Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[r-j]

What about the petition idiocy of thinking that a random PHD (e.g. in medicine!) magically makes someone an expert in climate science?

Breach of rule 12 removed. Do not insult other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

About Dr. Richard Lindzen: Climate Misinformer: Richard Lindzen

That page is a good example of unscientific and unsourced argument,

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped insult... That page is a good example of unscientific and unsourced argument,

That comment is a good example of climate denial woo which I know that you are not r-j .
Climate Misinformer: Richard Lindzen lists the many climate myths that he has stated and links to where the myth is debunked by science.
Since you seem unable to click on links, r-j, here is one:
How sensitive is our climate?

Some global warming 'skeptics' argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models.

And then there is Richard Lindzen's mistaken statements about basic climate facts:
"...one can see no warming since 1997."
but Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?

Global temperatures continue to rise steadily beneath the short-term noise.

I will also mention your little delusion that I think that I am an expert in climate science. You cannot read my mind!
I have a good general knowledge of physics gained from a post-graduate education in physics.
I can understand climate science. I do not claim to be an expert.

ETA: So does your answer mean that you think it was wise for the petition to make a statement about climate science and accept the opinions of any PhD as if a random PhD magically makes someone an expert in climate science?

 

[Trakar]

...What about your continued ignorance about this, ABC10?
There has been warming over the last 16 years (just not as much as in the previous decades)...

I would argue that the global average temperature has exceeded the 1998 average several times since 1998 (according to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13 )

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by ABC10 View Post
No warming for 16 plus years.

What about your continued ignorance about this, ABC10?
There has been warming over the last 16 years (just not as much as in the previous decades).

repeating factually incorrect information does not make it true despite your wishful thinking.

Now Arnold Martin answered the question

Does CO2 trap IR?
are you afraid to???

just how do you explain this if there has been no global warming over the past two decades???
Explain it ....

and BTW - that ocean heat is about to bite....

Heat wave across North India as rest of the world braces for El Nino
By Shreya Jai, ET Bureau | 22 May, 2014, 11.01AM IST

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

snip

El Nino has a history of adversely impacting the rainfall in India during monsoon. In the last decade, 2002, 2004 and 2009 were drought years in India due to emergence of El Nino. Prevailing fear of El Nino impacting rainfall in India has raised concerns regarding lower agricultural yield, rising inflation and GDP rate getting hit further.

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

There are consequences to fossil fuel companies using the atmosphere as a free sewer.

 

[Trakar]

Surveying American Attitudes toward Climate Change

http://www.rff.org/Publications/Resources/Pages/186-Infographic.aspx

...According to a survey conducted by RFF, Stanford University, and USA Today, 73 percent of Americans say that the world's temperature has been going up over the past 100 years (Figure 1). Responses to the same question, asked in previous studies, have been quite consistent over time. For example, in 2010, that number was 74 percent, and in 1997, it was 77 percent.

Figure 1. Has Global Warming Been Happening?

​

Another issue under debate is whether humans have been causing Earth to get warmer, or whether warming has been part of a natural cycle. When asked about this in 1997, 81 percent of Americans attributed warming at least partly to human activity. That number was 80 percent in the 2013 survey (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Has Global Warming Been Caused by Human Activity?

​

For many government officials, companies, and organizations, having this information on a national level is interesting, but more helpful is to have answers to these questions on a state-by-state level. Both questions were also asked of random samples of people in almost all of the states, and in every state, the majority response was on the "green" side of the issue. As few as 75 percent (in Ohio) and as many as 88 percent (in Arizona, Massachusetts, and New Mexico) said they believe that Earth has been warming (Figure 1). As few as 65 percent (in Utah) and as many 92 percent (in Rhode Island) said that warming has been caused by human activity (Figure 2). In no state was a majority skeptical on these issues.

