Who here is a global warming skeptic?

[andrewcellini]

Discussing a topic out of general interest is a valid reason to join in.

do you really think it is reasonable to hold a "discussion" where every participant is merely restating beliefs? where is the progress? that is, how can you expect people to understand how you came to your conclusions and reasonably consider them other than for readers to assume they were synthesized from your back end?

Edited December 23, 2015 by andrewcellini

[Phi for All]

I really have to object to this Phi.

 

It's a cynical, negative opinion, also based on anecdotes from within the industry. I couched it that way, it's the way I feel, and it certainly isn't aimed at anyone farther down the industry ladder than the decision-makers at the top who spent so much on misinformation, and suppression of related technology that threatened profits.

 

I ask the question of the young people here involved because I find many such are ignoring the science because it clashes with what they were raised to believe by parents in the industry. It's a valid line of questioning, imo, since it could help explain so much of the denial.

 

And lastly, please don't strawman me, Ophi. I never said I was anti-oil, don't believe in plastic. I'm anti-sleazy practices. Oil isn't alone in this, but they are a big part of the topic here. You had to really go out of your way to deny me a voice in this, but I don't for one second believe my use of oil products means I'm not allowed to criticize their questionable practices. Shame on you for suggesting that.

 

Should I stop criticizing President Clinton for the 1996 Telecommunications Act? I voted for him, after all.

[Shelagh]

Dec. 18, 2015

 

The new NASA study argues that smog and other aerosols and climate drivers do not necessarily behave like carbon dioxide, which is uniformly spread throughout the globe and produces a consistent temperature response; rather, each climate driver has a particular set of conditions that affects the temperature response of Earth.

 

NASA Study: Examination of Earth's Recent History Key to Predicting Global Temperatures

 

Estimates of future global temperatures based on recent observations must account for the differing characteristics of each important driver of recent climate change, according to a new NASA study published Dec. 14 in the journal Nature Climate Change.

 

To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth. Both values are projected global mean surface temperature changes in response to doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations but on different timescales. TCR is characteristic of short-term predictions, up to a century out, while ECS looks centuries further into the future, when the entire climate system has reached equilibrium and temperatures have stabilized.

 

There have been many attempts to determine TCR and ECS values based on the history of temperature changes over the last 150 years and the measurements of important climate drivers, such as carbon dioxide. As part of that calculation, researchers have relied on simplifying assumptions when accounting for the temperature impacts of climate drivers other than carbon dioxide, such as tiny particles in the atmosphere known as aerosols, for example. It is well known that aerosols such as those emitted in volcanic eruptions act to cool Earth, at least temporarily, by reflecting solar radiation away from the planet. In a similar fashion, land use changes such as deforestation in northern latitudes result in bare land that increases reflected sunlight.

 

But the assumptions made to account for these drivers are too simplistic and result in incorrect estimates of TCR and ECS, said climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York and a co-author on the study. "The problem with that approach is that it falls way short of capturing the individual regional impacts of each of those variables," he said, adding that only within the last ten years has there been enough available data on aerosols to abandon the simple assumption and instead attempt detailed calculations.

 

In a NASA first, researchers at GISS accomplished such a feat as they calculated the temperature impact of each of these variables--greenhouse gases, natural and manmade aerosols, ozone concentrations, and land use changes--based on historical observations from 1850 to 2005 using a massive ensemble of computer simulations. Analysis of the results showed that these climate drivers do not necessarily behave like carbon dioxide, which is uniformly spread throughout the globe and produces a consistent temperature response; rather, each climate driver has a particular set of conditions that affects the temperature response of Earth.

 

The new calculations reveal their complexity, said Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper's lead author. "Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling," she said. "They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution. Theres more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes."

 

Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere, predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be. This means that Earth's climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide--or atmospheric carbon dioxide's capacity to affect temperature change--has been underestimated, according to the study. The result dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7° C); the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the estimate at 1.8°F (1.0°C).

 

If you've got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you're systematically underestimating what's going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver, Schmidt said. http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/earths-recent-history-key-to-predicting-global-temperatures

So NASA is trying to kill two birds with one stone. Predictions of global temperature rises that were not met have been explained away as based on too simplistic a model that did not incorporate all the data. A new, more complex model incorporates data not included in the earlier, simpler model. Climate drivers other than CO2 have been added for the new calculations. These non-CO2 drivers have a cooling effect that accounts for the difference in the predicted, global temperatures and the actual temperatures.

 

Future predictions will be based on the new, complex model with the implication that those predictions might have to be adjusted if they prove to be as inaccurate as the present predictions.

[andrewcellini]

So NASA is trying to kill two birds with one stone. Predictions of global temperature rises that were not met have been explained away as based on too simplistic a model that did not incorporate all the data. A new, more complex model incorporates data not included in the earlier, simpler model. Climate drivers other than CO2 have been added for the new calculations. These non-CO2 drivers have a cooling effect that accounts for the difference in the predicted, global temperatures and the actual temperatures.

 

Future predictions will be based on the new, complex model with the implication that those predictions might have to be adjusted if they prove to be as inaccurate as the present predictions.

from what you've quoted:

"This means that Earth's climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide--or atmospheric carbon dioxide's capacity to affect temperature change--has been underestimated, according to the study"

 

and:

"Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling," she said. "They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution. Theres more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes."

 

and:

"Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere"

 

one more:

"The result dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7° C); the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the estimate at 1.8°F (1.0°C)."

 

this is outside of what i study and i am open to correction but it seems this article you've quoted is saying that the average surface temperature change on a 20 year time scale (that is the time scale according to the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity ) is worse than previously thought; it's increasing at a faster rate.

Edited December 24, 2015 by andrewcellini

[swansont]

So NASA is trying to kill two birds with one stone. Predictions of global temperature rises that were not met have been explained away as based on too simplistic a model that did not incorporate all the data.

To which predictions are you referring?

[Strange]

this is outside of what i study and i am open to correction but it seems this article you've quoted is saying that the average surface temperature change on a 20 year time scale (that is the time scale according to the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity ) is worse than previously thought; it's increasing at a faster rate.

 

That was my interpretation too, but I assumed I had misunderstood it ...

[Shelagh]

To which predictions are you referring?

But the assumptions made to account for these drivers are too simplistic and result in incorrect estimates of TCR and ECS, said climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York and a co-author on the study

By the way, the clue is in the title: NASA Study: Examination of Earth's Recent History Key to Predicting Global Temperatures

[Strange]

But the assumptions made to account for these drivers are too simplistic and result in incorrect estimates of TCR and ECS, said climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York and a co-author on the study

 

Why do you think it is a bad thing that one source of inaccuracies in the models has been identified and taken into account?

 

Isn't it good that the incorrect (too large, apparently) estimates are being corrected?

 

 

By the way, the clue is in the title: NASA Study: Examination of Earth's Recent History Key to Predicting Global Temperatures

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this rather cryptic comment. The title simply refers to the fact that it is only recently that sufficient data on the effects of aerosols have become available. I assume this is a combination of technology (more samples taken more accurately in more places, the use of satellites, etc) plus just having enough data to analyse meaningfully.

 

It is not clear why you think this is a Bad Thing.

[Shelagh]

Tropospheric aerosols are thought to cause a significant direct and indirect climate forcing, but the magnitude of this forcing remains highly uncertain because of poor knowledge of global aerosol characteristics and their temporal changes. The standard long-term global NOAA product, the one-channel AVHRR aerosol optical thickness over the ocean, relies on a single predefined aerosol model and can be inaccurate in many cases. TOMS data can be used to detect absorbing aerosols over land, but are insensitive to aerosols located below 1 km. It is thus clear that innovative approaches must be employed in order to extract a more quantitative and accurate aerosol climatology from available satellite and other measurements, thereby enabling more reliable estimates of the direct and indirect aerosol forcings. http://gacp.giss.nasa.gov

[Strange]

And ... ?

 

Models are getting better as we learn more. So you should be getting increasingly confident in the science, if that was your main concern.

[Shelagh]

Too much uncertainty.

[ajb]

Too much uncertainty.

Well, it seems that something like 97% of climate scientists (and similar) have reached a consensus that the planet is warming and that this is due to human activity. There maybe some room here for details on the rate, the change in average temperature and so on, but the general trend is now considered established science.

 

However, it is quite possible that some evidence could come forward and these people would change their minds.

 

That said, the chance that the remaining 3% have some great evidence up their sleeve is dwindling.

 

 

Irrespective of climate change, we have some great challenges ahead with pollution and finding reliable sources of energy. So, even if climate change is a hoax, we still need to address our energy problems.

Edited December 24, 2015 by ajb

[Strange]

Too much uncertainty.

 

Can you quantify that? How much uncertainty is there, and how much would be acceptable?

 

And regarding your posts where you quote improvements to the detail in the models, does that reassure you that the models are improving?

[Ophiolite]

Too much uncertainty.

Much less uncertainty than there is in regard to planetary formation theory. I note you have continued to disregard my question on that matter. This is the third or fourth time I have raised it. Will you respond now please, or opt for being impolite?

[puppypower]

One of the political deception strategies behind global warming, is the earth has indeed warmed slightly over the past century. However, this observation does not logically imply, that this warming is due to man. These are two separate issues.

 

There are plenty of examples of natural global warming in nature. For example, the earth warmed, all by itself, from the last ice age, with glaciers melting over thousands of miles. What we see today, in glacier melt, is chump change. The earth was not destroyed, as though that mantra, is even possible. That mantra, with consensus science support, shows political science, without precedent.

 

On the other hand, man made , even if true, for the sake of argument, is unique to the present time and has no historical precedent like natural warming. We do not even know, with 100% certainty, if this is even possible, based on historical precedent. On the other hand, a natural reason for global warming has all kinds of hard data to support it, while man made is based on the opinion of a consensus using models that do not even agree, 100%. That is irrational.

 

Science is not supposed to run by consensus of opinion, but by hard data. Show me where in the scientific method, science is supposed to done by consensus? Consensus is a political tool. If the consensus thinks pet rocks are pets, than this what culture will accept as the new pet. If the consensus like Ford Trucks this will be truck of choice.

 

If you look at the warming from the last ice age, this does not need a consensus, because this has hard data for proof that anyone can see and prove to themselves. If consensus is more important, nothing could even change, since all new ideas would have to face the consensus from the past, who will then automatically be right, because they have more members. The scientific method says data comes first, such that one person with hard data, weights more than a consensus. This is so those who seek to maintain their money and resources, don't stack the deck. New means the past is obsolete and the guard will change.

 

As far as buying a consensus, the politics of liberalism, which exclusively supports manmade global warming, is also the politics of the faculty of most universities. Tell me which liberal university will give an equal voice to conservative principles? What liberal university will accept data from oil companies as being objective, and not teach conspiracy?

 

If we divided the resources given to all the universities, so both sides of the issue have half, and then say your continued funding will be connected to producing results for your side, money will talk.

Edited December 26, 2015 by puppypower

[iNow]

Conspiracies do indeed occur. The consensus on climate change is not one of them. This will remain true no matter how many times you toss around words like liberal and politics and funding.

 

The consensus is the outcome of the consistent independent data that arrives upon the same conclusions regarding the role human activities play in the changing of our climate. These conclusions are concurrent across research modalities. The consensus is not as you suggest the primary reason or cause or driver of these conclusions any more than the consensus around evolution is the reason we accept that as valid.

 

I urge you to try to letting the truth shape your politics instead of letting your politics shape your truth. Until then, you'll be rightly dismissed as a well-intentioned fool equivalent to someone who denies that the moon loading happened or who claims vaccines cause autism.

[dimreepr]

money will talk.

 

 

Money does talk, why else do you think there’s any doubt at all?

 

http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/

 

There is much angst in the scientific and policy communities over Congressional Republicans’ efforts to cut NASA’s Earth Science Budget, and also the NSF Geosciences budget. Marshall Shepherd has a WaPo editorial defending theNASA Earth Science Budget.

Congressional Republicans are being decried as ‘anti-science’.

 

 

http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/government-buying-science-or-support-framework-analysis-federal-funding

 

Federal policies on climate change and federal funding of climate research are both extensive. The linkage between these policies and research has become a major topic of discussion, including numerous allegations of bias.

 

Edited December 26, 2015 by dimreepr

[iNow]

Further to that point, the conspiracy around anthropogenic climate change seems localized on the denial side.

 

http://www.sciencealert.com/new-study-links-climate-change-denials-with-conspiracy-theories

the study has found strong ties linking climate change denial on Internet blogs with ‘conspiracist ideation’: a person’s propensity to explain political or social events as a secret plot by powerful individuals or organisations. <snip> But when you look at the well-orchestrated network of climate change skeptics, naysayers and dissidents, many of whom share their views in the blogosphere, it becomes clear that a lot of misinformation and propaganda are being circulated. And according to Lewandowsky and his colleagues’ findings, published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology, it’s not just political rhetoric: it’s evidence of conspiracist ideation.

http://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/443/html

A growing body of evidence has implicated conspiracist ideation in the rejection of scientific propositions. Internet blogs in particular have become the staging ground for conspiracy theories that challenge the link between HIV and AIDS, the benefits of vaccinations, or the reality of climate change. A recent study involving visitors to climate blogs found that conspiracist ideation was associated with the rejection of climate science and other scientific propositions such as the link between lung cancer and smoking, and between HIV and AIDS.

[swansont]

One of the political deception strategies behind global warming, is the earth has indeed warmed slightly over the past century. However, this observation does not logically imply, that this warming is due to man. These are two separate issues.

 

There are plenty of examples of natural global warming in nature. For example, the earth warmed, all by itself, from the last ice age, with glaciers melting over thousands of miles. What we see today, in glacier melt, is chump change. The earth was not destroyed, as though that mantra, is even possible. That mantra, with consensus science support, shows political science, without precedent.

"all by itself" is a phrase that completely omits the details, and the science is all about looking at these details.

 

"The earth was not destroyed" is a strawman. Nobody is claiming the earth will be destroyed. The claim is that it will become less habitable for many species, including humans

 

On the other hand, man made , even if true, for the sake of argument, is unique to the present time and has no historical precedent like natural warming. We do not even know, with 100% certainty, if this is even possible, based on historical precedent. On the other hand, a natural reason for global warming has all kinds of hard data to support it, while man made is based on the opinion of a consensus using models that do not even agree, 100%. That is irrational.

Where is this "all kinds of hard data"? The implication here is that it is model-free, and that recent warming has no data. Both of those implications are flat-out wrong.

 

Got this model-free data that shows natural warming? Link to it! I want to see how it shows natural warming without models.

 

Science is not supposed to run by consensus of opinion, but by hard data. Show me where in the scientific method, science is supposed to done by consensus? Consensus is a political tool. If the consensus thinks pet rocks are pets, than this what culture will accept as the new pet. If the consensus like Ford Trucks this will be truck of choice.

ALL of science runs on consensus. Consensus based on data and models. Pet rocks being pets isn't a particularly scientific issue. So that's a non-sequitur.

 

If you look at the warming from the last ice age, this does not need a consensus, because this has hard data for proof that anyone can see and prove to themselves.

The hard data, interpreted through models, shows that there was an ice age and subsequent warming. It does not show the cause, unless you interpret data through even more models.

 

If consensus is more important, nothing could even change, since all new ideas would have to face the consensus from the past, who will then automatically be right, because they have more members. The scientific method says data comes first, such that one person with hard data, weights more than a consensus. This is so those who seek to maintain their money and resources, don't stack the deck. New means the past is obsolete and the guard will change.

Science continually re-interprets data based on new understanding (and we have HARD DATA that shows that it has done so). So this is all bollocks.

 

As far as buying a consensus, the politics of liberalism, which exclusively supports manmade global warming, is also the politics of the faculty of most universities. Tell me which liberal university will give an equal voice to conservative principles? What liberal university will accept data from oil companies as being objective, and not teach conspiracy?

 

If we divided the resources given to all the universities, so both sides of the issue have half, and then say your continued funding will be connected to producing results for your side, money will talk.

How much are soapboxes running these days? Or have you just recycled one from the trash, like your arguments?

[Ophiolite]

Too much uncertainty

OK. Are you going to respond to my question, or not?

 

I have asked multiple times and you choose to avoid the question. This is simply unacceptable behaviour. It is rude. It is against forum rules and it is petty.

 

There is more than one way to engage in online bullying and your passive non participation is one of them. Please desist now.

[Strange]

One of the political deception strategies behind global warming, is the earth has indeed warmed slightly over the past century. However, this observation does not logically imply, that this warming is due to man.

 

Indeed. But, as already noted, there is lots of other evidence.

 

 

There are plenty of examples of natural global warming in nature.

 

And, in general, we can identify the causes. As we can with the current warming.

 

 

The earth was not destroyed

 

Strawman. No one says it is going to be.

 

Science is not supposed to run by consensus of opinion, but by hard data.

 

And it is. You can't just dismiss the data because you don't like it. The consensus is a result of the scientific data, not a substitute for it.

[ajb]

Science is not supposed to run by consensus of opinion, but by hard data.

 

Yes and no.. you seem to have tried to twist my words. A consensus just means a general agreement.

 

Scientists reach a consensus of opinion based on matching the data to hypotheses or models. There will be some disarrangement on details and so on, but the vast majority of people publishing in climate science agree on the general trend and the reasons for this trend.

 

Show me where in the scientific method, science is supposed to done by consensus?

Take a look at this for a start: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

 

Based on an analysis of peer-reviewed papers on climate change, the vast majority of authors state that their work supports man-made climate change. A few acknowledge that the temperature is increasing, but do not state clearly that this is man-made. As far as I know, none have actually produced any work that actually refutes that man has anything to do with climate change.

 

I hope others can direct you to the most important papers in this field. It is outside my area of expertise.

Edited December 27, 2015 by ajb

[Shelagh]

Whether the climate experts are right or wrong is not the main issue:

 

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/625876/Global-warming-blame-northern-floods-James-Delingpole

 

The causes of changing weather patterns (which may or may not be occuring) are not a priority. Defences against weather damage have to be improved. We expect extreme weather conditions; instead of being up-to-date with science, people would prefer to be ignorant about what causes climate change but better prepared to set up strategies to cope with extreme weather conditions.

[Strange]

The causes of changing weather patterns (which may or may not be occuring) are not a priority. Defences against weather damage have to be improved. We expect extreme weather conditions; instead of being up-to-date with science, people would prefer to be ignorant about what causes climate change but better prepared to set up strategies to cope with extreme weather conditions.

 

So you prefer the opinion of a fiction writer to science. Ho hum.

 

We need science to understand if and by how much the climate is changing in order to better plan flood defences. If these extreme events are going to become more common (and more more extreme) then what we do needs to be very different than if this year is just an unusually bad year.

 

Personally, I would rely on climate scientists to establish that. Not tabloid newspapers. (At least you didn't quote from that disgusting rag, the Daily Mail who prefer to make up stories rather then report news.)

Edited December 27, 2015 by Strange

[ajb]

We expect extreme weather conditions

Indeed, we have always had and always will have weather conditions that are extreme. This is quite independent of global warming.

 

However, there is some evidence that such conditions are becoming more and more common and people are wondering if this is linked to global warming.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/11/extreme-weather-common-blocking-patterns