Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    From this month's Scientific American: A op ed / blog filled with Climate change hysteria...



    I didn't know that the streets of Miami flooded every time the tide came in...

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-is-president/

    Of course, the whole article if you read it is one hysterical plea to Trump to continue blindly down the road of Leftist environmentalism... but, what the hey...
    It's the spring high tides... And it's been a problem for decades. Build a city on a low-lying island with Karst topography and you get flooding...
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • From Drudge

      From Drudge ...
      NOAANASA claim record heat in locations where no thermometers?

      'Apocalyptic' SNOWSTORM blasts Middle East...
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

      Comment


      • Karl et al., 2015 appears to have been fraudulent...
        They played fast and loose with the figures -NOAA whistleblower

        The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

        A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

        The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

        But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

        It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

        His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

        His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

        [...]

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/...ke-procedures/
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • DO NOT BUY THE HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE’S CLAIM THAT SCIENTISTS FAKED DATA............

          NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT NOAA FABRICATED DATA; EVIDENCE STILL POINTS TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
          Bates takes particular issue with the way Karl handled land temperature data in the Science study which addressed the so-called “climate hiatus." Early analyses of global temperature trends during the first ten years of this century seemed to suggest that warming had slowed down. Climate change doubters used this analysis to support their belief that—despite climatological data which includes 800,000 year ice-core records of atmospheric carbon dioxide—humans have not affected the atmosphere by releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide per year.
          “His primary complaint seems to be that when researchers at NOAA published this paper in Science, while they used a fully developed and vetted ocean temperature product, they used an experimental land temperature product," said Zeke Hausfather, an energy systems analyst and environmental economist with Berkeley Earth. Because climate data comes from a number of different sources, methods of handling that data go through a vetting process that ultimately dictates the use of one for the official government temperature product. That can mean controlling for known defects in the devices that gather climate data or figuring out the best way to put them together. The product that Karl used for land temperature data hadn't finished that process.
          "That said," said Hausfather, "the land temperature data they used in the paper is certainly up to the standards of an experimental or research product.”
          So what does that mean for those of us on the outside?
          Not much.
          http://www.popsci.com/regardless-hou...limate-records


          http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.c...hLA91&fc=50,50

          Basically, line goes up over time, which proves AGW.

          Or you could believe the Mail with its scientific article here .
          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          Comment


          • Okay...

            Let's go with that. Anthropogenic CO2 production has been steadily rising since well before 1880. Yet, the graph you show only has temperature rising since the 1940's.

            What changed?

            One thing that did is in the 1940's for the first time aircraft started leaving contrails in the sky. Since the 1940's there has been a steady increase in contrail formation worldwide. Is it possible that this almost entirely overlooked source of massive water vapor increase in the atmosphere is causing temperatures to climb slowly?
            From the limited studies to date, the most generous give it as about 5% of all temperature increase. But, data is hard to come by for comparison as there is no way to compare the atmosphere absent of contrails with one full of them today.
            Given that the same scientists that are crying loudest about Gorebal Warming are the ones that cried wolf over CFC's and the ozone layer (a total fail for them), I'm not inclined to buy their latest modelling and predictions on anything.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
              Karl et al., 2015 appears to have been fraudulent...
              They played fast and loose with the figures -NOAA whistleblower

              The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

              A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

              The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

              But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

              It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

              His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

              His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

              [...]

              https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/...ke-procedures/
              In the whistle-blower's own words...
              Climate scientists versus climate data
              Posted on February 4, 2017 | 556 Comments
              by John Bates

              A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.


              I read with great irony recently that scientists are “frantically copying U.S. Climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump” (e.g., Washington Post 13 December 2016). As a climate scientist formerly responsible for NOAA’s climate archive, the most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data. I spent the last decade cajoling climate scientists to archive their data and fully document the datasets. I established a climate data records program that was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs), which accurately describe the Earth’s changing environment.

              The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”). The study drew criticism from other climate scientists, who disagreed with K15’s conclusion about the ‘hiatus.’ (Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown). The paper also drew the attention of the Chairman of the House Science Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, who questioned the timing of the report, which was issued just prior to the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan submission to the Paris Climate Conference in 2015.

              In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what Mr. Karl has provided.

              [...]

              https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/c...-climate-data/
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                Okay...

                Let's go with that. Anthropogenic CO2 production has been steadily rising since well before 1880. Yet, the graph you show only has temperature rising since the 1940's.

                What changed?

                One thing that did is in the 1940's for the first time aircraft started leaving contrails in the sky. Since the 1940's there has been a steady increase in contrail formation worldwide. Is it possible that this almost entirely overlooked source of massive water vapor increase in the atmosphere is causing temperatures to climb slowly?
                From the limited studies to date, the most generous give it as about 5% of all temperature increase. But, data is hard to come by for comparison as there is no way to compare the atmosphere absent of contrails with one full of them today.
                Given that the same scientists that are crying loudest about Gorebal Warming are the ones that cried wolf over CFC's and the ozone layer (a total fail for them), I'm not inclined to buy their latest modelling and predictions on anything.
                Here's a little exercise in inverse modeling I did for Watts Up With That...
                Models often get a bad rap among skeptics, largely because climate models have demonstrated an epic failure in predictive skill. However, models are extremely valuable scientific tools, particularly when used heuristically. Models are learning tools.

                Generally speaking models fall into two general categories:
                1. Forward problems.
                2. Inverse problems.

                Inverse problem

                From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                An inverse problem in science is the process of calculating from a set of observations the causal factors that produced them: for example, calculating an image in computer tomography, source reconstructing in acoustics, or calculating the density of the Earth from measurements of its gravity field.

                It is called an inverse problem because it starts with the results and then calculates the causes. This is the inverse of a forward problem, which starts with the causes and then calculates the results.

                Inverse problems are some of the most important mathematical problems in science and mathematics because they tell us about parameters that we cannot directly observe. They have wide application in optics, radar, acoustics, communication theory, signal processing, medical imaging, computer vision, geophysics, oceanography, astronomy, remote sensing, natural language processing, machine learning, nondestructive testing, and many other fields.

                […]

                Wikipedia

                In oil & gas exploration, we make extensive used of inverse models. We start with a result (seismic amplitude anomaly) and then try to calculate the causes (oil, gas, tabular salt, oyster beds, geopressure, tuff, marl, etc.). One of the most widely used tools is called a “fluid replacement model.” Using sonic and density logs from an existing well drilled through the objective section, we can mathematically substitute oil and gas for brine in wet sands and generate a synthetic seismic anomaly to compare with the real seismic anomaly. While these models are very useful, sometimes you will get a result that just doesn’t make sense. If a model defies realistic geology, it’s probably wrong. I wondered if we could do the same sort of thing to climate data.

                Climate Sensitivity Inverse Model

                In a fluid replacement model, we replace one fluid with another to see what the real data would look like with different fluid contents. In my climate model, I simulated what a climate reconstruction would look like without the industrial era rise in atmospheric CO2. I used two transient climate response cases 1) 1.35 °C and 2) 3.5 °C per doubling of atmospheric CO2.



                Figure 1) Transient Climate Response: 1.35 °C (red) and 3.5 °C (green) per doubling of CO2. starting at 277 ppmv.

                This yielded two equations for ΔT:
                • ΔT = 1.9476*ln(CO2) – 10.954 for TCR = 1.35 °C
                • ΔT = 5.0494*ln(CO2) – 28.398 for TCR = 3.50 °C


                Using CO2 data from Law Dome (MacFarling Meure et al., 2006) and a Northern Hemisphere climate reconstruction (Ljungqvist 2010), calculated the CO2-driven temperature component and then subtracted it from the reconstructed temperatures.



                Figure 2) Northern hemisphere temperatures over the past 2,000 years. Black = with industrial era CO2 rise. Red = without industrial era CO2 rise, TCR = 1.35 °C. Green = without industrial era CO2 rise, TCR = 3.50 °C.

                The removal of a 1.35 °C TCR yields reasonable result. The removal of a 3.50 °C TCR yields a temperature much colder than the nadir of the Little Ice Age. This seems massively unlikely. (When I applied this to Greenland ice core temperatures (Alley, 2000 and Kobashi et al., 2010) using a 2X polar amplification, the model yielded temperatures equivalent to the Bølling-Allerød glacial interstadial.)

                Zooming in on the “Anthropocene,” it appears that a high TCR (alarmist) world would already be buried under a mile of ice, if not for anthropogenic augmentation of the so-called greenhouse effect.



                Figure 3) In the mid to late 1970’s, we were on the verge of a “new ice age” according to many media reports. Just imagine the global cooling hysteria if we hadn’t been augmenting the so-called greenhouse effect!!!

                Conclusions

                If my methodology is valid, it seems highly probable that the climate is relatively insensitive to atmospheric CO2. This would seem to validate recent observation-based climate sensitivity estimates, which indicate rather low TCR and ECS values.

                [...]

                https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/...omment-2418464

                I called the 1.35 °C case “reasonable” because it didn’t yield a crazy result. It resulted in a continuation of the mid-20th century cooling. I don’t think this is necessarily correct; just reasonable. We know that the late 20th century warming began with a shift in the long-term phase of the PDO. This shift wasn’t driven by CO2; so 1.35 °C is probably still way too high.

                The 3.5 °C case is clearly batschist crazy. It yields a rapid temperature drop which crashes through the lower 95% confidence band, colder than the nadir of the LIA, to glacial interstadial territory.

                It boils down to the fact that there is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have driven or will drive temperatures much higher than they would have risen without human industrialization.

                "Natural variability" is general defined as +/- 2 standard deviations. Over the past 2,000 years, the average temperature of the northern hemisphere has exceeded natural variability 3 times: The peak of the Medieval Warm Period, the nadir of the Little Ice Age and the recent period of warming...



                Mankind is possibly responsible for some fraction of the 0.216 °C...

                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • Ah, but my point was, whatever the portion caused by man is it CO2 or something else causing that? The Gorebal Warming crowd says it's CO2. I personally think its several causes and not primarily CO2. That makes the imperative that environmentalists are pushing a fraud. It also opens up the distinct possibility that they really want to end use of hydrocarbon fuels in favor of solar, wind, and the like because they like and favor those over hydrocarbon fuels. If that's the case, then they cast around for a cause that would argue for an end to what they oppose and replacement with what they favor.
                  Any evidence that doesn't support their position is ignored outright or downplayed. I can see some of that in much of what is published about Gorebal Warming. Of course, given that:

                  A. The Progressive Left has been almost 100% wrong on everything
                  B. There is ample evidence to demonstrate that the same scientists that shout loudest for anthropogenic CO2 are the same sort that shouted loudest for CFC bans over ozone, among other things

                  Therefore, a healthy skepticism is called for over CO2 being the primary cause of Gorebal Warming.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    Ah, but my point was, whatever the portion caused by man is it CO2 or something else causing that? The Gorebal Warming crowd says it's CO2. I personally think its several causes and not primarily CO2. That makes the imperative that environmentalists are pushing a fraud. It also opens up the distinct possibility that they really want to end use of hydrocarbon fuels in favor of solar, wind, and the like because they like and favor those over hydrocarbon fuels. If that's the case, then they cast around for a cause that would argue for an end to what they oppose and replacement with what they favor.
                    Any evidence that doesn't support their position is ignored outright or downplayed. I can see some of that in much of what is published about Gorebal Warming. Of course, given that:

                    A. The Progressive Left has been almost 100% wrong on everything
                    B. There is ample evidence to demonstrate that the same scientists that shout loudest for anthropogenic CO2 are the same sort that shouted loudest for CFC bans over ozone, among other things

                    Therefore, a healthy skepticism is called for over CO2 being the primary cause of Gorebal Warming.
                    CO2 is part of it... So are land use changes. There's a nugget of truth at the core of every enviro-fraud.

                    CFC's are a good example. Human CFC emissions definitely affect stratospheric ozone and deepened the annual Antarctic "ozone hole"... But they didn't cause it, nor are they the primary driver of it.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • I recall years ago that "global warming" meant we here in the PNW of the USA would start to expereince Winters like in California. I've lived there and the foot of snow I've been shoveling lately, the sub-freezing, and the increased wood into the wood heater to heat the house suggests I ain't gettin' my fair share of global warming, human caused or other wise.
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        Ah, but my point was, whatever the portion caused by man is it CO2 or something else causing that? The Gorebal Warming crowd says it's CO2. I personally think its several causes and not primarily CO2. That makes the imperative that environmentalists are pushing a fraud. It also opens up the distinct possibility that they really want to end use of hydrocarbon fuels in favor of solar, wind, and the like because they like and favor those over hydrocarbon fuels. If that's the case, then they cast around for a cause that would argue for an end to what they oppose and replacement with what they favor.
                        Any evidence that doesn't support their position is ignored outright or downplayed. I can see some of that in much of what is published about Gorebal Warming. Of course, given that:

                        A. The Progressive Left has been almost 100% wrong on everything
                        B. There is ample evidence to demonstrate that the same scientists that shout loudest for anthropogenic CO2 are the same sort that shouted loudest for CFC bans over ozone, among other things

                        Therefore, a healthy skepticism is called for over CO2 being the primary cause of Gorebal Warming.

                        https://static.skepticalscience.com/...Realistsv3.gif


                        https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/StepFnv2.gif
                        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                        Comment


                        • Irrelevant to the question on the table... What's the cause? I'm not buying the CO2 story. The same scientists have gotten it wrong before, and their modelling to date has been badly inaccurate. Add to that repeated scandals (usually downplayed by the MSM, etc.) of cheating, lying, and making up data.

                          Top that off with alternate reasons for it that are plausible and have at least decent science backing them, equal to the CO2 science, I'm calling anthropogenic CO2 at best a guess, at worst an outright lie being used to push a political agenda.

                          Comment


                          • Half truths are the best propaganda. People however believe what they want to believe for the most part. The real and most dangerous thing we face is budget deficits, unfunded liabilities, rejection of the petrodollar, and political chaos.

                            Anthropogenic warming is just a convenient truth that is used to promote the kind of chaos that makes money changers richer. The banksters always make a profit.
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              Irrelevant to the question on the table... What's the cause? I'm not buying the CO2 story. The same scientists have gotten it wrong before, and their modelling to date has been badly inaccurate. Add to that repeated scandals (usually downplayed by the MSM, etc.) of cheating, lying, and making up data.

                              Top that off with alternate reasons for it that are plausible and have at least decent science backing them, equal to the CO2 science, I'm calling anthropogenic CO2 at best a guess, at worst an outright lie being used to push a political agenda.
                              Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                              Half truths are the best propaganda. People however believe what they want to believe for the most part. The real and most dangerous thing we face is budget deficits, unfunded liabilities, rejection of the petrodollar, and political chaos.

                              Anthropogenic warming is just a convenient truth that is used to promote the kind of chaos that makes money changers richer. The banksters always make a profit.
                              If you look at the graphs, line ascends left to right hence AGW.

                              What I suspect you don't like is that a topic initially brought to the worlds attention by the right, has been hijacked by the left.

                              Remember it was Reagan and Thatcher who initially raised this issue, hardly left wingers.

                              MANY PEOPLE'S FIRST exposure to climate science was when they saw Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Gore took a topic that was beyond most people's comprehension and made it easy to understand.

                              Back in 1988, however, it was a different politician who put the science of climate change firmly on the global agenda. Unbeknownst to many, that person was Margaret Thatcher.

                              As a Fellow of the Royal Society, Britain's national science academy, she presented a series of high profile speeches on the topic of climate change. Armed with a degree in chemistry from Oxford, her scientific expertise enabled her to speak from a position of strength and knowledge about climate-related issues.
                              http://www.abc.net.au/environment/ar...09/3732680.htm

                              Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative challenge, it's common sense.
                              Ronald Reagan here.
                              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                              Comment


                              • AGW is obvious, so what. Nobody with any common sense believes it is the end of the world. It isn't like it wasn't obvious to anyone with half a brain a hundred years ago. The question is how bias are you going to be if it effects your career, income or political objectives if you turn it into a crisis.
                                We hunt the hunters

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X