The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Is climate science anywhere near complete?

Is climate science anywhere near complete?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Numerous people on OLO have witnessed previous comment about whether or not warmth in ocean algae has been measured and assessed in AGW and Kyoto and IPCC science.

Those same people and perhaps others might now consider some independent insight as to climate science knowledge at this time.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/algae-accelerate-arctic-warming-18929

P.S
I am out in a remote area of the Pacific and will comment here when internet connection is possible.
Posted by JF Aus, Friday, 15 May 2015 10:17:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' morning JF Aus,

Kyoto is a treaty to agree to mandatory co2 reductions, nothing to do with science.

The IPCC is an assessment panel, they do not do scientific research of any description, they review scientific papers and pass their opinions to the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), which likewise has no scientists, just bureaucrats.

If youl'd followed the links in the article by the author Lemonick at the warmist site Climate Central, back to the original abstract, it addresses the issues of photosynthesis of phytoplankton and only asks the question about researching this topic in relation to AGW. It makes it clear that this research has NOT been done but proposes such.

Lemonick then does the Chinese Whispers on it and weaves in the usual alarmism.

Any impact by Algeal bloom on AGW comes under the heading of " natural variability" which the IPCC admits in their AR5 Science Report, "their inability to predict this ‘natural variability’ and the resulting ‘hiatus’ is due to the failure or unreliability of climate models”. So the IPCC can't factor it even if you think they should.

A good assessment of this article is by N. Cook On April 29th, 2015;

"The choice of years for the “average” includes the 1970’s, the coldest in modern times in the Arctic. This is the way tp insure the 2 degree “increase” in Arctic temps and “makes the Arctic the fastest warming area on earth”. Typical manipulation of data you find in these “global warming Studies.

"The warming of the area (and probably cause of the blooms) is the ocean currents which are warmer are in a natural cycle. (See El Niño/LaNina). Warmer water moderates air temps. See Gulf Stream and UK). None of this had anything to do with CO2 nor man."

Given that the IPCC, in their AR5 WG1 science report states, that there has been “a 15 year ‘hiatus’ in global warming”, warming has paused and the IPCC can't factor natural variability, this puts you post in the trash can where it belongs.

You are in the remote Pacific, please stay there.
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 15 May 2015 1:04:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
in many cases gw seems to be very much a 'moral' cause taken up by people who have rejected true morals. Thats why many actors and actress's jump on the bandwagon. Quite hysterical to hear the 'experts'tell you with such confidence what the climate was like 10000 years ago. Climate science is equivelant to soothsaying in many cases. Just ask Tim Flannery or Al Gore. You get paid whether you are right or wrong.
Posted by runner, Friday, 15 May 2015 4:21:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is any branch of science anywhere near 'complete'? What does a complete branch of science look like, anyway? I'm a keen student of the history of science, and I've never come across a branch of science where the scientists have discovered all there is to know, packed up their laboratories and retired to become hairdressers. There are always new discoveries to be made.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 16 May 2015 8:33:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc, perhaps considering pedantic spindoctors I should refer to AGW and Kyoto and IPCC associated science.

And Toni, the science was complete enough to introduce new tax that has cost a lot of people in more ways than one.

I think the skeptics about everything will one day need to accept humans are causing impact on climate somewhere sometimes, but not globally all at the same time.
Posted by JF Aus, Saturday, 16 May 2015 5:49:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'morning JF Aus,

When next you get an internet signal in your "remote pacific" location, perhaps you could put something together that refutes the IPCC statements I provided?
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 16 May 2015 8:37:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy