Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

The ippc report is not only watered down to fit with the oil lobby it is also reporting from figures and measurements that are now more than six years old.

You deniests are a joke and so far up it that you will be under water and still sticking to you narrow minds.

Define deniest.

 

[burglar]

Define deniest.

Second-person singular simple present form deny.



Note : No redundant commas!
Do I get my prize now?

 

[Julia]

Define deniest.

The closest a google search could come up with was "dentist".

 

[burglar]

The closest a google search could come up with was "dentist".

google this:
"deniest" def

 

[explod]

Define deniest.

Head in the sand and soon to drown,


in this context

 

[wayneL]

Head in the sand and soon to drown,


in this context

As there is no evidence that anyone is about to drown due to AGW anytime soon, I presume this just an obnoxious repeat of the purulent ad hominem tactic, in place of actual intelligent debate?

 

[burglar]

Head in the sand and soon to drown,


in this context

I beg to differ!

A deniest is a rational person,
(who may or may not have head in the sand, near the high water mark),
waiting for hard evidence of a problem,
before overreacting to a hypothetical model.

As the water level rises,
a deniest will have the prerogative of changing their mind.

As a deniest, I intend to move away from the high water mark.
While you, my friend, try to turn back the tide.

 

[Whiskers]

The ippc report is not only watered down to fit with the oil lobby it is also reporting from figures and measurements that are now more than six years old.

You deniests are a joke and so far up it that you will be under water and still sticking to you narrow minds.

Maybe, explod... but I repeat I'm not if favour of shutting down the research as in like to take an ostrich approach, or selective amplification and broadcasting of certain aspects of the science. I'm from a rural background and as such rely heavily on scientific research and data from water and soli quality to weather and longer term climate forecasting. It's an integral part of how we operate.

The biggest issues I have is firstly with the quality and interpretation of the basic scientific data. Sure it's not a perfect science as we know from day to day weather forecasting, but the science is getting better at it and people trust it more.

The Climate issue has been over run with 'activists' to push an agenda and is clearly clouding the so called facts, interpretation of the scientific data. Admissions they got it wrong previously, even though it might be only one little point, the ramifications of that one little error in the actual results and confidence in public perception of them has suffered an enormous blow... not so much because they got a detail wrong, more that they (the stronger activists) made such a noise about the coming disaster... the boy who cried wolf and then nobody believed him when the wolf turned out to be a puppy sort of thing.

Sometimes less is more... less prediction that can go wrong is more credible.

It is better to emphasise what is verifiably factual... ie sea levels are rising by x... but the problems come with accuracy and credibility when they try to extrapolate and forecast too much, ie human activity most likely caused...

There are too many assumptions upon assumptions in much of what is being bleated out the loudest by activists... hence why we should have left and arguably returned this issue back to the fold of the CSIRO, BOM etc who rely more on demonstrable improving accuracy in results for their funding existence as opposed to funding from activist or self-interests groups for a more ideological or political agenda.

 

[burglar]

... the science is getting better ...

Que Sera, Sera

 

[Mickel]

The ippc report is not only watered down to fit with the oil lobby it is also reporting from figures and measurements that are now more than six years old.

You deniests are a joke and so far up it that you will be under water and still sticking to you narrow minds.

Firstly Explod, I don't deny global warming. I am sceptical of the IPCC's projections because they are extreme and not validated by recent evidence. By the way, they studied evidence up to 2012 for the latest report. Pity they couldn't take in the recent evidence of 60% increase in Artic Ice for the Report.

If you could call the 5th IPCC Report "watered down" it is not because of the oil lobby but because many scientists were stating the evidence did not support their original conclusions . The lead authors then decided to moderate (some) of their findings to maintain some consensus.

I again draw your attention to The Australian article by Prof Curry some days ago that I posted on this thread regarding consensus. Consensus is NOT scientific and in any case it has been manipulated by some lead authors on occasions.

 

[Aussiejeff]

Firstly Explod, I don't deny global warming. I am sceptical of the IPCC's projections because they are extreme and not validated by recent evidence. By the way, they studied evidence up to 2012 for the latest report. Pity they couldn't take in the recent evidence of 60% increase in Artic Ice for the Report.

If you could call the 5th IPCC Report "watered down" it is not because of the oil lobby but because many scientists were stating the evidence did not support their original conclusions . The lead authors then decided to moderate (some) of their findings to maintain some consensus.

I again draw your attention to The Australian article by Prof Curry some days ago that I posted on this thread regarding consensus. Consensus is NOT scientific and in any case it has been manipulated by some lead authors on occasions.

Some "lead authors" seem to be making an AWFUL lot of money out of this whole debate. Especially the GW mob. Must be human nature, that. Greed. Even "greenies" get greedy? Well, I never...

 

[basilio]

So far almost all ASF posters (as usual) either reject outright the concerns expressed through the IPCC or believe there is too much uncertainty in the information to take it seriously - at this stage. The theory for those holding the second view is that, at some stage, when all the evidence is in that we are increasing global temperatures to levels that will make most of the current ecosystems untenable (extinct) we should start to do something.

And how much sense does that make ?

We will never have perfect science on how we are effecting climate change. Never, ever, ever. We will always be learning something new.

We don't have certain medical science on how smoking causes cancers. After all many people who smoke don't die of cancer. We don't have certainty on how well seat belts save lives. Medical science doesn't have certainty on how excessive drinking causes cirrhosis of the liver or a host of other diseases.

And what about the effect of asbestos dust on health ? That can't be certain can it? After all industries in the field were extremely strenuous in denying these effects and even now there is no way that everyone who has been exposed to asbestos has fallen ill.

The full evidence is just not in is it ? So in any sensible world we deal with the best information we have at the time as a risk management issue. If there is a significant likelihood a course of action will cause harm we address the problem.

Mickel you gave a 5 point summary from Dr Jenson which you suggested encapsulated the lack of certainty in this field. Certainly enough in his mind and yours to delay any action that would reduce CO2 emissions.

In 5 sentences Dr Jenson has summarily dismissed 30 years of research, the thousands of papers from scores of scientists and the physical evidence of substantial change that has already occurred. I could pick apart each line with a score of papers but you can also read if you chose to go beyond dubious 5 point answers.

But do you want to ? Or is it more comfortable to pretend that the Global Warming issue is just a gigantic conspiracy by almost all scientists and just can't be true ?

______________________________________________________________________________

I will address just one statement from your 5 points.

The warming trend is erratic, not a clear linear trend as we were initially led to expect. It has flat lined for quite awhile.

This is the current piece of misinformation being repeated by everyone who wants to downplay what is happening to our climate. How is it achieved ?

1) It takes a narrow 15 year time frame which starts from 1998 which was an El Niño year of extreme worldwide temperatures and finishes now when basically we have reached that temperature again.

2) It studiously ignores at least 6 other measures of increases in total global energy over that period. Why does it do that ? Because clearly all the other measures show a steady increase in heat retained. An analogy would be saying that a person with a dangerous fever was recovering because there was just a maintenance of the dangerously high temperatures for a couple of weeks rather than a relentless increase.

3) It also studiously ignores the huge variations in temperature changes around the world. For example the Arctic and Antarctic areas are growing rapidly warmer as evidenced by the escalating rate of Arctic and Greenland ice melt in the past decade. Are these consistent with a safe world ?

If you want to see the whole picture of how the earth is continuing to warm check out the following URL. It is longer than 5 sentences. - but then it would have to be.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/nrc-report-on-ocean-heat.html

 

[wayneL]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/nrc-report-on-ocean-heat.html

Can you find an alternative source basilio, we have already demonstrated that source untrustworthy.

 

[burglar]

... to delay any action that would reduce CO2 emissions ...

Reducing CO2 emissions had best not be the right step forward.
It will cost trillions and leave billions of people in abject poverty.

It would be far better to see what is damaged by AGW
Then target specific problems with specific solutions.

Dwelling on disappearing coastline .... move away from the coast!!

#3% more tropics and 3% more people exposed to Malaria .... cure Malaria !!

You would rather hold back the tide???



I do, however, like the idea of clean air (for breathing purposes you understand )

 

[Mickel]

Bas , most of your argument has been covered by the last 2 posters.

I will just clarify that we are referring to AGW (ie that caused by CO2). You say that the last 15 yrs is only a short period or "narrow time frame" but this last 15 yrs is when the most CO2 has been emitted per year. You would expect that the temp would increase if CO2 was "mainly" responsible for the Global Warming in this situation.

The main problem is the projections can't be scientifically confirmed by the evidence.

As previously stated, the consensus of "wild" projections has been manipulated to some extent, and in any case, such consensus is itself not scientific. At one time all (or almost all) scientists of the time thought the world was flat, until one proved them wrong.

 

[explod]

Can you find an alternative source basilio, we have already demonstrated that source untrustworthy.

A waste of time as you would shoot any reference made from the banks of the myriad oil lobby material available to the skeptics (sorry about denier,s, a badly chosen word the other day)

The problem looming appears enormous, and sorry, rectification will be painful in the short term. Already we are seeing cheaper power from wind in some places, india is one. For the savvy these new ways present huge financial opportunities too.

A concern that we maybe on the wrong path by relying on coal and oil going forward is not being hysterical. Coming together to find mutual solutions is the way forward now.

 

[basilio]

The evidence for continued global warming is there if one chooses to read it. A more complete analysis of global warming trends and the various impacts on this comes from Real Climate.

What ocean heating reveals about global warming
Filed under:



”” stefan @ 25 September 2013

The heat content of the oceans is growing and growing. That means that the greenhouse effect has not taken a pause and the cold sun is not noticeably slowing global warming.

NOAA posts regularly updated measurements of the amount of heat stored in the bulk of the oceans. For the upper 2000 m (deeper than that not much happens) it looks like this:

The amount of heat stored in the oceans is one of the most important diagnostics for global warming, because about 90% of the additional heat is stored there (you can read more about this in the last IPCC report from 2007). The atmosphere stores only about 2% because of its small heat capacity. The surface (including the continental ice masses) can only absorb heat slowly because it is a poor heat conductor. Thus, heat absorbed by the oceans accounts for almost all of the planet’s radiative imbalance.

If the oceans are warming up, this implies that the Earth must absorb more solar energy than it emits longwave radiation into space. This is the only possible heat source. That’s simply the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. This conservation law is why physicists are so interested in looking at the energy balance of anything. Because we understand the energy balance of our Earth, we also know that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases – which have caused the largest imbalance in the radiative energy budget over the last century.

If the greenhouse effect (that checks the exit of longwave radiation from Earth into space) or the amount of absorbed sunlight diminished, one would see a slowing in the heat uptake of the oceans. The measurements show that this is not the case.

The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17 x 1022 Joules over the last 30 years. That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.

The data in the graphs comes from the World Ocean Database. Wikipedia has a fine overview of this database. The data set includes nine million measured temperature profiles from all of the world’s oceans. One of my personal heroes, the oceanographer Syd Levitus, has dedicated much of his life to making these oceanographic data freely available to everyone. During the Cold war that even landed him in a Russian jail for espionage for a while, as he was visiting Russia on his quest for oceanographic data (he once told me of that adventure over breakfast in a Beijing hotel).

How to deny data

Ideologically motivated “climate skeptics” know that these data contradict their claims, and respond … by rejecting the measurements Millions of stations are dismissed as “negligible” – the work of generations of oceanographers vanish with a journalist’s stroke of a pen because what should not exist, cannot be. “Climate skeptics’” web sites even claim that the measurement uncertainty in the average of 3000 Argo probes is the same as that from each individual one. Thus not only are the results of climate research called into question, but even the elementary rules of uncertainty calculus that every science student learns in their first semester. Anything goes when you have to deny global warming. Even more bizarre is the Star Trek argument – but let me save that for later.

There are about a dozen papers cited in this analysis. The main points are noting the increase in ocean temperatures which reflect the continued heating of teh earth and teh fact that we have had 3 La Nina years in the past decade which has lowered temperatures somewhat. And of course 1998 was the humdinger of an El Niño year.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-reveals-about-global-warming/comment-page-3/

 

[sydboy007]

Reducing CO2 emissions had best not be the right step forward.
It will cost trillions and leave billions of people in abject poverty.

It would be far better to see what is damaged by AGW
Then target specific problems with specific solutions.

Dwelling on disappearing coastline .... move away from the coast!!

#3% more tropics and 3% more people exposed to Malaria .... cure Malaria !!

You would rather hold back the tide???

I do, however, like the idea of clean air (for breathing purposes you understand )

Generally it's cheaper to not cause damage or a problem than to clean up the mess eg oil spills, tailing dams releasing their contents in the surrounding area.

Curing Malaria ain't that easy. It's had a few thousand years to become quite adept at infecting us. Then there's dengue fever, and heck quite a few other tropical diseases making there way to more and more areas as things heat up. Loss of arable land isn't easy to overcome. GM foods can only go so far.

What proof do you have than we can't move forward in a way that also reduces CO2E emissions?

 

[burglar]

... Curing Malaria ain't that easy ...

Needed regardless!

... Loss of arable land isn't easy to overcome. GM foods can only go so far ...

Reduce population!
If we don't, Mother Nature will!! She has an awesome agenda!

... What proof do you have than we can't move forward in a way that also reduces CO2 emissions?

Not sure if CO2 is the bulk of the problem (methane? )... also not sure how big the problem is.
Hence the hysteria!

 

[bellenuit]

I was quite surprised to hear an interview on ABC NewsRadio this morning that went against the carbon pricing solution trend. I can't recall who it was, but it think the interviewer said it was a Danish or Swedish "Economic Climate" scientist.

The gist of what he said was that carbon pricing was the wrong way to go and that the best solution is to invest heavily in coming up with cleaner and cheaper energy solutions.

He said the IPPC reports were in general very good reports based on where the science is now. The problem he saw was with those who then went on to overplay the message by being over alarmist.

In relation to carbon pricing, he said that it was a failed solution and would never be adopted by enough of the countries that produce significant amounts of carbon to be effective He said $5 per tonne was the maximum rate before it started damaging economies, but that rate was ineffective at reducing emissions. None of the big producers were going to adopt a rate above the economy damaging levels and it was a waste of time pursuing that goal. Reaching an agreement on carbon pricing had failed several times in the past, would continue to fail and only leads to political disagreement within and between countries (how true is that).

His proposed solution was direct action. Invest heavily in research to create clean energy solutions so cheap that consumers (industry and individuals) will use it in preference to dirty fossil fuels.

Solutions that are simply going to reduce people's standard of living won't work because they are politically unacceptable and won't be adopted. Divert the "energy" and resources to solutions that drive the cost of clean energy down, thus increasing the standard of living and you are more likely to succeed.

Makes sense to me.