Global warming discussion IV

[Trakar]

Yes there is no need for hopelessness as we have The Heartland Institute – known globally as the leading think tank debunking global warming alarmism and junk science.

Heartland Institute Leads Contingent of Climate Realists to Paris for UN’s COP 21 Conference

[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xAdiohdkcU4/VjpSKNYP9SI/AAAAAAACa8Q/639el4qIzpM/s720-Ic42/monckton1.png[/qimg]

You do realize that this graph does not display temperature trends, don't you? But I guess if you don't realize that Heartland is a junk science, political conspiracy, organization dedicated to the removal of "think" from the term "think tank," then such distinctions and nuances probably don't matter to you.

The first principle of skepticism is that it applies, and defers to, compelling evidence and mainstream scientific understandings. The alternative position revolves around issues of faith and is not scientific or skeptical. What you bring to this board is neither skeptical, nor scientific.

 

[ehcks]

You do realize that this graph does not display temperature trends, don't you? But I guess if you don't realize that Heartland is a junk science, political conspiracy, organization dedicated to the removal of "think" from the term "think tank," then such distinctions and nuances probably don't matter to you.

The first principle of skepticism is that it applies, and defers to, compelling evidence and mainstream scientific understandings. The alternative position revolves around issues of faith and is not scientific or skeptical. What you bring to this board is neither skeptical, nor scientific.

I tried that already. I am still fully convinced that the graph is actually a well-done troll, to trick people who can't read graphs into thinking it's honest.

The worst part is still that the trend line is not zero but is labeled as zero. Such a clear lie should be obvious to anyone past third grade math, or whenever they first give you graph paper.

 

[Haig]

You do realize that this graph does not display temperature trends, don't you? But I guess if you don't realize that Heartland is a junk science, political conspiracy, organization dedicated to the removal of "think" from the term "think tank," then such distinctions and nuances probably don't matter to you.

Well Traker the graph actually says what it is "RSS global mean temperature change: 225 months February 1997 to October 2015"



No global warming at all for 18 years 9 months – a new record

The first principle of skepticism is that it applies, and defers to, compelling evidence and mainstream scientific understandings. The alternative position revolves around issues of faith and is not scientific or skeptical. What you bring to this board is neither skeptical, nor scientific.

You need to lighten up and take a step back Listen to George ...

George Carlin - Saving the Planet

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Well Traker the graph actually says what it is "RSS global mean temperature change: 225 months February 1997 to October 2015"

It has been explained to you before, all the graph shows is that the rate of increase in temps is steady. eg we are steadily increasing in temp, not accelerating on average. But the graph is deceptively labeled. It's a simple math trick, easily solved by anyone who graduated grade school.

 

[The Atheist]

It's a simple math trick, easily solved by anyone who graduated started grade school.

FTFY

Pretty funny, though. The second time he's shown a graph perfectly displaying a constant average increase in temperature, but claiming it means the temperature staying the same.

No doubt in Haig's car, when he pushes the accelerator, it stands still.

 

[Fudbucker]

Yes there is no need for hopelessness as we have The Heartland Institute – known globally as the leading think tank debunking global warming alarmism and junk science.

Heartland Institute Leads Contingent of Climate Realists to Paris for UN’s COP 21 Conference

[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xAdiohdkcU4/VjpSKNYP9SI/AAAAAAACa8Q/639el4qIzpM/s720-Ic42/monckton1.png[/qimg]

Heartland Institute, I've heard that name before...

"In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans."

Uh huh. I thought they sounded familiar. Carry on, Haig.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: What you quote from the image is WUWT lying by cherry picking again

Well Traker the graph actually says what it is "RSS global mean temperature change: 225 months February 1997 to October 2015"

Parroting Monkton's lies about climate when you have known for months that they are lies, is bad, Haig.
From Haig's first 15 parroted ignorance and lies from climate change deniers:
11th May 2015 Haig: WUWT blog lies by cherry picking the source and start date about "No global warming for 18 years and 3 months" as easily seen by anyone who looks at the data.
7th August 2015 Haig: WUWT blog lies about "No global warming for 18 years and 7 months"

16 November 2015 Haig: What you quote from the image is Anthony Watts lying by repeating Monckton's cherry picking!
RSS + start date before the hot year of 1998 + Anthony Watts cannot even count! (19 years is not the 30 year standard period for climate).

16 November 2015 Haig: What you cite is Anthony Watts lying abut the data that the Heartland Institute may or may not produce at the United Nations’ COP 21 summit in Paris.
No competent scientist would be idiotic enough to present Monkton's lies. The Heartland Institute are climate change deniers but do have competent scientists.

ETA: There will be two panel sessions that from their titles are insanely ignorant.
* Latest Science: Why the UN’s Scientists Are Wrong
* Energy Policy: How the UN’s Energy “Solutions” Will Make the Poor More Miserable
There are no "UN Scientists"! There are no "UN Energy Solutions"!
There are climate scientists from around the world whose climate research was used by IPCC (a UN organization) to write with the help of thousands? of scientists the AR5 report in 2013. The AR5 also listed possible solutions to the observed and predicted climate change from the scientific community.
The second title is pretty much what we would expect from the biased Heartland Institute. Climate change has the greatest impact on the poor. It is poor Pacific nations that exist on low lying islands that sea level change will flood. It is poor farmers on coastal plains that will lose their land. It is the poor that will be less able to mitigate climate change, e.g. by changing land management practices.

 

[Fudbucker]

Since the science is settled, CO2 levels are 400 ppm now, and 2015 is very likely going to be the hottest year on record...

Does climate change denialism still belong in the science forum? Shouldn't it be lumped in with all the other "woo" beliefs, like telepathy and ghosts? I have a soft spot for the existence of aliens, and I hate to see denialism given more credence than, say, ufoology. It would be more surprising to find out the Earth isn't warming, than it would to discover some UFO sightings were the real deal.

 

[CapelDodger]

Does climate change denialism still belong in the science forum? Shouldn't it be lumped in with all the other "woo" beliefs, like telepathy and ghosts?

To me it seems to merging into the general One World Gumment Agenda 21 Grand Conspiracy. You know, the one the Illuminati invented to mask what's really going on.

 

[lomiller]

Yes there is no need for hopelessness as we have...

The starting point for the “trend” line it shows is a full 0.2 degrees above the established trend. The end point of this “trend” line is a full 0.1 degrees below the long term trend. I realize you don’t see in on the graphic you presented, but that’s just because it was created to mislead the gullible.

They seem to be suggesting that if the past were warmer and the present were cooler that global warming would have stopped. Sadly none of these are the case.

 

[lomiller]

It has been explained to you before, all the graph shows is that the rate of increase in temps is steady. eg we are steadily increasing in temp, not accelerating on average. But the graph is deceptively labeled. It's a simple math trick, easily solved by anyone who graduated grade school.

He may have presented such a graphic in the past but this one seems to be temperature with cherry picked endpoints so that the “trend” starts above and ends below the actual long term trend.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/trend/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

 

[Mikemcc]

RSS also has issues due to the satellite being in a decaying orbit too, it's even explained by Dr Roy Spencer!

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07...n-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/

 

[Red Baron Farms]

He may have presented such a graphic in the past but this one seems to be temperature with cherry picked endpoints so that the “trend” starts above and ends below the actual long term trend.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/trend/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

agreed. It takes multiple forms of deception to even try to keep that graph appearing flat. I mentioned a couple, cherry picking is another, the timeframe being too short is a third, excluding oceans a forth. So many problems with it that it becomes as meaningless as proving AGW wrong by throwing a snowball in congress.

 

[Belz...]

"It will be hard and it will require immediate action. But it is still possible, but only just!" Isn't that what all those climate reports have been saying since at least the turn of the century? It is starting to sound a bit ... strained.

