Global winds...getting less?

[tautologies]

I'm pretty high up in the scientific community and I can tell you there is nothing more uncertain than science.

What do you mean by high up in the the scientific community?

Saying there is nothing more uncertain than science makes very little sense to me.

[tautologies]

This is true, but extremely idealistic. If you are outstanding young scientist wanting to make an impact, then, yes, you take on fundamental challenges, but do it in really hard disciplines. You don't waste your talent in third-rate science field. Because, let's be honest, climate science is not scientific frontier. It is soft science akin to Marx theory. So, Marx theory exists for how long -- 150 years or so? Are you aware of anybody refuted it?

You cannot compare what is being done in climate science to a philosophical communication theory. As a communication theory Marx is still relevant, at least historically, but there are plenty alternative theories, and if you paid any attention the whole fall of the east was a great little indication that refuting it as a political and societal theory wasn't all that hard.

Climate science have a ton of measurements feeding a model that is constantly being validated, adjusted, confirmed. It is not comparable at all.

Then, I'm not sure if you are actually familiar with the issue, or just delegate your judgement to somebody else, like many believers do. Because if you ever opened a typical textbook on atmospheric physics, you would be overwhelmed with the mess of complexity involved. There are perhaps 500 different processes, you can just wonder how much of it is reflected in computer models. Yes, the process of CO2 trapping radiation is ubiquitous, but that is all that is certain about it. How much would it affect temperatures? Roughly 1 degree (per concentration doubling) according to the latest research:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/24/lewis ... certainty/
Therefore, please excuse us [skeptics], for not freaking out over meager 1 degree temperature change.

Not excused. When pretty much every scientist tells you this is going on you a choose to look the otherway on purpose, then you are not excused. You are spending time and effort confusing a conversation that be about how we can work together to improve our predicament instead of discussing to what extent the earth is round or if gravity exists. Until experts and climatologist are actually refuting the science, we'll pretty much have to try to listen to what they are saying.

[loco4viento]

@tautologies

While you are busy not excusing people, can you please clarify as to whether we are to accept that we are the MAIN cause of climate change (not just significant contributors)? I think I missed that part from my uneducated and very limited read of the science and politics. Are we supposed to unquestioningly accept whatever our rulers deem appropriate as a solution? Are we to be ridiculed for daring to question anything at all?

I might have missed your reply while reading all of the insults and criticism from this forum's many authorities such as yourself.

Thirdly accepting humans are the main cause of climate change...............

Main cause (or just a significant contributor)? This part is starting to be more reminiscent of the all-knowing Al Gore than the current "consensus" that is claimed to exist in the scientific community. Are we now being told that we need to blindly accept that humans are the MAIN cause of climate change, or are we still just expected to believe that we provide a significant and modifiable contribution? Please clarify, and feel free to talk down to me like I'm an idiot if it makes you feel better.

[marlboroughman]

That is the only rational explanation. It has to be.

Out of control hysteria by fools who like to feel good about themselves or better yet profit while feeling good about themselves. Politicians who think even though the science is total crap it will be all for good cause. We will seize this moment to transform to different sources of energy before anybody finds out we didn't need to or the earth starts to cool. We will even create a UN panel that doesn't have to answer to anybody or share the data, sources and how they arrived at their conclusions. And the timing has been perfect not like the last time.



But it's not going to work and a lot of fools will find out what does it mean to feel like Al Gore who made a gigantic ass of himself. There will be a political fallout as there should be. And I tell you that as a concerned liberal, we will be wiped out.

[plummet]

Well I blame this reduction of global wind on the ever growing abundance of kitesurfers.

We are using up the wind that should be used to circulate around the world. Whats even worse. We are using that wind energy to then push the water under our feet in the wrong direction creating unneeded currents.

Eventually this will cause the world to stop spinning on its axis and the earth will no longer be able to resist the gravitation pull of the sun. Soon after the earth will be pulled into the the sun.

The resulting impact will set off a chain reaction. All the planets in the system will be sucked into the sun creating a black hole. That black hole will continue to grow sucking all the stars and planets in the galaxy into it. Once it has absorbed our galaxy it will absorb all the rest of the universe into one gaint black hole that is compressed so tightly that it is the size smaller than the size of one atom........

At that point the black hole will no longer be able to contain its self and there will be an enormous big bang. A new universe will be born and we will have to wait another 13.7 billion years before conditions are just right to form galaxies, stars, planets, life and somebody or something inteligence enough to think. " i want to stand on that board and power myself by the wind while i ride on the that liquid over there"

[marlboroughman]

[Flyfish]

[tegirinenashi]

Jim Carrey saving the planet:

[tautologies]

@tautologies

While you are busy not excusing people, can you please clarify as to whether we are to accept that we are the MAIN cause of climate change (not just significant contributors)? I think I missed that part from my uneducated and very limited read of the science and politics. Are we supposed to unquestioningly accept whatever our rulers deem appropriate as a solution? Are we to be ridiculed for daring to question anything at all?

I might have missed your reply while reading all of the insults and criticism from this forum's many authorities such as yourself.

No need to get all sore about this. Obviously we are not the only contributors of impacts to the climate. We are what tips the scale.



No we are not supposed to blindly accept anything. Asking questions is a very very important part of moving us forward, but so is being able to evaluate sources. If there is consensus by people that are experts, that backs up the consensus with a wealth of research and science, then accepting what another person (who is not an expert in the area) with opposing views say about something makes very little sense. Actually it makes whatever the opposite of sense is.

The point is combine your skepticism with understanding the scientific process and how to evaluate sources and you'd arrive at the same conclusion as you know...the actual experts.

Look, if someone disproved the theory of gravity it would be a huge upset. Right now the overwhelming evidence suggest that that the theory of gravity is real, and since I am not an expert in physics, I will just accept what the experts are saying....just like the theory of climate change

[marlboroughman]

No we are not supposed to blindly accept anything. Asking questions is a very very important part of moving us forward, but so is being able to evaluate sources.

Do a little exercise then, ask IPCC for data and methods they used to plot that graph you just posted and who outside IPCC who doesn't have a political agenda verified it.