climate change." Climate change is a reality, of course, but it would be happening even if there were no humans on the planet. The Little Ice Age, which lasted from the early 14th century until the late 19th century was the last significant climate change experienced and widely recognized by historians as well as scientists. The climate has been warming for about 150 years since the end of that climactic condition. It is not reasonable to suggest that climate cycles such as this, which have been occurring regularly since the end of the last ice age are caused by humans. My own opinion (and it is not more than that) is that human activity accelerates and exacerbates the rise in temperatures. It is hilarious and moronic that people deny that the climate is changing.

World population has increased by more than three orders of magnitude since the end of the Second World War. The climate would be changing right now whether or not there were humans. But as there are humans, and as human population has "exploded" (from about 2.4 billion at the end of the Second World War to more than 7.5 billion today), the dramatic rise in the partial pressure of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere has had the effect that I am saying accelerates and exacerbates this latest climate warming (relative to the Little Ice Age, and predictable based on the historical and scientific record of such changes in the past).

Tendentious language such as was used in The New York Times does a disservice to those in this idiotic debate with those who deny that the climate changes. I dislike and protest against giving ammunition to fools such as our "friend" here.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

A rare and accurate description !

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

We are now entering a period during which the sun is dimming slightly. It may give us a bit of a tempory break on global warming, delaying the worst effects to the end of the century.

Or not. Maybe the temp is still going to rise in spite of the sun dimming, and that would prove that humans can force the climate yo warm even during what would be normally a cooling period.

https://www.livescience.com/61716-sun-cooling-global-warming.html

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know