Why? Did you expect winter to dissapear worldwide in 2003?

 

[Reality Check]

Note that Haig is linking to graphs produced by the incompetent Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. So we cannot take any part of the graph as correct. That includes the title!
Monkton has "RSS global mean temperature change" (my emphasis) as the start of the title. That implies that the graph is a rate of change in temperature, i.e. a flat line is a steady increase in temperature. But what he is actually plotting is the RSS temperature data as looking the corresponding graph in Wood for Trees indicates. The title should be "RSS global mean temperatures".

 

[hgus]

Why? Did you expect winter to dissapear worldwide in 2003?

No I do not think winters will ever disappear. I do think they will become warmer on average though. But why do you think I would harbour such a daft idea and why 2003?

My point was about the credibility of climate reports. I become sceptical when the same "we need to act now or else" is used about 18 years later to achieve the same result, 2 degrees. I do believe the science is good but that, understandable, the political pressure is very high. Since there is binding agreements about stopping "dangerous" climate warming (decided to be around 2 degrees) the result "must" be that 2 degrees is achievable, the political cost will be to high otherwise.

I have been told that 2 degrees is technically possible, I unfortunately think the political ability is lacking. I think there is a political will to achieve this goal, but the countries that must lead, primarily the US and the EU, is politically weak and getting weaker. For what it is worth. I predict we will fail to achieve 2 degrees and the "scientists" will come to the gratifying conclusion that 4 degrees is rather ok to. I will of course be mainly wrong, only retro predictions is reliable, if rather meaningless.

 

[Reality Check]

For what it is worth. I predict we will fail to achieve 2 degrees and the "scientists" will come to the gratifying conclusion that 4 degrees is rather ok to.

That will not happen, hgus, because knowledgeable climate scientists (no quotes!) know that reaching 4°C would be really bad. So they will not conclude "that 4 degrees is rather ok to".
Positives and negatives of global warming

The consequences of climate change become increasingly bad after each additional degree of warming, with the consequences of 2°C being quite damaging and the consequences of 4°C being potentially catastrophic.

For the past few decades, climate scientists have been warning that "we need to act now or else" for the simple reason that it would take decades to reduce CO2 and other GHG emissions enough to avoid the damaging consequences of a 2°C temperature rise. A series is starting on this subject at Skeptical Science.
The Road to Two Degrees, Part One: Feasible Emissions Pathways, Burying our Carbon, and Bioenergy

This post looks at the feasibility of the massive and rapid deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage and negative-emissions Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storage technologies in the majority of IPCC scenarios that avoid dangerous global warming. Some observers question whether the deployment of these technologies at these scales and within the required time frames is achievable. This is Part One of a three-part series on the challenge of keeping global warming under 2 °C.

 

[hgus]

That will not happen, hgus, because knowledgeable climate scientists (no quotes!) know that reaching 4°C would be really bad. So they will not conclude "that 4 degrees is rather ok to".
Positives and negatives of global warming

I agree with you completely on the scientific part. But I think, that as long as it is expedient for the major nations of the world, politics will dominate the conclusions. If major politicians can deny global warming altogether now, why wouldn't they say "4 is fine" later? They would be as wrong then as they are now, but the delay tactics has unfortunately worked splendidly so far.

PS! Thanks for the link.

 

[lomiller]

My point was about the credibility of climate reports. I become sceptical when the same "we need to act now or else" is used about 18 years later to achieve the same result, 2 degrees.

I’m not sure you are reading those calls to action correctly. We are still below the danger threshold, but the longer we wait the more rapidly we need to cut CO2 emissions and the more painful it becomes.

 

[lomiller]

So much for "no warming in 18 years". It looks like we are well on our way to setting a new record high temperature this year.

October was the warmest month ever and of course the warmest October ever. Every month except for Apr has been first or second warmest on record for that particular month. Apr was the third warmest on record.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt