Houston Chronicle We're scientists. We know the climate's changing. And we know why.
One of my FB Friends who truly believes in man made climate change posted that link. And Jerry and I were still belaboring the balancing babies... So I figured it was time for another endless comment string...
Here is their graph... I just added the 2 lines to show at rate change...
One of my FB Friends who truly believes in man made climate change posted that link. And Jerry and I were still belaboring the balancing babies... So I figured it was time for another endless comment string...
Here is their graph... I just added the 2 lines to show at rate change...
67 comments:
All the hype about man-made climate change is total BS ~ it's a natural phenomenon that's been occurring for thousands of years.
Binger,
Welcome. Did you look at the curve in the link? I added it to the post.
Why do you think things are heating up much faster now than in the early 1900's? see the lines I drew.
So you think the massive increase in population, pumping, mining and burning will have no adverse consequences?
Binger,
I added the Human Population and Fossil Fuel Curves here to make them easier to compare side by side.
Here's a stock market tip that may help in this matter: "A trend will continue until it changes." According to the OFFICIAL temperature records, long-term temperatures are rising somewhere between .12 and .18 degrees per decade, meaning 1.2 to 1.8 degrees 100 years from now. And those are the doctored numbers. The Paris accords say we MUST stay below 1.5 to 2.0 degrees of rise or we all die. So, we're OK!
Apparently all that rising CO2 doesn't matter much, despite what you /think/ should happen.
I don't know... I think those graphs look pretty compelling...
Actually, just taking the doctored numbers, it looks like temperature is increasing about .18 degrees per decade-- like I just said. And just because the graphs look explanatory does not mean there is any causative effect whatsoever. It's like Al Gore's correlation between CO2 and temperature, which ignores the fact that CO2 LAGS temperature.
90% of historical warming has happened after a rise in CO2. Prove that CO2 had no effect.
Moose
Moose,
What is your source that "90% of historical warming has happened after a rise in CO2"?
I guess I can't find my source. However, Caillon, et al. in "Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III" (2003, Science) is very clear on the cause of the amplification of the weak forcing of the Milankovitch Cycles.
"CO2 lags Temperature" is bunk.
I love this quote I read on an internet forum a while back.
"Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them."
Moose
Actually green house gases lagging temperature increases makes a lot of sense in normal times.
As the ice melted, things rotted, gas pockets were released, fires occurred, volcanos became more active, etc...
And of course as the gases built up things heated more...
This time is a bit different... Humans are jump starting the carbon release...
I agree, John. The point is that the deniers refuse to see the obvious logic in that.
Moose
Moose,
Based on Jerry's comments, I think he understands it but he thinks humans are like a tick on a dog... Just a small nuisance...
Not acknowledging that this tick may be contaminating it's host with a disease that may damage the tick's host beyond usefulness.
The root cause for the climate heating up so fast is the HOT AIR most ALL Politicians are pumping into the atmosphere.... it's that simple!!!
Binger,
I like that potential root cause...
We just need fewer politicians then. :-)
Please prove that the rise in CO2 is something other than the natural result of coming out of the little Ice Age. And imagine this: If you believe CO2 initially lags temperature but then contributes to a positive feedback of more heating, then why, in the last 600,000 years, has the Earth not turned into Venus?
Because there are other balancing factors that cool our big blue marble.
As I always say, I hope they kick in before to many millions of us die...
Exactly right, and those "other factors" are far larger than manmade CO2, have always balanced out and continue to do so. As for people dying, more die from cold than they do from warm. Of course, if we cut off their electricity in our zeal to stop warming, more will die from THAT than if the [natural] warming were allowed [since we have no choice] to continue. The cure is worse than the disease, even if it WAS effective, which it isn't.
I don't remember where I saw the official IPCC statement that said "if we stopped producing CO2 today, temperatures would start going DOWN 200 years from now." Does that sound like something we can "cure"?
More charts for you. These focus on actual results, not supposed causes.
climate steady
Jerry,
Those other factors unfortunately may not happen for centuries...
I followed your link to the group responsible for that bit of cherry picking. Based on their headlines, they seem to be a skeptic org.
This piece by a skeptic is more interesting. He at least acknowledges that further research is needed.
...sigh... Here it says "(the possibility of) precise very-long-range forecasting would seem to be non-existent."
Isn't that what I have been saying all along, and for the exact same (though much better documented in that piece) reasons?
Of course more research is needed; the current state of climate forecasting is much akin to tea leaves or chicken bones-- certainly not suitable for mandating any vast public policy prescription.
