Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Reality Check]

It does not matter what I think.

We agree with you there, ABC10 !
What matters is opinions backed up with science.
What matters is what the science says.
What matters is the opinions of the experts in that science (97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening).

We do have scientific climate models that tell us what is probably going to happen.
Denying these predictions just because we will not be there for some of them is basically child (or grandchild or great grandchild) abuse. They will be there. They will have to cope with the effects of AGW.

Claiming that AGW effects will take a 1000 years to happen is quite ignorant, ABC10. Some have already happened. Some will happen in the next few years. Some will happen in the next few decades. Some will happen in the next few centuries.
Climate models generally go out to 2100 - that is 86 years, not 1000 years!

 

[Reality Check]

Correction -- oops, sorry that would be the volcano eruption of Krakatau in 1883 with it's global effects.

The effects of volcano eruptions are well known and catered for in climate science. Volcano eruptions actually cool the planet.
How do volcanoes drive climate?

A drop of volcanic activity in the early 20th century may have had a warming effect. However, volcanoes have had very little impact on the last 40 years of global warming.

 

[a_unique_person]

Correction -- oops, sorry that would be the volcano eruption of Krakatau in 1883 with it's global effects. Today, the Son of Krakatau rivals the size of the father Krakatau.
Only drink bottled spring water.

The effects of Krakatoa lasted a few years, I'd that, the CO2 we are putting up there now will be up there food many thousands of years.

Your logic is flawed anyway. It's like saying that since we could all get hit by lightening one day, there is no point looking after our health.

 

[Corsair 115]

It does not matter what I think. We never know what is going to happen. Not even when we are sitting next to the coming unanticipated nature event. It's not unfortunate for me?
We'll all be long gone before any of the predictions come to fruition if they ever do. I find it impossible to believe that there are enough signs to predict anything in a 1000 years. I do believe that Mother Nature is violent, highly unpredictable and initiates catastrophic events all on her own without human help causing numerous disasters like the eruption of Mt. Helene, Katchoria, 2004 tsunami and earthquake and Tsunami in Japan and even that hill slide in Washington State.

Obtuseness and willful blindness it is then! Er, congratulations, on your choice?

 

[lomiller]

The effects of Krakatoa lasted a few years

But if we had a Krakatoa scale eruption every year or two temperatures may fall back to 1990 levels. Of course, as we put more CO2 into the atmosphere those eruptions would need to become more frequent to keep us there

 

[r-j]

One of the most telling features of climate science is just how few climate scientists changed their minds as the evidence changed. The pause in global temperature in the last 15 years or so has been unexpected. Now we know why: Yesterday, Bengtsson dropped a bombshell. He was resigning from the think tank. In his resignation letter, Bengtsson wrote:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.

http://m.nationalreview.com/article/378011/science-mccarthyism-rupert-darwall

 

[Trakar]

Correction -- oops, sorry that would be the volcano eruption of Krakatau in 1883 with it's global effects. Today, the Son of Krakatau rivals the size of the father Krakatau.
Only drink bottled spring water.

Humans are emitting roughly the same order of magnitude of CO2 and SO2 aerosols each year for the last several decades as a major eruption (such as Krakatau). So why do you want to point to the single Krakatau event as a major climate event, and yet you seem to hand-wave away many consecutive decades filled with annual Krakatau magnitude events due to human emissions as irrelevant to climate issues? Why do you feel that human emissions are somehow special and exempt from the impacts that you seem ready and wiling to acknowledge with regards to natural emission events?

 

[Reality Check]

http://m.nationalreview.com/article/378011/science-mccarthyism-rupert-darwall

Let us see: a meteorologist joins a think tank of mainly economists that is overtly in denial of climate change. His fellow climate scientists point the obvious fact that this does not help his reputation. One is so dubious about this connection that he thinks about withdrawing his co-authorship on a paper.
Big surprise, r-j !

Lennart Bengtsson Joins, Quits Denialist Think Tank, Cries McCarthyism

What happened here is simple to understand. A member of the scientific community who was retaining discredited ideas about climate change took one step too far, literally joining with the anti-science community. Colleagues complained about his choice, which is something they not only can, but should do. If the reports are correct, one of those individuals considered distancing himself from the GWPF, which is probably the ethical choice. In response, the denialist community, including Bengtsson (who has now apparently proven himself to be a member of that community) is calling foul. But really, what is the mainstream scientific community supposed to do? Is a professional gasp at a clearly inappropriate decision by a scientist really McCartyism? No, clearly it is not.

Ha ha: Lennart Bengtsson leaves advisory board of GWPF

Also note that this "pressure" from his colleagues (i.e. colleagues distancing themselves from a bad decision) somehow forced his resignation within a couple of weeks of the 30 April 2014 announcement that he was joining GWPF.

 

[Trakar]

But if we had a Krakatoa scale eruption every year or two temperatures may fall back to 1990 levels. Of course, as we put more CO2 into the atmosphere those eruptions would need to become more frequent to keep us there

The primary difference between Krakatoa's SO2/3 emissions and human SO2/3 emissions (human emission levels are ~ 0.5 now getting closer to 0.75 that of Krakatoa) is that Krakatoa blew it's sulphur high into the stratosphere, whereas most human sulphur emissions occur in the lower troposphere, so while there is still some surface solar attenuation, there is a lot of atmospheric interaction and the sulphur tends to be washed out of the atmosphere within a few days, whereas when the sulphur is injected high into the stratosphere it tends to have a much longer suspension half-life.

 

[macdoc]

ABC10 youmay just have floundered a bit....SO2 injection is being considered as a last ditch bit of geo-engineering by "puny humans" who "can't affect the climate".
Any moderate sized industrial nation could do it.

http://www.livescience.com/16070-geoengineering-climate-cooling-balloon.html

The side effects and international law suits would be astounding.

Every day this

leads to this

It's one reason China is moving forward so rapidly to curb both SO2 and CO2 emissions. they are front line on climate change and unlike you, completely acknowledge their role and responsibility to move to clean up .

U.S.-China Joint Statement on Climate Change

Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
February 15, 2014

In light of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and its worsening impacts, and the related issue of air pollution from burning fossil fuels, the United States and China recognize the urgent need for action to meet these twin challenges.
Both sides reaffirm their commitment to contribute significantly to successful 2015 global efforts to meet this challenge. Accordingly, China and the United States will work together, within the vehicle of the U.S.-China Climate Change Working Group (CCWG) launched last year, to collaborate through enhanced policy dialogue, including the sharing of information regarding their respective post-2020 plans to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Regarding practical cooperative actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants, the two sides have reached agreement on the implementation plans on the five initiatives launched under the CCWG, including Emission Reductions from Heavy Duty and Other Vehicles, Smart Grids, Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage, Collecting and Managing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, and Energy Efficiency in Buildings and Industry, and commit to devote significant effort and resources to secure concrete results by the Sixth U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in 2014.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/02/221686.htm

...just as Europe and North America did with SO2 ( you do recall acid rain )

We have been impacting the climate for a long while, from land use to emissions.
We've busted up the climate regime which was drifting cooler thanks to Milankovitch orbital /tilt positioning you can see the drift to cooler until we came along with industrial fossil fuel use

and the biome thanks to a whole variety of abuses and are now suffering the consequences.

Welcome to the Anthropocene......deal with it instead of foisting the problem on the next generation. It will be a long process.
The Thames has fish again.

From The Great Stink to Now (from an article by local architect Sumita Sinha-Jordan)

http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/external/la21/articles/stink.htm

to

Salmon In The River Thames: The Result Of Restoration Or ...
www.science20.com › Life Sciences › Ecology & Zoology › Anthrophysis
Sep 5, 2011 - Salmon In The River Thames: The Result Of Restoration Or ... thanks to its popularity among avocational and vocational fishermen alike.

It takes a while, it takes people and governments and industry taking responsibility to clean up......first you have to admit there is a problem. You haven't when it comes to climate - the rest of te world is moving on to deal with it .....even Exxon.

 

[greybeard]

Lennart Bengtsson's allegations of persecution appear to be falling apart. For one thing he is alleged to have quote mined the claim that he had a paper rejected by a journal because they thought it would be helpful to climate "sceptics" if it were published.

“The decision not to publish had absolutely nothing to do with any ‘activism’ on the part of the reviewers or the journal, as suggested in The Times’ article; the rejection was solely based on the content of the paper not meeting the journal’s high editorial standards, ” she continues.

“The referees selected to review this paper were of the highest calibre and are respected members of the international science community. The comments taken from the referee reports were taken out of context and therefore, in the interests of transparency, we have worked with the reviewers to make the full reports available.”

The full quote actually said “Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

and here

http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/even-editors-are-as-mad-as-hell-at.html

One would hope that the Times will offer a fulsome apology.

 

[AlBell]

Let us see: a meteorologist joins a think tank of mainly economists that is overtly in denial of climate change. His fellow climate scientists point the obvious fact that this does not help his reputation. One is so dubious about this connection that he thinks about withdrawing his co-authorship on a paper.
Big surprise, r-j !

Lennart Bengtsson Joins, Quits Denialist Think Tank, Cries McCarthyism


Ha ha: Lennart Bengtsson leaves advisory board of GWPF


Also note that this "pressure" from his colleagues (i.e. colleagues distancing themselves from a bad decision) somehow forced his resignation within a couple of weeks of the 30 April 2014 announcement that he was joining GWPF.

Or

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/16/Climate-McCarthyism-the-scandal-grows

One of the peer-reviewers reportedly wrote:

‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’

This, Prof Bengtsson told the Times, was "utterly unacceptable" and "an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views."

He added:

‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist.’

The Bengtsson scandal comes at the end of an exceedingly bad week for the cause of climate alarmism. In other news, still further scorn has been poured on the methodology of the Cook et al paper on the "97 per cent consensus."

John Cook is an Australian alarmist who a year ago produced a paper purporting to show that 97 per cent of studies supported the "consensus" on man-made global warming. It was eagerly seized on by the left-wing activists who run President Obama's Twitter account, who gleefully tweeted under the name @barackobama "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous" - with a link to the paper.

But the paper, in fact, showed nothing of the kind. Recently a researcher named Brandon Shollenberger gained access to some of the data used in Cook's paper and found the statistical methodology to be fatally flawed. However, when he raised these points with Cook's employer the University of Queensland he received a stiff lawyer's letter forbidding him from contacting Cook or even making any mention that he had been sent the letter.

Given how often the "97 per cent" consensus figure is quoted by politicians and scientists alike to justify the extreme measures being adopted to "combat climate change", you can well understand why the alarmist establishment is so eager to suppress this inconvenient truth.

Their ability to do so for much longer, however, looks increasingly doubtful. The word is out: establishment climate science is little more than pseudo-science, propped up by bullying political activists, but unsupported by real-world data.

 

[uke2se]

Or

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/16/Climate-McCarthyism-the-scandal-grows

Are you seriously using a Breitbart article in a science forum? Hell, I don't even think that would be accepted in the politics forum.

At least we have another data point for the hypothesis that the Republican party is the Anti-science party.

 

[Trakar]

Lennart Bengtsson's allegations of persecution appear to be falling apart. For one thing he is alleged to have quote mined the claim that he had a paper rejected by a journal because they thought it would be helpful to climate "sceptics" if it were published.



http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

and here

http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/even-editors-are-as-mad-as-hell-at.html

One would hope that the Times will offer a fulsome apology.

If not now, after their lawyers get ahold of them and explain the consequences of public defamation and libel, I'm sure the apology will be much more sincere.

 

[DC]

Or

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/16/Climate-McCarthyism-the-scandal-grows

politicised like medical journals. they are also totally politically motivated they, never publish simplistic false papers that actually show how homeopathic remedies heal cancer and HIV......

and even if cooks paper is wrong, there are still several other studies that show the concencus, and there are several polls among experts that show the concencus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...rveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature

 

[greybeard]

Are you seriously using a Breitbart article in a science forum? Hell, I don't even think that would be accepted in the politics forum.

At least we have another data point for the hypothesis that the Republican party is the Anti-science party.

And penned by James "it is not my job" to read peer reviewed papers, but be "an interpreter of interpretations" Delingpole no less.

 

[DC]

also interesting in the context of Bengtsson's whining.

Alexander Otto on their findings in Otto et al 2013

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/alex-otto-article

 

[lomiller]

Or

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/16/Climate-McCarthyism-the-scandal-grows

If this is the type of source you get your information from it’s no surprise you are misinformed on such a wide variety of topics including this one.

You first quote is still clearly mined and presented out of context. The full text makes it clear the “paper” had a premise that was idiotic and useless for any scientific purpose. Scientific journals are not in the habit publishing political work, they exist to publish science, not political spin.


In the second your “researcher” doesn’t seem to be doing any research. http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as...ation=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Most likely is simply a stalker who and the university is simply protecting its staff from the crazy’s, as it should.

 

[DC]

about the cook paper.

has anyone actually looked into the accusation and the paper? i did not.
but i also do not use it as a source for the concencus, but so many deniers cry about the paper that i wonder if there might actually be flaws in his paper.

 

[CapelDodger]

Are you seriously using a Breitbart article in a science forum?

It's a sceptics site and AlBell shows no hint of that either.

At least we have another data point for the hypothesis that the Republican party is the Anti-science party.

Or, alternatively, the Politics Is Science party.