Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

All this cold making the north polar ice cap melt twice as fast as had been thought.

Be more gas fields opening up up there to keep warm apparently

 

[wayneL]

All this cold making the north polar ice cap melt twice as fast as had been thought.

Be more gas fields opening up up there to keep warm apparently

Please educate yourself on this matter explod.

 

[Julia]

One of the major outcomes of the talkfest was that the Clinton lady complimented La Gillard on her hair.

Be fair Julia, be fair.

I am very fair. I quite like her hair also, or at least I would if she would tone down the colour a bit.
Good to see that Mrs Clinton took note.

 

[explod]

Please educate yourself on this matter explod.

Merely quoting yesterday's news Champ.

Pick on someone who cares

 

[sails]

One of the major outcomes of the talkfest was that the Clinton lady complimented La Gillard on her hair...

Was the Clinton lady just being polite? We will never know, of course.

 

[wayneL]

Merely quoting yesterday's news Champ.

Pick on someone who cares

News isn't science or fact Chief.

I'm merely pointing out there has been some recent science regarding factors that affect summer Arctic melt... if you are interested.

But as you indicated, probably don't care about that.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

News isn't science or fact Chief.

I'm merely pointing out there has been some recent science regarding factors that affect summer Arctic melt... if you are interested.

But as you indicated, probably don't care about that.

As basilio keeps tacitly agreeing with, the warmists don't care about the profuse corruption by the agw warmist movement either. Does plod fit within this corrupt mindset too? I suggest so. it's interesting that none of the warmist here have raised a word on the corruption in agw politics and science - hence the downfall of the agw meme

 

[wayneL]

From the spelling and grammar thread:

Thanks basilio. Your conversion to a seeker of the truth in such a trivial matter is refreshing. Let's hope it is reflected in your GW posts.

Fritz Vahrenholt converted to seeker of truth also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...g-second-thoughts-of-an-environmentalist.html

For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too.

and

The choice is no longer between global warming catastrophe and economic growth but between economic catastrophe and climate sense.

 

[wayneL]

Again from the spelling and grammar thread:

Well Calliope when you and the rest of the CC deniers decide to recognise some climate science that is measured, peer reviewed and real instead of the fanciful BS that you don't even bother to quote anymore we might have a discussion.

Questions:

1/ Who else are you labeling with that reprehensible term, denier?

2/ Is the peer review you refer to the same peer review that the IPCC literature uses? (see my above post)

3/ Can non empirical modeling be considered 'fanciful BS' as opposed to empirical observation/data?

 

[basilio]

Again from the spelling and grammar thread:



Questions:

1/ Who else are you labeling with that reprehensible term, denier?

2/ Is the peer review you refer to the same peer review that the IPCC literature uses? (see my above post)

3/ Can non empirical modeling be considered 'fanciful BS' as opposed to empirical observation/data?

Start with the mirror Wayne...

I have lost all respect for the climate denier BS after reading through all the distorted lies and rubbish that is thrown up the echo chambers on the internet and then quoted ad nauseum. Even when one carefully points out the deliberate and possibly accidental errors made in these posts they are just summarily dismissed.

I see very few posters who actually follow the evidence or logic. It's far easier to jump to denial and ad hominem attacks.

And while we are discussing such "ad hominem" attacks I am still very, very dirty on your earlier defamation of NASA climate scientist James Hanson. I thought it represented a new low in disrespect of climate science and the leading scientists in that field. But of course it is just another spectacular way to dismiss information you just don't want to recognise.

I have previously discussed many lines of evidence surrounding climate change research. But in this forum that is now clearly a waste of time. In fact I think the whole CC discussion is now a waste of time in ASF.

 

[wayneL]

Start with the mirror Wayne...

I have lost all respect for the climate denier BS after reading through all the distorted lies and rubbish that is thrown up the echo chambers on the internet and then quoted ad nauseum. Even when one carefully points out the deliberate and possibly accidental errors made in these posts they are just summarily dismissed.

I see very few posters who actually follow the evidence or logic. It's far easier to jump to denial and ad hominem attacks.

And while we are discussing such "ad hominem" attacks I am still very, very dirty on your earlier defamation of NASA climate scientist James Hanson. I thought it represented a new low in disrespect of climate science and the leading scientists in that field. But of course it is just another spectacular way to dismiss information you just don't want to recognise.

I have previously discussed many lines of evidence surrounding climate change research. But in this forum that is now clearly a waste of time. In fact I think the whole CC discussion is now a waste of time in ASF.

1/ Hansen is demonstrably a nutter. Sorry if you have the hots for him, but it's true IMNTBCHO.

2/ How about answering my questions instead of sidestepping, particular the question of who you are disgracefully labeling as denier?

3/ also the question of empirical evidence vs modelling.

4/ Oh well you may as well answer the question about the quality of the rubbish contained in IPCC literature as per Vahrenholt above.

 

[basilio]

Wayne if you insist on calling James Hansen a "nutter" (which is kinder than you previous piece of disparagement) then you stand as either delusional or a liar. Take your pick.

And in any case if you had any semblance of respect for the topic you wouldn't be debasing the discussion by smearing one of the most respected scientists in the field. You may as well smear everyone else as well.

With regard to Vahrenholt's observations. There are quite extensive analysis of the deliberate or accidental errors he has made. The most detailed account is carried by climate scientist Bart Verheggen. Probably one of the most critical errors made by Vahrenholt was attempting to claim that the sun was responsible for current global warming. Part of Verheggens response was as follows

However, the observations show that both surface temperatures as well as ocean heat content started to increase (during the 1970s and 80s) long after solar activity had reached its plateau (during the 1950s). This is inconsistent with a lagged response to the sun, as suggested by Vahrenholt and Lüning. The relatively steady rate of warming of both ocean and atmosphere over the past four decades indicates that this must be caused by another process. The sun cannot be responsible for the warming of the past four decades, irrespective of how strongly one wishes to amplify its effect.

Updated graphic of total heat content from Church et al 2011

Vahrenholt and Lüning cite the work of Solanki and co-authors in support of their claim. However, Solanki et al made the same point as we do: "This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant" (Solanki et al., 2003), and: "Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades." (Solanki et al., 2004, referring to their 2003 paper). This is just one of many examples where Vahrenholt and Lüning misinterpret what is written in the literature in order to bolster their point of view.

It was also interesting to note how Vahrenholt misused the work of Solanki in trying to bolster his argument.

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress...nse-to-fritz-vahrenholt-and-sebastian-luning/


With regard to the comparison between models and empirical evidence .

Vahrenholt was again echoed by the climate denier chambers when he promoted a piece from Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim which attempted to argue that James Hansen's projections in 1988 were way off the mark.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/...ate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/See

Again this was a litany of misrepresentations. Start with the simple figure of just how much of a temp increase James Hansen was projecting

Whopping Wrong Temperature Change Claim

Solheim claims that "Hansen’s model overestimates the temperature by 1.9 °C, which is a whopping 150% wrong." Yet Scenario A - the emissions scenario with the largest projected temperature change - only projects 0.7 °C surface warming between 1988 and 2012. Even if emissions were higher than in Scenario A (which they weren't, but Solheim wrongly claims they were), they would have to be several times higher for Hansen's model to project the ~2.3 °C warming over just 23 years (1 °C per decade!) that Solheim claims. Solheim's claim here is simply very wrong.

The analysis then goes on to highlight the changes in greenhouse gas emissions that were not recognized by Solheim and the use of distorted temperature data.

The conclusion? Hansen's forecasts in 1988 run on 1988 computers with then current climate models were around 40% too high. He thought the climate sensitivity was about 4.2 degreesC for a doubling of CO2. It turns out the real world sensitivity figure is 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2.

So where does this leave us ?

The reason this myth persists is that certain individuals desperately want Hansen and co. to be "wrong", so once they arrive at that desired conclusion, their brains shut down and they don't investigate further to see what Hansen being "wrong" means (what it means is that fast feedback climate sensitivity is ~3 °C, which is what Hansen currently argues). I still have yet to see a climate contrarian perform an intelligent and throrough analysis of Hansen's 1988 projections. Solheim, Michaels, Christy, etc. all stop when they reach the convenient "Hansen was wrong" conclusion.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/simply-wrong-solheim-hansen-88.html

 

[Calliope]

In fact I think the whole CC discussion is now a waste of time in ASF.

Don't give up Bazza. Nobody is as well suited as you to run the hysteria side of the debate.

You have said I "don't even bother to quote anymore we might have a discussion."That's right. No need. Common sense will beat a thousand peer reviewed IPCC eco-scientists modelling and pissing in each other's pockets. Try it sometime. You may be surprised.

 

[wayneL]

Wayne if you insist on calling James Hansen a "nutter" (which is kinder than you previous piece of disparagement) then you stand as either delusional or a liar. Take your pick.

Your binary choice is bogus. 'Accurate' is the other correct option.

And in any case if you had any semblance of respect for the topic you wouldn't be debasing the discussion by smearing one of the most respected scientists in the field. You may as well smear everyone else as well.

Nonsense. There are a number of honest brokers who consider all data, these are the so-called lukewarmers. I have very high respect for these.

With regard to Vahrenholt's observations. There are quite extensive analysis of the deliberate or accidental errors he has made. The most detailed account is carried by climate scientist Bart Verheggen. Probably one of the most critical errors made by Vahrenholt was attempting to claim that the sun was responsible for current global warming. Part of Verheggens response was as follows



It was also interesting to note how Vahrenholt misused the work of Solanki in trying to bolster his argument.

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress...nse-to-fritz-vahrenholt-and-sebastian-luning/


With regard to the comparison between models and empirical evidence .

Vahrenholt was again echoed by the climate denier chambers when he promoted a piece from Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim which attempted to argue that James Hansen's projections in 1988 were way off the mark.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/...ate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/See

Again this was a litany of misrepresentations. Start with the simple figure of just how much of a temp increase James Hansen was projecting



The analysis then goes on to highlight the changes in greenhouse gas emissions that were not recognized by Solheim and the use of distorted temperature data.

The conclusion? Hansen's forecasts in 1988 run on 1988 computers with then current climate models were around 40% too high. He thought the climate sensitivity was about 4.2 degreesC for a doubling of CO2. It turns out the real world sensitivity figure is 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2.

So where does this leave us ?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/simply-wrong-solheim-hansen-88.html

There may be errors all round and the reason the science is not settled. I prefer reasonable discussion over polarized tribal dogma.

I suggest you do a bit of navel gazing with regards to your obvious dogma and refusal to consider all vectors in the discussion.

This is why I disrespect you, Hansen and other such catastrophists; there is no consideration for proper debate on scientific grounds. Just doom-mongering based on dodgy modelling.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Start with the mirror Wayne...

I have lost all respect for the climate denier BS after reading through all the distorted lies and rubbish that is thrown up the echo chambers on the internet and then quoted ad nauseum. Even when one carefully points out the deliberate and possibly accidental errors made in these posts they are just summarily dismissed.

I see very few posters who actually follow the evidence or logic. It's far easier to jump to denial and ad hominem attacks.

And while we are discussing such "ad hominem" attacks I am still very, very dirty on your earlier defamation of NASA climate scientist James Hanson. I thought it represented a new low in disrespect of climate science and the leading scientists in that field. But of course it is just another spectacular way to dismiss information you just don't want to recognise.

I have previously discussed many lines of evidence surrounding climate change research. But in this forum that is now clearly a waste of time. In fact I think the whole CC discussion is now a waste of time in ASF.

Whoops...let me help you back onto your couch basilio....it seems you also have some company from the corrupt elephant in the room that you can't hand wave away. The seriously delirious alarmists are admitting to the corruption. the rorts. the misrepresentation of data, etc - thanks to an army of bloggers keeping the corruptible in check. Hence any so called "discussion" must address the corruption and the misleading "adjustments" of data and of course the observed evidence that continuously eludes you.

Either participate in an honest discussion and acknowledge that there are some significant elements in the AGW meme that are far from satisfactory as pointed out by thousands or continue to be the typical bias, lying and corrupt basilio we've seen who lurks in this forum as a AGW propagandist serving an ideology.

 

[basilio]

So lets go through the responses to date.

Wayne originally asked for a response to the Vahrenholt stories which cast doubt on AGW ands also criticized James Hansen for being hopelessly wrong with his 1988 modeling on climate change.

When Vahrenholts claims are investigated it becomes clear that he has simply misrepresented the original data and misrepresented other scientists he suggest supports his view. This wasn't another view; the most charitable explanation is an error or alternatively deliberate misinformation.

Probably the most telling point in the whole discussion is the question of climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling.

The conclusion? Hansen's forecasts in 1988 run on 1988 computers with then current climate models were around 40% too high. He thought the climate sensitivity was about 4.2 degreesC for a doubling of CO2. It turns out the real world sensitivity figure is 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2.

So where does this leave us ?

The reason this myth persists is that certain individuals desperately want Hansen and co. to be "wrong", so once they arrive at that desired conclusion, their brains shut down and they don't investigate further to see what Hansen being "wrong" means (what it means is that fast feedback climate sensitivity is ~3 °C, which is what Hansen currently argues). I still have yet to see a climate contrarian perform an intelligent and throrough analysis of Hansen's 1988 projections. Solheim, Michaels, Christy, etc. all stop when they reach the convenient "Hansen was wrong" conclusion.

Wayne you suggest we need a proper debate on scientific grounds. There is 30 years of research along multiple paths that bring the overwhelming number of scientists to accept that AGW is very real. We still don't know the full picture but the main story has been well and truly established. In the early 80's James Hansen and other climate scientists recognised the steady increase in CO2 levels could only mean an equally steady rise in the heat retained on earth and this temperature rises.

No one else has come up with a credible alternative explanation for temperature rises in the current situation. Full stop.

And I do not accept your position of luke warmer. It’s difficult to define exactly what “lukewarmer” means, because many deniers want to be considered “lukewarmers”, because the term makes them sound reasonable.

So I think “lukewarmer” is just a subset of “denier” – generally someone who accepts humans are causing some global warming, but denies the abundance of scientific evidence showing that climate sensitivity is approximately 3 °C (likely between 2 and 4.5 °C) for 2xCO2, and that the consequences of several degrees of warming (business as usual) will be quite bad.

In most cases “lukewarmers” accept the basic science but fall in the “climate sensitivity is low” camp and deny the consequences will be bad. So you look reasonable and yet continue to oppose greenhouse gas emissions cuts, which ultimately is the motivation behind all climate denial.

IMO more and more “deniers” will transition to this form of “lukewarmer”-ism because it is a less unreasonable position, but allows them to maintain their ideological opposition to climate solutions.

Other comments ?

Calliope doesn't give a fig about science so nuff said there.


Ozzie somehow thinks that the whole scientific community has bodgied up all the global temperatures to make it look as if we have warming when of course we havn't.

Somehow the small details of the massive change to ecosystems, plant cycles, melting of glaciers etc as a result of increasing temperatures plays no part in his thesis. They must be in on the deception as well.

 

[Calliope]

Calliope doesn't give a fig about science so nuff said there.

Your science beliefs are very selective. If I remember correctly you are a Creationist!

 

[basilio]

Your science beliefs are very selective. If I remember correctly you are a Creationist!

Che ?? Che !!!! Please, remind me when I said/suggested/ even remotely inferred I was a creationist ??

 

[Calliope]

Che ?? Che !!!! Please, remind me when I said/suggested/ even remotely inferred I was a creationist ??

Is that a denial? Are you indeed a denier? Both the old and new testaments of the bible have numerous warnings that because god created the world he can also destroy it. They all follow your adopted philosophy that unless we repent the world will be destroyed by fire flood and famine etc.

Like the prophets of old you have continually warned us that unless we accept the Gospel according to you and your 1000 scientists we are doomed to be be cooked, drowned, or starved in the coming holocaust. In fact you have suggested that it is too late now to avoid it.

 

[basilio]

Is that a denial? Are you indeed a denier? Both the old and new testaments of the bible have numerous warnings that because god created the world he can also destroy it. They all follow your adopted philosophy that unless we repent the world will be destroyed by fire flood and famine etc.

Like the prophets of old you have continually warned us that unless we accept the Gospel according to you and your 1000 scientists we are doomed to be be cooked, drowned, or starved in the coming holocaust. In fact you have suggested that it is too late now to avoid it.

WOW That must be great great stuff your smokin Calliope. I was desperately trying to figure out just how you saw me as a creationist and , Praise the Lord, you mange to pull one of the alltime blinder posts on ASF. In fact it almost tops your other line about lesbians being discriminated against because the couldn't be sperm donors.

There is nothing Biblical about the consequences of GW. Just what happens if it all gets too hot to handle. :headshake