Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

No, it's not. It's the NCDC global average temperature anomaly.

Sorry, typo. It's not.

How about you link to 20 of those "hundreds" of datasets, or withdraw the claim you made about the data I presented?

No, I'm not going to make a research project out of it. Just take the 4 and go back 5 years and that will basically give you 20 data sets.

 

[a_unique_person]

At least we agree here.

Unfortunately whats happening is alarmists are trying to push their pet political projects through and in order to do so they make outrageous claims. They refuse to acknowledge what's actually being done to mitigate the use of fossil fuels and the subsequent emissions. That type of denial is just as bad as any other.

What pet political projects? Which "alarmists"?

 

[Mikemcc]

A new study from James Hansen (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130172611.htm) on the Earths energy budget shows warming despite the recent solar minimum. Models slightly over-estimating mixing into the deep ocean and significantly underestimating the effects of aerosols.

The aerosol finding is actually bad news, because if there is more cooling from them, then there must also be more heating from other factors (such as GHGs) to match the observed temperatures.

 

[Halsu]

You'll find most people engaging in pseudoscience vigorously deny it, I suspect nothing less when it comes to climate science.

That is true - but you're mistaken about WHO are the deniers in this "debate". Claiming supporters of mainstream science denialists is contradictory to the definition of denialism.

There is mainstream science literature about the climate denialism - not denialism by RealClimate, but by the right wing think tanks and the associated "scientists", like (and largely including) the ones writing that "12 scientist" op-ed discussed earlier. You know, folks that attempt to deny the findings of mainstream science. The fact that you constantly echo their arguments here rises the question whether that label applies to you too.

In the other hand, RealClimate.org has in example won the Scientific American's Science & Technology Web Award, and is cited at Science and Nature web sites. Based on this alone, it should be rather obvious that it's not a pseudoscience or denialist web site.

Example from Nature's news blog:
"For a decent run down of what’s actually in doubt with the IPCC and what’s not, head over to Real Climate."

RealCrapScience.com has been shown to be a pseudoscientific website.

No it has not. Repeating your claim does not make it true, regardless of iterations. Provide evidence or retract your claim, thank you.

Nonsense. You continue to make the same comprehension error.

Maybe you could elaborate what you mean by "articles on the front page" if you do not mean the articles on the front page??

I don't read pseudoscience websites. Sorry.

Good for you. That doesn't relate to the discussion about RealClimate though, as it is not a pseudoscience site.

You're just moving the goal posts anyways. RealCrapClimate.com claims to avoid the politics and keep to the science (presumably because they know saying otherwise would make them easily identifiable as purveyors of pseudoscience) and yet they clearly don't. It's as simple as that.

Provide evidence for your claim or retract it, thanks.

 

[Furcifer]

What "pet political projects" be specific.

What "outrageous claims", again be specific.

Cap and trade, carbon credits, solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, ethanol, biomass etc. etc.

Here's a nice compiled list of 100 Things Blamed on Global Warming.

Of those try and find published peer reviewed science that has conclusively determined anthropogenic climate change is responsible. Feel free to RealCrapClimate.com, I'm sure this is right up their alley.

 

[Furcifer]

Yes you did by continuing with your <snip> that RealClimate.com is commenting on pseudoscience. It is commenting on climate sceince.

As has been shown quite conclusively, they purport to comment on climate science but they're actually a pseudoscientific website pushing political garbage. (which just happens to keep the interest and the funds flowing )

Nonsense. You continue to make the same comprehension error so I will make it simpler for you.
This is what you wrote on 17 January 2012:
"I've checked in the past few days and there are more political articles on the front page of RealCrapScience.com than science"

Yes, and clearly "the front page" does not mean "the entire website" as you continue to erroneously claim.

Here are the articles that have been written in the last 2 months on RealClimate.com and could have appeared on the front page this year. The ones in bold are the 5 that should have been on the front page on 17 January 2012.
Can you pick out the political articles that you saw on the front page "in the last few days", e.g 17, 16 and 15 January 2012?
The AR4 attribution statement
“Vision Prize”, an online poll of scientists about climate risk
The dog is the weather (17 January 2012)
Open Climate 101 Online (16 January 2012)
An online model of methane in the atmosphere (11 January 2012 )
An Arctic methane worst-case scenario (7 January 2012)
Much ado about methane (4 January 2012)
Unforced variations: Jan 2012 (2 January 2012)
Recycling (24 December 2011)
Copernicus and Arrhenius: Physics Then and Physics Today 21 December 2011)
Climate cynicism at the Santa Fe conference (19 December 2011)
Curve-fitting and natural cycles: The best part (15 December 2011)
AGU 2011: Day 5 and wrap-up (11 December 2011)
AGU Days 3&4 (9 December 2011)
AGU 2011: Day 2 (7 December 2011)
Global Temperature News (6 December 2011)
AGU 2011: Day 1 (6 December 2011)
Unforced variations: Dec 2011 (1 December 2011)
Ice age constraints on climate sensitivity (28 November 2011)
Two-year old turkey (22 November 2011)

On my web browser there's only 3 articles on the front page. So look for the day with 2 politically motivated articles and that must have been the day.

RealClimate.com[/URL] is not a pseudoscience website. But that is obvious to anyone who can read and knows what pseudoscience means.

You mean "oblivious"

From the wiki article:

The term pseudoscience is often considered inherently pejorative, because it suggests that something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience normally dispute the characterization.​

This has been proven demonstrably true.

P.S.
Can you link to the"irrefutable evidence" that has been cited? Can you list the more than 7 articles that clearly violate their "memorandum"?
First asked 30 January 2012

I can and I have.

 

[Megalodon]

Sorry, typo. It's not.

Why would it be? I indicated the source of the data.

No, I'm not going to make a research project out of it.

So you don't have "hundreds" of datasets of global temperature observations. I knew that, but it's nice to read it...

Just take the 4 and go back 5 years and that will basically give you 20 data sets.

You realize that this phrase makes no sense, don't you? An observational dataset will not change if I "go back 5 years".

 

[Furcifer]

That is true - but you're mistaken about WHO are the deniers in this "debate". Claiming supporters of mainstream science denialists is contradictory to the definition of denialism.

Most people don't understand the nature of climate science. They don't realize it's a relatively new and poorly understood science. They don't know or realize that it's a statical analysis with no right or wrong answer. Denialism as it pertains to climate science is the refusal to acknowledge these basic principles.

There is mainstream science literature about the climate denialism - not denialism by RealClimate, but by the right wing think tanks and the associated "scientists", like (and largely including) the ones writing that "12 scientist" op-ed discussed earlier. You know, folks that attempt to deny the findings of mainstream science. The fact that you constantly echo their arguments here rises the question whether that label applies to you too.

You're confusing "deny" and "refute".

In the other hand, RealClimate.org has in example won the Scientific American's Science & Technology Web Award, and is cited at Science and Nature web sites. Based on this alone, it should be rather obvious that it's not a pseudoscience or denialist web site.

I doubt if you have any idea what the criteria was for winning any of those awards. Watts' site has a bunch as well, I don't know how they got them so they're meaningless to me. Awards do not speak to the pseudoscientific or denialist nature of the website and those that post their. (unless that's specifically what the awards are for)

Example from Nature's news blog:
"For a decent run down of what’s actually in doubt with the IPCC and what’s not, head over to Real Climate."

Or you can avoid the politics and pseudoscience altogether and pick up a journal.

No it has not. Repeating your claim does not make it true, regardless of iterations. Provide evidence or retract your claim, thank you.

The evidence of the political garbage and pseudoscietific nonsense at RealCrapClimate.com has been cited. It's irrefutable; RealCrapClimate.com claims to avoid the political implications of the science but in fact they routinely engage in just such discussions. They claim not to because they know doing so is clearly pseudoscientific!

Maybe you could elaborate what you mean by "articles on the front page" if you do not mean the articles on the front page??

Type RealCrapClimate.com and click on the link, the page that appears will be the front page.

Good for you. That doesn't relate to the discussion about RealClimate though, as it is not a pseudoscience site.

The term pseudoscience is often considered inherently pejorative, because it suggests that something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science.[9] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience normally dispute the characterization.​

Provide evidence for your claim or retract it, thanks.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/keystone-xl-game-over/

Yeah, that's all about climate science and totally avoids the political and economic implications

 

[Furcifer]

Wrong. There is a statistialyt significant trend of ~0.17 deg per decade from the late 70's onward.

No there isn't. And why are we talking about the late 70's? Oh that's right, it was specifically chosen to show the greatest amount of warming possible.

Also wrong, but that's what'll happen when you make blind assertions without ever having read the literature as you are doing. The match between models and measurements is well within the error bands.

Nonsense. Anyone who has read any recent climate science literature knows this is the furthest thing from the truth. This is probably one of the most talked about problems in climate science today.

 

[BenBurch]

I keep reminding myself that weather is not climate, but wow; the Chicago area has seemingly escaped having a real winter.

It's the last day of January and it's 54 and sunny, expected to reach 60.

And we have had above-average temperatures and below-average snowfall all season.

So, every time somebody looks at a blizzard and declared AGW dead, remember that weather cuts both ways.

 

[Furcifer]

I keep reminding myself that weather is not climate, but wow; the Chicago area has seemingly escaped having a real winter.

It's the last day of January and it's 54 and sunny, expected to reach 60.

And we have had above-average temperatures and below-average snowfall all season.

So, every time somebody looks at a blizzard and declared AGW dead, remember that weather cuts both ways.

We've had little snowfall and it's been pretty warm here in South Western Ontario. That being said Alaska and Northern Canada have been rocked by some of the coldest temperatures on record. From what I understand the global average so far this year has been relatively low and on pace to be the lowest in quite some time.

 

[Furcifer]

Why would it be? I indicated the source of the data.

What does the source of the data have to do with my typing "is" when I meant "isn't"?

So you don't have "hundreds" of datasets of global temperature observations. I knew that, but it's nice to read it...

I can produce them or I can Google them. I'm not about to just to feed your whimsy however. For what purpose? As far as I can tell you're just holding up hoops.

You realize that this phrase makes no sense, don't you? An observational dataset will not change if I "go back 5 years".

*sigh

1970-2010
1969-2009
1968-2008
1967-2007
1966-2006

Magic, 5 data sets all from one data set 1966-2011. It makes perfect sense if you're familiar with how the data is being "massaged".

 

[CapelDodger]

Unfortunately it was, in the late 90's I was an alarmist. I was mislead just as many are now being mislead. It takes one to know one as they say.

You say so, but you can hardly expect anybody to believe you. As to being misled in the 90's, the 2000's were warmer than the 90's, Arctic Ice and glacier extents and volumes have fallen dramatically, plants and animals are found in new ranges now due to warming, sea-level has continued to rise, and extreme weather events have become more frequent. There is no evidence in there that anybody was "misled" back in the 90's except the deniers, who are still at it.

What alarming thing is it that you foresaw in the 90's which hasn't happened?

Actually it hasn't. It's impossible to tell if it's gotten warmer since 2008. That's a well known limitation of climate science.

Every year since 2008 has been warmer so it's extremely easy to see that the world has warmed.

The reason 2008 saw an increase in "we've entered a long-term cooling phase" statements is that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000 and still-hopeful deniers thought that they were about to be vindicated as the unknown natural forcing behind global warming had switched phase. Which it could if it existed - since we don't know what it is, we certainly can't say that it wouldn't.

The unknown natural forcing doesn't exist, of course, but deniers will keep hoping for one.

Nonsense. As I mentioned I was a mislead alarmist 10years ago. Obviously I've changed. I have no doubt that in 10years time many of the alarmists here will change their tune as well.

What changed your mind? And what might change it again?

Opinions, much like the climate aren't static.

Some people's are. Consider Singer, Lindzen, Soon, Spencer, de Freitas. They've denied any environmental threat throughout their public careers. When it comes to AGW they denied that warming would happen, then they denied that it is happening, then they denied that it was anthropgenic, and all the while have been saying that it's a good thing anyway and that all the mainstream scientists involved are commies and/or frauds.

Is it exposure to their kind of contribution that has changed your opinion?

A pejorative label for the lazy and ignorant. No more so than "alarmist".

A descriptive term for a well-recognised phaenomenon.

