World Politics

[Ferminal]

My, my.... I thought the science was 'in'.

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Which part of that is relevant to climate science?

 

[Anonymous]

Which part of that is relevant to climate science?

I can't keep track of all the terms.

It may not have anything to do with climate science.

But global cooling... We may need to start preparing how we can tax governments and business to prepare for that.

 

[Ferminal]

I can't keep track of all the terms.

It may not have anything to do with climate science.

But global cooling... We may need to start preparing how we can tax governments and business to prepare for that.

Geoengineering is a mythical concept, so it would be a waste to try and use such measures to control the climate. Greenhouse gases on the other hand are very real.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Geoengineering is a mythical concept, so it would be a waste to try and use such measures to control the climate. Greenhouse gases on the other hand are very real.

You should know by now that global warming is a myth propagated by left wing scientists and politicians.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

You may not be aware of this Scott, but the Daily Mail is also known as the Daily Nazi by many in the UK...

It is? I wonder who these mysterious people are because I've never met them. Apparently it was known by some as the Daily Heil, due to editorial policy eighty years ago. Maybe some people you know haven't moved on.

Daily Hate or Daily Fail have more (some) currency.

As for the quality of its reporting, I see no reason to dismiss its coverage of climate change out of hand, unlike The Guardian which is notorious for being totally unable to get to grips with any subject that involves science or even just numbers.

 

[Anonymous]

Geoengineering is a mythical concept, so it would be a waste to try and use such measures to control the climate. Greenhouse gases on the other hand are very real.

Al Gore is gonna be pissed when he finds this out.

Greenhouse gases on the other hand are very real

So is temperature data.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Al Gore is gonna be pissed when he finds this out.



So is temperature data.

I found a funny little slide show about Al Gore that you may enjoy, Scott. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/17/gorathon-the-slideshow.html

My, my.... I thought the science was 'in'.

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Australia might actually have to "fight climate change" (whatever that is) and have a tax for GLOBAL COOLING! Well at least it is nice to read that someone else on this forum has common sense on this issue, Scott. Also nice to see that NASA are jumping on board with some common sense and not relying on James Hansen's research.

 

[auscyclefan94]

You should know by now that global warming is a myth propagated by left wing scientists and politicians.

I am somewhat of a sceptic and certainly not of left wing politicians and I don't think it is just left wing scientists and politicians. Plenty of people in the conservative party in Australia are what would be known as 'greens' but the scepticism is more from conservatives.

 

[Ferminal]

Al Gore is gonna be pissed when he finds this out.

So is temperature data.

???

Which part of the temperature data is evidence that AGW is a big lie?

10 years or so is such a short period and hardly indicative of climate and shouldn't be at the forefront of scientific discussion (just like the very high temperatures in the 90s shouldn't be considered on their own). I completely agree that there are huge flaws in climate science, but the core components are irrefutable.

 

[Anonymous]

???

Which part of the temperature data is evidence that AGW is a big lie?

10 years or so is such a short period and hardly indicative of climate and shouldn't be at the forefront of scientific discussion (just like the very high temperatures in the 90s shouldn't be considered on their own). I completely agree that there are huge flaws in climate science, but the core components are irrefutable.

Which part of the temperature data is evidence that AGW is a big lie?

Not saying AGW is anything other than a possibility. Lots of theories to explain warming, lots of skeptics like this one;

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/comment-on-gavin-schmidts-post-on-his-weblog-real-climate-regarding-the-dominate-role-of-anthropogenic-greenhouse-gas-concentrations-on-the-global-average-temperature-trends/

I am interested to know what you think the irrefutable core components of climate science are.

 

[blutto]

It's good to be able to sleep at night, B.

Whatever it takes

...that wasn't directed at you personally so please you didn't need to start getting huffy because you feel you somehow have to even things up...though in retrospect it is kinda telling, that you, of all people, seemed so compelled to produce such a response...

...its really too bad I couldn't send a metaphorical peanut thru the internets to feed your metaphorical monkey... he so deserves a reward you know....because...he makes my job so easy...sleep tight...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Ferminal]

Not saying AGW is anything other than a possibility. Lots of theories to explain warming, lots of skeptics like this one;

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/comment-on-gavin-schmidts-post-on-his-weblog-real-climate-regarding-the-dominate-role-of-anthropogenic-greenhouse-gas-concentrations-on-the-global-average-temperature-trends/

I am interested to know what you think the irrefutable core components of climate science are.

- GHGs in the atmosphere block LWR from leaving the "surface".
- The resulting re-radiation means an increase in radiative forcing.
- Human activity has led to a sustained increase of GHG concentrations.
- GHG emissions as a result of human activity continue to increase.
- As GHG concentrations continue to rise, the forcing attributable to GHGs will also rise.
- Increasing forcing will impact climate on Earth.
- Changing temperature, rainfall, wind, runoff patterns will lead to economic, human, and ecological costs. Impacts will not necessarily be uniform and evenly distributed

So which of the following positions do you hold?

(1) GHGs do not block LWR.
(2) GHGs have a negligible role in changes to radiative forcing.
(3) Human activity has not altered the GHG balance.
(4) GHG emissions from humans are not increasing.
(5) Changes in forcing will not affect climate.
(6) Changes in climate will not result in any negative impacts.

 

[Maxiton]

 

[Maxiton]

Top is 1973
Bottom is 2009

This is what the above looks like on a world scale

More on sea ice shrinkage.

 

[auscyclefan94]

???

Which part of the temperature data is evidence that AGW is a big lie?

10 years or so is such a short period and hardly indicative of climate and shouldn't be at the forefront of scientific discussion (just like the very high temperatures in the 90s shouldn't be considered on their own). I completely agree that there are huge flaws in climate science, but the core components are irrefutable.

That the media are selective on what temperature data they report, how many scientists, journalists and politicians manipulate data and how certain other facts are ignored. 14 years certainly is an indicative time regarding climate, Ferminal considering there is a slight decreasing in global temperatures even though we have been in a long term warming phase, it actually is rather significant. 14 years is significant when you consider alarmists like Al Gore, Tim Flannery and other UN Climate scientists have been saying 'if we don't act within the next few years global warming will be unstoppable'.

Regarding snow cover...

Majority of Himilayan glaciers, which were predicted to be on the sharp decline by the IPCC are either stable or growing even though we in the long term going through a warming period. Due to our boom in population, demand for electricity is also increasing rapdily. Why aren't CO2 concentrations or temperature levels following? Why has temperature risen rapidly in the past when humans didn't emit virtually no CO2? Why are people electing parties such as the Greens and green supporting groups who think halving CO2 concentrations will save the planet?

 

[Ferminal]

That the media are selective on what temperature data they report, how many scientists, journalists and politicians manipulate data and how certain other facts are ignored. 14 years certainly is an indicative time regarding climate, Ferminal considering there is a slight decreasing in global temperatures even though we have been in a long term warming phase, it actually is rather significant. 14 years is significant when you consider alarmists like Al Gore, Tim Flannery and other UN Climate scientists have been saying 'if we don't act within the next few years global warming will be unstoppable'.

Regarding snow cover...

Majority of Himilayan glaciers, which were predicted to be on the sharp decline by the IPCC are either stable or growing even though we in the long term going through a warming period. Due to our boom in population, demand for electricity is also increasing rapdily. Why aren't CO2 concentrations or temperature levels following? Why has temperature risen rapidly in the past when humans didn't emit virtually no CO2? Why are people electing parties such as the Greens and green supporting groups who think halving CO2 concentrations will save the planet?

I'm not here to argue politics, which is of course one of the major flaws in climate science.

(1) GHGs do not block LWR.
(2) GHGs have a negligible role in changes to radiative forcing.
(3) Human activity has not altered the GHG balance.
(4) GHG emissions from humans are not increasing.
(5) Changes in forcing will not affect climate.
(6) Changes in climate will not result in any negative impacts.

Which one are you? Or do you agree that increasing GHG concentrations will result in adverse consequences (for some)?

 

[auscyclefan94]

I'm not here to argue politics, which is of course one of the major flaws in climate science.



Which one are you? Or do you agree that increasing GHG concentrations will result in adverse consequences (for some)?

Firstly, please do not use the term "climate change" or "changing climate". Rather amateurish therefore I can't actually choose an option at this point in time.

You may not be here to argue the politics of it (even though we are in the politics thread) but the flaws in climate science and scientists hypotheses/ conclusions can certainly be affected by the politics therefore to discuss the science it is crucial to look at the politics.

 

[Ferminal]

Firstly, please do not use the term "climate change" or "changing climate". Rather amateurish therefore I can't actually choose an option at this point in time.

Amateurish? Perhaps you can direct me to some more academic terminology for describing changes in the Earth's environments over time (or dynamic evolution of climates). What terminology would you like me to use, I'll go with it whatever it is.

You may not be here to argue the politics of it (even though we are in the politics thread) but the flaws in climate science and scientists hypotheses/ conclusions can certainly be affected by the politics therefore to discuss the science it is crucial to look at the politics.
Sorry "

What? Politicians aren't practicing scientists, and practicing scientists should be focused on delivering their research in the true spirit of "science", devoid of any outside influences and motivations. Since when do we allow "science" to be questioned by politicians? In exactly the same manner, we shouldn't allow scientists to interfere with political process, they should only be there to communicate the scientific realities and no further commentary. You are of course welcome to say that the above is a major flaw in climate research (which is true), but that alone is not a refutation of the evidence presented in the academic literature. It just smells of "I'm unable to provide a counterargument on a scientific basis so I'll just say all you academics are corrupt and politically motivated so all of your work must be false".

 

[Anonymous]

- GHGs in the atmosphere block LWR from leaving the "surface".
- The resulting re-radiation means an increase in radiative forcing.
- Human activity has led to a sustained increase of GHG concentrations.
- GHG emissions as a result of human activity continue to increase.
- As GHG concentrations continue to rise, the forcing attributable to GHGs will also rise.
- Increasing forcing will impact climate on Earth.
- Changing temperature, rainfall, wind, runoff patterns will lead to economic, human, and ecological costs. Impacts will not necessarily be uniform and evenly distributed

So which of the following positions do you hold?

(1) GHGs do not block LWR.
(2) GHGs have a negligible role in changes to radiative forcing.
(3) Human activity has not altered the GHG balance.
(4) GHG emissions from humans are not increasing.
(5) Changes in forcing will not affect climate.
(6) Changes in climate will not result in any negative impacts.

I'm going with door number 5.

Surface temp have risen about 1.4 degrees (F) over the past 100 years or so.

What the world needs is another mega-volcano. Maybe climate science can work out how to make that happen.

At this point AGW is not provable and thus am suspicious when I am told "the science is in".

All of your above points may be the gospel, but tell me what it means? Here's the problem: you can't. The models are consistently inaccurate, the climate science really has no answer for the lack of warming over the last decade. Why do you suppose this is?

My feeling is climate science has bet the farm on only one conclusion to the exclusion of all others. Why?

Money. You can't tax the sun or the oceans.

Of course I could just be cynical.

 

[Anonymous]

What? Politicians aren't practicing scientists, and practicing scientists should be focused on delivering their research in the true spirit of "science", devoid of any outside influences and motivations. Since when do we allow "science" to be questioned by politicians? In exactly the same manner, we shouldn't allow scientists to interfere with political process, they should only be there to communicate the scientific realities and no further commentary. You are of course welcome to say that the above is a major flaw in climate research (which is true), but that alone is not a refutation of the evidence presented in the academic literature. It just smells of "I'm unable to provide a counterargument on a scientific basis so I'll just say all you academics are corrupt and politically motivated so all of your work must be false".

Are you going to argue that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and others at IPCC and UEA are not playing politics now and in the last 20 years or so?

Politicians may not be scientists but the most vocal climate scientists are definitely politicians. Unelected, but politicians nonetheless.

 

[Ferminal]

I'm going with door number 5.

Surface temp have risen about 1.4 degrees (F) over the past 100 years or so.

What the world needs is another mega-volcano. Maybe climate science can work out how to make that happen.

At this point AGW is not provable and thus am suspicious when I am told "the science is in".

All of your above points may be the gospel, but tell me what it means? Here's the problem: you can't. The models are consistently inaccurate, the climate science really has no answer for the lack of warming over the last decade. Why do you suppose this is?

My feeling is climate science has bet the farm on only one conclusion to the exclusion of all others. Why?

Money. You can't tax the sun or the oceans.

Of course I could just be cynical.

Sorry, 5 probably doesn't make sense. Radiative forcing isn't just about GHGs but everything including our friends aerosols (volcanoes). It is an invented concept but I think a valid way of looking at climate drivers. See http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html (yes I know it's IPCC). If a net change in energy doesn't affect the planet I'm not sure what does.

I agree that modelling has a long way to go and cannot be relied upon for anything more than an indication. At this point it brings into doubt the makeup of all the impacts, cost analysis and so on. The further down the line you go the greater the uncertainty.

For me personally based on my own conclusions I don't find temperatures falling from one year to the next surprising. It would be a huge overstatement to think that one year's extra accumulation of human GHG emissions would be enough to guarantee a rise in the global average the following year. Just as an increase in the global average one year, I wouldn't say is largely a result of that year's emissions.

On a whole though I feel the temperature data backs up my interpretations, whilst not as warm as the 90s, the global averages are of course still above the average for the 20th century. I doubt I would change my position until we see a return that baseline sustained over decades. That is just me, three or four years ago I'd probably say I was in a similar position to yourself, but then I was indoctrinated by a textbook/IPCC teaching of climate science. Whilst I despised it, I came out of it with a new mindset - having learned the basics of the science I was no longer able to reject the whole discipline based on my own opinion that it was an ugly movement.

The points I mentioned in my earlier post are enough for me to believe that GHG emissions are a negative externality (at least on an intertemporal basis) and thus believe there needs to be action to correct the inefficiency. I realise this is very unsophisticated position, but something I am comfortable given the limitations of my knowledge. A step further into the fact that it is a "global" problem breaks my position down completely, and I have to revert to ideology.

Are you going to argue that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and others at IPCC and UEA are not playing politics now and in the last 20 years or so?

Politicians may not be scientists but the most vocal climate scientists are definitely politicians. Unelected, but politicians nonetheless.

Come on, read what I've said:

"I'm not here to argue politics, which is of course one of the major flaws in climate science." [Getting involved in politics]

"In exactly the same manner, we shouldn't allow scientists to interfere with political process, they should only be there to communicate the scientific realities and no further commentary"

"You are of course welcome to say that the above is a major flaw in climate research (which is true)"

 

[blutto]

Firstly, please do not use the term "climate change" or "changing climate". Rather amateurish therefore I can't actually choose an option at this point in time.

You may not be here to argue the politics of it (even though we are in the politics thread) but the flaws in climate science and scientists hypotheses/ conclusions can certainly be affected by the politics therefore to discuss the science it is crucial to look at the politics.

...amateurish ?????....ooo....that's rich even for someone such yourself...

...my advice is you should take to heart a saying my dad used to use....that is...the best way to appear foolish is to talk about something you know very little about...because from where I'm sitting you are, in fact, the one who reeks of the stench of the most foolish of know-it-all amateurs, covered as they usually are with rotting blowback from their half-baked theories...

...and btw...speaking of amateurs there was way back when, a term, which they applied to supposedly amateur athletes that competed at the highest levels ( the Olympics as an example )...they were called gifted amateurs...and I'm sure that in your heart of hearts, you believe that you are one of those gifted amateurs, because it allows you, on a technicality, to compete at a level reserved for the best professionals in the field...in point of fact, you are a rank amateur, with the accent on the former...

...so, go back to your playground, and leave the heavy lifting to the pros....this stuff is too important to be mucked with by the likes of folks such as yourself...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Amsterhammer]

Blutto vs. Acf.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8XeDvKqI4E

 

[blutto]

Blutto vs. Acf.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8XeDvKqI4E

...tee hee...and bang on...

...and btw, for those keeping score, I'm the tall dark handsome chap on the left with the really big fish...an obviously gifted amateur skilled in the art....

Cheers

blutto

 

[Anonymous]

...that wasn't directed at you personally so please you didn't need to start getting huffy because you feel you somehow have to even things up...though in retrospect it is kinda telling, that you, of all people, seemed so compelled to produce such a response...

...its really too bad I couldn't send a metaphorical peanut thru the internets to feed your metaphorical monkey... he so deserves a reward you know....because...he makes my job so easy...sleep tight...

Cheers

blutto

that wasn't directed at you personally

I understand. I'm not a social conservative so in theory (according to your posted study) I might even be as smart as you.

though in retrospect it is kinda telling, that you, of all people, seemed so compelled to produce such a response...

Oh wait... so the article WAS directed at me.

he makes my job so easy

Gee, but what does it say about the hyper-educated liberal stooping to having an interwebz discussion (political of all things) with someone so intellectually inferior?

Surely liberal brainiacs can find someone other than a mental midget to spar with?