Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,807
- Reactions
- 6,787
Skeptics: including how to avoid answering basic questions on observed evidence.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/sceptics-case-melts-more-20120406-1wg35.html
Sceptics' case melts more - Gerard Wynn -SMH -April 7, 2012
A clutch of recent studies reinforces evidence that people are causing climate change and suggests debate should now move on to a more precise understanding of its impact on humans.
The reports, published in various journals in recent weeks, add new detail to the theory of climate change and by implication cast contrarians in a more desperate light.
To be clear: there's nothing wrong with doubting climate change; but doubts based on ignorance, a political bias or fossil fuel lobbying don't help.
The basics, well known, are that rising greenhouse gas emissions are almost certainly responsible for raising global average surface temperatures (by about 0.17 degrees Celsius a decade from 1980-2010), in turn leading to sea level rise (of about 2.3 millimetres a year from 2005-2010) and probably causing more frequent bouts of extreme heatwaves and possibly more erratic rainfall.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/worl...-melts-more-20120406-1wg35.html#ixzz1rIjIPZqr
GG do you ever consider events that don't happen outside your front window ? Or are they just too far away to be significant
‘Wrong sign paradox’ finally resolved?
Filed under:
Climate Science
A group of colleagues has all but solved one of the greatest remaining puzzles in climate science. But the story is not one of scientific triumph – rather, it is so embarrassing that we had controversial discussions in our group whether to break this to a wider public at all.
The puzzle is known amongst climatologists as the “wrong sign paradox” – our regular readers will probably have heard about it. Put simply, it is about the fact that a whole number of things in climate science would fit very nicely together, if only the sign were reversed. If only plus were minus.
I have to say that, while potentially embarrassing, I would much rather this news be broken honestly, on a reputable climate science blog like this one, as opposed to entering the media through some denialist source. Mistakes are part of the scientific method, and I’d much rather our side keeps the moral/scientific high ground by being honest about mistakes when we find them. So, thanks for posting this.
Hi Basilio. At page 166 of this thread, I can't recall any posters crossing the floor, hands up anyone who has. So we're dealing with entrenched attitudes all round. For the near term, the ballot box will dictate where we're headed with this.Logique many people have seen that article. It brings together a sweep of recent scientific papers that have clearly sharpened the evidence for anthropogenic climate change...
Hi Basilio. At page 166 of this thread, I can't recall any posters crossing the floor, hands up anyone who has. So we're dealing with entrenched attitudes all round. For the near term, the ballot box will dictate where we're headed with this.
Near term that is correct, but the truth will win out long term.
(1809 - 1865)
Hi Basilio. At page 166 of this thread, I can't recall any posters crossing the floor, hands up anyone who has. So we're dealing with entrenched attitudes all round. For the near term, the ballot box will dictate where we're headed with this.
Major re evaluation of Global Warming study.
Quite significant discussion on Real Climate website discussing a significant breakthrough in climate science. Offers much food for thought.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ong-sign-paradox-finally-resolved/#more-11329
And it was good to see that respondents in the Real climate website recognised the value of openly acknowledging reassessments of data
I have to say that, while potentially embarrassing, I would much rather this news be broken honestly, on a reputable climate science blog like this one, as opposed to entering the media through some denialist source. Mistakes are part of the scientific method, and I’d much rather our side keeps the moral/scientific high ground by being honest about mistakes when we find them. So, thanks for posting this./QUOTE]
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/wrong-sign-paradox-finally-resolved/
Amazing, I made it all the way to the line about solar activity and ran right smack into the words ‘coincides with the deepest solar minimum’ when I realized the paradox was the relationship between the science outlined in the article and the time segment on a per anum scale
Long term will be to late.
One may need to be bold, but with caution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?