Who here is a global warming skeptic?

[Strange]

There is uncertainty in many/all areas of science . The uncertainty in climate science is of a different order in that it is founded on the chaotic system that is inbuilt into climate forecasting.

 

I didn't think climate was a chaotic system. There are (short term) chaotic components, but my understanding is that climate models are based on large scale and long term thermodynamic models - complex but not chaotic. (I may well be wrong.)

 

However, weather is chaotic. But weather forecasters still achieve accuracies far better than 90%. So being chaotic doesn't necessarily affect the accuracy of models, just how far out one can go.

[geordief]

 

I didn't think climate was a chaotic system. There are (short term) chaotic components, but my understanding is that climate models are based on large scale and long term thermodynamic models - complex but not chaotic. (I may well be wrong.)

 

However, weather is chaotic. But weather forecasters still achieve accuracies far better than 90%. So being chaotic doesn't necessarily affect the accuracy of models, just how far out one can go.

I was being a little disingenuous .I was trying to show how easy it was to give an(y) answer to the ignored question.I don't know myself about how far chaos theory enters into the equations but the tipping points that are sometimes mentioned may have a superficial similarity to chaotic systems.

[Shelagh]

Of course, the entire climate cataclysm mantra is based on the claim that carbon dioxide has replaced the solar and other powerful natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth and human history. Now, merely tweaking CO2 emissions will supposedly stabilize climate and weather systems.

 

President Obama fervently believes this delusion. He will likely use the voluntary Paris gobbledygook to say America somehow has a moral obligation to set an example, by de-carbonizing, de-industrializing and de-developing the United States. Thankfully, Congress and the states will have something to say about that, because they know these anti-fossil fuel programs will destroy jobs and living standards, especially for poor, working class and minority families.

 

The impacts would be far worse than many news stories and White House press releases suggest. Those sources often say the proposed climate treaty and other actions seek GHG reductions of 80% below predicted 2050 emission levels. The real original Paris treaty target is 80% below actual 1990 levels.

 

That means the world would have to eliminate 96% of the greenhouse gases that all humanity would likely release if we reach world population levels, economic growth and living standards predicted for 2050. The United States would likely have to slash it CO2 and GHG reductions to zero.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/reprieve-binding-paris-treaty-now-voluntary-mush/

[Strange]

You are picking some very dodgy stablemates here. But, given your indefensible views (1) perhaps that is hardly surprising.

 

(1) Well, you refuse to defend them. And the only defence you can find are from novelists, right-wing tabloids, conspiracy theorists, Creationists and other assorted liars and nutcases.

[geordief]

Is it permissible to simply post links and paste extracts from them?

[swansont]

It's late in the UK, so I'll say goodnight. This video might explain my stance better than I can:

 

 

Why should I waste two hours of my life watching this video, given that it is likely just a re-hash of the denialism that is already rampant? (and the person in it is not a climatologist, but a geographer)

Is it permissible to simply post links and paste extracts from them?

 

As long as they are fairly short compared to the piece you are quoting, yes.

[Strange]

As long as they are fairly short compared to the piece you are quoting, yes.

 

Is it OK to do that with no discussion or explanation for why the link/quote is there?

[iNow]

It's obviously better to add a few words of why the poster feels the quote is relevant to the discussion and/or their position, but mods handle it on a case by case basis.

 

Returning to the topic at hand, the very first sentence of the quote starts out with a monster strawman:

 

"the entire climate cataclysm mantra is based on the claim that carbon dioxide has replaced the solar and other powerful natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth and human history."

 

Erm...Nope.

 

Nobody claims CO2 has replaced the sun and other natural climate drivers. Then the author launches into a tirade against Obama and the terrors of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels to...GASP!... levels not seen since before the 1990s!

 

I'd laugh were it not so sad.

Edited December 28, 2015 by iNow

[ajb]

I didn't think climate was a chaotic system. There are (short term) chaotic components, but my understanding is that climate models are based on large scale and long term thermodynamic models - complex but not chaotic. (I may well be wrong.)

If I recall correctly, the usual thing to do is run various models many times and look for trends. You might not be able to predict with any accuracy if a storm will occur at a given location in 20 years time, but you can look for general trends like the average temperature increasing.

 

Edit: For a review of climate and weather modelling on can consult Professor Alan J. Thorpe's report for the IOP (2005)

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/archive/file_52051.pdf

Edited December 28, 2015 by ajb

[Strange]

Returning to the topic at hand, the very first sentence of the quote starts out with a monster strawman:

...

Then the author launches into a tirade against Obama and the terrors of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels

 

Even if one can't be bothered to study the science of climate change in immense detail, there is the remarkable fact that every criticism of the science depends on logical fallacies, politically-based assertions and other irrational behaviour.

 

This is why it is called "denialism" rather than "climate science that comes to a different conclusion".

[Shelagh]

The 97% Consensus Study proposal by John Cook:

 

 

It's essential that the public understands that there's a scientific consensus on AGW. So Jim Powell, Dana and I have been working on something over the last few months that we hope will have a game changing impact on the public perception of consensus. Basically, we hope to establish that not only is there a consensus, there is a strengthening consensus. Deniers like to portray the myth that the consensus is crumbling, that the tide is turning. However, our survey of the peer-reviewed literature shows that the opposite is true - the consensus is getting stronger and the gap between those that accept and reject the consensus is increasing. What we have in mind is an extended campaign over 2012 (and beyond).

 

The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus:

 

Dr. Richard Tol has been tweeting a statistical destruction of the "97% consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) by educating co-author Dana Nuccitelli as to why his "sample" is not representative.

 

Including "global" before "climate change", Cook et al. dropped 75% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.

 

Including "global" before "climate change", Cook et al. dropped many papers by eminent climate researchers.

 

Including "global" before "climate change", Cook et al. dropped 33 of the 50 most cited papers.

 

Choosing exclusive WoS over inclusive Scopus, Cook et al. dropped 35% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.

 

As Dr. Tol so eloquently put it,

"[Dana] I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense." - Richard Tol

 

Full explanation of why the 97% consensus claim does not stand up:

 

Cook and co selected some 12,000 papers from the scientific literature to test whether these papers support the hypothesis that humans played a substantial role in the observed warming of the Earth. 12,000 is a strange number. The climate literature is much larger. The number of papers on the detection and attribution of climate change is much, much smaller.

 

Cooks sample is not representative. Any conclusion they draw is not about the literature but rather about the papers they happened to find.

 

Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming but assumptions are not conclusions. Cooks claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming/print

 

[Ophiolite]

There isn't always an answer for every question. I don't know everything. Some here would say I don't know anything.

Don't deliberately talk bollocks. That is rude and offensive behaviour. The questions you have been asked are about your opinion as to the reliability of certain theories. Are you seriously suggesting that you are unaware of your opinion on these matters.

 

This persistent and deliberate avoidance of straightforward questions that relate directly to the discussion is a distasteful form of manipulation. If you are trying to provoke me into being rude you are damn well close to succeeding, now answer the frigging questions!

[dimreepr]

Shelagh, maybe you should think of it like this, rather than trying to back up an untenable position.

Edited December 28, 2015 by dimreepr

[Ophiolite]

Beautifully put dimreepr - you have nailed it.

[iNow]

The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus:

 

Full explanation of why the 97% consensus claim does not stand up:

And here's a more informed take on the subject since it's one you seem to care so much about: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

[Shelagh]

Since there is a question that has been asked repeatedly and has not been answered , I will attempt to provide one off the top of my head.

 

There is uncertainty in many/all areas of science . The uncertainty in climate science is of a different order in that it is founded on the chaotic system that is inbuilt into climate forecasting.

 

There is an additional factor in that the experiment we are conducting is on ourselves and our fellow passengers on the planet (a bit like cutting down the branch we are sitting on?).

 

We do not seem to have a "reproducible experiment" here. We are talking about "tipping points" and the like so that we cannot go back to the start- we are going down a one way street.

 

I do see uncertainty in the area as a whole but a terrifying uncertainty -not a comforting one.

 

 

Ditto.

[Strange]

The 97% Consensus Study proposal by John Cook:

The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus:

Full explanation of why the 97% consensus claim does not stand up:

 

Why can't you just address the science instead of all these idiotic avoidance tactics.

[dimreepr]

 

Why can't you just address the science instead of all these idiotic avoidance tactics.

 

 

Sometimes the hole dug is so deep the only light is bio-luminescence; much like the light at the end of the tunnel is sometimes just a kid with a torch.

In other words, Shelagh, when you’re out of your depth, stop digging or find something that floats.

[Strange]

Sometimes the hole dug is so deep the only light is bio-luminescence; much like the light at the end of the tunnel is sometimes just a kid with a torch.

 

I suppose if you are emotionally attached to an idea, however irrational it is, it can be very hard to admit you are wrong. Even to yourself.

[StringJunky]

 

I suppose if you are emotionally attached to an idea, however irrational it is, it can be very hard to admit you are wrong. Even to yourself.

One of the first difficult steps in good science discussion is overcoming thinking to an emotionally attached personal agenda.

[Shelagh]

Why can't you just address the science instead of all these idiotic avoidance tactics.

The science would improve if it stuck to the facts:

 

Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT:

The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half.

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT:

Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

 

Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.

FACT:

Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

 

CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT:

Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and in the end are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.

Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT:

The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that manmade CO2 causes global warming.

FACT:

In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:

1) "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2) "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to manmade causes"

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT:

This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. The graph here shows changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL). A major study here shows that CO2 fertilization will likely increase the value of crop production between now and 2050 by an additional $11.7 trillion ($US 2014).

Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT:

There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of man-made global warming.

FACT:

Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. Its normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

The earth's poles are warming and the polar ice caps are breaking up and melting.

FACT:

The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing. North polar temperature graph here. South polar temperature graph here.

- See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#.dpuf

Edited December 28, 2015 by Shelagh

[Strange]

Stop making moronic strawman arguments.

[iNow]

See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#.dpuf

It's rather telling that you must continue citing such flawed sources: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Friends_of_Science

[dimreepr]

All I can say is... Sometimes the hole is just too deep.

[Shelagh]

It's rather telling that you must continue citing such flawed sources: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Friends_of_Science

In October 2005, Barry Cooper set up the Science Education Fund at the University of Calgary, which was able to access funds from the Calgary Foundation. Critics remark that Cooper established the Science Education Fund to "obscure the political and financial interests behind the donations, not only providing anonymity to donors but also a tax break for their contributions to science education." Friends of Science has been "criticized for its close financial ties to the Alberta patch." In 2010, in the section on "Donations" published in the Friends of Science's newsletter, Chuck Simpson, the Past Director Friends of Science calls for fund raising to help this "small group of volunteers" with administrative costs. One of their problems is that they were unable to "attract money from corporations", although their antagonists claim the Friends of Science are funded by the petroleum industry. Critics have asserted that the Friends of Science has close links to the oil and gas industry. In April 2007, The Friends of Science newsletter claimed their "efforts to bring balance to the climate change debate are being restricted because of our lack of funding. We have mostly relied upon the good nature of our members, with some contributions from Charitable Foundations. There has also been some funding from 'big oil'. But they seldom smile on us. They appear to believe that marketing is more important than historical climate information."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science