Resisting Climate Hysteria

[white_goodman]

Well this is the actual graph. From a "skeptic" site.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/...t-not-their-strength-say-clemson-researchers/

View attachment 49408

It has to be "adjusted' because we have better methods for detecting them however who chooses the adjustment?
Definitely analogous. The raw data doesn't appear to be so unclear. And how much adjustment is "really' needed after 1970??

frightening, who can i tax for this outrage!?

 

[basilio]

Such scientific findings are so robust that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded earlier this year that over the long-term, damage from extreme events has not been attributed to climate change, whether from natural or human causes.

From Waynes quotation of Roger Pielke Jnr story...

Well there you are folks !! Clearly the IPCC can now be properly cited (in red of course ) as an authoritative body on climate change.

Do we now want to go back the endless streams of scientific evidence that the IPCC uses to prove that the world is warming at an unprecedented rate as a result of human produced greenhouse gases ? There is only about 40 years research on this topic by thousands of scientists but that is still not enough is it Wayne ?

But lets go back to Rogers little story. When you think about it logically the lack of attribution is not the same as a lack of causality! IPCC is saying that the evidence of a connection is not proven to 95% confidence (by the usual experimentalist’s definition). They do NOT claim that the LACK of a connection is proven at all. If there really were clearly no connection, then it would be sensible to say the science is “so clear”. But in fact, “has not been attributed” is very different from “has been refuted”.

Something that has not been attributed can later be attributed, once more or better evidence arrives.

And in fact no scientist to my knowledge attempts to say that a particular weather event is directly attributed to climate change. The observation is that climatic events are intensified by the effects of global warming. So a heatwave becomes hotter and longer as a result of the extra warmth in the atmosphere.

Rainfall events become more intense because the extra heat has cause more evaporation and thus more rain can fall. Hurricanes will get an extra kick from warmer than usual oceans which supply the energy to these storms.

Which brings us back to Munich Re as the largest re insurance company in the world deciding there is something to worry about with the effects of global warming on climate.

They have to pay on results. Roger Pielke is just playing with words.

 

[wayneL]

Try as I may to understand the logic behind Mesdames ghoti and basilio, the multiple fallacies render their opinions impenetrable religious like dogma.

Lots of twists and double somersaults in there.

Yet the catastrophic case continues to crumble.

 

[basilio]

Lets keep it simple Wayne.

Basically Roger Pielkes case, which you freely quote, relies on cheery picking slivers of data while ignoring a mountain of other evidence that clearly demonstrates the world is warming and that human produced greenhouse gases are the prime cause.

Real simple.

 

[wayneL]

Lets keep it simple Wayne.

Basically Roger Pielkes case, which you freely quote, relies on cheery picking slivers of data while ignoring a mountain of other evidence that clearly demonstrates the world is warming and that human produced greenhouse gases are the prime cause.

Real simple.

That is completely missing the point basilio.

Rog is a warmist. You clearly cannot discern between the stratas of cc thought. For you it is the end of the world or nothing... ironical as you do nothing to mitigate, just add hot air. For you, anything but carastrophism is denial.

 

[white_goodman]

That is completely missing the point basilio.

Rog is a warmist. You clearly cannot discern between the stratas of cc thought. For you it is the end of the world or nothing... ironical as you do nothing to mitigate, just add hot air. For you, anything but carastrophism is denial.

ding ding ding, imagine what he thinks about the growing movement of environmentalists not buying into the AGW armageddon?!

Imagine how angry he will get when he finds out that hes Trotsky's useful idiot for the finance/trading industry.

 

[wayneL]

ding ding ding, imagine what he thinks about the growing movement of environmentalists not buying into the AGW armageddon?!

Imagine how angry he will get when he finds out that hes Trotsky's useful idiot for the finance/trading industry.

Yes, there are multiple levels of irony in this whole saga.

 

[explod]

Try as I may to understand the logic behind Mesdames ghoti and basilio, the multiple fallacies render their opinions impenetrable religious like dogma.

Lots of twists and double somersaults in there.

Yet the catastrophic case continues to crumble.

Describing things you do not agree with with all sorts of dogmatic names is not even argument let alone credible in rebutting the science taking in the whole picture. You actually come across as a dogmatic bully who will not take in another's point of view at any cost. It may take awhile but in my view you are going to lose this one eventually as more evidence comes to the fore.

The big side of town and the oil industry go to great lengths to produce rubbish via scientists on their payroll.

Geremy Leggett let that out of the bag in 2005

 

[wayneL]

Describing things you do not agree with with all sorts of dogmatic names is not even argument let alone credible in rebutting the science taking in the whole picture. You actually come across as a dogmatic bully who will not take in another's point of view at any cost. It may take awhile but in my view you are going to lose this one eventually as more evidence comes to the fore.

The big side of town and the oil industry go to great lengths to produce rubbish via scientists on their payroll.

Geremy Leggett let that out of the bag in 2005

...and the ironies continue.

 

[basilio]

For you it is the end of the world or nothing... ironical as you do nothing to mitigate, just add hot air. For you, anything but carastrophism is denial. Wayne L

I don't have second sight Wayne. I can't read the future. I havn't got a crystal ball.

Will climate change be a significant but manageable problem or a serious one or perhaps catastrophic ? No one can say with any certainty can they ? All that we ever do in life is take action on probabilities and try to manage risks.

No business man, military officer or engineer works with certainty. They deal with probabilities and risks and take whatever actions they think are necessary to get a good outcome. Engineers will make sure the planes they design won't fall out of the sky; Generals have plans, contingencies and reserves.

My view, which has been informed by the best science to date, is that direction we are going with changing the climate runs the risk of creating significant to very serious problems for all ecosystems. In the real world those risks would be acknowledged and actions taken to lessen the risk as far as possible.

In the echo chamber of denial the inhabitants refuse to accept any evidence that points to what is happening. They also refuse to accept any possibility no matter how small that there might be consequences of CC that would shake our systems.

That's not logical, smart or practical ; its just wilful blindness.

 

[ghotib]

Mon cher Monsieur Wayne,

Try as I may to understand the logic behind Mesdames ghoti and basilio, the multiple fallacies render their opinions impenetrable religious like dogma.

Lots of twists and double somersaults in there.

Yet the catastrophic case continues to crumble.

Madame Ghoti's last post answered your request to illustrate the analogy between two different trend analyses. I didn't use the illustration to present a logical argument. Please state what part, if any, is unclear and I'll try to clarify it.

Signor Basilio pointed out some apparent contradictions in your, or perhaps Dr Pielke's, attitude to the IPCC. He didn't need mental gymnastics for that; just to pay attention to what you've written on this thread over the years. Perhaps you'd like to explain why it's OK to cite the IPCC as an authority in this case after treating their work with scorn and contempt in so many others.

Ciao

 

[spooly74]

Do we now want to go back the endless streams of scientific evidence that the IPCC uses to prove that the world is warming at an unprecedented rate as a result of human produced greenhouse gases ? There is only about 40 years research on this topic by thousands of scientists but that is still not enough is it Wayne ?

That's not in dispute here.
This is about extreme weather events, obviously.

But lets go back to Rogers little story. When you think about it logically

Logically, there is currently no 'footprint' in extreme weather.
Simple.

And in fact no scientist to my knowledge attempts to say that a particular weather event is directly attributed to climate change.

There are others. Post #3603

The big news in climate science this week has been the release of peer reviewed scientific papers that for the first time have attributed recent floods, droughts and heatwaves to human induced climate change.

Which brings us back to Munich Re as the largest re insurance company in the world deciding there is something to worry about with the effects of global warming on climate.

They have to pay on results.

Seems reasonable after adjusting for patterns of development?
No?

 

[basilio]

Good pick ups Spooly.

There is some semantics going on with attributing extreme weather patterns to global warming. What I was saying (quoting the current science) is that global warming is accentuating particular weather patterns. In effect adding an extra couple of degrees to heat waves, more rain to storm events and so on.

The recent paper that analysed the heat wave in USA and other events pointed out the extreme temperatures recorded are way out of any current "normal" and in the view of the researchers, influenced by GG emissions and the ongoing warming of the planet. They called it climate dice.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1205276109.full.pdf+html

 

[wayneL]

Mon cher Monsieur Wayne,

Madame Ghoti's last post answered your request to illustrate the analogy between two different trend analyses. I didn't use the illustration to present a logical argument. Please state what part, if any, is unclear and I'll try to clarify it.

No it didn't.

If I can draw a further analogy - in the stock market, a share split requires an adjustment because there is a definitive relationship between valuation and shares on issue.

However any biased retrospective arbitrary adjustments are most likely out of order.

Signor Basilio pointed out some apparent contradictions in your, or perhaps Dr Pielke's, attitude to the IPCC. He didn't need mental gymnastics for that; just to pay attention to what you've written on this thread over the years. Perhaps you'd like to explain why it's OK to cite the IPCC as an authority in this case after treating their work with scorn and contempt in so many others.

Ciao

Just a couple of linguistic points; mesdames is French in origin, not Italian, but still does not invoke the pretentiousness of English/foreign hybrid verbiage, as "mesdames" has been in common usage in English for quite some time (as an address of females in the plural).

Also, I believe your amiga to be a signora... or similar.

Superficially, I will cop on the chin the apparent double standard of citing IPCC authority, however, as I was using the ironical sense, there is no hypocrisy.

 

[basilio]

However any biased retrospective arbitrary adjustments are most likely out of order.

Indeed if they were biased and arbitrary they would be out of order Wayne.

But the fact is that the scientific community doesn't make capricious arbitrary adjustments to date. For a start there are scores of other scientists in the relevant field who will check the rationale behind any adjustments and if they think there is an error or something has been missed they will speak up. Science is a collaborative endeavor when it comes to trying to ensure the most accurate information is used when measuring data.

I can remember for instance the pains that scientists went to the properly adjust satellite temperatures when it became clear that orbits were degrading and sensors deteriorating.

Your problem Wayne is that you pick and choose which adjustments you want to believe in. If they suit your case you'll take them. If they don't you diss them.

The fact is it doesn't matter WTF you believe ( about data, people or scientific facts). When it comes to fairly hard objective evidence facts stay facts.

It is a fact that the planet is warming at a rate higher than science has observed for hundreds of thousands of years.

It is highly probable that the major factor causing that warmth is the extra GG gases humans contribute to the atmosphere.

 

[wayneL]

Indeed if they were biased and arbitrary they would be out of order Wayne.

But the fact is that the scientific community doesn't make capricious arbitrary adjustments to date. For a start there are scores of other scientists in the relevant field who will check the rationale behind any adjustments and if they think there is an error or something has been missed they will speak up. Science is a collaborative endeavor when it comes to trying to ensure the most accurate information is used when measuring data.

But they are speaking up basilio, they are just not listened to in your closed circle where dissent is dissallowed.

I can remember for instance the pains that scientists went to the properly adjust satellite temperatures when it became clear that orbits were degrading and sensors deteriorating.

That may be a bone fide reason, but that's not the sort adjustments referred to.

Your problem Wayne is that you pick and choose which adjustments you want to believe in. If they suit your case you'll take them. If they don't you diss them.

No ma'am.

In fact that is possibly the most hypocritical statement you have made thus far.

The fact is it doesn't matter WTF you believe ( about data, people or scientific facts). When it comes to fairly hard objective evidence facts stay facts.

Indeed basilio. Nor does is matter what you and the Acolytes of the Apocalypse believe.

However "facts" in the world of the climate catastrophist are rather subjective. You can't have 'fairly hard' data from soft science. In "fact", there is much contradictory evidence in the hard data.

It is a fact that the planet is warming at a rate higher than science has observed for hundreds of thousands of years.

No ma'am, not without subjective interpretation of climate proxies, which your lot have been caught out on time and again. You see, there can be no hundreds of thousands of years of direct observation can there? Scientists must construct a record from proxies. Hence the possibility of subjectiveness and bias.

I would love to waste even more time with the numerous cites, but I have other stuff to concentrate on... and no need to repeat the work of others.

 

[basilio]

To get to the heart of the issue Wayne you have come to the conclusion that world is not actually warming to any significant degree. That whatever temperature observations made by scientists around the world are in fact too suspect to accept because of adjustments to records.

If in fact the only evidence of a warming planet was temperature records there could be a case for this argument. And of course if there was no observable result as a consequence of increasing temperatures we wouldn't have anything to worry about ?

But that isn't true is it ? There are hundreds of papers around the world which show how ecosystems are changing because of the impact of increasing temperatures. Whether it is the spread of forest northwards, the melting of glaciers, changes in the flowering plants, melting of permafrost, record heat waves in USA, Europe , Asia the physical evidence for a warming climate is indisputable.

Observed impacts

With very high confidence, Rosenzweig et al. (2007)[74] concluded that physical and biological systems on all continents and in most oceans had been affected by recent climate changes, particularly regional temperature increases. Impacts include earlier leafing of trees and plants over many regions; movements of species to higher latitudes and altitudes in the Northern Hemisphere; changes in bird migrations in Europe, North America and Australia; and shifting of the oceans' plankton and fish from cold- to warm-adapted communities.[75]

The human influence on the climate can be seen in the geographical pattern of observed warming, with greater temperature increases over land and in polar regions rather than over the oceans.[76]:6 Using models, it is possible to identify the human "signal" of global warming over both land and ocean areas.[76]:6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

The entire wiki article pulls together the evidence and science around climate change. It covers almost all natural science fields as well as the physical sciences. And all this you categorically reject.

What a testament to the power of invincible ignorance.

 

[spooly74]

The recent paper that analysed the heat wave in USA and other events pointed out the extreme temperatures recorded are way out of any current "normal" and in the view of the researchers, influenced by GG emissions and the ongoing warming of the planet. They called it climate dice.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1205276109.full.pdf+html

From the opening paragraph re: Moscow.

It follows that we can state with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small.

But this is not what NOAA conclude.

The deadly Russian heat wave of 2010 was due to a natural atmospheric phenomenon often associated with weather extremes, according to a new NOAA study.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110309_russianheatwave.html

But wait, from the author of the NOAA paper, Martin Hoerling.

“It appears that parts of Russia are on the cusp of a period in which the risk of extreme heat events will increase rapidly,” said co-author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist, also from ESRL.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110309_russianheatwave.html

Hang on, now this from the same author

In other words, the 2010 situation isn’t following on the heels of a progression of more and more of these things happening ether over Russia, or frankly over any other place that we can see over the Northern Hemisphere. So it stands out as a . . . black swan.
http://www.cejournal.net/?p=3503#more-3503

So what do we know?

To get to the heart of the issue Wayne you have come to the conclusion that world is not actually warming to any significant degree.

Quite correct.
In the last 100 years, 0.74 of 1 degree. :

 

[Knobby22]

In the last 100 years, 0.74 of 1 degree. :

Well yes and I think basilio would generally agree - a so called "black swan event" occurred which is more likely to occur due to the additional energy in the atmosphere. I would consider 0.74 degrees average across the whole world a substantial increase, particularly as it is still continuing.The NOAA say it didn't happen again the following year so its just an unlucky event. The point is that it is more likely to happen, not going to happen every year, it is still an extreme weather event of low probability.

As I quoted earlier, for the past 30 years, global temperature has shown a linear warming trend of 0.16 degrees C per decade. Taking your 0.74 figure it will be over 1 degree in 20 years.

Sure probabilities are difficult to quantify however the reality will be how many more "black swan events" occur over the next 20 years.

BTW I think this black swan event creeping into our language everywhere is causing the meaning to be debased. A true black swan event would be a massive volcano or something we have never seen before. It really should be called a low probability event that can be assumed to occur again.

 

[wayneL]

Well yes and I think basilio would generally agree - a so called "black swan event" occurred which is more likely to occur due to the additional energy in the atmosphere. I would consider 0.74 degrees average across the whole world a substantial increase, particularly as it is still continuing.The NOAA say it didn't happen again the following year so its just an unlucky event. The point is that it is more likely to happen, not going to happen every year, it is still an extreme weather event of low probability.

As I quoted earlier, for the past 30 years, global temperature has shown a linear warming trend of 0.16 degrees C per decade. Taking your 0.74 figure it will be over 1 degree in 20 years.

Sure probabilities are difficult to quantify however the reality will be how many more "black swan events" occur over the next 20 years.

BTW I think this black swan event creeping into our language everywhere is causing the meaning to be debased. A true black swan event would be a massive volcano or something we have never seen before. It really should be called a low probability event that can be assumed to occur again.

Linear?

I think there would be plenty who would be willing to debate you on that point.