Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[aleCcowaN]

To be fair it isn't the scientists claiming causation, it's the alarmists. GW has been blamed for hundreds of events in the past 20 years, but never proven using science.

Pretty much like evolution, if we prune those "alarmists" and "blamed" in the sentence, unless some specific tincture is intended on evolutionists too.

 

[CapelDodger]

more importantly the closest they come to anyone even remotely qualified to comment on the subject is a noted denialist (Tom Wysmuller - meteorologist) whose only connection to NASA is that he interned at NASA for five years back in the late '60s and early '70s.

Desperate stuff, ain't it ?

The irony is that the denial machine has been belittling NASA as a liberal-haunted hellhole for decades, but these old fogies still claim authority by association and denialists pounce on their silly letter. Perhaps they're all nostalgic for the NASA of old - their days of the Space Race and the Cold War and all the attention astronauts and rocket-scientists used to get.

 

[CapelDodger]

The compiled list of inanities attributed to Global Warming have graced this thread no less than twice.

A third time wouldn't hurt then, would it?

 

[CapelDodger]

This is, in itself, yet another unsupported assertion. Please link to these "inanities,"* and provide your compelling argument and references in support of this qualification (that they are "inanities").

I think Furcifer is referring to a block of text cut from Icecap (no citations or references, just a whole bunch of stuff), but I may be confusing it with one of mhaze's old favourites. It's a long thread, and it's been an even longer journey to these dying days of denialism.

The 49'ers letter refers, of course, to catastrophic climate change, the preferred term for a few years now. The whole point of "catastrophic" is that it's a moveable feast, but by claiming that NASA-sourced projections are catastrophic leaves them flapping in the wind as and when that stuff happens.

I really don't think we're going to get anything specific from the 49'ers. Most will never be heard from again, and a few will start whining into sympathetic ears. That's the usual pattern.

Meanwhile, the Arctic ice-melt season has begun and it looks like being an interesting one.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

 

[CapelDodger]

GW has been blamed for hundreds of events in the past 20 years, but never proven using science.

God is credited with no end of events every damn' year, probably millions a day. The orbit of Jupiter is credited with climate events by some people. Industrial-scale contraception has been credited with every cultural change (real or imagined) of the last century.

What science has predicted since before AGW became a public issue is very much in line with what has happened and continues - none of which, apparently, alarms you. It doesn't alarm me either.

This whole "alarmism" thing escapes me. Predictions of events are alarmist, but the events themselves are no big deal - how does that work? The events are no big deal for me because I took account of the predictions.

 

[Furcifer]

Can you link to this "compiled list of inanities attributed to Global Warming"?

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm


"A"
Afghan poppies destroyed, African holocaust, aged deaths, poppies more potent, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, aggressive weeds, Air France crash, air pockets, air pressure changes, airport farewells virtual, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaskan towns slowly destroyed, Al Qaeda and Taliban Being Helped, allergy increase, allergy season longer, alligators in the Thames, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra lost, Arctic warming (not), a rose by any other name smells of nothing, asteroid strike risk, asthma, Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased

"B"
Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water, bananas grow, barbarisation, bats decline, beer and bread prices to soar, beer better, beer worse, beetle infestation, beef shortage, bet for $10,000, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird loss accelerating, bird populations dying, bird strikes, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds decline (Wales), birds driven north, birds face longer migrations, birds on long migrations threatened, birds return early, birds shrink(Aus), birds shrink (USA), bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blackbirds threatened, Black Hawk down, blizzards, blood contaminated, blue mussels return, borders redrawn, bluetongue, brains shrink, brewers droop, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain one big city, Britain Siberian, Britain's bananas, British monsoon, brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, butterflies move north, butterflies reeling, butterfly saved,

I think I'll stop there.

 

[Furcifer]

These are clear examples of physics and correlation being used to claim causation.

You may want to add chemistry, math and computer science if you're being pedantic

 

[Furcifer]

Can you provide compelling evidence for your assertions that:

a) the planet's field-recognized leading climate researchers are not scientists, but merely "alarmists,"

b) and that none of the evidences and occurences of impact identified by these researchers are related to anthropogenic fossil-fuel emissions and their alteration of radiative balance of our planet?

I've never made any such assertions. The post appears to be a duplicate, you've obviously misquoted me. If you're referring to something in the past please provide proper links.

 

[Furcifer]

What science has predicted since before AGW became a public issue is very much in line with what has happened and continues - none of which, apparently, alarms you. It doesn't alarm me either.

That's because "the science" has predicted such a wide range of events. It's a probability based science so everything is within the range of possible. It's quite possible the 4 feet of hail dropped in west texas is due to AGW. It's also possible without AGW it would have been 6 feet.
There's correlation between AGW and extreme weather events. There's also a correlation between AGW and milder weather events. The correlation does not mean it caused either.

 

[Furcifer]

This whole "alarmism" thing escapes me. Predictions of events are alarmist, but the events themselves are no big deal - how does that work? The events are no big deal for me because I took account of the predictions.

Well like I said in the other post there's a correlation between AGW and every single weather event, and non-event.

The non-events tend to get grossly undereported for obvious reasons. As do the non-alarming events. Bumper crop of corn in the mid-west due to changes in weather conditions in correlation with AGW? Not news worthy. A single crop gets wiped out by hail storm, which is in correlation with AGW, front page news and very quick to report the correlation.

 

[Trakar]

I've never made any such assertions. The post appears to be a duplicate, you've obviously misquoted me. If you're referring to something in the past please provide proper links.

Your intent seems quite clear. When you stated:

Originally Posted by Westwall
Yes, it is well established that farm practices can increase the devestation wrought by weather disasters. Witness the Dust Bowl of the 30's, however, man had nothing to do with the weather event. Climatology is the only science I have ever witnessed that seems to believe correlation equals causation.

It doesn't.

To be fair it isn't the scientists claiming causation, it's the alarmists. GW has been blamed for hundreds of events in the past 20 years, but never proven using science.

You seem to be stating that all of the researchers who have investigated, identified and reported on AGW sourced climate change impact over the last 2 decades (which includes widely acknowledged leaders and the public face of climate science such as David Archer,James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael E. Mann, Raymond Pierrehumbert, Gavin Schmidt, and Spencer Weart, among others) are not scientists and that the impacts they indicate and discuss in detail are neither supported nor causally related to Anthropogenic emissions or the climate changes due to those emissions. If this was not your intent, please clarify and specify your remarks and provide reference and linkage to the climate science sources you and Westwall mention and the statements you intended to qualify as representing exagerated and unwarranted alarm by these sources.

Alarmist n. -
A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alarmist

please note and acknowledge the terms "needlessly," "inventing," "false," and "rumors" as the integral and essential elements of alarmist behavior.

 

[Westwall]

If what you cite is worth the electrons it took to carry it to my screen, how come it is published on a blog instead of in a peer-reviewed science journal?

A quick scan of the retirees who have signed this letter, indicates that not a single individual there is professionally or academically qualified to properly assess, yet alone pass judgement on the climate work of GISS or Dr. Hansen. Most of these people retired from NASA more than 20 years ago. We have a couple of medical doctors, a handful of computer programmers/analysts and couple dozen assorted engineers, and a mathematician. What's so bad, is that this is out of the tens of thousands of engineers and actual field-qualified scientists who have worked for and in association with NASA over the last 50 years.

It's worth the electrons because it puts to rest the warmist meme that the science is settled. Here are 50 scientists with hundreds of years of scientific experience under their belts and they are tired of the unsubstantiated claims being made by the alarmists.

Yours and the other warmists continuing belief that only climatologists are capable of understanding climatology is problematic. Regardless of the religious overtones (think high priests being the only conduit of the Word of God here) there is the simple fact that climatology is not a hard science. As an example, a geologist holding a doctorate, is capable of teaching ANY climatology class with the exception of perhaps the computer classes (and that because the climatologists are using a fairly antiquated language that we no longer use) whereas a climatologist holding the same level of degree is not able to teach a single graduate level geology class I can think of.

This in no way impugns their intellectual capacity, just their levels of education which are of less rigor then the hard sciences. They would be completely lost in a optical crystalography class or even a beginning isotope geology class would be impossible for them to teach.

So, you see Trakar. Many sciences and scientists are quite capable of understanding anything the climatologists will present. We have a much greater foundational understanding of the physical properties of how the world functions.

 

[Furcifer]

You seem to be stating that all of the researchers who have investigated, identified and reported on AGW sourced climate change impact over the last 2 decades (which includes widely acknowledged leaders and the public face of climate science such as David Archer,James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael E. Mann, Raymond Pierrehumbert, Gavin Schmidt, and Spencer Weart, among others) are not scientists and that the impacts they indicate and discuss in detail are neither supported nor causally related to Anthropogenic emissions or the climate changes due to those emissions.

As far as I know they are scientists and I have no reason to believe otherwise. I never said anything to the contrary.
I did however make a generalization that should be clarified. There are some scientific studies showing causation as a direct result of anthropogenic emissions. Unfortunately most claims, most of which are outlined in the list I cited, aren't.

If this was not your intent, please clarify and specify your remarks and provide reference and linkage to the climate science sources you and Westwall mention and the statements you intended to qualify as representing exagerated and unwarranted alarm by these sources.

Of course there are no "climate science sources", as I said it isn't the science making outrageous claims it's the alarmists.

Alarmist n. -
A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alarmist
please note and acknowledge the terms "needlessly," "inventing," "false," and "rumors" as the integral and essential elements of alarmist behavior.

Actually it's the exaggeration.

 

[Trakar]

I think Furcifer is referring to a block of text cut from Icecap (no citations or references, just a whole bunch of stuff), but I may be confusing it with one of mhaze's old favourites.

LOL, don't make me giggle like a school-girl when I'm trying to get my serious on! It ruins the whole effect.

It's a long thread, and it's been an even longer journey to these dying days of denialism.

Movements such as this don't die, they just become increasingly irrelevent and generally ignored, and their remaining supporter/advocates become ever more apparent as detached from reality, mentally decrepit misanthropes which have become the stereotypical trait of most conspiracy movements well past their prime. Look at the 911 "truth" movement, the anti-vaxers and even the Luddites themselves!

The 49'ers letter refers, of course, to catastrophic climate change, the preferred term for a few years now. The whole point of "catastrophic" is that it's a moveable feast, but by claiming that NASA-sourced projections are catastrophic leaves them flapping in the wind as and when that stuff happens.

I really don't think we're going to get anything specific from the 49'ers. Most will never be heard from again, and a few will start whining into sympathetic ears. That's the usual pattern.

As an aside, I fully respect and endorse the choice to label these political think-tank cultivated, letter-writing miscreants and posers - "49'ers" (and it has nothing to do with my being a loyal and boisterous, season-ticket holding fan of the Seahawks since '77 --- well, almost nothing to do with it /american_football-sports-reference). "So let it be written. So let it be done." (.wav file)

Meanwhile, the Arctic ice-melt season has begun and it looks like being an interesting one.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

The NSIDC's "Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate," is a feature I'm slowly coming around to. With their "Impacts" section being especially relevent to the current discussion here.

 

[Trakar]

Pretty much like evolution, if we prune those "alarmists" and "blamed" in the sentence, unless some specific tincture is intended on evolutionists too.

Well, from my perspective the issue is more a matter of trying to frame the issue in the facts and arguments of the seventies and eighties while dismissing or ignoring the realities uncovered and established over the last three decades. I find that for many of these individuals, the luddite example is particularly relevent, and there's even an argument to make in favor of a Watt/Ludd parallel:

The Luddites were a social movement of 19th-century English textile artisans who protested – often by destroying mechanized looms – against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, that replaced them with less skilled, low wage labour, and which they felt were leaving them without work and changing their way of life. Eric Hobsbawm called machine wrecking: "collective bargaining by riot". It had been used in Britain since the Restoration as, due to the scattering of manufactories throughout different regions, large-scale strikes were impractical.[1] The movement was named after General Ned Ludd or King Ludd, a mythical figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

 

[Trakar]

Desperate stuff, ain't it ?

The irony is that the denial machine has been belittling NASA as a liberal-haunted hellhole for decades, but these old fogies still claim authority by association and denialists pounce on their silly letter. Perhaps they're all nostalgic for the NASA of old - their days of the Space Race and the Cold War and all the attention astronauts and rocket-scientists used to get.

Most of them seem to have been largely irrelevent throughout their professional life, and this provides a tincture of the attention they apparently craved and never realized in their pre-retirement careers.

 

[aleCcowaN]

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm


"A"
Afghan poppies destroyed, African holocaust, aged deaths, poppies more potent, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, aggressive weeds, Air France crash, air pockets, air pressure changes, airport farewells virtual, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaskan towns slowly destroyed, Al Qaeda and Taliban Being Helped, allergy increase, allergy season longer, alligators in the Thames, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra lost, Arctic warming (not), a rose by any other name smells of nothing, asteroid strike risk, asthma, Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased

"B"
Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water, bananas grow, barbarisation, bats decline, beer and bread prices to soar, beer better, beer worse, beetle infestation, beef shortage, bet for $10,000, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird loss accelerating, bird populations dying, bird strikes, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds decline (Wales), birds driven north, birds face longer migrations, birds on long migrations threatened, birds return early, birds shrink(Aus), birds shrink (USA), bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blackbirds threatened, Black Hawk down, blizzards, blood contaminated, blue mussels return, borders redrawn, bluetongue, brains shrink, brewers droop, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain one big city, Britain Siberian, Britain's bananas, British monsoon, brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, butterflies move north, butterflies reeling, butterfly saved,

I think I'll stop there.

Wow! Being there such many things -biological and human- that depends or are heavily influenced by climate; being reporters, newspeople, bloggers and spokespersons so prone to exaggerate or make a story or an argument up of any trifle; and being the people who compiled the list so full of animosity and eager to find, how did you call it? "inanities of GW"? and just an 879 grand total?!

It's only just one little list anybody can develop departing from the vacuity of man and the staleness of human business and apply to any subject that "anybody" feel animadversion against.

By the way, this is the first time the list is quoted or mentioned in this thread, isn't it?

 

[Trakar]

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm


"A"
Afghan poppies destroyed,

...link provided (to "printer friendly" version) dead.
Functional link: Freak weather destroys Afghan poppies - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/freak-weather-destroys-afghan-poppies-814072.html
- like most popular press fish-wrap sources, their coverage of science is "wanting" at best. That said, this isn't incredible or improbable, merely poorly referenced and imappropriately cited,...much the same problem evident in this thread by some who seem to be determined not to be trapped into making references where they might have to defend their interpretation

From this article, however, it is a relatively trivial exercise to find the studies upon which this reporter may have based his report:

"GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS" - http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA480984

"The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security
Implications of Global Climate Change" - http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473826

or if you prefer more academic climate field references:

"The Physical Geography of Northern Eurasia" By Maria Shahgedanova
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...s5mbbZLV6h4AF__t1NswD6gNI#v=onepage&q&f=false

"World Map of Natural Hazards – A Global View of the Distribution and Intensity of Significant Exposures" - http://www.springerlink.com/content/q1r3n2760642h37p/

"Afghanistan: Implications of climate change for water resources in the
Kunduz River Basin" - http://www.mercycorps.org.uk/sites/default/files/file1198714955.pdf

"Sustainable agricultural production: Providing an alternative to opium in Afghanistan" - http://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/18274422/Sustainable_agricultural_production.pdf

"How do Poor People Adapt to Weather Variability and Natural Disasters Today?" - http://origin-hdr.undp.org/en/repor...shapiro_barry, webb_patrick, winslow_mark.pdf

and many more that make and support much the same case with respect to AGW climate impacts already occurring and indicated to worsen as climate change progresses. And this is just the first mentioned issue on the political rhetoric cite you linked.

(...)
I think I'll stop there.

If that is the best support you have to offer, you should have probably stopped before you linked to it.

If you have specific items and issues from this listing that you feel better represents what you are referring to, please do link to them specifically and I'll be happy to look into them deeper, but if this mischaracterized portrayal exemplifies your concerns, they neither address the statements of Westwall, or fit your subsequent attributions and are generally irrelevent to the discussion that was occurring.

 

[Westwall]

...link provided (to "printer friendly" version) dead.
Functional link: Freak weather destroys Afghan poppies - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/freak-weather-destroys-afghan-poppies-814072.html
- like most popular press fish-wrap sources, their coverage of science is "wanting" at best. That said, this isn't incredible or improbable, merely poorly referenced and imappropriately cited,...much the same problem evident in this thread by some who seem to be determined not to be trapped into making references where they might have to defend their interpretation

From this article, however, it is a relatively trivial exercise to find the studies upon which this reporter may have based his report:

"GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS" - http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA480984

"The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security
Implications of Global Climate Change" - http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473826

or if you prefer more academic climate field references:

"The Physical Geography of Northern Eurasia" By Maria Shahgedanova
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...s5mbbZLV6h4AF__t1NswD6gNI#v=onepage&q&f=false

"World Map of Natural Hazards – A Global View of the Distribution and Intensity of Significant Exposures" - http://www.springerlink.com/content/q1r3n2760642h37p/

"Afghanistan: Implications of climate change for water resources in the
Kunduz River Basin" - http://www.mercycorps.org.uk/sites/default/files/file1198714955.pdf

"Sustainable agricultural production: Providing an alternative to opium in Afghanistan" - http://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/18274422/Sustainable_agricultural_production.pdf

"How do Poor People Adapt to Weather Variability and Natural Disasters Today?" - http://origin-hdr.undp.org/en/repor...shapiro_barry, webb_patrick, winslow_mark.pdf

and many more that make and support much the same case with respect to AGW climate impacts already occurring and indicated to worsen as climate change progresses. And this is just the first mentioned issue on the political rhetoric cite you linked.



If that is the best support you have to offer, you should have probably stopped before you linked to it.

If you have specific items and issues from this listing that you feel better represents what you are referring to, please do link to them specifically and I'll be happy to look into them deeper, but if this mischaracterized portrayal exemplifies your concerns, they neither address the statements of Westwall, or fit your subsequent attributions and are generally irrelevent to the discussion that was occurring.

I'll just pick on the national Security "study" in this post. It draws heavily on the IPCC report that has been shown to be primarily made up of reports from NGO's and non scientists and was found to have over 30% of it made up of reports that had never even come close to perr review. It is an utter shambles. That particular IPCC report should be tossed in the bin and a new one worked on. One that doesn't draw from biased sources who's primary funding doesn't come from taxpayers.

 

[Trakar]

Wow! Being there such many things -biological and human- that depends or are heavily influenced by climate; being reporters, newspeople, bloggers and spokespersons so prone to exaggerate or make a story or an argument up of any trifle; and being the people who compiled the list so full of animosity and eager to find, how did you call it? "inanities of GW"? and just an 879 grand total?!

It's only just one little list anybody can develop departing from the vacuity of man and the staleness of human business and apply to any subject that "anybody" feel animadversion against.

By the way, this is the first time the list is quoted or mentioned in this thread, isn't it?

Perhaps most important of all, the few issues that I looked into further than the linked site, were neither serious exagerations nor without meritorious academic support and reference, they merely possessed headlines that those predisposed to dismiss and denigrate anything AGW felt were probably indicative of unsupported exaggerations. Apparently there was little or no, actual investigation or research into the facts supporting the stories that they chose to list.