Global warming discussion III

[CapelDodger]

The Sun defines the climate.

That's all? Just the sun?

That's the gist of it. Who'd have thought it was all so simple?

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

Absolutely, but when someone predicts the onset of rapid cooling soon then we can expect evidence of it in a much shorter period. We're already most of the way through one low-activity solar cycle so that's about eight years gone already. Another five should surely be enough to make it evident if it happens (which it won't, naturally). Haig may think differently, of course, perhaps wanting the full thirty, but then Haig does seem comfortable with much shorter periods when it comes to the mythical Pause.

 

[Belz...]

The Sun defines the climate.

That's all? Just the sun?

Ultimately, yes, as all power comes from the sun. But that's a simplistic and dare I say stupid way to deny climate change.

 

[CapelDodger]

The idea that Little Ice Age conditions would be a serious problem is, of course, utterly risible. When the world entered the last LIA the horse-collar was cutting-edge technology; when it came out we were on the verge of powered flight. In the meantime the human population had grown enormously and vast amounts of sunk capital had been created in our cities, farms, docks, factories, mines and transport systems. It's the 21stCE now. We've been to the Moon and sent robots to Mars. We laugh in the face of global cooling.

Global warming, in contrast, takes us places we've never been before. The LIA didn't make the Indus valley uninhabitable, but global warming might. That's one massive problem right there. Australia might become untenable for all but the black fellas, which is less of a problem but still a problem. That's just off the top of my head, and of course the unknown unknowns are what mess up your day.

If faced with a choice I'd opt for the global cooling myself.

 

[Trakar]

Absolutely, but when someone predicts the onset of rapid cooling soon then we can expect evidence of it in a much shorter period. We're already most of the way through one low-activity solar cycle so that's about eight years gone already. Another five should surely be enough to make it evident if it happens (which it won't, naturally). Haig may think differently, of course, perhaps wanting the full thirty, but then Haig does seem comfortable with much shorter periods when it comes to the mythical Pause.

Not only this, but if I recall correctly, Haig was making this prediction prior to the start of this latest solar cycle. Which means that there has been no pause in warming (with three of the hottest years on record (2005, 2010, 2014)occurring post his warnings of an imminent new ice age), yet alone cooling, in more than 8 years.

If we look at the last 30 years we see nothing but a warming trend in the climate.

 

[bit_pattern]

A novel way of communicating averages using cricket as the analogy

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-...tures-are-batting-above-their-average/6029926

 

[CapelDodger]

A novel way of communicating averages using cricket as the analogyhttp://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-...tures-are-batting-above-their-average/6029926

How very Antipodean . Won't play well in Texas, though.

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

This is why people don't listen to the enviornmental idiots and the alarmist media.

They don't mention statistical significance in the "hottest year on earth". They lie and no one listens to them anywhere.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/holman-jenkins-climate-reportings-hot-mess-1421802468

Among hundreds of publications in the Factiva database, exactly one—the Mail on Sunday, one of those derided London tabloids—injected the phrase “statistically significant” into consideration of whether 2014 was in any meaningful sense the “hottest year on record.”

A nonjournalistic source and not exactly an outfit of climate-change deniers, Berkeley Earth, also noted that, when it comes to 2014 and the other “hottest year” candidates, 2005 and 2010, the observed temperature difference was smaller than the margin of error by a factor of five, adding: “Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year.”

To its credit, the Washington Post alluded to the possibly more important fact that “rising temperatures have not kept pace with computer simulations that predicted even faster warming.”

 

[CapelDodger]

Not only this, but if I recall correctly, Haig was making this prediction prior to the start of this latest solar cycle. Which means that there has been no pause in warming (with three of the hottest years on record (2005, 2010, 2014)occurring post his warnings ofto the an imminent new ice age), yet alone cooling, in more than 8 years.

I too remember Haig bringing us this Project Astronomia stuff years ago, but no idea how many . They start to blur together at my age unless there's something to disinguish them.

We should note that Abdussamatov (and Haig back then) was referring to surface temperatures, not the RSS Lower Troposphere Temperatures that Haig relies on (perhaps unwittingly) for the mythical Pause.

If we look at the last 30 years we see nothing but a warming trend in the climate.

So no surprises there then.

I have a suspicion that, should 2015 turn out to be cooler than 2014, Haig will announce that rapid cooling has at last commenced. That's not a prediction, you understand, just a suspicion.

 

[Reality Check]

I too remember Haig bringing us this Project Astronomia stuff years ago, but no idea how many .

It was almost 4 years ago: Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100? (17th February 2010). That thread also covers Piers Corbyn's long range forecast woo.
ETA: The analysis that showed that a new Maunder Minimum would have little effect on global temperatures was cited to Haig 2 days later.

 

[uke2se]

This is why people don't listen to the enviornmental idiots and the alarmist media.

They don't mention statistical significance in the "hottest year on earth". They lie and no one listens to them anywhere.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/holman-jenkins-climate-reportings-hot-mess-1421802468

Let's say the hottest year is 2005, followed by 2014 and 2010, that still leaves the three hottest years on record within the last 10 years, and it still leaves the fact that the Earth is warming. This is why most climate deniers have abandoned the argument that the warming isn't happening. The argument just don't stand up to basic scrutiny.

My advice to you is that you evolve (trigger warning for conservatives) your argument and start dealing with the fact that denying the warming isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

[CapelDodger]

It was almost 4 years ago: Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100? (17th February 2010). That thread also covers Piers Corbyn's long range forecast woo.

Thanks. Small point : Feb 2010 is almost five years ago. Easy mistake to make in Jan; it was about 2010 that I got the hang of which century I'm in now .

 

[Trakar]

It was almost 4 years ago: Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100? (17th February 2010). That thread also covers Piers Corbyn's long range forecast woo.
ETA: The analysis that showed that a new Maunder Minimum would have little effect on global temperatures was cited to Haig 2 days later.

It may not have been Haig, after a while these arguments all blend together but there were extensive discussions back in 2007/8 about the coming Ice Age in contrast to the reality of being a couple years past the new record warm year in 2005. Could have even been other boards,...it has been a long decade.

 

[bit_pattern]

This is why people don't listen to the enviornmental idiots and the alarmist media.

They don't mention statistical significance in the "hottest year on earth". They lie and no one listens to them anywhere.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/holman-jenkins-climate-reportings-hot-mess-1421802468

Climate scientists rebuff skeptics' arguments against 2014 'warmest year' claim

The skeptics have focused mainly on one table in the temperature report issued on Friday, which explains the uncertainties involved in declaring 2014 the warmest year. The table would appear to indicate that 2014 only has a 38% chance of being the warmest year in NASA's data set, which isn't that convincing at first glance, and a 48% likelihood according to NOAA's data. (Each agency uses slightly different methods of calculating global average surface temperatures.)

Here is how the Daily Mail discussed the temperature record in a story published on Sunday. "The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38% sure this was true." The story portrayed NASA as backing off their claim that 2014 was clearly the warmest year on record according to its data set.

But NASA did no such thing.

NASA and NOAA scientists say they have not changed their tune about 2014, since the data clearly shows that it was most likely the warmest year to date since instrument records began in 1880. Furthermore, they argue that climate skeptics are twisting the meaning of uncertainty ranges and making it seem like there is far less confidence in temperature data than there actually is

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

This week the World economic forum is underway in Davos Switzerland

One of the topics will be tackling climate change denial

1700 private jets are expected to drop off the celebrities

https://agenda.weforum.org/2015/01/mario-molina-climate-change-denial/

.

 

[macdoc]

Tuesday, January 20, 2015 - 5:00pm
Who believes in conspiracy theories?

The moon landing was faked! 9/11 was an inside job! Tupac lives! Conspiracy theories are everywhere. And although most people just chuckle and shake their heads when they hear one, there are others who genuinely believe that aliens were autopsied at a Roswell, New Mexico, Air Force base after a UFO crash in 1947. Now, Pacific Standard reports that a new study finds some people are more susceptible than others to outlandish claims: The research indicates that people who hold more extreme political beliefs are more likely to believe in a conspiracy theory than those with more moderate stances. The scientists suggest that, for some, believing in conspiracy theories is easier than accepting a complex and nuanced version of reality.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sifter/2014/01/who-believes-in-conspiracy-theories

anyone you know AM???

••••••••••

Meanwhile the world warms and steps are taken to ameliorate the underlying cause by responsible people....including those that have leverage.

 

[Trakar]

.

This week the World economic forum is underway in Davos Switzerland

One of the topics will be tackling climate change denial

1700 private jets are expected to drop off the celebrities

https://agenda.weforum.org/2015/01/mario-molina-climate-change-denial/

.

While the general argument is largely specious, it is approaching a time when carbon taxes need to be implemented on jet air travel (with exceptions for carbon-neutral fuelled jets).

Personally, I'd like to see rigid airship alternatives for most long-distance air travel, but that's me.

 

[Mikemcc]

This is why people don't listen to the enviornmental idiots and the alarmist media.

They don't mention statistical significance in the "hottest year on earth". They lie and no one listens to them anywhere.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/holman-jenkins-climate-reportings-hot-mess-1421802468

Emm, actually they did just that at the press conference...

All of gumph that you've linked to comes courtesy of David Rose, writing in the Mail on Sunday. His shenanigans have been covered by Sou on the Hotwhopper blog today:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/01/tricks-used-by-david-rose-denier.html

 

[Trakar]

Emm, actually they did just that at the press conference...

All of gumph that you've linked to comes courtesy of David Rose, writing in the Mail on Sunday. His shenanigans have been covered by Sou on the Hotwhopper blog today:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/01/tricks-used-by-david-rose-denier.html

I love the "...The claim made headlines around the world, but 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."

As if the underlined portion was a big "gotcha" moment! LOL

 

[Reality Check]

.

This week the World economic forum is underway in Davos Switzerland

One of the topics will be tackling climate change denial

1700 private jets are expected to drop off the celebrities

https://agenda.weforum.org/2015/01/mario-molina-climate-change-denial/

.

Can you cite your source for the 1700 private jets, Arnold Martin? And can you list the "celebrities" - does it include Brad Pitt, Arnold Martin ?
There is at least one - William Adams - and we could include the politicians.

Talking about tackling climate change denial which has economic repercussions in an economic forum is sensible. However you link to an interview of Professor Mario Molina

Despite overwhelming evidence, from melting polar ice caps to rising sea levels, many people still deny that climate change is happening. Professor Mario Molina, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on the ozone layer, says that more must be done to help the public understand climate science, before it’s too late.

Professor Molina spoke to us about why it is so important that the public understands the impact of climate change, and what needs to be done to stop catastrophic warming. This is an edited transcript of the interview.

Professor Molina will be on the panel in the Global Science Outlook session and in a conversation with Al Gore in An Insight, an Idea with Mario Molina

A conversation with Nobel Laureate Mario Molina on communicating the science behind climate change.

.