Global warming discussion III

[Red Baron Farms]

The problem is that AGW deniers know about these studies and continue to deny that mitigation has at least a minimal cost and probably a benefit.

You may be right. How can anyone know another's mind with certainty? I was simply noting the excuse being made. There has to be a motivation. That's certain.

 

[bit_pattern]

You may be right. How can anyone know another's mind with certainty? I was simply noting the excuse being made. There has to be a motivation. That's certain.

There's some answers contained in the articles within:

https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/climate-change-scepticism

https://theconversation.com/au/topics/climate-change-denial

Including stuff like this:

From conspiracy theories to climate change denial, a cognitive psychologist explains

 

[CapelDodger]

You may be right. How can anyone know another's mind with certainty? I was simply noting the excuse being made. There has to be a motivation. That's certain.

Never underestimate the inertia of conservatism. Many people dislike change, and the transition from a fossil-fuel based society seems to them an enormous change - though in practice it may not be so great. There's no shortage of people who'll tell them that it is and indeed will be the end of life as we know it - "Greens want us to go back to the Stone Age" - and feed them reasons to think it's not necessary.

(The same applies to a change in agriculture, as you'll have noticed yourself.)

Some (naming no names) instinctively seek out marginal beliefs to set themselves apart from (and above; arrogance is one of their strong features) the normative masses. Nothing will shift them.

In the end we have to accept that most people are unreasoning. Sound arguments go right through them like neutrinos through a planet, but that's not to say it's not worth making them. Some may actually interact with a mind and release a tiny pulse of light in the general darkness.

 

[Elind]

So ... since the instrument change in 1995 from glass thermometers to electronic thermometers that actually give an average temperature that was 0.9°C warmer that is an artifact indeed

Have you mentioned somewhere the scientific theory that many measurements were taken in hot parking lots by people who were as scientifically illiterate as you?

 

[macdoc]

Nice to have another using Haig as a chew toy. Few and far between these days. Embarrassing for the deniers to be lumped in with the anti-evo ID types ( Roy Spencer one of Haig's favs fresh out of the bible belt) and even the flat earthers....

Enjoy the toy....the flavour gets stale soon tho....they keep recycling....

 

[Belz...]

Gezz you Warmists are getting really desperate aren't you !

Yes, absolutely. All those evil scientists _want_ global warming to be true because then they... would... I mean the evid...

Wait, why are they all wrong and you're right ?

 

[stanfr]

You may be right. How can anyone know another's mind with certainty? I was simply noting the excuse being made. There has to be a motivation. That's certain.

Yes, the motivation is much broader than one economic principle, it's political philosophy ("we don't want the dam govt taking away our 'freedoms' and our SUVs...") and often religious ("puny man is incapable of disturbing the grand and glorious scheme of climate that God hath created...")

 

[Haig]

I see no answer there. Will we see this cooling next year? In five years? Ten?

"until the beginning in 2013 of a steady temperature drop, in a phase of instability, temperature will oscillate around the maximum that has been reached, without further substantial rise." Abdussamatov ... my bold n.b. a 0.04 degree rise within an error bar of 0.09 isn't substantial

You haven't dealt with the problem of the climate "topping out" when there's either no forcing or there's a cooling one. It is a problem and won't go away if you ignore it.

"Although the change in the TSI would be at a level of about 0.07% in the “short” cycle, its influence on the climate would be smoothed out by the thermal inertia of the world ocean" Abdussamatov . my bold

Climate scientists predicted that the climate would get warmer in the last three decades because the enhanced greenhouse effect, and it has. The 1980's were warmer than the 70's, the 90's warmer again, the 2000's warmer still, and two of the top 5 hottest years are 2013 and 2014 so the 2010's are continuing the process. Thirty years ago AGW deniers were predicting there would be no warming and the end of warming has been announced no end of times since.

You know what CapelDodger, it doesn't look like you read or understood THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE[/B] The answers to ALL your points above are given

Climate scientists predicted that downpours would become heavier and they have. They predicted that glaciers would retreat, and as we know many have completely disappeared. They predicted that Arctic summer ice cover would shrink, and that's happened big-time.

That's also a prediction of the New Little Ice Age conditions

Not so fast with the Poles melting ... Antarctica is at RECORD levels of ICE
Polar Ice Caps More Stable Than Predicted, New Observations Show

Most predictions concern the frequencies of events - droughts, wildfires, heatwaves and such - and it necessarily takes time for frequencies to manifest. (Especially when it comes to droughts, which by their nature take years to complete each event.)

We've had worse droughts, wildfires, heatwaves in the past !
“Extreme Weather”

Your prediction of an imminent and rapid decline in global temperatures due to a <0.1% reduction in solar output won't take long to confirm or refute. Five years should do it, don't you think? By the way, when did you first make this prediction? A year ago? Five years ago? Ten? Not more, surely.

