AuthorTopic: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All  (Read 25325 times)

Offline alan2102

  • Contrarian
  • Waitstaff
  • *
  • Posts: 359
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All
« Reply #135 on: April 29, 2014, 04:02:38 PM »
MKing, if you're going to post on this topic, at least you could mention something about scientists' failure to take enough notice of natural variability.

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All
« Reply #136 on: April 29, 2014, 04:40:16 PM »
MKing, if you're going to post on this topic, at least you could mention something about scientists' failure to take enough notice of natural variability.

A riot Alan, a riot. You would think all those smart folks would understand their Box and Draper well enough to understand what it means to model noise.
Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All
« Reply #137 on: April 29, 2014, 06:41:28 PM »
Looks like those who depend so heavily on climate models (where are you when we need you Guy!!) are getting ready to take a hit in the credibility department. And need I say that from  geologic perspective...I told you so?



World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong
Leaked report reveals the world has warmed at quarter the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007
Scientists accept their computers may have exaggerated



"Last night Rose and his editors admitted partial defeat by retracting the online version of article and publishing an amended version under the headline ‘World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong'. 

While the headline error in the original article were removed, the others remained."

from Humiliating mistakes by 'The Mail on Sunday'
http://www.cccep.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/Commentary/2013/Sept/Humiliating-mistakes-The-Mail-on-Sunday.aspx

UPDATE: Despite Doubling Down, Climate Change Article Still Very Misleading
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/18/climate_change_denier_article_updated_still_riddled_with_errors.html

And more

2. “World’s top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just HALF what we thought — and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong”

This second whopper from David Rose, published in the Daily Mail, got corrected after numerous experts pointed out that he was flat-out wrong. Before the correction was made, though, several publications repeated the claim, and Rush Limbaugh happily announced that “climate models have all been wrong” before reading the first several paragraphs of Rose’s article on the air.

The “corrected” headline — “Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought” — isn’t much better. At Slate, Phil Plait addresses the bigger flaw in Rose’s assertions, explaining that although the increase in warming appears to have flattened, the extra heat is just being absorbed by deep ocean water. Again, Skeptical Science illustrates the concept best:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/five_ridiculous_claims_about_climate_change/




My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Online Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All
« Reply #138 on: April 30, 2014, 03:02:46 AM »
Once again, the only people taking "a hit in the credibility department" are the apostles of BAU, and those who would stand up the work of an extractive industry sock puppet as client science.

Typical right wing strategy is to trumpet the headline and bury the retraction.

BAU, indeed.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All
« Reply #139 on: April 30, 2014, 05:55:22 AM »
And the parts that WEREN'T retracted? While I am sure that the superficial are fascinated by headlines, I am more of a meat and potatoes kind of guy. if the people involved in the report are not retracting their comments on its political natural, as well as the core issue of natural variability, then it strikes me that non-Rush Limbaugh folks are allowed to notice.





One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.
Despite the many scientific uncertainties disclosed by the leaked report, it nonetheless draws familiar, apocalyptic conclusions – insisting that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault.
It says the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless there is drastic action to curb greenhouse gases – with big rises in sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.
Last night Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that ‘the science is clearly not settled, and  is in a state of flux’.
 
She said  it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased.
For example, in the new report, the IPCC says it is ‘extremely likely’ – 95 per cent certain – that human  influence caused more than half  the temperature rises from 1951 to 2010, up from ‘very confident’ –  90 per cent certain – in 2007.
Prof Curry said: ‘This is incomprehensible to me’ – adding that the IPCC projections are ‘overconfident’, especially given the report’s admitted areas of doubt.

Climate change sceptics are more outspoken. Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, described the leaked report as a ‘staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance’.
As for the pause, he said ‘it would appear that the IPCC is running out of answers .  .  . to explain why there is a widening gap between predictions and reality’.


Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Online Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All
« Reply #140 on: May 02, 2014, 09:28:08 AM »
Frack, bitches, frack.

Meanwhile, science couldn't care less WHAT you believe.

Carbon Dioxide Levels in Atmosphere Reach Terrifying New Milestone

By Eric Holthaus

It’s official: Earth’s atmosphere is now in uncharted territory, at least since human beings evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago.

The Scripps Institute at the University of California-San Diego confirmed the news on Thursday:

Measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations taken continuously at Mauna Loa in Hawaii since 1958 have shown a steady upward climb related to fossil fuel burning worldwide. The Mauna Loa measurements are considered to be some of the clearest evidence of human impact on the global climate.


April 2014 was the first time monthly carbon dioxide has been above 400 parts per million since humans have been around.
Image: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California-San Diego

Every single daily carbon dioxide measurement in April 2014 was above 400 parts per million. That hasn’t happened in nearly a million years, and perhaps much longer. Climate scientists have proven that the rise in human-produced greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global climate change. The likelihood of dangerous impacts—like sea level rise, hotter heat waves, and certain types of extreme weather—increases with each incremental annual rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The data are even more striking when you take the long view. Here’s carbon dioxide concentrations from the dawn of the industrial revolution until this week:

Image: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California-San Diego

Carbon dioxide levels have increased by more than 40 percent since humans first started burning fossil fuels in large quantities about 250 years ago. Once released, the carbon dioxide from coal, oil, and natural gas burning can remain in the atmosphere for centuries. Thus, the crux of the problem: There just hasn’t been enough time yet since those first coal-powered factories in Europe for the atmosphere to return to equilibrium. What’s more, the pace of fossil fuel burning has since dramatically quickened—there’ve been more greenhouse gas emissions in the last 40 years than over the previous 200—so carbon dioxide buildup keeps accelerating.

Over the very long term, taking data from ice cores in Antarctica, paleoclimatologists have determined that there’s never been as quick a spike in carbon dioxide levels in at least the last 800,000 years:

Image: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California-San Diego

These data are painstakingly compiled by finding tiny air bubbles trapped in the ancient ice, and then analyzing their chemical composition. By this method, scientists have literally measured nearly a million years’ worth of the Earth’s atmosphere. Of course, looking at historical data, scientists could have made the same statement—we’re at levels not seen in human history!—in any year since about 1914 and would have been accurate. Problem is, the data didn’t exist then.

It’s only been since 1958 that scientists started to get an idea of just how big of a problem the buildup in carbon dioxide might be. Since carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere so long, you can reliably measure global concentrations from just about any place on Earth that’s relatively removed from urban pollution. That year, the late Scripps scientist Charles Keeling decided to start taking continuous measurements at the top of a volcano in the middle of the Pacific Ocean—about as far from contamination as possible. That decision, perhaps more than any other in climate science history, brought climate change to the world spotlight.

His son, Ralph Keeling, now directs the CO2 program at Scripps, and maintains the iconic chart of atmospheric carbon dioxide that bears his father’s name: the Keeling Curve.

I spoke with Ralph on the phone on Wednesday about the new milestone.

Slate: What’s the significance of 400 parts per million?

Ralph Keeling: People like round numbers. When you hit a milestone you realize how far you've come. It's a little bit surreal. You think, “Whoa, OK, not quite used to this one yet.” It's like having a round number birthday. It takes a while to identify with the new era you're in.

Slate: Your work and your father’s work have brought great attention to the topic of human-caused climate change. Still, there’s been a struggle to recognize its importance with a guarantee of continued funding. Just a few months ago, you wrote a public appeal for support and were able to crowdsource additional funds, but it’s not yet enough to guarantee the program’s continuation.

Keeling: It’s tough. It’s clear you need to keep these observations going. The challenge is having a partner to pay for it. There are many other long-term measurements that struggle in exactly the same way. We are underinvesting in the science of measurements that track over decades. That time horizon doesn't mesh well with funding horizons. Still, that hasn't kept me or my father from making these sort of measurements. I had my father as an example. Perhaps we were both foolhardy, but it feels very important. I didn't go into science to have an easy road. I went in to help make discoveries. I can't really think of any other way I'd be able to do that better than by this work.

Slate: It’s clear these measurements have resonated with millions of people around the world and have moved governments to address climate change. But still, the measurements keep going up. There’s a global climate treaty that will be signed next year in Paris, but there’s still vast uncertainty over whether it will go far enough to make a difference. Where do we go from here?

Keeling: We as a planet haven’t done enough yet to address climate change. The milestone of 400 parts per million is a measure of the rather poor track record of negotiators and everyone else.

The central tough nut is reducing fossil fuel burning. I don't have strong views on how we should go about it, but it's clear if we keep on the same course we're heading for a very different world. That carries with it lots of risks. If the climate changes fast enough, those risks are compounded.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All
« Reply #141 on: May 02, 2014, 11:55:07 AM »
The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
Murdoch's The Australian simultaneously denies that global warming is happening, it's our fault, and it's a problem
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/02/australian-quantum-theory-climate-denial
My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All
« Reply #142 on: May 13, 2014, 01:04:57 PM »
Am I missing something? I performed a Google search for news reports on the below press release. There appear to be none.

Am i right? Isn't this news?



Coast-to-Coast March for Climate Action Arrives in Albuquerque
May 8, 2014 by Ki Coulson   

ALBUQUERQUE– On May 10, 2014, the Great March for Climate Action will co-host a community march and rally with the Sierra Club – Rio Grande to boost awareness of the impacts of climate disruption. The rally will begin at 12:00 PM at the Washington Middle School Park.  The public is invited to join in a banner procession march at 10:30 AM that will start on Central Ave. between 86th and Unser and will end at the rally. This event is part of a cross-country trek intended to bring attention to the sources and impacts of climate change. Marchers began their journey on March 1, 2014 in Los Angeles and will end their march in Washington, DC on November 1, 2014.  >>> continued >>>

http://climatemarch.org/coast-to-coast-march-for-climate-action-arrives-in-albuquerque/
My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Global Warming Crowd Now Argue It is Cycles That Mask the Warming Trend?
« Reply #143 on: July 21, 2014, 06:14:46 AM »
Let me emphatically state these are not my views, they are those of noted economist Martin Armstrong. A man with much political influence whose views are taken seriously by many people.

This article is presented in the spirit of looking at what the other side is currently presenting; the other side of the coin as it's called. In no way is it presented to disparage or obfuscate the work and views of many Diner's who devote much time and effort to this topic, or their views that it is a critical matter.   

Posted on July 21, 2014 by Martin Armstrong   

 
  Global Warming Crowd Now Argue It is Cycles That Mask the Warming Trend?

                                                     

                                                         


The Global Warming crowd is now desperately trying to counter-act the data that says they are quite frankly about as credible as the old Y2K crowd back in 2000. The data have clearly shown that they have lied, manipulated, and outright carried out a major fraud upon society. They argue that man has altered the entire planet in just a few decades which is like focusing on a 7 day reaction in a bear market and declaring it’s really a bull market. They theory is totally unsound simply from a realistic research perspective.

The fact that surface temperatures have not warmed over the past 17 years showing that their climate models are unreliable, is now amazingly being refuted with quick new research led by James Risbey, in just a matter of weeks demonstrating clearly predisposed bias. Risbey now excuses their nonsense of models that have overestimated global warming with a slapped together study published in Nature Climate Change asserting that their models actually generate good estimates of recent and past trends provided they also took into account natural variability known as El Nino-La Nina phases in the Pacific.
It is just amazing how these people are so sold on claiming millions of years can be altered in just a few decades. Risbey is clueless obviously that cycles exist and claiming that the oceans are absorbing the heat so we do not feel it is clever. Effective he states he would be right but for El Nino-La Mina phases. OMG – is this cycles? He actually states: “You’re always going to get periods when the warming slows down or speeds up relative to the mean rate because we have these strong natural cycles”.

So lets see, there are roughly 30-year cycles whereby the Pacific alternates between periods of more frequent El Ninos – when the ocean gives back heat to the atmosphere – to La Ninas, when it acts as a massive heat sink, setting in train relatively cool periods for surface temperatures. This has been taking place before the Industrial Revolution.

The record of the biggest hurricane seasons in the Atlantic since the start of the 20th century reveals only a cycle, not a progressive trend escalating that builds like a bull market.
1.    1950    8
2.    2005    7
3.    1999    6
3.    1996    6
3.    1964    6
3.    1961    6
3.    1955    6
3.    1926    6

By selecting climate models in phase with natural variability, Risbey is desperately trying to argue the global warming core trend is correct. Quite frankly, a few decades does not cut it. In market forecasting, this is no different from following Black–Scholes that led to the Long-Term Capital Management collapse in 1998 when Genius Failed because they tested the model with data only back to 1971.

Even looking at the historical record of storms, none of the worst even took place during the 20th century.


Where-Year-Deaths
Gulf of Mexico    1590       1,000    
Nicaragua    1605       1300    
Straits of Florida    1622       1090    
Cuba and Florida    1644       1500    
Caribbean    1666       2000    
Barbados    1694       1000+    
Bahamas    1715       1,000 – 2,500
Martinique    1767       1,600    
Havana    1768       43 – 1,000    
Newfoundland    August 29 – September 9, 1775    North Carolina, Virginia, Newfoundland    4,000 – 4,163
Pointe-à-Pitre Bay    1776       6,000+    
San Calixto    October 9–20, 1780    Lesser Antilles, Puerto Rico, Hispaniola, Bermuda    27,501+    
Gulf of Mexico    1780       2,000    
Jamaica and Cuba    1780       42 – 1,090    
Florida    1781       2,000+    
Central Atlantic    1782       3,000+    
“Cuba” Hurricane    1791       30 – 3,000    
“Martinique    1813       3,000+    
Caribbean    1824       372 – 1,300+
Barbados–Louisiana    August 10–17, 1831    Barbados, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Louisiana    1,500 – 2,500
Risbey stated: “The climate is simply variable on short time scales but that variability is superimposed on an unmistakable long-term warming trend.”

Risbey claims that the skeptics have lately relied on a naturally cool phase of the global cycle to fan doubts about climate change, the fact temperature records continue to fall even during a La-Nina dominated period is notable. Yet his argument reveals his own mistake – HELLO THERE ARE CYCLES. He boldly states that the temperature rising from the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere “is beginning to overwhelm the natural variability on even shorter decadal time scales”. Quite frankly, he lacks any historical evidence long-term to support any such conclusion. As long as people like this put out bogus research, they have a job. Without global warming theory, sorry, they need to find something else to scare people with to get a pay check for shallow research.

As long as this type of bogus research unfolds, government can justify taxing energy.

  http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/07/21/global-warming-crowd-now-argue-it-is-cycles-that-mask-the-warming-trend/  :icon_study:

The bold print on the last sentence was my doing. I put it there because Mr Armstrong's entire argument, for those not familiar with his work, is that most  environmental concern is merely a tax grab. 

 


 

 




                                                             

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
992 Views
Last post May 21, 2014, 09:14:28 PM
by MKing
0 Replies
816 Views
Last post June 09, 2014, 03:04:32 AM
by Guest
4 Replies
1352 Views
Last post August 21, 2015, 12:26:40 PM
by RE