Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul

Manmade Climate Change Discussion

Recommended Posts

You need to google it jon! There's a whole site of it!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Cook at Skeptical Science Wins Eureka Prize

 

John Cook has won a well deserved Eureka Prize in Australia.  His website has done much to dispel the many myths about climate change that those with a political axe to grind love to spread. It is amazing how many will believe an absolutely ridiculous falsehood if repeated loudly and constantly. Skeptical Science is a one stop misinformation killer that uses real science to dispel the myths.

 

I’ve been proud to have been a minor contributor to the dispelling of a couple of these myths on SKSCI, and so have many others, so I’m sure I speak for a lot of folks by saying well done John!

 

I must admit I find it quite intriguing that the illiterati in the other thread are having a vicious pop at John Cook. The reason being they often cite such renowned sources such as mad Marc Morano (Cimate Depot-product of CFACT): Steve Goddard (alien lifeform): WUWT (beginners guide to turning fact into fantasy) and other luminaries with blogs whose contact with reality is invisible to the naked eye.

 

They do generally have one thing in common though. A complete lack of scientific qualifications in any of the relevant disciplines. But what's a minor detail matter..........................

 

Oh, GWPF has just popped up. Lord Lawson and his merry gang.

 

EDIT

UQ climate change paper has the whole world talking

 

16 January 2014

A University of Queensland researcher’s work has been ranked 11th in a listing of the world’s top 100 most talked about academic papers of 2013.

 

http://www.uq.edu.au/news/node/112877

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GW any help to your question?

 

Reducing greenhouse gas pollution is the cheapest path in a warming world

 

Bloomberg's coverage of the leaked draft summary of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report on climate change mitigation was misleading in several respects. The article tilted its conclusion toward inaction, by ignoring many benefits from mitigation and leaving many harmful impacts uncounted. Its headline focused on a single year (2030), obscuring the true nature of the threat before us and the decision we face.

 

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/01/22/reducing-ghg-pollution-the-cheapest-path/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Long-term trends in surface temperatures are unusual and 2013 adds to the evidence for ongoing climate change," 

 

Scientists emphasize that weather patterns always will cause fluctuations in average temperatures from year to year, but the continued increases in greenhouse gas levels in Earth's atmosphere are driving a long-term rise in global temperatures. Each successive year will not necessarily be warmer than the year before, but with the current level of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists expect each successive decade to be warmer than the previous.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/21jan_2013/

Edited by Polar Maritime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An animation depicting the national and international scientific bodies that reject the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming

 

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nurse, nurse, they are out of bed again.

 

Posted Image

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-52#entry2904133

 

Background

 

Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 

Professor Lindzen's academic interests lie within the topics of "climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability." 

 

Lindzen has published work with the conservative think-tank, the Cato Institute, a think tank that has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.  In his 1995 article, "The Heat Is On," Ross Gelbspan notes that Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services.

 

Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US." [2]

 

Stance on Climate Change

 

Richard Lindzen's scientific stance on climate change and anthropogenic global warming is that the earth goes through natural periods of global warming and cooling. 

 

According to Dr. Lindzen, the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are problematic and limited because they are based on computer models which Lindzen says are "generally recognized as experimental tools whose relation to the real world is questionable." [3]

 

Furthermore, he feels that the issue of global warming is completely political, and that policy makers and the media not only manipulate science but also force scientists to produce work that supports a particular agenda. [4]

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen

 

 

Richard Lindzen is one of the approximately 3 percent of climate scientists who believe the human influence on global warming is relatively small (though Lindzen is now retired, no longer doing scientific research). More importantly, he's been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he's made over the past two decades. Lindzen is arguably the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism

 

Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-take-on-Richard-Lindzen.html

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And once more - these threads (manmade climate change, scepticism of climate change) are for straight forward discussion of those subjects - if you want to disagree then post in the opposing thread. I know it's not a particularly natural way to debate, but it's in order to stop the point scoring etc which blights the mixed discussions. 

 

That leads to the next point - if your sole interest is point scoring and getting snippy with people because they don't share your view then you may as well not use any of the threads on here, as they're for actual discussion and that requires at least a semi-open mind, some empathy towards other people's positions, and the ability to respect other views even if they're the polar opposite to your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your Logic Escapes Me, by John Nielsen-Gammon
 

 

Several times during the past few months, I’ve heard generally incredulous statements such as, “How can the IPCC increase their confidence in anthropogenic global warming at the same time their model projections are diverging farther and farther from reality?†- See more at: http://climatechangenationalforum.org/your-logic-escapes-me-by-john-nielsen-gammon/#sthash.iJ3KmJIf.dpuf

 

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Unfortunately, that Guardian piece links extensively to the research undertook by a cartoonist: which is a shame, since, it is an opportunity to lay the sensible question wide open: how sensitive is the climate to CO2. That piece is a standard anti-rightwing propaganda ad-hominem, unfortunately. It's also factually incorrect given - at least - the 97% 'expert' climate consensus is no such thing. Perhaps the '97% climate consensus' but those not engaged in or have published climate papers really can't call themselves experts, and, should not be counted. Also SS's 'reconstruction' is nothing of the sort, is poorly documents, and wouldn't make into a copy of Viz -for instance, adding random noise with what parameterisation? It is entirely feasible with 'suitable' random number generators to have a downward trend as long as the width of the noise is sufficient and the time is finite. I know one is true, and I suspect both are true. Might do the exercise myself, though. It certainly has 'corrections' to Hansen's scenario B (because it was at least 10% too high) which is shameful.

Edited by Sparkicle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, that Guardian piece links extensively to the research undertook by a cartoonist: which is a shame, since, it is an opportunity to lay the sensible question wide open: how sensitive is the climate to CO2. That piece is a standard anti-rightwing propaganda ad-hominem, unfortunately. It's also factually incorrect given - at least - the 97% 'expert' climate consensus is no such thing. Perhaps the '97% climate consensus' but those not engaged in or have published climate papers really can't call themselves experts, and, should not be counted. Also SS's 'reconstruction' is nothing of the sort, is poorly documents, and wouldn't make into a copy of Viz -for instance, adding random noise with what parameterisation? It is entirely feasible with 'suitable' random number generators to have a downward trend as long as the width of the noise is sufficient and the time is finite. I know one is true, and I suspect both are true. Might do the exercise myself, though. It certainly has 'corrections' to Hansen's scenario B (because it was at least 10% too high) which is shameful.

 

It seems like a piece explaining why Lindzen is very much wrong and shouldn't be taken notice of. Where are the ad hominem remarks?

To dismiss the 97% consensus piece requires a more detailed rebuttal than you've given. Seeing as Lindzen believes the human influence does not reach beyond the bounds of natural variation, would suggest that he doesn't believe the human influence on climate in discernible and is thus against 97% of published papers that suggest otherwise.

The construction of Lindzens temperature predictions was not meant for peer review. The prediction "I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small"  is so far proving much more incorrect than the more mainstream projections.

 

Have you evidence for the shameful corrections to Hansens scenario B?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, that Guardian piece links extensively to the research undertook by a cartoonist: which is a shame, since, it is an opportunity to lay the sensible question wide open: how sensitive is the climate to CO2. That piece is a standard anti-rightwing propaganda ad-hominem, unfortunately. It's also factually incorrect given - at least - the 97% 'expert' climate consensus is no such thing. Perhaps the '97% climate consensus' but those not engaged in or have published climate papers really can't call themselves experts, and, should not be counted. Also SS's 'reconstruction' is nothing of the sort, is poorly documents, and wouldn't make into a copy of Viz -for instance, adding random noise with what parameterisation? It is entirely feasible with 'suitable' random number generators to have a downward trend as long as the width of the noise is sufficient and the time is finite. I know one is true, and I suspect both are true. Might do the exercise myself, though. It certainly has 'corrections' to Hansen's scenario B (because it was at least 10% too high) which is shameful.

 

My mistake i thought it also linked to Raymond T. Pierrehumbert who is Louis Block Professor in Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago. He was a lead author on the IPCC Third Assessment Report, and a co-author of the National Research Council report on abrupt climate change. He was awarded a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship in 1996, which was used to launch collaborative work on the climate of Early Mars with collaborators in Paris. He is a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, and has been named Chevalier de l'Ordre des Palmes Académiques by the Republic of France.

 

 

"It's okay to be wrong, and [Lindzen] is a smart person, but most people don't really understand that one way of using your intelligence is to spin ever more clever ways of deceiving yourself, ever more clever ways of being wrong. And that's okay because if you are wrong in an interesting way that advances the science, I think it's great to be wrong, and he has made a career of being wrong in interesting ways about climate science."

Start at Min 35

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sceptical enquirer wrote: "they disprove of any dissenting voice regardless of their expertise in climate science, and yet approve of all non scientific findings by the like of the WWF and Greenpeace."  

 

I really don't understand the need to bring Greenpeace and FoE into this with the regularity you, and tbh  a few other 'sceptics' here, do.

 

Indeed, I'd be surprised if figures didn't show Greenpeace and FoE don't get more mentions in the 'sceptic' thread......

 

I do, though, agree those in this thread seek to debate on the basis they are correct - don't you? Doesn't everyone???

Edited by Devonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fifty, fifty.

post-12275-0-20877000-1390510724_thumb.j

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like a piece explaining why Lindzen is very much wrong and shouldn't be taken notice of. Where are the ad hominem remarks?

To dismiss the 97% consensus piece requires a more detailed rebuttal than you've given. Seeing as Lindzen believes the human influence does not reach beyond the bounds of natural variation, would suggest that he doesn't believe the human influence on climate in discernible and is thus against 97% of published papers that suggest otherwise.

The construction of Lindzens temperature predictions was not meant for peer review. The prediction "I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small"  is so far proving much more incorrect than the more mainstream projections.

 

Have you evidence for the shameful corrections to Hansens scenario B?

 

See the piece linked in the article:

 

Alongside these reconstructions I also plotted Hansen et al. (1988) Scenarios A, B, and C.  As discussed by NASA GISS's Gavin Schmidt, Scenario B was the closest to the actual radiative forcing changes since 1998, but was approximately 10% too high in this regard.  Thus I also created an "adjusted" Scenario B to reflect what Hansen's data would have looked like had he correctly projected the greenhouse gas increase.

 

In fact, Hansens other scenario (where GhG had no effect) were much more accurate without "adjustments"

 

I trust that you bothered to check the references? No? Oh well .....

Edited by Sparkicle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the recent abuse heaped on SKS, no further comment required on that as it's done and dusted but I feel just a mention about what Marc Morano at Climate Depot get's up to worth a mention. They really are a nasty bunch at CFACT

 

http://Targets of climate hate mail rally to support one another

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the recent abuse heaped on SKS, no further comment required on that as it's done and dusted but I feel just a mention about what Marc Morano at Climate Depot get's up to worth a mention. They really are a nasty bunch at CFACT

 

http://Targets of climate hate mail rally to support one another

 

You can find 'em almost anywhere mate. Doesn't matter what you think/believe/know - there's a site somewhere that confirms ones bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Curious. He is relying on the rate of change, rather than either the absolute value or the anomaly value. What's curious is that there's no analysis on what happens if you compute the rate of change of the temperature series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-52#entry2905322

 

Apart from your somewhat (in)fertile imagination have you anything that one could consider substantive evidence as proof  for your accusation of 'politically motivated'? And are the other scientists, such as John Nielsen Gammon, who also find her testimony to the Senate illogical, also politically motivated? After all she did appear to contradict one of her own papers from four years ago. A paper I did post in another thread for those interested.

 

And also the comments here that no doubt are also politically motivated.

 

http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/some-comments-on-judith-currys-epw-testimony/

 

And note I did post her response to pre-empt any accusation that I'm being selective.

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious. He is relying on the rate of change, rather than either the absolute value or the anomaly value. What's curious is that there's no analysis on what happens if you compute the rate of change of the temperature series.

 

I decided to ask Tamino:

 

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Tamino: Why don’t you try doing a thirty year rolling linear regression of temperature anomlies (easily done using Excel’s slope function) and plot the results of the rate of change of temperature. Interesting results.

 

If anyone's forgotton, it looks like this

 

post-5986-0-34929800-1390559910_thumb.pn

Edited by Sparkicle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...