The question is: Are you going to listen to what somebody TELLS you the data says, or look at the data itself and make up your own mind? Remember, the ONLY "evidence" you have for a long-term climate catastrophe is the climate models, and you have just read that they are totally and irrevocably flawed. Any theory you may have that manmade CO2 matters is just that.
Please remember that this was written by one climate science skeptic on one climate change skeptic site... I just thought you would appreciate that I read your sources.
To me what he is saying is that...
- We just don't know (foggy)...
- There may be a moose standing in there...
- Continuing to accelerate is risky...
Remember the graphs in this post...
It's time to cut the line to the anchor, John. Discard it. We have no choice but to forge a brighter, cleaner, more prosperous future without the dead weight holding us back.
Moose
Moose,
Unfortunately your team is as extreme on the other side...
I asked my Climate Warming FB friends how we should trade off heating vs limiting low cost energy since both will kill humans... They of course attacked me rather than discussing the issue.
I think you did something similar when I asked how all these poor countries will afford these higher cost climate friendly technologies.
OK, Moose, you go ahead. Explain how you are going to build and site all of those windmills, when the total lifetime energy gain is approximately ZERO, and the cost is still higher than coal. Not only that, but it is highly uncertain that reducing manmade CO2 will have ANY effect whatsoever on future temperatures. (and some research says the lifetime balance of CO2 emissions for wind and solar is essentially zero; it "costs" more CO2 to make them than they will ever NOT produce. It's a fool's errand at best.
And John, don't you remember that, in science, a 100% consensus is thrown out the window when ONE person has the data to refute it? This guy's comments are irrefutable. If he says we cannot make predictions and that the predictions already made have proven to be wrong, he is right on the money. Why do you cling to your unfounded beliefs?
Look, if you have an energy technology that costs less and is equally reliable to what we now have, everybody will switch to it and no mandates or subsidies will be needed. If it happens to produce less CO2, most of us won't care but if it matters to you, that's a double plus. And if CO2 is ALL that matters, we should put up more nuclear plants, or preferably advanced nuclear plants (like thorium batteries, lithium fusion, BWR recycling). Cheaper, far more reliable, no CO2. But no... Windmills or bust!
"Unfortunately your team is as extreme on the other side..."
Wanting to invest in cleaner energy and less pollution is not an extreme position.
Moose
Jerry,
Please feel free to believe your cherry picked questionable data, I am sticking with the ICPP, NASA and NOAA.
Moose,
Who is putting up the money for your "INVEST"?
- For the USA
- For poor countries
What other spending should we cut to afford it?
- Food programs
- Clean water programs
"What other spending should we cut to afford it?"
Tax cuts for people and corporations who don't need it.
Moose
The usual liberal answer...
Let's charge them more so we do not need to pay for our "good ideas"... :-)
It appears you didn’t understand what I wrote.
I guess huge deficits are a good thing now.
Moose
John, what specific DATA from the IPCC, NOAA, etc. Convinces you we have a manmade CO2 problem? I don't want statements, I want scientific evidence. Give me a SOURCE.
Moose,
Funny... :-) Americans will borrow money to build turbines in Africa...
Jerry,
How about the top graph in the post? It seems pretty straight forward. And they site a source.
That is the graph I was referencing! Taking the whole graph, Temperatures have increased about 0.085 degree/decade or .85degrees/century. Taking just the higher rate trendline, it is at most 0.25 degrees per decade or 2.5 degrees/century. NOT catastrophic, and barely outside the Paris targets. Notice also how the predictions are above the actuals? Notice also that the "actuals" are the GISS dataset, one of the less reliable official datasets?
Then assuming that man's behaviors of 1900 to 1950 drove the increase in global heating rate from 0.3 deg / 100 years (1880 to 1980)... To 2.5 deg / 100 years (1980 to 2080)...
And our use of fossil fuels went up 500% in 1950 - 2000... What the next heating rate increase is could be very catastrophic...
And worse yet, since 2000 our fossil fuel usage rate is up another 25%... All of which indicates that the rate of heating will just keep increasing until something changes... Either the behaviors of humans or an adjustment by Mother Nature.
This is pretty scary since the melting ice has been using up a huge amount of energy. Which means when the ice has melted the rate of temp rise will increase.
No wonder the CAGW folks are nervous.
You are overlooking the fact that these trend lines are arbitrary, and you are fitting your bias onto them. You are overlooking the fact that the GISS dataset has been "adjusted" almost beyond recognition, eliminating the Dust Bowl warm period and almost eliminating the "coming ice age" of 1950-1970 and the "pause" of 2000-2018. Try this with the satellite data and you see almost ZERO warming, depending on where you start, while atmospheric CO2 continues upward, seemingly without affecting temperatures, as the underlying math actually shows. The satellite data seems to confirm the math; the GISS data does not and the models do not.
But to your point. If you are going to use the data from that chart, you are stuck with the prediction of 2.5 degrees rise over the next century-- you have no other data. And attributing this change in trendline to manmade CO2 is an unproven causation that not even the IPCC/EPA climate models can prove (and actually disprove). You are "presuming facts not in evidence."
Please feel free keep your belief.
However I am going to believe
NASA
NOAA
IPCC
And that bodes poorly for humans as we keep accelerating into the fog...
Once more, are you believing what is SAID about the data, or the data itself? Will you believe science based on the official data, or your own biased idea of what the data SHOULD say?
CO2 data from NOAA, and Temperature data from UAH
And then there is this- the research which you believe exists and shows what you think it should show. It does not.
carbon dioxide vs. global temperature
Now if all you do is try to discredit the source of the research, I will write your name on the list of Hopeless True Believers. These researchers use the exact same data the Warmists use to confuse the public.
As I said, cherry pick the data and researchers that you wish to trust... I am going with the experts my tax dollars fund.
I personally have ZERO desire to become a climate change expert. :-)
OK, say I /do/ "cherry pick" data and authors. Can you do the same and make a convincing case? Do you only trust the scientists (and the math) that support your cockamamie theory?
BTW, what would your "experts" do if there was definitive proof of an upcoming climate catastrophe? The tax dollars would stop flowing! Do you suppose they would instantly become skeptics and insist more research was needed? Or suppose there was definitive proof that their "theory" was either busted or did not point to a catastrophe? The tax dollars would stop flowing! What do you believe is the incentive for these "scientists"? How about the skeptics? They are NOT being paid to find any particular conclusion. Do you really believe money does not corrupt science?
For your perusal
And this
I am sure this topic will come up again sooner or later.
Wow. Who fact checks the fact checkers? Their first claim (that Smith is wrong and CAGW is real) is absolutely false, by their own "proof." Likewise the second and I got tired before looking at the third. If this is the kind of "convincing proof" you are clinging to....
The kinds of reasoning exposed in your second cite, which says the skeptics cannot be right because we don't agree with them. Sort of like, "there's no good reason for it, it's just our policy."
As I said... I am sure this topic will come up again sooner or later.
Again, every source you have provided either fails to support the conclusions you have reached, or directly contradicts them.
And don't dismiss my statements out of hand, as always. Here is what your article says, and I quote:
Smith took a quote by Stephen Schneider, a professor at Stanford University who died in 2010, out of context when he claimed the climate scientist “has said, ‘…we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.’ ” Smith added, “His message is clear: never express doubt and never accept any critiques.” That was not Schneider’s message.
Schneider, Oct. 1989, Discover: "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." [emphasis added]
The only thing that changes by putting Smith's direct and accurate quote from Schneider in context is Schneider's ADMISSION that this is dishonest and being done to be "effective" at convincing the public of something that is scientifically untrue.
That's the fact.
I agree with the FactChecker...
Smith cherry picked phrases from Schneider's quote to intentionally mislead...
Cherry picked? It was quoted exactly and the context only made it WORSE! Schneider ADMITTED they were lying for effect and that it was an ethical failing and affront to true science! How is that misleadiing? Are you claiming Smith was trying to exonerate these "scientists" because they were honest about their lying?
There is nothing about lying here...
"So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
He was just reminding the scientists what I tell my Technical employees often.
"If you believe your data and analysis, appear confident when telling me or others. Do not waffle or appear uncertain, or you will convince no one and be eaten alive by the doubters."
Please remember that technical people will get stalled by the minutiae if you let them.
And Schneider even re-stressed their ethical duty to them.
"as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts."
Then reminded them to strive to maintain balance...
"Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." [emphasis added]"
It seemed an excellent speech to me. Definitely not an approval to lie like Smith and yourself wish to spin it.
If being "effective" were the opposite of being honest and a scientist chose the former, would he not be lying? If I am supposed to tell the whole truth and do not include all my (major, at least) doubts, am I telling the truth or lying? Are "scary scenarios" supported by the data, or not? Is the data sufficiently reliable to warrant "scaring people"? Hint: no.
Of course you "lie radar" is nothing to count on... You trust Trump... :-)
All of us have to balance what we know and what we think we know when talking to others. If scientists are like engineers, lying and leaving out details is hard for them. That's why most of us do not become executives, politicians, lawyers, car salesmen, climate deniers, etc. :-)
It is so true that Dilbert covered it many times.
And you trust the "climate scientists." I win.
What do you win? How do I lose?
I never think of our discussions as a win / lose proposition.
At least I am trusting what I believe to be true. You seem to be trusting what somebody else believes (or maybe not) to be true. Who you gonna believe, them or their own lyin' data?
Sorry... I have seen no lies in their data...
I think your bias / cherry picking is making you see things that are not there...
And I have always believed that our HUGE step function in burning that which would not normally be burned would have an impact. The only questions for me is how big and how will Earth react?
You want experts? Here are the experts:
IPCC chief authors and other experts
Why would I even take the time to read a piece by a group that does not list their experts?
Especially when they state their agenda right up front...
Our Goal:
To educate the public about climate science and through them bring pressure to bear on governments to engage in public debates on the scientific merits of the hypothesis of human induced global warming and the various policies that intend to address the issue.
Our Opinion:
It is our opinion that the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change.
By the way, here is a direct link to their report...
Did you contribute in the writing? It seems pretty familiar. :-)
"It is our opinion that the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change."
Because, surely, the climate scientists have forgotten to check.
Moose
John:
-- Past IPCC expert reviewer and former WMO regional expert, Dr. Madhav Khandekar
--Prof. Philip Lloyd of South Africa, who was a Coordinating Lead Author for the IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage (2004) and a Reviewer for the Third and Fourth IPCC Assessment Reports.
--Prof. Michael J. Kelly of Cambridge University
Note that most of these folks have been associated with the IPCC, and are using IPCC reports to prove the skeptic case. Once more, you are dismissing the skeptical case because it is presented by skeptics, a rather circular "reasoning" if not just a religious cant. More convincing if you would try to disprove their completely true, logical and fact-based assertions. It is a puzzlement.
Yes, Moose, the scientists have "forgotten" to check. The computerized climate models do not correctly account for winds, ocean currents, clouds, changes in solar radiation, the non-linear response of infrared radiation to CO2, and natural cycles, among other things. The IPCC even admits that their models are totally unsuited for the long-range prediction of climate. Why should we believe something the scientists in charge of the data do not believe themselves, and whose data proves the skeptics' case?
Let me state the obvious once again. There is ZERO evidence of a climate catastrophe 100 years from now, and will not be for 100 years. All we have are computer predictions and blind assertions from "scientists" and environmental zealots and politicians. Of course we will have a better idea of the accuracy of today's wild guesses about that climate 50 years from now, but from here, 30 years on, it looks like the guesses of 1990 are wildly off the mark. Heck, 30 years ago we were all going to be in flying cars by now. We cannot accurately predict the future, even with computers.
Jerry,
Your report is a bunch of cherry picked quotes and data that was assembled by people who did not even sign the report. The people you noted above apparently had nothing to do with this report... Except to be quoted or misquoted...
My BS meter spikes when people publish reports without signing their names and documenting their qualifications.
I am not even going to try to understand a questionable sources conclusions, rationales, etc.
Did the members of the IPCC sign their report? Have any of them since denied being properly quoted? (Yes)
And would you accept a direct quote from the IPCC, such as (paraphrasing, but accurate) "The Earth's climate is a chaotic system and the long range prediction of climate states is not possible." So we're going to turn over the world economic system on a wild-eyed GUESS?
By the way, these predictions from ~1975 look pretty accurate. They are from the same individual as the graph in the post.
And now the data keeps getting better and better.
And he actually signed his article.
Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis.
Dana has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010. He also blogs at The Guardian, and is the author of Climatology versus Pseudoscience. He has published climate-related papers on various subjects, from the build-up of heat in the Earth's climate system to the expert consensus on human-caused global warming.
OK, I'll take your cherry-picked expert at face value. His predictions AND actuals range from 0.13 degrees/decade to an outside of 0.28 degrees per decade, with an average somewhere around 0.19. Hooray, Paris targets met and we didn't have to do anything! Let the acolytes of the Great Church of Global Warming declare our salvation!
Sorry, but I just have to note that these "predictions" are "accurate" + 50%/-30%. Not exactly a sure bet.
A new post for you...
G2A The Oceans are Warming Faster
Post a Comment