I think it is important to talk about you actually, I want to know where this is coming from, I want to know why you think you know more about science than actual scientists. I want to know what you get out of all this.
See, I'm beginning to suspect that you are the climate version of Wendy Lydall - the anti vaxxer than has been all over the news lately, you know, she knows more about vaccinations that doctors and scientists because she has a degree in anthropology.
If that *is* the case, and you *are* that type of person. Then there is no point in ever getting in to any kind of conversation with you about anything ever again, because, people like that are not interested in conversations, or learning about subjects, or discussing or debating. It is not normal behaviour and watching Wendy Lydall on TV the other day made me question her motives like I am questioning yours.
Ok, lets talk science for one second. You tell me why 97% of the worlds climate scientists believe we are speeding up climate change?
On another (but also related note), I was interested to read in the paper yesterday that scientists have found better ways of tracking and therefore predicting El Nino patterns which is thought to cause droughts in some regions and floods in others.
Taken from Natural Geoscience
I'm all for models to help us find out exactly what is going on and how much is natural and how much is influenced by what man is doing, the better they can track, seemingly, the better they'll be able to predict (not just El Nino patterns, but the other stuff too) which may help some people find the finite answers they are looking for.
ETA: Sorry forgot to say - to me, the relevance of this type of research is that it is looking into Sea temperatures. It looks at why in some areas we have more droughts and in others more floods and if, or how, they are part of a bigger picture pattern.
The doco was called "Oribit: Earth's Extraordinary Journey". I highly recommend watching!!
Sorry Father, I've totally outed you. Are you my brother in law?
Ladies-- this is a great article on NASA's site about everything scientists look at to help determine their estimates.
The whole thing is worth a read but here are the last few paragraphs:
'Scientists predict the range of likely temperature increase by running many possible future scenarios through climate models. Although some of the uncertainty in climate forecasts comes from imperfect knowledge of climate feedbacks, the most significant source of uncertainty in these predictions is that scientists don’t know what choices people will make to control greenhouse gas emissions.
The higher estimates are made on the assumption that the entire world will continue using more and more fossil fuel per capita, a scenario scientists call “business-as-usual.” More modest estimates come from scenarios in which environmentally friendly technologies such as fuel cells, solar panels, and wind energy replace much of today’s fossil fuel combustion.
It takes decades to centuries for Earth to fully react to increases in greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, among other greenhouse gases, will remain in the atmosphere long after emissions are reduced, contributing to continuing warming. In addition, as Earth has warmed, much of the excess energy has gone into heating the upper layers of the ocean. Like a hot water bottle on a cold night, the heated ocean will continue warming the lower atmosphere well after greenhouse gases have stopped increasing.
These considerations mean that people won’t immediately see the impact of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Even if greenhouse gas concentrations stabilized today, the planet would continue to warm by about 0.6°C over the next century because of greenhouses gases already in the atmosphere.'
ETA: here's a website from London's Science Museum that explains all the tools (physics, models, past climates) scientists use for their climate predictions:
Last edited by Kirst33; 28-05-2013 at 19:20.
As a registered professional in my field of expertise, I find Father's continued pushing of people into answers they are not qualified to make concerning. Obviously father himself has no ethics in this matter.
Under the current law in the state that I am registered if I operate outside my field of expertise I can be fined, deregistered or sue. Therefore I am very wary of acting outside my field.
Father, so far in this thread we have heard from qualified scientists, statisticians, modellers and ecologists. They all disagree with you. You seem to disagree with the vast majority of scientist who are eminently qualified in their field and yet despite many efforts on this thread you can't tell us how you are qualified to make these assessments. Luckily you don't operate in my profession or else you would find yourself in court very quickly.
Unless you can prove that you have some expertise in this field (and by expertise I mean more than a Google PhD) there really isn't any point in carrying on this discussion with you.
You, like anyone else, are entitled to an opinion. Unfortunately opinion has nothing to do with facts. And before you ask I have no intention of commenting on your graphs. I don't have time to verify their source, I don't have the expertise to interpret the data and I'm not presumptuous enough to think that just because I can google it makes my opinion worth sharing.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!