Global warming

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Forgive me I'm just a humble denier

Well, whoopy-do to you for thinking, but my post was about the propagandist effect. Where thinking isn't an issue. You yourself, no doubt unconsciously and you think accidentally, have misspelled "warlarmist", leaving out the "war". That's the combination of letters that triggers an emotional response in the target audience. That's the point. Jeebus, have you never worked in Advertising or related industries?

We here aren't the target audience, propaganda gets short shrift on the JREF Forums, so your explication ain't really necessary.

 

[mhaze]

You, of course, can prove that?

I tell you what, let's see if I can prove you wrong with just one source ...

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181

Oh my ... looks like you are completely wrong.

There is a real problem with the strictness of the presumption that CO2 is the major driver. I suspect at the core the reason for this is historically, a portion of the Greens have never liked industry or its benefits, and also, CO2 is something that can be taxed.

You can't tax the sun, and land use changes are difficult to figure. Co2 is oh so easy to work with. You can't tax cows that belch 9% of the GW, and those pesky dams that produce 4% of the GW.....gosh, the governments own them, and they can't tax themselves. Taxing and regulating CO2 appeals to greens, local governments, state, federal, the UN.

Why, it's a veritable goldmine, just put your brother in law into the carbon offsets business and make a few calls down to Africa or Jakarta. There's a guy down there with a process that emits methane.

The way it works, you tell him to just light a fire on top of that smokestack...then he's converting that potent greenhouse gas, CH4, into the less harmful CO2. And there is this big multiplier that converts a little bit of CH4 into a whole bunch of CO2 "equivalents". So you can make a whole lot of money on that one little smokestack.

Anyone want a few examples?

But once they go down the road of presumption that CO2 is the major driver, logically that becomes a house of cards. Basically, it's a weak argument and a lot of people see it.

Even so, once such an idea becomes politically ingrained - set into law - it's quite difficult to argue against it, whether you are a scientist or an individual. Laws are difficult to change. That's why dissent must be stifled, so the laws can be passed.

I'm reposting this chart, not that I am in agreement with it but it is still a handy look at the IPCC point of view -

 

[mhaze]

Your first example is of someone who works for the a right wing propaganda "think tank" being called out for working for a right wing propaganda "think tank".

The other three come from people who work in right wing propaganda "think tanks".

None of those people strike me as some sort of oppressed scientist. But more as people who work in right wing propaganda "think tanks".

You must be in your first reference talking about ....

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee

So you don't like the Senator. Fine. But...

You can do a little bit better than describing him as someone who works for the a right wing propaganda "think tank" being called out for working for a right wing propaganda "think tank".

I don't think that's accurate or called for. Bad form.

 

[mhaze]

Forgive me I'm just a humble denier

I'm sticking with Global Warming Alarmist. At least with that, someone in Nepal can run it through Google Translate and figure out what us nutcases are talking about.

 

[BobK]

If people feel it necessary to be concerned about temperature you might want to concern yourself with cooling temperature. At least in the US.

People here may not be aware of the fact that during the last 100 years of US records, 40% of the top ten coldest years are within the most recent 30% of the years.

 

[a_unique_person]

There is a real problem with the strictness of the presumption that CO2 is the major driver. I suspect at the core the reason for this is historically, a portion of the Greens have never liked industry or its benefits, and also, CO2 is something that can be taxed.

You could provide some evidence of this, maybe?

 

[varwoche]

I believe your *summary* leaves out quite a bit that is pertinent.

I'm disinterested in this clumsy attempt to shift the goalposts. Let's stick to the topic, that being your false claim that Antarctic ice mass is increasing.

I take your vague post as tacit acknowledgment that your first cite was refuted, seeing as the authors of the study are on record saying that Antarctic ice is in retreat overall. (Please correct me if I've misinterpreted.)

(I also note that Rob Lister has failed to explain his vacuous posturing, no surprise.)

