So..... not going to read it then, gotcha. This is sort of my point. The issue has become so politicized, people are not willing to listen to opposing views, and we all simply resort to name calling.LMAO!!!
Just reading the Amazon summary, there's a Who's Who of false narratives and factually incorrect statements - the last one about "the sun is the hottest it's over the past 60 years" is utter nonsense. You can look up and see that solar activity has not changed in at least 70 years. It that same timeframe, we have seen rapid increases in global temperatures, but the solar output is totally flat.
I'll be happy to pick a couple and demonstrate for you that they are demonstrably wrong. Will you actually look at facts for yourself, or are you going to claim 'the data have been falsified' and go off into ConspiracyTheoryLand?
FWIW...here is total solar output over the past century or so. Can you point out where this 'big increase in the past 60 years' has occurred? (Hint: 2015 - 60 = 1955)
Nobel Prize winning Scientist ridicules Obamas take on Climate Change.
- Thread starter Aegon_Targaryen
- Start date
Caught the big one! I knew you couldn't resist. Why don't you ask them. What is their motivation for lying? Big Oil money? LOL. These people have put their reputations on the line and have lowered themselves to "troglodyte" status. What is their gain?
No. I read some of the book's claims in the summary. And I've asked you to support them, when I've shown you data that clearly demonstrates at least one of them is false.
I've offered to address some of the other false information as well. I don't see any 'namecalling' in that. It's called 'debate', and you can only have constructive debate when you can agree on the facts you are starting with. If you are unwilling to agree with that, then you are really not interested in learning about the problem, you are only willing to read un-peer-reviewed books that try to paint the whole issue as a conspiracy theory.
When you can make up whatever fake facts you want and put them in a book people will buy, you can make up any conspiracy theory you want.
Aside from the money many do get from Big Oil or special interests....here's another aspect of the denial and conspiracy thinking:
Although nearly all domain experts agree that carbon dioxide emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a platform for denial of climate change, and bloggers have taken a prominent role in questioning climate science. We report a survey of climate-blog visitors to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that, above and beyond endorsement of free markets, endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the Federal Bureau of Investigation killed Martin Luther King, Jr.) predicted rejection of climate science as well as other scientific findings. Our results provide empirical support for previous suggestions that conspiratorial thinking contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.
NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax
An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/5/622.short
MEANWHILE....
The first five months of 2015 were the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above the 20th century average, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.09°C (0.16°F). Consequently, 2010 was the last year with El Niño conditions; however El Niño was ending at this point in 2010, while it appears to be maturing at the same point in 2015.
The average global sea surface temperature for the year-to-date was the highest for January–May in the 136-year period of record, surpassing the previous record of 2010 by 0.01°C (0.02°F). while the average land surface temperature was also record high, surpassing the previous record of 2007 by 0.05°C (0.09°F). Record warmth was most notable over the oceans, particularly the northeastern and equatorial Pacific Ocean, parts of the western North Atlantic, and the Barents Sea north of Scandinavia.
January–May
Anomaly °C °F Rank(out of 136 years)
Global
Land
+1.42 ± 0.20°C; +2.56 ± 0.36°F Warmest 1st 2015
Ocean
+0.63 ± 0.03°C; +1.13 ± 0.05°F Warmest 1st 2015
Land and Ocean
+0.85 ± 0.09°C; +1.53 ± 0.16°F Warmest 1st 2015
...and, as noted in the link, we are heading into a significant El Nino event which is highly likely to maintain global temperature records into Spring 2016.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201505
The first five months of 2015 were the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above the 20th century average, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.09°C (0.16°F). Consequently, 2010 was the last year with El Niño conditions; however El Niño was ending at this point in 2010, while it appears to be maturing at the same point in 2015.
The average global sea surface temperature for the year-to-date was the highest for January–May in the 136-year period of record, surpassing the previous record of 2010 by 0.01°C (0.02°F). while the average land surface temperature was also record high, surpassing the previous record of 2007 by 0.05°C (0.09°F). Record warmth was most notable over the oceans, particularly the northeastern and equatorial Pacific Ocean, parts of the western North Atlantic, and the Barents Sea north of Scandinavia.
January–May
Anomaly °C °F Rank(out of 136 years)
Global
Land
+1.42 ± 0.20°C; +2.56 ± 0.36°F Warmest 1st 2015
Ocean
+0.63 ± 0.03°C; +1.13 ± 0.05°F Warmest 1st 2015
Land and Ocean
+0.85 ± 0.09°C; +1.53 ± 0.16°F Warmest 1st 2015
...and, as noted in the link, we are heading into a significant El Nino event which is highly likely to maintain global temperature records into Spring 2016.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201505
So, you haven't read the book and are unwilling to engage its arguments. The book covers a wide range of scientists, none of whom have an axe to grind on the subject, all of whom have excellent credentials, and many of whom have seen their reputations hurt as a result of simply asking questions and pointing out possible errors in some of the climate science. You might find some scientists you disagree with in the book, but others will raise some excellent points, if (and it's a big if), you are willing to give them a fair hearing.
Once again, I've already pointed out one major factual flaw/issue (solar output); I've asked you to provide others, but instead you do not want to engage in a discussion of facts and science.
What you consider an 'excellent point' is quite often complete disinformation and illogical generalization. But I cannot explain that to you if you are unwilling to identify what you consider to be 'an excellent point'.
You know your argument is lame when you have to declare how great your argument is in every post.
When your argument is good, you pound the argument. When your argument is weak, you pound the table and just make noise.
Again, from your allegedly "excellent" book:
Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
How does this 'whopper' stand up to factual scientific evidence?
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html
Gravity changes
NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) has provided glaciologists with a new tool to study mass balance on both Greenland and Antarctica. GRACE measures changes in the strength of the gravitational force over the surface of the Earth, including changes driven by the accumulation or loss of ice.
Between April 2002 and April 2006, GRACE data uncovered ice mass loss in Greenland of 248 ± 36 cubic kilometers per year, an amount equivalent to a global sea rise of 0.5 ± 0.1 millimeters per year. The ice mass loss rate increased by 250 percent between April 2002 to April 2004 and May 2004 to April 2006. The increase was due almost completely to increased ice loss rates in southern Greenland (Velicogna and Wahr 2006a). Between 2003 and 2005, the Greenland Ice Sheet lost 101 ± 16 gigatons per year, with a gain of 54 gigatons per year above 2,000, meters and a loss of 155 gigatons per year at lower elevations. The lower elevations showed a large seasonal cycle: mass losses during summer melting, and mass gains from autumn through spring. The ice mass loss observed in this research was a change from the trend of losing 113 ± 17 gigatons per year during the 1990s, but was smaller than some other recent estimates (Luthcke et al. 2006).
In 2010, a study using GRACE and Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements from three long-term sites on bedrock near the ice sheet found that the ice loss already documented over southern Greenland was spreading along the northwestern coast. The acceleration of loss likely started in late 2005. GRACE data gave a direct measure of mass loss averaged over scales of a few hundred kilometers, and the GPS data observed crustal uplift resulting from ice mass loss. Uplift observed by both sources showed rapid ice acceleration in southeast Greenland in late 2003, and a modest deceleration in 2006 (Khan et al. 2010).
In the Southern Hemisphere, GRACE measurements indicated a significant ice loss in the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 2002 to 2005. Ice sheet mass decreased at 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year, equal to 0.4 ± 0.2 millimeters of sea level rise per year. Most of the mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (Velicogna and Wahr 2006b).
Merging methods
A 2012 study (Shepherd et al. 2012) combined satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data from the same regions, time spans, and models to examine ice sheet balance. The study found reasonable agreement between the different satellite methods, and arrived at the following best estimates of mass balance changes per year for 1992 through 2011: Greenland: lost 142 ± 49 gigatons; East Antarctica: gained 14 ± 43 gigatons; West Antarctica: lost 65 ± 26 gigatons; Antarctic Peninsula: lost 20 ± 14 gigatons. The study also found that, since 1992, polar ice sheets contributed to sea level rise by an average of 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeters per year—a total of 11 millimeters since 1992. (A 2014 study by McMillan et al. examining CryoSat-2 data more than doubled the estimated rate of Antarctic ice sheet contribution to sea level. Shepherd et al. estimated the annual contribution rate at 0.19 ± 0.15 millimeters over a 20-year period; McMillan et al. estimated the rate at 0.45 ± 0.14 millimeters per year between 2010 and 2013.)
So, only if you completely ignore the actual data coming from various scientific efforts, can you 'not see any global warming signal' from the Antarctic.NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) has provided glaciologists with a new tool to study mass balance on both Greenland and Antarctica. GRACE measures changes in the strength of the gravitational force over the surface of the Earth, including changes driven by the accumulation or loss of ice.
Between April 2002 and April 2006, GRACE data uncovered ice mass loss in Greenland of 248 ± 36 cubic kilometers per year, an amount equivalent to a global sea rise of 0.5 ± 0.1 millimeters per year. The ice mass loss rate increased by 250 percent between April 2002 to April 2004 and May 2004 to April 2006. The increase was due almost completely to increased ice loss rates in southern Greenland (Velicogna and Wahr 2006a). Between 2003 and 2005, the Greenland Ice Sheet lost 101 ± 16 gigatons per year, with a gain of 54 gigatons per year above 2,000, meters and a loss of 155 gigatons per year at lower elevations. The lower elevations showed a large seasonal cycle: mass losses during summer melting, and mass gains from autumn through spring. The ice mass loss observed in this research was a change from the trend of losing 113 ± 17 gigatons per year during the 1990s, but was smaller than some other recent estimates (Luthcke et al. 2006).
