Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Smurf1976]

Once science become politicised, or worse, religion as this has, there is always going to be corruption.

That is precisely the problem with the whole debate. Few are reallyinterested in the science as such, it's all about politics.

If it's hot then it must be climate change. If it's cold then it's just weather...

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Dodging issues is a AGW alarmists specialty...If the data doesn't match computer generated hypothesis - simply change the data and let the magic flow! A new Hockey Stick, New Zealand's NIWA magic temperature increases and magical sea level rises....

NASA-Funded Group Doctors Sea Level Data
Source: Forbes
by James Taylor

Catastrophic sea level rise is one of the most valued hole cards played by alarmists in the global warming debate. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore showed computer generated images of what Manhattan would look like if sea level rose 20 feet. Building on this theme, elevation charts of coastal cities have become a staple in global warming presentations by Al Gore wannabes. But what happens when sea level in the real world does not rise nearly as much as alarmists predict? If you are a NASA-funded gatekeeper of sea level data, you merely doctor the data.

Faced with the embarrassing fact that sea level is not rising nearly as much as has been predicted, the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group has announced it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. As a result, alarmists will be able to present sea level charts asserting an accelerating rise in sea level that is not occurring in the real world.
..
..
Satellite measurements, however, show global sea level rose merely 0.83 inches during the first decade of the 21st century (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century), and has barely risen at all since 2006. This puts alarmists in the embarrassing position of defending predictions that are not coming true in the real world.
​

And here's the justification from the Uni of Colorado:

One important change in these releases is that we are now adding a correction of 0.3 mm/year due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA)​

Of course when all the reporting is rolled up, all such changes will be massaged to show that Sea Level changes are accelerating.

All I need now is a Royal Commission wand.

 

[derty]

Dodging issues is a AGW alarmists specialty...If the data doesn't match computer generated hypothesis - simply change the data and let the magic flow! A new Hockey Stick, New Zealand's NIWA magic temperature increases and magical sea level rises....

NASA-Funded Group Doctors Sea Level Data
Source: Forbes
by James Taylor

Catastrophic sea level rise is one of the most valued hole cards played by alarmists in the global warming debate. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore showed computer generated images of what Manhattan would look like if sea level rose 20 feet. Building on this theme, elevation charts of coastal cities have become a staple in global warming presentations by Al Gore wannabes. But what happens when sea level in the real world does not rise nearly as much as alarmists predict? If you are a NASA-funded gatekeeper of sea level data, you merely doctor the data.

Faced with the embarrassing fact that sea level is not rising nearly as much as has been predicted, the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group has announced it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. As a result, alarmists will be able to present sea level charts asserting an accelerating rise in sea level that is not occurring in the real world.
..
..
Satellite measurements, however, show global sea level rose merely 0.83 inches during the first decade of the 21st century (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century), and has barely risen at all since 2006. This puts alarmists in the embarrassing position of defending predictions that are not coming true in the real world.
​

And here's the justification from the Uni of Colorado:

One important change in these releases is that we are now adding a correction of 0.3 mm/year due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA)​

Of course when all the reporting is rolled up, all such changes will be massaged to show that Sea Level changes are accelerating.

All I need now is a Royal Commission wand.

I'm not sure why isostatic adjustments are only being accommodated in the data now. I would have assumed that they would have been part of the regular calculations.

Isostasy or isostatic rebound is a real phenomena OWG. They aren't just making this all up so they can add some numbers to the sea level data. The uplift of the land due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment is measurable with the most recent data collection being done by the GRACE program satellites and GPS networks. Rebound rates in some places are still occurring at a rate of around 1cm/year. The British Isles have lifted approx 50m since the last glacial maximum.

Even just building a decent sized dam will cause the land surface to subside or force an isostatic adjustment.

Isostasy

Isostasy (Greek ísos "equal", stásis "standstill") is a term used in geology to refer to the state of gravitational equilibrium between the earth's lithosphere and asthenosphere such that the tectonic plates "float" at an elevation which depends on their thickness and density. This concept is invoked to explain how different topographic heights can exist at the Earth's surface. When a certain area of lithosphere reaches the state of isostasy, it is said to be in isostatic equilibrium. Isostasy is not a process that upsets equilibrium, but rather one which restores it (a negative feedback). It is generally accepted that the earth is a dynamic system that responds to loads in many different ways.

