Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

No, no, I will. It looks like there's collectively a decent amount of papers and thoughts, and it's been quite a while since I refreshed my knowledge on the topic.

Mainly though I want to see the reasoning for how global warming is going to shift the tectonic plates and cause more earthquakes and volcanoes. Sounds like a fascinating twist, on what is otherwise a fairly straightforward concept.

Good luck to you Zedd on reviewing this thread.

With regard to the reasoning behind global warming (possibly) causing more earthquakes and volcanoes and shift tectonic plates.

As I see it climate scientists and earth scientists are always researching and learning. One of the consequences for example of widespread melting of the Antarctic and Greenland icecaps will be a reduction in the billions of tons of ice sitting on earth below. This will result in these areas of the earth springing up. This happened and is still happening after the last last ice age finished and kilometers of ice receded from Europe, Asia etc. There is an argument that the releasing of this pressure will allow tectonic plates to move more freely effectively more earthquakes and volcanic activity. (Volcanic activity increases as molten magna forces its way between shifting tectonic plates.) Check out the reference from carbon brief below.

If you are interested in refreshing your knowledge on the topic the Skeptical Science website is, IMO, one of of the most comprehensive, best organized and accessible resources on the subject. Again check out the link for a sample discussion.

I believe almost all the information comes from peer reviewed papers but the commentary is constructed at a number of levels of complexity.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/06/can-climate-change-cause-earthquakes
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming-basic.html

 

[sydboy007]

from marcobusiness today

There has been no growth in greenhouse gas emissions in Australia over the last decade, despite economic growth of 31% over the same period, a new report has found.

The findings show that conversion to a green economy need not be painful and is already underway in Australian industry.

The report, released today by Monash University research unit ClimateWorks, said stable emissions levels despite economic growth was achieved through reduced deforestation, increased tree-planting, a big boost in industry energy efficiency and sharp drops in power emissions.

So the sun continues to rise in the east and the sky hasn't fallen on us. I'm still trying to see where the wrecking ball cobra striking python gripping economic destroyer will come from.

 

[wayneL]

Skeptical Science is a brilliant piece of advocacy and propaganda, but portrays a rather one side view... and let's not mention the standard of Cook's science with his roundly criticized consensus survey ('cept by evangelistic apostles of the apocalyptic CC cult).

Interesting chart here:

 

[Knobby22]

Have you got the land ice chart?

 

[wayneL]

Have you got the land ice chart?

No. But as we know, if land ice is substantively reduced via melt, it will impact sea levels. We know sea level rise has been relatively constant for some decades /centuries, I doubt there is any issue.

 

[basilio]

Have you got the land ice chart?

Interesting graph from Wayne on sea ice in Antartica. I wonder what it suggests ? Perhaps that the global warming/climate change issue is not as troubling as almost all climate scientists clam? Is there a bigger picture with an overall view rather than a focus on one elemnt ?

Yep...

If you check out Skeptical science you will find all the information relevant to the discussion about the expanding Antarctic sea ice. In fact it is a function of climate change - and it isn't a good news story about the ambiguity of the question.

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

Link to this page
The skeptic argument...

Antarctica is gaining ice
"[Ice] is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap." (Greg Roberts, The Australian)

Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate which has implications for sea level rise.

Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.

In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months. When land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

I would like to have added further information from the post which highlights the critical differences between Antarctic and Arctic sea ice and then goes on to examine the reduction in the Antarctic ice mass.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way Yayne did your original reference outline any further information than the single graph showing the increase in sea ice ?

 

[basilio]

In the last post I quoted from a paper on Skeptical science regarding the expansion of Antarctic Sea ice.

After the explanation there was an expansive discussion by other posters on the paper. Was it real ? Were there holes in the maths, the models or the reality ?

One of the posters was quite insistent that there was a problem and over a number of posts other contributors picked through his arguments and showed where there were errors. In the end someone pulled together the comments as follows.

KR at 09:48 AM on 16 April, 2013

Readers - There is actually a useful lesson in the last exchange(s) with Kevin. What he did was to selectively quote-mine old analyses (ignoring the last quarter-century of work), cherry-pick the data (East Antarctic while ignoring Antarctica as a whole), and misrepresent implications (wrongly equating increased snowfall with mass balance, ignoring greatly increased melt and calving). And concluding with a Bizzaro-world interpretation exactly opposite that of the IPCC.

This is in fact a fairly common denier tactic - select tiny bits of the science out of context and miscast them in contradiction to the whole. I strongly suggest reading the original sources (which isn't difficult if you start with abstracts and work your way up as you can or as desired), and check the quotes and sources.

IMO denial is broadcast with selective reading and presentation, some of which (see anything from Lord Monckton) is simply false. Armor yourself by checking the assertions from all participants.

Comment 189 from the discussion Antarctica losing ice.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=4&t=196&&a=21

 

[wayneL]

As I wrote earlier, Cook is an advocate and as such, corrupt as a scientist, and proper debate should be sourced elsewhere.

However let me be the first to admit, the chart doesn't prove or disprove anything, merely a point of interest and was posted as such.... seeing that arctic sea ice is often such a point of focus.

 

[spooly74]

As I wrote earlier, Cook is an advocate and as such, corrupt as a scientist, and proper debate should be sourced elsewhere.

There was some refreshing language from a climate scientist on this a few days ago.

Climate scientists must not advocate particular policies

I believe advocacy by climate scientists has damaged trust in the science. We risk our credibility, our reputation for objectivity, if we are not absolutely neutral. At the very least, it leaves us open to criticism. I find much climate scepticism is driven by a belief that environmental activism has influenced how scientists gather and interpret evidence. So I've found my hardline approach successful in taking the politics and therefore – pun intended – the heat out of climate science discussions.

They call me an "honest broker", asking for "more Dr Edwards and fewer zealous advocates". Crucially, they say this even though my scientific views are absolutely mainstream.

But it's not just about improving trust. In this highly politicised arena, climate scientists have a moral obligation to strive for impartiality. We have a platform we must not abuse. For a start, we rarely have the necessary expertise. I absolutely disagree with Gavin that we likely know far more about the issues involved in making policy choices than [our] audience.

..........


We must be vigilant against what Roger Pielke Jr in The Honest Broker calls "stealth issue advocacy": claiming we are talking about science when really we are advocating policy. This is clearly expressed by Robert T Lackey:

"Often I hear or read in scientific discourse words such as degradation, improvement, good, and poor. Such value-laden words should not be used to convey scientific information because they imply a preferred … state [or] class of policy options ... The appropriate science words are, for example, change, increase, or decrease." (Science, Scientists and Policy Advocacy)

 

[basilio]

As I wrote earlier, Cook is an advocate and as such, corrupt as a scientist, and proper debate should be sourced elsewhere.

However let me be the first to admit, the chart doesn't prove or disprove anything, merely a point of interest and was posted as such.... seeing that arctic sea ice is often such a point of focus.

Interesting response. For a start Cook does not write all the commentary on Skeptical Science . There are a number of science writers who dissect the papers on climate change and the responses by various people.

Wayne you posted a single graph which showed a steadily increasing rate of sea ice in Antarctica. On the face of it it could be seen as evidence that the Antarctic is not warming - in fact actually cooling. But when one examines the whole picture of Antarctic ice a different reality emerges.

Thats why I inquired as to whether the source you lifted the sea ice picture also acknowledged the wider perspective. Or whether like Kevin, the hapless poster on that thread, your source is content to use one very narrow perspective to uphold an otherwise untenable position.

 

[wayneL]

Basilio,

Unskeptical Science is still an advocacy site, no matter which advocate or group of advocates write there. Ergo, a biased view is presented. Hence it is corrupt, from a scientific perspective.

One should seek out honest brokers for more balanced discussion.

 

[basilio]

Basilio,

Unskeptical Science is still an advocacy site, no matter which advocate or group of advocates write there. Ergo, a biased view is presented. Hence it is corrupt, from a scientific perspective.

One should seek out honest brokers for more balanced discussion.

I find it so hard to understand or credit this view. Skeptical science uses the material of peer reviewed scientists as the basis of its comments. At last count there were about 12,000 plus papers to choose from. Interestingly enough there are only 24 similar peer reviewed papers that reject the case against global warming.

It also examines all comments and papers relating to climate change discussions. Spencers, Lindzens, Moncktens, Carters, Watts and so on. They are not ignored. However these papers like all others are subject to careful review to establish the evidence behind the assertions and the logic of their statements. Sadly in almost all cases this is lacking. If you want to I can start posting up example of these analysis.

In the end of course there is very little absolute scientific certainty. We can only go on the most proven and coherent recent knowledge. Currently that lies with the vast group of scientists who have identified that CO2 and other greenhouse gases seem almost certainly to be the major cause of the last 150 year jump in temperatures and that this will continue to the point where current ecological systems will be untenable unless the rise in CO2 is stopped and reversed.

 

[wayneL]

It's because you are a "believer" basilio.

 

[basilio]

It's because you are a "believer" basilio.

No it's because I can read and evaluate evidence from the widest range of credible sources,

Its the same belief which recognizes gravity, x rays, neutron stars, the existence of the ice ages and a million other scientific understandings.

It's not absolute. I'm open to credible alternatives that can offer enough evidence to re evaluate my current beliefs.

If there is a body of evidence around that can substantially challenge the view that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere and that if their growth is left unchecked they will take us into a far more hostile environment I'm all ears.

 

[wayneL]

No it's because I can read and evaluate evidence from the widest range of credible sources,

Like Skeptical Science and the Graniad?

Its the same belief which recognizes gravity, x rays, neutron stars, the existence of the ice ages and a million other scientific understandings.

The problem is that there is repeatable empirical evidence to support most of those theories. The catastrophic climate scenario revolves around failed models that can't even model the past, never mind the future. The science is much softer than those other fields.

It's not absolute. I'm open to credible alternatives that can offer enough evidence to re evaluate my current beliefs.

No, actually, you're not.

If there is a body of evidence around that can substantially challenge the view that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere and that if their growth is left unchecked they will take us into a far more hostile environment I'm all ears.

This is where you go to belief. Nobody seriously questions the greenhouse effect or that additional greenhouse gases will somewhat affect climate.

The question is what will be the effects, whether regional or global, whether they'll be net negative, or net positive, whether anything can, or should, be done, or whether mitigation is a more sensible strategy. However, you are a believer in the worst case, catastrophic scenario. This is just not supported by empirical evidence. Every single catastrophic prediction concluding with a recent date has failed utterly.

In addition, the shrill apocalypticism(sic) of the catastrophists have the opposite effect, encouraging people to push against them, distorting debate by polarizing it.

You like a Christian, but not a moderate, but like Jim Jones.

 

[basilio]

We aren't even in the same library are we Wayne.?

I won't go past your first comment - outright dismissal of the Skeptical science website as an authoritative source of information.

The website takes all of its base information from the peer reviewed work of the scientific community. When you reject that as a basis for discussion then thats the end of discussion based on the best science currently available.

Bye.

 

[wayneL]

You won't go past because you can't get past your faith, and are unable to address the further points.

 

[basilio]

Fascinating how language can be twisted. George would be proud of you Wayne.

Only on this forum could accepting the tested evidence and observations of 10,000 plus scientists on a particular field be construed as "faith". Last time I looked faith was belief in something with little or no substantiating evidence.

I notice Wayne how reluctant you are to respond to any discussion of the myriad scientific papers around the causes and effects of climate change/global warming. Clearly, according to you, if they have been quoted in Skeptical Science they can only be articles of faith rather than valid science.

 

[wayneL]

Fascinating how language can be twisted. George would be proud of you Wayne.

Only on this forum could accepting the tested evidence and observations of 10,000 plus scientists on a particular field be construed as "faith". Last time I looked faith was belief in something with little or no substantiating evidence.

I notice Wayne how reluctant you are to respond to any discussion of the myriad scientific papers around the causes and effects of climate change/global warming. Clearly, according to you, if they have been quoted in Skeptical Science they can only be articles of faith rather than valid science.

Incorrect and as usual a misrepresentation.

On some points, Cook and his coffee klatch of climate catastrophists have some points worthy of note and should be conceded on honest debate. True skeptics are happy to concede these points in the honest search for scientific truth. However Cook et al will never concede valid points of true skeptics, ah lah valid scientific method, preferring to skew data with omission, subterfuge, confirmation bias and plain common garden variety bullshyte.

This is the hallmark of an advocate, not a genuine scientist... and sycophantic acolytes such as yourself, swallow it uncritically, holus bolus, ipso facto, substituting faith for enquiry.

Faith does not necessarily exclude all truth, but merely includes only that truth it wants to and excludes competing data.

 

[burglar]

... and sycophantic acolytes such as yourself, swallow it uncritically, holus bolus, ipso facto, substituting faith for enquiry ...

Sycophancy is obsequious flattery. Botticelli's illustration of Dante's Inferno shows
insincere flatterers grovelling in excrement in the second pit of the eighth circle ...

Sorry Wayne, I feel the debate is sinking to new lower lows!

Suggestion: Lift your game or back away!! :