TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by Raffy.Roma, Feb 3, 2013.

  1. RichardC

    RichardC Cdn Sig & Solar Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    Messages:
    631
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    More climate change denier disinformation (courtesy of your friends in the industry who have 100 trillion reason$ to lie about climate change). More of the same old nonsense from the same old cast of characters!

    The following is a good summary of the genre from: David Suzuki: Climate Deniers All Over the Map

    A little over a year ago, I wrote about a Heartland Institute conference in Las Vegas where climate change deniers engaged in a failed attempt to poke holes in the massive body of scientific evidence for human-caused climate change. I quoted Bloomberg News: “Heartland's strategy seemed to be to throw many theories at the wall and see what stuck.”

    A recent study came to a similar conclusion about contrarian “scientific” efforts to do the same. “Learning from mistakes in climate research,” published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology, examined some of the tiny percentage of scientific papers that reject anthropogenic climate change, attempting to replicate their results.

    In a Guardian article, co-author Dana Nuccitelli said their study found “no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming.” Instead, “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on.”

    Nuccitelli and fellow researchers Rasmus Benestad, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland and John Cook note that about 97 per cent of experts worldwide agree on a cohesive, science-based theory of global warming, but those who don’t “are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.”​

    With respect to the individuals quoted in the piece:

    As noted in The Wall Street Journal Needed a Fresh Face for Climate Inaction. It Found a Doozy. Steve Koonin, the former chief scientist for BP, is far from an impartial voice:

    Steve Koonin is the answer to a troublesome question facing the Journal’s opinion page editors: What you do if you want to continue obstructing progress on global warming pollution, but your usual stable of tame skeptics is starting to die off (Fred Seitz), retire from active research (Dick Lindzen), or discredit itself through serial scientific errors (John Christy) or by taking fanatical and manifestly untenable positions (Heartland Institute)? That puts the editors in quite a pickle. The Wall Street Journal evidently has high hopes for promoting Koonin as a prominent new voice for inaction, having lavished on him 2,000 words and front-page Saturday exposure outside the Journal’s paywall.
    With respect to Richard Lindzen, as noted in: Richard Lindzen

    Lindzen has published work with the conservative think-tank, the Cato Institute, a think tank that has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan notes that Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services. ...

    Richard Lindzen was among individuals listed as creditors in Peabody Energy's 2016 bankruptcy filings, reports the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD/PRWatch).

    While the available bankruptcy documents do not list the scale or dates of funding, they outline Peabody Energy's financial ties to a large network of groups promoting climate change denial.

    Prominent individuals appearing in the documents include climate deniers Willie Soon, Roy Spencer and Richard Berman. The long list of organizations also includes groups such as Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council, CFACT, Institute for Energy Research, State Policy Network, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and dozens more.​

    With respect to Judith Curry, as noted in: Judith Curry

    Judith A. Curry is the former chairman (2002 - 2014) and former professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Judith Curry resigned from her position at Georgia Tech on January 1, 2017, citing the “craziness” of climate science, and plans to focus on her private business, Climate Forecast Applications Network. Judith Curry continues to write and speak prolifically on the climate change issue and run the blog Climate Etc.

    Judith Curry has been invited by Republicans to testify at climate change hearings regarding alleged uncertainties regarding man-made climate change. She has also participated in a variety of blogs in the skeptical science community including Climate Audit, the Air Vent , and others.

    Curry has been criticized by climate scientists for her climate outreach in the blogosphere based on assertions not necessarily supported by the evidence: particularly that the “climate always changes.”

    Scientist Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, points out that “Climate doesn't change all by itself for no good reason. Something has to force it.” ...

    Judth Curry was listed among “Key Scientists” appearing in Marc Morano's movie, Climate Hustle. The full list included the following: [19]

    The film was produced by the Committee for Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and CDRCommunications. As noted at Desmog's project, ClimateHustler.org, CFACT has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. CFACT has also received at least $7.8 million in “dark money” through DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund.
     
    • Informative x 4
    • Like x 1
  2. mspohr

    mspohr Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,180
    Location:
    California
    • Like x 1
  3. u00mem9

    u00mem9 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    564
    Location:
    USA
    Here is how I would suggest the situation be explained by the professional community:

    >Fossil Fuel use is causing CO2 levels to rise
    >Increased CO2 levels increase the net solar energy absorbed by the Earth
    >That energy surplus is converting large amounts of ice to liquid water
    >When/if the buffer of a large volume of ice is depleated, the atmospheric temperature could rapidly increase.

    Every year it is a little more obvious that the temperatures are not really increasing yet. There is a logical explanation for that as the energy is going into phase change. But instead, there has been an effort to Orwell the historical record and claim the world is hotter. In most places it is not hotter. I challenge anyone that suffers cognitive dissonance from that statement to pull up raw temp data from their favorite city and post it here. (Berkeley Earth and some other sources have the actual raw data -as recorded in 1843 or whatever)

    I also would bet money that most people and even most of the "97% of scientists" do not realize that NOAA historical temperature data, from 1958 for example, is a moving target. They have a claimed reason for those revisions, and to me they are pretty desperate...but the main point is that most people are unaware of that 'adjustment'. IF more people knew (and they will in the future), they will discount the rest of the claims made by climate community.
     
  4. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,965
    Location:
    Central New York

    I don't have access to raw data but there is no doubt that here in central NY it's gotten much warmer since I was a kid in the 70's. Last winter was the warmest I've ever experienced and this winter is probably on track to be the second warmest.
     
    • Like x 1
  5. ohmman

    ohmman Maximum Plaid Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    Messages:
    5,824
    Location:
    North Bay, CA
    I don't understand what you're asking. Are you saying that we won't be able to find data that shows warming in any city? Or are you saying, post the data here and you'll poo-poo it as fudged?

    Three examples of clear warming trends.

    Weather History for Phoenix, AZ [Arizona] for January
    Weather History for Anchorage, AK [Alaska] for January
    About Berkeley Earth - Berkeley Earth
     
    • Like x 1
  6. SageBrush

    SageBrush Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,272
    Location:
    Colorado
  7. Skotty

    Skotty 2014 Model S P85

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    1,595
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    #3347 Skotty, Feb 16, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2017
    Two indisputable facts should lead all of us to the conclusion that taking extreme precautions regarding climate change are prudent.

    1) CO2 levels in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution are rising at a statistically significant rate and are quickly rising far above levels going back thousands of years. This is indisputable. It is physically measured.
    2) Changes to the atmosphere have global impact.

    Even if we had no idea what rising CO2 levels would result in, it would still be highly prudent to stop the levels from rising. However, we do have some idea of what rising CO2 levels can cause, provided to us by multiple lines of data and research by climate science going back decades into the past with a high degree of consensus among scientists.

    We have indisputable evidence of change, global impact and thus global risk, and significant analysis suggesting it's bad.

    It is truly astonishing that anyone would argue against doing something about it, given where we are today.

    Need I use a personal health analogy again? Lets say you regularly have a doctor run blood tests on you. And in the last 5 years, one of the measurements has begun rising like crazy, whereas for 20 years prior it remained in a fixed predictable range. Concerned, your family has you go to a variety of doctors, and most of them agree after further study that you need to make certain life changes that will bring you back to health, or you will get sick and possibly die. But right now, you still feel mostly fine, so you ignore the warnings. But here's the catch. This is a very special kind of illness. And it won't just be you who gets sick and dies, it will be EVERYONE ON EARTH! Maybe...just maybe...you should consider doing something about it. Don't do it for yourself. Do it for the billions of others on the planet who will have to share your fate if you ignore the problem and, much to your surprise, the consensus of many doctors' opinions on your health proves to be correct over your own.

    It's hard to tell what the cause of opposition is to taking corrective action on climate change. Is it just a failure to make correct assessments, or is it willful negligence? Can it be anything else?
     
    • Like x 1
  8. u00mem9

    u00mem9 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    564
    Location:
    USA
    syracuse.png


    As far as I can understand, the raw (as recorded) data is available in the GSOD source database. Is it hotter than you remember your childhood? Depending on the year you formed that memory, it very well could be. But while there is a statistical warming here, it's very tough to get worried by this trend.

    BUT, as I said, it very well could be that we are melting the ice caps, and speeding toward disaster. That's why I feel credibility is damaged by overstating the temperature situation.
     
    • Like x 1
  9. u00mem9

    u00mem9 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    564
    Location:
    USA
    I saw slight warming when I looked at Anchorage previously (I looked at that because it was shown as a area with the greatest change in a Hadley UK global plot). I haven't looked at Pheonix, but I would be interested to see the raw trend.

    I'm not saying you won't find examples. I'm saying the situation has been hyped in a counterproductive way. And I think when/if this temperature trend of 0.01deg hotter than last year doesn't continue, some other revisions to the historical record will be created.

    Like Skotty states, stick with the CO2 data. It's clean and easily verified.
     
  10. u00mem9

    u00mem9 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    564
    Location:
    USA
  11. AudubonB

    AudubonB Mild-mannered Moderator Lord Vetinari*

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2013
    Messages:
    5,006
    Location:
    Denali Highway, Alaska
    Speaking as an Alaskan, I would suggest you look at the data not for coastal Anchorage, where all such fluctuations will be dampened by the great oceanic heat sink, but for far inland Fairbanks.
     
    • Like x 1
  12. S'toon

    S'toon Knows where his towel is

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    2,227
    Location:
    SK
    • Like x 1
  13. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,965
    Location:
    Central New York
    Your graph shows that my memory lines up with reality.

    That looks like about a 2-3 degree increase, which is pretty significant in only a 43 year time period. I'm about 60 miles south of Syracuse, near Ithaca. Syracuse temperatures are likely more heavily influenced by being closer to prevailing winds coming off Lake Ontario, which will be slower to warm up. In any case another 2-3 degree increase over the next 43 years would add a total of 4-6 degrees increase. If you don't think that's significant then I guess there is nothing to discuss.
     
    • Like x 4
  14. TheTalkingMule

    TheTalkingMule Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,390
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    Not a good February 17th to be denying warming with temps crossing 60 in Minneapolis and 100 in Oklahoma.

    As noted above, no rational person even needs to reference or trust modern temperature readings. We can very accurately gauge historical temps, sea level & CO2 concentrations back 200k years and there's a very clear correlation between CO2 concentration and temp. We're 30%+ above any CO2 concentration measured from those 200k years, and very likely 400k years.

    Where's the confusion?
     
    • Like x 3
  15. SageBrush

    SageBrush Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,272
    Location:
    Colorado
    AGW
    Not ABW (Berkeley)
    Not ASW (Syracuse)

    AGW (Global (average) warming.)

    Sheesh
     
    • Funny x 1
  16. u00mem9

    u00mem9 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    564
    Location:
    USA
    I have heard that statement before, and I've even seen a nice graph of all those data points lining up linearly between temp and CO2. But temperature has obviously not increased 30%. Just lag?
     
  17. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,965
    Location:
    Central New York
    Of course. If you put a pot of water on the stove it doesn't instantly start boiling. Plus we seem to be in an extended period of unusually low sunspot activity, which would normally lead to cooling, and is probably muting the warming effect. When sunspot activity increases again temperatures could really take off. Probably a good idea to try and avoid that.
     
    • Like x 1
  18. u00mem9

    u00mem9 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    564
    Location:
    USA
    That all may be, but what you are doing is making rationalizations for why temp isn't tracking CO2, when the original claim was that is does.

    Again, my point is that when you say things that don't sync well with the data, you hurt credibility and invite doubt. It should be the case that energy absorbed by the planet tracks with CO2, and that energy is going into the phase change of polar ice to what, and some minor temp increase. It would NOT make sense for temp increase to track with the increase in absorbed energy because that wouldn't leave energy to melt the ice.
     
  19. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,965
    Location:
    Central New York
    Sigh. Just because there are a number of mechanisms possibly delaying the full impact of temperature change from CO2 doesn't mean they don't track. CO2 has been increasing, temperatures have been increasing. Not sure what you don't understand about that.
     
    • Like x 2
  20. ohmman

    ohmman Maximum Plaid Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    Messages:
    5,824
    Location:
    North Bay, CA
    I think what @u00mem9 is saying (though his line is hard to follow from post to post) is that we've been warming, but the increased heat is being absorbed into the oceans and phase change of polar ice and therefore hasn't reflected a close linear relationship with air temperature increase. Saying that it does line up linearly with atmospheric temperature muddies the conversation for him and he believes it makes for a chink in the relatively strong armor of the climate argument.

    Though, upthread he also complained about calling global temperatures the hottest on record because the margin of error provides an opportunity for it to be wrong. Also, he suggested the temperature readings are not verifiable. And that we couldn't find a city that has shown warming. Or that's how I've read the posts, which could be wrong and why we're not communicating well with each other. :)
     
    • Like x 2

Share This Page