In 2010, a study using GRACE and Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements from three long-term sites on bedrock near the ice sheet found that the ice loss already documented over southern Greenland was spreading along the northwestern coast. The acceleration of loss likely started in late 2005. GRACE data gave a direct measure of mass loss averaged over scales of a few hundred kilometers, and the GPS data observed crustal uplift resulting from ice mass loss. Uplift observed by both sources showed rapid ice acceleration in southeast Greenland in late 2003, and a modest deceleration in 2006 (Khan et al. 2010).
In the Southern Hemisphere, GRACE measurements indicated a significant ice loss in the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 2002 to 2005. Ice sheet mass decreased at 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year, equal to 0.4 ± 0.2 millimeters of sea level rise per year. Most of the mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (Velicogna and Wahr 2006b).
Merging methods
A 2012 study (Shepherd et al. 2012) combined satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data from the same regions, time spans, and models to examine ice sheet balance. The study found reasonable agreement between the different satellite methods, and arrived at the following best estimates of mass balance changes per year for 1992 through 2011: Greenland: lost 142 ± 49 gigatons; East Antarctica: gained 14 ± 43 gigatons; West Antarctica: lost 65 ± 26 gigatons; Antarctic Peninsula: lost 20 ± 14 gigatons. The study also found that, since 1992, polar ice sheets contributed to sea level rise by an average of 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeters per year—a total of 11 millimeters since 1992. (A 2014 study by McMillan et al. examining CryoSat-2 data more than doubled the estimated rate of Antarctic ice sheet contribution to sea level. Shepherd et al. estimated the annual contribution rate at 0.19 ± 0.15 millimeters over a 20-year period; McMillan et al. estimated the rate at 0.45 ± 0.14 millimeters per year between 2010 and 2013.)
You want to "engage its arguments"? Start with this quote from the f'n AUTHOR of that piece of trash:
"Although most of the 10 deniers see little or no evidence from their own work that humans harm the climate, most nevertheless blame humans for global warming, on the basis of research conducted by others. In effect, most of these scientists are saying: "Don't call me a denier --I'm sure the research by others is sound. It's just that, in my own area of research, I have found nothing of concern."
So explain, please, why this jackhole named his book The Deniers?
BTW, the author and the newspaper that originally published this garbage had to apologize for misrepresenting the views of Dr. Nigel Weiss who threatened them with a libel suit.
"Apology to Dr. Nigel Weiss
Nigel Weiss, professor of astrophysics at the University of Cambridge, believes that the warming trend in Earth's climate is caused by greenhouse gases produced by human activity, and that the effect of a potential future reduction in solar activity would not reverse or cancel out that trend, but might have a small effect in mitigating it. He has held these views for several years. Incorrect information appeared in a column in the Financial Post on Feb. 2. The National Post withdraws any allegation that Dr. Weiss is a global warming "denier" and regrets the embarrassment caused him by the Feb. 2 column and a further column on Feb. 9."
Seems your idiot author failed to do his homework.
From others called "deniers in his book:
"The significant increase in the Earth's temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide." - Dr. Sami Solanki
"Me? A 'dyed-in-the-wool disbeliever in climate change'? I published one of the first papers that showed that warming was likely caused by greenhouse-gas emissions...According to my computations the greenhouse effect can cause annual damage of around 0,5 per cent of global GDP. In the next century, when the impact of global warming will be felt fully, the damage could amount to two to four per cent, if nothing would be done about it... we should not let global warming proceed unconstrained, otherwise we risk that one day the water in the oceans evaporates." - Dr. Richard Tol
And, understand, Dr. Tol is NOT called an alarmist. Debate that hawkboy.
"Apology to Dr. Nigel Weiss
Nigel Weiss, professor of astrophysics at the University of Cambridge, believes that the warming trend in Earth's climate is caused by greenhouse gases produced by human activity, and that the effect of a potential future reduction in solar activity would not reverse or cancel out that trend, but might have a small effect in mitigating it. He has held these views for several years. Incorrect information appeared in a column in the Financial Post on Feb. 2. The National Post withdraws any allegation that Dr. Weiss is a global warming "denier" and regrets the embarrassment caused him by the Feb. 2 column and a further column on Feb. 9."
Seems your idiot author failed to do his homework.
From others called "deniers in his book:
"The significant increase in the Earth's temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide." - Dr. Sami Solanki
"Me? A 'dyed-in-the-wool disbeliever in climate change'? I published one of the first papers that showed that warming was likely caused by greenhouse-gas emissions...According to my computations the greenhouse effect can cause annual damage of around 0,5 per cent of global GDP. In the next century, when the impact of global warming will be felt fully, the damage could amount to two to four per cent, if nothing would be done about it... we should not let global warming proceed unconstrained, otherwise we risk that one day the water in the oceans evaporates." - Dr. Richard Tol
And, understand, Dr. Tol is NOT called an alarmist. Debate that hawkboy.
I already know why it has the title it has. The title sells books to ignorant morons. That it is in no way descriptive of its contents is the point here.
I've never seen Joes Place debunk anything. I have seen him toot his own horn, though. Not literally....
No. In means I'm laughing out loud. In this case, at the idea I should go back and do what I did before, expecting a different result.
So you just want to throw it out there without actually revisiting it. Gotcha.
Translation: the previous result was that I got beat down.
From my recollection, you made the same 'ice free by 2013' claim.
My points included:
- The actual claim linked was that the Arctic may be 'ice free' by 2016±3 years, so the claim is not invalidated for 5 more years
- 'Ice free' refers only to the summer melt-off, and the US Navy considers <15% ice pack as 'ice free'; this is the same convention used to track ice coverage; any region with <15% icepack is considered 'ice free', which is not the same as 'no ice'
- No one had claimed 'no ice in the Arctic', they were only referring to the ice coverage nadir, which occurs in Aug/Sept, and we do not even have that data point for 2015 yet; the Arctic will continue to have ice during Fall, Winter and Spring months well past the summer 'ice free' nadir to which your sources were referring
So, yes, it was most certainly a 'beatdown'.
What I wrote was that some scientists had predicted the arctic ocean could be ice-free by 2015 or 2016. Very simple, declarative statement. Said nothing about the science behind the prediction.
When you denied it, I suggested you Google it. When you refused, I linked at least two articles showing it was true. You continually changed the subject, as you are trying to do again. Which is why I'm not going to go down that silly road again.
If there is anyone out there who is interested in this and missed the earlier discussion, just Google "ice-free arctic 2015" and you will find a number of references backing up my statement.
Exactly. Which was why I sourced the actual statements by the scientists and clarified what they actually said, not the sensationalized news blurb.
And this is your problem: you generalize crap from blogs and news stories, and use those mis-represented statements to claim the scientists are idiots, when their actual predictions go out to 2019 or 2020.
...and as I recall, you FIRST indicated to Google 'arctic ice free 2014', then 'arctic ice free 2016' or something like that.
You couldn't even keep track of which years you were talking about, because the actual CLAIM was really 2016±3 years, and some irresponsible news reporter latched onto the lower end of that as though it were the core prediction.
You couldn't even keep track of which years you were talking about, because the actual CLAIM was really 2016±3 years, and some irresponsible news reporter latched onto the lower end of that as though it were the core prediction.
Which is exactly the problem with everything you guys post. You should fix that.
FYI: this is what your '60% recovery' looks like when compared to 1950s sea ice coverage...
Using ~1990 as the '0' or 'mean' of nominal coverage, we typically had +2σ (standard deviations) in extent/coverage from the 1990s mean in the 1950s.
Today we are at -2σ (standard devations). So one year of a "60% recovery" from a -3σ event certainly does not get us back to even 1990s 'normal'. We'd need a 60% recovery for 4 or 5 years in a row, which is not happening.
"Intelligent and informed" are the words you are looking for. You should try spending just a few minutes to critically look at the news links you post and then wildly blab about.
I thought we were just trying to make them feel bad. I have no interest in fixing them.
Just to clarify: I'm not calling them stupid.
I'm referring to their repeated practice of posting generalizations and out of context information, then claiming 'the scientists are so wrong about all this', as stupid. When they KEEP DOING IT, they are demonstrating that they are stupid, however.
Maybe a sports analogy will make it more apparent for them...
Let's say some sports analyst said during the 2011 NFL season that "The Green Bay Packers will win the Super Bowl between 2013 and 2019".
These guys would post about how bad this prediction was, because clearly the Packers didn't win in 2013 or 2014, and their predictions are TOTALLY WRONG!!! While completely missing the rest of the prediction which runs for 5 more years....if this were a bet, it isn't possible to pay it off yet, either way. (maybe a gambling reference helps, too??!!)
They're certainly willfully ignorant, which, in many ways is worse than stupid. Stupid people can't help being stupid. The willfully ignorant are capable of curing their ignorance, but refuse to.
