Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[a_majoor]

PHD's are experts in their own fields, so I would listen to a space scientist talking about space, not climate.

As well, if you read this thread, you will see lots of eminent scientists do not agree with the climate change narrative, and of course many of the ones who do promote the narrative do so because they also get big cheques from governments and bureaucrats eager to find ways to expand their powers.

Actually, one of the most devastating critiques I have seen agains the climate alarmists is here from the comments section of a blog:

I still remember the one specific thing that absolutely tipped me over the edge from being a, I guess you would call it "lukewarmer" -- I believed in the sincerity and the expertise of the scientists who claimed human industry was making a significant contribution to global warming, and that the disaster scenarios they forecast were likelier than one should be comfortable with, even if I was dubious about the efficacy and practical feasibility of favoured solutions -- into being an actual skeptic, specifically of the people involved in the cause.

It was the response of Phil Jones, of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, to someone who had requested a look at some of the raw data the CRU had used for its forecast models. Jones refused the request and told the person (I don't remember who it was, it may even have been Steve McIntyre or Ross McKittrick): "Why should I share this data with you, when your goal is to find something wrong with it?"

That one remark flipped me irrevocably over into the "skeptic" camp, because it was a complete and total contradiction of everything science is supposed to be about: the whole point of sharing data as a scientist is to see if someone else can find something wrong with it. The only time a scientist ever refuses to share data is when he has a political or economic investment in how that data will be used. That doesn't prove such data is, ipso facto, false, but it certainly skews my willingness to rely on it when public policy is on the line.

and

About climate “science” and other frauds…

As Vox wrote, as a matter of public policy, science can only be trusted at the point when it becomes engineering. If you cannot build a simple machine or a simple physical object out of the scientific principles that you are expounding, then, chances are, those physical principles are wrong.

The same applies to climate science. Forget about arguing the various points and counterpoints in the debate. Think along simple, practical terms: climate science deals with the creation and testing of statistical models for predicting climate change. Think of how useful something like that would be to all kinds of businesses, everything from agribusiness to trading firms. Wouldn’t a company like Cargill or Archer Daniels Midland employ droves of climate scientists to help them with calling growing seasons correctly, so they know when to plant and when to harvest for optimizing crop yields? Wouldn’t Goldman Sachs have climate scientists on payroll to construct trading models for every commodity on the planet? Wouldn’t natural disasters like hurricanes, droughts, and heat waves be prepared for much better if climate scientists could predict their approach in a more useful way. Yet, you don’t see climate scientists employed in any other area except government. Why is that? I doubt climate science has a better handle on the climate than does the Farmer’s Almanac.

Then there’s the supposed interest of oil companies vs. climate scientists, as if oil is some evil, alien sludge imported from another dimension just to make white people rich. Oil, in fact, powers the world economy. If the oil suddenly disappeared tomorrow, then we would all be killing each other in the streets within a few weeks. If climate scientists disappeared tomorrow, then nobody would notice. To equivocate between a useful human endeavor and something that resembles a fraud is the height of folly.

Frankly, the only thing climate scientists are interested in doing is withholding energy from people.

Just like looking at the real results of the Reagan revolution happening outside the classroom window when my instructors were insisting that it was completely impossible by Keynesian economic theory (but then again the preceding stagflation was also impossible under Keynesian economic theory) made me a follower of Austrian and Classical economic theories, since they actually explain the real world somewhat more closely, looking at the real world of historical data compared to the AGW alarmists "predictions" has soured me on their drivel. (the massive storms we are supposed to be getting as the climate arms should have been recorded by the Vikings, who lived in a slightly warmer epoch than we do, for example...)

 

[cld617]

PHD's are experts in their own fields, so I would listen to a space scientist talking about space, not climate.

As well, if you read this thread, you will see lots of eminent scientists do not agree with the climate change narrative, and of course many of the ones who do promote the narrative do so because they also get big cheques from governments and bureaucrats eager to find ways to expand their powers.

