Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

What "grossly overstated disaster scenarios" do you question? In what way do you think they are grossly overstated? Who have you questioned about them? What evidence do you see that they have not included? What reasons have been given for excluding this evidence? What effect would the evidence have on the scenarios? How old are the scenarios? How do they match with intervening reality?...

Ghoti

Bloody hell I'd have to write a whole treatise to answer those questions... and would be going over old ground all over again.

Groundhog Day anyone?

Just read the genuine scientific objections to the IPCC et al AGW hypothesis instead of ignoring them. The answers are contains therein without be typing a word

 

[white_goodman]

OK, replying one by one.

sails- you state that disasters occurring are not caused by climate change as they always have occurred - of course they have - circuitous argument.

Of course, but is global warming occurring? How much is the effect? Not that much at this stage, and it is predicted to be not that much. I didn't hear any climate experts saying that global warming caused the Queensland events, only they would have ben less strong.

It is true that that climate disasters have risen over the last 20 years though!!!


aussiejeff - It's raining, how can there be global warming?

By the earth warming! You would More expect more rain though weather patterns will change and it will rain in different places.

wayne - skeptics doubt things - all scientists are skeptics - things often turn out different and I reckon most of the predictions of what will happen are not 100% correct.

Deniers will not have any flexibility in their views e.g. people against evolution, you can throw as many dinosaur skelatons at them that they would be buried and the still won't believe.

The facts show the earth is warming, there have been some problems like the guy with the tree rings in Russia but science gets its sources from many directions. Why would NASA be trying to pull the wool over our eyes? The evidence is plain to see. Even last year with the La Nina event which caused some cooling, still ended up being the even hottest year.

You say manipulation of data is widespread and you cannot believe the scientists and should instead believe the propagandists who have an interest in slowing change as they tried to resist the medical evidence against cigarrettes, fridges causing the hole in the ozone layer, DDT in food etc. .

You are the one being manipulated, Wayne.

20 years lol, so much irony in the last setence

 

[ghotib]

Bloody hell I'd have to write a whole treatise to answer those questions... and would be going over old ground all over again.

Groundhog Day anyone?

Just read the genuine scientific objections to the IPCC et al AGW hypothesis instead of ignoring them. The answers are contains therein without be typing a word

Ahem:

So come on Wayne, step up and debate properly rather than playing silly handwaving games.

Those questions don't need a treatise. They need you to be specific about what you mean by "grossly overstated disaster scenarios". Pick just one if you like, but be specific about it. Or be specific about what you mean by "the IPCC et al AGW hypothesis" you want me to read "genuine scientific objections to".

You've reminded me of an earlier discussion - maybe even on this thread - where you were dismissive of the IPCC climate model. I pointed out that the 4th IPCC report cites 22 separate models, and you replied with a similar handwaving to the effect of "you know what I mean". That suggests to me that you didn't know what you meant then, and you don't really know what you mean now.

Prove me wrong. Be specific.

Ghoti
PS I've tried to find that earlier exchange but I can't think of a narrow enough search term.

 

[Smurf1976]

20 years lol, so much irony in the last setence

In any event, on what basis is anyone saying that climate disasters have increased over the last 20 years? Where is the evidence for that rather specific claim?

 

[wayneL]

Ahem:

Those questions don't need a treatise. They need you to be specific about what you mean by "grossly overstated disaster scenarios". Pick just one if you like, but be specific about it.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-02/uoa-rsw021411.php

 

[ghotib]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-02/uoa-rsw021411.php

That links to a press release from the University of Arizona about a paper published this year, and probably this month.

1. It's not an IPCC press release and there's no way in the world to know what the IPCC reports will or will not say about its research. How can you point to this work as an IPCC hypothesis?

2. As far as I can see it's about the effects of some possible future events - a series of "what ifs". What "grossly overstated disaster scenario" do you suggest it demonstrates? I won't be surprised if it's something to do with sea level rise, but as a good skeptic I can't assume I know what you're thinking.

3. How can any genuine scientific criticism possibly be available for a paper that's barely off the presses?

These might seem like nit-picking debating points but that's not how I mean them (well not wholly). If we're ever going to find answers to huge problems we surely need to know that we're talking about the same thing. After all, plenty of people on this forum haven't realised that you can't take the temperature of a planet with one thermometer.

Ghoti

 

[wayneL]

The IPCC report predicts accelerating sea level rises.

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest147.htm - Dr Willem De Lange

For the New Zealand 2001 report, I was asked to state that sea level rise was accelerating, or at least could be accelerating. However, my own research and published literature shows that sea level fluctuates at decadal time scales. Therefore, although there was an increase in the rate of sea level rise around 1998, I expected sea level rise to slow and reverse early in the 21st Century. The underlying long-term trend, however, was likely to decrease, and there were some tide gauge data to indicate that it had started to do so. In the 1980s, the New Zealand rate was 1.8 mm per year. By 1990, it was 1.7 mm per year, and by 2001 it was 1.6 mm per year. These changes are small, and were not enough to prove that sea level rise was slowing. However, they clearly did not show that sea level rise was accelerating.

After 2001, published studies continued to project lower global sea level rises over the 21st Century, and several reported a slowing of the rate of rise during the 20th Century. Shortly before the IPCC Assessment Report 4 was published I undertook a literature review of all sea level studies, which: projected lower levels than the IPCC Third Assessment Report review; indicated a slowing of the rate of sea level rise; emphasised the role of decadal scale fluctuations; and there was concern about the discrepancy between satellite and tide gauge sea level measurements. It was recognised that, although satellite sensing gives a better overall measurement of global sea level, satellites reported twice the rate of sea level rise being measured at the coast. It was evident that satellite data could not be combined with tide gauge data.

The IPCC Assessment Report 4 report emphasises a single paper, which was not available when I conducted my review, which spliced the satellite data onto the tide gauge data to “find” acceleration in sea level rise over the period of satellite measurement. This is being used to imply that global sea level rise is accelerating due to global warming (now renamed Climate Change). The satellite data only covered the period of increasing sea level associated with decadal cycles, and the known discrepancy between satellite trends and tide gauge trends was not corrected for. This is poor science comparable to the splicing of proxy and instrument data in the infamous Hockey Stick graph, and the splicing of ice core and instrumental CO2 measurements to exaggerate the changes.

Despite therefore finding accelerating sea level rise, the latest IPCC assessment projects lower sea level rises than the previous ones. The methodology used to report the projections was changed to make comparisons harder, but the range of 0.18-0.59 m equates to a most likely rise of around 0.39 m. The IPCC Assessment Report 4 also included an extra 0.20 m allowance for uncertainties associated with destabilisation of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Caps. Various groups have speculated that the collapse of these Ice Caps could produce a much higher additional sea level rise. In contrast, published studies that have specifically studied this contribution have concluded that given the worst possible scenarios, the maximum extra contribution is 0.18 m. Hence, the IPCC Assessment Report 4 allowance is a very conservative upper bound.

What has sea level actually done so far this century? There have been large regional variations, but the global rate has slowed and is currently negative, consistent with measured ocean cooling. Claims to the contrary are exaggerations and not realistic.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Its an absolute corker of a morning in Townsville.

Birds are singing, grass is long after all the rain, a clear blue sky.

Hysteria is infectious, and I admire those on this thread who persist in it's cautery.

gg

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Hysteria is infectious, and I admire those on this thread who persist in it's cautery. gg

cautery:
An agent or instrument used to destroy tissue, as in surgery, by burning, searing, cutting, or scarring, including caustic substances, electric currents, and lasers.

I guess this is a close resemblance to the above definition:

Lawrence Solomon: US House votes to defund IPCC in Climategate fallout.

The U.S. House of Representatives today voted by a wide margin ”” 244-179 ”” to defund the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..........
​

The pessimism continues to grow.

 

[white_goodman]

In any event, on what basis is anyone saying that climate disasters have increased over the last 20 years? Where is the evidence for that rather specific claim?

dont you realise everything in recent memory is the worst its ever been....

lol, its supported by no facts but dont let that get in the way of their emotional moral crusade

 

[bandicoot76]

i cant wait for phil valentines new doco "an inconsistent truth" to come out!

a quote from the trailer:
'of the (IPCC's) panel of 3000 only 152 were actual climate scientists, the rest were hangers-on....and of those 152 there was no concensus on the issue (of AGW)"
... interesting! ....

hopefully the 'cap & trade' gravy train will be derailed... but i wouldnt hold my breath... how many greedy pollies & beaurocrats would give up a global taxation system worth trillions?

 

[drsmith]

From a taxpayer perspective, the current subsidies for solar panels and the like are, in effect, a carbon tax by stealth in terms of their impact on electricty prices. It smooths the way.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ls-cost-of-power/story-fn59niix-1226009112115

The Australian Industry Group misses the point (perhaps deliberately) that certainty can also be in the form of a reduction (or removal) of these subsidies and no carbon price.

 

[white_goodman]

From a taxpayer perspective, the current subsidies for solar panels and the like are, in effect, a carbon tax by stealth in terms of their impact on electricty prices. It smooths the way.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ls-cost-of-power/story-fn59niix-1226009112115

The Australian Industry Group misses the point (perhaps deliberately) that certainty can also be in the form of a reduction (or removal) of these subsidies and no carbon price.

also an interesting aside that my dad tell me, solar panels void all 10-20year roof warranties... fyi

 

[Knobby22]

cautery:
An agent or instrument used to destroy tissue, as in surgery, by burning, searing, cutting, or scarring, including caustic substances, electric currents, and lasers.

I guess this is a close resemblance to the above definition:

Lawrence Solomon: US House votes to defund IPCC in Climategate fallout.

The U.S. House of Representatives today voted by a wide margin — 244-179 — to defund the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..........
​

The pessimism continues to grow.

I am shocked and disheartened! They aren't getting the results they want so they try to close it down!! I give up. I suppose next they will tell NASA to not report their global measurements results and we can all be mushrooms.

I am going to take the rest of the year off this thread and am just let nature take its course. The fact that last year was the hottest year ever (even with another recent year) and the Artic is continuing to melt seems to not influence many of the people on this thread one iota.

See you all next year. You win (along with the powers that be).

 

[white_goodman]

I am shocked and disheartened! They aren't getting the results they want so they try to close it down!! I give up. I suppose next they will tell NASA to not report their global measurements results and we can all be mushrooms.

I am going to take the rest of the year off this thread and am just let nature take its course. The fact that last year was the hottest year ever (even with another recent year) and the Artic is continuing to melt seems to not influence many of the people on this thread one iota.

See you all next year. You win (along with the powers that be).

ill be sure to tell people from UK/Europe and the US who had the coldest winter in recent memory

 

[OzWaveGuy]

ill be sure to tell people from UK/Europe and the US who had the coldest winter in recent memory

Both ends of the earth could be frozen like the recent bizzards in the northern hemisphere every year for the next 20, yet the extremist alarmist will still be screaming about global warming and extreme weather events.

 

[wayneL]

FYI

http://democrats.science.house.gov/...rings/2010/Energy/17nov/Lindzen_Testimony.pdf

 

[Smurf1976]

also an interesting aside that my dad tell me, solar panels void all 10-20year roof warranties... fyi

Not if installed in compliance with (roof) manufacturer's instructions and Australian Standards so as to prevent galvanic corrosion of the roofing material.

How commonly the proper proceedures are followed I am really not sure, but installing a system on an iron roof (whcih I have done myself so know what I'm on about...) is basically a matter of removing the existing roof bolts and replacing them with longer ones. Done properly, it shouldn't affect the roof in any way. Done improperly is another matter entirely...

 

[ghotib]

The IPCC report predicts accelerating sea level rises.

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest147.htm - Dr Willem De Lange

Which IPCC report, and what is the grossly overstated disaster scenario it allegedly contains? Do you really know what the IPCC said? Have you personally looked at any of their publications, or are all your ideas about them drawn from critics and contrarians?

This article is in a political journal, which explains why it doesn't contain any citations or any evidence for the author's opinions. It would, however, be helpful to have some information about which sections of the IPCC reports he's discussing. For instance, in the 4th report the chapter "Observations: Oceanic Climate Changes and Sea Level" ( http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter5.pdf contains 6.5 pages of small-print references to about 300 papers. There's no way to tell which one Dr De Lange objects to.

If you're interested in what's known about sea levels, this is one place to start: http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-basic.htm.

Ghoti

 

[Mickel]

FYI

http://democrats.science.house.gov/...rings/2010/Energy/17nov/Lindzen_Testimony.pdf

Thanks for providing this reference, Wayne. I thought Prof Lindzen outlined the real scientific debate in his opening remarks-

"In my long experience with the issue of global warming, I’ve come to realize that the vast majority of laymen --including policymakers –do not actually know what the scientific debate is about. In this testimony, I will try to clarify this. Some of you may, for example, be surprised to hear that the debate is not about whether it is warming or not or even about whether man is contributing some portion of whatever is happening. I’ll explain this in this testimony. Unfortunately, some part of the confusion is explicitly due to members of the scientific community whose role as partisans has dominated any other role they may be playing.
Here are two statements that are completely agreed on by the IPCC. It is crucial to be aware of their implications.
1. A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1C to greenhouse warming. All models project more warming, because, within models, there are positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, and these feedbacks are considered by the IPCC to be uncertain.
2. If one assumes all warming over the past century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, then the derived sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. The higher sensitivity of existing models is made consistent with observed warming by invoking unknown additional negative forcings from aerosols and solar variability as arbitrary adjustments.
Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC."

And part of his summary-

"Perhaps we should stop accepting the term"skeptic". Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible.Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years, makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating."