Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reality Check said:
The perversity of deniers - and the "pause" that never was with Tom Peterson
...
Click to expand...
ETA: Had a look at the contents of that article and it is actually a Fox News article staking the deck against valid climate science. We have Judith Curry, John Christy and Roy Spencer quoted with only Tom Karl's replies.
Judith Curry thinks that a better way to cater for biases in instruments is not a "particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on" which is ridiculous. We now have better sea surface temperature datasets! She goes on about existing global sea surface temperature datasets when a point of the paper is that it has a better adjustment of the data in those datasets for changes in how sea surface temperatures were measured! The paper ignores ARGO buoy data because the coverage is not as complete as ship data (especially in the rapidly warming Arctic) and there is no current methodology to compare the two datasets.

Christy and Spencer's personal bias for the satellite data that their careers is based on is not science!
 
Haig said:
You need to stop believing your own b/s ;)
Click to expand...
lomiller's point is that you need to stop mindlessly parroting the "b/s ;)" in ignorant and even deluded web sites such as WUWT.
Use your brains and try to evaluate how reliable your sources are. WUWT is a climate change denial web site run by Anthony Watts who is
Use your brains and try to understand the contents of what you link to. The last link was a rehash of a Fox News article that was obviously biased.
 
Haig said:
Is everyone mindlessly, ignorant and deluded who disagree with the Warmists view RC ...
Click to expand...
No, Haig: It is Anthony Watts and his web site WUWT that has stated ignorance, delusions and lies about climate science.
It is Anthony Watts and his web site WUWT that you are mindlessly citing here.

There are climate scientists who are not ignorant, deluded or lying about climate science. They have different opinions. if they are confident about those opinions and the evidence backing them up then we will see papers in the scientific literature. I look forward to Judith Curry's paper.
ETA: Citing a blog entry stating "I received this several days ago, from an (international) journalist asking for comments, my quick initial reactions provided below" is not good - wait for Judith Curry's considered reactions backed up with evidence. As it is she relies on some dubious opinions
* an opinion by other authors that is about to be posted at a political web site (CATO)!
* an email that contains one lie: "satellite data that shows no trend in the past 16-years or so". The RSS and UAH datasets show a positive trend since 1999. Cherry picking 1998 gives a negative trend for RSS and a small positive trend for UAH as expected.

There are cranks on the internet who churn out ignorant and even deluded videos, e.g. the lawyer Ben Davidson. It is Ben Davidson and his videos that you are mindlessly citing here.
Ben Davidson seems to be a Haig clone :D - he mindlessly cites WUWT!
* Bob Tisdale and Anthony Watts insult the authors with "NOAA/NCDC’s new ‘pause-buster’ paper: a laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data" and go onto on an ignorant and irrelevant rant. There is the uala paranoia about peer review!
* Michaels, Lindzen, Knappenberger insult all of NOAA (:eek:) with "@NOAA ‘s desperate new paper: Is there no global warming ‘hiatus’ after all?"They ignore that the paper actually decreases the long term warming trend!
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
No, Haig: It is Anthony Watts and his web site WUWT that has stated ignorance, delusions and lies about climate science.
It is Anthony Watts and his web site WUWT that you are mindlessly citing here.

There are climate scientists who are not ignorant, deluded of lying about climate science. They just have different opinions. if they are confident about those opinions and the evidence backing then up then we will see papers in the scientific literature. I look forward to Judith Curry's paper.

There are cranks on the internet who churn out ignorant and even deluded videos, e.g. the lawyer Ben Davidson. It is Ben Davidson and his videos that you are mindlessly citing here.
Ben Davidson seems to be a Haig clone :D - he mindlessly cites WUWT!
Click to expand...


Glad to see you value Judith Curry's view's. :)

Like Judith our SO Ben Davidson is also writing a paper to be published soon (on the topic of another thread ) and maybe then you will start to appreciate him too ;)
 
Haig said:
Glad to see you value Judith Curry's view's. :)
Click to expand...
Not her opinions in that specific blog entry - see my ETA:
Reality Check said:
ETA: Citing a blog entry stating "I received this several days ago, from an (international) journalist asking for comments, my quick initial reactions provided below" is not good - wait for Judith Curry's considered reactions backed up with evidence. As it is she relies on some dubious opinions
* an opinion by other authors that is about to be posted at a political web site (CATO)!
* an email that contains one lie: "satellite data that shows no trend in the past 16-years or so". The RSS and UAH datasets show a positive trend since 1999. Cherry picking 1998 gives a negative trend for RSS and a small positive trend for UAH as expected.
Click to expand...

We do not need to see any paper on an irrelevant subject to know that Ben Davidson is ignorant and maybe deluded about climate science, Haig:
I appreciate Ben Davidson as a good example of the many cranks we see on the Internet, some of whom have published papers.
For an example in this forum look up Michael Mozina and his delusion that the Sun has a rigid iron surface/layer based on images of solar flares (mostly hydrogen!), thousands of kilometers above the photosphere (the Sun's surface!) and containing some (0.16%) iron ions heated to > 160,000 K! He managed to get that delusion published in a couple of papers about another crank idea that the Sun contains a neutron star.

ETA: I wonder if Ben Davidson shares this gem I found from Michael Mozina: June 17th, 2005 "I tried and failed for over 20 year to explain the sun's activities using the gas model."
Does Ben Davidson think that global warming does not exist because Ben Davidson has failed for many years to understand climate science and the climate models?
 
Last edited:
acementhead said:
No it does not all melt in the summer. That's what the halfwit Turney thought but he was wrong.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Click to expand...

A quibble about "all" is probably technically accurate, but the minute amount that survives Antarctic summers is generally irrelevant.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html
The Antarctic is almost a geographic opposite of the Arctic, because Antarctica is a land mass surrounded by an ocean. The open ocean allows the forming sea ice to move more freely, resulting in higher drift speeds. However, Antarctic sea ice forms ridges much less often than sea ice in the Arctic. Also, because there is no land boundary to the north, the sea ice is free to float northward into warmer waters where it eventually melts. As a result, almost all of the sea ice that forms during the Antarctic winter melts during the summer. During the winter, up to 18 million square kilometers (6.9 million square miles) of ocean is covered by sea ice, but by the end of summer, only about 3 million square kilometers (1.1 million square miles) of sea ice remain.
Click to expand...
 
Just came across this:

FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

I'm not sure they actually predicted that NYC would be underwater by 2015, but they did show a graphic of NYC being submerged under rising seas. They did make a couple very specific predictions about June 2015 though:
The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)
Click to expand...

One thing they may have gotten right is droughts, as there is a severe drought in California right now. Unfortunately it's mixed in with a lot of other predictions that seem to have failed, so maybe they just got lucky with that one. As psychics know, if you make enough predictions, a few of them are bound to come true.

You can see the video and transcript at the link.
 
Puppycow said:
Just came across this:

FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

I'm not sure they actually predicted that NYC would be underwater by 2015, but they did show a graphic of NYC being submerged under rising seas. They did make a couple very specific predictions about June 2015 though:


One thing they may have gotten right is droughts, as there is a severe drought in California right now. Unfortunately it's mixed in with a lot of other predictions that seem to have failed, so maybe they just got lucky with that one. As psychics know, if you make enough predictions, a few of them are bound to come true.

You can see the video and transcript at the link.
Click to expand...

So they have their viewing audience sending in a bunch of wild predictions with little or no support and produce a compilation montage of such idiocy and then get cold feet and don't air their farce til a year later. Now I suppose we will get to hear how climate science is wrong because some idiot viewers and videographers seven years ago made left field predictions.
 
No science needed for Senator Snowball aka James Inhofe, he got God on his side! I don't know if I should laugh or cry. If this is his basis for denial, no science in the world can change his stance. (See: Evolution.)

http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/12/inhofe-pope-francis-climate-change/

Senator James Inhofe on climate change this morning (June 2015): "God is still up there.
Click to expand...

In 2012, he appeared on a Christian radio program where he said, “The Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.’ My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.” He repeated the “God is still up there” line in his speech at the Climate Conference.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
hgus said:
No science needed for Senator Snowball aka James Inhofe, he got God on his side! I don't know if I should laugh or cry. If this is his basis for denial, no science in the world can change his stance. (See: Evolution.)
Senator James Inhofe on climate change this morning (June 2015): "God is still up there.
Click to expand...
In 2012, he appeared on a Christian radio program where he said, “The Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.’ My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.” He repeated the “God is still up there” line in his speech at the Climate Conference.
Click to expand...
http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/12/inhofe-pope-francis-climate-change/
Click to expand...
The arogant one is Inhofe! Like most hypocrites who use religion improperly, he pretends he knows the mind of God. Surely his God would never allow Mankind to effect global climate.:rolleyes: A person could do any evil they want, just do it in the name of Jesus and it will be justified in the end. Sheesh. The argument is so lame it is beyond ridicule. It's not even a Biblical principle. Quite the opposite. It is actually a sin.

Now there is a Biblical principle that a person can use when talking to fundamentalists such as those in denial of AGW on religious grounds. That is the "good steward" principle. Inhofe knows very well, especially being from Oklahoma, dead center of the devastating "dust bowl" that we still haven't fully recovered from. You might get more traction talking to people influenced by Inhofe by simply pointing that out. Just a suggestion.

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
So they have their viewing audience sending in a bunch of wild predictions with little or no support and produce a compilation montage of such idiocy and then get cold feet and don't air their farce til a year later. Now I suppose we will get to hear how climate science is wrong because some idiot viewers and videographers seven years ago made left field predictions.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the site in question likely counts on its visitors NOT performing any checks outside the conservative "news":rolleyes: sites (in fact, most of the links concerning Earth 2100 in the Newsbusters link refer only refer back to articles for the show that ran on their site. :confused:)

I looked up the show on Google, and the second link was the Wikipedia entry for Earth 2100. According to what was on that page:

- the show ran for 2 hours, not the one that Newsbusters stated,
- and, according to the plot outline, the flooding of NYC does not occur until 2075, not 2015 :o.

On the other hand, the program might have been off concerning the water problems of the Southwest - unfortunately it seems those issues have come a "few" years (like 15) early...:eek:
 
Last edited:
carlvs said:
Not to mention that the site in question likely counts on its visitors NOT performing any checks outside the conservative "news":rolleyes: sites (in fact, most of the links concerning Earth 2100 in the Newsbusters link refer only refer back to articles for the show that ran on their site. :confused:)

I looked up the show on Google, and the second link was the Wikipedia entry for Earth 2100. According to what was on that page:

- the show ran for 2 hours, not the one that Newsbusters stated,
- and, according to the plot outline, the flooding of NYC does not occur until 2075, not 2015 :o.

On the other hand, the program might have been off concerning the water problems of the Southwest - unfortunately it seems those issues have come a "few" years (like 15) early...:eek:
Click to expand...

The ABC website for what I can only describe as a fictitious docudrama that at best uses science as a backdrop does nothing to allay my concern about this ill-considered venture:

The scenarios in Earth 2100 are not a prediction of what will happen but rather a warning about what might happen. They are based on the work of some of the world's top scientists and experts, as well as peer-reviewed articles from publications around the world. These notes are just a glimpse of the wide and diverse sources used to develop this program.

It is important to add that not all of the scientists we interviewed would agree with each specific scenario we present, or with our exact time frame. For example, some experts think that the more catastrophic events we depict would be unlikely to happen before the middle of the 22nd century, while others, like Jared Diamond, think that they could happen much sooner.

Though there is some disagreement about the specifics, there is widespread agreement among the 50-plus experts we spoke to in the course of our 18 months working on this show that if we do not change course in the near future, the collapse of our civilization is a real possibility.

When an insurance company, or an institution like the Pentagon, prepares for future threats, they always develop a worst case scenario -- a sober assessment, based on expert research, of the most serious possible risks. To avoid the worst, they believe, you must plan for it.

This program was developed to show the worst-case scenario for human civilization. Again, we are not saying that these events will happen -- rather, that if we fail to seriously address the complex problems of climate change, resource depletion and overpopulation, they are much more likely to happen.

-- Michael Bicks, Executive Producer

'Earth 2100' Annotated Transcripts

Click here to read Act 1

Click here to read Acts 2 to 6

Click here to read Acts 7 to 12
Click to expand...
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Earth2100/story?id=7736882&page=1

I understand the directorial intention, but I disagree with the methodology applied.
 
Last edited:
As someone living up there, within spitting distance of Scandinavia (well, assuming supersonic spit, anyway;)) I have this to say about global warming: I'm in favour of it :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom