Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[Lester Burnham]

I think any sane person will listen to the CSIRO. Those blog sites are about as credible as steven dank

A climate science research paper co-authored by a dodgy psychologist and a one eyed historian lends it less credibility than Steven Dank.

Von Storch and some other real scientists have already published on this matter and found that IPCC models have failed miserably.

In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged as considerably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained by contemporary climate change scenarios. In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period that indicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level. ​

http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming

 

[yebiga]

They are making it up as they go along
First, it was global warming but because it has been so cold it is now climate change

That said, I am all for alternative energy, solar power, electric cars, etc.

But the hysteria, the near religious sanctimonious superiority this debate attracts is absurd. Somehow, if you don't believe in anthropological climate change you have joined the smoking lobby, the holocaust denialists and are suspected of pedophilia.

 

[Partridge]

They are making it up as they go along
First, it was global warming but because it has been so cold it is now climate change

That said, I am all for alternative energy, solar power, electric cars, etc.

But the hysteria, the near religious sanctimonious superiority this debate attracts is absurd. Somehow, if you don't believe in anthropological climate change you have joined the smoking lobby, the holocaust denialists and are suspected of pedophilia.

Not at all. You're just woefully misguided. You don't have to "believe" anything. It's accepting the consensus of not just one or two losers with internet blogs, it's thousands and thousands of actual climate scientists. People who do the research and publish it, so it has to be checked and re-checked and re-checked and re-checked. Have you ever worked with real scientists? They don't agree on anything. You don't get 97% consensus on anything unless it's pretty well established.

Most of all, there's evidence by the deniers themselves. There are minutes from over a decade ago specifically advising on the importance of creating doubt:

"The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The funny thing, is deniers on here pretend that they are such independent voices. In reality you're the puppets being completely manipulated.

 

[Partridge]

I think any sane person will listen to the CSIRO. Those blog sites are about as credible as steven dank

Not a lot of sanity among climate deniers. They're about as balanced as creationists.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Not at all. You're just woefully misguided. You don't have to "believe" anything. It's accepting the consensus of not just one or two losers with internet blogs, it's thousands and thousands of actual climate scientists. People who do the research and publish it, so it has to be checked and re-checked and re-checked and re-checked. Have you ever worked with real scientists? They don't agree on anything. You don't get 97% consensus on anything unless it's pretty well established.

There are plenty of examples where the consensus of scientists have got it wrong, but in this the case the 97% consensus is a myth.

 

[Partridge]

There are plenty of examples where the consensus of scientists have got it wrong, but in this the case the 97% consensus is a myth.

It could be. Far more likely to be 99.99.

 

[Lester Burnham]

It could be. Far more likely to be 99.99.

That's faith talking.

 

[Partridge]

That's faith talking.

Provisional acceptance.

Based on science being able to back up its claims. Of being able to tentatively corroborate a proposed hypotheses. Of admitting where there are gaps in the knowledge (and there are and always will be).

 

[yebiga]

And still you don't get a single greenie campaigning to stop the junk mail cluttering my letter box everyday.

I want real action, to believe, instead it is all symbolic: shopping bags, recycling and bicycles. Well at least their getting some exercise.

Forgive them father for they know not what they do.

 

[Docker Clint]

https://www.facebook.com/marcuswestbury/posts/10152764977843243?fref=nf

 

[Lester Burnham]

Provisional acceptance.

Based on science being able to back up its claims. Of being able to tentatively corroborate a proposed hypotheses. Of admitting where there are gaps in the knowledge (and there are and always will be).

Wut? So you no have evidence to back the 97% consensus you quoted and this reply is supposedly an argument for the 99.99%?

I'm sure you have been shown several times the evidence of why the 97% consensus is a myth. Yet you continue to quote it like a rapture cult devotee after the deadline has passed. No amount of non replies, non sequiturs and vaguely scientific mumblings hides your faith in global warming when what is required is rational discussion.

 

[medusala]

Oopsies. Bad luck science deniers.

Nice cherry picking of hottest years by them too. Lets use NASA because they have such an error free record and Hansen is totally indifferent on the argument.

#deathtrains

 

[medusala]

Not a lot of sanity among climate deniers.

Why then are all the economic and statistical arguments put forward by alarmists so easy to shoot down? Why was the Hockey Stick, Stern, Garnaut etc met with howls of derision?

If you want consensus try the topic of risk free discount rates.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

And still you don't get a single greenie campaigning to stop the junk mail cluttering my letter box everyday.

I want real action, to believe, instead it is all symbolic: shopping bags, recycling and bicycles. Well at least their getting some exercise.

Forgive them father for they know not what they do.

We are sending shiploads of iron ore to China. Seriously, its like a freeway. It is being turned into washing machines, cars, ipods, electric drills etc etc.
Each one is shinier and better than the previous one ( the salesman will tell you ).
We keep it for a couple of years then throw it in the bin and get a new one. If you think about repairing something you are shocked to discover that they sell a new plastic lid for the washing machine at around 30% of the price of a new one, then buy a new one.

No amount of shopping bag recycling will compete with this level of consumerism. Yeah get a new car that puts out half the carbon of your old one, you still aren't scratching the surface. ( If you are totally stupid you can get an electric car and plug it into Hazelwood each night ).

 

[Partridge]

Why then are all the economic and statistical arguments put forward by alarmists so easy to shoot down? Why was the Hockey Stick, Stern, Garnaut etc met with howls of derision?

If you want consensus try the topic of risk free discount rates.

Because people hate the idea of change, and hate the idea more of losing money. So anyone who works within a kilometre of oil and coal industries are not exactly going to be thrilled with the idea that we might have to change our ways. If they admitted that - it's a financial motivation - that's at least honest. Pretending to be scientific and that you know more than seriously qualified experts isn't.

 

[Docker Clint]

A line of best fit is not "Cherry picking"

 

[Docker Clint]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/23/3463124/antarctic-sea-ice-trend/

So you can imagine why the people who don’t want to take any action on climate change focus on floating Antarctic sea ice, which has been increasing (unlike Arctic sea ice, which has sharply declined). In particular, articles on Antarctic sea ice extent had reported an 8-fold jump in the rate of increase between 2000 and 2012.

For the dwindling number of people who seriously deny the objective reality of man-made warming, this is “proof” that their anti-scientific views are right. For the 97% of climate scientists (and world governments and others) who understand the reality of human-caused climate change, this is an intriguing puzzle to be solved.

In the reality camp, Skeptical Science reviews the scientific literature (here) and offers this summary explanation:

Antarctic sea ice has been growing over the last few decades but it certainly is not due to cooling – the Southern Ocean has shown warming over same period. Increasing southern sea ice is due to a combination of complex phenomena including cyclonic winds around Antarctica and changes in ocean circulation.

 

[Ripper]

It's all downhill from here for the next six years. Solar cycle 24 has just peaked.

We have unseasonably have a spot free few days.

Biggest solar minimum in over 100 years.*

*not that that matters , the Sun has minimal influence according to the IPCC.

 

[Windhover]

*not that that matters , the Sun has minimal influence according to the IPCC.

Ripper, do you really think that the IPCC reports that "the Sun has minimal influence"?

No one, not even the Heartland Institute* could seriously think such a stupid thing which leads me to wonder why you would post it.

* not that it matters, people don't get wet standing out in the rain according to the Heartland Institute.

 

[Ripper]

Ripper, do you really think that the IPCC reports that "the Sun has minimal influence"?

No one, not even the Heartland Institute* could seriously think such a stupid thing which leads me to wonder why you would post it.

* not that it matters, people don't get wet standing out in the rain according to the Heartland Institute.

Nevertheless, even if there is such decrease in the solar activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations will be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due to GHG. – IPCC AR5 Chapter 8

Section 8.4.1 of the IPCC AR5 Report provides 2 pages of discussion on observations of solar irradiance. But they conclude that all this doesn’t matter for the climate. I agree that the TSI RF variations are much less than projected increased forcing due to the GHG. But the solar-climate connection is probably a lot more complex than this statement implies.

 

[Todman]

Not at all. You don't get 97% consensus on anything unless it's pretty well established.

Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers, carefully explains how dishonest researchers cooked the books:
“The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois,” he wrote in a 2010 article. “The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97 percent figure that pundits now tout.”
This rejoinder to the 97 percent figure concerning the so-called “scientific consensus” is not typically reported as it would complicate the political agenda attached to global warming alarmism. But there is a new 97 percent number concerning the latest U.N. report that goes unmentioned. John Droz, a physicist and mathematician, who heads up the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED), has just released an independent study that shows 97 percent of the computer models attached to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) overestimate the amount of carbon dioxide induced warming. Droz’s study probes into the draft version of the U.N.’s Fifth Assessment, which was released in September.

 

[Windhover]

But Ripper, the IPCC is saying that the variance in solar activity over the solar cycle has minimal influence on the GHG forcings on our climate. NOT that "the sun has minimal influence". Surely you can see the difference?

 

[Partridge]

Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers, carefully explains how dishonest researchers cooked the books:
“The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois,” he wrote in a 2010 article. “The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97 percent figure that pundits now tout.”

Whatever. Clearly all faked. Thousands upon thousands of scientists all in an elaborate plot obviously. Among the more moronic ideas bandied about by our astonishingly stupid species, this is right up there.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...y_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html

The sooner everyone is dead the better.

 

[Ripper]

But Ripper, the IPCC is saying that the variance in solar activity over the solar cycle has minimal influence on the GHG forcings on our climate. NOT that "the sun has minimal influence". Surely you can see the difference?

Fast read of the link.

 

[Windhover]

Fast read of the link.

Well you will no doubt answer my question when you have "slowly" read your own link. Keep me up-dated on how the reading is going.