Interesting Weather Record Set Today

[jeb]

You're not paying attention then. And why would you "believe in studying climate" if you simply dismiss the data and choose to believe whatever you want anyway? What would be the point? Dylan said, "People don't do what they believe in; they just do what's most convenient, then they repent."

Who is "Dylan"? Hopefully you're not talking about a music personality in reference to science!

You know, the thing about science is that you don't know what you don't know until you know it. I'm quite certain, for example, that the "scientest" of the day that believed the earth was flat knew it as a fact that it was. Right up until they were proved dead wrong. Of course, many hertics were burned at the stake before they admitted it. Yeah, I know we'd all like to think we've moved beyond that, but the reality is we have not. Climate change/Global Warming is simply a religion at this point. I hope that changes some day. It would be awesome to be able to understand the climate and weather enough to actually predict things accurately. We are FAR from that at this point in climate science, though.

[eric1978]

Who is "Dylan"? Hopefully you're not talking about a music personality in reference to science!

You know, the thing about science is that you don't know what you don't know until you know it. I'm quite certain, for example, that the "scientest" of the day that believed the earth was flat knew it as a fact that it was. Right up until they were proved dead wrong. Of course, many hertics were burned at the stake before they admitted it. Yeah, I know we'd all like to think we've moved beyond that, but the reality is we have not. Climate change/Global Warming is simply a religion at this point. I hope that changes some day. It would be awesome to be able to understand the climate and weather enough to actually predict things accurately. We are FAR from that at this point in climate science, though.

LOL Okay, you convinced me. But just for the record, will you tell us where you got your PhD in climatology? Because I guarantee your colleagues from your alma mater disagree with you. YOU are the "scientest" who thinks the world is flat...even after it's been proven to be spherical. You've made the decision to ignore the facts because you know better than the experts. That's fine. Go on in denial. You're far from alone.

[jeb]

I have little doubt that many here firmly believe as MFU, that the world is still flat. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary, though. Too much to be ignored by those not blinded the "consensus" sceince.

[eric1978]

There is a lot of evidence to the contrary, though.

I can't wait to see some. Post it up, jeb.

[Quillback]

Here's an interesting read, the experts are still struggling to create models to predict future long term weather trends.

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-forecasting-a-break-in-the-clouds-1.10593

Here's an intresting excerpt, what they're saying is that aeresol pollutants could be masking the effects of global warming, and with the increased focus on limiting aeresol pollutants (coal from coal fired electrical plants is a prime factor), the atmosphere becomes clearer, and could lead to an even higher rate of global warming. Just an example of how complex this issue is, and the effects of unintended consequences. In other words, by "cleaning up" the atmosphere, we may be making global warming worse.

As climate researchers test drive the new generation of models, they are particularly keen to measure the models' overall sensitivity: how strongly they warm up in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. The addition of indirect aerosol effects makes the new model at NCAR more sensitive to greenhouse gases, says NCAR researcher Andrew Gettelman. Simulations show that the additional cooling from aerosol pollution, as well as the direct effect of haze, masked some of the warming from greenhouse gases during the twentieth century; but the model shows enhanced warming in the twenty-first century as curbs on pollution expose the full power of greenhouse gases. In simplified runs that double greenhouse-gas concentrations — which could happen by the end of this century — the new atmospheric model projects a 4 °C rise in global temperatures, whereas the previous model showed a 3.1 °C increase

[Outside Bend]

Strange analogy, jeb- given folks have known the earth was round for thousands of years, and there wasn't much debate about it. The earth orbiting the sun was much more controversial, and it wasn't scientists doing the persecuting. Much like now, the folks with the data were being ostracized because their position conflicted with the prevailing worldview. Doesn't mean they were wrong, though.

But your comparison of science and religion demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of what science does, or how science works. Unlike religion, science encourages skepticism- even requires it. That's just not the case with religion. Look at atom theory- ideas were proposed, tested, theories were modified based on the results, and we've been able to come up with a pretty solid idea of how atoms work and how they're structured without ever seeing inside one. It's still a theory, it still hasn't been proven, but other theories have been tested and it's the best explanation of our observations we have.

Same with climate science. It's not accepted because scientists blindly believe humans are causing global warming. It's accepted because other hypotheses have been tested, and so far human-induced climate change is the best explanation for what we're seeing, our observations and our data. That's what science does.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Maybe what some are missing is that after many decades of these rodeos you learn that not all bulls buck the same, even though they are suppose to.

Much of my interest in the debate is that after all the money and hype and people becoming richer, little progress has been made. What ever amount man has contributed to global warming the fact is the earths weather is never static. We aren't that far away from an ice age that touched this continent so it stands to reason the earth would get warmer, it always has. It's past time for more than pouring money down rat holes. OUR MONEY has not been spent wisely and as long as people are told we're in big trouble unless we will see the trend continue.

I want to see real results and broader approach to the inevitable. We are going to see some big changes in the future and we had better address them. We don't need bigger producers of necessities, we need smaller more secure ones.

[jeb]

I can't wait to see some. Post it up, jeb.

Just google 'debunking global warming'.

Look, we all know we're not going to change each others minds on the whole global warming mess. So not much sense discussing it, really.

How about we get back to alternative energy sources. I'm still waiting to hear about these claimed sources that may be cheaper, and more stable, than fossil fuels, as has been suggested.

[Tim Smith]

Just google 'debunking global warming'.

Look, we all know we're not going to change each others minds on the whole global warming mess. So not much sense discussing it, really.

How about we get back to alternative energy sources. I'm still waiting to hear about these claimed sources that may be cheaper, and more stable, than fossil fuels, as has been suggested.

There's really not much point in talking to you about alternative energy, Jeb. Your understandings about why it is important are based on bad information and as OB points out, a complete misunderstanding about science. Talking to you with the approach you're taking to alternative energy would be like talking to the short kid on the Jr. High basketball team about how to palm the ball when they dunk. You're not ready for it yet.

You try to characterize as "religion" what over 30 years of careful climate research has worked toward over the years to attain. You ridicule the term "climate change" as if that's some kind of concession to your point when in fact the data are clear that the climate is warming and it shouldn't matter what the process were called. You talk about "consensus science" as if that were a bad thing. Scientists are trained to reflexively disagree with and qualify what other scientists discover. Once 97% of climatologists and every national academy of science in the world accepts something as fact it's past time to put the basics of the discussion to bed and get real.

And your web sites about debunking global warming don't have a point in them that hasn't been addressed (probably even on this web site) and debunked.

Ridicule you? No. Disagree with you? Completely. Wish you would change your TV channels once in a while? Please. Soon.

[eric1978]

Just google 'debunking global warming'.

If you look a little further at the sites that pop up when you google "debunking global warming," you'll find that about 99% of them will ultimately lead back to the oil industry.

If you know of a website run by legitemate, accredited scientists who have data that is contradictory to the conventional understanding of current climate science, please do share it. But I doubt you can find any such website, since real, objective scientists are all on the other side of the debate.