Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[4wd]

Oddly I do not find myself surprised at the lack of comment on the latest study concerning the Arctic and the last time temps were this high there? The other place resounds to the gleeful cries of 'recovery' but is this as a counter to this worrying paper or merely a reaction to the temporary global sea ice levels?

 

Am I right in feeling this is a mark of the differing levels of personal maturity across the divide? That we do not see this as an adversarial competition but as a deadly serious situation? That when we take issue to the postings of the misleaders it is because of erroneous claims and not merely a wish to say "does not!" at every turn?

Top post, clearly those who have issues with the party line must have some form of intellectual deficit.We should be considering some form of medication perhaps?Long term a better plan might be compulsory sterilisation or euthanasia.

[Devonian]

Top post, clearly those who have issues with the party line must have some form of intellectual deficit.

We should be considering some form of medication perhaps?

Long term a better plan might be compulsory sterilisation or euthanasia.

We 'AGW science accepters' may deeply disagree with you 'sceptics' (clue as to why you should post such inflammatory stuff to the sceptic thread not this one btw) but we can surely stop short of saying we want each other dead? Ugghh

None of this has any place in this thread where people of like mind are supposed to find sanctuary from such nonsense (and, if you like, vice versa with the sceptic thread).

Edited October 28, 2013 by Devonian

[knocker]

Risk of a maunder minimum Little ice age says leading scientist  http://t.co/NHG3bXvkz5

 

There has been, and still is, disagreement on over what period should constitute the little ice age. The Maunder Minimum 1645-1705 ( sunspot minima) is taken as one but many consider longer time spans and the date of the start is up for grabs. A new theory considers volcanism ( enter JP stage right) but how could the period last so long if that was the cause?

 

http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/volcanoes-sparked-and-prolonged-little-ice-age

[Devonian]

Stewfox said in the other thread:

 

"Dead moss is dead moss and could have been exposed hundreds of times and this sums up nicely the difference between questioning 'assumed fact' and blindly accepting everything we are told and told we are silly if we don't accept it."

 

Firstly, it's clear from another blog post that dead moss is soon erased away by abrasive wind blown ice, "Long-dead mosses and lichen are not the most robust of objects, whereas snow shards blown by a gale are very abrasive, so it is reasonable to assume that the plant remains will not survive more than a few years of exposure." and secondly you'd be the first to complain if 'we' said 'sceptics' blindly disagree with everything they are told unless WUWT tells you not to 

[Gray-Wolf]

I Thought the evidence was deep buried in ice only now letting up? Anyhow current carbon dating techniques were made to give an age on such materials. Only science deniers are going to even attempt to dissemble such secure evidence. 

[knocker]

I like this blokes style.

 

There was fun and games at WUWT today, with an event that occurred 93.9 million years ago somehow morphing into a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about socialism in the twenty first century

 

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/denier-weirdness-at-wuwt-anoxic-oceans.html?spref=tw

[knocker]

Thawing Permafrost: The speed of coastal erosion in Eastern Siberia has nearly doubled

Bremerhaven, October 29, 2013. The high cliffs of Eastern Siberia – which mainly consist of permafrost – continue to erode at an ever quickening pace. This is the conclusion which scientists of the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research have reached after their evaluation of data and aerial photographs of the coastal regions for the last 40 years. According to the researchers, the reasons for this increasing erosion are rising summer temperatures in the Russian permafrost regions as well the retreat of the Arctic sea ice. This coastal protection recedes more and more on an annual basis. As a result, waves undermine the shores. At the same time, the land surface begins to sink. The small island of Muostakh east of the Lena Delta is especially affected by these changes. Experts fear that it might even disappear altogether should the loss of land continue.

 

 

http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/thawing_permafrost_coastal_erosion_in_east_siberia_has_doubled/?tx_list_pi1[mode]=6&cHash=c7165f7feeaf783893ec95472f5e2911

[BornFromTheVoid]

Great article by Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine (great documentary too, available on netflix if you have an account).

 

 

 

Naomi Klein: How science is telling us all to revolt

Is our relentless quest for economic growth killing the planet? Climate scientists have seen the data – and they are coming to some incendiary conclusions.