Let the denialism begin. As I mentioned "takes one to know one".

Are you denying that the WSJ op-ed is complete and predictable garbage?

Sure. RealCrapClimate.com is the biggest fraud on the internet when it comes to climate science. Just admit to the politics and move on, real scientists will applaud them.

There is no politics on http://www.realclimate.org/. You know that because you must surely have looked for some, and anybody can read the site for themselves, so what on Earth do you expect to achieve by these "'Tis so!" responses?

Try reconsidering your opinion of http://www.realclimate.org/. You're open to that, aren't you? Ask yourself where you got that opinion from in the first place. Was it at WattsUpMyButt (which you once described as a good place to find real science : I realise your opinion on that has changed). Or was it from reading a http://www.realclimate.org/ political post? In either case, do you recall what the political issue was?

Just one example would be good. What about http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/the-ar4-attribution-statement/? Or maybe http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/the-vision-prize/ - that's about a poll, and polls are political. Then there's http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/the-dog-is-the-weather/, which has dogs in it. Not political dogs, of course, they leave that sort of thing to cats, but dogs are always good.

Just one example is all we ask. We know your opinion by now.

 

[a_unique_person]

Cap and trade, carbon credits, solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, ethanol, biomass etc. etc.

Here's a nice compiled list of 100 Things Blamed on Global Warming.

Of those try and find published peer reviewed science that has conclusively determined anthropogenic climate change is responsible. Feel free to RealCrapClimate.com, I'm sure this is right up their alley.

Are you claiming that the evidence for AGW in that list is wrong, or that you can't believe 100 things could be blamed on global warming. Remember, this is a global phenomena, the globe is a big place, every biological system has one of it's key inputs the climate, and the biological components of the system it lives in that are also dependent on climate. The first story tells you why climate is affecting forests. Insects that are constrained by the cold to warmer areas can now feed on forests that have no defence to them as the temperatures warm. Whole areas of the US now sustain crops that they couldn't sustain before due to warming. Why wouldn't insects pests and other species also not be able to move?

 

[CapelDodger]

So you don't have "hundreds" of datasets of global temperature observations. I knew that, but it's nice to read it...

Obviously Furcifer imagines these exist, as if everybody and his dog is recording temperature data all across the world and calculating their own global temperature time-series. While I'm sure there are more series than the Big Four it doesn't run into dozens, let alone hundreds, and they'll use much the same data. If any of them showed anything markedly different from the usual ones, and in a cooler sense, we'd all have heard a great deal about it. We've heard plenty about UAH, after all (I hear UAH is back in the shop yet again for tuning after performance dropping off recently : it's no wonder they can never get the method and code used ready for release).

You realize that this phrase makes no sense, don't you? An observational dataset will not change if I "go back 5 years".

Furcifer would like to go back 5 years, I'm sure, <snip> The 2000's were sooooooooo much more denier-friendly than the 2010's are shaping up to be. They couldn't have asked for better - a serious warm outlier in 1998 to set a "no warming since" mark and a decade ending with La Nina conditions and a very quiet Sun. It's not surpising they'd like to stay there.

2011 seems to have tempted them out, what with yet more La Nina conditions, but that isn't going to last for ever and (for what it's worth) solar activity is ramping up for the next few years. I'm looking forward to the graphs .

 

[lomiller]

Cap and trade, carbon credits, solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal

LoL so in otehr words initiative tio stop global warmign are all "pet political projects" in your mind. Well, ocne again yopu are wrong.

Here's a nice compiled list of 100 Things Blamed on Global Warming.

So you accuse reputable scientists of being denialists, accuse just about everyone of sponsoring "pet political projects and your support for these claims is a far right political web site...


<snip>

 

[lomiller]

No there isn't. And why are we talking about the late 70's?

Because it's statistically significant

Oh that's right, it was specifically chosen to show the greatest amount of warming possible.

No it was shown because it's statistically significant and represents the current trend. the fact that it's also the largest just means the problem is getting worse.

Nonsense. Anyone who has read any recent climate science literature knows this is the furthest thing from the truth. This is probably one of the most talked about problems in climate science today.[/QUOTE

The cite a recent paper form a high profile journal (Science, Nature, PNAS) discussing this.

The fact is that your claim that there is disagreement between model and measurements of global temperature has NO basis in the published literature any everyone conversant with the published literature knows this. But since it's your claim you need to do the research to support it, not that you will as on this very page you declined to provide evidence for your claims "because it was too much research"

 

[CapelDodger]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/keystone-xl-game-over/

Yeah, that's all about climate science and totally avoids the political and economic implications

And so it does. You did read past the headline, didn't you?

The post is prompted by Bill McKibben's statment, following on from something Hansen has said regarding Canadian tar-sands, that the pipeline is “the fuse to biggest carbon bomb on the planet.” It then rationally discusses whether the tar-sands are really that significant, concluding with

"So the pipeline itself is really just a skirmish in the battle to protect climate, and if the pipeline gets built despite Bill McKibben’s dedicated army of protesters, that does not mean in and of itself that it’s “game over” for holding warming to 2C. Further, if we do hit a trillion tonnes, it may be “game-over” for holding warming to 2C (apart from praying for low climate sensitivity), but it’s not “game-over” for avoiding the second trillion tonnes, which would bring the likely warming up to 4C. The fight over Keystone XL may be only a skirmish, but for those (like the fellow in this arresting photo ) who seek to limit global warming, it is an important one. It may be too late to halt existing oil sands projects, but the exploitation of this carbon pool has just barely begun. If the Keystone XL pipeline is built, it surely smooths the way for further expansions of the market for oil sands crude. Turning down XL, in contrast, draws a line in the oil sands, and affirms the principle that this carbon shall not pass into the atmosphere."

Fair and balanced, wouldn't you say?

 

[CapelDodger]

This makes no sense. I never said it shouldn't be included, I said alarmists were desperate to include it because they need desperately to be "significant". (It's a bit of a double entendre)

Nobody had to desperately want 2010 to happen, nor 2011. You, it seems, want to cling onto 2009 because that's the last time warming since 1995 wasn't statistically significant (at 93%, not 95%). That fact apparently means more to you than what's actually been going on since.

You're claim I "know nothing about statistics" is just foolish.

It's based on evidence. You don't have a clue what statistical significance is. That's pretty basic ignorance of the subject.

The "no statistical significance" over a period short enough that statistical significance was almost impossible to obtain, but still hit 93%, was not going to last out 2010 unless 2010 was ridiculously cold. One year's extra data was going to fill out that 2%. That's why the "nos statistical significance" claim meant nothing except its propagand value - since it was immediately repeated as no warming at all through all the usual media, particularly Murdoch's but not confined to his.

I suspect everyone knows something about statistics.

<snip> Consider Las Vegas and think about that again.

I lost any capacity to be boggled long ago.

Incorrect. It was Phil Jones.

It was not Phil Jones who asked the question, and it was not Phil Jones who worked out that warming in 1995-2009 was only 93% significant and therefore not statistically significant. It was Motl who went back to find how far he could go and still make that claim, then it hit the echo-chamber (mostly as "no warming", as intended), and then Phil Jones and other normals heard about it and confirmed the math.

Then came the ambush question, and we know what's followed. The echoes will never quite fade.

I don't know who Motl is or what you're talking about. This specific quote is from Phil Jones. I have no doubt deniers take it out of context.

I haven't referred to Phil Jones's answer - the validity of that isn't in question. What I've referred to is where the question came from in the first place, and that is Motl. He's proud of it. This isn't news.

Motl is a potty-mouthed string-theorist from Central Europe who has a line in invective against climate scientists and all their commie brethren that has to be seen to be believed. Not surprisingly, he's good at math and he does understand statistical significance. Google him, or search on any AGW-oriented website.

 

[CapelDodger]

Here's a nice compiled list of 100 Things Blamed on Global Warming.

Which do you think have been blamed by anybody credible?

Of those try and find published peer reviewed science that has conclusively determined anthropogenic climate change is responsible. Feel free to RealCrapClimate.com, I'm sure this is right up their alley.

"Conclusively determined", there's a comfort for you. Just as ten years data will never show statistically significant warming (another comfort for you), direct impacts of AGW will never be conclusively demonstrated in everybody's opinion.