I'm skipping over your second cite because, as has already been demonstrated, we can't rely on CO2 Science's characterization of the study as they are brazen propagandists. If you can provide a reputable cite for this study, I'll gladly take a look.

That takes us to your third cite where it is claimed "the interior of the East Antarctic ice sheet is actually gaining mass". True. But even taking this into account, overall the ice mass is diminishing.

I'll move on to your remaining cites when I have time, hopefully in a day or two.

 

[mhaze]

You could provide some evidence of this, maybe?

Well, think about it. What you don't here is something like this -

(A) "we think that due to a combination of land use changes, brown clouds, soot, agricultural practicies, emissions from cars, coal, oil and natural gas fired powerplants...(yada yada yahda...)the planet may be warming...."

No. You hear

(B1) "CO2 is causing the planet to warm".

The B1 hypothesis is not nearly as rational or defensible as a position as the A. However, it leads to numerous easy to implement taxation and regulation plans, while the first statement does not at all do so.

So I am suggesting that because of the basic weakness of this position, global warmists are led to the "alarmist" position B2, saying essentially...

(B2) "If you don't get with me on CO2 is causing the planet to warm, New York, Florida and Bangladesh will be submerged by the rising sea waters as the icecaps melt".

Now you have a strong position again. By going alarmist?

But this is politics, polemics, and the like. It's not science, right? Now a lot of reasonable people will object to the alarmism. They've seen it before and know what it is.

Can't this destroy whatever integrity may have been in the science?

 

[mhaze]

On a different note.

Wensday here was strange weather. About 8" of rain over 12 hours, and within a 30 mile radius, 7 killed when their cars were swept off roads into the flood currents in normally dry creeks. Six to nine inches of water on roads including freeways. Basically, not smart to be out driving in any vehicle. Many low water crossings and roads impassable.

Global warming?

Nope. Just a normal day. One that represents perhaps 0.5% of all days, and which is seen, including a fatality count from 3-12, once or twice a year. In this case, the remnants of the tropical storm Erin affecting us 200 miles inland.

Not unusual at all. Tragic, yes.

Not global warming.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm disinterested in this clumsy attempt to shift the goalposts.

Not shift the goalposts ... just set the record straight. Good thing the internet has a memory so anyone can go back through this thread and see that you left a lot out of your *summary*.

Let's stick to the topic, that being your false claim that Antarctic ice mass is increasing.

I apologize for being unaware of a report that was published in 2006. Now will you apologize for the global walarmist movement claiming the ice caps were going to melt (or were melting) all those years before that ... when the studies did say that overall antarctic ice mass was increasing? I think my motives in this discussion are pure. I don't think the motives of those who did that are, however.

And by the way, I notice that you completely ignored my questions about the seriousness of the problem. How serious can it be if over the 20,000 years prior to today, the average loss in ice mass in Antarctica was equivalent to a 0.5 mm increase in the sea level each year ... more than the 0.4 mm increase claimed using the GRACE data? I notice you completely ignored my question about how serious the loss of ice could be if it's going to take 750 years to raise the sea level one foot.

I notice that you completely ignored the huge uncertainty in that estimate by the authors own admission. There are uncertainties in that estimate because to make it we still have to make assumptions. Will you acknowledge that?

I notice that you completely ignored my posting a second even more recent reference to a study that claims satellite data shows an overall loss of ice so small that it would take 3800 years to raise the sea level even one foot. If true, is that something to get excited about and pass draconian tax legislation crippling our economy RIGHT NOW???

And I notice you ignoring the articles I posted suggesting there is anything but a consensus amongst climatologists about this issue. Again, will you apologize for Al Gore and the global walarmists who have claimed there is? Somehow, I sort of doubt it.

 

[mhaze]

Not shift the goalposts
I notice that you completely ignored my posting a second even more recent reference to a study that claims satellite data shows an overall loss of ice so small that it would take 3800 years to raise the sea level even one foot. If true, is that something to get excited about and pass draconian tax legislation crippling our economy RIGHT NOW???

And I notice you ignoring the articles I posted suggesting there is anything but a consensus amongst climatologists about this issue. Again, will you apologize for Al Gore and the global walarmists who have claimed there is? Somehow, I sort of doubt it.

It should be possible to present evidence for and against various positions and discuss it without needing to assert that this or that "absolutely proves" an issue, right? I didn't read those papers as clearly showing Antartica was melting - I'd be happy to say they said that if they did. They leaned a little bit in that direction. Is that fair?

On another subject, Hansen talks about the reasons he is an alarmist. I'm not going to except from this and spin it - read it if you like - he comes across as quite sincere in what he believes. But this is not science, it is something quite different...

I believe this type of position taking is completely improper for the head of the NASA division he has, and most certainly, his obvious bias would affect the quality of work coming out of his division. Given the importance of "getting the science right", that simply won't do.

Apparently, his obvious bias has affected the quality of the work.

Therefore, he should resign.

James Hansen replies to the “jesters”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf

​

 

[Rob Lister]

I also note that Rob Lister has failed to explain his vacuous posturing, no surprise.

My post -- thoughtfully submitted, neither exaggerated nor unnatural -- was in response to your vacuous posturing. I stand by it.

 

[CapelDodger]

You, of course, can prove that?

I tell you what, let's see if I can prove you wrong with just one source ...

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181

Apparently not so far :
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Benny_Peiser

On October 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that study was NOT peer-reviewed and was published by American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Peiser's incorrect claims were published in the Financial Post section of the National Post, in a May 17, 2005 commentary authored by Peiser himself.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Benny_Peiser

Oh my ... looks like you are completely wrong.

Oh dear ... looks like you regard the Heartland Institute as a reliable source. Not a great idea given its extreme ideological stance. There's a picture of Al Gore on their home page, which is a strong indication of what that stance is.

 

[CapelDodger]

There is a real problem with the strictness of the presumption that CO2 is the major driver. I suspect at the core the reason for this is historically, a portion of the Greens have never liked industry or its benefits, and also, CO2 is something that can be taxed.

The subject was the scientific consensus that AGW is real and significant. Scientists do not levy taxes, nor are they identical with "the Greens", however that term's defined.

But once they go down the road of presumption that CO2 is the major driver, logically that becomes a house of cards. Basically, it's a weak argument and a lot of people see it.

The scientific basis of AGW is extremely well-established and sound. What scientific basis there is for the anti-AGW argument has been rustled-up recently (there was no call for it before the 80's) and hasn't held up - "It's the Sun", for instance, or "It's cosmic rays", or "It's taxes".

Even so, once such an idea becomes politically ingrained - set into law - it's quite difficult to argue against it, whether you are a scientist or an individual. Laws are difficult to change. That's why dissent must be stifled, so the laws can be passed.

It's a very frightening world you seem to see around you. How you can believe that the scientific consensus on AGW is somehow ingrained in politics, or that politics is ingrained in science, is beyond me. How you see dissent on AGW being stifled also escapes me. The coverage given to the tiny coterie of contrarian scientists and weathermen in the interests of "balance" belies anything of the sort, let alone FoxNews, the editorial board of the WSJ, and the plethora of Institutes and websites being cited on this thread.

I'm reposting this chart, not that I am in agreement with it but it is still a handy look at the IPCC point of view - [URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/142244696b7a46ad59.bmp[/URL]

And worth taking note of. Massively dominant influence in the warming column : CO2. No other credible alternative candidates. Perhaps someone's just yet to come up with one but it seems unlikely.

(Lest anybody be tempted to leap in with "It's water vapour!", water vapour is not a forcing. It's a feedback to other forcings. Forcings are what drive the change; feedbacks determine the extent of the change given the forcings.)

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

The subject was the scientific consensus that AGW is real and significant. Scientists do not levy taxes, nor are they identical with "the Greens", however that term's defined.

We all have seem how this "consensus" is being build. See above

The scientific basis of AGW is extremely well-established and sound. What scientific basis there is for the anti-AGW argument has been rustled-up recently (there was no call for it before the 80's) and hasn't held up - "It's the Sun", for instance, or "It's cosmic rays", or "It's taxes".

The scientific basis of AGW are based in computer models with no predictive value, full of erroneous data and already invalidated (as Lockwood study says in essence). Also, see above.

It's a very frightening world you seem to see around you. How you can believe that the scientific consensus on AGW is somehow ingrained in politics, or that politics is ingrained in science, is beyond me. How you see dissent on AGW being stifled also escapes me. The coverage given to the tiny coterie of contrarian scientists and weathermen in the interests of "balance" belies anything of the sort, let alone FoxNews, the editorial board of the WSJ, and the plethora of Institutes and websites being cited on this thread.

Politics and partisan groups have enormous sums of money dedicated to studies who can confirm AGW. What is interesting is that there are no similar amount of money dedicated to research of methods to control GW or find alternate sources of energy.........there are almost invisible. The majority of the money goes to studies who confirm AGW. This should trigger alert signs, because that's supposed to be proved.

And worth taking note of. Massively dominant influence in the warming column : CO2. No other credible alternative candidates. Perhaps someone's just yet to come up with one but it seems unlikely.

The sun is other credible candidate. Natural forces are other credible candidates. Now take the massively dominat CO2 force and higlight the human produced CO2. That way you can have a clearer picture.

(Lest anybody be tempted to leap in with "It's water vapour!", water vapour is not a forcing. It's a feedback to other forcings. Forcings are what drive the change; feedbacks determine the extent of the change given the forcings.)

And so is CO2, at least in recorded history.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, think about it. What you don't here is something like this -

(A) "we think that due to a combination of land use changes, brown clouds, soot, agricultural practicies, emissions from cars, coal, oil and natural gas fired powerplants...(yada yada yahda...)the planet may be warming...."

No. You hear

(B1) "CO2 is causing the planet to warm".

The B1 hypothesis is not nearly as rational or defensible as a position as the A. However, it leads to numerous easy to implement taxation and regulation plans, while the first statement does not at all do so.

You speak as if the only information a_unique_person (and the rest of us) has to go on is your quote A. In fact we have far more to go on than that - for instance, the chart you provided of the various identified forcings, their estimated influences, and the associated error bars. CO2 is the dominant warming forcing.

You seem to see hear (B2) "There are other influences, so there's nothing special about CO2." A conclusion you might indeed reach if quote A was all you had to go on.

So I am suggesting that because of the basic weakness of this position, global warmists are led to the "alarmist" position B2, saying essentially...

(B2) "If you don't get with me on CO2 is causing the planet to warm, New York, Florida and Bangladesh will be submerged by the rising sea waters as the icecaps melt".

Strictly speaking, that should be B1.1, not B2.

It's reasonable inference that AGW will contribute to the inundation of Florida, East Anglia, and the Nile Delta. It won't be the sole cause but it'll play its part. Just how much and when depends on the rate of CO2 emissions.

Now you have a strong position again. By going alarmist?

Actually, all that stuff about Florida et al is yours, so it's confected alarmism. Which you seem to find comforting, for some reason. Have you considered the possiblilty that the outlook really is alarming?

But this is politics, polemics, and the like. It's not science, right? Now a lot of reasonable people will object to the alarmism. They've seen it before and know what it is.

I know what the science is, and have a very good idea of what the world is like. What the science tells us is pretty alarming when you consider the way the world is. You seem to think that invalidates the science. I don't.

Can't this destroy whatever integrity may have been in the science?

May have been in Science? The triumph, on one small battlefield, of the anti-science movement - to traduce the reputation and honesty of the finest and most admirable intellectual achievement of mankind. Just in your opinion, but I'm sure it's being repeated on many such small battlefields.

Science will win the war because unlike the shysters who've fed your need for comfort in a scary world, Science does have integrity and does seek the truth, not short-term profit by populism. When the dust settles gabble about alarmism and hockeysticks will have all the social cachet of 30's appeasement.

 

[mhaze]

Forcings are what drive the change; feedbacks determine the extent of the change given the forcings.)

You are most welcome to lay out the define the variables, provide ranges for coefficients, and set forth a group of equations that represent what you believe "science tells us" or what you believe is reasonable concerning the workings of feedbacks and forcings.

 

[CapelDodger]

We all have seem how this "consensus" is being build. See above

I've noticed a jerry-built edifice dependent on sky-hooks constructed to house an incredible description of the scientific consensus. Many of us have seen how the scientific consensus has really been created over the last couple of centuries.

The scientific basis of AGW are based in computer models with no predictive value, full of erroneous data and already invalidated (as Lockwood study says in essence). Also, see above.

The scientific foundations of AGW include thermodynamics, quantum physics, and fluid dynamics. That's the sort of theory that is built into physical models, such as the climate models that have performed so well. (Ice-dynamics models have far more to contend with, and have not preformed so well, but there's no shame in that.)

Politics and partisan groups have enormous sums of money dedicated to studies who can confirm AGW. What is interesting is that there are no similar amount of money dedicated to research of methods to control GW or find alternate sources of energy.........there are almost invisible. The majority of the money goes to studies who confirm AGW. This should trigger alert signs, because that's supposed to be proved.

Why hasn't Exxon funded research into AGW? The results could hardly be regarded as tainted since it would have to be rigourously transparent on the "only Nixon could go to China" principle. They're not short of a buck, after all, these "enormous sums of money" you mention are small change to them. (Ten billion operating profit last quarter. Tasty money by any standards, even in dollars.) They're socially concerned enough about truth in science to fund groups that purport to be about just that, so why not a few million for a modelling project? All code and data publicly available, all procedures transparent, a completely hands-off approach. It would put your mind at rest, wouldn't it?

So why not? The cynic in me says that Exxon knows perfectly well what the outcome would be, so instead they leave the science to others and snipe at it by proxy. My other side says ... actually, I don't have another side. It's cynic all the way down.

The sun is other credible candidate.

Directly observed by dedicated satellites for decades and didn't do it. Not credible, unless it has a double that was on the other side of town at the time.

Natural forces are other credible candidates.

No supernatural force would be a credible candidate. CO2 is a natural forcing, solar variation is a natural forcing (been there, watched that, nothing happened), orbital variation is a natural forcing, continental drift is a sloooooooooow natural forcing. "Natural forces" smells of the woo a bit.

Now take the massively dominat CO2 force and higlight the human produced CO2. That way you can have a clearer picture.

The burning of fossil fuel puts more CO2 out there anually than is accumulated in the atmosphere and oceans, so there's not much (if any) room for any other significant contribution.

And so is CO2, at least in recorded history.

What's going on now is not represented in recorded history. It's not represented in history at all, unless a technological civilisation such as ours sprange up way back, did what we've done, and vanished without leaving a trace. Which isn't credible. Even if they were a lot tidier than us they'd have mined out the easy-access minerals and fossil fuels that we found waiting for us.

 

[CapelDodger]

You are most welcome to lay out the define the variables, provide ranges for coefficients, and set forth a group of equations that represent what you believe "science tells us" or what you believe is reasonable concerning the workings of feedbacks and forcings.

Thanks, but I'll pass on that. Suffice to say that I don't find alarming predictions unreasonable per se. I'd have switched accountants more often if I did. I don't demand to know exactly where I stand in the Big Field of Alarm before I move.

Why I'm sharing all this I don't know; the more folk like you there are, the more room on the hill for people like me.

 

[mhaze]

Thanks, but I'll pass on that. Suffice to say that I don't find alarming predictions unreasonable per se. I'd have switched accountants more often if I did. I don't demand to know exactly where I stand in the Big Field of Alarm before I move.

Why I'm sharing all this I don't know; the more folk like you there are, the more room on the hill for people like me.

You might want to send an email to Hansen and tell him you support him, since he has commented he feels pretty alone...