Actually, one of the most devastating critiques I have seen agains the climate alarmists is here from the comments section of a blog:

and

Just like looking at the real results of the Reagan revolution happening outside the classroom window when my instructors were insisting that it was completely impossible by Keynesian economic theory (but then again the preceding stagflation was also impossible under Keynesian economic theory) made me a follower of Austrian and Classical economic theories, since they actually explain the real world somewhat more closely, looking at the real world of historical data compared to the AGW alarmists "predictions" has soured me on their drivel. (the massive storms we are supposed to be getting as the climate arms should have been recorded by the Vikings, who lived in a slightly warmer epoch than we do, for example...)

Are there bad seeds on both sides of the camp, are there good seeds on both sides of the camp? Absolutely! That does not however make less of the reality that is AGW being held as factual by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. An appeal to authority in art would be a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority in science is the only logical step to make. You nor I are privy to the information necessary to factually prove or disprove AGW, we must rely upon those who make this their lives work and adhere to the scientific method which allows for constant growth of theory and rejection of what which can be disproven, which AGW has not been despite well funded faux-experts telling you otherwise. There are some scientists who do not adhere to the current understanding of the field, correct. However what do you believe to be "lots"? 100 is a lot, but when the entirely pool to chose from numbers in the tens of thousands, 100 is a very very small number. The mere fact that your considering climategate's very own Phil Jones to be one of the most devastating blows to climate science is a testament to the fact that you're more worried about the drama associated with sciences than the raw data of it. We don't have to prove anyone wrong, just have to make them look like an asshole.

 

[Furniture]

Are there bad seeds on both sides of the camp, are there good seeds on both sides of the camp? Absolutely! That does not however make less of the reality that is AGW being held as factual by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. An appeal to authority in art would be a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority in science is the only logical step to make. You nor I are privy to the information necessary to factually prove or disprove AGW, we must rely upon those who make this their lives work and adhere to the scientific method which allows for constant growth of theory and rejection of what which can be disproven, which AGW has not been despite well funded faux-experts telling you otherwise. There are some scientists who do not adhere to the current understanding of the field, correct. However what do you believe to be "lots"? 100 is a lot, but when the entirely pool to chose from numbers in the tens of thousands, 100 is a very very small number. The mere fact that your considering climategate's very own Phil Jones to be one of the most devastating blows to climate science is a testament to the fact that you're more worried about the drama associated with sciences than the raw data of it. We don't have to prove anyone wrong, just have to make them look like an *******.

One of the issues with AGW is that the proponents expect people to accept their findings while withholding raw data, or manipulating the data to suit the agenda. With something like string theory or the origins of the universe most people will accept the scientists theories and explanations without question because it does not impact their daily lives. The "Climate Change" Prophets and High Priests expect the masses to accept their conclusions without question, and then expect the believers to change their lifestyles based on the idea that the scientists know best.

When the church of AGW can reasonably explain the continuous cycles of warming and cooling throughout the history of the planet, and then explain why those same cycles are now not applicable then maybe more people will believe them.

If I wanted to listen to someone pontificate about doing the right thing, spending my money on worthy causes, and stopping my immoral western lifestyle I'd go down the road the Baptists, or the RCs. I don't like it when people junk up the science of my job with things like faith and belief...

 

[cld617]

One of the issues with AGW is that the proponents expect people to accept their findings while withholding raw data, or manipulating the data to suit the agenda. With something like string theory or the origins of the universe most people will accept the scientists theories and explanations without question because it does not impact their daily lives. The "Climate Change" Prophets and High Priests expect the masses to accept their conclusions without question, and then expect the believers to change their lifestyles based on the idea that the scientists know best.

When the church of AGW can reasonably explain the continuous cycles of warming and cooling throughout the history of the planet, and then explain why those same cycles are now not applicable then maybe more people will believe them. One potentially bad apple does not ruin an entire fields credibility, and if you believe it does, you've had an agenda to find a way out of reality all along.

If I wanted to listen to someone pontificate about doing the right thing, spending my money on worthy causes, and stopping my immoral western lifestyle I'd go down the road the Baptists, or the RCs. I don't like it when people junk up the science of my job with things like faith and belief...

The majority of data is available if you're willing to seek it. Because one individual makes it difficult for you by saying no, and the media has done a good job of making him out to be an *******, the data is unreachable? Sounds like you're using this an excuse to give up and go home, make an effort.

When you stop condescendingly referring to it as a church, maybe then you'll be open enough to accept what the educated people already have. You evidently have no desire to change your mind, so remain on your high horse willingly pissing into the wind if you wish. It makes little difference in the end, the research continues and we're expanding our understanding by the day.

 

[a_majoor]

Are there bad seeds on both sides of the camp, are there good seeds on both sides of the camp? Absolutely! That does not however make less of the reality that is AGW being held as factual by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. An appeal to authority in art would be a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority in science is the only logical step to make. You nor I are privy to the information necessary to factually prove or disprove AGW, we must rely upon those who make this their lives work and adhere to the scientific method which allows for constant growth of theory and rejection of what which can be disproven, which AGW has not been despite well funded faux-experts telling you otherwise. There are some scientists who do not adhere to the current understanding of the field, correct. However what do you believe to be "lots"? 100 is a lot, but when the entirely pool to chose from numbers in the tens of thousands, 100 is a very very small number. The mere fact that your considering climategate's very own Phil Jones to be one of the most devastating blows to climate science is a testament to the fact that you're more worried about the drama associated with sciences than the raw data of it. We don't have to prove anyone wrong, just have to make them look like an *******.

Wrong answer. We are not privy to the raw data because it is being withheld and manipulated by those who have a vested interest or agenda in promoting climate change hysteria. The essence of science is transparency and reproducible results. If someone makes an extraordinary claim in science, it is up to them to provide the data, experimental setup and so on so other scientists can examine the evidence and reproduce the experiments. If they can reproduce the results, then (and only then) should the science be considered valid.

Hiding or distorting the data, withholding the algorithms responsible for the "predictions" and manipulating the various elements of the scientific establishment (the campaign to deny people publication on peer reviewed journals, "hide the decline" and other events detailed in the Climategate email releases) is the actions of people committing fraud, not doing science.

 

[cld617]

Wrong answer. We are not privy to the raw data because it is being withheld and manipulated by those who have a vested interest or agenda in promoting climate change hysteria. The essence of science is transparency and reproducible results. If someone makes an extraordinary claim in science, it is up to them to provide the data, experimental setup and so on so other scientists can examine the evidence and reproduce the experiments. If they can reproduce the results, then (and only then) should the science be considered valid.

Hiding or distorting the data, withholding the algorithms responsible for the "predictions" and manipulating the various elements of the scientific establishment (the campaign to deny people publication on peer reviewed journals, "hide the decline" and other events detailed in the Climategate email releases) is the actions of people committing fraud, not doing science.

You willfully ignore the rest of that post, and the one above yours. One bad seed does not invalidate an entire field of study. If that is your justification for your denial, you're just as agenda driven as you claim climatologists to be.

 

[George Wallace]

You willfully ignore the rest of that post, and the one above yours. One bad seed does not invalidate an entire field of study. If that is your justification for your denial, you're just as agenda driven as you claim climatologists to be.

Unfortunately, there are more than one bad seed in those groups of 'Chicken Littles'.  How can you blame so many, who actually take the time to do some research of their own from being skeptical, when they find so many fallacies and inaccuracies in what is presented?  If you want to join the group of 'Chicken Littles' and accept everything verbatim, that is your choice.  Because someone disagrees with, or does not accept, your points of view, does not make them wrong.   

 

[Kilo_302]

This "debate" would be hilarious if it weren't so depressing. You lot have much in common with anti-vaxxers. Don't waste your time cld617, these guys have decided and no amount of evidence will change their minds.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=4

You can follow the logic to its conclusion: Conservatives are more likely to embrace climate science if it comes to them via a business or religious leader, who can set the issue in the context of different values than those from which environmentalists or scientists often argue. Doing so is, effectively, to signal a détente in what Kahan has called a "culture war of fact." In other words, paradoxically, you don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.

