Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[CapelDodger]

Are we quite sure the list of WWs is complete ?

Fossil-fueled ones? One more, maybe. Tops.

There's tension in the NW Pacific - over fossil-fuels. There's tension in Central Europe, and fossil fuels certainly play a part in that. There's been flag-planting in the Arctic with fossil fuels in mind. And then there's Antarctica to bring the rest of the world in. Only India would come out of it well, on solar power.

Let's hope we get over that hump.

 

[CapelDodger]

As for your list there is no reason why people cannot have a stable climate (in the sense that we are not destabilising it), and have all of the above as well. For some bizarre reason, we are repeatedly told we can only have one or the other.

It's the route we travelled, and hence the only road there is. Large-scale centralised power-generation distributed by grid and personal transport for all. Of course there's a good reason why this hasn't been provided to poor areas and it's nothing to do with AGW or restrictions on fossil-fuel use. It's because nobody can make a profit out of building and running one.

On-site, small-scale solar generation funded by local capital is already proving to be a viable model in Africa and SE Asia. It's where the future lies even in the developed world, and there'll be benfits for those societies which get there first. Just as the West did with fossil-fuels when they were the coming thing.

 

[SingularMan]

Phil Jones is a climate scientist infamous for alleged data manipulation in regards to an email he sent where he said that his team used a "math trick" in order to "hide the decline". It is said on skeptical science that "the decline" is in reference to a physical decline in tree-ring growth and that the data collected from the tree rings doesn't correlate with the observed instrumental readings of temperature. Why are tree rings accurate at all then if the observed temperature can differentiate so widely?

 

[a_unique_person]

Phil Jones is a climate scientist infamous for alleged data manipulation in regards to an email he sent where he said that his team used a "math trick" in order to "hide the decline". It is said on skeptical science that "the decline" is in reference to a physical decline in tree-ring growth and that the data collected from the tree rings doesn't correlate with the observed instrumental readings of temperature. Why are tree rings accurate at all then if the observed temperature can differentiate so widely?

Apart from the fact that you are misrepresenting what he wrote, the science behind Global Warming is about more than just one scientist, or even a group of scientists. It is the result of the work of thousands of scientists around the world, working independently on multiple streams of research.
It is standard course material taught in Universities around the world.
It is accepted science for all the peak science bodies around the globe.
The opposition is just represented by much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[macdoc]

SIngular why do you editorialize when you ask a question...?

Building a high-resolution picture of how temperatures have changed is no mean feat. Thermometre readings only go back to around 1860, so we have to use proxies to delve further back. Tree rings, for instance, are thicker during warm years when trees can grow faster.

Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University in Corvallis and colleagues used 73 proxies to reconstruct temperatures throughout the Holocene – the epoch that began 11,300 years ago, after the last ice age. Their analysis shows that over thousands of years, temperatures rose and fell by less than 1 °C. "It took 8000 years to go from warm to cold," says Marcott. Agriculture, communal life and societies with various forms of government all arose during this relatively stable period.

larger article

http://www.newscientist.com/article...hockey-stick-graph-revealed.html#.U2w5rV5mv3w

There are hundreds of approaches to track the climate globally...they all say the same things....
The graph above is the result of the multiple proxies used to extend back 11k bp to the last ice age.
The confirmation is the change over time matches the change to be expected as the earth moves to a cooler regime due to changes in it's orbit known as Milankovitch cycles.
Then industrial civilization comes along.
Coal and oil and gas are burned, increasing the C02 in the atmosphere to levels not seen for millions of years.
CO2 traps IR so more warmth is retained....this is radiative imbalance - we are keeping more than we radiate out.

So the earths geophysical systems, air, ice, water retains more heat as it cannot radiate it out as fast.

The huge gain is in the ocean....the air is somewhat minor in comparison.

It's getting warmer...

CO2 traps IR. It will not reach a new equilibrium for a while and it will be at a temperature not seen for millions of years.
IF we could hold it at 2C rise over the 20th century average then we would just barely stay within the Holocene Optimum some 8,000 years ago.

I do not think we will, and we need to prepare for the consequences. Already only .8C into the climb the consequences are severe for some ...and the changes in the Arctic astonishing.

There is far far more to come and we continue to add CO2 which unfortunately stays with us for 1000s of years.

We're responsible for this.....first world civilization built its wealth on fossil fuels. Now we have to cope with the consequences of that wealth building....party is over ....the bill is due.

One of the early consequences of AGW is extreme weather. and the annual bills for that are getting to be astronomical. Just one state...

California drought could drain $8 billion, spike food prices
www.cnbc.com/id/101514409
Mar 21, 2014 - California, hammered by a severe drought, may see nearly a million acres of idle land this year because of a lack of water, a report said on ...

Welcome to the Holocene.

 

[Trakar]

It's enjoyment like that which leads to newborns in the first place. There's always a price to pay.

Damn, I've been living amongst Methodists too bloody long ...

Oddly enough there's a parallel with fossil fuels. Sure, they made industrial society possible and we've fueled some splendid World Wars on the back of them but now the bill is being presented.

It is just that tendency of humans to ignore consequences that seem of little consequence, especially if they are inconvenient to address.

 

[Trakar]

And again I say it was ever thus.

Oh, certainly so, else we would not share the verbiage to discuss it. but it was always more {{wink, wink, nudge, nudge}} "know what I mean, know what I mean," the sheer, unabashed alacrity in promoting such vice by those who twist their mouths to simultaneously and self-righteously assert unkind interpretations of gospels devoted to praising an all-loving, all-forgiving Father? (rhetorical - no need for response)

It varies in degree, though, and I agree that it's particularly bare-faced at the moment. The Ayn Rand fan-club, for instance - what kind of messed-up world spawns something like that? But then look at film of Mussolini and wonder what kind of messed-up situation put him in charge of anything.

Look at India, it is easy to get caught up in a massive, corrupt, democratic bureaucracy. Sometimes it is easy to vote for someone who will boost business and jobs, limit corruption, improve neighborhood security, and make the trains run on time. that is understandable. Believing that the current situation is similar to the one that spawned Mussolini is ..., premature.

It can't last, of course. Community always wins out over rampant individualism, often with great prejudice to the individualists.

When it comes to AGW, people like that aren't deniers. They're up-front about not caring. AGW deniers are those who don't want to do anything but seek justification. They don't care what the truth is, they just don't care to accept that they just don't care .

And I really don't care what happens to them.

Well, we've had Harlan Ellison, now its time for a bit of Harry Harrison:

"... But with the improving of here and now comes the stark realization that here and now is all we have. Each of us has only this one brief experience with the bright light of consciousness in that endless dark night of eternity and must make the most of it. Doing this means we must respect the existence of everyone else and the most criminal act imaginable is the terminating of one of these conscious existences."

 

[ABC10]

Phil Jones is a climate scientist infamous for alleged data manipulation in regards to an email he sent where he said that his team used a "math trick" in order to "hide the decline". It is said on skeptical science that "the decline" is in reference to a physical decline in tree-ring growth and that the data collected from the tree rings doesn't correlate with the observed instrumental readings of temperature. Why are tree rings accurate at all then if the observed temperature can differentiate so widely?

I think Jones looks really bad in pictures I have seen of him since the email scandal. I think it really has taken a toll on him. CO2 and warmth is our friend and help things grow like food stuffs and other plant material.

 

[a_unique_person]

I think Jones looks really bad in pictures I have seen of him since the email scandal. I think it really has taken a toll on him. CO2 and warmth is our friend and help things grow like food stuffs and other plant material.

When you have been publicly singled out, victimised and pilloried, it tends to take a toll on a lot of people. Jones will be one of histories' heroes. He was doing research into Global Warming that was pioneering back before most people had even heard of it. The temperature record he and others have constructed was painstaking, tedious work that helped give us an insight into how the climate has been changing.

However, as I said earlier, the work by Jones is not the only work that has been done into global warming, there have been thousands of scientists working away for years at this field of research.

 

[Warmer1]

"hide the decline".

Off to the conspiracy theory thread with that nonsense. One of the most debunked distortions of truth ever, but it's all that deniers have left.

 

[Corsair 115]

Are we quite sure the list of WWs is complete ?

WW... hmmm...

Woodrow Wilson?
Walt Whitman?

No, no, that's not it.

Walter White. Heisenberg!

 

[Warmer1]

The combined AGW threads are close to 13,000 posts now.

It's just great to see that deniers are still trying to cling to Climategate after is has been so thoroughly debunked by so many independent inquiries.

Deniers can no longer find anywhere in the world;

- 1 peer-reviewed paper to support their claims which is not controversial
- 1 Academy of Science that supports any denial of climate change science
- ! Institute of higher education that supports any denial of climate change

Deniers also can't find scientists that don't agree who are not controversial for some reason.

Climate science is being taught in high schools and universities.

What will it take for climate change denial to be a conspiracy theory at the JREF?????

Reddit doesn't let deniers post, nor does the LA Times and Popular Science.

Is it time that we created some pre-requisite for deniers to be able to post here? I know it has been attempted before.

Deniers have probably never been informed that Climategate has been debunked to death. What if a list of the typical denier talking points was created and in order for deniers to participate in this science thread certain subjects were kept off limits? Create a page with the most heavily debunked subjects and show how many times the concepts have been proven to be wrong, which would probably be similar to the list at Skeptical Science. Deniers have most likely never been shown how many times the typical drivel has been proven wrong.

Climategate, the hockey stick graph, the Sun is causing it, cherry picking the paleoclimate record etc. We could provide the list of scientific organizations supporting AGW and have deniers look for an academy of science that doesn't. Perhaps a few would be less likely to pontificate upon arrival.

I understand that in it's entirety climate change denial is non-sense, but I agree with many that discussions are still a good means to attempt to educate the anti-science crowd. Let's keep the conversation going but could there be some kind of means to filter out the most common absolute nonsense?

It's entertaining to see the deniers come and go but it would be nice if new posters could be pre-screened in order to prevent the usual drivel.

If eight separate investigations clear Phil Jones don't waste bandwidth mentioning it and let's not make it the mods job to move the posts to the conspiracy theory thread. Nip it in the bud instead. Deniers should be presented a nice presentation of the truth, which they don't get elsewhere, and just simply not be allowed to post the crap here any more. If they are just not capable of understanding the most basic science or they reject it then they are wasting their time and ours. If they want to participate they can be spectators until they get it.

Just throwing the idea out for further input. Climategate - really? still?? Why should the mods have to shovel intellectual excrement?

Thoughts?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

There is no sign that this is your opinion, merely one that you have adopted to keep from actually studying and researching the issue and coming to a reasoned and informed personal understanding. Spouting such, without the concern or ability to compellingly support and defend that position,...in a science forum, ...is trolling.

And yet so many of you continue to engage him...

Phil Jones is a climate scientist infamous for alleged data manipulation in regards to an email he sent where he said that his team used a "math trick" in order to "hide the decline". It is said on skeptical science that "the decline" is in reference to a physical decline in tree-ring growth and that the data collected from the tree rings doesn't correlate with the observed instrumental readings of temperature. Why are tree rings accurate at all then if the observed temperature can differentiate so widely?

Well...

Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature and hence tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades. (source)

Since the tree ring data matches observed temperatures up until 1960, it can be safely used (along with other sources of proxy data) to reconstruct temperature data from before we had our own direct observations.

 

[Trakar]

And yet so many of you continue to engage him...

Indeed

 

[Trakar]

The combined AGW threads are close to 13,000 posts now.

It's just great to see that deniers are still trying to cling to Climategate after is has been so thoroughly debunked by so many independent inquiries.

Deniers can no longer find anywhere in the world;

- 1 peer-reviewed paper to support their claims which is not controversial
- 1 Academy of Science that supports any denial of climate change science
- ! Institute of higher education that supports any denial of climate change

Deniers also can't find scientists that don't agree who are not controversial for some reason.

Climate science is being taught in high schools and universities.

What will it take for climate change denial to be a conspiracy theory at the JREF?????

Reddit doesn't let deniers post, nor does the LA Times and Popular Science.

Is it time that we created some pre-requisite for deniers to be able to post here? I know it has been attempted before.

Deniers have probably never been informed that Climategate has been debunked to death. What if a list of the typical denier talking points was created and in order for deniers to participate in this science thread certain subjects were kept off limits? Create a page with the most heavily debunked subjects and show how many times the concepts have been proven to be wrong, which would probably be similar to the list at Skeptical Science. Deniers have most likely never been shown how many times the typical drivel has been proven wrong.

Climategate, the hockey stick graph, the Sun is causing it, cherry picking the paleoclimate record etc. We could provide the list of scientific organizations supporting AGW and have deniers look for an academy of science that doesn't. Perhaps a few would be less likely to pontificate upon arrival.

I understand that in it's entirety climate change denial is non-sense, but I agree with many that discussions are still a good means to attempt to educate the anti-science crowd. Let's keep the conversation going but could there be some kind of means to filter out the most common absolute nonsense?

It's entertaining to see the deniers come and go but it would be nice if new posters could be pre-screened in order to prevent the usual drivel.

If eight separate investigations clear Phil Jones don't waste bandwidth mentioning it and let's not make it the mods job to move the posts to the conspiracy theory thread. Nip it in the bud instead. Deniers should be presented a nice presentation of the truth, which they don't get elsewhere, and just simply not be allowed to post the crap here any more. If they are just not capable of understanding the most basic science or they reject it then they are wasting their time and ours. If they want to participate they can be spectators until they get it.

Just throwing the idea out for further input. Climategate - really? still?? Why should the mods have to shovel intellectual excrement?

Thoughts?

The only control required is for each person to avoid the bait. Outrageous, and unsupported assertion is what it is, if it violates MO or housekeeping guides, report it, otherwise leave it lay in the sun till the stink is bleached from its desiccated ashen remains.

 

[CapelDodger]

Arctic study sheds light on tree-ring divergence problem: Changes in light intensity may impact density of tree rings
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140507100419.htm

Changes in tree-ring density in the Arctic may be evidence of changes in light intensity during the trees' growth, according to a new study by San Francisco State University researcher Alexander Stine.

The finding has direct implications for the tree-ring "divergence problem," a phenomenon that has received considerable media attention but has been widely misinterpreted, said Stine, an assistant professor of Earth & climate sciences.

Tree rings consist of a low density ring, which forms early in the growing season, and a high density ring that forms late in the growing season. In colder parts of the world, the dense latewood rings tend to be denser during warm years. Temperature records inferred from Arctic tree rings do a good job of tracking temperature up until the 1960s, but subsequent Arctic tree-ring densities did not keep pace with increases in temperature, a discrepancy that is called the divergence problem.

The researchers tested whether global dimming might be responsible for the decline in tree-ring density in the Arctic. This idea had been proposed in the past, but scientists had not been able to test the hypothesis. "It's very hard to distinguish a record that's controlled by temperature from one that's controlled by light, because light and temperature tend to vary together. Sunnier days are usually warmer," Stine added.

To get around this challenge, the researchers took advantage of the fact that there are regional variations in cloud cover and light availability throughout the Arctic, allowing them to compare trees that grew in the brightest and darkest areas but in comparable temperature ranges. They found that divergence was largest in the darkest parts of the Arctic, where changes in light should have the largest effect.

Interesting in itself but only one line of evidence. More would be better, naturally.

The researchers used changes in tree-ring density following volcanic eruptions to confirm the findings. Major volcanic events such as the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines also have spewed tons of light-scattering sulfur dioxide particles into the atmosphere, decreasing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface.

And there's another line of evidence.

Why does this matter? Well

The divergence is not a problem for understanding modern climate change in the Arctic, Stine explained, "because we have thermometers and those thermometers tell us it's warming. But it's a problem because if we want to use these tree rings as a proxy for temperatures of the past, we need to make sure that we understand what's happening now."

Stine sees the new findings as the "bright side" of the divergence problem, one which he hopes will lead to a more informed discussion about climate change. "We could learn more about past variations in light intensity at the Earth's surface, and we may be able to deepen our understanding of both trees and climate."

 

[CapelDodger]

Phil Jones is a climate scientist infamous for alleged data manipulation ...

Infamy does not attach to being lied about; it attaches to the liars, such as Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, and practically every other AGW denier on the rubber-chicken circuit. Infamy also applies to the thieves who stole the emails in the first place, which is to say one Lubos Motl. (Such is his ego he just couldn't keep his triumph under wraps. Not that he straight-out admits it, of course; he keeps some implausible deniability on hand. What a piece of work that guy is.)

 

[uke2se]

It was Motl? If so, the investigating authorities should know. Then there'll soon be another idiot in jail.

 

[Warmer1]

The only control required is for each person to avoid the bait. Outrageous, and unsupported assertion is what it is, if it violates MO or housekeeping guides, report it, otherwise leave it lay in the sun till the stink is bleached from its desiccated ashen remains.

I'm not sure that Climategate etc. is bait, as the people that post it likely still believe it is valid as they are never shown otherwise.

I wonder if a sticky thread could be created with some simple rules so when deniers posted the most pathetic typical nonsense, they could be pointed to a specific section on a sticky page with a good explanation of how thoroughly debunked the assertion is and why it is no longer appropriate for discussion.

If they continue to post the same drivel after the warning then further action could be taken.

Rule #25 No further Climategate posts. Seven separate investigations have taken place which found no wrong doing. Here is a list of the investigations so you can read them yourself and clearly see that there has been closure on this topic. No further posts claiming that Climategate is valid by individuals that have been provided the link to this page will be tolerated.

Rule #26 The "Hockey Stick Graph" etc. etc.

It would be great for people to just ignore the posts but it's not happening. Just trying to avoid wading through many more senseless posts on a dead issue. Link the uninformed to a sticky page and it's over.

Thoughts?

 

[uke2se]

I'm not sure that Climategate etc. is bait, as the people that post it likely still believe it is valid as they are never shown otherwise.

I wonder if a sticky thread could be created with some simple rules so when deniers posted the most pathetic typical nonsense, they could be pointed to a specific section on a sticky page with a good explanation of how thoroughly debunked the assertion is and why it is no longer appropriate for discussion.

If they continue to post the same drivel after the warning then further action could be taken.

Rule #25 No further Climategate posts. Seven separate investigations have taken place which found no wrong doing. Here is a list of the investigations so you can read them yourself and clearly see that there has been closure on this topic. No further posts claiming that Climategate is valid by individuals that have been provided the link to this page will be tolerated.

Rule #26 The "Hockey Stick Graph" etc. etc.

It would be great for people to just ignore the posts but it's not happening. Just trying to avoid wading through many more senseless posts on a dead issue. Link the uninformed to a sticky page and it's over.

Thoughts?

I don't think all that is necessary. All that is needed is a link to this. I don't think the mods feel they have authority to ban discussion of debunked subjects though. Trolling is allowed, after all.