the truth about climate change

[KitingHigh]

You certainly don't represent yourself that way. Debate with facts, not talking points. I promise you, answers will follow from Joe or FSU. Give them some data to refute them. Otherwise STFU. These guys are experts on climate. Are you? Or is the echo chamber so loud you can't see the forest for the trees? Sorry for the mixed metaphor, but you wouldn't understand the nuance anyways.

Actually, I do represent myself that way. You seem to be the one lacking the ability to get nuance. Since you ask I am an expert on weather and physics and the handling of complex multidimensional data sets. I don't study climate full time, but I've got one hell of a head start and a deeper understanding than most. I'd be happy to have beers with Reed and Joe and discuss the subject, but this isn't that kind of forum and as you've so elegantly (that's sarcasm by the way) shown once again, everyone here chooses or gets placed at one of two opposite ends of the spectrum. It's just not productive. Half the time I get attacked by people on both sides of the argument on this board.

As for your "mixed metaphor"; you have it backwards.

 

[22*43*51]

I always love the graphs that show the last 25 year sample of a 6 billion year old group.

...and then call it proof.

 

[Lone Clone]

Since I'm not going to read every response on my phone, forgive me if this has been asked. But for all of that use some sort of variation of "follow the money" in denying and sort of change in the climate or environment, let me ask you this. Could you not also say the same about those who are hard core against it being real and are economically motivated to doing everything they can to show it's not?

And yes, I'm talking Big Oil and Big Ag here, since they are the ones with the most to lose.

1. Who is denying any sort of change in the climate or environment?

2. Come on, answer #1.

3. I'm waiting.

4. There undoubtedly is money involved....on both sides. However, the AGW alarmists are much more prone to dismissing all skeptics by claiming they are lying for money than are the skeptics to dismiss the AGW alarmists.

 

[22*43*51]

Here's another one that will blow your mind Joe...

 

[Joes Place]

I'm well aware of that and that's not the claim I made. Stop trying to make this a black and white us vs them scenario.

It absolutely IS the claim you made: 'climatology is too new of a science'.

Climate MODELING may be a fairly new science, but the tools used to study our climate cover a very wide range of well-established scientific methods, including physics, chemistry, geology, oceanography, etc. By making the sweeping generalization that climatologists are somehow less capable based upon the particular field they apply those tools to is rather disingenuous. And completely wrong.

 

[Joes Place]

Please present a united front first. I have said countless times, and will say again now, that I do not have the training or knowledge to make any determination about the validity of the science.

Do you have the ability to read a graph of temperature data? I've posted plenty of information for you to view the alleged 'hiatus' for yourself. Even provided the resource for you to go make your own graphs with any of the data sets available.

The "I'm not a scientist" cop-out is straight from the Heritage Foundation playbook. Go look at some of the data for yourself, instead of taking a completely misrepresented 'fact' from an OpEd that you agree with.

One more try: Can you find the 15-year 'hiatus' in the plots of decadal averaged temperature data I have provided. Because that IS the basic data your OpEd is claiming has a 'hiatus'.

 

[Joes Place]

Here's another one that will blow your mind Joe...

This simply shows that you have no understanding of 'correlation' vs. 'causation'. That's something we learn in one of the first classes in statistical analysis as math majors. You can look up the same plot of 'Ice Cream Sales vs. Crime Rates' for New York, and find a GREAT correlation there, too!

Why? Because people buy a lot more ice cream in summer than in winter, and criminals tend to not be out breaking into people's houses when it's 10 degrees outside in the winter. So, ice cream doesn't cause crime, but warmer weather influences both ice cream sales and crime rates similarly.

That's 'Statistics 101', so thanks for enabling me to educate you and the boards on this one....

 

[Lone Clone]

Do you have the ability to read a graph of temperature data? I've posted plenty of information for you to view the alleged 'hiatus' for yourself. Even provided the resource for you to go make your own graphs with any of the data sets available.

The "I'm not a scientist" cop-out is straight from the Heritage Foundation playbook. Go look at some of the data for yourself, instead of taking a completely misrepresented 'fact' from an OpEd that you agree with.

One more try: Can you find the 15-year 'hiatus' in the plots of decadal averaged temperature data I have provided. Because that IS the basic data your OpEd is claiming has a 'hiatus'.

1. Are you familiar with the acronym "GIGO"? The basis for the controversy is the source material. Obviously, if everybody were using the same numbers, everybody would get the same result. Let's say I'm studying the temperature in my front yard. I put a thermometer out there and check it every day, meticulously recording the readings and using them to create a chart. As long as the chart shows what you think it should, you're fine with that method and you cite it as evidence to support your theory. But when it starts showing something you don't think it should show, you decide that the method is flawed. The numbers need to be adjusted, perhaps, because my neighbor moved his grill from my side of his deck to the far side of his deck, or my sprinkler system was running more often and thus cooling the air in my yard. Do you understand why I look at your "scientific method" with a certain degree of skepticism?

2. The AGW alarmists do this with regularity. Back when "An Inconvenient Truth" was the cat's meow, Al Gore was a brilliant, insightful guy and everyone should heed his every word. He got the Nobel Prize, for crying out loud. But as soon as a lot of the claims in that propaganda film were shown to be bullshit, the skeptics are chided for paying any attention to him because "he isn't a scientist." Similarly, when predictions turn out to be totally wrong, we are simply supposed to be pretend they were never made.

3. It's hilarious that you interpret the simple, honest disclaimer "I am not a scientist" as "a copout straight from the Heritage Foundation." You are so desperate to attack people who question your theory that you can't even accept a simple characterization.

 

[KitingHigh]

It absolutely IS the claim you made: 'climatology is too new of a science'.

Climate MODELING may be a fairly new science, but the tools used to study our climate cover a very wide range of well-established scientific methods, including physics, chemistry, geology, oceanography, etc. By making the sweeping generalization that climatologists are somehow less capable based upon the particular field they apply those tools to is rather disingenuous. And completely wrong.

It isn't but regardless I will clarify for you. I'm not saying that it is to be completely discounted. I said it is too political. If you can't admit that politics and funding play a signifigant role on both sides to some degree, I will have a hard time taking you seriously.

Now, as for the scientific field itself. Sure climatology is based on physics and mathematics. All physical and natural sciences are based on physics and mathmatics. When it comes down to it chemistry is really a subset of physics. Also all computers are built on the same logical principles of the original pneumatic or even mechanical ones. All buildings are built with tools that were designed centuries ago. We've made them bigger and more complex, but the basic principles, even the math we use to determine what we can and can't build are ancient. Even so innovation still happens and our computers get faster and our buildings get taller and that is a fairly new and recent thing when it comes to the level we have now. You wouldn't ask a 19th century carpenter to build a skyscraper, would you? Should we ignore the field altogether, because it is new? Of course not. But we definitely should not put the theory of AGW on par with those of evolution or gravity. You have to admit we are still very early in the discovery phase when it comes to climate modeling. You also have to admit that shortcuts are in fact being taken at least on occasion with the scientific method. Again, if you can't admit that, I can't take you seriously.

 

[22*43*51]

This simply shows that you have no understanding of 'correlation' vs. 'causation'. That's something we learn in one of the first classes in statistical analysis as math majors.

Great. So you understand how your 25 year sample, without greater context, shows absolutely nothing.

Take it back at least 1000 years if you want to understand common vs. special cause.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

1. Who is denying any sort of change in the climate or environment?

Well...the deniers were just a few short years ago. Then it was, "Well, it's warming but it certainly couldn't be generated by man". Now, apparently, it has become, "Sure it's warming and man might be responsible for SOME of it...but - hey - it won't be a disaster". That's where your op-ed falls. The evolution is hardly remarkable as more and more of their points collapse.

Be assured, there are still the hard-core out there who will deny the warming exists and will seize on the mythical hiatus as evidence or they will point to record Antarctic sea ice or...God help us all...walk into Congress carrying a f'n snowball that "proves" the planet isn't warming. The developing El Nino will likely collapse THAT denier point in the near future as the ocean ceases to be such a huge heat sink.

Not that ANY of that is going to change your mind, of course.

 

[joelbc1]

Personally I think the science is inconclusive and has been shown that it can/has been manipulated...

That being said, there's nothing wrong with being good stewards of the environment.

swag...but "manipulated" by whom? The reality lies somewhere in between the two extremes. To think we can keep dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at the rate we are and then to conclude there will be no long term effects id stupidity.
Explain to me why the incidence of skin cancers and melanomas are increasing at an alarming rate might not be a result of mans damaging the atmosphere. Something is going on...and the leading science of the day points to certain factors. Carbon dioxide is one of the leading candidates.

 

[naturalmwa]

Well...the deniers were just a few short years ago. Then it was, "Well, it's warming but it certainly couldn't be generated by man". Now, apparently, it has become, "Sure it's warming and man might be responsible for SOME of it...but - hey - it won't be a disaster". That's where your op-ed falls. The evolution is hardly remarkable as more and more of their points collapse.

Be assured, there are still the hard-core out there who will deny the warming exists and will seize on the mythical hiatus as evidence or they will point to record Antarctic sea ice or...God help us all...walk into Congress carrying a f'n snowball that "proves" the planet isn't warming. The developing El Nino will likely collapse THAT denier point in the near future as the ocean ceases to be such a huge heat sink.

Not that ANY of that is going to change your mind, of course.

I find this hopeful. By the time I die the Rs will be environmentalists. Cons aren't bad people, they're just slow. Eventually they will do the right thing, after they have tried everything else.

 

[Joes Place]

You also have to admit that shortcuts are in fact being taken at least on occasion with the scientific method. Again, if you can't admit that, I can't take you seriously.

That is why we have literally hundreds of studies constantly updating data, theories, assimilating new observations into the mix. The 'bad' science gets rooted out eventually. For instance, some of the 'low climate feedback' and 'cloud iris' work by MIT climatologist Lindzen has been shown to be wrong. And most climatologists agree that his work on that particular issue was useful and DID advance the understanding of the topic, but observations have demonstrated that it does not hold up to observational scrutiny. If Lindzen has other data or theories which debunk the 97%, where are they? Why have they not been published? Willie Soon was just discredited with publishing junk science funded by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative interests, and is now having those publications retracted, because when you receive funding from a source with a vested interest in your results, you have an obligation to the journal you are publishing in to disclose that information - why was that intentionally hidden?

The question you should really be asking is: "If humans are NOT the primary driver for warming temperatures now, what is it?" Those on the denial side of the equation should be posing their own alternative theories which explain the data. Neither Lindzen or Soon has provided anything of merit.

Here's an OpEd quoting a Reagan and Bush I National Science Board appointee, James Powell. Powell has a quote that I think is rather poignant on this particular point:

“There isn’t any evidence against global warming and there isn’t any alternative theory,” he said. “We’ve been looking for negative feedbacks and we’ve never found one that amounts to anything. It’s not impossible that we will, but I wouldn’t bet my grandchildren’s future on it.”
​

Powell is putting together another summary of the scientific consensus on climate change, indicating that the consensus among active climate scientists is 99.9%, not the 97% generally quoted. You will honestly have a difficult time finding a 97-99% consensus on a major scientific issue among almost ANY major field of study. But by lumping all climate science and scientists into an 'alarmist' category does little to properly inform the public or advance the debate on the issue and to help determine appropriate actions we should be taking.

 

[Joes Place]

Great. So you understand how your 25 year sample, without greater context, shows absolutely nothing.

Take it back at least 1000 years if you want to understand common vs. special cause.

That was not the question I was answering. I was simply posting information which clearly indicated there was no recent "15 year hiatus". You're using the Gish Gallop to change the question here...

 

[WORTHYWISH]

One Of The World’s Most Eminent Climate Scientists Changes Stance On Global Warming


“The problem we have now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist. It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. I am worried about the gradual influence of political views on science. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the computer models.”(2)(3) – Professor Bengtsson

http://www.collective-evolution.com...ent-climate-scientist-debunks-global-warming/

 

[22*43*51]

That was not the question I was answering. I was simply posting information which clearly indicated there was no recent "15 year hiatus". You're using the Gish Gallop to change the question here...

No. You we're using a terribly small sample size to try and make a point.

There's is nothing in that graph that would tell me the increase isn't inside of normal upper and lower variation spec limits.

 

[WORTHYWISH]

Alarmists shriek that 2014 was the warmest year ever! But that claim is absurd if put in the context of the Earth’s recent history. As Dr. Tim Ball writes:

In fact, 2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000, but that doesn’t suit the political agenda.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...-of-the-3-coldest-years-in-the-last-10000.php

 

[WORTHYWISH]

So, do humans cause climate change or not?

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry rips ‘manufactured consensus’ – Human influence is NOT ‘dominant over natural climate variability’

Curry: 'On balance, I don't see any particular dangers from greenhouse warming'

'[Humans do] influence climate to some extent, what we do with land-use changes and what we put into the atmosphere. But I don't think its a large enough impact to dominate over natural climate variability.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/04...-dominating-over-natural-climate-variability/

 

[Joes Place]

1. Are you familiar with the acronym "GIGO"? The basis for the controversy is the source material. Obviously, if everybody were using the same numbers, everybody would get the same result. Let's say I'm studying the temperature in my front yard. I put a thermometer out there and check it every day, meticulously recording the readings and using them to create a chart. As long as the chart shows what you think it should, you're fine with that method and you cite it as evidence to support your theory. But when it starts showing something you don't think it should show, you decide that the method is flawed. The numbers need to be adjusted, perhaps, because my neighbor moved his grill from my side of his deck to the far side of his deck, or my sprinkler system was running more often and thus cooling the air in my yard. Do you understand why I look at your "scientific method" with a certain degree of skepticism?

That is why I posted the link where you can look at SEVERAL independent data sets:
UAH global lower troposphere (Roy Spencer)
HADCRUT4
HADCRUT3
BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature), land only, produced by Richard Muller who was initially skeptical of the data from the 'inner circle' of climatologists, and found out for himself that the warming was actually worse than they were portraying and projecting; Anthony Watts, an outspoken climate denial blogger, was initially part of that study, but as soon as it didn't give him the answer he wanted, he balked and distanced himself from it. And BEST took your specific example of temperature locations into account - one of Anthony Watts' major criticisms, and demonstrated that it was a very MINOR effect. You can visit their website for their summary. That data set stops at around 2010, so a decadal average only goes to 2005 and does NOT show any 'leveling off' like the other HADCRUT data sets - that is not because there isn't a 4-5 year pause (there is), their data just stops before that pause has occurred. And 4-5 year pauses are VERY common throughout the past 150 years of temperature data.

So, unless you are trying to assert that ALL of the temperature data sets we have are somehow 'missing' this mysterious 'hiatus', you have no data to stand on here. You either need to admit that the Op Ed is mischaracterizing the information, or that somehow EVERYONE'S data is wrong.

2. The AGW alarmists do this with regularity. Back when "An Inconvenient Truth" was the cat's meow, Al Gore was a brilliant, insightful guy and everyone should heed his every word. He got the Nobel Prize, for crying out loud. But as soon as a lot of the claims in that propaganda film were shown to be bullshit, the skeptics are chided for paying any attention to him because "he isn't a scientist." Similarly, when predictions turn out to be totally wrong, we are simply supposed to be pretend they were never made.

No idea where you are getting your perceptions here, but no serious climatologists claimed we should 'heed every word' from Al Gore. Most were pleased that he was bringing attention to the problem, but they primarily agreed that his positions on many aspects were oversimplified and not completely accurate. I don't really see an actual criticism of anything I'd posted in this paragraph, just complaining about a movie made by a non-scientist. This has nothing to do with the actual science or data, it is simply using Al Gore's movie as a Straw Man to claim all of climate science is incorrect (which is a rather extraordinary claim and completely false logic).

3. It's hilarious that you interpret the simple, honest disclaimer "I am not a scientist" as "a copout straight from the Heritage Foundation." You are so desperate to attack people who question your theory that you can't even accept a simple characterization.

No, it's actually quite sad to see politicians ignoring the science based on claiming "I'm not a scientist", because we have something called the National Academies of Science, appointed by Congress for advisement on many scientific issues. And our National Academies, along with the National Academies of more than 2 dozen other countries all agree that humans are a primary driver of recent warming, and we need to start doing something to mitigate it. Using "I'm not a scientist" to ignore the science isn't something I'd consider "hilarious".

We could apply that same logic to immunizations: would you prefer we have Congressmen voting to LOWER our country's immunization rates based upon the claim "I'm not a scientist"? Should we NOT immunize children if the parents can't afford it, and drop immunization rates to 60-70%, when we KNOW that <95% probably eliminates the societal benefit of 'herd immunization'? We could have measles outbreaks like Disneyland all over America then!!! But, hey....who knows how that happened because "I'm not a scientist"!

 

[Joes Place]

Only a mental midget would believe that there is any scientific basis for humans causing global warming or cooling of the planet.

During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause. Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

You DO understand the DIFFERENCE between 'the media' and 'a scientific consensus' don't you?

 

[Lone Clone]

Well...the deniers were just a few short years ago. Then it was, "Well, it's warming but it certainly couldn't be generated by man". Now, apparently, it has become, "Sure it's warming and man might be responsible for SOME of it...but - hey - it won't be a disaster". That's where your op-ed falls. The evolution is hardly remarkable as more and more of their points collapse.

Be assured, there are still the hard-core out there who will deny the warming exists and will seize on the mythical hiatus as evidence or they will point to record Antarctic sea ice or...God help us all...walk into Congress carrying a f'n snowball that "proves" the planet isn't warming. The developing El Nino will likely collapse THAT denier point in the near future as the ocean ceases to be such a huge heat sink.

Not that ANY of that is going to change your mind, of course.

So you aren't going to be serious. Not surprising.

 

[WORTHYWISH]

You DO understand the DIFFERENCE between 'the media' and 'a scientific consensus' don't you?

Even the source of your data, doesn't buy into the scam.

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry rips ‘manufactured consensus’ – Human influence is NOT ‘dominant over natural climate variability’

Curry: 'On balance, I don't see any particular dangers from greenhouse warming'

'[Humans do] influence climate to some extent, what we do with land-use changes and what we put into the atmosphere. But I don't think its a large enough impact to dominate over natural climate variability.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/04...-dominating-over-natural-climate-variability/

 

[Joes Place]

Alarmists shriek that 2014 was the warmest year ever! But that claim is absurd if put in the context of the Earth’s recent history. As Dr. Tim Ball writes:

In fact, 2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000, but that doesn’t suit the political agenda.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...-of-the-3-coldest-years-in-the-last-10000.php

You should really Google who "Dr Tim Ball" is, before posting quotes from him....

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian think tank, states that Ball has disputed anthropogenic global warming since the mid 1990s, instead asserting that global warming is due to natural variations.[22] He has spoken twice atThe Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, where he was presented as a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.[23][24][25] However, critics have observed that, in fact, Ball was a professor of geography there, has been retired since 1996, and that, in fact, the University of Winnipeg does not have, nor has it ever had, a climatology department.[26][6]

Ball has also claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, to be the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years,[27] claims he also made in a letter to the then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin.[28] However, on April 23, 2006, Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, wrote a letter to the Herald in which he stated that at the time Ball received his PhD in 1983, "Canada already had PhDs in climatology," and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed.[29] In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball “did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere.”[30]

In response, Ball filed a lawsuit against Johnson. Ball's representation in the case was provided by Fraser Milner Casgrain.[31] Johnson's statement of defense was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball "...never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming," and that he "...is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."[28] In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in geography,[30] and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.[32][28]
​

So....I'd recommend looking to the SOURCE of the data and actual scientists who PUBLISHED the data you're identifying, rather than a Tim Ball summary.
You should ALSO note that ONE SET of ice core data simply shows temperatures for THAT REGION, NOT global temperatures. And if you find that source, that's probably what they're going to tell you. But people like Tim Ball find ONE data set that matches their agenda, and then misrepresent it as 'global', when almost any true climatologist will show you it is not.

Here is the webpage for the groups taking that data and discussing some of the elements of the Holocene ice cores:

http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/research/climatechange/glacial_interglacial/climate_holocene/

And, again, the graph you have been shown and posted applies ONLY to Greenland ice core data, NOT a global dataset....hope that's easy enough for you to understand here. Greenland makes up probably 1% or less of the total Earth surface, BTW.

 

[naturalmwa]

You DO understand the DIFFERENCE between 'the media' and 'a scientific consensus' don't you?

Not in my experience.

 

[Joes Place]

Even the source of your data, doesn't buy into the scam.

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry rips ‘manufactured consensus’ – Human influence is NOT ‘dominant over natural climate variability’

Curry: 'On balance, I don't see any particular dangers from greenhouse warming'

'[Humans do] influence climate to some extent, what we do with land-use changes and what we put into the atmosphere. But I don't think its a large enough impact to dominate over natural climate variability.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/04...-dominating-over-natural-climate-variability/

The source of WHAT data?

My data source was HADCRUT, UAH, etc.
Judy Curry is NOT the source of 'the data'. She is 'the source' for showing the smoothing I am using IS an appropriate and correct technique.

Is that too difficult to comprehend?

 

[WORTHYWISH]

The source of WHAT data?

My data source was HADCRUT, UAH, etc.
Judy Curry is NOT the source of 'the data'. She is 'the source' for showing the smoothing I am using IS an appropriate and correct technique.

Is that too difficult to comprehend?

 

[Joes Place]

No. You we're using a terribly small sample size to try and make a point.

There's is nothing in that graph that would tell me the increase isn't inside of normal upper and lower variation spec limits.

Again, that is NOT the question I was replying to. I was simply demonstrating that the notion of a "15 year hiatus" is woefully incorrect, and is flat out disinformation.
Can we agree on that?

 

[WORTHYWISH]

Again, that is NOT the question I was replying to. I was simply demonstrating that the notion of a "15 year hiatus" is woefully incorrect, and is flat out disinformation.
Can we agree on that?

Can we agree that there is absolutely no scientific basis for humans causing global warming or global cooling?

 

[Lone Clone]

You DO understand the DIFFERENCE between 'the media' and 'a scientific consensus' don't you?

And there you go again. Joe, I mean no offense. You seem to be more reasonable than many on this subject. But I am speaking as a layperson. We get our information from the media. And the AGW alarmists know this, and use the media to communicate their doomsday scenarios to us simple folk. For crissake, they were teaching "An Inconvenient Truth" in the freaking schools as science! You cannot simply discount the manipulation, errors and dishonesty of the message when you are assessing the attitude of the people exposed to it.

What SHOULD have happened, as soon as the movie was released, is that all these scientists who apparently knew it was bullshit should immediately have issued a statement saying that the consensus of climatologists was that Al Gore didn't know his butt from a board. At the very least, when schools started incorporating his crap as a teaching tool, somebody should have put the kibosh on it.

That didn't happen, and I think it's because the AGW alarmists thought that the underlying point was so important that it was OK to lie about it in order to get people to pay attention.

 

[Joes Place]

Even the source of your data, doesn't buy into the scam.

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry rips ‘manufactured consensus’ – Human influence is NOT ‘dominant over natural climate variability’

Curry: 'On balance, I don't see any particular dangers from greenhouse warming'

'[Humans do] influence climate to some extent, what we do with land-use changes and what we put into the atmosphere. But I don't think its a large enough impact to dominate over natural climate variability.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/04...-dominating-over-natural-climate-variability/

Funny that she hasn't published any good science which supports her media quotes.....

No one claimed 100% of the climate scientists agreed. Curry and Roy Spencer are two who do not. But they are really unable to support their contentions in actual scientific literature, and have spent more time on the media circuit instead, making false claims everywhere.

It's not that they HAVEN'T done some good science, or that they DON'T have some valid points, but rather than debate those in the scientific forums of journals or IPCC reports, they use unmediated blogs and media punditry to plead their cases. And when you don't have to answer another actual scientist, it's pretty easy to make unjustified claims.

Curry was one of the main critics of the recent (alleged) 'hiatus', asserting that is shows the models are wrong, etc. However, now 2014 and 2015 are starting to look like the hottest years ever, with 2015 on pace to blow away the previous records. In 7-8 months, when that data is finally acquired, it will be interesting to see how she responds to it. Because it will go against her public assertions and claims.

 

[WORTHYWISH]

Funny that she hasn't published any good science which supports her media quotes.....

No one claimed 100% of the climate scientists agreed. Curry and Roy Spencer are two who do not. But they are really unable to support their contentions in actual scientific literature, and have spent more time on the media circuit instead, making false claims everywhere.

It's not that they HAVEN'T done some good science, or that they DON'T have some valid points, but rather than debate those in the scientific forums of journals or IPCC reports, they use unmediated blogs and media punditry to plead their cases. And when you don't have to answer another actual scientist, it's pretty easy to make unjustified claims.

Curry was one of the main critics of the recent (alleged) 'hiatus', asserting that is shows the models are wrong, etc. However, now 2014 and 2015 are starting to look like the hottest years ever, with 2015 on pace to blow away the previous records. In 7-8 months, when that data is finally acquired, it will be interesting to see how she responds to it. Because it will go against her public assertions and claims.

 

[Joes Place]

And there you go again. Joe, I mean no offense. You seem to be more reasonable than many on this subject. But I am speaking as a layperson. We get our information from the media. And the AGW alarmists know this, and use the media to communicate their doomsday scenarios to us simple folk. For crissake, they were teaching "An Inconvenient Truth" in the freaking schools as science! You cannot simply discount the manipulation, errors and dishonesty of the message when you are assessing the attitude of the people exposed to it.

What SHOULD have happened, as soon as the movie was released, is that all these scientists who apparently knew it was bullshit should immediately have issued a statement saying that the consensus of climatologists was that Al Gore didn't know his butt from a board. At the very least, when schools started incorporating his crap as a teaching tool, somebody should have put the kibosh on it.

That didn't happen, and I think it's because the AGW alarmists thought that the underlying point was so important that it was OK to lie about it in order to get people to pay attention.

Actual scientists DID speak out on some of the misinformation. I'm not going to argue with you that some environmentalists have used that, AND other extraordinary claims to support their agendas. But if you want good information on this issue, you should not be relying on the average media outlet, because that is the theater where the disinformation and political agendas take over the actual science.

What is most concerning to me is how the media portray the expected warming by 2100 as "it could be as small as 1.5 degrees C" but completely ignore the fact that the science CANNOT RULE OUT 4.5 degrees C as a possible outcome. Basic rules of risk management literally scream out that we should KNOW it cannot be any worse than "X.X" degrees C and base our policies on that, NOT on the 'best case' outcome. Until we can be reasonably CERTAIN we won't exceed 2 degrees C,or more, we should be more proactive on the issue. You would not fly in a plane or drive a car that was designed using the 'best case' guesses for safety; because that plane or car is virtually guaranteed to crash.

 

[Joes Place]

You're absolutely right.

Using Judy Curry as an example of what mainstream climatologists and almost ALL National Academies of Science worldwide have to say on this issue is, indeed, a 'cherry pick'.

Look....you're LEARNING!!!!

 

[WORTHYWISH]

You're absolutely right.

Using Judy Curry as an example of what mainstream climatologists and almost ALL National Academies of Science worldwide have to say on this issue is, indeed, a 'cherry pick'.

Look....you're LEARNING!!!!

 

[Lone Clone]

Actual scientists DID speak out on some of the misinformation. I'm not going to argue with you that some environmentalists have used that, AND other extraordinary claims to support their agendas. But if you want good information on this issue, you should not be relying on the average media outlet, because that is the theater where the disinformation and political agendas take over the actual science.

What is most concerning to me is how the media portray the expected warming by 2100 as "it could be as small as 1.5 degrees C" but completely ignore the fact that the science CANNOT RULE OUT 4.5 degrees C as a possible outcome. Basic rules of risk management literally scream out that we should KNOW it cannot be any worse than "X.X" degrees C and base our policies on that, NOT on the 'best case' outcome. Until we can be reasonably CERTAIN we won't exceed 2 degrees C,or more, we should be more proactive on the issue. You would not fly in a plane or drive a car that was designed using the 'best case' guesses for safety; because that plane or car is virtually guaranteed to crash.

I have never come across a risk management strategy like that for public policy, let alone one that could be called basic. It doesn't work that way. Sometimes it comes back to bite us; Cedar Rapids didn't prepare for a 500-year flood, and paid the price big-time in 2008.

Do you think science will ever -- COULD ever -- provide certainty that it won't rise 4.5 degrees? Or 45 degrees, for that matter? Especially when, if we know nothing else about the models used in the past, we know they have been inaccurate?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

So you aren't going to be serious. Not surprising.

Ahhh...simple dismissal rather than deal with the facts. I'm being dead serious. What did I post that wasn't true?

 

[HawkAttackDial911]

Taking a step back, I'm under the impression that the Earth is warming at a rate never seen/calculated in its history. I'm not talking about it actually being warmer than any time in history, I'm talking about the rate. Without humans, it took thousands upon thousands of years for the Earth to naturally warm at a rate in which it's now taking hundreds of years or even less. Is that true?

Also, what's the general scientific consensus on what's going to happen to the Earth and it's people if humans keep on the same trajectory? Will all the Earth's oceans burn up and the world become a desolate wasteland? Will the Earth be mostly burned up but have pockets of habitable zones for humans? Will the Earth recover but the climate will fluctuate more than usual?

 

[Lone Clone]

Ahhh...simple dismissal rather than deal with the facts. I'm being dead serious. What did I post that wasn't true?

I didn't say you posted something that wasn't true. I implied you posted something that wasn't serious.

You were responding to my comment asking for the name of anyone who has denied any sort of climate change. At least, your post was appended to that post and quoted it. But you didn't provide an answer. Instead, you cited changing attitudes of some skeptics, which -- to my knowledge -- nobody has denied occurred, just as some AGW alarmists have changed in their predictions.

I am not aware of anyone claiming that climate does not, has not, or will not in the future change. If you are, please enlighten me. If you're going to ignore my post and "answer" something else, I don't think you're being serious.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change.

During the Jurassic Period, dinosaurs — ranging from the plant-eating Diplodocus and Brachiosaurus to the meat-craving Ceratosaurus and Megalosaurus — ruled the world. During this time, the Earth's interior was not standing still; rather, the supercontinent Pangaea had started to split into two smaller landmasses, called Laurasia and Gondwana.
These tectonic movements made the oceans close up and the tectonic plates sink into the Earth. This process, called subduction,led to volcanism at the surface, with rocks constantly melting and emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. Huge amounts of this greenhouse gas made the climate during the Jurassic Period extremely humid and warm, said geoscientist Douwe van der Meer, lead author of the study and a researcher at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. [Weather vs. Climate: Test Yourself]

Scientists have known for some time that a large amount of volcanic activity results in more CO2 than is present on Earth today, but with previous methods, it had been tricky to come up with a reliable estimate.

http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html