SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#81
Report 2 weeks ago
#81
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
I meant heat coming out of the oceans was reversed. Yes, there are many factors driving the climate, that is very much my point, and while we can no attribute with any real understanding, a score to each one, we should not be making policy decisions. We just arent ready yet.
Except we can. This subject has been studied for at least 50 years and we have a good understanding of what raises the temperature of the Earth.

How old are you and what formal experience/training do you have on this subject?
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#82
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#82
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Except we can. This subject has been studied for at least 50 years and we have a good understanding of what raises the temperature of the Earth.

How old are you and what formal experience/training do you have on this subject?
Oh no, no we cant. Look at the IPCC LOSU graph (Level of scientific understanding), many of the factors have low levels of understanding. Some medium, other high, and only CO2 very high, so no, we dont have a good understanding at all. IPCC LOSU
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#83
Report 2 weeks ago
#83
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Oh no, no we cant. Look at the IPCC LOSU graph (Level of scientific understanding), many of the factors have low levels of understanding. Some medium, other high, and only CO2 very high, so no, we dont have a good understanding at all. IPCC LOSU
Can you... link this graph instead of just making a vague reference to it? The link you gave is from a Google image search and not a link to what the IPCC have said themselves. Speaking of, the images you've linked to show graphs on radiative forcing. What has this got to do with what we currently 'understand' about the factors which contribute to warming?

Once again, how old are you and what formal training have you received on this?
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#84
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#84
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Can you... link this graph instead of just making a vague reference to it? The link you gave is from a Google image search and not a link to what the IPCC have said themselves. Speaking of, the images you've linked to show graphs on radiative forcing. What has this got to do with what we currently 'understand' about the factors which contribute to warming?

Once again, how old are you and what formal training have you received on this?
Oh, isnt it clear that that is the IPCC LOSU graph? I gave you the google results so you can dive off into any one of the links to it. It is used and discussed widely, as you can see. There is one there at archive.ipcc.ch, that is the IPCC website. It takes a bit of digging to find the graphics on their website too!

OK, so the graph lists the known factors that affect climate, whether their forcing is warming, or cooling, and notes the 'level of scientific understanding' beside each one.

From this you know that much of what affects climate is not well understood.

I dont know why you want to know my age and formal training. We are all just intelligent 'civilians' discussing some interesting science.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#85
Report 2 weeks ago
#85
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Oh, isnt it clear that that is the IPCC LOSU graph? I gave you the google results so you can dive off into any one of the links to it. It is used and discussed widely, as you can see. There is one there at archive.ipcc.ch, that is the IPCC website. It takes a bit of digging to find the graphics on their website too!

OK, so the graph lists the known factors that affect climate, whether their forcing is warming, or cooling, and notes the 'level of scientific understanding' beside each one.

From this you know that much of what affects climate is not well understood.

I dont know why you want to know my age and formal training. We are all just intelligent 'civilians' discussing some interesting science.
If you want to claim that the IPCC have said something then you should expect to be asked to provide a first hand source to support that claim. An image search on Google isn't supportive of what you're claiming. If you've found this graph being used in one of the IPCC's own publications then provide a link to this publication.

What is the "level of scientific understanding" with reference to? Them saying they have a "low" scientific understanding of, say, aerosol's is very vague. How do they define "high", "medium" and "low"?

This is why you should provide the original source of this data and not an image pulled out from Google.

I'm curious about your age and your expertise because you're making a lot of awful mistakes in your reasoning/arguments. So... how old are you and what formal training do you have on this subject?
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#86
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#86
(Original post by SHallowvale)
If you want to claim that the IPCC have said something then you should expect to be asked to provide a first hand source to support that claim. An image search on Google isn't supportive of what you're claiming. If you've found this graph being used in one of the IPCC's own publications then provide a link to this publication.

What is the "level of scientific understanding" with reference to? Them saying they have a "low" scientific understanding of, say, aerosol's is very vague. How do they define "high", "medium" and "low"?

This is why you should provide the original source of this data and not an image pulled out from Google.

I'm curious about your age and your expertise because you're making a lot of awful mistakes in your reasoning/arguments. So... how old are you and what formal training do you have on this subject?
I just gave you a URL to the graph on the IPCC site.

And if you want to know what High, Low and Medium mean, then you really should probably pick up an English dictionary.

Oh come on, you know perfectly well what 'low level of scientific understanding' means.

> you're making a lot of awful mistakes in your reasoning/arguments

Such as?
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#87
Report 2 weeks ago
#87
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
I just gave you a URL to the graph on the IPCC site.

And if you want to know what High, Low and Medium mean, then you really should probably pick up an English dictionary.

Oh come on, you know perfectly well what 'low level of scientific understanding' means.

> you're making a lot of awful mistakes in your reasoning/arguments

Such as?
You didn't. This was the link you gave me. All you did was Google "IPCC LOSU" and copy/paste a link to the image page.

I could make an assumption as to what a 'low level of scientific understanding' means, but until this is defined in the appropriate context, and by the IPCC themselves, I do not know what this means. It is a vague term and could refer to different things.
0
reply
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#88
Report 2 weeks ago
#88
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Oh, didnt you notice the links to two peer reviewed and published papers on up coming global cooling?
Experience has taught me not to get involved in climate debates purely because I get flamed by climate sceptics (for believing that hymens are the main cause of climate change) and Extinction Rebellion types (for believing that we are not under immediate threat of extinction and enjoying meat/flying/owning more than one outfit made from two coal sacks stitched together).
However, I have a feeling that these papers are not published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal like the New Scientist or Nature but on a website with a lack of scientific credidentials. Feel free to show me some evidence to the contrary.
1
reply
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#89
Report 2 weeks ago
#89
(Original post by Plagioclase)
FYI New Scientist isn't a journal. It's a magazine that reports on science.
Really? I remember reading a copy once and seeing half of it devoted to papers.
0
reply
joey11223
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#90
Report 2 weeks ago
#90
Not to take either side in this but I do wonder to what extent research is either bias from the outset or has the "file drawer problem", the idea that if a research project ends up with a discovery/results which are not as expected and not what the author hoped to find, they simply don't publish it. The latter is quite an issue even in biological sciences, I imagine it's even worse with climate science. Then you have the other avenue where you'll get articles published in lauded scientific journals that use a title and abstract which is actually starkly different than what the entire paper would suggest. Again you see it in biological sciences, "Is X a new Z cancer risk?" "Y as a new treatment for Z cancer" as the title, abstract seems to imply they have strong data of their titles claim. You read the whole article and examine the data and it's statistically insignificant and they likely admit this in part of the article, but then go on to stretch conclusions from it which just aren't there.

I do find it troubling these days that some people can be so close minded. Even if you disagree strongly with the opposite opinion, examine their raw data and see where they draw their conclusions from, before you discard everything out of hand. Often the truth is....somewhere in the middle. Researchers want/need grant money, they are not purely doing it for the quest of knowledge alone, you have to publish what will bring in interest and thus ££ for your future ideas..
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#91
Report 2 weeks ago
#91
(Original post by Plagioclase)
They report on papers obviously, but it isn't original research. It's not peer reviewed.
In fairness other journals don't meet this requirement, Foreign Affairs for example.
0
reply
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#92
Report 2 weeks ago
#92
(Original post by Plagioclase)
They report on papers obviously, but it isn't original research. It's not peer reviewed.
:ta:
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#93
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#93
(Original post by SHallowvale)
You didn't. This was the link you gave me. All you did was Google "IPCC LOSU" and copy/paste a link to the image page.

I could make an assumption as to what a 'low level of scientific understanding' means, but until this is defined in the appropriate context, and by the IPCC themselves, I do not know what this means. It is a vague term and could refer to different things.
And as I said scroll down a bit till you get to ipcc.ch, that is a direct link, now stop playing dumb. If you want a definition of LOSU then read the IPCC doc, they are also at ipcc.ch Wow, now there is a thought, actually doing some reading of your own! Go on, give it a try!
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#94
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#94
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Experience has taught me not to get involved in climate debates purely because I get flamed by climate sceptics (for believing that hymens are the main cause of climate change) and Extinction Rebellion types (for believing that we are not under immediate threat of extinction and enjoying meat/flying/owning more than one outfit made from two coal sacks stitched together).
However, I have a feeling that these papers are not published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal like the New Scientist or Nature but on a website with a lack of scientific credidentials. Feel free to show me some evidence to the contrary.
Well look at the links and stop guessing.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#95
Report 2 weeks ago
#95
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
And as I said scroll down a bit till you get to ipcc.ch, that is a direct link, now stop playing dumb. If you want a definition of LOSU then read the IPCC doc, they are also at ipcc.ch Wow, now there is a thought, actually doing some reading of your own! Go on, give it a try!
If you had read these reports yourself then you should easily be able to provide links to the originals. You haven't read them, evidently, which is why you are now trying to pawn that responsibility onto me.

I am not the person who is making these claims: you are. It is your job to provide the evidence and the correct sources of this information, not me. A search on Google Images isn't a source.

Let me put it this way; do you think that human activity (with regards to emissions such as CO2, aerosols, etc) are having a net warming effect on the planet? Yes/No
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#96
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#96
(Original post by SHallowvale)
If you had read these reports yourself then you should easily be able to provide links to the originals. You haven't read them, evidently, which is why you are now trying to pawn that responsibility onto me.

I am not the person who is making these claims: you are. It is your job to provide the evidence and the correct sources of this information, not me. A search on Google Images isn't a source.

Let me put it this way; do you think that human activity (with regards to emissions such as CO2, aerosols, etc) are having a net warming effect on the planet? Yes/No
Wow, you really are desperate to evade the evidence arent you. ipcc.ch , Factors affecting climate, Level Of Scientific Understanding. Low to High.

Thats the fact, now suck on it.


And of course man kind if warming the planet, no one thinks otherwise. And this is what that 97 % of scientists think: 1, It has warmed in the last century. 2: Man has played a significant role.

Those are the questions of the Doran Zimerman poll of scientists.
Here are plenty of links, since you are too stupid or lazy to even know or research this yourself:
n 2008 Margaret Zimmerman asked two questions of 10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions. 3146 of them responded. That survey was the original basis for the famous “97% consensus” claim.

A poll performed in 2008 by Professor Peter Doran and then-graduate student Margaret R.K. Zimmerman

Doran's 97% claim is based on the answers to just two questions, both of which were so uncontroversial that even I, and most other climate change skeptics & "lukewarmers," would answer "yes" to them.


What is particularly interesting, and if you had any shred of scientific ability yourself, you would have spotted, is that 'significant' is not defined.

What is it, 20%? 40%? 60%?


I answer yes to both questions. I define significant as anything between 10% and 50%.


However, neither question asked how much that warming due to man was today, how much it would be in the future, and what effect it would have.


So to say that 97% of scientists say there is a climate emergency is sheer utter bull**** .
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#97
Report 1 week ago
#97
(Original post by joey11223)
Not to take either side in this but I do wonder to what extent research is either bias from the outset or has the "file drawer problem", the idea that if a research project ends up with a discovery/results which are not as expected and not what the author hoped to find, they simply don't publish it.
On the contrary, results which are not as expected are particularly interesting!
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#98
Report 1 week ago
#98
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
It certainly hasnt warmed: 1990 - 2019 UAH temperature If you take out the 1991 mount pinatubo cooling and the big 1998 and 2016/17 el ninos it is flat.
No, it isn't. Despite the inevitable random variation, that graph is clearly showing a slight climb over the three decades.

And if you use a longer time period, let's say a century, the warming is far clearer.
Last edited by anarchism101; 1 week ago
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#99
Report 1 week ago
#99
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Wow, you really are desperate to evade the evidence arent you. ipcc.ch , Factors affecting climate, Level Of Scientific Understanding. Low to High.

Thats the fact, now suck on it.


And of course man kind if warming the planet, no one thinks otherwise. And this is what that 97 % of scientists think: 1, It has warmed in the last century. 2: Man has played a significant role.

Those are the questions of the Doran Zimerman poll of scientists.
Here are plenty of links, since you are too stupid or lazy to even know or research this yourself:
n 2008 Margaret Zimmerman asked two questions of 10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions. 3146 of them responded. That survey was the original basis for the famous “97% consensus” claim.

A poll performed in 2008 by Professor Peter Doran and then-graduate student Margaret R.K. Zimmerman

Doran's 97% claim is based on the answers to just two questions, both of which were so uncontroversial that even I, and most other climate change skeptics & "lukewarmers," would answer "yes" to them.


What is particularly interesting, and if you had any shred of scientific ability yourself, you would have spotted, is that 'significant' is not defined.

What is it, 20%? 40%? 60%?


I answer yes to both questions. I define significant as anything between 10% and 50%.


However, neither question asked how much that warming due to man was today, how much it would be in the future, and what effect it would have.


So to say that 97% of scientists say there is a climate emergency is sheer utter bull**** .
Not at all. I have asked you to provide the evidence and you, still, haven't done so. You're blaming me for not finding the evidence to support your claims and also calling me lazy and stupid for simply pointing this out. This is why I asked about your age, since you argue like a child.

So, I'll ask again:

1. Provide a direct link to the chart that the IPCC have published themselves, on their own site.

2. Give the definition of "Level of Scientific Understanding", from the IPCC themselves.

What you may find, and I checked this myself, is that "Level of Scientific Understanding" refers to the confidence intervals of their estimates. A "low" level refers to a wider interval than a "high" level. Your earlier claim that we have a poor understanding of what affects the climate is false; we have a good understanding, just that some of our estimates are more precise than others (and are, generally, becoming increasingly precise).

Even when giving ourselves the most generous values in these intervals, human activity is still having a warming affect on the planet. The IPCC have said before that it is highly likely that human activity has been behind the warming we've seen over the last 5-6 decades, hence why there is a drive to lower emissions.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#100
Report 1 week ago
#100
(Original post by Plagioclase)
I don't know what that is, but the Wikipedia article describes it as a magazine, not a journal. I don't know if there are different standards in the humanities but in science, any journal remotely worth taking seriously is peer-reviewed.
It crosses the line between both it is both a magazine in some respects but is classified as a journal. However, it stands as being one of the most respected publications in the IR field coming from the CFR think tank.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which party will you be voting for in the General Election?

Conservatives (100)
18.69%
Labour (273)
51.03%
Liberal Democrats (68)
12.71%
Green Party (30)
5.61%
Brexit Party (7)
1.31%
Independent Group for Change (Change UK) (3)
0.56%
SNP (11)
2.06%
Plaid Cymru (3)
0.56%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) (0)
0%
Sinn Fein (6)
1.12%
SDLP (0)
0%
Ulster Unionist (3)
0.56%
UKIP (6)
1.12%
Other (4)
0.75%
None (21)
3.93%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise