Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[a_unique_person]

Lomborg the liar.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_lomborg_deception.php

Lomborg opens Cool It with a long discussion on polar bears, arguing that no more than two (of 20) groups are declining in population, that their numbers are not falling overall, and, in places where they are, that it is not a result of global (or Arctic) warming. In fact, polar-bear populations in warming regions are rising, he argues, suggesting that a warmer world will be beneficial to the bears. As Friel shows, Lomborg sourced that to a blog post and to a study that never mentioned polar bears. But he ignored the clear message of the most authoritative assessment of the bears' population trends, namely, research by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. It found that bear populations are indeed declining where the Arctic is warming. In fact, concluded the IUCN, polar-bear populations "have declined significantly" where spring temperatures have risen dramatically. It also offered an explanation for Lomborg's claim that numbers are falling most where temps are getting colder: that area happens to be where there is unregulated hunting.
For his claim that the polar-bear population "has soared," Lomborg cited a 1999 study (scroll down to the paper by Ian Stirling). But that study described declining birthrates and other threats to the bears, blaming warmer spring temperatures that cause the sea ice to break up. Overall, since the mid-1980s polar-bear numbers have fallen, which experts attribute to global warming. The source is thus not exactly the solid endorsement of Lomborg's claim about thriving polar bears that one might assume.

This is a special method by Lomborg of telling lies. Give your book all the appearance of being a scholarly tract, with copious foot notes as evidence. However, when you check the footnotes, they often say nothing about what he is using them for, say the opposite of what he is claiming, are just worthless as sources of evidence, or are just poor analysis. This is the same MO from "The Skeptical Environmentalist". It works for him, he is known around the world, respected and influential. It is, however, just a house of cards.

 

[brantc]

Winnipeg is at 780 feet above sea level. Calgary is 3430 feet above sea level. Yet when I drive from Winnipeg to Calgary, every once in a while I actually drive down a hill!

DSo and brantc, how on Earth can this happen? How is it possible for me to drive down a hill even once when Calgary is 2,650 higher in altitude than Winnipeg? Shouldn't I be driving uphill all the way?

It depends on how long you drive down hill. You snipped out the 40 year part.

 

[Warmer1]

The lies work unfortunately. Take Lord Monkton as another glaring example of this same type of slime. I had a person at work tell me the other day that the Academies of Science were controlled by the Democratic party. He must watch Fox News.

And here are the results
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127095932.htm

ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2010) — Public concern about global warming has dropped sharply since the fall of 2008, according to the results of a national survey released January 27 by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities.

Only 50 percent of Americans now say they are "somewhat" or "very worried" about global warming.

When I look at the global temperature graph it seems to me that even though 2010 is the hottest year on record we are still at the bottom of the next big leg up in global temperatures.

I can't see how shallow coral reefs will survive the next increase in temperature and I believe we may see the Great Barrier Reef succumb to the heat, and there are some places in Hawaii that will definitely die off. Sea surface satellite readings will indicate when this is happening as the 1998 event was well recorded and the heat will likely often surpass the 1998 record in the Pacific.

Perhaps we should start recording the people on Fox News etc. and keep them on permanent record for future generations to watch. Perhaps the idea that the younger generation may hold them accountable in the future might sway them enough to start telling the truth.

It's amazing to show people the consensus on AGW by all the world's leading Academies of Science and then to hear them dispute the scientists based on what they have heard on Fox News etc., as in the post above.

The next leg up in temperature over the next four to five years does not look good and I hope the liars will finally be muzzled.

People are so easily manipulated in so many ways. Love the JREF!

 

[Blue Mountain]

It depends on how long you drive down hill.

So far, so good.

You snipped out the 40 year part.

What?

 

[Pixel42]

What?

He's referring to the fact that the spring runoff the local weather report he quotes is talking about is the latest for 40 years. This single datum point clearly proves that the world hasn't warmed at all in the last 40 years, in the same way that a single observation of a single wave on a single beach can prove that the tide isn't going out, and that the simple physics which predicts tides based on the position of the moon and sun is completely wrong.

In other news I know a smoker who doesn't have cancer, which disproves the link between smoking and cancer. Also it's colder today than it was two weeks ago, therefore the physics which says that the Northern Hemisphere warms between January and July is also wrong.

 

[Trakar]

From my local area.

Late spring runoff could wash out Tahoe rafting revenues

By Jason Shueh and Kyle Magin
Union News Service and The Union Staff Writer

As wet storms continue to buffet the Sierra this week — including snow in the high country — some local water sports companies are salivating. Others, based at higher elevations, are concerned runoff from a heavy snowpack could wash out revenues this year.

“This is an extremely late runoff right now, and it looks like this may be latest water runoff peak in 40 years,” said Chad Planchard, chief deputy water master for the Truckee River Operating

Agreement organization in Reno. Snowpack levels across the Sierra are at their highest levels in more than five years.

<snip>

Because of the unseasonably cold temperatures and high snowfall totals, the water flow from the Truckee into Reno hasn't fallen below 500 cubic feet per second, the minimum water level operators require to open reservoirs like Tahoe to flow into the Truckee River, Planchard said.

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

 

[BenBurch]

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

You might fix that link...

 

[Trakar]

You might fix that link...

Thank-you, it's a java script issue, try:

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

you then need to set the parameters to display a graph of the datasets you are interested in.

make sure that you check the current year and near surface data, and then you may select any other years from 1998 through the present for comparison. The point being that his year is on track to be the warmest on record so far, regardless of any temporary regional or area fluctuation. Apologies for the link issue.

 

[Wangler]

Apologies for the link issue.

Cool website.

Speaking of link issues, do you have a similar link authored by someone else, someone who isn't an Intelligent Design proponent?

 

[BenBurch]

Poisoning the well is not a seemly tactic for a discussion like this, is it?

Where the data comes from is a NASA project, AMSU, where this guy did a lot of the design work.

It has nothing to do with his lack of understanding of biology or natural history.

The project was extensively reviewed before launch and the data is vetted.

And this is not an interpretation of data, but a presentation, so it is doubly disingenuous to impugn bias on the basis of his religious beliefs.

One of the most famous neo-Darwinists of our age, the late Stephan Jay Gould, maintained his religious beliefs and asserted that science and religion had no overlap at all. Obviously a crock, but it does not call into question his work in evolutionary biology.

 

[Trakar]

Cool website.

Speaking of link issues, do you have a similar link authored by someone else, someone who isn't an Intelligent Design proponent?

You find this relevent to the site, the data and this discussion,...how?

 

[Wangler]

You find this relevent to the site, the data and this discussion,...how?

Probably not truly relevant to this discussion.

It serves more as a comparison and contrast between the acceptance of Dr. Spencer here, compared to his treatement in this thread.

 

[macdoc]

so much for denial it's getting warmer and solar woo....

NASA: Easily the hottest spring — and Jan-May — in temperature record
Plus another record 12-month global temperature
June 10, 2010

NASA 5-10
Image link
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/NASA-5-10.gif
Lmonth tied May 1998 as the hottest on record in the NASA dataset. More significantly, following fast on the heels of easily the hottest April — and hottest Jan-April — on record, it’s also the hottest Jan-May on record [click on figure to enlarge].

Also, the combined land-surface air and sea-surface water temperature anomaly for March-April-May was 0.73°C above the 1951-1980 mean, blowing out the old record of 0.65°C set in 2002.

The record temperatures we’re seeing now are especially impressive because we’ve been in “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.” It’s just hard to stop the march of manmade global warming, well, other than by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, that is.

Most significantly, the 12-month global temperature grew to 0.66°C — easily the highest on record.

more
http://climateprogress.org/

 

[Wangler]

The record temperatures we’re seeing now are especially impressive because we’ve been in “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.

How should that make the warming more significant, if the solar cycle doesn't affect climate?

 

[BenBurch]

How should that make the warming more significant, if the solar cycle doesn't affect climate?

It does, but in a very predictable way. The sun is coolest at sunspot minimum, and hottest at sunspot maximum. You can see this in the temperature record. However, this minimum does not seem to be reflected there.

Back to news. If you want to discuss this, the AGW thread is a good place.

 

[BenBurch]

Wangler, that is because though his data is sound, his interpretation is bollocks.

Very different things.

Getting technical details correct is one thing, and he does that here and in a way that couldn't be more peer reviewed.

 

[Wangler]

Wangler, that is because though his data is sound, his interpretation is bollocks.

Very different things.

Getting technical details correct is one thing, and he does that here and in a way that couldn't be more peer reviewed.

Thanks for the response, Ben. You have maintained this opinion throughout, as far as I can tell, and your opinion makes sense, and is reasonable.

There were others who, disturbingly, wouldn't give a haiku written by Spencer a second look, just because he was a professed ID'er. I just don't understand that.

 

[Wangler]

It does, but in a very predictable way. The sun is coolest at sunspot minimum, and hottest at sunspot maximum. You can see this in the temperature record. However, this minimum does not seem to be reflected there.

I am fairly certain that various AGW proponents in this forum have argued repeatedly that the 11-year solar cycle has no bearing on the temperature record, at all.

 

[bit_pattern]

How should that make the warming more significant, if the solar cycle doesn't affect climate?

It does... Or at least it did, the very clear correlation between solar variability and temperature diverges in the mid-1970's with solar activity falling while temperatures rise rapidly as CO2 takes over as the dominant forcing.

David Attenborough explains:

 

[Trakar]

Probably not truly relevant to this discussion.

It serves more as a comparison and contrast between the acceptance of Dr. Spencer here, compared to his treatement in this thread.

This has nothing to do with an "acceptance of Dr Spencer." This is about a an official university/government data website on which Dr. Spencer is acknowledged as an established figure. If you can demonstrate how his influence has somehow distorted the data or analyses represented on the site due to Dr. Spencer's contributions, please present your evidence.

This isn't a political witch hunt mud-fest where anything and everything associated with someone who holds some different perspectives become fair game in discrediting and dismissing the entirety of their life's work, this is science. Verifiably good data and compellingly supported analysis stand on their own merits regardless of whose names are attached or depicted in association with the presentation of data and analyses.