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

  • #76
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    Who denies that climate changes?
    The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics
    Members of Congress send inquisitorial letters to universities, energy companies, even think tanks.


    By RICHARD S. LINDZEN
    March 4, 2015 6:50 p.m. ET

    Research in recent years has encouraged those of us who question the popular alarm over allegedly man-made global warming. Actually, the move from “global warming” to “climate change” indicated the silliness of this issue. The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. This normal course is now taken to be evidence of doom.

    Individuals and organizations highly vested in disaster scenarios have relentlessly attacked scientists and others who do not share their beliefs. The attacks have taken a threatening turn.

    As to the science itself, it’s worth noting that all predictions of warming since the onset of the last warming episode of 1978-98—which is the only period that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) attempts to attribute to carbon-dioxide emissions—have greatly exceeded what has been observed. These observations support a much reduced and essentially harmless climate response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    In addition, there is experimental support for the increased importance of variations in solar radiation on climate and a renewed awareness of the importance of natural unforced climate variability that is largely absent in current climate models. There also is observational evidence from several independent studies that the so-called “water vapor feedback,” essential to amplifying the relatively weak impact of carbon dioxide alone on Earth temperatures, is canceled by cloud processes.

    [...]

    Mr. Lindzen is professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at MIT and a distinguished senior fellow of the Cato Institute.
    My problem is with people who deny that climate changes at the hand of humans, the majority of scientist say that we as a species are seriously affecting climate and those that deny that fact are getting upset that people are no longer taking them seriously or mocking them.
    "The people never have the power, only the illusion of it. And here is the real secret: they don't want it. The responsibility is too great to bear. It's why they are so quick to fall in line as soon as someone else takes charge."
    "

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by ace View Post
      My problem is with people who deny that climate changes at the hand of humans, the majority of scientist say that we as a species are seriously affecting climate
      Absolutely baseless. There are absolutely no surveys or any other basis by which to claim "that climate changes at the hand of humans, the majority of scientist[s] say that we as a species are seriously affecting climate."

      The majority of relevant scientists would agree that human activities probably factor into the observed climate changes of the past 150 years; however there is no way to differentiate between anthropogenic and natural causes.

      All of the climate models have been wrong since 1988, predicting far more warming than actually occurred. And all of the recent observation-based sensitivity studies indicate that the climate is relatively insensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.



      Originally posted by ace
      and those that deny that fact are getting upset that people are no longer taking them seriously or mocking them.
      The skeptics are doing most of the mocking these days (and for most of the past 15 years).

      Last edited by The Doctor; 07 Mar 15, 17:27.
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post

        The majority of relevant scientists would agree that human activities probably factor into the observed climate changes of the past 150 years; however there is no way to differentiate between anthropogenic and natural causes.

        All of the climate models have been wrong since 1988, predicting far more warming than actually occurred. And all of the recent observation-based sensitivity studies indicate that the climate is relatively insensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
        I don't necessarily agree that releasing the carbon into the atmosphere that was sequestered during the Carboniferous Period is not a significant climate event. What I agree with is that without any kind of accurate measurement of the background temperature it's hard to make policy decisions.

        For policy decisions we need to look to history as well as science. Food security should be near the top of any governments policy decisions and history tells us that "little ice ages" are a serious threat to social stability. Even a small reduction in temperature could massively effect agriculture and this possibility is not being looked at because it does not bolster the politics of those pushing the global warming issue.

        The need for better geological information related to volcanic predictions and better ways to estimate the background temperature global warming is plotted on is clear. Why we are wasting so many resources on proving global warming must be political as well as scientifically motivated. What we need to know first is what the planet is likely to do on it's own before we can really understand what we are doing to it.

        For the record I believe we are currently in an extinction event related to warming and on the short side of the curve to another major glaciation event. The fact that the two appear incompatible only speaks to the instability of the climate over geological time scales and the sensitivity of ecosystems.

        I'm a fairly liberal person but I'm disheartened by the way anarchist have taken over the liberal agenda. Liberalism should mean nothing more than the freedom to rationally explore options without being tied to tradition. I don't believe most liberal realize they have become tools of the anarchists.
        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          Absolutely baseless. There are absolutely no surveys or any other basis by which to claim "that climate changes at the hand of humans, the majority of scientist[s] say that we as a species are seriously affecting climate."

          The majority of relevant scientists would agree that human activities probably factor into the observed climate changes of the past 150 years; however there is no way to differentiate between anthropogenic and natural causes.

          All of the climate models have been wrong since 1988, predicting far more warming than actually occurred. And all of the recent observation-based sensitivity studies indicate that the climate is relatively insensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.





          The skeptics are doing most of the mocking these days (and for most of the past 15 years).

          Yes, some of the predictions have been wrong but no area's been accumulate 100% and any good scientist will admit it. The fact is that we have seen more unstable and aggressive weather changes in the past years that is a bit worrying. Plus I don't see any harm in helping the environment anyways, it doesn't hurt to help make a better world.

          I've said my peace...
          "The people never have the power, only the illusion of it. And here is the real secret: they don't want it. The responsibility is too great to bear. It's why they are so quick to fall in line as soon as someone else takes charge."
          "

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by ace View Post
            Yes, some of the predictions have been wrong but no area's been accumulate 100% and any good scientist will admit it. The fact is that we have seen more unstable and aggressive weather changes in the past years that is a bit worrying. Plus I don't see any harm in helping the environment anyways, it doesn't hurt to help make a better world.

            I've said my peace...
            The predictions have been 95% wrong.
            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            [...]

            From Remote Sensing Systems [with my commentary]:
            Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:
            • Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).

              [All of the warming occurred in one step-shift in the late 1990's.]

            • Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.

              [Only because climate models are programmed to do so. The models are programmed with very high sensitivities to CO2. Then they are paramaterized (fudged) with assumptions about albedo effects of past anthropogenic aerosol emissions in order to retrocast past temperature changes. The climate models almost totally fail to incorporate cloud albedo effects and natural climate oscillations.This is why they lack predictive skill.


            • The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

              [Yep. Most of the warming is occurring at night and in the coldest air masses in the Northern Hemisphere.]



            But....
            • The climate has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.
            [Because the models lack predictive skill.]


            To illustrate this last problem, we show several plots below. Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008. In each plot, the thick black line is the measured data from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band shows the 5% to 95% envelope for the results of 33 CMIP-5 model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth's Climate over the 20th Century.

            […]




            […]

            http://www.remss.com/research/climate

            RSS shows no warming since 1997...



            In fairness, the models have demonstrated precision. They precisely miss the mark to the high side...



            he first modern AGW model from 1988 has essentially proven that the climate is relatively insensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2. Subsequent models have confirmed that the Gorebots are wrong...




            James Hansen, formerly of NASA-GISS and now a full time criminal, first proved that AGW was wrong 25 years ago and then delivered an endless stream of idiotic alarmism.

            Back in 1988, he published a climate model that, when compared to his own temperature data, substantially disproves AGW...






            GISTEMP has tracked the Hansen scenario in which a greent@rd utopia was achieved more than a decade ago.

            Hansen's model used an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 4.2°C per doubling of pre-industrial CO2. The IPCC "consensus" is 3.0°C. The maximum physically possible ECS is 2.0°C. The maximum physically possible ECS, consistent with the observations, is 1.0°C. Recent papers have concluded that solar forcing has been underestimated by a factor of six and CO2 forcing is much lower than the so-called consensus estimate.

            "Scenario B" might be the most relevant prediction because CH4 and CFC's have followed closest to the "C" trajectory, while CO2 has tracked "A".

            If you look at the model results, there is little difference between "A" and "B" in 2010...



            Hansen describes "A" as "business as usual" and "B" as a more realistic or "Lite" version of "business as usual." "C" represents a world in which mankind essentially undiscovered fire in the year 2000. The actual satellite-measured temperature change from 1988 to last month tracks below "C", apart from the monster ENSO of 1998...



            Since CO2 tracked "A", CH4 and CFC's tracked "C" and temperature tracked below "C"... The atmosphere is far less sensitive to CO2 than Hansen modeled... The atmosphere was essentially insensitive to the ~50ppmv rise in CO2 over the last 24 years.

            Hansen may have inadvertantly provided solid support for this "inconvenient truth."

            The Gorebots have already proven that AGW is wrong - Part Quatre: A model of failure.

            Let's give Gorebot Prime, Jimbo Hansen, a pass. His 1988 model reflected old science and old computers and surely the models have gotten better over the last quarter-century... Or not.
            STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means

            June 6th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

            [...]



            In this case, the models and observations have been plotted so that their respective 1979-2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models’ results for comparison to the observations.

            In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks (e.g. Spencer & Braswell, 2010). The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time.

            It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the coming years. I frankly don’t see how the IPCC can keep claiming that the models are “not inconsistent with” the observations. Any sane person can see otherwise.

            If the observations in the above graph were on the UPPER (warm) side of the models, do you really believe the modelers would not be falling all over themselves to see how much additional surface warming they could get their models to produce?

            Hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into the expensive climate modelling enterprise has all but destroyed governmental funding of research into natural sources of climate change.

            [...]

            Dr. Roy Spencer
            [Assuming whiny Gorebot voice]... Oh... That tricky Roy Spencer. That's just the tropics and it goes way back to 1979... That's unfair! The science is verified! The models are right!

            Or not... The following CMIP5 model was parameterized (fudged) to accurately retrocast HadCRUT4 from 1950-2004.



            Eight years and out! Within eight years, the observed temperature is on the verge of dropping out of the lower error band.

            This model from Kaufmann et al., 2011 simulated natural and anthropogenic (primarily CO2) forcing mechanisms from 1999-2008. Natural forcing won by a score of 3-1.

            [/I]

            More on the Sun and stars to follow.
            Last edited by The Doctor; 07 Mar 15, 19:40.
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
              I don't necessarily agree that releasing the carbon into the atmosphere that was sequestered during the Carboniferous Period is not a significant climate event. What I agree with is that without any kind of accurate measurement of the background temperature it's hard to make policy decisions.
              Assuming Antarctic ice cores yield an accurate depiction of pre-industrial Quaternary atmospheric CO2 concentrations, Late Pleistocene glacial stages routinely experienced CO2 starvation and the modern levels are barely elevated.The entire instrumental record (Mauna Loa Observatory) doesn't even break out of the Cenozoic noise level. (Older is to the left).



              CO2 levels have been cycling downward for half-a-billion years. (Older is to the right).



              Modern CO2 levels are almost indistinguishable from the carbon starvation levels of the Pleistocene glacial stages. (Older is generally to the right).



              The Mississipian and Pennsylvanian comprise the Carboniferous.

              Originally posted by wolfhnd
              For policy decisions we need to look to history as well as science. Food security should be near the top of any governments policy decisions and history tells us that "little ice ages" are a serious threat to social stability. Even a small reduction in temperature could massively effect agriculture and this possibility is not being looked at because it does not bolster the politics of those pushing the global warming issue.
              The next "little ice age" will begin sometime between now and the end of this century...
              Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
              My recollection is that they correlate fairly well. FWIW, F. C. Ljungqvist is a Medieval historian. He published his first climate reconstruction while working on his PhD.



              The graph is only for the Northern Hemisphere.

              HadCRUT3 & 4 are very similar. The UK Met Office provides the sea surface temperature reconstruction (HadSST) and the East Anglia University Climatic Research Unit provides the land reconstruction (CRUTEM).



              The slopes for the early and late 20th century warming periods are nearly identical...



              This is consistent with a low amplitude ~60-yr climate cycle convolved with a higher amplitude millennial scale climate cycle...
              The Late Holocene climate has been characterized by millennial scale cycle with a period of ~1,000 years and amplitude of ~0.5 °C.



              Figures 7 & 8. Both Moberg and Ljungqvist clearly demonstrate the millennial scale climate cycle.


              These cycles even have names…


              Figure 9. Ljungqvist with climatic period nomenclature.


              These cycles have been long recognized by Quaternary geologists…


              Figure 10. The millennial scale climate cycle can clearly be traced back to the end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum and the onset of the Neoglaciation.


              Fourier analysis of the GISP2 ice core clearly demonstrates that the millennial scale climate cycle is the dominant signal in the Holocene (Davis & Bohling, 2001). It is pervasive throughout the Holocene (Bond et al., 1997).


              Figure 11. The Holocene climate has been dominated by a millennial scale climate cycle.


              The industrial era climate has not changed in any manner inconsistent with the well-established natural millennial scale cycle. Assuming that the ice core CO2 is reliable, the modern rise in CO2 has had little, if any effect on climate…


              Figure 12. Why would CO2 suddenly start driving climate change in the 19th century?



              The need for better geological information related to volcanic predictions and better ways to estimate the background temperature global warming is plotted on is clear. Why we are wasting so many resources on proving global warming must be political as well as scientifically motivated. What we need to know first is what the planet is likely to do on it's own before we can really understand what we are doing to it.
              The vast majority of geoscientists, including me, would agree with you on this.

              For the record I believe we are currently in an extinction event related to warming and on the short side of the curve to another major glaciation event. The fact that the two appear incompatible only speaks to the instability of the climate over geological time scales and the sensitivity of ecosystems.
              We are nowhere close to either extreme and most Quaternary flora and fauna handled all of the glacial-interglacial and stadial-interstadial cycles of the past 2.5 million years... up until the Holocene, when humans spread across the world and hunted the megafauna of the Americas, Europe and much of Asia into extinction.

              Originally posted by wolfhnd
              I'm a fairly liberal person but I'm disheartened by the way anarchist have taken over the liberal agenda. Liberalism should mean nothing more than the freedom to rationally explore options without being tied to tradition. I don't believe most liberal realize they have become tools of the anarchists.
              Anarchists are funnier than liberals.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #82
                It's my impression that the climatologist have virtually ignored the geologist, paleontologist and historians. My question is why have the people from these other fields been so quiet.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                  ... My question is why have the people from these other fields been so quiet.
                  MY question is, given all the vast and well-reasoned posts by the Doc, why do you and all the folks on your side twist and turn and even leave the thread rather than admit he made his point?
                  Any point?
                  "Why is the Rum gone?"

                  -Captain Jack

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by ace View Post
                    Yes, some of the predictions have been wrong but no area's been accumulate 100% and any good scientist will admit it. The fact is that we have seen more unstable and aggressive weather changes in the past years that is a bit worrying. Plus I don't see any harm in helping the environment anyways, it doesn't hurt to help make a better world.

                    I've said my peace...
                    Actually, most of the predictions have been wrong. The IPCC has a near 100% rate of being wrong and they are supposedly the leading expertise on "climate change."

                    Me? Climate change happens. Human input on that is minor compared to natural sources. Anyone who thinks different is really being pedantic in my view.

                    As for pollution, in order for an advanced industrial society to exist pollution needs to exist. What we have to do is find the right allowable levels not seek a 100% Zero Tolerance elimination of it.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                      It's my impression that the climatologist have virtually ignored the geologist, paleontologist and historians. My question is why have the people from these other fields been so quiet.
                      35 years ago climatology was a branch of physical geography. Today’s climate scientists can be anything from atmospheric physicists & chemists, mathematicians, computer scientists, astronomers, astrophysicists, oceanographers, biologists, environmental scientists, ecologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, geochemistry to economists, agronomists, sociologists and/or public policicists.

                      NASA's top climate scientist for most of the past 35 years, James Hansen, is an astronomer. The current one, Gavin Schmidt, is a mathemetician.

                      The IPCC and the rest of the Gorebot community are dominated by computer modelers, who are often ignorant of how the Earth’s climate has behaved naturally prior to the late 19th century.

                      The only professional scientific society with a sane policy position on climate change is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG). However, the current leadership of the AAPG chose to disengage from the public debate back around 2008. Political witch-hunts are not conducive to attracting the best students to the profession.
                      Last edited by The Doctor; 08 Mar 15, 11:25.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        It is a scientific consensus that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and happening. The temperature increase in the last 150 years has been rapid beyond all recent precedents.

                        Having said this, in terms of geologic history human influences are a pinprick compared to what the Earth has been through, and will have a negligible long-term effect on the global climate. Our civilization has grown up between ice-age glacial retreats, and the glaciers are coming back in 15,000-20,000 years' time, Global Warming or not.

                        The biggest problem with Global Warming today is not the temperature itself but the rapidity in which it is shifting. Human activity is a dire threat to animal life, which cannot adapt to this new rapid turn of events. Humans also release great quantities of ozone-depleting Chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere (thankfully this has been significantly reduced since the 1970s), which are especially damaging given our ever-weakening magnetic field.

                        Global Warming has been "on pause" for much of the past decade because, according to the NOAA:
                        "Natural climate cycles—a series of La Nińa events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean."

                        http://www.climate.gov/news-features...ng-past-decade

                        Despite this lull, the temperature is still expected to continue its climb into the future.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                          It is a scientific consensus that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and happening.
                          Based on what?

                          Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
                          The temperature increase in the last 150 years has been rapid beyond all recent precedents.
                          Demonstrably wrong.

                          Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
                          Having said this, in terms of geologic history human influences are a pinprick compared to what the Earth has been through, and will have a negligible long-term effect on the global climate. Our civilization has grown up between ice-age glacial retreats, and the glaciers are coming back in 15,000-20,000 years' time, Global Warming or not.
                          Correct.

                          Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
                          The biggest problem with Global Warming today is not the temperature itself but the rapidity in which it is shifting. Human activity is a dire threat to animal life, which cannot adapt to this new rapid turn of events.
                          Totally unsupported by any data or observations.

                          Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
                          Humans also release great quantities of ozone-depleting Chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere (thankfully this has been significantly reduced since the 1970s), which are especially damaging given our ever-weakening magnetic field
                          .
                          Totally wrong, but irrelevant.

                          Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
                          Global Warming has been "on pause" for much of the past decade because, according to the NOAA:
                          "Natural climate cycles—a series of La Nińa events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean."

                          http://www.climate.gov/news-features...ng-past-decade

                          Despite this lull, the temperature is still expected to continue its climb into the future.
                          The current hiatus was unexpected, not predicted and remains unexplained within the AGW paradigm.

                          The current hiatus is nearly identical to the 1945-1978 hiatus. The early and late in 20th century warming periods were nearly identical.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            I more or less agree with BobTheBarbarian but as The Doctor pointed out the complexity of the issues and the politics involved makes modeling suspect.

                            That said the major concern for me is food security which seems more threatened by a volcanic or small asteroid event leading to cooling over the short run than warming. There are things we need to know and do that are not even being discussed. One of which is that conservative politics have reduced our available food reserves. Free markets do not address these kinds of issues any more than they provide for national defense.

                            The conservative position it seems should be to conserve non renewables and practice good conservation of the environment. Who doesn't want clean air and clean water? Global Warming however is being used to push an agenda of complete elimination of coal, oil, and gas use.

                            The fact that it is impossible to maintain economic stability without fossil fuel is not something the liberals care about because they see the industrial complex as immoral. One only need look at the financial crisis of the last 10 years to see that the liberals are right. The people that run our industries are in fact immoral. While some people would characterize them as amoral that is just splitting hairs. In my view however the reckless disregard for the economy represented by liberal views is even more immoral. Ideology to me is the enemy left or right.

                            Policy decisions should be based on science and frankly I don't think we are spending enough money researching the background temperature. Without any high fidelity model for background temperature everyone is just guessing what the forecast should be.

                            The polarization of the political process is making it impossible to implement the kind of research programs we need that would make it possible for me at least to take a solid position. I want to hear more from historians, paleontologists, geologists, and other disciplines in the debate as well as develop high fidelity climate models.
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                              ...as The Doctor pointed out the complexity of the issues and the politics involved makes modeling suspect.

                              ...

                              Policy decisions should be based on science and frankly I don't think we are spending enough money researching the background temperature. Without any high fidelity model for background temperature everyone is just guessing what the forecast should be.

                              The polarization of the political process is making it impossible to implement the kind of research programs we need that would make it possible for me at least to take a solid position. I want to hear more from historians, paleontologists, geologists, and other disciplines in the debate as well as develop high fidelity climate models.
                              There's the rub: Science and Politics usually mix about as well as bleach and ammonia.

                              Well said!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                                There's the rub: Science and Politics usually mix about as well as bleach and ammonia.

                                Well said!
                                I would have said red fuming nitric acid and furfuryl alcohol but...

                                (that's a self-igniting rocket fuel...)

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X