I have honoured Choice’s desire to have us concentrate on other matters aside from Climate Change but some comments in this thread have compelled me to respond. I apologise to Choice for my retort here and will limit myself to this entry.
I will just say that much of the same is repeated again and again by AGW Climate Change deniers and people get hooked by their lines. When it started it was there is no such thing as Global Warming/Climate Change then it became as more evidence appeared to the contrary of that position “Yes the Climate is Changing but it is a natural process of”…the normal effect of our rotation around the sun, volcanic activity, normal cycles of ice ages and warming, and so on.
The vast majority of Scientists studying Climate Change/AGW and who also are stating quite clearly that Climate Change/AGW is happening & it is driven by Man (anthropogenic) are Reputable, Knowledgeable, Scientifically Rigorous Scientists , and you say they don’t understand the science???
For any that wish to read some heavy hitting detail of what anthropogenic Climate Change if unchecked could be at worst see these articles:
By not providing your contrarian opinions you most certainly have biased the survey. You have - as you admitted - not even read the entire survey so have decided not to provide your views that ‘climate change is a myth’. Yes, the survey did provide plenty of opportunities for you to say what you thought, but you prejudged it (why should I be surprised?).
It seems that nobody does, and yet so many people seem to be able to spew the talking points of the Murdoch press very well - and the man does make a lot of money by selling papers and broadcasting entertainment.
The common comment that one expects is that one is a commie - i.e. implying that one’s political views have anything to do with scientific fact. I was simply surprised, given your implied views, that you took the road less travelled.
Re-read what I wrote. A little more carefully, I suggest.
Oh boy - which country are we in, again? You have no right to free speech in Australia - were you not aware of that? I’m not stopping you from saying silly things, but don’t try to pretend that you have some cherished ‘right’ that does not exist here!
I think it is important to repeat this, given that your work has been prejudged based upon politics rather than science.
So let’s fiddle while Rome burns? What an incredible idea! (For the pedants, I am aware that Nero did not in fact commit this egregious breach of manners of which he was charged.)
Firstly, time has already ‘told’. How long do you want to wait, and how many studies should be done (wait, not with taxpayer dollars - and of course we can’t trust scientists… you’ll never actually be convinced will you?)! Secondly, you think the scientists are all wrong - but what if there was a one in ten thousand chance that they are right? You have just doomed future humans to unimaginable horrors on some hunch! That’s not simply illogical, it’s criminal. You state that in your opinion we cannot change things - but again, look at the science!
And of course your post doesn’t address your previous claim about wasting taxpayer money. You claim to be respectful to other posters, but cannot even manage to apologise for smearing a student conducting their first survey?
As a side note, can I recommend paragraphs? They’re this great invention, whereby you separate your stream of consciousness into separate sub-topics, and thus make the reader’s task so much easier.
(There are also a few places in your comments where a ‘period’ or ‘full stop’ might come in handy - just a tip .)
No - again, that’s your misreading of what I said; don’t blame @natural.thought for it.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying here. Are you demanding that one or more people stop replying to you? That seems somewhat disrespectful to me, but different strokes…
Because geologists are experts on climate change? Why shouldn’t one read Ian Plimer, if one wants to read some geological illogicality? (Hint: I did, and that was what pushed me out of the ‘denialist’ camp into reading more of the real climate scientists’ work.)
Geologists are very good at geology, but they deal with climate change over millennia - not over centuries. The current changes are occurring over decades, and so what geologists have to say when they try to apply their own science to the current problems is often poorly considered and utterly lacking in contextual understanding. Of course, some geologists understand this and are able to learn - which is why most agree with the consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
Are these those things scientists put on at the Ig Nobels, embarrassing themselves and their colleagues alike?
More importantly, are you disputing that particular claim or the entire concept of anthropogenic climate change? Because as someone else has already pointed out, you have cherry picked one carefully selected item in an enormous field of scientific endeavour that all points in one direction and that is continuously improving, to say in effect “it must all be wrong because this one thing!!!” - which is an incredible failure of reason.
This is why people get annoyed by your cherry picking - it ignores the wood that is falling, and says “that tree over there is still upright, so there’s no problem!”.
Yes, well I did my best to wade through these papers which present a hugely catastrophic and totally unrealistic picture of the world to come. Many of the comments following the first two articles show how overwrought and inaccurate the articles were.
The UNIPCC which is the major provider of the most carefully researched information on climate change shows nothing like the scenarios presented.
