Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[tigerade]

I tried, spent an hour posting it and the appropriate links. Came back to find it had been moderated away. Seems, that a consensus has been reached. That must mean the science is settled.

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that a moderator deleted it. Moderators have been quite tolerant of "skeptic" positions on this thread.

 

[wmarcy]

A new peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, titled “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements", is openly providing a “rationale” for global warming proponents to engage in mendacious claims in order to further their cause.


The paper appears to support or provide a formula for why lying or “information manipulation” is able to further the cause of man-made global warming and “enhance global welfare.” The authors use a mathematical formula to study information tactics.


The authors, Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, note how the media and environmental groups “exaggerate” global warming and then the offer their paper to “provide a rationale for this tendency” to exaggerate for the good of the cause.


The paper was published on February 24, 2014.


The author’s boldly note in the abstract of the study that the “news media and some pro-environmental have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency.”


“We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA (International Environmental Agreements) which will eventually enhance global welfare.”

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

Hmm, I followed the money for this so-called NIPCC:

Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test | Climate Science Watch

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) | DeSmogBlog

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Based on that misleading graph from Roy Spencer (in your quote) one might think the observed temperature remained almost constant ... very wrong !

The 5-year average of the global land-ocean temperature index has increased almost 0.6 degrees C since 1975:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.pdf

View attachment 26653

(And that's actually a lot for a global average, given that for example an ice age doesn't require a huge difference in the other direction.)

@wmarcy

I report this sentence took from your post:

It can therefore be argued that there has been no appreciable human-caused warming in the 20th century at all -- and that the warming effects of rising GH-gas content of the atmosphere have been quite insignificant.

What? Please read the above mentioned post together with the graph reported in it. Then if you have some free time I also suggest you to give a look to all this thread.

 

[Norbert]

[...]
What? Please read the above mentioned post together with the graph reported in it. Then if you have some free time I also suggest you to give a look to all this thread.

By the way, since I made the post you quoted here, the 5-year global average (the red line) has gone up again, and is (almost) back to its peak (compare direct link to pdf, which is up-to-date, with the "Attachment", which is from the original time of the post).

 

[Raffy.Roma]

By the way, since I made the post you quoted here, the 5-year global average has gone up again, and is (almost) back to its peak (compare direct link to pdf, which is up-to-date, with the "Attachment", which is from the original time of the post).

But the graph in your post reports the Temperature Anomaly in the last century.

 

[Norbert]

But the graph in your post reports the Temperature Anomaly in the last century.

What do you mean, why do you say "but" ? I'm just pointing out that the 5-year average went up again in 2013, unlike the previous 2 years, when it went down a tiny bit. It is now at 0.60 degrees Celsius above baseline. The highest value ever was 0.61 degrees, 6 years ago. That's not a long time given that the weather fluctuations overlay the climate development for many years.

The highest *annual* global averages since 1880 were in 2005 and 2010. Again, within the obfuscating effect of weather, that is just a short time ago. And the 2013 annual average is higher than it was in the years preceding 2005 and 2010, so in this regard the next record year could come soon.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

@Norbert

Main thing is that in the last 70 years there has been an increase of 0.6 degrees of Temperature Anomaly which IMO is not insignificant and is certainly due to the costant increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the same period.

 

[RichardC]

So Much Nonsense!

Very simple and undisputed chemical and physical properties of CO2 and other GHGs mean that manmade dumping of GHG into the atmosphere will change the energy balance and lead to global warming. That was clearly understood and well documented science 100 years ago. We have since proven (based on the work done by Keeling and others) that manmade GHGs have increased CO2 concentrations by over 40% and are increasing at a rate of over 2 ppm each year.

None of the nonsense thrown in the air by the well funded deniers at the Heartland lobbying institute have raised any questions or doubts about the basic science. Unless that basic science is wrong, global warming is a fact, and a problem!

In addition, NASA and others have measured and confirmed the energy imbalance (the earth is recieving and retaining more energy than it is able to emit through its increasingly thick blanket of GHGs). Whether the air temperature is increasing, decreasing or is the same in no way affects the basic facts of global warming. The oceans are absorbing approximately 95% of the energy retained by the GHGs, and land and ice are absorbing around 80% of the balance. The net warming signal that is driving this discussion is based on the impact of a mere 1% of the global warming energy gain (and is disregarding the other 99%). On a short term basis, i.e., a decade or so, the impacts of the mere 1% of the global warming energy retained in the atmosphere can easily be masked by the overturning of cold water from the deep ocean or other similar phenomena and is not therefore the best measure of the global energy imbalance. To put this in perspective the GHG caused energy imbalance means that this planet is receiving and retaining additional net energy equal to about 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day, only a minute fraction of which is retained in the atmosphere.

 

[JRP3]

I replied with a rather lengthy post, supporting my position, unfortunately, it would appear that moderator(s) deleted it, without allowing it to be posted.

Since you copied and pasted an article you could have just put in a link with a brief summary. Since you're new here your posts will be moderated for a while until we know you aren't a bot or something.

 

[Norbert]

@Norbert

Main thing is that in the last 70 years there has been an increase of 0.6 degrees of Temperature Anomaly which IMO is not insignificant and is certainly due to the costant increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the same period.

Agreed, of course. That is (or rather, it should be) the obvious part.

- - - Updated - - -

[...]

None of the nonsense thrown in the air by the well funded deniers at the Heartland lobbying institute have raised any questions or doubts about the basic science. Unless that basic science is wrong, global warming is a fact, and a problem!

[...]

They are quite good at making themselves sound important, though. Still don't understand why so many people (seem to) buy it.

 

[tigerade]

Looks like I'm going to need to wear the tall boots for this one...

All the evidence suggests that Nature rules the climate – not Man.

This statement is nonsensical and unscientific. Man does not rule the climate and Nature does not rule the climate. There is no one that "rules" the climate, instead, it's a non-thinking, non-living entity. In fact, nature isn't really a "thing". Nature is just a description of what man calls the physical world around him. The governance is the same as the rest of the universe - the laws of physics. An uncaring, unthinking, but very real presence.

Such tipping points occur quite frequently in science. I have personally witnessed two paradigm shifts where world scientific opinion changed rapidly -- almost overnight. One was in Cosmology, where the “Steady State” theory of the Universe was replaced by the “Big Bang.” This shift was confirmed by the discovery of the “microwave background radiation,” which has already garnered Nobel prizes, and will likely get more.

Evidence can disprove a theory, but that does not always mean that a theory is thrown out entirely, it is a model that can be adjusted to account for the new evidence.

The other major shift occurred in Continental Drift. After being denounced by the Science Establishment, the hypothesis of Alfred Wegener, initially based on approximate relations between South America and Africa, was dramatically confirmed by the discovery of “sea-floor spreading.”

Plate tectonic theory was originally not accepted by some scientists for good reason - there wasn't good evidence. When the evidence supporting the theory did surface, the skeptics changed their positions and accepted the theory. This is how science does and should work.

These shifts were possible because there were no commercial or financial interests -- and they did not involve the public and politicians. But climate is a different animal: The financial stakes are huge -- in the trillions of dollars, and affect energy policy, and indeed the economic wellbeing of every inhabitant of the developed and developing world.

Agreed. If there were no financial interests involved, the "controversy" surrounding AGW would be nearly nil.

Nevertheless, I believe the time is right for a paradigm shift on climate. For one, there has been no warming now for some 15 years -- in spite of rising levels of greenhouse (GH) gases.

A myth that has been handled many times in this thread... The earth is accumulating a majority of the heat in the oceans, and the past decade has seen many records even though 1998 was an exceptionally hot year.

Climate models have not come up with any accepted explanation. This disparity, of course, throws great doubt about any future warming derived from these same models, and indeed also about policies that are being advocated -- principally, the mitigation and control of Carbon Dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Not really. Even if a particular climate model misses the mark, it can be adjusted and fixed to perform better in the future. No one doubts that climate is very complex and hard to predict, but that does not mean it can never be successfully predicted.

Next year, in Paris, the UN will try to reconstitute the basic features of the (1997-2012) Kyoto Protocol -- an international treaty of participating nations to limit their emissions of CO2. They may succeed -- unless the current paradigm changes.

I'm actually not that optimistic about that

We can already see the pressure building up for such a treaty. The big guns of international science are actively promoting climate scares. The Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences have published a joint major report, containing no new science but advocating a “need for action.” The AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), the largest scientific organization in the United States, is promoting the same policy, but without a shred of science in their slick pamphlet. Even the once-respected Scientific American magazine has gotten into the act and openly advocates such policies.

Bullshit. I've read the reports, they outline how the research was conducted, the methodology used, and any works cited. Which is actually what this post is missing, by the way.

But now, for the first time, we have NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) as a counter to the IPCC, as an independent voice

The NIPCC? Independant? That's a rich one. By independent do you mean backed by the Heartland Institute, a right-wing front group that receives millions from the fossil fuel industry?

The NIPCC, in particular its Summary for Policy-Makers (SPM) of Vol 1, looks critically at the evidence that the IPCC uses to back up their claim of AGW. NIPCC notes that the evidence keeps changing over time. The first IPCC report (1990) used an improbable statistical method to suggest that the warming of the early part of the 20th century was due to human-produced GH gases; no one believes this anymore.

The NIPCC is a pseudoscience organization that is comparable to Ken Ham's Discovery Institute

The second assessment report of 1996, which led to the infamous 1997 Kyoto Protocol, manufactured the so-called “HotSpot,” a region of increased warming trend, with a maximum in the equatorial troposphere. That evidence has also disappeared: a detailed analysis (published in Nature 1996) showed that the hHotspot doesn’t even exist. In addition, the assumption that it constitutes a “fingerprint” for AGW is in error.
As a result of these two failed attempts to establish some kind of evidence for AGW, the third IPCC report (2001) latched on to the so-called “Hockeystick” graph, which claimed that only the 20th century showed unusual warming during the past 1000 years. However, further scrutiny demonstrated that the Hockeystick was also manufactured -- based on faulty data, erroneous statistical methods, and an inappropriate calibration method. Even purely random data fed into the algorithm would produce a hockeystick.

Pure nonsense, look at earlier posts on this thread. The hockeystick wasn't invented, just discovered. Multiple scientific organizations in different countries, completely independant of U.S. influence or funding, show the same warming trend.

In its most recent AR5 of 2013, the IPCC has dropped all previous pieces of evidence and instead concentrates on trying to prove that the reported surface warming between 1978 and 2000 agrees with a warming predicted by climate models. This so-called proof turns out to be a weak reed indeed. The reported warming applies only to surface (land-based) weather stations and is not seen in any other data set; the weather satellite data that measure atmospheric temperature show no significant trend -- neither do proxy data (from analysis of tree rings, ocean/lake sediments, stalagmites, etc)

100% false. These are thermometers we are talking about. A device invented centuries ago. When thousands of them consistently show surface, atmosphere and oceanic warming, that doesn't seem curious to you?

It can therefore be argued that there has been no appreciable human-caused warming in the 20th century at all -- and that the warming effects of rising GH-gas content of the atmosphere have been quite insignificant. See alsohttp://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/ipcc_s_bogus_evidence_for_global_warming.html

No it can't, and arguing it with psuedoscience is not the way to do it

But what about future global temperatures? Opinions differ sharply -- all the way from another “Little Ice Age” (a calamity, in my opinion) to a resumption of warming (aided by the “missing heat” that some alarmists are sure is hiding somewhere). Personally, I don’t do forecasts since I know too little about the Sun’s interior; I simply try to understand and explain the past climate. But if pressed, I would go with historic cycles, like the observed 1000-1500-yr cycle; it suggests a modest warming over the next few centuries, perhaps in ‘fits and starts’ -- unlike computer models that yield a steady increase in temperature from a steady increase of GH-gas levels.

Opinions on the subject don't matter, and this statement argues from ignorance. Logical fallacy

Will nations accept any treaties emanating from the 2015 Paris Conference? So far, only Western Europe seems to be keen on ratifying -- and even there, doubts are developing. Eastern Europe is definitely against any new Protocol, as are Japan, Australia, and Canada. And what about the Chinese, the world’s largest emitters of CO2? They gain a competitive advantage if their commercial competitors accept the Treaty’s restrictions, which raise their cost of energy.

Just because the world isn't doing squat about global warming doesn't mean global warming isn't happening

The United States may be in a transition mode -- and that’s where a paradigm shift could really make a global difference. According to the latest Gallup poll, the US public ranks Global Warming almost at the bottom of twenty issues, mostly concerned with economics.

Argumentum ad populum

The White House, however, seems to be gung-ho for climate alarmism. President Obama is planning new climate initiatives, based on advice from his Science Adviser, John Holdren, an erstwhile disciple of “Population Bomb” Paul Ehrlich. John Podesta has come aboard as counselor and special assistant to the President to push climate initiatives. And of course, the rest of the Administration is in tune with the White House.

Secretary of State John Kerry considers AGW the greatest challenge to US security -- in spite of having his plate full of foreign-policy problems: the Iran nuclear negotiations, the Syrian civil war, a developing Sunni insurgency in Iraq, the Arab-Israel ‘peace’ negotiations, and the Russian annexation of Crimea. This, of course, is the same John Kerry, who as a US Senator in 1997 voted for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution against the likes of a Kyoto Protocol.
In mid-2014, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will issue its opinion on the EPA’s mis-guided and unscientific efforts to limit or even abolish the use of coal for electric generation. If SCOTUS can become aware of the NIPCC conclusions, they will surely decide against EPA and therefore the WH. Such an event may become the trigger for a cataclysmic paradigm shift in US policy on energy and climate. The November 2014 elections could tip the balance and finally kill the myth of Global Warming catastrophes in the US and throughout the world.

The SCOTUS is not going to take one word of the NIPCC seriously

NIPCC Conclusions in Brief​ Backed by thousands of peer-reviewed studies, are in striking contrast to the IPCC’s alarmist predictions: **Climate data tell us that the human impact on Earth’s climate is very small and that any warming due to GH gases will be so small as to be indiscernible from natural variability. **The net impacts of modestly rising temperatures and higher carbon-dioxide levels on plants, animals, wildlife, and human welfare have been positive so far and are likely to continue to be positive. **The costs of trying to mitigate climate change by reducing emissions vastly exceed the benefits. Annual cost per US household would run to some $3,900; would destroy millions of jobs. **In light of the new science and economics of climate change, thousands of laws passed at the height of the global warming scare need to be re-evaluated, modified, or repealed.

I would rather have citations than conclusions

 

[Incredulocious]

I didn't find this classic quote in this thread, so allow me:

So-called “global warming” is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it!

— Chip Giller

And of course the comic variation – I see it was posted way back on page 27 of this thread but I think it's time for an encore:

Love that one!

 

[Dave EV]

Since you copied and pasted an article you could have just put in a link with a brief summary. Since you're new here your posts will be moderated for a while until we know you aren't a bot or something.

I don't see how the post made it past moderation. It clearly violates Copyright by pasting the entire article without providing a reference. For those interested in the source, it can be found here:

Articles: The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate - American Thinker

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Articles: The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate - American Thinker

With reference to this article I would like to quote the following sentence:

Nevertheless, I believe the time is right for a paradigm shift on climate. For one, there has been no warming now for some 15 years -- in spite of rising levels of greenhouse (GH) gases.

But there has not been warming in the last 15 years because, as RichardC said in his previous post, the oceans are absorbing approximately 95% of the energy retained by the GHGs, and land and ice are absorbing around 80% of the balance.
We should be worried of the fact that there is no warming in spite of the fact that GHGs are increasing in the atmosphere. It means that oceans are getting warmer.

 

[tigerade]

I don't see how the post made it past moderation. It clearly violates Copyright by pasting the entire article without providing a reference. For those interested in the source, it can be found here:

Articles: The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate - American Thinker

I was going to point that out, but honestly I wasn't interested in knowing where that garbage came from. Wmarcy, next time when I ask to hear your argument, I mean I want to hear YOUR argument, not something you copied and pasted from a blog (without even giving credit to the blog).

But anyway, I do welcome climate change "skeptics" to this thread. If nothing else, they can demonstrate to the audience here how god awful these arguments really are.

 

[Norbert]

For one, there has been no warming now for some 15 years -- in spite of rising levels of greenhouse (GH) gases.

A myth that has been handled many times in this thread... The earth is accumulating a majority of the heat in the oceans, and the past decade has seen many records even though 1998 was an exceptionally hot year.

Even when taking the exceptional 1998 into account (15 years ago), both 5-year averages and 1-year records have gone up since then.

One can say it didn't get warmer since 2005, which is 8 years before the last available data point, 2013.

However in the past, there have been many periods of 5 or 6 years where the temperature was falling. 8 years is 2 years more than that, but the temperature is quite constant compared to those periods, so while longer, not as much falling. So it isn't really very unusual, considering fluctuations in the past.

As far as the US is concerned, very many states in the US had record highs of annual temperature as recently as 2012.

- - - Updated - - -

I was going to point that out, but honestly I wasn't interested in knowing where that garbage came from. Wmarcy, next time when I ask to hear your argument, I mean I want to hear YOUR argument, not something you copied and pasted from a blog (without even giving credit to the blog).

But anyway, I do welcome climate change "skeptics" to this thread. If nothing else, they can demonstrate to the audience here how god awful these arguments really are.

Same here. And a question I have is: Why do you (Wmarcy) believe those articles, and not the larger scientific literature? What gives you confidence that those articles are closer to the truth?

 

[Raffy.Roma]

With reference to this article I would like to quote the following sentence:

Nevertheless, I believe the time is right for a paradigm shift on climate. For one, there has been no warming now for some 15 years -- in spite of rising levels of greenhouse (GH) gases.

But there has not been warming in the last 15 years because, as RichardC said in his previous post, the oceans are absorbing approximately 95% of the energy retained by the GHGs, and land and ice are absorbing around 80% of the balance.
We should be worried of the fact that there is no warming in spite of the fact that GHGs are increasing in the atmosphere. It means that oceans are getting warmer.

Actually from this graph:

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=26653

it could be inferred that there has not been warming in the last 8 years (not 15 years).

 

[Norbert]

Actually from this graph:

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=26653

it could be inferred that there has not been warming in the last 8 years (not 15 years).

Sounds like you wrote this overlapping with my preceding post, so just since we are going into this detail now: Here is the same data in tabular form, since 1975:

------------------------------------
Year, Annual avg., 5-year avg.
1975 -0.01 0.02
1976 -0.12 0.00
1977 0.15 0.04
1978 0.06 0.09
1979 0.12 0.17
1980 0.23 0.16
1981 0.28 0.20
1982 0.09 0.20
1983 0.27 0.17
1984 0.12 0.14
1985 0.08 0.18
1986 0.15 0.20
1987 0.29 0.22
1988 0.36 0.29
1989 0.25 0.33
1990 0.40 0.32
1991 0.38 0.29
1992 0.20 0.30
1993 0.21 0.30
1994 0.29 0.29
1995 0.43 0.35
1996 0.33 0.43
1997 0.46 0.45
1998 0.62 0.45
1999 0.41 0.49
2000 0.41 0.52
2001 0.53 0.52
2002 0.62 0.54
2003 0.61 0.59
2004 0.52 0.60
2005 0.67 0.61
2006 0.60 0.58
2007 0.63 0.60
2008 0.50 0.60
2009 0.60 0.59
2010 0.67 0.58
2011 0.55 0.60
2012 0.58 *
2013 0.61 *
2014 * *

------------------------------------

The last data point for annual average is 2013. 2005 (same as 2010) is the max and a good bit higher than 2003 or 2004. (So 2005 is 8 years ago).
The last data point for 5-year average is 2011, the max was in 2005, which is 6 years of (very slight) decrease. (The 2012 value is not known yet and could theoretically be higher again, depending on the 2014 annual temp.)

 

[JRP3]

We have also been in an extended period of low sunspot activity, which correlates with lower temperatures, and could be mitigating global warming, temporarily.