Glacial Isostatic Adjustment

During the last glacial period, much of northern Europe, Asia, North America, Greenland and Antarctica were covered by ice sheets. The ice was as thick as three kilometres during the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago. The enormous weight of this ice caused the surface of the Earth's crust to deform and warp downward, forcing the fluid mantle material to flow away from the loaded region. At the end of the ice age when the glaciers retreated, the removal of the weight from the depressed land led to slow (and still ongoing) uplift or rebound of the land and the return flow of mantle material back under the deglaciated area. Due to the extreme viscosity of the mantle, it will take many thousands of years for the land to reach an equilibrium level.

 

[macca]

So if the Earths surface is rising we don't need to worry do we !!

All these adjustments are always UP, or pro panic, never seen one yet that is down.

I have this funny feeling that back in the 70s when the climate people were screaming "ice age coming" (some of them are the same people, just older) these lying alarmists would have been adjusting figures down.

Now they adjust them up, so now they compare figures that have been adjusted up to figures from the 70s that were adjusted down and say "we need more research money"

What a rort.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Glacial Isostatic Adjustment
During the last glacial period, much of northern Europe, Asia, North America, Greenland and Antarctica were covered by ice sheets. The ice was as thick as three kilometres during the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago. The enormous weight of this ice caused the surface of the Earth's crust to deform and warp downward, forcing the fluid mantle material to flow away from the loaded region. At the end of the ice age when the glaciers retreated, the removal of the weight from the depressed land led to slow (and still ongoing) uplift or rebound of the land and the return flow of mantle material back under the deglaciated area. Due to the extreme viscosity of the mantle, it will take many thousands of years for the land to reach an equilibrium level.

Oh I see, let me get this straight...it's man's production of CO2 that's melting the ice caps and driving glaciers to retreat globally as most AGW alarmists claim, but yet you use a quote that explains ice sheets were kilometers thick thousands of years ago.

I thought the Hockey Stick that still seems to be credible in the eyes of Alarmists explained that the earth's global temperatures were relatively flat up until the mid-twentieth century where CO2 "pollution" has devastated ice caps and glaciers.

So what caused the melting thousands of years ago? Perhaps some other horror we should start to worry about! The credibility of alarmists continues to deteriorate in this thread and the flip-flopping of AGW answers continues...what's next? More extreme weather events called Snow?

 

[wayneL]

I
Even just building a decent sized dam will cause the land surface to subside or force an isostatic adjustment.

However this is not factored in when alarmists trumpet the plight of low lying islands, blaming sea level rises when in fact it is land use which is the problem.

Isostatic adjustments seem to be selectively applied.

 

[Knobby22]

Oh I see, let me get this straight...it's man's production of CO2 that's melting the ice caps and driving glaciers to retreat globally as most AGW alarmists claim, but yet you use a quote that explains ice sheets were kilometers thick thousands of years ago.

I thought the Hockey Stick that still seems to be credible in the eyes of Alarmists explained that the earth's global temperatures were relatively flat up until the mid-twentieth century where CO2 "pollution" has devastated ice caps and glaciers.

:

You must know you are talking nonsense. Think about what you are writing before you write it.

 

[derty]

Oh I see, let me get this straight...it's man's production of CO2 that's melting the ice caps and driving glaciers to retreat globally as most AGW alarmists claim, but yet you use a quote that explains ice sheets were kilometers thick thousands of years ago.

I thought the Hockey Stick that still seems to be credible in the eyes of Alarmists explained that the earth's global temperatures were relatively flat up until the mid-twentieth century where CO2 "pollution" has devastated ice caps and glaciers.

So what caused the melting thousands of years ago? Perhaps some other horror we should start to worry about! The credibility of alarmists continues to deteriorate in this thread and the flip-flopping of AGW answers continues...what's next? More extreme weather events called Snow?

lol, you spend all this time regurgitating the anti-AGW meme's. Discount out of hand any rational explanation presented to you. All while displaying that you have no real understanding of any of the basic history, cycles and processes of the Earth. No wonder all this stuff you post up seems rational to you.

Basically a while a go there was an ice age that lasted for approx 100,000 years. Glaciers covered most of the continents in the higher latitudes (not Australia) at a depth of up to several kilometres. Variations in the Earths orbit and spin cause the earth to enter these cold periods and exit them. Before the last ice age was a warm period much like the warm period (interglacial) were are currently inhabiting. The current interglacial commenced around 11,000 years ago.

These cycles are driven by cyclical variations in the Earth's orbital eccentricity (how circular), orbital inclination (angle of our orbital plane) and the precession of the Earth's axis (the Earth wobbles like a spinning top). Milankovitch is the guy credited with the discovering the theory (around WW1), though a Scottsman, James Croll documented the same theory and even calculated the times of the previous ice ages with reasonable accuracy in the mid 1860's.

The Milankovitch Cycles

 

[basilio]

Basically a while a go there was an ice age that lasted for approx 100,000 years. Glaciers covered most of the continents in the higher latitudes (not Australia) at a depth of up to several kilometres. Variations in the Earths orbit and spin cause the earth to enter these gold periods and exit them. Before the last ice age was a warm period much like the warm period (interglacial) were are currently inhabiting. The current interglacial commenced around 11,000 years ago.

These cycles are driven by cyclical variations in the Earth's orbital eccentricity (how circular), orbital inclination (angle of our orbital plane) and the precession of the Earth's axis (the Earth wobbles like a spinning top). Milankovitch is the guy credited with the discovering the theory (around WW1), though a Scottsman, James Croll documented the same theory and even calculated the times of the previous ice ages with reasonable accuracy in the mid 1860's.

The Milankovitch Cycles

That was a really interesting and useful segue Derty. Well worth refreshing the memory on the Milankovitch cycles as one of the factors in creating the climactic conditions on earth.

 

[derty]

However this is not factored in when alarmists trumpet the plight of low lying islands, blaming sea level rises when in fact it is land use which is the problem.

Isostatic adjustments seem to be selectively applied.

The isostatic adjustment does not occur uniformly. Some bits go up quickly, some bits more slowly and some parts are going down. Also due to the redistribution of magma post the ice age the prevailing adjustment of the ocean floors is down (in contrast to the continents which is up).

So yes you are right a component of the sea level rise we see in these low lying islands is due to isostasy which gives them a double whammy as it is cumulative with sea level rise. And yes it is something that the 'alarmists' either don't pass on, or more likely are unaware of when regurgitating the more catastrophic predictions.

Locally sea level and sea level rise is an extremely complicated thing to measure. There is istostasy, thermal expansion, tides, the effect of prevailing winds piling up water e.t.c. With the isostatic adjustment the calculation is that the average effect is to mask sea level rise by 0.3mm/yr due to lifting continental crust.

 

[bandicoot76]

heres a passage that sums up my feelings toward AGW zealots pretty well:

"special interests can think of the most ingenious reasons why they should be the objects of special solicitude.their spokesmen present a plan in their favour; and it seems at first so absurd that disinterested [parties} do not trouble to expose it.

but the special interests keep on insisting on the scheme. its enactment would make so much difference to their own immediate welfare that they can afford to hire trained [professionals] and public relations experts to propagate it on their behalf.

the public hears the argument so often repeated, and accompanied by such a wealth of imposing statistics,charts, curves and pie-slices, that it is soon taken in.when at last the disinterested [parties] recognize that the danger of the schemes enactment is real, they are usually too late!

they cannot in a few weeks acquaint themselves with the subject as thoroughly as the hired brains who have been devoting their time to it for years; they are accused of being uninformed, and they have the air of men who presume to dispute axioms."

 

[basilio]

Bandicoot that little story is a fitting description of the lobbying talents of say the tobacco industry, the gambling industry, financial planners an a few other assorted spivs.

Perhaps it worth appreciating just how far off the mark global warming deniers are.

In America Congress called for the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to investigate climate change and provide detailed scientific advice for Congress.

So they did just that and what did they say ? The Washington Post in an editorial outlined the essentials of the report.

Climate change denial becomes harder to justify

By Editorial, Published: May 16

“CLIMATE CHANGE is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

So says — in response to a request from Congress — the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the country’s preeminent institution chartered to provide scientific advice to lawmakers.

In a report titled “America’s Climate Choices,” a panel of scientific and policy experts also concludes that the risks of inaction far outweigh the risks or disadvantages of action. And the most sensible and urgently needed action, the panel says, is to put a rising price on carbon emissions, by means of a tax or cap-and-trade system. That would encourage innovation, research and a gradual shift away from the use of energy sources (oil, gas and coal) that are endangering the world.

None of this should come as a surprise. None of this is news. But it is newsworthy, sadly, because the Republican Party, and therefore the U.S. government, have moved so far from reality and responsibility in their approach to climate change.

Seizing on inevitable points of uncertainty in something as complex as climate science, and on misreported pseudo-scandals among a few scientists, Republican members of Congress, presidential candidates and other leaders pretend that the dangers of climate change are hypothetical and unproven and the causes uncertain.

Not so, says the National Research Council. “Although the scientific process is always open to new ideas and results, the fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanation.”

Climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three. And their recalcitrance is dangerous, the report makes clear, because the longer the nation waits to respond to climate change, the more catastrophic the planetary damage is likely to be — and the more drastic the needed response.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...der-to-justify/2011/05/13/AF44QQ4G_story.html

Are we supposed to accept that the whole Science community is so corrupt, or stupid or self interested that it can manage to get this issue so totally wrong ? Is it worth thinking about ?

 

[OzWaveGuy]

As with the AGW alarmists on this thread who aren't too concerned about corruption, falsifying temperature records and who also avoid making any changes to their own lifestyle to reduce the "killer" CO2 are joined by most of the government's ministers....

THE Federal Government is proving to be full of hot air when it comes to slashing greenhouse gases, with just two out of 20 Cabinet ministers choosing fuel-efficient “hybrid” cars.

Despite insisting Australia must reduce carbon emissions, Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Climate Change Minister Greg Combet are among scores of Labor MPs driving gas-guzzlers.​

In just 2 years, the Global Warming scam is on a "tipping point" as the clear minded individual can see thru the propaganda that simply results in more taxes and leaving the world's temperatures unchanged.

The real questions is: Have we headed into a cooling trend that may adversely impact economies and food production? (AGW alarmists need not answer, I think we already understand your pov)

 

[tothemax6]

the public hears the argument so often repeated, and accompanied by such a wealth of imposing statistics,charts, curves and pie-slices, that it is soon taken in.when at last the disinterested [parties] recognize that the danger of the schemes enactment is real, they are usually too late!

they cannot in a few weeks acquaint themselves with the subject as thoroughly as the hired brains who have been devoting their time to it for years; they are accused of being uninformed, and they have the air of men who presume to dispute axioms."

Good passage, very true. What do you suppose is the solution bandicoot?

 

[OzWaveGuy]

This should get interesting.....a challenge to AGW scientists and Government....

Alan Jones speaks to Malcolm Roberts, the project director of the Galileo Movement. For more information, visit www.galileomovement.com.au​

.

It looks like Malcolm is still waiting for an answer on actual evidence that man made CO2 impacts temperatures.....no answers yet from the so called AGW experts. Perhaps the non-experts here with coloured graphs from models can send Malcolm the answer.

 

[bandicoot76]

Good passage, very true. What do you suppose is the solution bandicoot?

i'm not even sure there is a problem that requires a solution mate, to me the sunspot variation/solar wind interaction theory makes the most sense, it never gets any airtime though so most ppl have never even heard of it... but thats my own personal bias... its what makes sense to me...

it doesnt mean its the definative answer, maybe there is no definative answer maybe the global temps slight trend upwards over the past few decades is a combination of 10000 different variants all combined, maybe its part of a cycle that hasnt been identified yet, i remain VERY sceptical that man made CO2 is the cause however!

no matter how many times i go over the 'man made carbon is the one and only climate forcing element' statement sprouted by the AGW faithful it never computes in my head and doesnt seem logical... again i point out that i have an engineering background not a scientific one so maybe it does go over my head abit, but when i start to feel this way i look at the lack of honesty and morality and unethical behavior of the ppl pushing it (gore, garnaut, flannery, mann, jones etc etc) and the exagerations they put forward and my scepticism suddenly returns tenfold!

HOWEVER ,NO MATTER THE SCIENCE, AT THE END OF THE DAY HOW HAS A TAX EVER SOLVED A PROBLEM OR EVER HELPED ANYONE OTHER THAN PARASITIC GOVERNMENTS?

 

[bandicoot76]

Good passage, very true. What do you suppose is the solution bandicoot?

sorry i think i took your quote in the wrong context, at first i thought you meant: 'solution to global warming'

however re-reading your post i think you meant: 'how do sceptics counter the AGW propaganda machine?'

if its the latter then thats a pretty hard question to answer! i guess keep an open mind, read as much information on the subject FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE that you can get your hands on and basically keep an open mind...

i think the main difference between sceptics and believers is that believers think the science is settled and must be acted on, whereas sceptics are unconvinced so therefore think its far from it and should be investigated more before taking possibly costly & unwarranted action (keep in mind flannerys comment that it probably wont affect ppl for another 1000yrs regardless of a carbon tax)

.... of the 2 positions who do you think is more keeping an open mind?

so back to the point, my solution, hmmm...research the sh*t out of it then go with your gut feeling, if you feel strongly about it then bring up the subject with as many ppl as you can and have an informed discussion presenting facts to back your position, AGW dissent has to be done from a grass-roots position of power cos your gunna get SFA support from the media, tax-dollar hungry pollies and the rest of the establishment... cos lets face it, no matter the science... tHEY ALL WANT TO MILK THE FAT CARBON CASH COW!

 

[basilio]

AGW alarmists.... So that obviously includes the whole body of scientists represented by the the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. The falsified evidence is the sum total of thousands of research papers by hundreds of scientists over 30 years. The scientific basis for this concern - that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been proven to trap heat from the sun. This too must be some sort of mistake.

Bandicoot you say you have an engineering background. Is it even remotely feasible that in engineering circles there could ever be such a total mistake of understanding ? That hundreds of engineering scientists could collectively conspire to fabricate evidence to come to a totally wrong headed conclusion ?

Can anyone else conceive of any other scientific field - medicine for example where such a long term and monumental error occurred ?

And yet on an issue where we all face quite horrendous consequences if we don't act you insist this whole scientific community is wrong, fraudulent and mischievous.

Crazy stuff folks. But I can still totally understand why you cannot even consider the remotest possibility that the scientists represented by the National Research Council (and many others ) might actually know what they are talking about.

Because what they are saying is not an attractive look is it ? And if we really did take it seriously we would have to realistically face some huge consequences - which of course very few of us actually want to recognise

 

[OzWaveGuy]

AGW alarmists.... So that obviously includes the whole body of scientists represented by the the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. The falsified evidence is the sum total of thousands of research papers by hundreds of scientists over 30 years.(

"Hundreds of Scientists"? Perhaps I have misunderstood - from the previous PM who also is an alarmist, I thought there were "4000 scientists" at the IPCC in white coats running around measuring "things". And from the IPCC - 2500 scientists agreed that man is causing unprecedented warming. So we've now dropped from several thousand to a few hundred?

It kinda sounds like rats leaving a sinking ship. Demand more cheese to encourage them back.

 

[bandicoot76]

.

And yet on an issue where we all face quite horrendous consequences if we don't act you insist this whole scientific community is wrong, fraudulent and mischievous.

did you even read my post? where did i insist 'the whole scientific community is wrong?' yes i did list some names of alarmists who are hypocrits, liars and frauds... ppl who exagerate the 'problem' for their own agenda, however... i believe i made the main point that the difference between alarmists and sceptics was that alarmists have taken the theory as gospel while sceptics have yet to be convincved. hardly an extreme viewpoint in my mind!

lol... the engineering field is changing constantly! what is an industry standard and accepted by everyone one day could very well become history if, when put in practice and studied over time, it is proved to be impractical, flawed or just plain wrong. flawed theorys tend to get swiftly eradicated in the engineering field... i guess thats the difference between theory and practice, practical application weeds out the BS pretty quickly!

your post seems to indicate that you think the science is settled and no other 'climate driver' other than CO2 need be studied nor taken seriously?
you are pushing the doomsdayers line of 'act now or perish' when the latest statement from your mob by tim flannery suggests that even acting now (introducing carbon tax) wont have any effect for 1000yrs & even then would be slight... so why the big rush?

you have clearly made up your mind on the AGW issue, so be it... good for you... many of us have not, and we like to hear information from both sides before deciding on our position, not because we are 'paid off by big oil' or brainwashed by 'deniers' & 'conspiracy peddlers'... basically its because your mob hasnt convinced us yet! too much exageration & too many hypocrits on the bandwagon to be taken seriously at this stage...

and 30yrs ago it was 'glogal cooling/beware the new ice-age' that was all the rage with the global climate scientific community... well i guess with abit of spin-doctoring that could be lumped under the 'climate change science' banner though couldnt it... not sure if you could string it out to cover AGW but!

there have been scientific consensus's throughout history that, although fervently and unanimously agreed by [almost] all at the time to be true, have later proven to be false, yes even in the medical, engineering, physics etc etc fields! steven hawkings 'black hole event horizon information loss' theory springs to mind... but at least he had the balls to admit he was wrong! the eugenics theory also springs to mind... and it scares me a little that the remnants of the eugenics movement are up to their eyeballs in the AWG movement as well!