 

In December 2012, a pink-haired complex systems researcher named Brad Werner made his way through the throng of 24,000 earth and space scientists at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, held annually in San Francisco. This year’s conference had some big-name participants, from Ed Stone of Nasa’s Voyager project, explaining a new milestone on the path to interstellar space, to the film-maker James Cameron, discussing his adventures in deep-sea submersibles.

 

But it was Werner’s own session that was attracting much of the buzz. It was titled “Is Earth F**ked?†(full title: “Is Earth F**ked? Dynamical Futility of Global Environmental Management and Possibilities for Sustainability via Direct Action Activismâ€).

 

Standing at the front of the conference room, the geophysicist from the University of California, San Diego walked the crowd through the advanced computer model he was using to answer that question. He talked about system boundaries, perturbations, dissipation, attractors, bifurcations and a whole bunch of other stuff largely incomprehensible to those of us uninitiated in complex systems theory. But the bottom line was clear enough: global capitalism has made the depletion of resources so rapid, convenient and barrier-free that “earth-human systems†are becoming dangerously unstable in response. When pressed by a journalist for a clear answer on the “are we f**ked†question, Werner set the jargon aside and replied, “More or less.â€

 

There was one dynamic in the model, however, that offered some hope. Werner termed it “resistance†– movements of “people or groups of people†who “adopt a certain set of dynamics that does not fit within the capitalist cultureâ€. According to the abstract for his presentation, this includes “environmental direct action, resistance taken from outside the dominant culture, as in protests, blockades and sabotage by indigenous peoples, workers, anarchists and other activist groupsâ€.

 

 

 

More here http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt

 

And yes "sceptics", we know it's not up to the infallible standard of the oil funded beacon of truth, WUWT. Few things with leading scientists and especially things that make sense are...

[knocker]

And as  for oil-funding of a blog allegation, no evidence for that exists so far as I know.

I would have expected better than repeating sound bytes - and tittle-tattle designed to discredit - from someone in further education.

 

The Heartland Institute is "the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.† 

— The Economist, May 26, 2012

 

Heartland Denial-a-Palooza Sponsors Have Received $67 Million From ExxonMobil, Koch and Scaife Foundations

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-denial-palooza-sponsors-have-received-67-million-exxonmobil-koch-and-scaife-foundations

[BornFromTheVoid]

 â€œresistance†– movements of “people or groups of people†who “adopt a certain set of dynamics that does not fit within the capitalist cultureâ€. According to the abstract for his presentation, this includes “environmental direct action, resistance taken from outside the dominant culture, as in protests, blockades and sabotage by indigenous peoples, workers, anarchists and other activist groupsâ€.

I'm struggling with how this relates to:

Few things with leading scientists and especially things that make sense are...

And as  for oil-funding of a blog allegation, no evidence for that exists so far as I know.

I would have expected better than repeating sound bytes - and tittle-tattle designed to discredit - from someone in further education.

 

The article in question has many leading scientists in it, Jason Box, James Hanson, Brad Werner, Kevin Anderson, Alice Bowes and Clive Hamilton. And it makes sense.

Of course, cherry picking and selectively ignoring the majority of the article might leave you struggling to reconcile things.

 

Nothing wrong with calling out WUWT for what it is. It's not a science site, but a pro-fossil fuel, free market propaganda provider, that dishes out "sound bytes" and repeats long debunked myths for climate change deniers to spread throughout the internet. Watts ties with the Heartland Institute are well known.

 

Odd that you expect others to act in such a more timid and respectful way than yourself 4?

Edited October 30, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[Methuselah]

Okay, so up until now, I've been moving argumentative posts 'accidentally' put into the wrong thread...Now I think it's time to start deleting them instead. From both threads...

[knocker]

Talking about connections with WUWT and Heartlands. Willis Eschenbach has connections with both and note how he is emminently qualified to pass expert opinion on climatology. Also his most recent job. I can see now how they massage the figures.

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/willis-eschenbach

[Gray-Wolf]

Okay, so up until now, I've been moving argumentative posts 'accidentally' put into the wrong thread...Now I think it's time to start deleting them instead. From both threads...

 

You've been doing that with mine for quite a while Pete?...........

[Fergus Brown]

Is it really not possible to actually have a conversation about this subject with someone who has a different opinion without it declining into farce?

This is an important issue, and understanding it (or at least, wanting/trying to) is worthwhile and fairly normal.

Is there anyone who reads these threads who actually believes they don't know for certain what to think, or is everyone talking into a void of other people's certainty?

Grrrr

[Methuselah]

Whatever the ins-and-outs are, in order to keep this part of the forum open open for business, things are a whole lot easier whilst everyone sticks to the rules; the atmosphere in this thread (and, dare I say it, in the other one, too) is rather less traumatic when we at least try to observe the guidelines??

 

How are we all doing with the GW course @ Chicago Uni?

[Gray-Wolf]

Fine and dandy P., though I've not 'grown' in understanding yet? More like a dust off and refresher? How are you taking to it so far?

[Methuselah]

Okay, Ian; I've not grown yet either. But, it's amazing how one's facility with simple units and basic algebra has become a tad rusty, over the years...

[knocker]

What Does the Drought Mean for the Future?

 

Drought means many things to many people, but to most, it means not getting enough rain to meet your needs. Not enough rain to maintain healthy range or forest conditions, supply enough water, produce a good harvest, or sustain other needs. Drought can also be a rainfall deficient from some “normal†conditions.

 

In the Southwest, we have plenty of drought experience. The region has been in drought much of the last 14 years, including several years of unprecedented drought—first early in the 21st century, and then eclipsed by the burning dryness of the last two years. Burning dryness because we’ve literally seen unprecedented wildfire, but also because Southwest droughts of the last two decades have been hotter than any time since we started keeping track.

 

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/blog/18417

Edited October 31, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-35#entry2823561

 

Not often that the words 'balance' and 'WUWT' appear in the same sentence...

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-35#entry2823561

 

Not often that the words 'balance' and 'WUWT' appear in the same sentence...

 

We must have balance Pete.

 

Serial disinformer Vincent Gray flounders in rising seas at WUWT

Anthony Watts, denialist blogger at wattsupwiththat.com has copied and pasted another disinformation article, this time by Vincent Gray from New Zealand (archived here).  Vincent Gray is writing at WUWT about sea level and gets lots and lots wrong.  Which is to be expected.  Vincent Gray has devoted the past few years to his new career of climate science disinformer.Anthony Watts seems to think he should be shown respect because he's getting very old.  Vincent Gray is a climate science denier going back a few years now.  He founded the science-disinformation organisation "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition" back in April 2006 back when he was a sprightly 84 year old. Here is a bit of background on him from Wikipedia:

[Devonian]

Skeptical enquirer said: "What would be the point of studying for something that imo is plain wrong....".

 

On that basis I've wasted a lot of time reading WUWT (and that loud mouth running 'real science') trying to understand them.

[BornFromTheVoid]

 

I love this on the other thread ‘climate change deniers’ almost sounds like the ‘Witch craft deniers’

 

WUWT is the world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change for a reason.

 

Its looking to give a balance view 

 

 

 

Sorry Stew, but anyone who thinks that WUWT provides a balanced view has at best, been seriously misled. I mean c'mon, they provide a platform for the likes of Monkton, Steven Goddard, Fred Singer and anyone who will deny, playdown, provide misdirection or confusion on climate change.

What about the BEST temperature series? Watts claimed that he was "prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong".

And when it did prove him wrong, he describes it as "post normal science political theater." 

That's as biased as you're going to find.

 

If you want balance or to really call yourself a sceptic, look at the science, not a twisted, biased, ideologically driven interpretation of it. At the very least, RealClimate, where you have actual, actively publishing climate scientists discussing things.

The former TV weatherman and his Heartland Institute buddies are not out there to provide balance, plain and simple.

[Methuselah]

"What would be the point of studying for something that imo is plain wrong....".

 

Does rather sound like 'ignorance is bliss', doesn't it?

[Devonian]

Four said: 'That's one of the drawbacks of dual threads, increased polarisation and they feel able to include far more previously suppressed name-calling such as you get on the extremist hate blogs.'Which, sir, given your recent foul accusation that 'we' want you 'sceptics' euthanised is one of the most breathtaking pieces of hypochrisy I've ever read.However as a way to draw us away from evidence, data and science your posts are brilliant.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Devonian

[knocker]

And to quote Richard Feynman

 

You should, in science, believe logic and arguments,carefully drawn, and not authorities.

 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I wonder what the great man would think?

Edited October 31, 2013 by knocker