Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[lomiller]

None the less, there has been no cooling in 17 years,

Correct, though I suspect you meant to say no warming which is false. There is no evidence for an abatement of the warming trend. While it's proven a good way to dupe the ignorant, looking at a period too short to make any statistically significant conclusions can't be called "no warming"

, Ice abounds at both poles,

Yes there is ice at the poles, as tehre has been for ~30 million years. this isn't a usefull comment.

that Greenland Ice Sheet is still alive and well and far as I can see,

Alive yes. Well, not so much. As others have mentioned there reason you don't see otherwise is most likely that you haven't bothered to look.

none of those gloom and doom predictions have not come true

Again, the predations have come true, others have already show that in this thread. Like most predictions based on established science they will likely continue to come true.

We have people with PHDs, experts, 50 years experience reading the charts and disagreeing over how the data is to be interpreted. What do we offer?

Who has "PHD's and experts"? Regardless, the real experts the ones who actually study and publish papers on climate along with virtually every science body in the world already agrees the word is warming rapidly due to human influence.

On the other side all you get are a handful of bloggers and non-publishing "scientists" most of whom have distinct conflicts of interest as they are being paid by people who profit convincing people to ignore the science.

 

[ABC10]

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.

 

[ABC10]

Correct, though I suspect you meant to say no warming which is false. There is no evidence for an abatement of the warming trend. While it's proven a good way to dupe the ignorant, looking at a period too short to make any statistically significant conclusions can't be called "no warming"




Yes there is ice at the poles, as tehre has been for ~30 million years. this isn't a usefull comment.




Alive yes. Well, not so much. As others have mentioned there reason you don't see otherwise is most likely that you haven't bothered to look.





Again, the predations have come true, others have already show that in this thread. Like most predictions based on established science they will likely continue to come true.



Who has "PHD's and experts"? Regardless, the real experts the ones who actually study and publish papers on climate along with virtually every science body in the world already agrees the word is warming rapidly due to human influence.

On the other side all you get are a handful of bloggers and non-publishing "scientists" most of whom have distinct conflicts of interest as they are being paid by people who profit convincing people to ignore the science.

Nope, it's not a majority of "science body" but some mythical figure of 97% "climate scientist" alone who may or may not agree that humans have substituted that big ball up in the sky as the climate or even weather driver. That 97% figure has never been substantiated and the questions on the survey stupid. and people fell for it. I think that there is still ice at the poles and lots of it is useful when we had Big Al telling folk it would be gone by now.
And yes, I did mean warming. Thanks for the correction.

 

[uke2se]

Nope, it's not a majority of "science body" but some mythical figure of 97% "climate scientist" alone who may or may not agree that humans have substituted that big ball up in the sky as the climate or even weather driver.

You are wrong, as has been shown repeatedly in this thread.

That 97% figure has never been substantiated and the questions on the survey stupid.

You are wrong, as has been shown repeatedly in this thread.

and people fell for it.

Smart people accepted the science. Dumb people and liars didn't.

I think that there is still ice at the poles and lots of it is useful when we had Big Al telling folk it would be gone by now.

Sentences like this shows how ill informed you are. What we're dealing with here is willful ignorance. Go away.

And yes, I did mean warming. Thanks for the correction.

Well, you were wrong, or possibly lying.

You are in a science thread arguing that the moon is made of cheese, and refuse to even look at evidence to the contrary. Can you understand how stupid that sounds to people who know the science, even just a little bit?

 

[a_unique_person]

The Roaring Forties, the Southern Ocean winds which once bore European sailors to Australia and the East Indies, are becoming more like the Furious Fifties as climate change triggers a shift in key weather patterns poleward, an Australian-led team of scientists has found.
Using data derived from Antarctic ice cores and other sources, the researchers found Southern Ocean winds are now stronger than at any time in the past 1000 years.
Greenhouse gases are what are causing the winds to intensify now and that’s really moving the system beyond the natural range,” said Nerilie Abram of the Australian National University’s Research School of Earth Sciences and lead author of the research, published on Monday in Nature Climate Change

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...ous-fifties-20140511-zr9b1.html#ixzz31RnXTKn9

Climate change is a global phenomenon, it affects climate in so many ways.

 

[macdoc]

Moving toward carbon neutral and killing coal....

MA Gov. Deval Patrick Calls For ‘Future Free Of Fossil Fuels,’ And Zero Coal In Four Years
BY RYAN KORONOWSKI MAY 11, 2014 AT 1:43 PM UPDATED: MAY 11, 2014 AT 3:39 PM

Deval Patrick is finishing up his second term as Governor of Massachusetts this year, but instead of fading into the role of a lame duck, he said something on Friday that it’s possible no sitting governor has said before.
Speaking to the UMass Amherst’s boisterous graduating class of 2014, Patrick detailed how “Massachusetts should finally end all reliance on conventional coal generation” in four years, and called for “a future free of fossil fuels.”
While Patrick began his speech with the importance of citizenship, he devoted the majority of his time to climate change and clean energy. He highlighted the recent National Climate Assessment and how climate change was affecting New England. He then laid out the steps Massachusetts has taken over the last decade and a half to cut carbon emissions, invest in clean energy, and adapt to a changing climate.
“Between 2000 and 2012, the electricity generated from coal in New England dropped from 18 percent to 3 percent; electricity generated from oil is down from 22 percent to less than 1 percent,” Patrick said.

more
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/11/3436581/deval-patrick-fossil-fuel-free-future-coal/

It can be done...it is being done.

 

[Reality Check]

...Nevertheless I have great confidence Planet Earth will not comply with the global warming propaganda....

Evidence that Planet Earth will comply with what anyone publishes as propaganda, Arnold Martin ?

 

[Reality Check]

Is it okay to try?? ...

You should not start trying with a reference to a mythical "disgraced" hockey stick, ABC10 :
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

 

[Reality Check]

..word salad snipped...I am thrilled that the polar bears are thriving though.

You would be wrong about polar bears, ABC10:
How will global warming affect polar bears?

...
With this caveat in mind, what do the figures actually say? According to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 recognised subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions.

So they are not thriving.

 

[Trakar]

I'm not sure that Climategate etc. is bait, as the people that post it likely still believe it is valid as they are never shown otherwise.

I wonder if a sticky thread could be created with some simple rules so when deniers posted the most pathetic typical nonsense, they could be pointed to a specific section on a sticky page with a good explanation of how thoroughly debunked the assertion is and why it is no longer appropriate for discussion.

If they continue to post the same drivel after the warning then further action could be taken.

Rule #25 No further Climategate posts. Seven separate investigations have taken place which found no wrong doing. Here is a list of the investigations so you can read them yourself and clearly see that there has been closure on this topic. No further posts claiming that Climategate is valid by individuals that have been provided the link to this page will be tolerated.

Rule #26 The "Hockey Stick Graph" etc. etc.

It would be great for people to just ignore the posts but it's not happening. Just trying to avoid wading through many more senseless posts on a dead issue. Link the uninformed to a sticky page and it's over.

Thoughts?

It isn't that they don't know that there is a disagreement with the overwhelming majority of mainstream scientific evidence and consideration,...it is that they don't care about the evidence. They think that it is politically motivated thinking just as they acknowledge that their own considerations are politically oppositely motivated hyperbolic interpretations of the evidence. They think that those who disagree with them are exaggerating as much as they are. They cannot accept the reality of the situation, it contradicts their woo beliefs in a self-regulating market and voodoo economics.

 

[Reality Check]

As informed as any poster, just disagree with warmer conclusions.

An informed option does means not displays of hero worship of people like the weather man Anthony Watts, ABC10 !
It means stating your opinion with information to back it up.
It means knowing that there has been no "lack of warming for almost 17 years". Anyone who knows anything about the warming hiatus knows that global surface temperatures continued to warm. Anyone who knows anything about the warming hiatus knows that the heat contents of oceans continued to increase.
It means not cherry picking what looks like 1998 (a warm year) as your starting point. What has global warming done since 1998?

The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.

It means knowing what the emails actually said and the results of the investigations into them rather that regurgitating denialist "hide the decline: rhetoric.
FYI, ABC10: This was the technique of removing known problematic and anomalous data from proxy data by replacing it with more reliable satellite data to make a nice pretty graph. Well known to climate scientists working in the field but latched on to by the more paranoiac denialists. Tree-ring proxies and the divergence problem

The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.

 

[Reality Check]

Well, where is Hansen's projections in the real world?
...snipped irrelevant word salad....

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

Although Hansen's projected global temperature increase has been higher than the actual global warming, this is because his climate model used a high climate sensitivity parameter. Had he used the currently accepted value of approximately 3°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, Hansen would have correctly projected the ensuing global warming.

 

[Reality Check]

Phil Jones is a climate scientist infamous ... It is said on skeptical science that "the decline" is in reference to a physical decline in tree-ring growth and that the data collected from the tree rings doesn't correlate with the observed instrumental readings of temperature.

I snipped that little lie about Phil Jones, SingularMan, but you need to read what you say you read :
Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'

There are a number of misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline':
1. The "decline" does not refer to a "decline in global temperature" as often claimed. It actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations. This decline began in the 1960s when tree-ring proxies diverged from the temperature record.
2."Mike's Nature trick" has nothing to do with "hide the decline". "Mike's trick" refers to a technique by Michael Mann to plot instrumental temperature data on the same graph as reconstructed data over the past millennium.
3.The divergence of tree-ring proxies from temperatures after 1960 is openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature and the last two IPCC assessment reports.

The tree-ring proxies from temperatures before 1960 match instrumental records extending back before large scale industrialization and so are reliable.

Tree-ring proxies and the divergence problem

 

[Reality Check]

...kept informational content....

Which leaves a lot of nothing, ABC10 !
You have an opinion.
We have opinions.
The difference is that we have scientific evidence and literature backing up our opinions rather than the meaningless text backing up your opinion.

 

[Reality Check]

..usu7al word salad snipped...
None the less, there has been no cooling in 17 years,

You may have accidently got something right at last, ABC10 .
There has been warming (no cooling) in the 17 years.

And wow: You know that there is ice at the poles and that the Greenland Ice Sheet exists !
Is Greenland gaining or losing ice?

While the Greenland interior is in mass balance, the coastlines are losing ice. Overall Greenland is losing ice mass at an accelerating rate. From 2002 to 2009, the rate of ice mass loss doubled.

Why Greenland's ice loss matters
Greenland ice sheet won't collapse

 

[Reality Check]

I doubt ...rather embarrassing ignorance snipped ...

Sorry, ABC10, but it is totally ignorant to think that climate science is not a science.
It is also ignorant to think that 97% of climate scientists do not agree that climate change is happening and because of us.
The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust

The 97% consensus has been independently confirmed by a number of different approaches and lines of evidence.

 

[Reality Check]

Nope, ....

Repeating being wrong does not make you right, ABC10.
Try reading the science presented in previous posts:
* global surface temperatures increased in the last 17 years.
* 97% of climate scientists do think AGW exists.
* calling the questions on an unnamed survey "stupid" without citations or explanation is ... stupid because it looks like trolling .
* telling us that there is ice at the poles as if it is news to us is just weird.

 

[a_unique_person]

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.

Nonsense. It's like saying we can have different opinions about whether gravity is real. There is uncertainty, there is research. Have you read the IPCC report yet? Do you understand the case for AGW?

 

[lomiller]

I doubt that the "climate science" gig is a real science

What is this doubt based on? Lots of people "doubt" man has walked on the moon, what makes your "doubt" of the published science any more significant than theirs?

those 97% agreed "climate scientist" is nonsense.

Do you have evidence to back up this claim?

 

[Trakar]

Sorry, ABC10, but it is totally ignorant to think that climate science is not a science.
It is also ignorant to think that 97% of climate scientists do not agree that climate change is happening and because of us.
The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust

Nonsense. It's like saying we can have different opinions about whether gravity is real. There is uncertainty, there is research. Have you read the IPCC report yet? Do you understand the case for AGW?

What is this doubt based on? Lots of people "doubt" man has walked on the moon, what makes your "doubt" of the published science any more significant than theirs?

Do you have evidence to back up this claim?

It isn't mere ignorance. It is an arrogant ignorance which eschews all "fact" as motivated reasoning and is given no different consideration than their own hyperbolic confabulations.

its like taking a knife to a gun fight, you are expecting your counterpart to respect and accept logic and evidence supported reason,...surprise!