Global Warming is over.

[decay]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

[BraveUlysses]

that article is dumb as shit

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/climate-scientists-push-back-against-catastrophic-scenarios/

Over the weekend, New York magazine ran an article entitled "The Uninhabitable Earth." Its author, David Wallace-Wells, recognized that the numbers we normally talk about in terms of future climates are typically the median of likely outcomes. Although there's a chance that things won't be as bad as the median, there's also a good chance that they can be quite a bit worse. The premise of the article was to imagine if all the possible outcomes for our planet fell on the "quite a bit worse" side.

The premise was stated clearly, so the article was obviously going to have a negative outlook. That said, Wallace-Wells still managed to get a number of things wrong. For example, scientists recognize that the melting permafrost will probably release carbon into the atmosphere. But our knowledge regarding how much is still very uncertain. Even the most pessimistic view, however, doesn't suggest we'll liberate all of it, as "The Uninhabitable Earth" suggests: "all of it scheduled to be released at a date that keeps getting moved up."

The article mischaracterizes the result of a recent revision to temperature records as showing warming is happening "more than twice as fast." (For a more realistic take, see our coverage.) It says the minimum, or best case, we can see for sea-level rise is four feet by the end of the century (that's above the median of the IPCC's projections). The article even implies that a warmer climate will somehow foster the sort of genetic changes that have altered the Zika virus' symptoms (it won't).

The response by climate scientists has been pretty negative. Michael Mann, a scientist who has been frequently called an alarmist, posted a criticism online in which he noted some of Wallace-Wells' factual errors. But more generally, he said, "The article argues that climate change will render the Earth uninhabitable by the end of this century. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The article fails to produce it."

Other complaints were lodged by scientists like Kevin Trenberth and Andrew Dessler.

[gwb72tii]

As opposed to exxon funded engineers and those with Doctorates in economics?

Glad to see your criticism and scrutiny only applies to that which you disagree with.



Great peer revision.

sorry you don't get to mislead without a correction cale

and yes i thought it was a little odd the economics man was involved, but no more odd than al gore leading the charge for catastrophic global warming

so, to be on point, here's the professional degrees of the other peer reviewers
appears to be peer reviewed to me?

Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette
M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston

Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University

IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
B.S., Physics, M.I.T.

Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
M.S., Meteorology, New York University
B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology


Edit: Cale, the Exxon funded crap is an old, discredited worn out misdirect. And frankly the funding source doesn't matter, unless somehow you believe climate scientists that owe their living to the teat of government are somehow more knowledgeable and noble?

[BraveUlysses]

ahh so after 422 posts you still dont seem to understand what peer-reviewed means

you should be embarrassed at your own ignorance

[gwb72tii]

ahh so after 422 posts you still dont seem to understand what peer-reviewed means

you should be embarrassed at your own ignorance

you'd get a lot further by engaging in debate as an adult instead of childish insults.

Too much to ask brave? Or are you just a troll as usual?

I know what peer review means without googling it. And if somehow you believe an article from climate scientists reviewed by climate scientists, including an IPCC expert reviewer, is not peer reviewed, maybe you can explain what peer review is to everyone who has the unfortunate luck to back into this thread.

Peer review articles can be published in any number of ways, it does not require publication in Nature or national journals to be credible.

[mrsleeve]

Welp this is more about the EPA's war on dust/particulates/ and other respiratory irritants than A.G.W. but seems to drive home a point. Just because its funded by the govt does not mean its anymore reilable and truthful than something that might be funded by the Energy sector, big Ag, Big Pharma, or any thing else......

Why didnt CNN, NBC, CBS, Etc..... Pick this up and only major "news" out had one quickly buried story on it a couple weeks ago and that was Fox..... I dont even recall seeing this in the WSJ.... Oh thats right it might call into question all of this "peer reviews A.G.W. data " grant money dolled out over the last couple decades....

TLDR/ to many links. Cliffs. Potts-Kant falsifies data to secure 112m in federal grants for Duke University, and 121m for other facilities Duke was doing work for in their lab, for similar research. So ummm yeah, scientist will never be unethical to keep the dollars flowing and "provide desired results".....

Yeah I know daily caller and all that but this is the most comprehensive article I have seen.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/03/epa-funded-research-lab-accused-of-fabricating-data-on-respiratory-illnesses/

Corroboration from more "reputable sources"

At issue, ultimately, are research grants worth $112.8 million to Duke and a further $120.9 million to other institutions, among them UNC-Chapel Hill and N.C. State University.

The alleged fraud, linked to former Duke lab tech Erin Potts-Kant, involved data that came from machines that researchers use to test the lung function of mice they use to study respiratory ailments. Thomas contends every project Potts-Kant worked on ultimately included bogus data, and that researchers used the resulting journal articles to secure more grants from the government.

Potts-Kant was accused of embezzling money from Duke in 2013, which triggered an internal review of her research findings at the university. She left Duke and was eventually convicted of embezzlement, but the lawsuit contends that the university and the lab’s boss, now-retired pulmonologist Michael Foster, had for years turned a blind eye to repeated warnings about suspected research misconduct by Potts-Kant

Read more here: http://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/...#storylink=cpy

Lots of research publications tied to this are being retracted.....

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2015/08/duke-pulmonary-researchers-hit-with-paper-retractions

[BraveUlysses]

you'd get a lot further by engaging in debate as an adult instead of childish insults.

Too much to ask brave? Or are you just a troll as usual?

I know what peer review means without googling it. And if somehow you believe an article from climate scientists reviewed by climate scientists, including an IPCC expert reviewer, is not peer reviewed, maybe you can explain what peer review is to everyone who has the unfortunate luck to back into this thread.

Peer review articles can be published in any number of ways, it does not require publication in Nature or national journals to be credible.

If it is "credible" as deemed by you and that shitty blog, why haven't they published the article to a reputable journal(s) for peer review?

I'm under no illusion that treating you with kid gloves will get you to learn any more than another slap across the face

[cale]

sorry you don't get to mislead without a correction cale

and yes i thought it was a little odd the economics man was involved, but no more odd than al gore leading the charge for catastrophic global warming

so, to be on point, here's the professional degrees of the other peer reviewers
appears to be peer reviewed to me?

Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette
M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston

Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University

IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
B.S., Physics, M.I.T.

Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
M.S., Meteorology, New York University
B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology


Edit: Cale, the Exxon funded crap is an old, discredited worn out misdirect. And frankly the funding source doesn't matter, unless somehow you believe climate scientists that owe their living to the teat of government are somehow more knowledgeable and noble?

No attempt to mislead, if the person who reads my comment chose to not venture into the article that I was citing, that's on them. I was merely pointing out the hilarity that is something you reference as a peer reviewed scientific document. It was nothing of the sort.

The difference is, Al Gore isn't cited as a reviewer of scientific material, he's a talking head who gives somewhat of a face to the topic. Have I ever quoted him or used something of his as a source for my stance? Nope, but you sure have quoted and referenced a lot of individuals with no climate science background.

Funding sources absolutely matter, there's a reason the only place deniers can get their funding is from those who stand to make hundreds of billions if not trillions by perpetuating the reliance we have on fossil fuels. Yes, I believe climate scientists employed by MIT, Harvard, Cambridge to be more knowledgeable than the economists you source.

[mrsleeve]

Funding sources absolutely matter, there's a reason the only place deniers can get their funding is from those who stand to make hundreds of billions if not trillions by perpetuating the reliance we have on fossil fuels. Yes, I believe climate scientists employed by MIT, Harvard, Cambridge to be more knowledgeable than the economists you source.

did you not read my last post. It can by your own logic call into suspect all govt funded studies that may happen to align with the "correct" and "politically approved" out come. Showing that even "govt funded" and supposed impartial researchers can and do create data to keep their funding sources, aka clients happy and agendas moving forward thereby keeping their own pockets full and enhancing their own notoriety.

[Hooffenstein HD]

The only people who doubt CC are the people that think there is a bearded daddy figure waiting to make it all better.

Staunch anti-theist and a CC sceptic(not denier).

It's no doubt that air pollution is having an effect on the atmosphere, however, we haven't been recording the data long enough to draw a finite conclusion as to how much of it is man made vs natural and whether its cyclical or we're really leading to a doomsday scenario.

I distinctly recall learning about how the dinosaurs got wiped out by climate change. That was long before humans were around to even invent the wheel.

[parkerbink]

Staunch anti-theist and a CC sceptic(not denier).

It's no doubt that air pollution is having an effect on the atmosphere, however, we haven't been recording the data long enough to draw a finite conclusion as to how much of it is man made vs natural and whether its cyclical or we're really leading to a doomsday scenario.

I distinctly recall learning about how the dinosaurs got wiped out by climate change. That was long before humans were around to even invent the wheel.

Where do they teach the K/T extinction was caused by climate change?

Or do you mean extreme climate change caused by a gigantic impact??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event

I suppose in 100 million years aliens that come here can conclude we killed the planet from similar evidence.

[gwb72tii]

So Cale
The reviewers include:
3 BS in physics
1 Ph.D in physics
1 MS in Physics
MIT, CIT grads
Amospheric science degrees, chemical engineering degrees
Environmental science, Astro physics, meteorology degrees and doctorates
A LEAD REVIEWER of the IPCC

and this gang is not qualified according to you?

[gwb72tii]

If it is "credible" as deemed by you and that shitty blog, why haven't they published the article to a reputable journal(s) for peer review?

I'm under no illusion that treating you with kid gloves will get you to learn any more than another slap across the face

This is the best you can do?

I don't need kid gloves, just a mature adult debate, apparently beyond you

And btw, it's not me saying you're ignorant, it's the reviewers of the study

Lol

[parkerbink]

So Cale
The reviewers include:
3 BS in physics
1 Ph.D in physics
1 MS in Physics
MIT, CIT grads
Amospheric science degrees, chemical engineering degrees etc
A Lead reviewer of the IPCC

and this gang is not qualified according to you?

Obviously you did not get the memo. In the age of Trump unqualified is the new qualified.

We need to hear from people without any previous education in the area being discussed to get their kneejerk uninformed reaction to the questions.

#alternativefacts

[cale]

Rewrite that post trying to defend the other points and it may be worthy of a response.

Yes I believe an article can be disregarded when it shows no data of its own, and cites uncredited people as reviewers.