In a just-published paper in Nature, the scientists said there was a less than one-in-40 chance of climate sensitivity being greater than 4C. The paper also found the most likely outcome would be an increase of 2.8C by the end of the century with 66% confidence limits. This matches quite well with the IPCC’s “likely” range of 2.2C - 3.4C.
Hurricanes in the North Atlantic are not increasing. The UNIPCC says that the “current data sets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century”. In fact, the arrival of Irma and Harvey last year ended an unprecedented 12 year hurricane drought.
Nor are sea levels rising at an accelerated rate. NASA shows that the long-term rise in sea levels is 3.4mm per year on average, and according to NASA’s own analysis if this continues, the oceans will rise only 340mm over a century — a little over a foot.
And as for the interview with Michael Mann, the less said the better. His “Hockey Stick” has been thoroughly discredited, and his forecast of run-away warming somewhere in this decade has not eventuated. He is still refusing to table his research papers and is now in breach of a Canadian court order to do so.
Context. Isolating one fact from many is known as cherry-picking.
Yes, well I only used the term “Cherry picking” because it was used somewhere else I seem to recall. There are lots of other sources I could have used but chose what I thought had the strongest provenance.
Do you actually have a problem with the UNIPCC’s statement?
[quote=“marmot, post:45, topic:14970”]
Do you actually have a problem with the UNIPCC’s statement?
[/quote]You embarrass yourself with your feeble attempt at sophistry. Did you read the entire IPCC statement?
If there’s merit to your position, then scientific bodies of national or international standing will maintain formal opinions that support it. Name those bodies.
Very few people seem to understand that the warming possibly caused by increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic. ie., You have to keep doubling the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere to get a 1C increase in temperature. This is acknowledged by both climate warmists and climate realists. Thus the more CO2 you put in, the smaller the warming effect.
There is also an understanding that the sensitivity of clouds is poorly understood. Again, the UNIPCC acknowledges this. On the one hand, it is thought that clouds trap heat and reflect it back to earth; on the other, the theory is that a warmer climate causes higher ocean evaporation levels which in return produce more clouds which (particularly if they are cumulus and therefor white) both reflect heat back into space, and result in increased rainfall which cools the planet. There has been no conclusive resolution to this issue over several decades. I recall that the reduced reflection caused by shrinking ice masses (the albedo) was mentioned in one of the more hysterical pieces referenced above.
Well, that’s a rise of 2.6mm a year over 26 years. Should we be very afraid? Elsewhere NOAA says it’s more like 3.4mm. measuring sea levels is highly complex, and the levels do not rise evenly throughout the oceans. The most accurate records are land based, but these have to be calibrated against the rise or fall of the land mass to which they are attached. Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour is on one of the most stable bases, and it shows almost no change in over a hundred yeras.
It is complicated as you note regarding clouds and chemicals in the atmosphere but the models continue to improve, and as you saw, the sea level is different in different places, but (and you did not do this, you just made the observation so it is a handy bit) if one used Ft.Denison in Sydney Harbour as ‘the data’ one would have a quite different view than if one used the Solomon Islands or the east coast of the USA. I find the last link to be the most interesting.
Taking any individual datum (or problem such as cloud cover, etc) as evidence by itself does an injustice and is cherry picking; taking it all together is complex and the interactions are the subject of scientific debate. Climate science tries to piece it all together to find trends on a large scale where it is accurate, but it is rarely accurate on a local or all regional scales at once. Those not at that level (no pun intended) are encouraged to educate themselves as there are exceptions somewhere, that are called out by the minority as incontrovertible evidence, but exceptions do not disprove global large scale trends over large areas, but they add the questions ‘why’, and the questions are slowly getting answered.
The challenges are to predict, observe, respond and adapt (the adapt phase can require significant pre-planning (political, economic, environmental) in case it gets ‘nasty’) over decades as agriculture and all food production has to shift, and as that shifts and humans (eg use more A/C or heat, a change in animal and plant populations) how does that feed back into the ecosystems?
As much as I would like to continue this dialogue it started as a thread about an opinion survey and has evolved into an interesting to and fro, but I am making a resolution this will be my last post here.
[quote=“marmot, post:44, topic:14970”]
… I did my best to wade through these papers …
[/quote]Which you evidently believe you’re better able to interpret than the best qualified minds on the planet. Is that rational?
[quote=“marmot, post:44, topic:14970”]
…
Nor are sea levels rising at an accelerated rate. …
[/quote]Yet NASA still seems quite concerned. Perhaps the issues are more complex than your amateur analysis can fathom.
[quote=“marmot, post:44, topic:14970”]
And as for the interview with Michael Mann, … His “Hockey Stick” has been thoroughly discredited,
[/quote]The so-called “hockey stick” has been repeatedly confirmed. At last count, by almost 700 different measures.
[quote=“marmot, post:44, topic:14970”]
… He is still refusing to table his research papers and is now in breach of a Canadian court order to do so.
[/quote]In a denialist’s dreams. Here’s a Fake News alert and an analysis by Greg Laden.
[quote=“marmot, post:49, topic:14970”]
Oh for Heaven’s sake! …
[/quote]1. So you haven’t actually read the statement. From that, I infer that your cherry-picked factoids were picked for you.
2. So there’s no such body. Ergo, there’s no merit to your position.
I presume that you don’t link to your sources because they’re all of the lunatic fringe. While you rely on the likes of Fox News, Jo Nova and Anthony Watts, you’ll risk making a fool of yourself.
The first law of holes is; when you find you’re in one, stop digging. But keep it up. You’re giving me no end of laughs.
David 4. This is a forum about a survey, not about climate change. I’m also afraid I find your ramblings above close to incoherent. I stated clearly where the facts I used came from, namely, the UNIPCC, NOAA and NASA. None came from Fox News (don’t even know what it is), Jo Nova or Anthony Watts.
You site articles by David Wallace-Wells as showing how disastrous forthcoming climate change will be. But he’s only a journalist who admits himself that he over-emphasises what he believes will be forthcoming catastrophes to frighten people into taking action against future warming. 17 climate scientists reviewed his articles (including your fave, Michael Mann) and all of them condemned him for the unnecessarily alarmist nature of his writings and his tampering with the facts. You’ll find it all on the “Climate Feedback” website.
Reply if you wish, but as far as I am concerned the matter is closed. This is not the forum for it.
I have not bothered repeating the comments already pointed out. Here are some additional points I don’t think were covered.
Video:
Video name “Ive Melt 3” I suspect that it should be “Ice Melt 3”?
Suggested improvements for video:
When talking about compounding effect, need to have a graphic to explain it clearly
CFC and the ozone hole: the hole is not “replenishing”. The hole is reducing in size, OR, the ozone is being replenished.
Also, when talking, control your hand movements. It is appropriate to use hands and arms when relevant (talking about globe do a sphere shape) and when emphasising, but otherwise keep still. It’s distracting to have hands moving about in the shot.
Questionnaire:
Need to have a ‘prefer not to say’ in the “Do you actively practice in your faith, if you have one?” question.
My skin is pretty thick. There’s no personal offence to me when someone highlights an inconsistency with my work. I simply fix it, learn from it, and move on; nothing personal!
Hey @meltam, thanks for the constructive feedback!
As for the video name, that was a bit of a joke made by my videographer while he was editing the videos. I decided to roll with it for the research project because the name of the video is not important. When I make the video public on YouTube, however, I will formulate a more effective name.
Yes, I should have had a graphic explaining the compunding effect of increasing temperatures! Watching it over after the video had been completed, that section didn’t sit well with me - being too wordy. A graphic is a great idea.
My wording is a little ambiguous there, thank you. The hole definitely is not getting bigger, but smaller.
I’m fairly new to the whole hosting videos thing, so I was quite nervous presenting, but I will be more conscious of my hand movements in future work.
Thanks again for the great feedback. I’ve written it all down.
My apologies for the direction this thread took for a moment. While my intentions were for a simple thread about my university project, it temporarily turned into a bit of a debate over whether the facts of climate change are real or not. I guess this is to be expected, considering the wide range of opinions and world views that make this community thrive!
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to collect data from our fellow consumers! It has been crucial to increase the integrity of the data. As scientific thinkers, we all know that the higher the sample size, the more reliable the data can be.
Thanks everyone!
P.S. I will post the results of the survey once the data has been analysed.
When I was at uni, questionnaire design was a semester subject unto itself. It’s really hard to do correctly. Add to that the video, and all the other stuff, it’s a complex thing.
If you are going to do presentations/videos/etc, think about doing some Toastmasters or similar.
Ooh I wish we had a whole subject for questionnaire design! I guess it’s not entirely relevant for the major I’m studying (Environmental Science and Environmental Sustainability), but would be very helpful for my masters in science communication.
Interesting topic. I put that a masters suggests you have ‘mastered’ the topic, but I doubt anyone, anywhere has fully mastered it so the title should be reserved for doctoral work as it remains research in progress on how to do it so all the dullards, and especially pollies, understand something about the topic of a communication, and importantly to assure ‘the audience’ can separate fact from BS from a rigorously defended dissenting opinion.
.)