Sources:
*2013 RFF/Stanford/USA Today Survey. Poll of 810 adults nationwide, conducted November through December 2013. Margin of sampling error: ±4 percentage points. Survey questions and results at www.rff.org/climatesurvey2013.
**American public opinion in 2013 based on a concatenation of polls done by Stanford University's Political Psychology Research Group. http://climatepublicopinion.stanford.edu.

 

[a_unique_person]

In the NH it usually gets warmer. There are these things called seasons.

Yeah, it's an unusually warm Autumn down here.

 

[Trakar]

California’s Bold Blueprint for Reducing Carbon...

California’s Bold Blueprint for Reducing Carbon Pollution and Building a Clean Energy Economy
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/californias-bold-blueprint-0415.html

SACRAMENTO (May 22, 2014) - The California Air Resources Board today unanimously approved a sweeping new roadmap to achieve the state’s long-term carbon-reduction goals that serves as a national — and international — model for combating climate change.

The update to the state’s climate action plan calls for strategies that would accelerate reductions in carbon emissions and strengthen sectors including agriculture, water, and forestry. It also specifically takes aim at the most powerful global-warming pollutants such as methane and black carbon.

California is on track to meet its goals of reducing carbon emissions by 2020 as set out in the state’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as AB 32. Executive orders set a more ambitious target of reducing heat-trapping emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050...

...This plan builds on the success of California’s current climate policies that are delivering economic benefits by attracting investments in clean technology and providing fuel savings for consumers. By planning for more aggressive measures now and recommending emissions reductions targets for 2030 and beyond, we will send a strong economic signal that clean energy is a smart investment...

Well, it's still a long ways from nationally appropriate, but the more states and localities that enact such activities, the easier it will be to push national legislatures to come around to doing the right thing.

 

[Trakar]

Writer whose 1975 Newsweek story is sacred to climate deniers says lay off it already

Writer whose 1975 Newsweek story is sacred to climate deniers says lay off it already! - http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2014/05/writer-whose-1975-newsweek-story-sacred#sthash.ZkgXZ9m3.dpuf

One of the contrarians' linchpin pieces of evidence, a one-page article in 1975 in Newsweek that reviewed suspicions of global cooling from some scientists, is now getting a do-over from an unimpeachable source: the man who wrote it. Inside Science News Service - Peter Gwynne: My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong.

Gwynne, while he does a lot of first-rate reporting on how things stand today, does not in this week's piece quite take his old story back - implying that there was a plurality if not consensus back then on global cooling. But he makes well the deeper point that today's science is plain better than what researchers were able to say four decades ago. Most others who have looked recently into the global warming consensus assertion have concluded there was, as reflected in technical literature of the era, no appreciable agreement at all on which way temperatures were going.

Here are a few pertinent other stories found during a short trip down search-engine lane:

• Scientific American/Daily Climate (Jan 2014) Doug Struck: How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be ; with explicit reference to Gwynne's story and to Gwynne, including his chagrin at how his old story has lived on far beyond any expected life time.

• Newton Blog (Jan 2014) Ross Pomeroy: The Myth of the Global Cooling Consensus ; Another recent, more general report.

• Examiner (March 2, 2009) Dylan Otto Krider: Peter Gwynne, author of "The Cooling World," Newsweek 1975. I have never understood how the "Examiner" string of on line news operations works, but this sample is a decent profile of Gwynne with a focus on his unhappiness with the face of his 1975 story.

• RealClimate (Jan 14, 2005) : The global cooling myth ; Merely mentions Gwynne's story (as 'regrettable') while focussing on the scientific literature in the 1970s, which was mostly all over the place but had no consensus. It says that by decade's end the refereed journal stuff was leaning toward warming as the most likely trend to expect.

• Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (Sept 2008) Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, John Fleck: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus ; Very detailed and, while this is a journal article of the sort not usually listed here at the tracker alongside newsish stories, it gains entry due to co-author Fleck. He is a science journalist in New Mexico who has toiled long and nobly for the Albuquerque Journal.

Something the old myths don't explain well, the main reason you pound wooden stakes through their hearts is to secure them to the ground so you have to use really long stakes and drive them very deep to keep the undead from rising again.

 

[DC]

<SNIP>

That page is a good example of unscientific and unsourced argument,

name one unscientific and unsourced claim.

 

[a_unique_person]

Writer whose 1975 Newsweek story is sacred to climate deniers says lay off it already! - http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2014/05/writer-whose-1975-newsweek-story-sacred#sthash.ZkgXZ9m3.dpuf



Something the old myths don't explain well, the main reason you pound wooden stakes through their hearts is to secure them to the ground so you have to use really long stakes and drive them very deep to keep the undead from rising again.

I see that storey was from that hotbed of warming skepticism, MIT.

 

[greybeard]

insult snipped

You have never modified your claim that the petition contains the signatures of over 31,000 scientists r-j. Do you still believe that?

That page is a good example of unscientific and unsourced argument,

So you follow a link to a petition claiming to have the names of 31,000 scientists and declare yourself impressed. A link that doesn't agree with your beliefs can just be hand waved away though. Just making a statement doesn't make it true r-j. I look forward to your point by point rebuttal. If you want to prove that your disbelief that AGW is harmful is based on healthy scepticism then this is your chance to prove it.

 

[Trakar]

I see that storey was from that hotbed of warming skepticism, MIT.

LOL, actually it was from the Knight School of Journalism which is a part of MIT but devoted to churning out responsible and dedicated journalists (and pretty good at it). There is also the CGCS (which is the Center for Global Change Science - an interdisciplinary bridge between MIT's School of Engineering and their School of Science - http://cgcs.mit.edu/ and dedicated to the scientific study of climate change, both the science and public policy).

BTW, don't be casting slurs against one of my alma maters! Just because they coddle a tenured professor whom has "gone emeritus" on them in their meteorology dept. doesn't mean the entire organization is a three-ring carnival

Don't mistake the institution for the clown.

http://globalchange.mit.edu/about

 

[Trakar]

Breach of rule 12 removed. Do not insult other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

That page is a good example of unscientific and unsourced argument,

Actually, though it is a blog, that page, is both scientific in approach and execution as well as being sourced and referenced much more thoroughly than many journal papers I've reviewed.

"Scientific Approach" - Science is based primarily on an empirical approach to gathering information—an approach that relies on systematic observation. The page linked is nothing if not a systematic listing of empirical observations and supports.

 

[r-j]

Actually, though it is a blog, that page, is both scientific in approach and execution as well as being sourced and referenced much more thoroughly than many journal papers I've reviewed.

There isn't a single link to any of the claims they make. The very first link goes to another SS page, which has a link to a blog http://sppiblog.org/news/yes-we-have-no-bananas But it does not contain what they say. None of them do.

Nothing actually from Lindzen. In fact, all the links go to SS blog posts, not scientific sources to show that Lindzen ever said what they claim.

No scientific source of what they are claiming Lindzen said. The same is true for all the other "myths" they claim Lindzen is spreading. A Google search even shows that some of the "myths" only exist on that page, nowhere else.

The second "myth" http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earth-expected-global-warming.htm once again goes to a SS blog post, but at least that page links to another blog, which actually contains Lindzen's actual words. The SS claims is that Lindzen said "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected", but that only appears to come from the SS blog, it isn't a quote from Lindzen at all. What he said was

"According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/

If you disagree with his scientific opinion, and want to offer other opinions, that's fine. But creating a strawman, and not even using the basic premise, calling it a myth, then saying "but here's what the science says", as if Lindzen isn't a scientist, nor is his opinion a scientific one, is exactly why science isn't done by bloggers.

The next one on the list.
Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ???? No source for the claim, and especially no link to where Lindzen said anything like that. Once again, an unsourced strawman, not science. The link to another blog doesn't even have "Lindzen" anywhere on the entire page.

If you claim Lindzen said something, but have no source to show it, it's just blogger nonsense.

Remember, the entire page we are discussing is called Favourite climate myths by Richard Lindzen

Yet the first three claims have no evidence that supports any of it. No quotes from Lindzen where he said any of it. This is why I consider blogs like this a terrible source of science, more often it's pseudo-science or worse, propaganda.

The fourth one, pure strawman. But at least it has a source. What SS claims Lindzen uses a myth called is "Climate's changed before", but that isn't what he says at all.

Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)

But more importantly, right or wrong, what he says is clear in the opening paragraph of an OPINION piece.

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing.

The next one, "IPCC is alarmist" goes again to a SS blog post, and then quotes Roy Spencer. Once again, no source showing Lindzen said it, or uses it all the time.

If you make a claim that Lindzen uses a "myth" all the time, you have to actually show this is true, or it's not scientific.

The next one is even worse. Once again, of course, it goes to another SS blog post, but nothing about Lindzen. In fact, no mention of Lindzen on the entire blog post.

So there is this entire smear page trying to claim Lindzen uses these "climate myths", they even have numbers of time used.

Below are many of the climate myths used by Richard Lindzen plus how often each myth has been used.

But the links don't show even a single use, like for "CO2 limits will harm the economy". Google shows the only place that even appears is on the SS blog, or other blogs.forums talking about the SS blog.

So it's once again an example of why blogs, especially biased and unscientific ones, are not a good source of knowledge about climate. Or in this case, not a good source for a character smear against a scientist.

 

[greybeard]

There isn't a single link to any of the claims they make. The very first link goes to another SS page, which has a link to a blog http://sppiblog.org/news/yes-we-have-no-bananas But it does not contain what they say. None of them do.

Nothing actually from Lindzen. In fact, all the links go to SS blog posts, not scientific sources to show that Lindzen ever said what they claim.

No scientific source of what they are claiming Lindzen said. The same is true for all the other "myths" they claim Lindzen is spreading. A Google search even shows that some of the "myths" only exist on that page, nowhere else.

The second "myth" http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earth-expected-global-warming.htm once again goes to a SS blog post, but at least that page links to another blog, which actually contains Lindzen's actual words. The SS claims is that Lindzen said "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected", but that only appears to come from the SS blog, it isn't a quote from Lindzen at all. What he said was

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/

If you disagree with his scientific opinion, and want to offer other opinions, that's fine. But creating a strawman, and not even using the basic premise, calling it a myth, then saying "but here's what the science says", as if Lindzen isn't a scientist, nor is his opinion a scientific one, is exactly why science isn't done by bloggers.

The next one on the list.
Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ???? No source for the claim, and especially no link to where Lindzen said anything like that. Once again, an unsourced strawman, not science. The link to another blog doesn't even have "Lindzen" anywhere on the entire page.

If you claim Lindzen said something, but have no source to show it, it's just blogger nonsense.

Remember, the entire page we are discussing is called Favourite climate myths by Richard Lindzen

Yet the first three claims have no evidence that supports any of it. No quotes from Lindzen where he said any of it. This is why I consider blogs like this a terrible source of science, more often it's pseudo-science or worse, propaganda.

The fourth one, pure strawman. But at least it has a source. What SS claims Lindzen uses a myth called is "Climate's changed before", but that isn't what he says at all.


But more importantly, right or wrong, what he says is clear in the opening paragraph of an OPINION piece.


The next one, "IPCC is alarmist" goes again to a SS blog post, and then quotes Roy Spencer. Once again, no source showing Lindzen said it, or uses it all the time.

If you make a claim that Lindzen uses a "myth" all the time, you have to actually show this is true, or it's not scientific.

The next one is even worse. Once again, of course, it goes to another SS blog post, but nothing about Lindzen. In fact, no mention of Lindzen on the entire blog post.

So there is this entire smear page trying to claim Lindzen uses these "climate myths", they even have numbers of time used.

But the links don't show even a single use, like for "CO2 limits will harm the economy". Google shows the only place that even appears is on the SS blog, or other blogs.forums talking about the SS blog.

So it's once again an example of why blogs, especially biased and unscientific ones, are not a good source of knowledge about climate. Or in this case, not a good source for a character smear against a scientist.

Had you asked then someone would have told you where to find the information you require r-j. Click the quotes tab above the article. Admittedly one of the links I clicked on was broken but the others I clicked on were there.

 

[r-j]

Had you asked then someone would have told you where to find the information you require r-j. Click the quotes tab above the article.

None of the "climate myths" appear in the quotes. Much less are linked to from the "most popular myths" links.

It's simply horrible. If I was claiming somebody used a "myth" nine times, I would link to the nine sources, showing the evidence. SS doesn't even link to one source to back up their claims.

Not a single "myth" actually is something Lindzen actually said. Much less nine times, or three times, or whatever they claim.

 

[greybeard]

None of the "climate myths" appear in the quotes. Much less are linked to from the "most popular myths" links.

It's simply horrible. If I was claiming somebody used a "myth" nine times, I would link to the nine sources, showing the evidence. SS doesn't even link to one source to back up their claims.

Not a single "myth" actually is something Lindzen actually said. Much less nine times, or three times, or whatever they claim.

This link shows he did say what they claim. As Skepticalscience is of the main climate science blogs on the internet I'm pretty sure Lindzen would have said something about it by now if they had misquoted him.

 

[r-j]

The far bigger problem SS has, is the almost complete disconnect from reality.

Below are many of the climate myths used by Richard Lindzen plus how often each myth has been used.

Then they link from "There's no tropospheric hot spot" to another SS blog post, that doesn't contain anything about Lindzen. It also doesn't show any evidence for the expected change called "the hot spot". But that isn't the real issue, they don't show that Lindzen every said what they have him quoted as saying.

If you make a blog page that claims something, especially attacking a scientist as they do, you better have some actual evidence.

It's no wonder the SS blog is considered a terrible source of actual science. They actually have a lot of links to papers, but the presentation is horrific.

 

[greybeard]

The far bigger problem SS has, is the almost complete disconnect from reality.

Then they link from "There's no tropospheric hot spot" to another SS blog post, that doesn't contain anything about Lindzen. It also doesn't show any evidence for the expected change called "the hot spot". But that isn't the real issue, they don't show that Lindzen every said what they have him quoted as saying.

If you make a blog page that claims something, especially attacking a scientist as they do, you better have some actual evidence.

It's no wonder the SS blog is considered a terrible source of actual science. They actually have a lot of links to papers, but the presentation is horrific.

You need to look harder r-j. The evidence is their.

 

[DC]

The far bigger problem SS has, is the almost complete disconnect from reality.

Then they link from "There's no tropospheric hot spot" to another SS blog post, that doesn't contain anything about Lindzen. It also doesn't show any evidence for the expected change called "the hot spot". But that isn't the real issue, they don't show that Lindzen every said what they have him quoted as saying.

If you make a blog page that claims something, especially attacking a scientist as they do, you better have some actual evidence.

It's no wonder the SS blog is considered a terrible source of actual science. They actually have a lot of links to papers, but the presentation is horrific.

mmmh,how did you get soo misstaken, that is very very strange.

"If it's greenhouse warming, you get more warming in the middle of the troposphere, the first 10, 12 kilometres of the atmosphere than you do at the surface. There are good theoretical reasons for that, having to do with how the greenhouse works."

this is what you find on the ScepticalScience website.
and they do give a source for this



and at 14:45 you can see Lindzen saying exactly what they quoted.

and what he explains, is exactly what is know as the "missing hot spot" myth in the denialist blogosphere.

strange, how could you not find the source?