Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Mikemcc]

ABC10 is just being a classic example of a troll. (S)He is not engaging in the discussion, and providing no evidence or links to substantiate the expressed opinions or claims.

 

[SingularMan]

Thank you to macdoc and CapelDodger for the information about the tree ring divergence problem. I was really just interested in knowing more about tree rings and why they vary so radically after 1960, less interested in supporting conspiracy theories, sorry if that wasn't clear in my text.

Anyhow, I stumbled across the "Global Warming Petition Project" headed by Fredrick Seitz, who seems to believe that increased production of CO2 is environmentally beneficial. I don't see Fred's views as representative of the body of science, but he has 31,000 signatories who do support him. To be fair, very few of them are actually climate scientists. But, my question is this, are there any respectable climate scientists who maintain the view that increased levels of CO2 is a good thing?

 

[greybeard]

I doubt that the "climate science" gig is a real science and those 97% agreed "climate scientist" is nonsense. There are lots of PHDs from outstanding Universities like MIT, Cal, Princeton and the like who don't agree with the like of New South Wales U., Chris Pine, Mann and of course, from East Anglia U. , Phil Jones of Environmental "Science" . Or Michael Mann of Penn STate against the great Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT. They are not even in the same ball park. I don't need to read an obscure graph to know that the doom and gloom is a money scheme to fund their also obscure research. What surprises me, is anyone except those Liberal Arts Majors buy it. We can all deal with different opinions here, or at least I hope so. Here is something, lets try and post without insults and have a discussion.

The dishonesty of your argument is shown right there in my highlight. The first sentence says climate scientists, in the second sentence it's people with phd's so that you can include people not involved in climate science. If these people with phd's you have included could show that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has little effect then why are they not showing this in peer reviewed research? Also why are you putting the word scientists in inverted commas when you admit yourself that you don't understand the science and you can't understand simple graphs.

 

[CapelDodger]

Anyhow, I stumbled across the "Global Warming Petition Project" headed by Fredrick Seitz, who seems to believe that increased production of CO2 is environmentally beneficial. I don't see Fred's views as representative of the body of science, but he has 31,000 signatories who do support him. To be fair, very few of them are actually climate scientists. But, my question is this, are there any respectable climate scientists who maintain the view that increased levels of CO2 is a good thing?

Arrhenius thought it would be a good thing for Sweden, if that helps. Of course he wasn't a climate scientist either, just a physicist with a grasp of thermodynamics. Apart from him I can't think of any.

Fred Seitz is dead, as are many of Oregon Petition signers by now (I assume that's the petition you refer to). There's no avoiding the demographic imperative.

 

[r-j]

Anyhow, I stumbled across the "Global Warming Petition Project" headed by Fredrick Seitz, who seems to believe that increased production of CO2 is environmentally beneficial.

I found that hard to believe, and being a skeptic, I went to look.

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

It's funny, I had no idea there were so many other well educated skeptics who are skeptical of the wild claims and fear mongering coming from a few woo woos over global warming. And it certainly seems they are petitioning the Government not to limit CO2 emissions, and challenging the claim that it's all settled. I guess these 31,487 American scientists are part of the 3%.

Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

It is evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,487 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php

Of course even if a majority of the world's scientists, or climate scientists, believed there was no danger from global warming, that wouldn't make it true. Actual true science and reality don't depend on how popular a belief is.

 

[greybeard]

I found that hard to believe, and being a skeptic, I went to look. http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

It's funny, I had no idea there were so many other well educated skeptics who are skeptical of the wild claims and fear mongering coming from a few woo woos over global warming. And it certainly seems they are petitioning the Government not to limit CO2 emissions, and challenging the claim that it's all settled. I guess these 31,487 American scientists are part of the 3%.

http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php

Of course even if a majority of the world's scientists, or climate scientists, believed there was no danger from global warming, that wouldn't make it true. Actual true science and reality don't depend on how popular a belief is.

As an esteemed "skeptic" r-j perhaps you will tell us what methodology you used to determine the petition did indeed contain the names of 31,487 American scientists?
According to rationalwiki:-

The Seattle Times reported that it includes names such as: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor), "Robert C. Byrd" (the Senator), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author), not to mention a Spice Girl, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell: the petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." In an interview the Robinson, said, "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake." Scientific American examined the list and came to the conclusion that a large percentage of the alleged Ph, D. signatures probably are fake.
Notwithstanding its rather dubious methodology and fake names, that bastion of scientific rigor, Fox News, has quoted the petition in its news stories.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#cite_note-6

 

[Trakar]

What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?

Actually, I was referring to his first projection in the original 1981 paper.

 

[uke2se]

I think the scientific consensus is that an increased CO2 production is generally bad for the Earth's current fauna. I suppose if you want to take a nihilistic and cynical approach - which I have seen some deniers do, anything to avoid actually doing something about climate change - you could argue that biological life on Earth isn't threatened by climate change, just the fauna that currently resides there.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think the scientific consensus is that an increased CO2 production is generally bad for the Earth's current fauna. I suppose if you want to take a nihilistic and cynical approach - which I have seen some deniers do, anything to avoid actually doing something about climate change - you could argue that biological life on Earth isn't threatened by climate change, just the fauna that currently resides there.

In the same vein, it's not human civilisation that's threatened but the societies which currently comprise it.

 

[lomiller]

Anyhow, I stumbled across the "Global Warming Petition Project" headed by Fredrick Seitz, who seems to believe that increased production of CO2 is environmentally beneficial. I don't see Fred's views as representative of the body of science, but he has 31,000 signatories who do support him. To be fair, very few of them are actually climate scientists. But, my question is this, are there any respectable climate scientists who maintain the view that increased levels of CO2 is a good thing?

This issue wouldn’t be addressed by climate scientists themselves. There are a considerable number of scientists looking into the impact of warming, everything like it’s impact on nutrition in food crops to changes in the range of insects, pests and diseases. Here is a article about a paper released just last week regarding CO2 and it’s impact on nutrition in food.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140507132659.htm

That said, the notion of climate change being beneficial doesn’t seem to have a lot of credibility. The main problem is that the rate of change is just too fast so it’s leaving plant and animal species a very long way from their optimal climate zones. A forest can’t just pick up and move 1000 miles to the north, nor can it survive where it is as climate stress and invasive species compete with it.

When climate is warming at 0.2 deg every 100 years as it does at the end of a glaciations there is stress, and some species may die but the transition is at least manageable. The current rate of change, however, is 10X that fast. In fact the 2-3 deg C warming per decade we will get from business as usual hasn’t been observed in the paleo-climate outside of mass extinction events.

 

[macdoc]

ouch

Huge Antarctic ice sheet collapsing
Predictions of sea level rise will need to be adjusted upward
The Associated Press Posted: May 12, 2014 1:40 PM ET Last Updated: May 12, 2014 3:23 PM ET

The huge West Antarctic ice sheet is starting a glacially slow collapse in an unstoppable way, two new studies show. Alarmed scientists say that means even more sea level rise than they figured.
The worrisome outcomes won't be seen soon. Scientists are talking hundreds of years, but over that time the melt that has started could eventually add 1.2 to 3.6 metres*to current sea levels.

A NASA study looking at 40 years of ground, airplane and satellite data of what researchers call "the weak underbelly of West Antarctica" shows the melt is happening faster than scientists had predicted, crossing a critical threshold that has begun a domino-like process.
"It does seem to be happening quickly," said University of Washington*glaciologist*Ian*Joughin, lead author of one study. "We really are witnessing the beginning stages."

Global warming and ozone hole
It's likely because of man-made global warming and the ozone hole which have changed the Antarctic winds and warmed the water that eats away at the feet of the ice, researchers said at a NASA news conference Monday.
Glaciers in West Antarctica’s Amundsen Sea Embayment have “passed the point of no return” according to new research.
"The system is in sort of a chain reaction that is unstoppable," said NASA glaciologist Eric Rignot, chief author of the NASA study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. "Every process in this reaction is feeding the next one."

more

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/huge-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapsing-1.2639989

 

[a_unique_person]

I found that hard to believe, and being a skeptic, I went to look. http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

It's funny, I had no idea there were so many other well educated skeptics who are skeptical of the wild claims and fear mongering coming from a few woo woos over global warming. And it certainly seems they are petitioning the Government not to limit CO2 emissions, and challenging the claim that it's all settled. I guess these 31,487 American scientists are part of the 3%.

http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php

Of course even if a majority of the world's scientists, or climate scientists, believed there was no danger from global warming, that wouldn't make it true. Actual true science and reality don't depend on how popular a belief is.

You could perhaps apply your powers of skepticism to the methodology. As a survey it was a waste of time.

 

[macdoc]

The missing heat??? godzilla aka little boy lurks

Less climb in the atmosphere....more in the ocean

and it's about to re-emerge.

Trouble ahead? A pool of warm water (in red) is moving east in the tropical Pacific Ocean. If it reaches the surface, it could trigger El Niño.

The little boy could soon be back. El Niño, a periodic warming in the waters of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, will probably emerge in the coming months, according to a forecast issued yesterday by the Climate Prediction Center (CPC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). If strong, the El Niño event could not only wreak havoc on weather around the world, but could also trigger a resumption of global warming that has been seemingly stalled for the last 15 years.

more
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/05/el-nino-coming-back

 

[CapelDodger]

It's funny, I had no idea there were so many other well educated skeptics who are skeptical of the wild claims and fear mongering coming from a few woo woos over global warming.

The massed ranks of the world's national science institutes leave you unmoved; what grabs your attention is the revelation that thousands of PhD's are intelligent enough to agree with you on AGW.

Remarkable.

 

[CapelDodger]

The missing heat??? godzilla aka little boy lurks

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-...I/AAAAAAAAFxs/baDLS1BqO7I/s600/sn-elninoR.jpg

The Kraken wakes. 'Tain't missing no more.

It seems like only yesterday we were explaining that La Nina conditions push warm water down in the Western Pacific, and that was being dismissed as an after-the-event excuse for the mythical Pause. Nope, we said, that warm water's really down there (where else could it be?) and some of it will be coming back up in the near-term. Turns out it was this near.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Anyhow, I stumbled across the "Global Warming Petition Project" headed by Fredrick Seitz, who seems to believe that increased production of CO2 is environmentally beneficial.

As I understand it, increased CO₂ would be generally beneficial to plant life... as long as the increase had no other side effects. It sounds like the Global Warming Petition Project simply wishes to turn a blind to the multiple negative effects of increasing CO₂ and instead focus on this single, theoretical positive.

I guess these 31,487 American scientists are part of the 3%.

They're not. They just aren't counted, likely because their opinion on the topic isn't really relevant. A consensus among medical professionals on the topic of planetary formation means squat.

The Consensus Project measured the level of consensus in published, peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming. In the most comprehensive analysis to date, we analysed 21 years worth of peer-reviewed papers on “global warming” or “global climate change”. Among the 12,465 papers, we identified over 4,014 abstracts authored by 10,188 scientists that stated a position on human-caused global warming. Among those 4,014 abstracts, 97.1% endorse the consensus. Among the 10,188 scientists, 98.4% endorse the consensus. (Source: The Consensus Project, About)

 

[CapelDodger]

Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sense-and-climate-sensitivity-kummer-dessler-2014.html

The latest IPCC report gave contrarians a glimmer of hope in this area. The fourth IPCC report in 2007 estimated that the planet will warm between 2 and 4.5°C warming in response to a doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, with a best estimate of 3°C. At the time, all of the different approaches to estimate climate sensitivity (using historical data, climate models, and recent instrumental data) were in good agreement.

However, in recent years, a few studies using a combination of instrumental data and simple climate models have arrived at lower estimates. This caused the IPCC in its fifth report in 2014 to reduce the lower end of its estimated climate sensitivity range, back to 1.5 to 4.5°C in response to doubled CO2 (the same range as its reports estimated prior to 2007). Due to the newfound disagreement between the different methods, the IPCC also dropped its best estimate altogether.

The 'instrumental' climate sensitivity estimates were something of a puzzle. Why were they no longer in agreement with estimates from historical climate changes and climate models, which still consistently arrived at climate sensitivity estimates between 2 and 4.5°C? John Abraham reported on a study by Drew Shindell at NASA that may have hit on the answer.


These 'instrumental' estimates were assuming that the Earth's climate is equally sensitive to all external temperature influences. However, while greenhouse gases are well mixed throughout the atmosphere, aerosols and ozone are concentrated more in the northern hemisphere. Here the temperature response to energy imbalances is more sensitive, as world-renowned climate scientist James Hansen noted in a 1997 paper,

“A forcing at high latitudes yields a larger response than a forcing at low latitudes. This is expected because of the sea ice feedback at high latitudes and the more stable lapse rate at high latitudes”

Shindell found that correcting for this faulty assumption in brought the 'instrumental' climate sensitivity estimates much higher in the models he looked at.

I didn't think the IPCC shift would hold water for long. I can see why they smuggled those few late studies in; if they hadn't there'd have been Hell to pay. Dropping the best-estimate completely was a clear signal that nobody's heart was in it.

 

[macdoc]

Hehe...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBvsCMxrNU

 

[DC]

im back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj0PYdl99tI

oh i see the online petition of 30 000+ scientists and 9 000 phds got digged up again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ

 

[OCaptain]

I doubt that the "climate science" gig is a real science and those 97% agreed "climate scientist" is nonsense. There are lots of PHDs from outstanding Universities like MIT, Cal, Princeton and the like who don't agree with the like of New South Wales U., Chris Pine, Mann and of course, from East Anglia U. , Phil Jones of Environmental "Science" . Or Michael Mann of Penn STate against the great Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT. They are not even in the same ball park. I don't need to read an obscure graph to know that the doom and gloom is a money scheme to fund their also obscure research. What surprises me, is anyone except those Liberal Arts Majors buy it. We can all deal with different opinions here, or at least I hope so. Here is something, lets try and post without insults and have a discussion.

"Lots"? The 97% consensus is fact, whether you like it or not.