The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

=[Old Tele man]Climate = what has happened over eons (PAST tense).
Weather = what happens day to day (PRESENT tense).

What do you call what happens tomorrow(FUTUE tense)?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

Ok

What qualifies in your mind to be considered a scientific source?

Please give examples.





Ignoring the elephant in the room does not make it go away...


>

Not to butt in,however I'd like to nominate;
*SCIENCE
*NATURE
*Scientific American
*National Geographic
*Rolling Stone

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

How important are hurricanes that do not reach land?

How long should I grow my grass to best sequester carbon?

We have already had more snow than we did last winter.

What will be of interest to a climatologist will be :
*Surface water temperature (latent heat/enthalpy)
*tropopause temperature
*initial vorticity
*steering winds
*deep water mixing
*water depth
*sub-sea topography
*vertical wind shear
*rapid intensification
*storm wind intensity
*storm duration
*storm track (example:does it follow the Gulf Loop Current?)
*Precipitation magnitude
*storm velocity (Will it stall?)
*storm surge
*high tide?
whether they land fall or not.Total available energy is the primary interest.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

Apparently you didn’t read the report.

Here it is.

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...b-bd9faf4dcdb7




Quote.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”


Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.


“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.


“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.



And there are many more...



Quote.


This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties and caveats. This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.





OPINION based on the evidence or the lack there of.





The original Senate report was published 12/11/2008 at the end of the Bush administration.

The updated report includes 59 more scientists and was published 3/16/2009 during the Obama administration.

Nothing to do with the current administration.








Climategate - See definition of conspiracy.


Climategate II

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe.../#776a6b8b1323

Again, a conspiracy to manipulate the results.

Not a theory.

Not bunk...


>

The quoted testimony encompasses sometimes unscientific,or contextual comments,without specificity.
'Truth' is not a word used within the scientific community.
I don't know about the IPCC,but referees for science publications do screen paper submissions for 'cranks' and 'nutters'.And they're the only ones qualified to make the distinction.
No scientist has ever said that climate change is solely driven by anthropogenic carbon.It's only a component of warming.However,what lies outside the signal-to-noise ratio of natural variability DOES attribute anthropogenic carbon as the driver.
There's no other atmospheric coupling of such magnitude that can explain the warming.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by niky

The wind is slowing down

Interesting. Surface roughness can explain some areas, but not all.

Temperature gradients cannot be ignored.

They've gone up by 15% in Antarctica.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by freebeard

What do you call what happens tomorrow(FUTUE tense)?

PREDICTION...or as we called in USN, "weather guessing."

[oil pan 4]

Climate guessing.

[niky]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I've been looking at some papers which address this issue and will have more to add later,but it looks like the breadth of the early data,pales in comparison to more modern recorded measurements.
We've more recently had more terrestrial measurement/telemetry,seagoing reported data/telemetry,full-time meteorological data telemetry,airborne sensing/reporting,space-based sensing/telemetry,higher resolution measurements,greater quantitative measurements,higher frequency of measurements,etc..,more reporting infrastructure than ever before.
As of 1999,people were still 'discovering' forgotten databases of archival weather records,which have been undergoing digitizing, such that the data will allow global access to the data to any interested researcher.
Before 1970,there was less information available at the time,it was patchy,and inspired less confidence in comparisons.
The researchers are just playing a game of catch-up.
If you're looking for conspiracies,then confirmation bias is all you need.

What's funny is that you can't even take those old measurements at face value. Variability in testing sites, equipment and conditions.

I believe I shared in here several months ago a discussion of tidal gauges, and the debate among researchers as to what the proper correction factors are for those gauges against satellite measurements.

What stood out is the realization that the lithosphere is truly a plastic thing. When you measure water levels, you're measuring them against gauges that will move up and down with the land it is on as the land rises or sinks due to any number of reasons... tectonic plates moving against each other, or rising or sinking due to the weight of ice or water, underground water, etcetera.

When people see a vast scientific conspiracy to "hide the truth", I laugh. Getting thousands of scientists to conspire on anything would require lobby money on the level of... well... oil companies.

That those companies are instead funding the denialists tells you something. They'd rather not waste their money building a majority consensus. More effective to create the illusion of conspiracy.

Originally Posted by aerohead

The quoted testimony encompasses sometimes unscientific,or contextual comments,without specificity.
'Truth' is not a word used within the scientific community.
I don't know about the IPCC,but referees for science publications do screen paper submissions for 'cranks' and 'nutters'.And they're the only ones qualified to make the distinction.
No scientist has ever said that climate change is solely driven by anthropogenic carbon.It's only a component of warming.However,what lies outside the signal-to-noise ratio of natural variability DOES attribute anthropogenic carbon as the driver.
There's no other atmospheric coupling of such magnitude that can explain the warming.

I was looking through some of the links. One scientist, on his blog complains that - personally knowing one of the scientists quoted - the guy was being taken out of context.

There are genuine skeptics there who propose that there are greater forcings than carbon, but they don't deny the data outright. Not like the politicians who composed the report do.

Originally Posted by aerohead

They've gone up by 15% in Antarctica.

Increased warmth. Melting?

[NeilBlanchard]

Why were oil companies lying about climate change since at least the 1970's - and now they acknowledge it is happening because of burning fossil fuels?

Could it be that those who are profiting from fossil fuels have been funding the FUD and the conspiracy theories?

[RedDevil]

Conspiracy theories do hide the truth. They are the #1 defense mechanism for anyone who can't deal with unwelcome facts when they become too obvious to ignore.