Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

Just to bring the conversation back to the topic - CC.

I mentioned earlier that climate scientists are still uncertain about how much forcing CO2 levels will have on global temperatures.

I came across a good (but very detailed analysis) of the climate scenarios we might face with different CO2 forcings.

A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
Posted on 13 February 2013 by dana1981

Recently there has been widespread discussion that perhaps the Earth's climate is not quite as sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2 as climate scientists previously believed, which would be good news, because it would give us more time to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions before the worst climate change impacts are triggered. The case for a most likely equilibrium climate sensitivity of around 2.5 °C average surface warming in response to a doubling of CO2, as opposed to 3 °C, is not yet very compelling, but it is certainly a possibility. In fact, the value could very plausibly be anywhere between 2 °C and 4.5 °C.

This begs the question, what might the future climate look like in best case, most likely case, and worst case scenarios? To answer this question, we will examine how much warming we can expect under various human greenhouse gas emissions scenarios if the real-world equilibrium climate sensitivity turns out to be 2 °C (best case), 3 °C (most likely case), or 4.5 °C (worst case). There is a relatively small chance that the sensitivity could be lower than 2 °C or higher than 4.5 °C, especially if we consider very long timescales in which slow feedbacks can kick in, and the so-called "Earth System Sensitivity" may be in the range of 6 °C surface warming in response to doubled CO2.

Nevertheless, for our purposes here we will limit ourselves to the 2–4.5 °C likely equilibrium sensitivity range. But first we have to investigate at what temperatures we expect various climate consequences to be triggered.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-best-to-worst-case-scenarios.html

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

My basic objection to all of this Climate Hysteria, is that it is just that.

Hysteria.

Looking in to the future on the basis of modelling.

Science is science.

The Climate mob basically have decided that we will warm and are hell bent on modelling to prove their point.

This is unscientific.

They ignore and denigrate the contra evidence/findings.

gg

 

[sails]

...You re Unbelievable

thanks for the compliment, Explod...


From the link I provided earlier about claims of the science being settled:

A NEW report declaring mainstream climate science as settled....

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-gillard-advised/story-fn59niix-1226061130074

 

[Knobby22]

thanks for the compliment, Explod...


From the link I provided earlier about claims of the science being settled:



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-gillard-advised/story-fn59niix-1226061130074

Quantum physics had its detractors/deniers leading to the famous following quote from renowned scientist Max Planck.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers

It is good to see that Nick Minchin is retiring. One less opponent. One less old man who can't get his mind around it. Good riddance.

 

[wayneL]

Quantum physics had its detractors/deniers leading to the famous following quote from renowned scientist Max Planck.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers

It is good to see that Nick Minchin is retiring. One less opponent. One less old man who can't get his mind around it. Good riddance.

Nice sentiment there Knobby... We have all noted the alarmists desire to kill and imprison skeptics. :frown:

Problem is, there are a great deal more skeptics than the self-serving bunkum of "the overwhelming majority" ficton suggests.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

 

[Knobby22]

It depends on definition as the article states.

And don't try to put words in my mouth and practise your spin.
I don't want the skeptics like Nick Minchin imprisoned, I just want to see him fade into irrelevance as the new overtakes the old.

A generation from now, people will laugh at this, just as they do now when people look back at the Quantum Theory "skeptics".

I personally find it amusing. Goodbye Nick!!

 

[spooly74]

A generation from now, people will laugh at this, just as they do now when people look back at the Quantum Theory "skeptics".

I googled Quantum Theory Skeptics and found an interesting posthumous interview here.

Quantum mechanics has been extremely successful. How can you oppose a theory that always gets the right answers?

I consider the methods of quantum mechanics fundamentally unsatisfactory. I want to say straight away, however, that I will not deny that this theory represents an important, in a certain sense even final, advance in physical knowledge.... Probably never before has a theory been evolved which has given a key to the interpretation and calculation of such a heterogeneous group of phenomena of experience.... In spite of this, however, I believe that the theory is apt to beguile us into error in our search for a uniform basis for physics, because, in my belief, it is an incomplete representation of real things, although it is the only one which can be built out of the fundamental concepts of force and material points (quantum corrections to classical mechanics). The incompleteness of the representation leads necessarily to the statistical nature (incompleteness) of the laws.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

This dopey anchor asked an astroscientist if Global Warming had anything to do with the Asteroid crashing in Russia.

She must be somebody's goyle.



gg

 

[bellenuit]

This dopey anchor asked an astroscientist if Global Warming had anything to do with the Asteroid crashing in Russia.

She must be somebody's goyle.



gg

I came across that on the Michael Smith Blog and some of the people who commentated said that it was taken out of context. Apparently the previous segment was about climate change and some of the warmists were blaming everything and anything on it.

When the new segment started, this announcer was really asking tongue in cheek whether the meteorite was also the result of GW. More of a dig at the warmists rather than a dumb question.

 

[sydboy007]

My basic objection to all of this Climate Hysteria, is that it is just that.

Hysteria.

Looking in to the future on the basis of modelling.

Science is science.

The Climate mob basically have decided that we will warm and are hell bent on modelling to prove their point.

This is unscientific.

They ignore and denigrate the contra evidence/findings.

gg

The data sets they are using for their models is publicly available. My understanding is there are 3 data sets based on different ways to read the temperature.

There's nothing to stop those who question GW from doing their own modelling / analysis of the data sets.

All I ask is they don't cherry pick small subsets of the data but go back as far as the data will allow them.

Considering how competitive academics are I'm sure there'd been at least one by now who would have submitted a peer reviewed article claiming that GW was wrong and be willing to have his model and conclusions pen to be analysed by anyone willing to take the time.

You are showing the signs of someone who believes there is a conspiracy of glabal proportions, far larger than the lunar landings even, that only gets bigger each time there's an investigation / review that shows GW is happening.

I'm happy to admit that some of it is probably the natural variation in the climate, but you have to consider the fact that models used over a decade ago are starting to have their predictions come true now. Advances in weather and climate understanding are only make the forecasts more accurate.

As an example, now there is a better understanding of how much extra moisture is int he atmosphere, and this is now showing up in a lot of US states where they get more extreme snow falls pre and post winter when the air is warmer and able to hold a lot more moisture.

The beauty of science is being able to argue the facts and data. A lot of those against the idea of GW rarely base their case on the facts, or at best cherry pick the data that supports their view.

If the public was more aware that roughly 97% of scientists believe the data points towards GW, I wonder how that would affect public perception???

 

[white_goodman]

Considering how competitive academics are I'm sure there'd been at least one by now who would have submitted a peer reviewed article claiming that GW was wrong and be willing to have his model and conclusions pen to be analysed by anyone willing to take the time.

1) you musn't look very hard
2) despite it being toxic to an academics career there is still a large amount of peer reviewed studies with findings not conforming to the alarmist case
3) you severely underestimate a humans ability to rationalise when the game of self interest is being played

 

[white_goodman]

If the public was more aware that roughly 97% of scientists believe the data points towards GW, I wonder how that would affect public perception???

science isnt a straw poll and despite this the link above would say otherwise

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

I will say that 1/1 (100%!!!) Mammologists that have got themselves climate change handouts (Flannery) believe in the earth melting to death

 

[basilio]

There is no such thing as climate change denial

In a sense, there is no such thing as climate change denial. No one denies that climate changes (in fact, the most common climate myth is the argument that past climate change is evidence that current global warming is also natural). Then what is being denied? Quite simply, the scientific consensus that humans are disrupting the climate. A more appropriate term would be “consensus denial”.

There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists.

A number of surveys of the climate science community since the early 1990s have measured the level of scientific consensus that humans were causing global warming. Over time, the percentage of climate scientists agreeing that humans are causing global warming has steadily increased. As the body of evidence grows, the consensus is getting stronger.

Two recent studies adopting different approaches have arrived at strikingly consistent results. A survey of over 3000 Earth scientists found that as the climate expertise increased, so did agreement about human-caused global warming. For climate scientists actively publishing climate research (79 scientists in total), there was 97% agreement.

This result was confirmed in a separate analysis compiling a list of scientists who had made public declarations on climate change, both supporting and rejecting the consensus. Among scientists who had published peer-reviewed climate papers (908 scientists in total), the same result: 97% agreement.

So how come there are so many arguments about the validity of the AGW evidence ?

Expect to see reference to dissenting non-experts who appear to be highly qualified while not having published any actual climate research. Fake expert campaigns are launched with disturbing regularity. Recently, a group of NASA retirees issued a press release rejecting the consensus. While possessing no actual climate expertise, they evidently hoped to cash in on the NASA brand.

A prominent Australian fake expert is Ian Plimer, the go-to guy for political leaders and fossil fuel billionaires. He hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change.

There should be many cases of cherry picking but how do you identify a genuine cherry pick? When a conclusion from a small selection of data differs from the conclusion from the full body of evidence, that’s cherry picking. For example, a common cherry pick of late is the myth that global warming stopped over the last 16 years. This focus on short periods of temperature data ignores the long-term warming trend. Importantly, it also ignores the fact that over the last 16 years, our planet has been building up heat at a rate of over three Hiroshima bombs worth of energy every second. To deny global warming is to deny the basic fact that our planet is building up heat at an extraordinary rate.

http://theconversation.edu.au/there-is-no-such-thing-as-climate-change-denial-11763

 

[wayneL]

Oh brother! Basilio that article was just asinine.

 

[explod]

Oh brother! Basilio that article was just asinine.

Cuummoorn there Pal, some more explanation of dismissal for us dummies needed here ?

 

[wayneL]

Cuummoorn there Pal, some more explanation of dismissal for us dummies needed here ?

It uses political logic and hypocrisy... IOW is plainly illogical to the logical. It also uses the discredited 97% figure.

 

[explod]

It uses political logic and hypocrisy... IOW is plainly illogical to the logical. It also uses the discredited 97% figure.

How was it and who discredited the 97% figure?

And the hypocrisy ?

 

[wayneL]

How was it and who discredited the 97% figure?

And the hypocrisy ?

You see there is no point going through this all over again. You just haven't been paying attention to the debate.

Hint... you won't find these things in the propaganda pieces you read.

 

[explod]

Cahnnel 24 at the moment, former UK Govt expert backing up all that us Hysterians have been putting forward

 

[explod]

You see there is no point going through this all over again. You just haven't been paying attention to the debate.

Hint... you won't find these things in the propaganda pieces you read.

Fact and what I see with my own eyes and have experienced in the bush for over 60 years is not propaganda.

And on the warming, as just pointed out by Sir....(check his name later)on Channel 24, though the increase is measured at only about 1% over the last 100 years it is the volatility that is beginning to cause the bigger problem. And there are a number of physical issues of late increasing this volatility, one of course less ice on the poles, less heat is reflected, more cloud rising creating faster moving air and jet streams.

Do you live in the bush wayneL, talk to the old timers, study the plant life, the ants, birds, bush animals and the frogs. Would like to know your experience of these things.