I’m bogged down in trying to finish a Physics assignment. If any of the regulars feel like helping to keep this blog alive while Mike is absent, then say so in the comments. I’m looking for guest posts.
If you are interested in helping out then just say so below (just “Yes” will do if you are a regular commenter), and I’ll be in touch via your email address.
S2
Greenfyre's 
Pierette said:
And just where did you find this nugget of AGW denierism? It is completely false as can easily be seen if you look at actual data rather than writing the first bit of rubbish that enters your head.
Try here for a start:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
This is even a site which is run by deniers.
Don’t tell me you are misinterpreting Phil Jones’ comments are you? That would make you look even more stupid than you have already shown yourself to be.
I love the ground rules. No ad hominem or personal attacks, and cite (preferably link to) your sources. These are the two most important rules that I wish the mainstream media would apply to itself.
Those two rules are an absolute requirement for civilized and productive discourse.
I guess if Donald Trump says that the snow means there’s no global warming, it must be true.
Facts:
acts:
Washington DC is having normal winter temperatures.
Warmer air carries more moisture and hence more precipitation. This says nothing about it being colder than normal.
No one said global warming eliminates winter.
This is a few days in one region and is local weather variability, not long term global climate. The U.S. only represents about 2.5% of global land mass.
At the same time, Vermont and Vancouver (where the Olympics are being held), don’t have enough snow for sking.
Climate scientists only say the earth has warmed about 1.4 deg F over a century or so. They didn’t say winter would turn into summer at your house.
What they have said is that there will be weather extremes, more and more. But they don’t as a rule claim that any particular storm or extreme season is the result of global warming. The fact is that we are experiencing El Nino again, which probably explains the wierd weather.
“”It’s important that people recognize that weather is not the same as climate, and record-breaking storms neither negate nor prove climate change,” Jane Lubchenco of NOAA said.
What’s interesting, is that while scientists are loath to attribute any particular storm or patch of bad weather to global warming, they have said that there will be more weather extremes. So what do the deniers do? As soon as there is severe weather, they claim it’s proof against global warming.
>At the same time, Vermont and Vancouver (where the Olympics are being held), don’t have enough snow for sking.
Snow extent of the week before last was the second highest on record (of 2207 weeks, the highest being in 1978), according to Rutgers University Global Snow Lab.
>What they have said is that there will be weather extremes, more and more.
“They”? The IPCC is clear that their only “virtual certain” scenarios are higher day and night time highs, and higher day and night time lows (AR4). BTW, the models predicted less snow fall in North America, not more.
>The U.S. only represents about 2.5% of global land mass.
You mean global surface area (about 2%)–it’s more like 6% global land area (if the numbers for the US and world land area I grabbed were correct–sounds about right, I recall contiguous US being about 4%). BTW… why do we have most of the world’s temperature monitoring station? Seems that other 94% is horribly underrepresented–lot of extrapolation going on…
“Snow extent of the week before last was the second highest on record (of 2207 weeks, the highest being in 1978), according to Rutgers University Global Snow Lab.”
Well, it certainly hasn’t happened up here in Montreal. We’ve had very little snow, and an unusually mild winter.
In fact, there have been significantly warmer temperature at the pole, Greenland and Northern Canada as well. This is due to the Arctic Oscillation.
This phenomenon explains why, even though there’s been record snow in the US and parts of Europe, overall global temperatures have been higher than average so far this winter.
Paul Pierett
Perhaps you didn’t notice that the past year is the second warmest on record.
Oh, and last month was the 4th warmest January on record.
>Perhaps you didn’t notice that the past year is the second warmest on record.
>Oh, and last month was the 4th warmest January on record.
Yet even Phil Jones noted in a recent interview that there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years. He also notes that the trend since 2002 has been down, but not statistically significant either. And that the rate of the recent warming trend is not statistically different from past warming trends (1910-1940, for instance). In the end, it sounds impressive to say last year was the second warmest on record, but there are a lot of footnotes to that statement. To start, it relies on an ever dwindling sampling of temperatures, that biggest part of which are in the US:
What we do know with high confidence is that it’s warmed since the little ice age. We do not know with any confidence that it is warmer than the medieval warm period (even Keith Briffa, the CRU emails, and Phil Jones in the recent interview have expressed this). Yes we expect added GHGs to warm the planet, but the rate has not kept pace with IPCC or more alarming projections.
It’s funny how you guys were all saying Phil Jones couldn’t be trusted, but now that he has said something that could be interpreted (by using quite a few leaps in logic) to support your side, hardly a denier posting goes on without mentioning him.
So, in order to coutner your futile disinformation campaign, it’s important to note the following thing:
Phil Jones said the warming of the last 15 years is *just* under the threshold of statistical significance, and that figure does not include the unusually warm last months.
In other words, if we had been looking at the last 16 years instead of 15, there would have been “significant” warming, and you guys would have to rely on your old lies instead of peddling around brand new ones.
There is no “downward trend” since 2002, because to have a trend you need a large enough sample; furthermore, as noted above, the last couple of months are bound to solidify the upward trend.
As for the insinuation that there aren’t enough weather stations to give an accurate picture, you don’t seem that concerned about the older periods (such as 1910-1940), for which the temperature record is much less accurate and extensive than today.
In other words, if it supports your view its perfectly fine data, and if it doesn’t it’s of dubious origins.
As for the MWP, we don’t know if it was as warm as today, so it’s useless to bring it up as it doesn’t support or invalidate AGW theory – but I see it doesn’t stop deniers from doing so every chance they get. Hey, I understand, you’ve got so little evidence to support your side, you’ll milk it for all it’s worth!
As for the fact that the rate is not as dramatic as the direst predictions in the IPCC, that’s a *good* thing. However, it is no reason to dismiss the threat: as it happens, *oceans* have been warming faster than originally predicted. What this tends to indicate is that the “heat sink” role of oceans is bigger than we thought, but that’s only a temporary reprieve, and not one without ecological consequences for marine life.
>Phil Jones said the warming of the last 15 years is *just* under the threshold of statistical significance, and that figure does not include the unusually warm last months.
ROFL–now you’re reaching. It’s either significant or not–a far cry from the usual cry of “it’s happening faster than we thought!” Second, the past few months would do nothing to change that, so by mentioning it you tell us that you don’t understand what “statistically significant” even means.
>As for the insinuation that there aren’t enough weather stations to give an accurate picture, you don’t seem that concerned about the older periods (such as 1910-1940)
LOL–did you bother to look at my links? You’d see more than twice as many temperature monitoring stations back then. Of course, now we have a much higher percentage of them in rural areas. Anyway, that wasn’t my point–we are still comparing apples to apples. If you’re implying that we didn’t have as good of temperature tracking back then, so the fact that the high temperature then, and the high rate of warming might be totally wrong and we’re much worse now, then you are at odds with the world’s climatologists. Are you in denial? Think we’re much worse now, and Phil Jones is off his rocker?
As for Phil Jones–it swings both ways with you too. Do you think he’s lying now? About no statistically significant warming over the past 15 years? And in fact a measured, but not statistically significant cooling this decade? I know that you like to announce the stats that make it *sound* like we’re warming out of control (“past year the second warmest on record”, etc.), but they are empty stats. The inconvenient truth is that we had a bump up in temperature (curiously, much of it occurring when we lost a huge number of monitoring stations, most of which were rural), and we’ve gone nowhere for years.
>There is no “downward trend” since 2002.
I said that Phil Jones noted it–take it up with him. I added that it was no statistically significant. The point was that it’s not warming, despite your assertion that the past year was the second warmest–again, an empty statistic that sounds profound.
>As for the MWP, we don’t know if it was as warm as today, so it’s useless to bring it up as it doesn’t support or invalidate AGW theory
I didn’t bring it up to invalidate AGW theory. The warmers like to tell us that it didn’t exists–that we’ve never been here before. Keith Briffa, source of the tree ring proxies helpful to the hockey stick, says in the CRU emails that he believe the MWP was on par with modern warming. If you read what I said… “We do not know with any confidence that it is warmer than the medieval warm period.” That’s all I said, and that’s all I’m implying. However, Michael Mann has told us otherwise (local phenomenon), but doesn’t have anything to back it up, and the evidence we do have casts doubt on his claim.
>*oceans* have been warming faster than originally predicted
Source for the prediction, and for the current rate/warming info please?
“ROFL–now you’re reaching.”
Roll on the floor all you want, kid, but that’s what Jones said.
I’m not reaching, but you’re engaging in that typical denier activity: spreading FUD without evidence to back it up.
“It’s either significant or not”
Actually, as Jones said, it is just under the threshold to be considered significant. It could have been far from that threshold, so it’s not as black and white as you’re trying to portray.
“Second, the past few months would do nothing to change that”
Of course they would. A much greater warming would impact the trend and potentially make it statistically significant.
“did you bother to look at my links?”
Your unsourced links? Sure I looked at them, would you mind providing ones from trusted sources?
“Do you think he’s lying now?”
I don’t, but I also don’t agree with your interpretation of what he’s saying.
“About no statistically significant warming over the past 15 years? And in fact a measured, but not statistically significant cooling this decade?”
So we have warming for the past 15 years, cooling for the past 10 years, and warming again for the past 2 years. What does this say? That you can’t trust short sample period. This is why we use *longer* periods – and these *do* show statistically-significant warming.
But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your FUD.
“I said that Phil Jones noted it–take it up with him. I added that it was no statistically significant. The point was that it’s not warming, despite your assertion that the past year was the second warmest–again, an empty statistic that sounds profound.”
Actually, it *is* warming if you take a sufficient sample. You’re just latching on to the 15 and 10-year time frames because you can use them to sow the seeds of doubt.
The fact is that the last decade is still the warmest on record, and that’s anything but empty.
“I didn’t bring it up to invalidate AGW theory”
Sure you did. You’re not interested in learning the truth, you just want to push your agenda.
“the evidence we do have casts doubt on his claim”
The evidence isn’t sufficient to go either way, so why even bring it up? Oh, yeah, I forgot: FUD.
The fact is we have evidence atmospheric CO2 and CH4 are trapping an increased amount of longwave radiation. We have evidence CO2 levels have increased dramatically over the past 150 years, and that this is due to human activity. Deniers like to latch on to any imprecision in temperature increase predictions, because they know they can’t actually win when debating the big picture. Typical.
“Source for the prediction, and for the current rate/warming info please?”
Google it. If you’re really interested in finding out about the truth, and not just pushing your agenda, you’ll look it up for yourself.
Aw, heck, because I’m a nice guy, I’ll get you started:
http://www.gefweb.org/interior_right.aspx?id=27296
http://www.lme.noaa.gov/
Here’s another sobering news article on the effect of increased CO2 on the world’s oceans:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7298781/AAAS-Coral-reefs-could-disappear-by-the-end-of-the-century.html
It’s in the Telegraph, so you should be okay with the source…
>I like the fact that you completely ignored the points I brought up about oceans warming up faster than expected.
I only had time for a quick glance, but saved the ref to read tonight. Just too busy so far today. I asked for citation because I was interested, not to send you on an errand.
>I mean, we’ll still need to transition away from fossil fuels (for a variety of reasons)
I agree. I’m an engineer, and I’m fascinated by alternative energy, and I’ve done most of my investing in various alternative energy companies over the past several years. But truth is important–I dabbled in ethanol very briefly, until I realized what a horrible “solution” it is, for instance.
oh, I missed one:
>We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 35% in the last 150 years – do you really believe this won’t have an impact?
Yes. It appears to be manageable, and in the preferred direction (colder is worse than warmer). It has helped plant growth.
Fair enough. I had pretty much guessed you were an engineer – you guys’ main criticism of AGW theory always seems to be the accuracy of predictions. That’s a legitimate issue, but secondary nonetheless – there’s no reason to think we can increase CO2 levels by that much and not have an impact.
As for the Lomborg view of things, that warming isn’t too bad, that’s a rather careless approach, especially considering the current threat to marine life.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about the severity of the consequences.
>The evidence isn’t sufficient to go either way, so why even bring it up? Oh, yeah, I forgot: FUD.
Uh, “fear” is promoted by the true AGW believes. And the fact that evidence is insufficient either way is my point. The AGW believers have to sell the fear to promote their agenda. Come back when evidence is sufficient.
I’m going to bow out, because you are missing that point of my original post, over and over. You want to say last year was the warmest on record (why? promote fear). I say that there is no statistically significant warming (why? to say the fears you are trying to promote are not backed by reality).
When I was clear about lack of statistical significance in my original post–both warming and cooling, I don’t know what purpose your assertion that if it had warmed just a little more, it would be significant. No duh. I already said this is on par with past warmings, as did Jones. But the fact is that you need to sell the “faster than ever, worse than we feared” scenario, and it’s just not happening. The IPCC tried to call the demise of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035, and we’ve found that science wasn’t involved. No surprise here–the IPCC is a UN-funded political bureaucracy, whose stated purpose is to assess “human-induced climate change”.
You are ignorant of both climate science and statistics. If you look at the GISS data (which covers more of the globe than HadCRUT) you will find that there has been statistically significant warming over the past 15 years.
You only show your own ignorance when you try and equate “no significant warming” with (as you are trying to say) “no warming at all”.
People like you who post rubbish only show that you do not have the intelligence to actually research what you are posting so that you find out the science.
>you will find that there has been statistically significant warming over the past 15 years
Read my original post: “Yet even Phil Jones noted in a recent interview that there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years.” So, who are you calling ignorant, me, or Phil Jones?
>You only show your own ignorance when you try and equate “no significant warming” with (as you are trying to say) “no warming at all”.
I’ve been clear in every post I’ve made on the subject. I’ve even been clear that the slight cooling trend is not statistically significant. I’ve even equated it with our past rapid warming spurts. What you really mean is that you wish that I said there has been “no warming at all” so you could blast me for it. Well, I didn’t way it–I said quite the contrary–but you blasted me anyway. You sir, are a “true believer”.
As for the science, I have researched. I believed the AGW scam a few years ago, but since predictions of how bad it would get were all over the map, I decided to research, so I could be prepared for my family. I did months of research before I realized just how tenuous the supposed proof was.
There is no need to get insulting. What you or I say is not going to change the world. But sorry, I’m not going to roll over because the other side froths “consensus!” at me.
Codehead, you are a typical AGW denier and are very dishonest. You slander science and scientists when you refer to the science as a “scam”. That just shows how low you will go to try and get people to believe the rubbish you are posting.
You are very ignorant of science.
You have two gross lies in your last post.
The lie is that you know that Jones is referring to the HadCRUt data while I talked about GISS data.
That is another lie. Go and check out
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/
and if you are smart enough to understand the site, you can see that there has been a very slight warming over the past 10 years.
I am not insulting you, I am merely outling what you really are. You are not even worth arguing with.
>That is another lie. Go and check out
Again, I referenced Phil Jones on that one–take it up with him.
>I am not insulting you
One thing that I’ve noticed in your many posts on the web, is that you are no stranger to calling anyone who disagrees with you “ignorant”.
I like the fact that you completely ignored the points I brought up about oceans warming up faster than expected. I guess it didn’t fit into your little denier narrative…
Look, I’d *love* to be proven wrong about this – I mean, we’ll still need to transition away from fossil fuels (for a variety of reasons), but at least we wouldn’t be fiddling with forces we don’t fully understand. Unfortunately, we *are* pumping gigatons of CO2 (and CH4) in the atmosphere, and we have solid evidence these are trapping an increasing amount of longwave radiations (i.e. heat). We also have compelling evidence that we are in a strong warming trend, even though it’s (thankfully) not as dramatic as we first predicted – if you don’t count the oceans.
So, if you have actual scientific proof (not vague insinuations that scientists are dishonest, or that temperature records are unreliable) that disproves AGW, then by all means share it with us. But please, enough with the FUD.
“Uh, “fear” is promoted by the true AGW believes.”
Not fear: knowledge of the world and what’s happening to it.
We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 35% in the last 150 years – do you really believe this won’t have an impact?
Never mind that: we *know* an increasing amount of longwave radiation are being trapped in the atmosphere at CO2 and CH4 wavelengths.
We’re not here to promote fear, but if there is a danger we have to take care of it, like we did for acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.
“I’m going to bow out, because you are missing that point of my original post, over and over.”
In other words: I’m leaving because I don’t have adequate counter-arguments.
It’s all right, I accept your admission of defeat.
“You want to say last year was the warmest on record (why? promote fear).”
First, I never said last year was the warmest on record. NASA said it was the *second* warmest year on record.
The last decade, however, was the warmest on record. Again, it’s not about fear, it’s about knowledge and dealing with emergent threats.
“I say that there is no statistically significant warming (why? to say the fears you are trying to promote are not backed by reality).”
Only if you look at the last 15 years. Look at the last 20 years and you’ll get a more statistically relevant picture (and it’ll be that there is warming).
The fact you only want to look at the last 15 years, or the last 10, is a clear sign you’re not interested in learning the truth, but that you simply want to push your agenda.
“But the fact is that you need to sell the “faster than ever, worse than we feared” scenario, and it’s just not happening.”
It is if you look at a longer time period – but hey, if you’re into insufficient sampling, why not look at the last TWO years – you’ll see a very clear warming trend!
“The IPCC tried to call the demise of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035”
A stupid error in the report does not invalidate the science (nor the fact that the glaciers *are* receding – just not as ridiculously fast as the report claimed).
“No surprise here–the IPCC is a UN-funded political bureaucracy”
Ah, I see: it’s all a big globalist conspiracy, right? Give me a break…
>In other words: I’m leaving because I don’t have adequate counter-arguments.
I’ll speak for myself, thanks. The fact is I’ve posted on this blog before, and I’m well aware that the folks here like to preach to the choir and drive aware dissenters by being abusive, and by putting words in peoples’ mouths. I’m not implying that is true of you. I’ll make my comments, consider those of others, but I have a life–I’m not going to bicker on and on about what I supposedly “really” meant when I said Phil Jones said something was not statistically significant.
>It’s all right, I accept your admission of defeat.
LOL. Your assumption of my “defeat” must fill you with a sense of satisfaction. What will you do next? 😉
>The fact you only want to look at the last 15 years…
Look–last time: If it’s getting warmer, we’ve stalled. We’ll see what happens next. We aren’t keeping up with IPCC projections. Could be just a speed bump. The only thing of significance for me is that we are not keeping up with the models, upon which future projections of doom are based, and we are far from where the doomsayers like to pretend we’re already at. The fact is science doesn’t say we’re there–those who want to warp science are the ones who say it.
>A stupid error in the report does not invalidate the science
It wasn’t a stupid error regarding science. It was the eager acceptable of non-science. There’s more where that came from–graphs and information that are accredited in a way that made them sound like they came from scientific studies, but in fact came from blog authors and newspaper articles. If the IPCC is to be taken seriously, they can’t be telling us that more than half of the Netherlands is below sea level, n’est pas?
I’m only looking for truth. There are some who feel the truth must be stretched–the means will justify the end. But if we are truly headed for doom (or whatever), this twisted truth will lead is down the wrong path to fight it anyway. I believe that is true of the cap & trade approach. My current opinion is that there is not enough credible evidence that we are headed towards catastrophic AGW, to be clear. But I’m pretty certain that if I wrong, the current legislative path won’t save us. James Hansen is of the same opinion (“the temple of doom”).
>Ah, I see: it’s all a big globalist conspiracy, right?
Again, making assumptions. Sorry, the IPCC is more accurately categorized as a UN-funded political bureaucracy than it is a scientific organization. First, it is UN-funded. Second, it’s composed of a *lot* more political bureaucrats than it is scientists. I didn’t say anything about “a big globalist conspiracy”. Please. I am not accusing you of (for instance) pushing an agenda because you’re really a socialist blah blah. I assume that you are truly concerned, and believe what you say.
“Your assumption of my “defeat” must fill you with a sense of satisfaction.”
Come on, that was just a friendly jab. I actually believe you when you say have a life, and in fact I myself have recently come to the conclusion I spent too much time arguing with stranger on the Internet.
Please don’t take any of my ribbing personally.
“Look–last time: If it’s getting warmer, we’ve stalled.”
You can’t claim this, because 15 years is *just* too short a period of time to establish the trend.
Not only that, but we know outgoing longwave radiation has decreased at CH4 and CO2 wavelengths while slightly increasing over the broad spectrum, which is exactly what the climate models predict. In other words, there *is* more energy/heat in the global weather system.
What this does confirm is that, as a complex system, Earth’s climate doesn’t react in a linear fashion to linear changes (in this case, atmospheric CO2). We already knew that, but this does force us to examine other impacts, such as the underestimated ocean heat retention and the other potential catastrophic consequences on marine life (and, by extension, life in general).
“It wasn’t a stupid error regarding science. It was the eager acceptable of non-science. There’s more where that came from–graphs and information that are accredited in a way that made them sound like they came from scientific studies, but in fact came from blog authors and newspaper articles.”
How many such errors are there compared to the sheer volume of IPCC reports? If you’re going to make the case that this is a serious issue, you have to provide numbers and context, otherwise it’s all FUD. Similarly, I expect you to have the same standards of quality for scientific evidence that comes from the denialist side – I know there’s not a lot of it, but to be consistent you should decry factual errors on both sides. I think you’ll find the percentage is much higher among deniers…
“If the IPCC is to be taken seriously, they can’t be telling us that more than half of the Netherlands is below sea level, n’est pas?”
So it was 45% instead of 55% – how does that impact climate science at all? Oh, right, it doesn’t.
I know that, as an engineer, you’re a stickler for details, but here I believe you’re missing the forest for the trees.
“Sorry, the IPCC is more accurately categorized as a UN-funded political bureaucracy than it is a scientific organization.”
Even if one is to accept your characterization of the panel, it still does not invalidate the science in any way – and the science is quite clear:
a) the world has been on a warming trend for the last 160 years
b) we have been pumping fossil CO2 in the atmosphere, raising concentration by 35% over that same period of time
c) we have proof that an increasing amount of solar energy is being trapped in the atmosphere by that CO2 (along with CH4)
Given these sobering facts, who really cares about warming predictions being a few degrees off – especially when it appears the oceans have been soaking up more of the heat than initially believed?
Let’s agree to disagree and find a better way to spend our Saturday, all right?
>Come on, that was just a friendly jab.
Arch–note the winky face after my comment about your satisfaction. I get it, don’t worry. I was teasing back.
>So it was 45% instead of 55% – how does that impact climate science at all?
Um, try 26%. Of course it doesn’t impact the science. Read my comment again–it impacts the credibility of the IPCC, just like relying on an unsubstantiated comment about the demise of the Himalayan glacier as a scientific conclusion. I said they have to do better. (Now, please don’t convert what I just said to mean something like, “therefore everything the IPCC says is wrong”.)
>a) the world has been on a warming trend for the last 160 years
Something I am thankful for. You can’t possibly consider the little ice age a a normal or preferred climate.
But yes, I’m comfortable with the knowledge that our contribution to GHGs has aided the warming to some degree. But I don’t see the evidence that it’s continuing at a rapid rate and will have anything resembling a devastation effect. We must, and will, move away from fossil fuels. But it won’t be due to things like cap & trade.
from another message:
>As for the Lomborg view of things, that warming isn’t too bad, that’s a rather careless approach, especially considering the current threat to marine life.
I differ from Lomborg in that he accepts the IPCC view without reservation. However, I agree with him that we would not be able to make enough change to matter (should the predictions be correct), despite overwhelming cost, and it’s more practical to mitigate, and use the money save to make realizable changes. For instance, the biggest threat to marine life is easily overfishing.
Another example is malaria. The IPCC relied on scientists who were not experts in entomology to say, erroneously, that we should expect a spread of malaria. So, people say we need to stop AGW in order to save future lives that will be lost to malaria. Therefore, at best (and assuming the IPCC was correct), if we eliminate AGW entirely (not possible in a reasonable amount of time), we would stabilize malaria deaths and illnesses to the extremely high rate we already live with. OTOH, we could wipe out malaria for a fraction of the cost, worldwide, if we were actually concerned with malaria.
So, you say “careless”, I say “practical”.
“it impacts the credibility of the IPCC, just like relying on an unsubstantiated comment about the demise of the Himalayan glacier as a scientific conclusion. I said they have to do better.”
Well, on that we certainly agree. I’m not a huge fan of large international efforts myself – not because of threats to national sovereignty (I believe we’re way past that), but rather because they’re not a very efficient way of doing things. That said, they sometimes get results, such as the ban on CFCs.
As for the Nederlands, you are right it is 26% (well, I also saw 27%, but anyway), however it is interesting to note that area is home to 60% of the population.
“Something I am thankful for. You can’t possibly consider the little ice age a a normal or preferred climate.”
No, it’s not normal, but neither is the current warming trend.
“But I don’t see the evidence that it’s continuing at a rapid rate and will have anything resembling a devastation effect.”
Rapid is relative. In certain ways (such as ocean acidification) it’s happening faster than we thought. As for devastation, it’s easy to ignore it when it happens over 50 years, but that doesn’t make it any less serious.
“However, I agree with him that we would not be able to make enough change to matter (should the predictions be correct), despite overwhelming cost, and it’s more practical to mitigate, and use the money save to make realizable changes. For instance, the biggest threat to marine life is easily overfishing.”
Well, we certainly disagree on that. We were able to have a negative impact, which means we *can* have a positive impact. Some effects may be impossible to mitigate – do you plan on building dykes around every major coastal city? The economic costs of doing something today may pale compared of those of dealing with the issues tomorrow.
By the way, my opposition to Lomborg isn’t squarely a matter of opinion. His books are actually quite sloppily researched, and many of his footnotes do not give that much support to his positions.
I agree with you that overfishing is certainly the largest threat to *some* marine species, however threats rarely operate alone. In this case, the warming of the ocean *combined* to overfishing could spell disaster.
“we could wipe out malaria for a fraction of the cost, worldwide, if we were actually concerned with malaria.”
First, I’d be curious to see your sources for claiming that malaria will not cause more deaths as temperatures increase. We’ve seen many species move north as it gets warmer, there’s no reason to believe the types of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes wouldn’t do the same.
Next, it’s entirely true that you could deal with malaria by itself at a much smaller cost – but then you’d *still* have to deal with the other effects of AGW.
The fact that the temperature isn’t rising as fast (if you don’t count the oceans) is a good thing, as it allows us to prepare more, and try to change our ways in manners that reduce CO2 and CH4 output. It should not be seen as a reason to doubt the evidence that GHGs are slowly but surely transforming the Earth’s climate.
Arch–first, I enjoy the fact we are discussing this and I’m happy to read and consider your viewpoint.
>Some effects may be impossible to mitigate – do you plan on building dykes around every major coastal city?
I don’t think we’ll ever need to, but that’s beside the point.
As an engineering, I suppose I like to think in practical terms. For instance, the GHG effect is basically logarithmic. Cutting back 10%, for instance, would have no noticeable effect, and even 50% would be a modest change in outcome. Let’s say tomorrow someone invents a practical $18,000 electric car. Of course, that’s not pollution free, but say we also ratchet zero-carbon energy production at great cost. Now, how long to get a meaningful portion of transportation converted? If you rely on people buying new cars, I don’t know–a couple of decades? Let’s say 10 years–maybe are economy goes from the toilet to boom again in 1-2 years and people can actually afford these changes. Well, all of transportation (trucking, air, ocean) is something like 18% (UN figure), so cars is a fraction of that, but let’s say commercial airlines replace their engines/jets too, because we are rolling in dough and can get all this done in 10 years. Maybe we’ve cut back 10%–wth, let’s say we pretty much replaced everything, and making the energy is virtually carbon free too… 15%, however extremely unlikely. And of course we gain in general power production as well, assuming we converted more power sources that that required to just charge the batteries for the vehicles. Don’t forget cutting out meat–the UN says livestock accounts for 22% of GHGs worldwide. OK, cut to the chase–we got our 20-50% reduction over 10-20 year, at a cost I can’t imagine. If you believe in the very near tipping point that some warn of, we’ likely were too little, too late, despite the incredible scope of the progress. (And if there is no such tipping point, why did we even do it–it would mean a pretty small change in world temperature.) But my skepticism aside, let’s say we did it–yay!
Oops… uh… did China and India do it? China’s past us, and while we’re topping out in production, they are just getting the ball rolling. Similar situation with India–they will easily overtake us in the future and keep going. We’re responsible for about 20%. If we cut 50% over the next 20 years (I don’t think we’ll get close), we’ve cut the world 10%. India has been clear on having little interest. China… sometimes they play along a bit, but their actions have little connection with their words (look at their torrid pace of building coal-fired plants). My take on China is that they will be a part of negotiations, but it’s always “you do it first, and maybe we’ll do it later when we catch up”–I think it’s clear they will encourage the US to put itself at a competitive disadvantage with expensive measures, then eat our lunch. Their government is simply not beholding to world views about what they “should” be doing. While we take pollution (air, water–the traditional variety) seriously, they don’t.
In the end, at great expense, we cut back world temperatures by an amount so far below the error bars that we could never be sure we did anything. And if the economy survives it, we don’t have enough money left to mitigate, assuming the doom really came to pass.
In a nutshell, that’s Lomborg’s position–I’m not following him on this, but he is an economist. We know cap & trade will do nothing, but when I tell people that, they generally say, “yes, but we have to start somewhere”. Trillion dollar legislation that does nothing except make corporations and government fatter is a start? Sorry, the engineer side of me is too practical to condone feel-good measures that will impact us to years to come–and we may need that money.
Anyway, I’m just sharing my viewpoint. If some one wants to disagree and say no, it will be cheap to do all that, and the “green economy” itself will bring prosperity, fine that’s their viewpoint. I don’t see any evidence that such a viewpoint is more than wishful thinking. And being in the high-tech industry all my life, I can tell you that you can’t innovate by throwing manpower and sheer cubic dollars at a problem. People tell me that we haven’t made the perfect battery because no one cares to, no one’s tried hard enough–I just smile.
>First, I’d be curious to see your sources for claiming that malaria will not cause more deaths as temperatures increase. We’ve seen many species move north as it gets warmer…
I’ve been far too wordy already, we can discuss this separately if you want. To start, mosquitos are not a warm-zone creature. The biggest and most destructive malaria epidemic in modern history was in Siberia (early part of 20th century). The reason we don’t have a malaria problem in the US is because we eradicated it, not because mosquitos don’t like it here. The Netherlands was the last European country declared malaria-free, in only 1970–we can thank DDT. Entomologists ridicule the IPCC on this one.
Argh! Too many discussions on too many sites, and the threading system here sucks.
Thank you for the mosquito info, that actually makes sense. That said, it is no question that ecosystems *are* being disrupted by climate-related migrations.
In any case, we disagree on the risks the warming represent, but at least you do recognize most of the science as valid. In many ways this is a refreshing change from many barely-literate deniers.
I think it’s important to have people like you who don’t rush into things and want more hard data, but at the same time I urge you to continue following the science, and reevaluting your priorities should new evidence arise.
I probably won’t be coming back to comment here…I’m spending way too much time on Internet forums…another insidious threat to mankind! 🙂
missed this one:
>Your unsourced links? Sure I looked at them, would you mind providing ones from trusted sources?
That was referenced by Roy Spencer’s blog, but I’ve seen the basic numbers many times in many places (about 6k stations, down to about a fourth of that now), and not seen anyone attempt to refute it–I didn’t suspect it would be an issue here, but I understand your request.
The info is available here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2
The catch is that it’s not easily readable, because it’s a database of monthly measurements dating back to… well gosh, there’s 1701… so… you have to crunch… hm, there are 596941 lines in the mean temp file… OK, crude, but I grepped for “.{12}2010”, and found 1182 matches in January 2010 in the “mean” file. (If I understand correctly, the min and max files include a subset of the same stations; that is, some stations report mean, and some min/max, but a mean value is computed for them in the mean file. A quick verification of station numbers between the files appeared to confirm this.) Since we’re only one complete month into the year, maybe it’s fairer to check 2009, which yields 1598 matches. Doing the same for 1970 reveals 9403 matches in the mean file.
Even though it was a quick and dirty check, it appears to match the result of this guy, who obvious took a more detailed look at the files:
http://savecapitalism.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/on-request-ghcn-measurements-per-country/
In particular, the lower chart, which seems to match the numbers I gave for 1970 and 2009:
I’m afraid the information you got from that blog is inaccurate. From the GHCN’s own web site:
“Data Coverage
GHCN-Monthly contains mean temperature data for 7,280 stations (Figure 1) and maximum/minimum temperature data for 4,966 stations (Figure 2). All have at least 10 years of data. The archive also contains homogeneity-adjusted data for a subset of this network (5,206 mean temperature stations and 3,647 maximum/minimum temperature stations). The homogeneity-adjusted network is somewhat smaller because at least 20 years of data were required to compute reliable discontinuity adjustments and the homogeneity of some isolated stations could not be adequately assessed. Precipitation data are available for 20,590 stations (Figure 3) and sea level pressure data for 2,668 stations (Figure 4). In general, the best spatial coverage is evident in North America, Europe, Australia, and parts of Asia. Likewise, coverage in the Northern Hemisphere is better than the Southern Hemisphere.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php
I think the mistake you (and the other guy) made is to think that every station provided information to the database every month – but in fact it can take quite a while for a station to provide it’s measurements to the central database. This could explain why you get such a low figure for recent time periods.
>The blog Open Mind… “It has been suggested that the large reduction of reporting stations which culminated in 1992, preferentially retained urban stations, which is simply false.”
OK, interesting–I would want to know that, since I’ve seen charts showing otherwise. I won’t take Tamino’s word for it without a closer look–he’s been equally-aggressively wrong on other issues in the past. I’m not sure how to resolve it offhand, but I will keep in mind that the issue of a large urban shift at that time is open to debate.
>GHCN-Monthly contains mean temperature data for 7,280 stations (Figure 1) and maximum/minimum temperature data for 4,966 stations (Figure 2). All have at least 10 years of data.
OK… yet this doesn’t say explicitly all of those are currently reporting, or have in the past 10 years. The above comment describes “GHCN-Monthly Version 2”, which is what I downloaded from the ftp site, and I gave you the results from that database (feel free to do it yourself). Sure, I’m open to learning otherwise, but offhand I have to say, I seen this issue of surface station results in many different forms over the past 2-3 years. At one point one would expect NOAA to stand up and say, “no this is wrong–there are well over 10,000 reporting stations.”
Why, for instance, would they have a dataset that contains reported measurement over a period of a few hundred years, yet leave out most of the readings over the past two decades? This doesn’t make sense. Also, I’ve seen comments on either GISS or NOAA site about how they deal with the “decreasing number of surface stations”–not going to bother searching for it, because it gave no numbers anyway.
Let me dig in my archives for a couple of quick examples–here’s an animation of 50 years of monthly reporting GHCN stations:
http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/Ghcn2_images/air_loc.mpg
Similar, but from 1880 to 2007, and shows missing months as well (there is a link to a larger downloadable version):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/06/weather-stations-disappearing-worldwide/
This is from Ross McKitrick:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
Tamino disputes inferences regarding rural, but doesn’t seem to dispute the drop in numbers in his blog (I’m tired, need to get up in 6 hours, I skimmed it quickly):
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/dropouts/
If you can show that there are 12k+ reporting stations that are used in today’s temperature calculation, I’d be happy to take a look, but so far a lot of people seem to disagree with you.
What about Roy Spencer’s admission that a fewer number of stations has not increased the measured warming, the main accusation of deniers?
It seems one of the persons who first expressed worry at the reduced number of stations, Roy Spencer, now admits this has not increased any warming trend (the main denialist argument being that the number of station has been voluntarily reduced to increase the importance of the warming trend):
“But at face value, this plot seems to indicate that the rapid decrease in the number of stations included in the GHCN database in recent years has not caused a spurious warming trend in the Jones dataset ”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/20/spencer-developing-a-new-satellite-based-surface-temperature-set/
The blog Open Mind also mounts a convincing argument in favor of the GHCN data set:
“I also want to address the issue of station dropout. It has been suggested that the large reduction of reporting stations which culminated in 1992, preferentially retained urban stations, which is simply false.”
Read the rest of his argument here:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/ghcn-preliminary-results/
“Historically, with the amount of sunspot activity we have,”
Are you referring to the 100 year solar minimum that we’ve seen since 1983, or the fact that solar activity has been down to flat since the early 1970s?
I have a suggestion, go buy the book “Climate Cover-Up” by James Hoggan, and read it. At least then you’ll know who is paying who to fool you. One hint, the koolaid came in an oil barrel.
Hi S2
You’ve been doing a lot. Perhaps Greenfyre hoped this would become a communty-run blog. However it is and remains his site and his responsibility and his decision what happens to it.
Everything has a lifecycle.
Go do your physics assignment. 😉
In solidarity
—
Sorry Paul. I’m afraid you’re just too lazy to write for a science blog. In science, you can’t just make things up as you go along—it takes effort to learn the science, effort to stay on top of the science, and effort to make sure you’ve got the science right and that you can back up each of your assertions with evidence (and it takes effort to know how to properly evaluate the evidence and sift the truth from the absolute nonsense lazy people write).
You do sound qualified to write for the Daily Mail in the UK though. Their reporters aren’t deterred by the facts and just fabricate their own stories.
Paul, the reason it is weather and not climate is that it is a *localized* event.
Go a few hundred kilometers North to Canada, and you’ll find a completely different picture: almost no snow, and continuously mild temperature since December.
The more North you go, the bigger the positive temperature anomaly.
So, if anecdotal evidence is what you believe, I’m sorry to say mine trumps yours. I guess we’ll have to rely on science!
PS Tell Greenfyre to come back to Digg. The pro-science crowd misses him, and some deniers are beating their chests saying they’re the ones to have made him go away…
The way over hyped climate change disaster is over. Greenfyre saw it as soon as the email story broke, for the rest of you to not see that is, well…..denialism.
Ray, nothing in the manufactured Climategate scandal invalidates the science.
Deniers are strong on accusations, but always come up short on evidence.
Archie, co2’s effect on climate is known and minor, everything beyond that has been hype.
“Deniers are strong on accusations, but always come up short on evidence.”
Think about your statement for a minute. Copenhagen failed, Cap and Trade failed, IPCC has been found to be using NGO trash instead of science, the emails launched a number of investigations and at least one resignation. Public opinion polls show concern for global warming to be low and falling.
Pretty sure our side won. Global warming is fast becoming an unfortunate Joke.
Please. This isn’t a popularity contest. This is science. The fact that you do not understand this is the reason why you’ve lost this argument even before it started.
Now, as to your pitifiul attempt at a scientific argument:
“Archie, co2’s effect on climate is known and minor, everything beyond that has been hype.”
Actually, CO2’s effect is anything but minor, being responsible for 10 to 30% of atmospheric forcing. Furthermore, satellite measuring of longwave radiation being trapped by the atmosphere has clearly shown increased absorption at the CO2 and CH4 bands.
CO2’s effect *is* well-known, and significant.
“Think about your statement for a minute. Copenhagen failed,”
Predictably. Such international summit rarely provide any concrete solutions. That said, this has nothing to do with the science.
“Cap and Trade failed,”
Irrelevant. Cap and Trade is *one* way of dealing with the problem. The fact it is meeting with resistance has nothing to do with the reality of the problem, but more to do about entrenched economical interests.
“IPCC has been found to be using NGO trash instead of science”
The IPCC has commited a few errors in its reports, but the number of errors compared to the volume of all reports is overall quite low. But again, this is irrelevant: errors in the reports are not errors in the science, and the science is quite clear: AGW is real, and happening right now.
“the emails launched a number of investigations and at least one resignation.”
Of course there are investigations, there was unethical behavior in dealing with frivolous FoI requests. Jones and all did not act correctly – however, that is again completely irrelevant to the science. No evidence has been provided that the science is wrong or that the data is inaccurate.
As far as resignations, if you are talking about Phil Jones he has not resigned, he has temporarily stepped down while the investigation is ongoing.
Here I’ll make a little prediction: if the investigation blames him but concludes the science wasn’t affected, you’ll be the first in line to decry this as some sort of conspiracy.
“Public opinion polls show concern for global warming to be low and falling.”
The disinformation campaign of professional deniers has had some effect in the US, but on a global scale those who believe the science far outweigh those who don’t – and this is a global problem, not an American one.
“Pretty sure our side won.”
That’s because you have a very limited grasp of the issue, and somehow believe that propaganda can change the reality of AGW. It can’t.
Your side, as yourself, lost this the moment you choose to ignore science and base this on your own biased opinion.
“Global warming is fast becoming an unfortunate Joke.”
As I said earlier, you are experts in making baseless accusations and unsubstantiated allegations, but always come up short on evidence, scientific or otherwise.
How can any rational human look at the extent of scientific fraud and manipulation to declare these as “mistakes” that don’t undermine the credibility of AGW is denialism.
This has become a political debate based on very poor science and the public is not buying it. In a democracy where voters define policy….that matters.
I like how you failed to respond to a single point I made.
There has been *no* fraud, and you can’t providence any evidence to support your claim. There has been no fraudulent manipulation of data either.
It is deniers who have turned this debate into a political one, but this does not change the basic science, which is still solid. Deniers like to make claims about it being flawed, but they can’t provide a *single* shred of scientific evidence to support any of their multiple (and contradictory) positions.
Give it up, Ray. You may be able to swindle the naive and the uninformed, but people who understand the science know you’re full of it.
In any case, the recently-announced suit against the EPA will finally get AGW validated in a court of law, at which point the public will finally learn the extent of the professional denier’s lies. This will become the new Scopes Monkey Trial, and once again the anti-science side is going to lose.
Solid…like the hockey stick?
The burden of proof has never been the sceptic responsibility, it’s supporters of AWG and they have failed that test.
“Despite their faults, models show that projections of significant warming depend critically on clouds and water vapor, and the physics of these processes can be observationally tested (the normal scientific approach); at this point, the models seem to be failing”. Richard Lindzen February 19, 2010
Yvo de Boer, the Dutch bureaucrat who led the international climate change negotiations over four tumultuous years, is resigning his post as of July 1.
The Bay Area just had its foggiest May in 50 years. And thanks to global warming, it’s about to get even foggier.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/06/DDJT187GK9.DTL#ixzz0g72Uj0yX
Climate change threatens fog and redwoods
San Francisco’s fog is thinning out, which could result in the loss of redwood trees that rely on the fog to help them retain water in the summer.
Read more.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/climate-change-threatens-fog-and-redwoods
Give it up, Archie. You may be able to swindle the naive and the uninformed, but people who understand the science are laughing at you now.
“The burden of proof has never been the sceptic responsibility”
Actually, it is. AGW is the current accepted scientific model. If *you* don’t like it, your *only* recourse is to provide scientific evidence to the contrary. So far, deniers have come up tragically short. As I said: experts at throwing around accusations, but they vanish into thin air when actual evidence is required.
Quoting Richard Lindzen? That’s rich, considering the fact that he’s sponsored by ExxonMobil. What’s next, are you going to argue smoking tobacco doesn’t cause cancer? In any case, Lindzen’s theories have been disproved time and time again; his latest one about the “iris” effect has been shown to *increase* AGW, not mitigate it. Lindzen’s a joke, just like you.
The articles about San Francisco fog are completely irrelevant. You’re grasping at straws now, which is typical behavior for deniers.
“You may be able to swindle the naive and the uninformed, but people who understand the science are laughing at you now.”
How cute, you reprinted my own sentence. Too bad you don’t have *any* scientific evidence to support your position…which is what, exactly? Are you the type of denier who doesn’t believe there is a warming trend, or one that believes there is a warming trend but that it’s natural?
Actually, considering the idiotic nature of your posts, you’re probably another kind: the denier who changes his position as he see fit, always ready to deflect arguments when he doesn’t have valid arguments of your own.
Anyway, I’ll take your continued inability to respond to my points as an admission of defeat on your part. But thanks for playing!
By the way, regarding the hockey stick: did you know how it looked like once the error spotted by McIntyre was corrected in the models? Exactly the same.
That’s your big victory, chump. It falls in the typicaly patter of denier misinformation: much ado about nothing.
Same goes for the Urban Heat Island effect: once it’s factored in (and it’s been factored in for quite a while in the NASA GISS records), it is a statistically insignificant blip on the overall picture.
Mmh…statistically insignificant…that’s a lot like you, isn’t it?
“The burden of proof has never been the sceptic responsibility, it’s supporters of AWG and they have failed that test.”
Incorrect.
You are again talking politics not science.
The mechanisms of climate must be understood in scientific terms. It is most certainly the case that anyone that opposes a scientific view, should develop an a valid explanation.
Your view would only hold any truth if there were no scientists that were objecting to AGW. That isn’t the case.
Hence again your views are political.
@Ray: Argument from assertion doesn’t cut if for me. Let’s see your math or rationale.
Rationale, climate has fluctuated during past periods while co2 had remained relatively constant.
CO2 has been much higher in the past without being much if any warmer than now.
CO2 has increased over the past decade without a corresponding increase in global temps.
Without being able to distinguish between natural or anthropogenic warming how can you convince the public there is a problem?
You can’t.
“Rationale, climate has fluctuated during past periods while co2 had remained relatively constant.”
True, but irrelevant. CO2 is not the only greenhouse forcing component.
“CO2 has been much higher in the past without being much if any warmer than now.”
True, but misleading. When CO2 levels were much higher (as it was during the Ordovician), Solar Output was actually much lower (by as much as 30%), leading to similar temperatures as today.
The last time CO2 levels were as high as today AND solar output was similar, temperatures were about 10 degrees C hotter.
“CO2 has increased over the past decade without a corresponding increase in global temps.”
CO2 has increased over the past 160 years, and there has been a corresponding rise in temperature. A decade is too short a time period to determine any kind of climate trend.
Furthermore, we now know for a fact that an increasing amount of solar radiation is being trapped inside the atmosphere at the CO2 and CH4 absorption frequency. We also know the oceans are warming up faster than we thought, explaining why the ground-based increases are smaller than expected.
“Without being able to distinguish between natural or anthropogenic warming how can you convince the public there is a problem?”
Well, we can distinguish between the two, as I’ve exposed above. The fact that a portion of the public has not been given all the facts (or that professsional deniers have muddied this fact) is irrelevant.
You can’t really say that there’s no corresponding recent increase.
In any time series, if you try to calculate the slope of the last part of the series, you will not get statistical significance, unless you have enough data points. Temperature series are also pretty noisy due to weather.
The methane trend is slowing down, which probably has some effect.
Regarding very long-term historical observations, they are not convincing for the reasons noted by archiesteel. There are many variables that drive climate long term, so you can’t just look at one variable and go “see, it didn’t work.” Second, we simply don’t have global temperature reconstructions that go very far back. You have reconstructions for Greenland, for Antarctica. You have sediment cores from specific locations. There are dating uncertainties. You can’t just assume they exactly reflect global changes.
Besides, in the last half million years or so it’s clear that CO2 and methane rise and fall with temperature.
Response to Rays, comments:
“Think about your statement for a minute. Copenhagen failed”
Politics, not science.
But in any case, no one would have imagined the whole world turning up at such a conference 10 years ago. The fact that it happened and that similar conferences will happen, points to an overwhelming success in getting the science and environmental message at the centre of every ones thoughts.
“Cap and Trade failed”
Politics not science.
“IPCC has been found to be using NGO trash instead of science”
A wordprocessing error and poor editorial. And as you point out, the error has little to do with the science.
“the emails launched a number of investigations and at least one resignation.”
Who resigned?
I believe you are misrepresenting the facts.
“Public opinion polls show concern for global warming to be low and falling.”
Again politics not science. People can have whatever opinions they like, it doesn’t change the fact that how the universe works.
“Pretty sure our side won. Global warming is fast becoming an unfortunate Joke.”
I think your statement sums up your own mistake.
Science isn’t about winning.
Crick and Watson ‘won’ the race to understand the genetic code, the reality is that no one really won. If someone came up with an alternative theory and everyone believed it because politics and religion etc. said Crick and Watson were wrong. The code would still be there, working the same way as ever, no matter what politically motivated denialists thought.
And eventually Crick and Watson would have been shown to be correct. The point being is that the mechanisms of climate on earth are fixed (as are the mechanisms of genetic codes) and they need to be understood, hence climate science carries on.
The only issue of winning and losing is in politics.
Which as I said indicates you are looking at the issue from a politcal/ideology perspective.
The science has failed to convince the public and that has political consequences. Had there been compelling facts supporting AWG, world leader would have signed a treaty. Same goes with Cap and Trade, when the “science” is shown to be that sketchy any pol who supports it will not gain reelection.
Yvo de Boer resigned from the IPCC.
Please read the following exchange between Judith Curry and Willis Eschenbach, linked from Climate debate daily. http://climatedebatedaily.com/
The exchange sums up well the state of your science.
Listen, kid: if the science has failed to convince a portion of the American public, it’s because of deniers like you irresponsibly sewing the seeds of doubt.
The fact is that we *have* compelling evidence. We know for a *fact* that an increasing amount of longwave radiation (i.e. heat) is being trapped in the atmosphere by CO2 and CH4.
The science has not been shown to be sketchy. In fact, it’s as compelling as ever, but you modern-day Flat Earthers have managed to muddy the waters enough to make people unfamiliar with the science doubtful.
Wills Eschenbach makes a number of unsupported statement. Like you, his goal is not to learn the truth, but rather to push an agenda.
Ultimately, those efforts (like yours) are futile, as propaganda cannot change reality. For your sake, I hope you finally *do* learn real science instead of only reading denier blogs. I doubt it, considering your seemingly limited intellect, but one can hope.
No thanks Archie, when you resort to insults in responce to my argument you do not deserve my listen.
How convenient.
That said, they’re not really insults, but more like statements of facts. If you don’t want me calling you stupid, stop saying stupid things. It’s as simple as that.
Ray said:
“No thanks Archie, when you resort to insults in responce to my argument you do not deserve my listen.”
But your argument is not science.
Science resolves an argument and finds an answer.
What you are suggesting is that an answer should not be known!
“The science has failed to convince the public and that has political consequences. Had there been compelling facts supporting AWG, world leader would have signed a treaty.”
Complete rubbish.
The science will continue. It ain’t suddenly going to stop. So how on earth can it fail?
Politics fails because it is a construct of human relationships etc.
Even the whole concept of failure and winning is a human construct, or a construct of a living thing.
Because we have a need to know what is going on, the science will continue, if it doesn’t then the interference will be political!
“Same goes with Cap and Trade, when the “science” is shown to be that sketchy any pol who supports it will not gain reelection.”
Politics not science.
“Yvo de Boer resigned from the IPCC.”
Politics not science.
“Please read the following exchange between Judith Curry and Willis Eschenbach, linked from Climate debate daily. http://climatedebatedaily.com/”
A debate is not science!
The Ville, you’re hiding behind an increasingy thin veil. There never has been a consensus and the “science” you defend is crippled to a standstill.
“Complete rubbish”?
I certainly did not state science should or will stop, in fact The MET office is circulating a petition for the CRU completely start over with raw surface temperature data in the hopes honest nonpoliticised science can be done instead of Phil Jone’s junk.
The exchange between Judith Curry and Willis Eschenbach is a picture of the state of climate science.
I don’t think there is any question people would support action if the climate science were robust. As it is after decades of scary predictions global warming is becoming an embarrassing joke.
“There never has been a consensus and the “science” you defend is crippled to a standstill.”
Actually, there is a consensus, and the science is only crippled in the mind of the ill-informed.
“I certainly did not state science should or will stop, in fact The MET office is circulating a petition for the CRU completely start over with raw surface temperature data”
Great, then deniers will say “b-b-but you didn’t normalize the data to cancel out the Urban Heat Island effect!”
Admit it: you have no idea what you’re talking about.
“The exchange between Judith Curry and Willis Eschenbach is a picture of the state of climate science.”
No, it’s a picture of the state of climate advocacy. That you can’t understand the difference is the reason you fail so miserably.
“I don’t think there is any question people would support action if the climate science were robust.”
It is robust, and you have yet to provide a single argument supporting the idea it isn’t.
“As it is after decades of scary predictions global warming is becoming an embarrassing joke.”
The only joke here is you.
You don’t think people oppose it for purely political reasons? That’s preposterous.
Re Ray:
“…you’re hiding behind an increasingy thin veil. There never has been a consensus and the “science” you defend is crippled to a standstill.”
Again, you refer to a political requirement, not science.
“I certainly did not state science should or will stop, in fact The MET office is circulating a petition for the CRU completely start over with raw surface temperature data…”
You misrepresent what the petition was about. Any changes at the CRU will be structural/management, the science won’t change.
I would be up for writing a guest post, if you would be interested. [1]
You may also be interested in the group blog I recently launched: http://burycoal.com/blog/ [2]
—-
Happy to do something e.g. on the nonsense of Pielke jr using old conservative arguments about ‘complexity’ – here’s a sample of me responding to Pielke:
http://www.coveredinbees.org/node/268
I’d be happy to write a guest blog post at Greenfrye. It would get more exposure that way 🙂
What I write about mostly has to do with data analysis, and (be forewarned) I don’t just restrict myself to what the scientific literature says. Check out my blog for examples of what I do, and let me know if you’re interested in that sort of thing.
FWIW I did a wiki on the Monbiot/Plimer debate and have been transcribing a few things (a radio interview with John Freshwater and attorney and pastor, and a Sci-Am special on what longtime SciAm host Alan Alda has seen work when scientists try to reach the public.).
I also know more about HAARP than anyone else I’ve encountered on the net (because I was a daily reporter near HAARP with scientific training when it opened).
My old blog wouldn’t tell you much, though, because it was special purpose and stylized (political analysis of American scifi).
Good luck to the new recruits.
Archie…please tell me you are not a 15 y/o.
No, I’m probably older than you. And smarter.
I fail to see that.
Indeed.
I’d be happy to write a guest post, although not sure what I’d/you’d want me to write about. Definitely get in touch though :).
I would love to write a guest post, although not sure what I’d write. Please get in touch though. I need to lie about something today and AGW seems like a good start.
Sailrick ,Feb 19 3.16am
“Warmer air carries more moisture and therefore more precipitation”
And all the doomsayers tell us that a warming world will lead 6o droughts and water shortages— Bahh
Re: Mr Rigby
In the tropics you have two ‘seasons’, the wet and the dry seasons. The point being that it is the timing of the precipitation which defines if an area of land is dryer or wetter.
You can have more water vapour being carried in the air and that can lead to more rain, but a drought and water shortage is defined by the length of time it fails to rain, not by the fact that when it does rain, there is going to be more of it in that short period than there ever was when the rain fall was more evenly distributed.
What ‘doomsayers’ say is that the events are going to be more extreme. Which isn’t surprising because the earth is retaining more energy as heat. You need to think of the whole issue in terms of energy and what happens to that energy if it doesn’t disperse so rapidly back into space.
Is this the science you speak of when saying nothing else matters, we got the science?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7316758/IPCC-chief-Rajendra-Pachauri-to-face-independent-inquiry.html
No, the science which matters is the science carried out by honest and hard working scientists who publish on a regular basis in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
The IPCC reports are full of “errors” but not the type you deniers want to hear about. Most of the predictions in the latest IPCC reports are “wrong”. Effects of climate change are happening much faster that the IPCC predicted.
Why do you deniers never write about those “errors”? In your minds errors only count if they try to prove you right. That is not how science (and honest people) works.
Ian, could you give me a list of those effects? thanks.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=climate+change+effects
Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
Thanks Dan, Great, from there I learned himalayan glaciers will be gone by year 2035, to expect a 50% food reduction in Africa, the south west US will become a desert, we have seen the last of heavy snowfall in DC ( thanks RK jr) expect arctic sea ice to vanish. I learned hurricanes will become more commen, warned of increasing Giant Squid Attacks, the end of skiing, and much much more….complete utter horse sh*t.
That’s because you’re an idiot who doesn’t know how to use Google.
You can’t win on facts, therefore you go for wild hyperbole, half-truths, strawman arguments and plain old stupidity.
Glaciers *are* receding. The Himalayan ones won’t be gone by 2035, but they’re still losing ground.
Check out the links above about ocean acidification.
Most of all: go back under your bridge, troll.
You have to be selective with what Google gives you, of course. I wouldn’t go believing everything you read there.
Damn, sorry: I’ve been reading the exchanges here thinking, “surely they can be more constructive than that.” Now I find myself being just as unhelpful. The internet: not good for healthy debate.
It just seemed an odd question: why ask Ian for a list of effects when they’re so freely available?
Dan, the point I tried to make with Ian and you was how ridiculous and precarious the claimed science has become, to hide behind the infallibility of the IPCC is longer valid.
I am a layman and write from that perspective.
Had Ian responded I would have tried to refute his claim, and from a debate standpoint earths long history is on my side.
Ray, in your very limited ability with English syntax (see for example many spelling errors) why do you write as a “layman”? Shouldn’t you at least try and find some documented information about what you are going to discuss? Otherwise you just show that you are an ignorant troll who is wasting everyone’s’ time.
Ray, if you want to make a point you have to provide actual arguments to support it. You claim the science has become “ridiculous” and “precarious”, but offer no evidence in that regard.
The IPCC is not a research center – it’s an international panel. There have been a small number of errors in an otherwise voluminous amount of reports. You latch on to these minor errors because you *know* you can’t win a scientific debate.
As for the Earth’s long history, it’s certainly not on your side. On the contrary, studying paleoclimate it’s quite easy to prove you wrong – but again, you are not interested in truth, but only in furthering your anti-science agenda.
You’ve been exposed as someone with absolutely *zero* credibility on the subject.
Ian, again, lets see a list of your examples.
“Most of the predictions in the latest IPCC reports are “wrong”. Effects of climate change are happening much faster that the IPCC predicted.”
Support this statement of yours.
Come on Ray, show us that you are a big boy. Do some real reading and all will be illustrated for you.
You can read and use Google, can’t you? Then why get others do do your work for you? It is either laziness or stupidity, please let us know.
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/
@Dan,
I adore that LMGTFY. How do you do that?
Hold your snark fire please! I just figured out how to do that using, uhmm, Google.
Me, I’ll stick to the topic, since it’s a simple request – and as I may not have indicated clearly, if it helps the blog I’d be happy to guest post.
—-
Ian, your words.
“Most of the predictions in the latest IPCC reports are “wrong”. Effects of climate change are happening much faster that the IPCC predicted.”
Most of the predictions…..you seem to have your own list of what is or isn’t happening due to global warming. Well, lets see it, I cannot match this list you have in mind.
Ray, it is not my fault that you have your head in the sand and can’t see what is happening around you.
I suggest that you keep your head in the sand and your mouth too so that your misrepresentations are not passed on to other ill-informed and gullible people like you.
As I said previously, if you don’t have the necessary skills to find these things for yourself, you certainly don’t have the authority to spread lies and disinformation.
Oh c’mon, be brave Ian. Seems evertime I find a sure sign of our impending doom at the hands of evil oil barons it turns out to be fabricated BS from the WWF/IPCC/CRU.
BTW surely you wish to comment on this.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
OK Ray, since you will not take your head out of the sand I will tell you that greater than 95% of physical and biological systems examined have changed in a direction expected of global warming.
So there are at least 29,500 and you couldn’t even find one.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06937.html
Click to access 2008_Rosenzweig_etal_1.pdf
[golf clap]
Epic pwnage, Ian. Thanks for the links!
Wow. So Cynthia Rosenzweig et al upapologetically tells us that there is a proof of man-made global warming and if you look what the proof actually is, you see that they are parroting a pre-determined sentence from a summary of the IPCC report that they were helping to write themselves. Great, considering one of the more contentious issues is the inability to discern human vs natural climate variability how do they then determine that early blooming flower is a result of AWG…she cannot without the sketchy “science” of the IPCC.
The sole basis for her claim these changes are human caused is because the IPCC said so. The article was behind a paywall but I wonder of Himylian glaciers were given as an example too?
Just as I expected, Ray did not read the whole paper. The second link is to a pdf version of the paper.
Good grief, you deniers are a pathetic lot.
Classic form throughout Ian, absolutely blind to to the points I have put forward, instead concentrating on whatever insult you could throw.
That sir is why the publics perception of global warming is fading. Shrill insults send the message you have nothing substantial to say.
Thanks dude!
Ray, one would have to be an idiot to read this conversation and think you’re winning the argument. So you get the idiot vote. Good luck with that whole thing.
Ian, it’s clear this guy’s a classic troll – he’s not in this for the logical argument, he just wants to waste your time. Stop responding to him and he’ll go away. Anyway, the threading system on this block isn’t ideal for this type of discussion.
I just got the most bizarre email from mike.greenframe@gmail.com:
Hello,
How are you? I’m really sorry for not informing you about my trip to Edinburg for a Seminar. It was something urgent and i didn’t even inform anyone about this traveling. You wouldn’t
believe that I lost my wallet on my way to the hotel I lodged in after the Seminar yesterday which was actually the last day. I find it difficult now to communicate because my money,phone, cards,diary, including my return ticket and other vital documents are all in the wallet. Anyway, I have alerted my banks to blocked my account because of Cards hacker.
The police are also aware and my ticket will be reschedule by the embassy soon but right now I’m at the hotel internet Poscafe sending you this email so that you could help me out with
$1,600 or any amount you could afford just to pay for my hotel bills and to sort myself out. I will appreciate any amount you could afford and I will pay you back upon my arrival. I don’t
even mind paying with interest.
Kindly transfer the money to me directly via the western union money transfer, it is very fast and easy for me to receive the money here with my passport only. I will appreciate your
kindness and fast response. Below is my name and the address you will need to make the transfer at any western union money transfer office in a nearby banks.
Name : mike vincent
Address: 80 High Street,The Royal Mile,EH1 1TH, Edinburgh,United Kingdom
Looking forward to hearing from you soon
Thanks
mike
Delete it and forget it. 🙂
It isn’t our Mike – the grammar and spelling are certainly not up to his standard, his email address and his surname are both wrong, and if he ever did visit Scotland without getting in touch I would be astonished (and annoyed).
S2
If you need any snappy fun graphics made I’m good at that. Here’s an example of my work:
[…] has taken a toll on the hippies, and one is crying uncle and needs help. My old nemesis Greenfyre has only managed three posts this year. I guess the global crisis can […]
Yes!
Feel free to copy and paste/edit any of my climate related posts (just give me a credit and link) from my blog onto this great blog – I’d be honoured!!!