• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Global Cooling Is Under Way

istodolez said:
You admitted you have not real scientific training apart from some intro classes.

And, of course, I can also see how lax you are with things like time-series statistics...so that's a big red flag.

I have little doubt you can read and possibly understand some of the data, but I doubt it is sufficient to the task of taking a solid side against the mainstream science. This is not a "hit" against you, in many ways I share that limitation. While I have more advanced scientific training and experience than you (by a long shot) I am not sufficiently familiar with the subtle details of climate modeling or the extremes of the math necessary.

Since I, with far more actual experience in science and statistics than you, don't feel perfectly confident in this area I am highly doubtful that a guy who sat in on a few intro science classes in undergrad and who "knows" some scientists who visit him has a clear view of if this is a real "revolution" or not.
Click to expand...

We shall see.
 
istodolez said:
Well, "real" debate involves people who better understand the topic. This is a "discussion" forum insofar as folks like you with almost no experience in any of the technical side get to feel like your "opinions" carry significant weight.

Peanut Gallery.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I note when you asked what I believe and why, and I provided same with supporting links, all you did was retreat to an authority argument and the consensus claim that's too often a marker for weak evidence. You don't have the high ground.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but I note when you asked what I believe and why, and I provided same with supporting links, all you did was retreat to an authority argument and the consensus claim that's too often a marker for weak evidence. You don'[t have the high ground.
Click to expand...

Like I said. I think we have another fake scientists here.

He makes good debating points, but I haven't seen him address anything scientific!

Look at the thread Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling. In posts 108 and 109, I took some (wasted?) time putting together a well thought out response. See his response 110 to it.

What a joke...
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

Your criticism is funny and hypocritical, since you cannot or refuse to address my remarks in the other thread regarding GWP...
Click to expand...

Actually your points are quite interesting. I'm pondering them, but then it IS Sunday and I'm trying to decide when I want to dig down into it.

I know you probably didn't read my other post but I'm more than willing to admit that, while I have extensive experience in physical science, I'm not a climate scientist myself so I'm willing to grant my limitations. I could be mistaken.

My point to Jack is more around his reliance on skeptic blogs and his continual discussion of climate skeptics as if they are a legitimate scientific revolution. As noted earlier when one lacks ANY real grounding in science it makes them more prone to drawing radically wrong conclusions.

I'm not saying Jack is ipso facto wrong, just that based on some of the rookie mistakes he supports coupled with his admission of lack of any real scientific background other than a couple intro classes biases the likely outcome to getting it wrong.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Like I said. I think we have another fake scientists here.
Click to expand...

And that may be the case.

He makes good debating points, but I haven't seen him address anything scientific!
Click to expand...

So YOU think windowing time series data is legitimate?

Look at the thread Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling. In posts 108 and 109, I took some (wasted?) time putting together a well thought out response. See his response 110 to it.

What a joke...
Click to expand...

I actually understand your pain here. There was a time years ago when I debated skeptics and deniers and I really dug into the data myself and I would formulate these detailed, statistically robust responses based on working from raw data and the response was pretty much non-existent. It is painful. But after years of it I got bored with obsessing on it to that level.

Rest assured that your points are of significant interest for me precisely for the reason that you put effort into it. Just don't mistake YOUR interest in yourself with MY interest in you or your points. They're there and percolating.

It's Sunday, I'm not sufficiently bored with the things I actually HAVE to do to set aside time to consider your well-crafted points. Maybe I will. Maybe I won't. If you knew more about how life goes online you'd be more familiar with how that goes. Sometimes people cooperate with you, sometimes they don't.
 
istodolez said:
Actually your points are quite interesting. I'm pondering them, but then it IS Sunday and I'm trying to decide when I want to dig down into it.

I know you probably didn't read my other post but I'm more than willing to admit that, while I have extensive experience in physical science, I'm not a climate scientist myself so I'm willing to grant my limitations. I could be mistaken.

My point to Jack is more around his reliance on skeptic blogs and his continual discussion of climate skeptics as if they are a legitimate scientific revolution. As noted earlier when one lacks ANY real grounding in science it makes them more prone to drawing radically wrong conclusions.

I'm not saying Jack is ipso facto wrong, just that based on some of the rookie mistakes he supports coupled with his admission of lack of any real scientific background other than a couple intro classes biases the likely outcome to getting it wrong.
Click to expand...

Jack is generally pretty good at keeping a level mind reading those blogs. I have pointed out a few things that i thought he was misinterpreting wrong before, but it's rare. My take on the cooling is a little different. I see it as a distinct possibility, but only that. And I have explicitly stated several times that we would have to see the next few solar cycles to weaken to see cooling.

I am rather pissed of your response in post 110 in that other thread. It appears you are taking a cheap shot at me, that I had to look up an acronym. The theory of such things I am well aware of. I am starting to wonder if you have the scientific background you claim to have. More than once, we have had some jackass in these threads posing as a scientific expert of one field or another, that was just lying.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Jack is generally pretty good at keeping a level mind reading those blogs. I have pointed out a few things that i thought he was misinterpreting wrong before, but it's rare. My take on the cooling is a little different. I see it as a distinct possibility, but only that. And I have explicitly stated several times that we would have to see the next few solar cycles to weaken to see cooling.
Click to expand...

You don't see cooling. You see noise in the data. Interpreting short term trends within longer time-series data is simply bad statistics.

I am rather pissed of your response in post 110 in that other thread. It appears you are taking a cheap shot at me, that I had to look up an acronym.
Click to expand...

It might have been a "cheap shot" but considering that we ARE talking about things related to IR and gas absorption I should think you would have been far more familiar with it. Personally I'm not particularly invested in you or your points. Sorry if you are thin skinned. If you've never been in an academic setting above undergrad you might be shocked to see how brutal and what sharp elbows people have.

The theory of such things I am well aware of. I am starting to wonder if you have the scientific background you claim to have.
Click to expand...

You'll have to wonder.

More than once, we have had some jackass in these threads posing as a scientific expert of one field or another, that was just lying.
Click to expand...

Sure, could be. Could be.

If you and Jack think windowing time-series data to find the trends you like is somehow "legit" then I guess I have to wonder about YOUR expertise in any of this as well!

:)
 
Jack Hays said:
We shall see.
Click to expand...

Yes, we shall. Weather forecasting and long-term climate predicting are extremely complex matters. As I was looking at weather websites on the possibility of hurricanes affecting our little island, I found the following: 'Extremely active' hurricane season possible for Atlantic Basin

NOAA urges preparedness as we enter peak months for hurricane development

The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season has been off to a rapid pace with a record-setting nine named storms so far and has the potential to be one of the busiest on record. Historically, only two named storms form on average by early August, and the ninth named storm typically does not form until October 4. An average season produces 12 named storms, including six hurricanes of which three become major hurricanes (Category 3, 4, or 5).

“This is one of the most active seasonal forecasts that NOAA has produced in its 22-year history of hurricane outlooks. (. . .) The updated outlook calls for 19-25 named storms (winds of 39 mph or greater), of which 7-11 will become hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or greater), including 3-6 major hurricanes (winds of 111 mph or greater). This update covers the entire six-month hurricane season, which ends Nov. 30, and includes the nine named storms to date.
(. . .)
Current oceanic and atmospheric conditions that make an “extremely active” hurricane season possible are warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea, reduced vertical wind shear, weaker tropical Atlantic trade winds and an enhanced west African monsoon. These conditions are expected to continue for the next several months. A main climate factor behind these conditions is the ongoing warm phase of the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation, which reappeared in 1995 and has been favoring more active hurricane seasons since that time.
Click to expand...

and what does this have to do with your earlier comment?
Another contributing climate factor this year is the possibility of La Nina developing in the months ahead. Indicative of cooler-than-average sea surface temperatures in the equatorial regions of the eastern Pacific Ocean, La Nina can further weaken the wind shear over the Atlantic Basin, allowing storms to develop and intensify.
Click to expand...

Interesting, don't ya think? One group of oceanographers sees a small chance of La Nina developing (< 40%) while the hurricane-focused weather guys think La Nina is one of the factors that could bring more and stronger storms to the Atlantic.
 
istodolez said:
You don't see cooling. You see noise in the data. Interpreting short term trends within longer time-series data is simply bad statistics.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Did you miss the part of "the next few solar cycles..." This is decades...

istodolez said:
It might have been a "cheap shot" but considering that we ARE talking about things related to IR and gas absorption I should think you would have been far more familiar with it.
Click to expand...
My assumption is, you were looking a pure gasses, and not their complementary mix in the atmosphere with other gasses.

Am I right, or wrong?

H2O effectively saturates much of the spectrum of both CO2 and CH4, making the absorption of the changes in CO2 and CH4 far different than in their pure form, or in an inert gas mix.

istodolez said:
Personally I'm not particularly invested in you or your points.
Click to expand...
Does that imply you are not here to debate, but just put out your viewpoints, and screw the rest? Criticize others without consideration of merit? Is that the message you are telling me?


istodolez said:
If you've never been in an academic setting above undergrad you might be shocked to see how brutal and what sharp elbows people have.
Click to expand...
Oh trust me, I have been around such things often. I'm surprised some people don't explode with the tensions of the egos inside. Is it possible your ego is high enough, that you simply dismiss valid points others have, if it challenges your preconceived thoughts?
 
Jack Hays said:
We shall see.
Click to expand...

We ARE seeing.

5b1372553917c5083c890524c124db07.jpg
 
Somerville said:
Yes, we shall. Weather forecasting and long-term climate predicting are extremely complex matters. As I was looking at weather websites on the possibility of hurricanes affecting our little island, I found the following: 'Extremely active' hurricane season possible for Atlantic Basin



and what does this have to do with your earlier comment?


Interesting, don't ya think? One group of oceanographers sees a small chance of La Nina developing (< 40%) while the hurricane-focused weather guys think La Nina is one of the factors that could bring more and stronger storms to the Atlantic.
Click to expand...

I suspect we will see a La Nina before the end of 2020, but cooling will resume regardless.
 
[h=2]New Study: A Southern Ocean Site Has Just Cooled To Ice Age-Era Temperatures – 2°C Colder Than 20,000 Years Ago[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 10. August 2020
Share this...


[h=4]A new temperature reconstruction indicates today’s sea surface temperatures are colder than all but a few millennia out of the last 156,000 years.[/h]A Southern Ocean site analyzed in a new study (Ghadi et al., 2020) has averaged 1-2°C during glacials and 4°C during interglacials. Today, with a 410 ppm CO2 concentration, this location has again plummeted to glacial/ice age levels (2°C).
The site was 2°C warmer than now when CO2 concentrations were 180 ppm about 20,000 years ago, or during the peak of the last ice age. During the Early Holocene (10,000 to 8,000 years ago), summer sea surface temperatures were also 2°C warmer than today.
There is no indication that CO2 concentration changes are in any way correlated with temperature changes throughout this entire 156,000-year epoch.
Holocene-Cooling-Southern-Ocean-Ghadi-2020.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Ghadi et al., 2020[/h]
 
Threegoofs said:
What do you expect from a guy who only took ‘Easy A’ science classes like geology in college, yet claims he’s a ‘historian of science’?
Click to expand...

Correction: ‘propagandist of science’
 
Threegoofs said:
What do you expect from a guy who only took ‘Easy A’ science classes like geology in college, yet claims he’s a ‘historian of science’?
Click to expand...

...Hey c'mon...I taught "Rocks for Jocks" for years....oh wait, yeah, that is the science class you take if you don't want to be burdened by particularly hard sciences! LOL.

I actually liked intro Geology (enough to go on to major in it), but it's not until you get up into the higher levels that it becomes a bit more challenging and then mostly in geophysics and geochem.

The really cool thing about geology is, though, that you end up having to taste almost all of the physical sciences. I remember the day I was meandering around in the stacks at my undergrad library and stumbled across the journal "Organic Geochemistry". I had been taking organic chemistry on a lark and found it was the chemistry that made the most sense to me and I loved it. Once I realized there was an entire field of organic geochem I was in love. My MS and PhD were both in organic geochem and I honestly thought I was going to spend my career as a petroleum or coal scientist. The chemistry is really, really neat for these materials as well as kerogen locked up in shales etc.

But, alas, the job scene drove me over into more mundane industrial chemistry R&D. And in some senses I'm quite glad because I see coal as a dying industry and petroleum is a tough gig.
 
istodolez said:
...Hey c'mon...I taught "Rocks for Jocks" for years....oh wait, yeah, that is the science class you take if you don't want to be burdened by particularly hard sciences! LOL.

I actually liked intro Geology (enough to go on to major in it), but it's not until you get up into the higher levels that it becomes a bit more challenging and then mostly in geophysics and geochem.

The really cool thing about geology is, though, that you end up having to taste almost all of the physical sciences. I remember the day I was meandering around in the stacks at my undergrad library and stumbled across the journal "Organic Geochemistry". I had been taking organic chemistry on a lark and found it was the chemistry that made the most sense to me and I loved it. Once I realized there was an entire field of organic geochem I was in love. My MS and PhD were both in organic geochem and I honestly thought I was going to spend my career as a petroleum or coal scientist. The chemistry is really, really neat for these materials as well as kerogen locked up in shales etc.

But, alas, the job scene drove me over into more mundane industrial chemistry R&D. And in some senses I'm quite glad because I see coal as a dying industry and petroleum is a tough gig.
Click to expand...

Never took Geology- but I know a lot of social workers and psychology majors that did.

I gravitated you Bio and Chem, then organic chem, eventually medicinal chemistry and pharmacology.
 
Threegoofs said:
Never took Geology- but I know a lot of social workers and psychology majors that did.

I gravitated you Bio and Chem, then organic chem, eventually medicinal chemistry and pharmacology.
Click to expand...

Early on in my doctorate the director of graduate studies in the geology department I was in thought I was a Chemistry grad student who occasionally hung out in the Geology department. Earlier in my academic career I was at a crossroads as to whether I wanted to be a chem major or stick with geology. For whatever reason I stuck with geology and I loved it. But I spent so much time in chemistry that when I wound up after my dissertation defense with a choice between a geology postdoc for some pitiful amount of money and a chemistry postdoc for a lot more money I went with the chemistry one and the die was cast. After that the geologists didn't recognize me as a geologist (and the chemists still saw me as "tourist" over from Geologystan).

But in the end the process was a lot of fun and provided me with sufficient background in two fields so that I could still wind up with a pretty decent career.

Like I said the thing that I studied (organic geochem) was going to set me up to be a fossil fuel guy the rest of my life. I knew what a bad source of energy those things were but the chemistry was soooo cool that I would have been willing to ignore my own qualms to work in it. I can see how some people might see a certain "conspiracy" thinking that honest scientists could hide their own knowledge from themselves to pursue the science the find fascinating. It makes me wonder how my career would have played out in the fullness of time if I'd followed that path. If I'd taken that coal postdoc after PhD. But by the same token it would be quite likely that by now I'd be unemployed in that field as it is getting much, much smaller.
 
Global Cooling Is Under Way
Click to expand...

It sure is

It's been a milder summer this year
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom