Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Weather Channel To Breitbart: Don't Use Our Content To Mislead On Climate Change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Weather Channel To Breitbart: Don't Use Our Content To Mislead On Climate Change

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...on-climate-cha

    https://weather.com/news/news/breitb...climate-change

    The Weather Channel has a message for the website Breitbart:

    "Earth Is Not Cooling, Climate Change Is Real and Please Stop Using Our Video to Mislead Americans"

    That's the title under which The Weather Channel published an article on Tuesday, after Breitbart used the cable news channel's coverage in a factually incorrect story about climate change.

    The article addressed Breitbart's misleading use of a Nov. 3 Weather Channel video in which forecaster Kait Parker, who has a bachelor's degree in atmospheric science from the University of Missouri, predicted that a La Niña weather pattern is likely to lead to cooler air temperatures this winter and spring in the continental U.S.

    The 46-second video, which the right-wing Breitbart news site had rights to use under a content-sharing deal with a different company, was embedded in a Nov. 30 story with a factually incorrect title about global temperature trends.

    Average global temperatures are rising steadily and have been above the 20th century average every year for more than three decades, according to NASA.

    Earlier this year, leaders of 195 countries including the U.S. signed a global agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions to prevent catastrophic warming of the Earth, as The Two-Way has reported.

    On Tuesday, Parker tweeted, "please stop using MY FACE to mislead Americans."

    "The next time you write a climate change article and need fact checking help, please call," the Weather Channel article stated. "We're here for you. I'm sure we both agree this topic is too important to get wrong."

    The article notes that the factually incorrect story "drew even more attention" after the official Twitter account for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology shared it.

    "Here's the thing, science doesn't care about your opinion," Parker said in a video embedded in The Weather Channel's article. "Cherry-picking and twisting the facts will not change the future nor the fact ... that the Earth is warming."

    Insert usual suspects chiming in about how it's all a hoax, the leaders of all of these countries and the vast majority of climate scientists are part of some kind of large multinational conspiracy (made up by the Chinese to kill the US economy, according to Donald), it's all good that the great barrier reef is dying, sea ice is retreating, that's all perfectly natural despite all of the evidence saying it's not. Maybe even a link to some conservative rag or shonky fringe scientist.

  • #2
    Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post
    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...on-climate-cha

    https://weather.com/news/news/breitb...climate-change




    Insert usual suspects chiming in about how it's all a hoax, the leaders of all of these countries and the vast majority of climate scientists are part of some kind of large multinational conspiracy (made up by the Chinese to kill the US economy, according to Donald), it's all good that the great barrier reef is dying, sea ice is retreating, that's all perfectly natural despite all of the evidence saying it's not. Maybe even a link to some conservative rag or shonky fringe scientist.
    Of course you are doing your part of being the solution of reducing CO2 levels by no longer exhaling.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    Comment


    • #3
      Does this include Sharknado?
      ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

      BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

      BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
        Of course you are doing your part of being the solution of reducing CO2 levels by no longer exhaling.
        Nah, but I've always used public transport and walking as my primary means of transportation (a luxury I have living and working in a large city) and we run a surplus of solar power in the summer months that feeds back into the grid. Although Hobart in mostly runs off Hydroelectricity anyway.

        On the other hand, there's people who just voted in a climate science denying presidential administration. Even doing "nothing" would have done more good than that.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post
          Nah, but I've always used public transport and walking as my primary means of transportation (a luxury I have living and working in a large city) and we run a surplus of solar power in the summer months that feeds back into the grid. Although Hobart in mostly runs off Hydroelectricity anyway.

          On the other hand, there's people who just voted in a climate science denying presidential administration. Even doing "nothing" would have done more good than that.
          Once you and everyone whom believes (this includes the so-called climate scientists,etc.) that 100ppm increase of CO2 (ratio of 1 to 10,000) is making humans the source of climate change as opposed to the natural process, stop exhaling CO2 your "climate change problem" is solved.

          Meanwhile, with 99.99% of the life(biomass) on this planet needing CO2, why do you hate life and green plants? 400ppm is barely a third over the minimum they need to survive and thrive.
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
            Once you and everyone whom believes (this includes the so-called climate scientists,etc.) that 100ppm increase of CO2 (ratio of 1 to 10,000) is making humans the source of climate change as opposed to the natural process, stop exhaling CO2 your "climate change problem" is solved.

            Meanwhile, with 99.99% of the life(biomass) on this planet needing CO2, why do you hate life and green plants? 400ppm is barely a third over the minimum they need to survive and thrive.

            The natural and anthropocentric processes both impact the climate. Natural trends are greatly exacerbated by human interactions. An increase of 100ppm from 300 to 400 is a 33% increase from merely 100 years ago, almost exclusively attributable to industrial society. Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 levels were stable for ~10,000 years.

            Since CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, even such small concentrations as a proportion of total atmospheric gasses have significant impacts, both because of its own properties and because of various feedback loops that rising temperatures cause - e.g. the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere self regulates, but the higher the temperature is, the more that the atmosphere can absorb before it begins to self regulate. Since water vapour itself can act as a greenhouse gas, this means that potentially small increase in CO2 has a far larger impact than JUST the radiant heat absorbtion potential of the CO2 itself. Hence, extremely strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. Hence, temperatures rising currently in response to human outputs.

            Yes, natural forces can and do operate in cycles. Yes, the climate will, over time, change very dramatically with or without human input. But this extremely rapid change we are seeing right now is in fact primarily attributable to human industrial society.

            You don't trust the supermajority of all scientists studying this field. You don't trust essentially every major scientific organization in the United States - and it's not just American scientists telling you this. It's scientists and scientific bodies from all over the world. Instead you trust the self interested industries telling you sweet, comforting lies and half-truths. You probably hit Like on every idiotic post asking why there are still snowballs in the world if climate change is real. After all, what would those fancy science people know about the world? It's so OBVIOUS that this article on Briebart knows the real truth, and it's the "so called experts" that are all wrong. I mean 400ppm sounds so small? Why bother reading the science when I heard that there was some article on a website that said all the science was wrong?

            Comment


            • #7
              This would all come to a crashing end if a Krakatoa sized volcano went off somewhere on the planet...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                This would all come to a crashing end if a Krakatoa sized volcano went off somewhere on the planet...
                That would only put things off for a few years. Climatic changes had returned to normal within 4-6 years of Krakatoa. A full scale nuclear exchange would also have notable climatic effects, but this is probably not a good solution. As funny as that joke was on Futurama.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post
                  The natural and anthropocentric processes both impact the climate. Natural trends are greatly exacerbated by human interactions. An increase of 100ppm from 300 to 400 is a 33% increase from merely 100 years ago, almost exclusively attributable to industrial society. Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 levels were stable for ~10,000 years.

                  Since CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, even such small concentrations as a proportion of total atmospheric gasses have significant impacts, both because of its own properties and because of various feedback loops that rising temperatures cause - e.g. the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere self regulates, but the higher the temperature is, the more that the atmosphere can absorb before it begins to self regulate. Since water vapour itself can act as a greenhouse gas, this means that potentially small increase in CO2 has a far larger impact than JUST the radiant heat absorbtion potential of the CO2 itself. Hence, extremely strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. Hence, temperatures rising currently in response to human outputs.

                  Yes, natural forces can and do operate in cycles. Yes, the climate will, over time, change very dramatically with or without human input. But this extremely rapid change we are seeing right now is in fact primarily attributable to human industrial society.

                  You don't trust the supermajority of all scientists studying this field. You don't trust essentially every major scientific organization in the United States - and it's not just American scientists telling you this. It's scientists and scientific bodies from all over the world. Instead you trust the self interested industries telling you sweet, comforting lies and half-truths. You probably hit Like on every idiotic post asking why there are still snowballs in the world if climate change is real. After all, what would those fancy science people know about the world? It's so OBVIOUS that this article on Briebart knows the real truth, and it's the "so called experts" that are all wrong. I mean 400ppm sounds so small? Why bother reading the science when I heard that there was some article on a website that said all the science was wrong?
                  52% is not a super-majority.



                  The so-called consensus position is that human activities have driven at least half of the "global warming" since the mid-1800's. If you use 1950 as a starting point, 67% of atmospheric scientists say that humans are responsible for at least half of the warming. All references to a 97% consensus are bogus.



                  Half of 0.8 C is barely above the margin of error and we'll within the range of natural variability.





                  Even if humans are responsible for more than half of the warming since 1850, none of the proposed solutions will retard future warming by more than 0.2 C and will costs 10's to 100's of trillions of dollars.

                  CO2 is a so-called greenhouse gas, but it isn't a particularly potent greenhouse gas.



                  Humans are probably responsible for about half of the rise in atmospheric CO2 from 280-400 ppmv. This rise is only anomalous when compared to Antarctic ice cores. It is not anomalous when compared to plant stomata-derived CO2, Greenland ice cores or pre-1960 atmospheric sampling. The so-called consensus relies exclusively on Antarctic ice cores for pre-industrial CO2 estimates.









                  All of the recent observation-derived estimates for climate sensitivity put the transient climate response (TCR) to a doubling of CO2 in the range of 0.5 to 2.3 C with a mean of about 1.4 C. This is 1/3 to 1/2 of the IPCC estimate and would yield less than 1.5 C of total warming from 1850-2100. There is no evidence of positive feedback. There are strong indications of negative feedback. This is why the models have consistently forecasted 3-4 times as much warming as has actually occurred.



                  I haven't read the Breitbart article; but I assume it's about the record temperature drop since the peak of the most recent El Niño. This is a cyclical cooling event. If this cyclical cooling continues for a few more months, "the pause" in global warming will resume.

                  Last edited by The Doctor; 08 Dec 16, 06:44.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                    52% is not a super-majority.

                    ...

                    The so-called consensus position is that human activities have driven at least half of the "global warming" since the mid-1800's. If you use 1950 as a starting point, 67% of atmospheric scientists say that humans are responsible for at least half of the warming. All references to a 97% consensus are bogus.

                    ...
                    Um except they're not? The second chart you quote here is citing John Cook et al, whose very own words you can read here:

                    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...26/11/4/048002

                    Or here in PDF

                    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...1/4/048002/pdf

                    Abstract:

                    The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
                    This is a large scale meta-analysis of papers. Pay particular attention to Table 1. Don't just look at percentages, because that's only part of the story, it lists what questions were asked, it also lists how cohorts were selected. But in every case, the sub-set of climatological experts have extremely high agreement - and yes several of them DO display the 97% figure or higher.

                    Your charts contain bizarre spin on the study. Instead, why don't we actually read what it has to say?

                    How can vastly different interpretations of consensus arise? A significant contributor to variation in consensus estimates is the conflation of general scientific opinion with expert scientific opinion. Figure 1 demonstrates that consensus estimates are highly sensitive to the expertise of the sampled group. An accurate estimate of scientific consensus reflects the level of agreement among experts in climate science; that is, scientists publishing peer-reviewed research on climate change. As shown in table 1, low estimates of consensus arise from samples that include non-experts such as scientists (or non-scientists) who are not actively publishing climate research, while samples of experts are consistent in showing overwhelming consensus.

                    Tol (2016) reports consensus estimates ranging from 7% to 100% from the same studies described above. His broad range is due to sub-groupings of scientists with different levels of expertise. For example, the sub-sample with 7% agreement was selected from those expressing an 'unconvinced' position on AGW (Verheggen et al 2014). This selection criterion does not provide a valid estimate of consensus for two reasons: first, this subsample was selected based on opinion on climate change, predetermining the level of estimated consensus. Second, this does not constitute a sample of experts, as non-experts were included. Anderegg (2010) found that nearly one-third of the unconvinced group lacked a PhD, and only a tiny fraction had a PhD in a climate-relevant discipline. Eliminating less published scientists from both these samples resulted in consensus values of 90% and 97%–98% for Verheggen et al (2014) and Anderegg et al (2010), respectively. Tol's (2016) conflation of unrepresentative non-expert sub-samples and samples of climate experts is a misrepresentation of the results of previous studies, including those published by a number of coauthors of this paper.
                    Experts DO overwhelmingly agree that anthropocentric climate change exists.


                    Originally posted by The Doctor
                    Half of 0.8 C is barely above the margin of error and we'll within the range of natural variability.

                    Ljungqvist, from the exact study cited in this picture:

                    The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961-1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself.
                    It's almost like the world didn't freeze in 1990, and it's almost like Ljungqvist wasn't the only climate scientist in the world. In fact his work mostly aligns with his contemporaries, except that his contemporaries often showed higher increases in the 20th century than his did.

                    Even if humans are responsible for more than half of the warming since 1850, none of the proposed solutions will retard future warming by more than 0.2 C and will costs 10's to 100's of trillions of dollars.
                    Your theorycrafting about solutions has no bearing on whether or not it's real.


                    CO2 is a so-called greenhouse gas, but it isn't a particularly potent greenhouse gas.

                    No duh it's not the most potent, this is elementary climate science. Why don't you start off at the basic level:

                    http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

                    http://earthscience.stackexchange.co...centration-can


                    Humans are probably responsible for about half of the rise in atmospheric CO2 from 280-400 ppmv. This rise is only anomalous when compared to Antarctic ice cores. It is not anomalous when compared to plant stomata-derived CO2, Greenland ice cores or pre-1960 atmospheric sampling. The so-called consensus relies exclusively on Antarctic ice cores for pre-industrial CO2 estimates.
                    Plant stomata records are extremely variable and vulnerable to fluctuations. Ice cores can be factually correlated against empirical measurements taken in the last century to confirm that they are more appropriate as a long term measure of atmospheric CO2. The only people who ever whine about ice cores vs plant stomata levels are climate change deniers, because they only care about data that fits their world view.

                    Your charts showing that there have been high concentrations of CO2 in the distant past... again no duh. This is well known information. Warming also has well known mechanisms for CO2 releases, which then accelerates the cycles of warming further. Eventually the system self regulates, but because humans put in such huge quantities of CO2 without taking any out, this allows the self regulating temperature to increase higher than it would normally be able to go if we were not performing those actions. We are warming far faster than the current long term climatic cycle dictates... and it correlates with human CO2 activity.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post
                      Um except they're not? The second chart you quote here is citing John Cook et al, whose very own words you can read here:

                      http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...26/11/4/048002

                      Or here in PDF

                      http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...1/4/048002/pdf

                      Abstract:



                      This is a large scale meta-analysis of papers. Pay particular attention to Table 1. Don't just look at percentages, because that's only part of the story, it lists what questions were asked, it also lists how cohorts were selected. But in every case, the sub-set of climatological experts have extremely high agreement - and yes several of them DO display the 97% figure or higher.

                      Your charts contain bizarre spin on the study. Instead, why don't we actually read what it has to say?
                      Cook's words don't match his data. This was irrefutably demonstrated by Legates et al., 2013. Cook's definition of "implied endorsement" would include most of my posts on Watts Up With That.

                      Actual surveys of actual atmospheric scientists puts the consensus somewhere between 52 and 67%... which is not a consensus.


                      Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes
                      Experts DO overwhelmingly agree that anthropocentric climate change exists.
                      So what? Most skeptics agree that it exists.


                      I'll reply to the rest later.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post


                        [...]

                        Ljungqvist, from the exact study cited in this picture:



                        It's almost like the world didn't freeze in 1990, and it's almost like Ljungqvist wasn't the only climate scientist in the world. In fact his work mostly aligns with his contemporaries, except that his contemporaries often showed higher increases in the 20th century than his did.

                        [...]
                        The only reconstructions which show the modern warming to be anomalous are "hockey sticks" in which high resolution instrumental data were spliced or otherwise improperly integrated with low resolution proxy (Mike's Nature Trick).

                        Spectrally consistent reconstructions (Moberg, Esper, Lohle, etc.) are consistent with Ljungqvist.

                        According to Ljungqvist…
                        The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. AD 1-300, reaching up to the 1961-1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. AD 300-800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. AD 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. AD 1300-1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century. The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961-1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself.

                        […]

                        The proxy reconstruction itself does not show such an unprecedented warming but we must consider that only a few records used in the reconstruction extend into the 1990s. Nevertheless, a very cautious interpretation of the level of warmth since AD 1990 compared to that of the peak warming during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period is strongly suggested.

                        […]

                        The amplitude of the temperature variability on multi-decadal to centennial time-scales reconstructed here should presumably be considered to be the minimum of the true variability on those time-scales.

                        Ljungqvist is recommending caution in comparing the modern instrumental record to the older proxy reconstructions because the proxy data are of much lower resolution. The proxy data are showing the “minimum of the true variability on those time-scales.” The instrumental data are depicting something closer to actual variability. Even then, the instrumental record doesn’t exceed the margin of error for the proxy data during the peak of the Medieval Warm Period. With a great deal of confidence, perhaps even 67%, it can be concluded that at least half, perhaps all, of the modern warming is the result of quasi-periodic natural climate fluctuations (AKA cycles).

                        From Esper et al, 2005 in Quaternary Science Reviews...
                        So, what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger (Esper et al., 2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; Moberget al., 2005) or smaller (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999) temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future predicted scenarios. If that turns out to be the case, agreements such as the Kyoto protocol that intend to reduce emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, would be less effective than thought.

                        The non-hockey stick reconstructions led some of the ClimateGate CRU to try to suppress Moberg's paper.

                        This is one of the "eight emails which... warranted further examination to clarify any possible issues involving the scientific integrity" according to the NOAA OIG report...
                        CRU email #1140039406. This email, dated February 15,2006, documented exchanges between several climate scientists, including the Deputy Director of CRU, related to their contributions to chapter six ofthe IPCC AR4. In one such exchange, the Deputy Director of CRU warned his colleagues not to "let [the Co-Chair of AR4 WGl] (or [a researcher at Pennsylvania State University]) push you (us) beyond where we know is right" in terms of stating in the AR4 "conclusions beyond what we can securely justify."

                        The CRU's Keith Briffa was warning his colleagues to not allow NOAA's Susan Solomon or Penn State's Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann to coerce them into going along with unsupportable conclusions. This particular e-mail exchange dealt extensively with paleoclimate reconstructions. Briffa also urged his colleagues not to "attack" Anders Moberg, who had recently published a climate reconstruction which actually honored the data and used proper signal processing methods.
                        • Susan Solomon is the NOAA official who claimed that NOAA work related to the IPCC was not subject to FOIA.
                        • Michael Mann was the lead author of the thoroughly debunked original Hockey Stick.
                        • Keith Briffa was the lead author of one of the problematic reconstructions in which "Mike's Nature Trick" was employed to "hide the decline."
                        Last edited by The Doctor; 08 Dec 16, 15:28.
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          my thought on global warming/climate change have all ways been. "So what, will it kill ever one? answer no"
                          you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                          CPO Mzinyati

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Given all of the advice by so-called "experts", "scientists" and "academics" on the subject, almost all of it wrong, distorted, spun, twisted, lied or just plain BULL S***, what difference does the protest of the Weather Channel make to any sane, halfway intelligent human being?
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by andrewza View Post
                              my thought on global warming/climate change have all ways been. "So what, will it kill ever one? answer no"
                              Will it change the lives of most, some times radical? YES!
                              "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                              Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                              you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X