Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[SeaKingTacco]

Maybe it is just me, but whenever anyone claims "the science is settled" on any issue, I immediately smell a rat.

Science is never settled.

So far the models have failed to predict the past, much less the future.

Data sets are either manipulated or not released, making the examination of the raw data nearly impossible.

The sun as an actor in climate change is nearly always ignored and it is by far the biggest driver in the system. I wonder why that is?

Some people treat climate as a static issue- that the world has always been this way. In fact, it has been both hotter and colder in the past. I am always very careful to try not to assume that correlation is causation.

The "solutions" to climate changed that are proposed in most circles (ban petroleum) are woefully ignorant of the amounts of energy required to keep a modern, industrialized society functioning. Solar and wind will not do it- particularly in a large cold country like Canada. Most climate activists seem to wish away little problems like that...

It is interesting how most activists see the oil industry as the source of most carbon output and not the the people who burn the oil- ie everyday motorists, airline passengers, etc, etc, etc.

The whole thing seems like a global guilt shakedown of the first world. I confidently predict that our delegation will come back from Paris next month, proudly trumpeting how many billions we "owe" 3rd worlds countries.

Climate activists are, on average, some of the least polite and most strident people I have ever met. They are intolerant of dissent and are usually the first to resort to ad hominem. If you disagree with or question any aspect of climate change, you are not intellectually curious or sceptical, you are a "denier" or in the pay of the oil industry (I wish...).

But other than that, I have few problems with climate change....

 

[a_majoor]

Frankly it does not matter how much evidence from how many different fields is brought forward (in this thread alone there have been discussions about data from astrophysics, solar science, oceanography, history, archeology, planetary science, along with examination of the various ways climactic data has been collected, analyzed and used), but anything at all that does not confirm the "narrative" is usually ignored while the poster who brings it up is subjected to Moving goalposts and hominem attacks.

So now I am waiting for the effects of the new Maunder Minimum (caused by fluctuations in the fluid flows inside the Sun) to become unmistakable and watch the wholesale lemming like rush to demand expanded government powers and vast transfers of wealth to mitigate the new Little Ice Age (the only constant is the call for vastly expanded powers, same as the 1970's Ice Age scare and Warmism today). I kind of envy the Vikings in their sunny environment, farming in Greenland and sipping some Scottish wine after hours.....

 

[cld617]

Data sets are either manipulated or not released, making the examination of the raw data nearly impossible.

Have multiple examples for this? The overwhelming majority of data regarding climate study is readily available if you actively seek it. The incident I am inclined to believe you're talking about is "climategate", which has been blown out of the water and used time and time again despite those involved cleared of any wrongdoing.

The sun as an actor in climate change is nearly always ignored and it is by far the biggest driver in the system. I wonder why that is?

I'm curious, when is nearly always? Broad brush strokes here, I'm not so easily convinced. More often I've seen the sun used as a scapegoat by those who do not fully understand it's effects, that they simply wash our hands clear of any wrong doing and point to the sun as the culprit. In the end the sun is to blame, however it is the addition of c02 into our atmosphere which kick starts a process which raises the temperature, causing more water vapor to pool up in the atmosphere giving greater absorption potential for the suns energy.

There is enough material written on the sun and it`s effect on the earth that you could spend every spare minute this year reading about it and still just make a dent. To proclaim that it is forgotten or ignored is simply untrue.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3966.1
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-012-9181-3
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD021258/abstract
http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/abs/2012/01/swsc120022/swsc120022.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682609003319
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009RG000282/abstract

Anyone care to poke holes in these?

Some people treat climate as a static issue- that the world has always been this way. In fact, it has been both hotter and colder in the past.

It has changed yes, however rarely has change occurred so rapidly as they currently are. The leading cause for those past rapid changes? Large and swift additions of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by natural forces. We are not currently living in a time of increased volcanic activity which the rises could be attributed to, the current trending rates cannot be accounted for without factoring in man made c02 via fossil fuel burning and farming.

The "solutions" to climate changed that are proposed in most circles (ban petroleum) are woefully ignorant of the amounts of energy required to keep a modern, industrialized society functioning. Solar and wind will not do it- particularly in a large cold country like Canada. Most climate activists seem to wish away little problems like that...

Irrelevant to whether or not AGW is a reality.
[/quote]

 

[cld617]

Frankly it does not matter how much evidence from how many different fields is brought forward (in this thread alone there have been discussions about data from astrophysics, solar science, oceanography, history, archeology, planetary science, along with examination of the various ways climactic data has been collected, analyzed and used), but anything at all that does not confirm the "narrative" is usually ignored while the poster who brings it up is subjected to Moving goalposts and hominem attacks.

Actually, it does matter to many, as the volume you're speaking of accounts for an incredibly small fraction of findings from climate research. Your idea of confirmation bias is when 97% of actively published climate scientists are in agreement? To me it seems a lot more likely that the one who is simply listening to what they want to hear is the individual who gets the majority of his information from for-profit think tanks, who in turn are fueled by the overwhelming minority in their particular field of study.

I kind of envy the Vikings in their sunny environment, farming in Greenland and sipping some Scottish wine after hours.....

You`re confusing a local event, the medieval warming period, for a global one. So much so that you`re even so confident to make jokes about it. When you`re so far gone that you use incorrect understandings in passing, I`m not sure there is much that is going to convince you.

 

[Kirkhill]

Why are you worried what we think?

You are right.  There. Happy?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The funny thing is, the only ones that truly believe and defend, in good conscious, global warming, are the little man on the street, the masses if you will, who need something to ground and centre their energies on. All the others, Gore, Suzuki, scientists, rock musicians, actors and politicians are there for the gobs of money and publicity that this subject produces. They ignore their own rhetoric while flying around in their private jets, lighting their properties (plural) with non renewable energy that would make a max security prison blush and collecting stature and perks (Nobel prizes, etc) because and only because there are big money backers that love doling out cash to make things uncomfortable for their rivals and sleaze balls will always go for the quick buck while throwing morals to the wind.

The earth will take care of itself, as it always has. Nothing we do is going to alleviate or mitigate that. Yelling and screaming isn't going to do anything. Stating data you think is definitive is useless as both sides have data supporting their positions, from equally valid sources.

We're spending billions of dollars, wasting time that could better be spent on other global crisis', lining the pockets and expanding the ego of the 'experts' like Gore, who has no qualifications, at all, and Suzuki, who's claim to fame and doctorate is on the three days sex life of fruit flies. He's only famous because of the CBC.

One only needs look at this thread and others like it right here and the thousands elsewhere on the web to see the waste that the foot soldiers, on both sides, spend doing the impossible by trying to convince the other side their position is wrong. Which isn't going to happen in a million years.

That's just my  :2c: of the whole stupid subject.

We are not going to change Mother Nature . She knows how to take care of herself. If she needs to wipe us out, she will, and Gore and Suzuki won't change that.

 

[Loachman]

I don't agree with this at all, however it does nothing as far as speaking to the validity of climate science. If as much effort was spent by deniers to discredit the science behind AGW as the effort the put into attacking theit ethos, some ground might actually be made if their hypothesis hold any merit.

And that has been done. Some, however, simply refuse to see or accept that.

Sorry, but when your baseless opinion as a layperson

Pot, this is Kettle, Over...

Unless you are a professional climate scientist, that is.

the overwhelming majority of experts in a particular field

The overwhelmingness of that "majority" has been thoroughly trashed, as well.

you are ignorant.

I agree with your self-assessment.

When you spread misinformation and then claim there is no supporting evidence to a topic such as AGW, you are again ignorant as you are making untruthful claims.

There is no such "supporting evidence". The theories and models do not coincide with reality. Faith is a requirement of religion. Faith does not equate to science. I am sorry that you follow a false religion. That is sad.

It was pretty clear when he avoided responding to my rebuttal twice that a discussion wasn't the goal, but the further pandering to ignorance.

My apologies. I have a life outside of this forum. That is more important than debating junk science and its complete lack of foundation with you.

While the dishonesty and hypocracy (and profiteering) of the high priests of Warmism and the ignorance of their lower-level adherents are of some concern to me, I also do this for amusement. You are, therefore, a lower priority than anything else in my life.

Then I guess you're more informed by simply scouring the internet for information that reaffirms your preconceptions

You mean just like you do?

the entirety of climate science should just defer to you as you have it all figured out.

I believe that you truly mean the "noisiest" part of that community. There are many who disagree.

Good job once again refusing to address the statistically errors made by the claims in your link, bravo!

Not "refusing", old boy, I just have better things to do, most of the time. I'll probably get around to you eventually. And I do believe that you've not bothered responding to a few things in this thread, either.

It really is easier to ignore informed debate isn't it?

You seem to be rather skilled in that regard. All that you do is claim that your internet articles trump our internet articles.

But do carry on.

Let me know if you need to borrow some warm and cozy kit in ten or twenty years.

You know, next little mini ice age and all.

Your idea of confirmation bias is when 97% of actively published climate scientists are in agreement?

But they're not. I pointed that out a page or two ago. Maybe you didn't read that. Maybe you did not want to accept it.

To me it seems a lot more likely that the one who is simply listening to what they want to hear is the individual who gets the majority of his information from for-profit think tanks, who in turn are fueled by the overwhelming minority in their particular field of study.

So who is funding your side? Somebody is, and somebody's benefitting from it. Do not try and deny that. Your guys are not doing it out of the goodness of their little hearts while begging for scraps in the streets.

And I read both sides of the argument, by the way, and am no less convinced of the error of your side by doing so.

Quite the opposite, actually. My opinion of them cannot get much lower, but they seem to manage to push it that way from time-to-time.

 

[a_majoor]

You`re confusing a local event, the medieval warming period, for a global one. So much so that you`re even so confident to make jokes about it. When you`re so far gone that you use incorrect understandings in passing, I`m not sure there is much that is going to convince you.

An event with historical and archeological data spanning from Russia to North America is "local"? I suppose you could claim that, since the temperature data from the planet Mars tracks that of the Earth as well, so an event on one planet is "local" compared to the solar system. And astrophysicists have demonstrated high energy particles from supernova in the Milky Way galaxy affect the formation of clouds, so mere planetary effects are highly localized on that basis....

 

[daftandbarmy]

Meanwhile, at NASA, another inconvenient truth is revealed:

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

 

[cld617]

An event with historical and archeological data spanning from Russia to North America is "local"? I suppose you could claim that, since the temperature data from the planet Mars tracks that of the Earth as well, so an event on one planet is "local" compared to the solar system. And astrophysicists have demonstrated high energy particles from supernova in the Milky Way galaxy affect the formation of clouds, so mere planetary effects are highly localized on that basis....

Yes, it was. Thanks for coming out.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Yes, it was. Thanks for coming out.

An artifact graph from the 18th century thawed out of an iceberg I guess??

Please...... :

 

[cld617]

An artifact graph from the 18th century thawed out of an iceberg I guess??

Please...... :

If the best argument you can make is to deny the abilities of science to with relative accuracy determine the conditions of the world only a few centuries ago, hit the back button.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

If the best argument you can make is to deny the abilities of science to with relative accuracy determine the conditions of the world only a few centuries ago, hit the back button.

OK smart guy.......explain it to me.

 

[cld617]

OK smart guy.......explain it to me.

You don't seem to get how this works, and I'm not putting in the effort to source methods for you when you've been unwilling to look yourself. My point is that your lack of knowledge is not reasonable grounds to deny the science. I don't pretend to have a comprehensive knowledge of biology, should I deny the methods biologists use to advance the study of evolution?

 

[a_majoor]

Don't bother, Bruce. If he refuses to see or understand any sort of contradictory data from history (trade invoices, parish records of population, migration patterns, military records), astrophysics (high energy particles from distant supernova affecting the climate) or planetary science (the rise and then levelling of planetary temperatures is consistent on both Earth and Mars) or even direct observations, such as the continuing growth of the Antarctic ice sheets, then by definition ANY evidence, facts or observations that do not support the narrative are invalid, regardless if you, I, Chris Essex (a scientist affiliated with UWO who I happen to know) or Lord Christopher Monckton were to provide it.

OTOH, anything at all, regardless of provenance, that supports the narrative is to be taken at gosple and not to be questioned (much like the answer to "why the various people were selected to the cabinet?" was not a reasoned outlining of their various qualifications, but "because it is 2015"; an answer designed to shut off debate or any future questioning.)

The true nature of this form of argumentation is Rhetoric, and using facts and logic (Dialectic) is not the proper means of answering to Rhetoric:

The term “dialectic” loosely describes one-on-one logical or philosophical argument as opposed to the term “rhetoric” that loosely describes mass persuasion. Dialectic consists of questions and answers designed to establish truth through interactive argumentation. Generally associated with an audience of one, dialectic uses neither the pathos nor the uninterrupted, non-interactive speech used to address large audiences by rhetors.

http://contracabal.org/201-01-02.html

 

[Loachman]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/09/the-climate-change-inquisition-begins/

The Climate Change Inquisition Begins

New York's Attorney general is sending out the message that corporations who fund climate change skeptics will face political reprisal.

By Robert Tracinski

November 9, 2015

New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, has started an investigation of Exxon Mobil “to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business.” According to The New York Times, its sources “said the inquiry would include a period of at least a decade during which Exxon Mobil funded outside groups that sought to undermine climate science.” See what they did there? To have a different view of climate science is to “undermine” it because there is no scientific study of the climate except that which they agree with.

We should start with the observation that Exxon could not possibly have “lied” about climate change, even if it intended to, because first there would have to be a proven truth on the subject. If the company later contradicted warnings about global warming issued by scientists it funded in the 1980s, that would be justified by the fact that those warnings were almost certainly wrong. The arguments for global warming have been undercut — not by anything Exxon did — but by what the earth didn’t do. It didn’t keep warming, with global temperatures leveling off for the past 15 to 20 years. Global temperatures are now trending at or below the lowest, least dire predictions of warming.

But this isn’t really about the science, is it? To make it clear that this is entirely a political witch hunt, the Times explains that “the company published extensive research over decades that largely lined up with mainstream climatology. Thus, any potential fraud prosecution might depend on exactly how big a role company executives can be shown to have played in directing campaigns of climate denial, usually by libertarian-leaning political groups.”

New York’s attorney general is using securities law to evade the First Amendment.

Voila! Consensus!

A Bloomberg analysis describes the “weird theory” needed to transform this into a case of securities fraud but gets down to the nub of why Schneiderman is pursuing that theory: to evade the First Amendment. “(S)ecurities fraud is perhaps the least protected speech of all. Securities law fits notoriously uncomfortably with the First Amendment; the Securities and Exchange Commission forbids even truthful speech by companies in many situations.”

So there you go. This is about suppressing political speech by using the threat of government prosecution to intimidate corporations into withdrawing funding from pro-free-market advocates.

This is part of the whole “consensus” scam that is central to global warming hysteria. The idea is to make it impossible for scientists who are skeptical of global warming to receive any funding or get published in peer-reviewed journals - and then declare that, lo and behold, there are no published scientists who are skeptical about global warming! The idea is to proclaim a spontaneous “consensus” that you created by excluding anyone who disagrees with you.

This is another case where the prosecution is the punishment.

To be sure, this case will take forever to go through the courts. (Mann v. Steyn just entered year four.) But this is another case where the prosecution is the punishment. Just the prospect of being dragged through the courts and publicly maligned by prosecutors is deterrent enough.

This prosecution is not really aimed at Exxon, which has pockets deep enough to fight if it chooses. And if it wanted to, Exxon could really fight. It could use the processes of discovery and cross-examination to expose plenty of examples of lying about climate science on the part of politicians and government agencies. It is obvious, however, that Exxon’s executives don’t have the courage to do this.

That’s a shame because the real target is everybody smaller than Exxon. The message is going out that they will face political reprisals, including embarrassing and expensive persecution in the courts, if they ever give a dollar to a climate skeptic.

The investigation is definitely aimed at more companies. According to another New York Times report, “Energy experts said prosecutors may decide to investigate companies that chose to fund or join organizations that questioned climate science or policies designed to address the problem, such as the Global Climate Coalition and the American Legislative Exchange Council.” This is already having its effect: “Shell announced this summer that it would not renew its membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a free-enterprise group that has opposed government mandates, subsidies and other efforts to force or encourage companies to develop and use more renewable energy sources. Occidental Petroleum and several other companies have also left ALEC, but Chevron and Exxon Mobil still support the group.”

The real target is everybody smaller than Exxon.

It’s not just about starving out one political faction; it’s about feeding advocates of the preferred faction. Thus, the Times mentions how prosecutors like Schneiderman would prefer big oil companies to act: “Last month, 10 of the world’s biggest oil companies, including BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Saudi Aramco, Repsol of Spain, Eni of Italy and Total, made a public declaration acknowledging that their industry must help address global climate change.”

It seems Schneiderman has learned from the neo-authoritarians in Russia and China how to impose political control. There is no need for anything so crude as outright censorship. Anybody can say what they like, if they’re shouting on a street corner or writing in the pages of some obscure journal for intellectuals. But nobody can get any money to broadcast their views more widely because anyone with money faces ruin if they stand out against the powers that be.

That’s the new regime New York’s attorney general just announced.

 

[Loachman]

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/11/13/gunter-climate-change-scare-is-ideological-not-scientific

Gunter: Climate change scare is ideological, not scientific 

By Lorne Gunter , Postmedia Network 

First posted:  Friday, November 13, 2015 12:52 PM MST  | Updated:  Friday, November 13, 2015 01:01 PM MST 

The Antarctic ice sheet is so enormous it’s hard to fathom.

It is almost 14 million square km in surface area and contains 30 million cubic km – that millions of cubic kilometers, not cubic meters – of ice.

It holds about 90 per cent of the world’s fresh water, vastly more than in all the lakes on Earth. The Great Lakes are a drop in the bucket.

Were it to melt, the world’s oceans could rise by as much as 70 meters.

Goodbye Vancouver. Goodbye Halifax and much of St. John’s. Goodbye New York, Mumbai, Miami, Guangzhou, Sydney and even London and parts of Montreal.

So if the Antarctic ice sheet truly is in danger of a meltdown and if human-generated greenhouse cases are to blame, then environmentalists are right: Drastic action is needed to control carbon emissions – now.

But a recent study by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center shows that far from shrinking, the Antarctic ice sheet is growing – a lot.

Using thousands of satellite readings taken all over the polar continent, NASA glaciologists determined that ice was accumulating by an average of “112 billion tons a year from 1992 to 2001.” Since then, the buildup as slowed somewhat. But on average, the ice cap is still growing by an average of 82 billion tons annually.

There is a net loss of ice from the much smaller western region of Antarctica – the part of the sheet that has built up largely over the Antarctic oceans. But as the NASA scientists showed, over the eastern region and the western interior – the portions over land – “ice gain exceeds the losses in the other areas.”

This is doubly significant because NASA’s Goddard centre is the former home of the godfather of climate alarmism, James Hansen. The report does not come from a think tank affiliated with oil companies.

We are told constantly by environmentalists and climate scientists that the melting of the Western Antarctic ice shelf has accelerated so much in recent years as a result of manmade global warming, that it is close to the point of no return.

That is a scare tactic that will be repeated again and again next month in Paris when the UN convenes a summit of global leaders to negotiate a new climate-change treaty to replace the Kyoto accords.

But the news about the Eastern Antarctic buildup will be nowhere to be found in Paris.

And here’s another thing the alarmists – politicians, activists and many climate scientists – will overlook in Paris: Since the 1970s, geologists have known the deterioration of the Western Antarctic ice shelf is due mainly to physics, not carbon emissions.

As early as 1977, Glaciologist Richard Cameron was writing “We’re seeing the west ice sheet on its way out. It has nothing to do with climate, just the dynamics of unstable ice.”

It’s a huge ice block extending hundreds of kilometres over water rather than land. At some point, some or all of it is going to “calve” into the sea.

So why won’t we hear this other evidence that contradicts the alarmist rhetoric of the David Suzukis and the Al Gores and their political followers such as new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau?

Is it a conspiracy? Probably a little bit. There have been instances of prominent climate scientists manipulating their data to make the climate scare worse than it is.

But mostly it’s a mindset. We don’t hear the other side because it doesn’t fit into the activists’ and politicians’, scientists’ and journalists’ worldview.

It doesn’t match their beliefs that humans are causing the Earth to go to hell in a handbasket, that corporations are evil and developed nations uncaring, and that governments need to be more powerful to regulate all these other bad actors.

Much of the climate scare is ideological, not scientific.

[email protected]

 

[suffolkowner]

Zwally's research is actually pretty interesting and exciting. We will see if it stands up to review, it certainly brings up lots of questions regarding measurement accuracy.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Climate change: the Hoax that Costs Us $4 Billion a Day

The global climate change industry is worth an annual $1.5 trillion, according to Climate Change Business Journal. That’s the equivalent of $4 billion a day spent on vital stuff like carbon trading, biofuels, and wind turbines. Or — as Jo Nova notes — it’s the same amount the world spends every year on online shopping.

But there’s a subtle difference between these two industries — the global warming one and the online shopping one. Can you guess what it is?

Well, it’s like this. When you go to, say, Charles Tyrwhitt to buy a nice, smart shirt, or Amazon to buy the box set of Game of Thrones, or Krazykrazysextoy.com to replace your girlfriend’s worn out rabbit, no one is holding a gun to your head. You are buying these things of your own free volition either for yourself or for someone you love. You have paid for them, out of your own money, because you have made the calculation that they will make your life that little bit better. Better than it would, say, if you’d kept the money in your bank account or spent it on something less desirable — a novelty dog poo ornament, say, or a handknitted sweater with Jimmy Savile’s face on it and “I HEART paedos” picked out in gold lamé lettering.

When, on the other hand, you buy stuff from the climate change industry, you have no choice in the matter whatsoever. It’s already priced into your taxes, your electricity bills, the cost of your petrol, the cost of your airfare, the cost of every product you buy and every service you use. It is utterly inescapable, this expenditure. Yet unlike your online shopping — which, remember, costs roughly the same as you spend each year on the climate change industry — you get precisely nothing in return.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/08/climate-change-the-hoax-that-costs-us-4-billion-a-day/

 

[suffolkowner]

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071

Zwally's article. I wasn't sure about posting the pdf so this is the link it is open access