What ? Haven't you heard of The Pause We are on SIMMER now before the drop

As you say, not long. How long has it been not long for now? A year? Five? Do you have a link to the good doctor's prediction or was his website's server in Donetsk (in which case it'll have been nicked and flogged off cheap in a Moscow marketplace months ago).

Look change is coming, and if you read what I said and quoted above you should understand that.

The Sun is changing to a much quieter phase and it's affecting Earth. Only the huge store of heat in our oceans is saving us from a much more sudden temp drop.

IF that is true then the other planets in the solar system would be changing already without oceans to help them ... is THAT happening YES

C(Lie)mate #3 - What Doesn't Make The News

Primary Citations:

NASA Solar-Climate Connection:
NASA Magnetic Field Inconsistency:
NASA Solar Wind Loses Power:
Cosmic Ray Nucleation:
Saturn Superstorm:
NewScientist Lowest Solar Low in 4 Centuries:
Reuters UN Climate Panel Corrects CO2:
Wall Street Journal Solar Strangeness:
Latest Sunspots:
Solar Magnetic Failure:
CO2 Breaks the Correlation:
CO2/Temp Timelines:
Magnetic Field Failing: HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE
No Warming Articles-- HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE
Ice Age Potential:
CATO on Climate:

The rest of the articles can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers/featured... along with most of the ones above too.

I probably don't contribute enough to stand out - and bite my tongue around here because the moderation is so consistent and unforgiving - but I know I'm definitely an uncharitable one. I honestly don't know how you guys do it. And to be honest, I'm not sure how useful it is anyway - trying to reason with people who have not arrived at their position from a position of reason in the first place seems like a pointlessly Sisyphean task .

I think there's something to be said for this position:

Facts won’t beat the climate deniers – using their tactics will


And then there's this:

Seems like that those tactics have been used by the CAGW Alarmists for many decades now.

 

[Haig]

Have you mentioned somewhere the scientific theory that many measurements were taken in hot parking lots by people who were as scientifically illiterate as you?

Nice to have another using Haig as a chew toy. Few and far between these days. Embarrassing for the deniers to be lumped in with the anti-evo ID types ( Roy Spencer one of Haig's favs fresh out of the bible belt) and even the flat earthers....

Enjoy the toy....the flavour gets stale soon tho....they keep recycling....

Yes, absolutely. All those evil scientists _want_ global warming to be true because then they... would... I mean the evid...

Wait, why are they all wrong and you're right ?

Yes, the motivation is much broader than one economic principle, it's political philosophy ("we don't want the dam govt taking away our 'freedoms' and our SUVs...") and often religious ("puny man is incapable of disturbing the grand and glorious scheme of climate that God hath created...")

Even Breitbart seems to have eased up on their AGW science attacks but this place still has anti science posters, or is it just a matter of pedants?

Howdy. It's been a while, but I have to ask, at what point will you give up trying to educate those who reject education?

If it stops being fun .

It's not in any sense education, it's mockery of the eminently mockable just for the enjoyment of it. Heck, I've never pretended to be a nice person. If I tried I'd never get away with it anyway.

Yes, that's fair.


I'd have given up this position, years ago, if the latest "facts" didn't just keep confirming the skeptic view.

The twists and turns you lot have to make as nature and in particular our variable Sun refuses to follow your dire ad hoc plans is just delicious and would be hilarious too ... except for one thing ...

Heading into another Ice Age, albeit a Little one in the style of the Little Ice Age is very serious matter. Crops and human welfare don't do too well in the harsh "wet an windy", "snow an ice" conditions that prevail in times like that.


2014: The Most Dishonest Year on Record

‘Warmest Year On Record’ Claims Falling Apart Under Scrutiny

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true. Yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 18 January 2015

 

[macdoc]

You are not a skeptc Haig - you have to be informed to be a skeptic...you are just wilfully ignorant and scraping at anything to deny the obvious.
It's getting warmer
We're responsible.

This last quibble about warmest year is hilarious as is your insistence that LIA was solar rather than volcanic in origin...

style of the Little Ice Age is very serious matter.

Yes volcanoes can have a serious affect......got any ???

 

[Trakar]

Nice to have another using Haig as a chew toy. Few and far between these days. Embarrassing for the deniers to be lumped in with the anti-evo ID types ( Roy Spencer one of Haig's favs fresh out of the bible belt) and even the flat earthers....

Enjoy the toy....the flavour gets stale soon tho....they keep recycling....

Such play fosters the development of better discussion chops, helping them to build through practice the ability to more reflexively respond to such idiocy in their daily lives.

 

[CapelDodger]

Originally by Haig :

"until the beginning in 2013 of a steady temperature drop, in a phase of instability, temperature will oscillate around the maximum that has been reached, without further substantial rise." Abdussamatov ... my bold n.b. a 0.04 degree rise within an error bar of 0.09 isn't substantial

Not an answer. Will this rapid cooling start next year? In five years? Ten? It certainly didn't start at the beginning of 2013.

"Although the change in the TSI would be at a level of about 0.07% in the “short” cycle, its influence on the climate would be smoothed out by the thermal inertia of the world ocean" Abdussamatov . my bold

Not an answer. Thermal inertia cannot cause warming, only a positive forcing can, so how can the temperature "top out" without such a forcing?

You know what CapelDodger, it doesn't look like you read or understood THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE[/B] The answers to ALL your points above are given

The points I made don't have answers, they are simply statements of what climate science has predicted correctly with a slight diversion into things AGW deniers have incorrectly predicted.

Originally by Haig :

"until the beginning in 2013 of a steady temperature drop, in a phase of instability, temperature will oscillate around the maximum that has been reached, without further substantial rise." Abdussamatov ... my bold n.b. a 0.04 degree rise within an error bar of 0.09 isn't substantial

Not an answer. Will this rapid cooling start next year? In five years? Ten? It certainly didn't start at the beginning of 2013.

"Although the change in the TSI would be at a level of about 0.07% in the “short” cycle, its influence on the climate would be smoothed out by the thermal inertia of the world ocean" Abdussamatov . my bold

Not an answer. Thermal inertia cannot cause warming, only a positive forcing can, so how can the temperature "top out" without such a forcing?

You know what CapelDodger, it doesn't look like you read or understood THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE[/B] The answers to ALL your points above are given

The points I made don't have answers, they are simply statements of what climate science has predicted correctly with a slight diversion into things AGW deniers have incorrectly predicted.

Not so fast with the Poles melting ... Antarctica is at RECORD levels of ICE

I didn't mention the poles and yet somehow you saw me do it. I mentioned Arctic sea-ice yet somehow you didn't see me do it.

Followed by a link to one of your authorities - WattsUpMyButt.

We've had worse droughts, wildfires, heatwaves in the past !

I spoke of frequencies and once again you respond to something else. It's as if you see a trigger-word - "ice", for instance, or "drought" - and out pops a stock response to that word. Try reading all the words, in the order they were written, and responding to their meaning (if you're going to respond at all).

What ? Haven't you heard of The Pause We are on SIMMER now before the drop

Which will occur when? Next year? In five years? Ten years? And more to the question I asked, when did you first predict the imminent arrival of rapid cooling? Five years ago? Ten? More?

Look change is coming, and if you read what I said and quoted above you should understand that.

I know change is happening, not coming, and it will continue to warm. When will you give up waiting for rapid cooling to begin?

Humour me. If rapid cooling has not started in five years, and in fact 2020 is warmer than 2015, will you finally admit your authority has got it wrong? Or would it take ten years to shake your confidence? There surely must be some point at which you'd concede.

 

[Reality Check]

The ignorance of climate science in an article by Abdussamatov

Abdussamatov

You need to read and understand what you are citing, Haig.
Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov is a solar physicist, not a climate scientist.
He has an idea that the Sun will cool over the next few cycles (which is likely), keep cooling to a grand minimum (for which there is little evidence) and that leads to the fantasy of an new Ice Age. The Sun Defines The Climate (PDF) is basically a list of his ignorance about climate science!

• The Sun has not defined the climate for the last 35 years since TSI has been constant and global temperatures have risen .
  This is the climate skeptic myth number 2 which you have been told about before, Haig.
  Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions
  

  In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

• 95% of climate scientists agree that human emissions of CO2 are driving global warming.
• That an increase in CO2 will increase temperatures is well established science and we have measured an increase in CO2 and global temperatures.
• Climate scientists have studied what a solar grand minimum could do to the climate and the result is not much:
  Are we heading into a new Ice Age?
  

  The warming effect from more CO2 greatly outstrips the influence from changes in the Earth's orbit or solar activity, even if solar levels were to drop to Maunder Minimum levels.

• Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting climate myth
• Global warming on Jupiter climate myth.
• What does Neptune's brightening mean for global warming? climate myth.
• What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system climate myth ("Triton, Pluto and other planets of the solar system")

Part of understanding what you cite, Haig, is evaluating the source. In this case it is Nauka i Zhizn which is a non-peer reviewed, popular science magazine.

Most of understanding what you cite, Haig, is actually reading your citation! As well as the above ignorance, Abdussamatov's article contains obviously invalid graphs, e.g. Fig 7 which is plots of monthly temperatures for 2005, 2007 and 2008 and captioned as "Observed trend toward temperature decrease." ! Anyone who knows anything about climate at least knows the basic fact that climate is decades long trends in weather - not 3 years!

Then there is Fig 8 what looks like a free hand sketch of what he imagines future temperatures to be (and is wrong since 2014 turns out to be the hottest year on record).

It looks like Abdussamatov has never published a peer reviewed paper on climate science: Peer-reviewed skeptic papers by Habibullo Abdussamatov

There are no peer-reviewed climate papers by Habibullo Abdussamatov that meet this definition.

Supported by the fact that Abdussamatov cites his conference proceedings in his magazine article.

 

[ehcks]

"until the beginning in 2013 of a steady temperature drop, in a phase of instability, temperature will oscillate around the maximum that has been reached, without further substantial rise." Abdussamatov ... my bold n.b. a 0.04 degree rise within an error bar of 0.09 isn't substantial

Let's say 2014 isn't the hottest year. It is instead the second hottest year. It doesn't change the trend.

Of the 10 hottest years on record, 9 have been in this century. Of the 15 hottest years on record, 14 of them have been the last 14 years.

That is not "oscillation around the maximum." That is unprecedented increase.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, that's fair.


I'd have given up this position, years ago, if the latest "facts" didn't just keep confirming the skeptic view.

Mine is a very serious question: why do you consider yourself better equipped than climate scientists to evaluate the evidence ?

 

[Trakar]

...Humour me. If rapid cooling has not started in five years, and in fact 2020 is warmer than 2015, will you finally admit your authority has got it wrong? Or would it take ten years to shake your confidence? There surely must be some point at which you'd concede.

Important, boys and girls, it is helpful to know and recognize the difference between ideological arguments and scientific arguments. Scientific arguments are persuaded by compelling evidences, ideological arguments are immune to evidences.

For climate related discussions, climate relevant time periods (3 decades minimal) are necessary to establish climate trends.

 

[Reality Check]

Abdussamatov's denial of climate science (the greenhouse effect)

That's also a prediction of the New Little Ice Age conditions

Cool, Haig - a rather ignorant blogger cites "Modeling of the Earth’s Planetary Heat Balance with an Electrical Circuit Analogy" by Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov published in the Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis & Applications. This is a denial of the greenhouse effect paper. What is worse, Abdussamatov knows about the large heat capacity of the oceans (most of the Suns energy ends up there) but is ignorant of the fact that the heat content of the oceans has been measured to be increasing: What has global warming done since 1998?
Guess how many climate scientists peer reviewed or have even read that paper, Haig !

 

[Reality Check]

Not so fast with the Poles melting ... Antarctica is at RECORD levels of ICE
Polar Ice Caps More Stable Than Predicted, New Observations Show

Not so fast with repeating the bad science on WUWT that they are parroting from a Daily Express newspaper article, Haig.
Here we have a reported rather ignorantly repeating the fantasies of a spokesman of a global warming denying organization.
Global Warming Policy Foundation

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is the United Kingdom's most high-profile climate denier group. It opposes action to mitigate climate change.

The spokesman idiotically applies this result about Antarctica sea ice to all of the ice at both poles ! This is not a surprise since Dr Benny Peiser is not a "global warming expert" as the article implies - he is a social scientist.

The paper is about Antarctica sea ice which we have known is growing in extent. The paper finds that the sea ice is thicker than expected so the calculations of the growth in sea ice volume should be low.
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica has been losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.

 

[NoahFence]

The Sun defines the climate.

That's all? Just the sun?

 

[Reality Check]

We've had worse droughts, wildfires, heatwaves in the past !

The surface of the Earth used to be all lava 4.6 billion years ago, Haig - very extreme weather !
But you are mistaken about your citation - that is a WUWT page listing extreme weather events.
The climate science is basically simple - any rise in global temperatures from any source supplies energy for more extreme weather events. So the measured global warming means more extreme weather, e.g.
California just had its worst drought in over 1200 years, as temperatures and risks rise.

You have not learned yet that The Pause is a myth, Haig !
Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?

Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

You seem to be blindly repeating the ignorance of climate science in an article by Abdussamatov with that planets are warming climate myth, Haig.

Followed by argument by crank YouTube video !
The "Primary Citations" is basically a Gish Gallop.

• Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate is a symposium - not peer reviewed literature, some speculation.
• Earth has a varying magnetic field - duh!
• The solar wind was observed to "lose power" once in 2008.
• What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change? climate myth.
  

  Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field could deflect galactic cosmic rays, which hypothetically seed low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth's reflectivity and causing global warming. However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect.

• An irrelevant citation of a superstorm on Saturn.
• Looks like the we are heading into an ice age myth raises its ugly head again!
• etc.