 

[George Wallace]

This "debate" would be hilarious if it weren't so depressing. You lot have much in common with anti-vaxxers. Don't waste your time cld617, these guys have decided and no amount of evidence will change their minds.

I often wonder why you frequent this site, with your obvious distaste for the majority of the membership. 

So?  Which way have you swung this time?  Are we facing 'Global Warming' or are we 'Entering an Ice Age'?




Just to be fair and lay MY Cards on the table; from my science lectures at school, I learned that the climate of the earth is cyclical.  We go from Ice Age to Temperate Climates to Ice Age to.......therefore changes in climate are nothing new.  It is a natural fact that the climate will change and I highly doubt that mankind has any more than a minimal affect on this fact of the way our little blue planet third from the sun's climate behaves.  I am not about to run around like Chicken Little in a panic over something that we actually have little control over.  I am proud that Western nations have taken huge leaps in technology and science to cut down on pollution and continue to improve.  We can now swim safely in the Great Lakes; something we could not do safely two decades ago.  I think that the mouthpieces for the Environmental Movements are for the most part hypocrites, fear mongering for their own profit. 

 

[larry Strong]

I often wonder why you frequent this site, with your obvious distaste for the majority of the membership. 

I keep thinking "Wonder Bread".............




Cheers
Larry

 

[cld617]

Just to be fair and lay MY Cards on the table; from my science lectures at school, I learned that the climate of the earth is cyclical.  We go from Ice Age to Temperate Climates to Ice Age to.......therefore changes in climate are nothing new.  It is a natural fact that the climate will change and I highly doubt that mankind has any more than a minimal affect on this fact of the way our little blue planet third from the sun's climate behaves.  I am not about to run around like Chicken Little in a panic over something that we actually have little control over.  I am proud that Western nations have taken huge leaps in technology and science to cut down on pollution and continue to improve.  We can now swim safely in the Great Lakes; something we could not do safely two decades ago.  I think that the mouthpieces for the Environmental Movements are for the most part hypocrites, fear mongering for their own profit.

This argument that it is natural cycle may be convincing enough for some, but it is not enough for those even moderately educated on the matter. I'm not sure what lectures you're speaking of, however they evidently left scale out of it if you think the current trends can be explained via natural causes. The rate at which our planet has warmed over the last few centuries is unlike ever before, and the rise coincides almost identically with the advent of fossil fuels. Are you next going to tell me we've had no warming since 98', because I'm more than capable of debunking that logical fallacy as well.

Unfortunately, there are more than one bad seed in those groups of 'Chicken Littles'.  How can you blame so many, who actually take the time to do some research of their own from being skeptical, when they find so many fallacies and inaccuracies in what is presented?  If you want to join the group of 'Chicken Littles' and accept everything verbatim, that is your choice.  Because someone disagrees with, or does not accept, your points of view, does not make them wrong. 

For several reasons, primarily because they're rarely capable of conducting their own research, or even formally educated on the topic. They're picking apart work done by others, taking what they require to push their well financed inaccuracies, and discarding that which contradicts them. That leads right into my next argument that no, it does not make them wrong, but it does call their ability to be rational deductive thinkers. When you throw the material presented by acclaimed scientists and institutions under the bus in favor of materials produced by organizations whom a few decades ago told you smoking was ok, you fail miserably at recognizing a big old glass of bullshit that's being served up for you.

 

[George Wallace]

...... Are you next going to tell me we've had no warming since 98', because I'm more than capable of debunking that logical fallacy as well.

Well....As we just broke a record for temperature set in 1944, I question your point.  As the keeping of records to record temperatures is only in the last one hundred years or so, I am in no panic.  Archaeologists, Paleontologists, and others have proven we have had much warmer temperatures, and much colder temperatures, in the couple thousand millennium, so once again, I am not going to panic.

For several reasons, primarily because they're rarely capable of conducting their own research, or even formally educated on the topic. They're picking apart work done by others, taking what they require to push their well financed inaccuracies, and discarding that which contradicts them. That leads right into my next argument that no, it does not make them wrong, but it does call their ability to be rational deductive thinkers. When you throw the material presented by acclaimed scientists and institutions under the bus in favor of materials produced by organizations whom a few decades ago told you smoking was ok, you fail miserably at recognizing a big old glass of bullshit that's being served up for you.

So you debunk most of what they say as well.  Welcome to the club of those who are not falling for what the Environmentalist hypocrites are spewing.

 

[cld617]

Well....As we just broke a record for temperature set in 1944, I question your point.  As the keeping of records to record temperatures is only in the last one hundred years or so, I am in no panic.  Archaeologists, Paleontologists, and others have proven we have had much warmer temperatures, and much colder temperatures, in the couple thousand millennium, so once again, I am not going to panic.

Argument from ignorance, it happened before so it's ok. No, it is not okay. Climate shifts over thousands of years are naturally occurring events which flora and fauna can adapt to. Rapid changes to ecosystems can push species into migration, but more often than not it results in habitat destruction and death. We've already proved that man can have detrimental effects on our planet (acid rain), and that attempts to curtail these impacts can be successful. Panic is not necessary, but this culture of denialism and the sale of it by those with vested monetary interests to the tune of billions of dollars needs to stop. You're refusal to even acknowledge this being an repeated activity makes me question your own motives.

So you debunk most of what they say as well.  Welcome to the club of those who are not falling for what the Environmentalist hypocrites are spewing.

There is a significant difference between exposing the misrepresentation of data, and willfully selling ignorance to the already misinformed.

 

[Furniture]

This argument that it is natural cycle may be convincing enough for some, but it is not enough for those even moderately educated on the matter. I'm not sure what lectures you're speaking of, however they evidently left scale out of it if you think the current trends can be explained via natural causes. The rate at which our planet has warmed over the last few centuries is unlike ever before, and the rise coincides almost identically with the advent of fossil fuels. Are you next going to tell me we've had no warming since 98', because I'm more than capable of debunking that logical fallacy as well.

What is your background in Meteorology/Climatology? What makes you so much more qualified to assess the value and accuracy of data than the rest of the great unwashed?

I'm relatively certain that the dinosaurs, Neanderthals, Egyptians, Romans, etc... lacked the weather stations that are available now to keep the types of climatological records that we have been keeping for the last 150 years. Hell, 150 years ago the weather stations would not have been as accurate or as well controlled. Once we include the fact that the oldest records only cover a fraction of the planet, it's easy to see that there were and still are major gaps in available reliable data. With those data gaps, and the differences in temperatures caused by different temp recording methods it isn't hard to see that the data isn't as clear as some would like it to be.

As an example, a thermometer used for determining dry air temperature is located in a Stevenson screen, generally with air moving over the bulb at a fixed rate. Take two thermometers with the appropriate correction cards and place them in the same area, one inside a properly maintained Stevenson screen and the other on the concrete walk to the screen. Both thermometers will read accurate temperatures but the one outside the screen will read very differently than the one inside the screen. Now let’s take this and change the data collection method even more, let’s take data from Stevenson screens that was collected back in the early 1900s and compare it to temperatures determined by a satellite orbiting 35000km above the planet and that is reading temperatures through hundreds of km of atmosphere before passing through all of the moisture in the troposphere... How close do you expect those two types of temperature readings to match up?

I'm not saying cutting back on emissions and waste is a bad thing, I'm saying let’s do it in a logical way and for the right reasons. Let’s not just have faith that the nice guys in the lab coats have our best interests in mind while collecting massive amounts of research money to tell us how to live.

 

[Kirkhill]

:goodpost:

Thanks Weatherdog

 

[Kilo_302]

Turns out the climate models that are so often cited as being inaccurate by climate change skeptics are more accurate than previously thought. The question is, will this change anyone's mind? Or at least get them thinking?


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought

When accounting for these factors, the study finds that the difference between observed and modeled temperatures since 1975 is smaller than previously believed. The models had projected a 0.226°C per decade global surface air warming trend for 1975–2014 (and 0.212°C per decade over the geographic area covered by the HadCRUT4 record). However, when matching the HadCRUT4 methods for measuring sea surface temperatures, the modeled trend is reduced to 0.196°C per decade. The observed HadCRUT4 trend is 0.170°C per decade.

So when doing an apples-to-apples comparison, the difference between modeled global temperature simulations and observations is 38% smaller than previous estimates. Additionally, as noted in a 2014 paper led by NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt, less energy from the sun has reached the Earth’s surface than anticipated in these model simulations, both because solar activity declined more than expected, and volcanic activity was higher than expected. Ed Hawkins, another co-author of this study, wrote about this effect.

"Combined, the apparent discrepancy between observations and simulations of global temperature over the past 15 years can be partly explained by the way the comparison is done (about a third), by the incorrect radiative forcings (about a third) and the rest is either due to climate variability or because the models are slightly over sensitive on average. But, the room for the latter effect is now much smaller."

 

[a_majoor]

Since accurate temperature records from the past are not available, we need to look at historical proxies.

For example, in the 1100's to early 1400's, Vikings lived in Greenland and carried out "croft farming", and Scotland was a wine producing nation. It is far too cold today for anyone to croft farm in Greenland or raise wine grapes in fields in Scotland today.

During the 1400's to the late 1700's, it was cold enough for rivers like the Thames to freeze over hard enough to have "frost fairs" on the ice, and George Washington won some major victories over the British by dragging artillery over frozen rivers in North America.

100 years later, the frost fairs were a distant memory and American Civil War generals fighting over the same territory as George Washington were unable to use winter ice as a means of transporting heavy artillery, since the rivers were no longer frozen over.

So we have very unequivocal evidence of dramatic temperature swings (far greater than anything we have see to date) and over a very short time frame (perhaps under a century), but oddly the other effects that are "predicted" for climate change are not recorded in the historical record.

Other observations can also be added to the mix, for example the temperatures on the planet Mars have been changing in a similar pattern to those on Earth.

If the historical record and current space science does not match either the "reconstructions" of the climate change alarmists (the so called "Hockey Stick" graph ignores both the European Warm Period and the Little Ice Age), nor any of the predicted effects of climate change recorded, then perhaps a bit of scepticism is in order.

 

[cld617]

I'm just going to leave this here...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green-basic.htm

 

[Kilo_302]

Since accurate temperature records from the past are not available, we need to look at historical proxies.

For example, in the 1100's to early 1400's, Vikings lived in Greenland and carried out "croft farming", and Scotland was a wine producing nation. It is far too cold today for anyone to croft farm in Greenland or raise wine grapes in fields in Scotland today.

During the 1400's to the late 1700's, it was cold enough for rivers like the Thames to freeze over hard enough to have "frost fairs" on the ice, and George Washington won some major victories over the British by dragging artillery over frozen rivers in North America.

100 years later, the frost fairs were a distant memory and American Civil War generals fighting over the same territory as George Washington were unable to use winter ice as a means of transporting heavy artillery, since the rivers were no longer frozen over.

So we have very unequivocal evidence of dramatic temperature swings (far greater than anything we have see to date) and over a very short time frame (perhaps under a century), but oddly the other effects that are "predicted" for climate change are not recorded in the historical record.

Other observations can also be added to the mix, for example the temperatures on the planet Mars have been changing in a similar pattern to those on Earth.

If the historical record and current space science does not match either the "reconstructions" of the climate change alarmists (the so called "Hockey Stick" graph ignores both the European Warm Period and the Little Ice Age), nor any of the predicted effects of climate change recorded, then perhaps a bit of scepticism is in order.

If you're referencing the Soon and Baliunas findings you should know that their paper was thoroughly debunked and several editors of the journal that published it resigned in embarrassment.

Unless you're referencing data that climate specialists around the world have never seen, or your interpretation is somehow more correct than theirs is, this post adds nothing to the conversation. You've been quoting this European warming nonsense for years. It's junk science.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm just going to leave this here...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green-basic.htm

Thanks for the contribution cld617.