• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
ajbram

SCIENCE!

355 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, maggie40738 said:

 

Adding your comments inside a quote box is confusing.  Bold or colored fonts doesn't help (much).  It also causes your remarks to be ignored in a reply like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sidmon said:

Still only relying on vacuous ad hominems...

Piss poor example of the "Scientific Method"...

But a damned good example of dogma from an ideologue.

Thess are just Internet guerilla techniques designed to "win" an argument. You might well feel entitled to act like the brat who trashes places he goes to justifying his bad behaviour with idiotic reply like "who cares" but must of us care about living in a clean environment and we will just do whatever is necessary to preserve the single planet we live on. Of all planets we have observed there is just one that can sustain life thanks to a balance of right temperature, water and gases. Considering this even having a "reasonable doubt" that we might be breaking this unlikely equilibrium should be enough to stop us from acting like idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading this thread trying to figure out what is going on.  So far I have figured out that Sidmon is the Troll.  What I can't figure out is who is feeding the troll and who is trolling the troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Panoramix said:

 but must of us care about living in a clean environment and we will just do whatever is necessary to preserve the single planet we live on. Of all planets we have observed there is just one that can sustain life thanks to a balance of right temperature, water and gases. Considering this even having a "reasonable doubt" that we might be breaking this unlikely equilibrium should be enough to stop us from acting like idiots.

I get it....I am questioning your faith.

 

57 minutes ago, allene222 said:

I have been reading this thread trying to figure out what is going on.  So far I have figured out that Sidmon is the Troll.  What I can't figure out is who is feeding the troll and who is trolling the troll.

Yet more proof that AGW has taken on all  the trappings of a religion.

What is particularly rich is watching those who purport to be "anarchists" cling so tightly to a skewed orthodoxy. 

Me? I am just after a realistic view of how to take care of our planet. 

Back on topic:

 
SEPTEMBER 7, 2017 11:53AM

Hurricanes Harvey and Irma Can’t Be Blamed on Global Warming

Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like: It’s time to open our eyes and prepare for the world that’s coming.” That August 28 Politico article by Slate weatherman Eric Holthaus was one of many trying too hard to blame the hurricane and/or flood on climate change.

Such stories are typically infused with smug arrogance. Their authors claim to be wise and well-informed, and anyone who dares to question their “settled science” must need to have their eyes pried open and their mouths shut.

There will doubtless be similar “retroactive forecasting” tales about Irma, so recent story-telling about Harvey may provide a precautionary warning for the unwary.

I am an economist, not a climatologist.* But blaming Harvey on climate change apparently demands much lower standards of logic and evidence than economists would dare describe as serious arguments.

Atlantic’s climate journalist said, “Harvey is unprecedented—just the kind of weird weather that scientists expect to see more of as the planet warms.” But Harvey’s maximum rainfall of 51.88 inches barely exceeded that from Tropical Storm Amelia in 1978 (48”) and Hurricane Easy in 1950 (45”). And what about Tropical Storm Claudette in 1979, which put down 42 inches in 24 hours near Houston (Harvey took three days to do that)? In such cases, attributing today’s extreme weather to “climate change” regardless of what happens (maybe droughts, maybe floods) is what the philosopher Karl Popper called “pseudoscience.” If some theory explains everything, it can’t be tested and it is therefore not science. (Popper’s favorite examples of pseudoscience were communism and psychoanalysis.)

Seemingly plausible efforts to connect Harvey to climate change are precariously based on another unusual event in 2015–16, not long-term climate trends. In the Atlantic, Robinson Meyer wrote that “Harvey benefitted from unusually toasty waters in the Gulf of Mexico. As the storm roared toward Houston last week, sea-surface waters near Texas rose to between 2.7 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit above average.” Thank you, 2015–16 El Nino.

Meyer’s source is a single unsourced sentence from “Climate Signals beta” from the Rockefeller Foundation’s “Climate Nexus” project run by Hunter Cutting (“a veteran political director who develops communications strategy”). Perhaps it would be wiser to consult the National Hurricane Center about Gulf temperatures, which shows they are averaging about one degree (F) above the baseline.

Looking back at any unpredicted weather anomaly, “fact-checking” journalists can always count on Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth to spin some tale explaining why any bad weather (but never good weather!) must surely be at least aggravated by long-term global climate trends. “It’s a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly,” writes Michael Mann. Gulf sea surface temperatures have increased from about 86 degrees to 87 “over the past few decades,” he says, causing “3–5% more moisture in the atmosphere.” He neglected to point out other compensatory things he surely knows, like that the same climate science predicts a more stable tropical atmosphere, reducing the upward motion necessary for hurricanes.

Even The Washington Post’s esteemed Jason Samenow got onto shaky ground, writing that “rainfall may have been enhanced by 6 percent or so, or a few inches.” It would have been nice if he noted that Harvey’s maximum observed rainfall of 51.88 inches is statistically indistinguishable from the aforementioned Amelia’s 48, forty years ago.

In either case, to blame the Gulf’s temperature and moisture in August 2017 on a sustained global increase in water temperatures requires more than theory or “confidence” (faith). It requires evidence.

As it happens, sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were not rising significantly, if at all, during the years between the two super-strong El Ninos of 1997–98 and 2015–16. On the contrary, a January 2017 survey of four major data sources finds that “since 1998, all datasets show a slowdown of SST increase compared with the 1983–1998 period.” That may sound as if SST had been increasing rapidly before 1998, but that too is unclear: “Prior to 1998, the temperature changes in Global, Pacific, and Southern Oceans show large discrepancies among [four leading estimates], hindering a robust detection of both regional and global OHC [ocean heat content] changes.”

From 1998 to 2012, the evidence on sea surface temperatures becomes even more inconvenient. Two of the four studies show “weak warming” near the surface while the other two show “cooling, coincident with the global surface temperature slowdown [emphasis added].” In other words, the embarrassingly prolonged 1997–2014 pause or “hiatus” in global warming is also apparent in oceanic surface temperatures, not just land and atmospheric temperatures.

Keep in mind what the vaunted “climate change consensus” means. By averaging four estimates, NASA declares “Globally-averaged temperatures in 2016 were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit (0.99 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-20th century mean.” The underlying yearly estimates are deviations from that mid-century meanؙ—“anomalies” rather than actual temperatures.

To convert anomalies into degrees NASA had to use computer models to add anomalies to temperatures in the base period, 1951–80, where the data are hardly perfect. As a result, “For the global mean,” NASA explains, “the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.”

It might be rude to notice the range of error between 56 and 58°F globally (“let alone locally”) is larger than NASA’s supposed increase of 1.78 degrees over many decades. Note too that NASA’s ostensibly cooler base period, 1951–80, includes the second and third biggest floods in U.S. history.

My main point here is simple: Weather is highly variable. There’s a great deal of noise in hurricane and flood data, and it is impossible to attribute a single hurricane or a flood to the slight rise in temperature. Yes, warmer ocean temperatures would logically seem to correlate with more or stronger hurricanes, but as shown below, they don’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think those shots that hit the building in Huntsville where Christy has his office were all the bullets that were fired down in Florida by the crackers in the hopes that would stop Irma? They had to come down somewhere, sometime!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rasputin22 said:

You think those shots that hit the building in Huntsville where Christy has his office were all the bullets that were fired down in Florida by the crackers in the hopes that would stop Irma? They had to come down somewhere, sometime!

Wow...

Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DavidNumber1 said:

https://www.masterresource.org/curry-judith/judith-curry-truth-merchant-center-stage/

“Groupthink” … “sausage making” … “bullying” … “substantial uncertainties” … “premature consensus” … These terms were used by the scholarly Judith Curry in her important, the-future-will-note Congressional testimony last week against the neo-Malthusian, nature-is-optimal natural-science community.

And what has she endured by leaving the “consensus”? Among other things, she has been labeled “serial climate disinformer” … “anti-science” … “denier.” It happened with Julian Simon regarding resource exhaustion and the ‘population bomb’ in the 1970s and 1980s; and it is repeated by the same crowd (with new faces) in the current era against skeptics of climate alarm.

The panel experience was “bizarre,” according to Curry, who began her column: “where the so-called ‘deniers’ behave like scientists [Curry, John Christy, and Roger Pielke Jr.] and the defender of the establishment consensus [Michael Mann] lies.”

The panel was another blow against ‘consensus science”. It was not so much the three-to-one advantage (welcome to the new politics!) as it was the performance of Michael Mann, whose emotionalism and lack of veracity were on full display. Surely at least some of the membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) took note of their bad apple.

Will new voices in the physical science mainstream emerge in the new political climate to say, enough is enough? Can critics of high-sensitivity climate modeling (or modeling climate at all given the present state of theory) be given jobs or promotions in academia? Or has crony science taken over the profession?

Will Michael Mann further self-destruct? Will he become a liability to The Cause like Al Gore? Might Mann’s ego be big enough to step on the stage against Alex Epstein?

Here is the entirety of Judith Curry’s written comments, part of her submitted testimony as part of House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology hearing: Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method. It says much in its 620 words.

Prior to 2010, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on human-caused climate change was the responsible thing to do. That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.

I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink in supporting the IPCC consensus. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy. I concluded that the high confidence of the IPCC’s conclusions was not justified, and that there were substantial uncertainties in our understanding of how the climate system works.

I realized that the premature consensus on human-caused climate change was harming scientific progress because of the questions that don’t get asked and the investigations that aren’t made. We therefore lack the kinds of information to more broadly understand climate variability and societal vulnerabilities.

As a result of my analyses that challenge the IPCC consensus, I have been publicly called a serial climate disinformer, anti-science, and a denier by a prominent climate scientist. I’ve been publicly called a denier by a U.S. Senator. My motives have been questioned by a U.S. Congressman in a letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech.

While there is much noise in the media and blogosphere and professional advocacy groups, I am mostly concerned about the behavior of other scientists. A scientist’s job is to continually challenge their own biases and ask “How could I be wrong?” Scientists who demonize their opponents are behaving in a way that is antithetical to the scientific process. These are the tactics of enforcing a premature theory for political purposes.

There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests. Owing to these pressures and the gutter tactics of the academic debate on climate change, I recently resigned my tenured faculty position at Georgia Tech.

The pathology of both the public and scientific debates on climate change motivated me to research writings on the philosophy and sociology of science, argumentation from the legal perspective, the policy process and decision making under deep uncertainty. My analysis of the problems in climate science from these broader perspectives have been written in a series of posts at my blog Climate Etc. and also in 4 published journal articles. My reflections on these issues are summarized in my written testimony.

The complexity of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Why do scientists disagree about the causes of climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There’s disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models and paleoclimate reconstructions. There’s disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance.

Policymakers bear the responsibility of the mandate that they give to panels of scientific experts. In the case of climate change, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change framed the problem too narrowly. This narrow framing of the climate change problem essentially pre-ordained the conclusions from the IPCC assessment process.

There are much better ways to assess science for policy makers than a consensus-seeking process that serves to stifle disagreement and debate. Expert panels with diverse perspectives should handle controversies and uncertainties by assessing what we know, what we don’t know, and where the major areas of disagreement and uncertainties lie.

Let’s make scientific debate about climate change great again.

This concludes my testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sidmon said:

I get it....I am questioning your faith.

 

Yet more proof that AGW has taken on all  the trappings of a religion.

What is particularly rich is watching those who purport to be "anarchists" cling so tightly to a skewed orthodoxy. 

Me? I am just after a realistic view of how to take care of our planet. 

Back on topic:

 
SEPTEMBER 7, 2017 11:53AM

Hurricanes Harvey and Irma Can’t Be Blamed on Global Warming

Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like: It’s time to open our eyes and prepare for the world that’s coming.” That August 28 Politico article by Slate weatherman Eric Holthaus was one of many trying too hard to blame the hurricane and/or flood on climate change.

Such stories are typically infused with smug arrogance. Their authors claim to be wise and well-informed, and anyone who dares to question their “settled science” must need to have their eyes pried open and their mouths shut.

There will doubtless be similar “retroactive forecasting” tales about Irma, so recent story-telling about Harvey may provide a precautionary warning for the unwary.

I am an economist, not a climatologist.* But blaming Harvey on climate change apparently demands much lower standards of logic and evidence than economists would dare describe as serious arguments.

Atlantic’s climate journalist said, “Harvey is unprecedented—just the kind of weird weather that scientists expect to see more of as the planet warms.” But Harvey’s maximum rainfall of 51.88 inches barely exceeded that from Tropical Storm Amelia in 1978 (48”) and Hurricane Easy in 1950 (45”). And what about Tropical Storm Claudette in 1979, which put down 42 inches in 24 hours near Houston (Harvey took three days to do that)? In such cases, attributing today’s extreme weather to “climate change” regardless of what happens (maybe droughts, maybe floods) is what the philosopher Karl Popper called “pseudoscience.” If some theory explains everything, it can’t be tested and it is therefore not science. (Popper’s favorite examples of pseudoscience were communism and psychoanalysis.)

Seemingly plausible efforts to connect Harvey to climate change are precariously based on another unusual event in 2015–16, not long-term climate trends. In the Atlantic, Robinson Meyer wrote that “Harvey benefitted from unusually toasty waters in the Gulf of Mexico. As the storm roared toward Houston last week, sea-surface waters near Texas rose to between 2.7 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit above average.” Thank you, 2015–16 El Nino.

Meyer’s source is a single unsourced sentence from “Climate Signals beta” from the Rockefeller Foundation’s “Climate Nexus” project run by Hunter Cutting (“a veteran political director who develops communications strategy”). Perhaps it would be wiser to consult the National Hurricane Center about Gulf temperatures, which shows they are averaging about one degree (F) above the baseline.

Looking back at any unpredicted weather anomaly, “fact-checking” journalists can always count on Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth to spin some tale explaining why any bad weather (but never good weather!) must surely be at least aggravated by long-term global climate trends. “It’s a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly,” writes Michael Mann. Gulf sea surface temperatures have increased from about 86 degrees to 87 “over the past few decades,” he says, causing “3–5% more moisture in the atmosphere.” He neglected to point out other compensatory things he surely knows, like that the same climate science predicts a more stable tropical atmosphere, reducing the upward motion necessary for hurricanes.

Even The Washington Post’s esteemed Jason Samenow got onto shaky ground, writing that “rainfall may have been enhanced by 6 percent or so, or a few inches.” It would have been nice if he noted that Harvey’s maximum observed rainfall of 51.88 inches is statistically indistinguishable from the aforementioned Amelia’s 48, forty years ago.

In either case, to blame the Gulf’s temperature and moisture in August 2017 on a sustained global increase in water temperatures requires more than theory or “confidence” (faith). It requires evidence.

As it happens, sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were not rising significantly, if at all, during the years between the two super-strong El Ninos of 1997–98 and 2015–16. On the contrary, a January 2017 survey of four major data sources finds that “since 1998, all datasets show a slowdown of SST increase compared with the 1983–1998 period.” That may sound as if SST had been increasing rapidly before 1998, but that too is unclear: “Prior to 1998, the temperature changes in Global, Pacific, and Southern Oceans show large discrepancies among [four leading estimates], hindering a robust detection of both regional and global OHC [ocean heat content] changes.”

From 1998 to 2012, the evidence on sea surface temperatures becomes even more inconvenient. Two of the four studies show “weak warming” near the surface while the other two show “cooling, coincident with the global surface temperature slowdown [emphasis added].” In other words, the embarrassingly prolonged 1997–2014 pause or “hiatus” in global warming is also apparent in oceanic surface temperatures, not just land and atmospheric temperatures.

Keep in mind what the vaunted “climate change consensus” means. By averaging four estimates, NASA declares “Globally-averaged temperatures in 2016 were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit (0.99 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-20th century mean.” The underlying yearly estimates are deviations from that mid-century meanؙ—“anomalies” rather than actual temperatures.

To convert anomalies into degrees NASA had to use computer models to add anomalies to temperatures in the base period, 1951–80, where the data are hardly perfect. As a result, “For the global mean,” NASA explains, “the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.”

It might be rude to notice the range of error between 56 and 58°F globally (“let alone locally”) is larger than NASA’s supposed increase of 1.78 degrees over many decades. Note too that NASA’s ostensibly cooler base period, 1951–80, includes the second and third biggest floods in U.S. history.

My main point here is simple: Weather is highly variable. There’s a great deal of noise in hurricane and flood data, and it is impossible to attribute a single hurricane or a flood to the slight rise in temperature. Yes, warmer ocean temperatures would logically seem to correlate with more or stronger hurricanes, but as shown below, they don’t.

You must be desesperate to quote an economist. Proof is in the pudding. Did he forecast the 2008 global financial Crisis? I hope that he has to lecture scientists like this. 

I note that you've selectively quoted me. That's an habit amongst the anti-science crowd, cherry picking data is very useful to get results in line with their dogma. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

Clearly no point in feeding the sidmon troll further, Panoramix.

 

Sensible advice... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, sidmon said:

 

“Groupthink” … “sausage making” … “bullying” … “substantial uncertainties” … “premature consensus” … These terms were used by the scholarly Judith Curry in her important, the-future-will-note Congressional testimony last week against the neo-Malthusian, nature-is-optimal natural-science community.

 

Well, this certainly sounds like an unbiased introduction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2017 at 9:28 AM, ProaSailor said:

Dude, don't be a dope.  ajbram was speaking about engineers in general and replying (and referring) to Panoramix specifically.

Why the fuck are so many people here so god damned mean?  Fuck off!

Agreed, there does seem to be a mean streak in people on the anarchy web. 

Ajbram did reference a dentist in one of his posts and alluded to believing your dentist as to the best course of treatment for dealing with your teeth/gums...I can agree with that if you have a long term relationship with your dentist.  However, dentists, being people, ofttimes have their own agenda if you don't know them personally.  Similarly, scientists sometimes have their own agenda - otherwise why would we have had 5 different studies over the past 5 years about the health benefits/detriments of coffee--with diametrically opposed results.  My parents named me Thomas and I question everything.

I remain unconvinced that the warming of the earth isn't due to cosmic change (insolation).  Further, it seems remarkable to me that the warming trend begins about the same time the world began the space age and sending rockets propelled by solid fuel propellants into the upper atmosphere....haven't seen any scientific study of that aspect - of course, it could be coincidence just as it may be coincidental that there are 2-3 billion more of us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

Clearly no point in feeding the sidmon troll further, Panoramix.

 

You just validated everything Dr. Curry has to say about the folly of "consensus"

NOAA GFDL ...not mention Monsoon...have categorically debunked what Dr Masters opines

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, DFL1010 said:

Well, this certainly sounds like an unbiased introduction...

I agree..

Time to depolarize the debate.

But as you can see how Monsoon reacts that wont happen any time soon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, allene222 said:

I have been reading this thread trying to figure out what is going on.  So far I have figured out that Sidmon is the Troll.  What I can't figure out is who is feeding the troll and who is trolling the troll.

Sid has no data on his side so he has to resort to claiming all the climatologists and paleoclimatologists whose data and published works provide overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic global warming are all part of a quasi-religious cult.  Therefore they and their published studies may be dismissed. It is a bit of slight of hand to disguise that there is no published science on his side of the argument.

He offers instead blog posts, none subject to scrutiny by any qualified scientists before they hit the press. Quote away Sid. You're engaged in an a sad attempt to muddy the water.  I can't even tell if you genuinely believe the silly things you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, monsoon said:

Sid has no data on his side so he has to resort to claiming all the climatologists and paleoclimatologists whose data and published works provide overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic global warming are all part of a quasi-religious cult.  Therefore they and their published studies may be dismissed. It is a bit of slight of hand to disguise that there is no published science on his side of the argument.

He offers instead blog posts, none subject to scrutiny by any qualified scientists before they hit the press. Quote away Sid. You're engaged in an a sad attempt to muddy the water.  I can't even tell if you genuinely believe the silly things you say.

Bullshit!

I have provided a ton of CREDIBLE information that you happen to disagree with.

You, the self proclaimed "scientist" can only spew empty ad hominems..."dolt"..."off the deep end".

Furthermore you are quite happy to let false information continue because it fits your belief system.

In short you epitomize the sham of "Climate Science"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what happens to the energy, MAN? Where does the energy go?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, sidmon said:

Did you read the link? Mind you it was a presentation for Congressional testimony so its not real deep int he weeds.

More here which goes into detail about the methodology...

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/users/john.christy/christy/2007_Dougless_etal.pdf

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions

More here:

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/2/9/2148

What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?

 

You're kind of missing the point.  The graph isn't very useful without the other information I was talking about. The observational data should have error bars, too. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bplipschitz said:

You're kind of missing the point.  The graph isn't very useful without the other information I was talking about. The observational data should have error bars, too. . .

The graph was presented as part of his testimony before Congress. 

Read the pdf to see the context in which it was presented.

And, to your point, its been brought up...Read the whole thing:

https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/05/comparing-models-with-observations/

A whole host of interesting issues are raised in this exchange:

  • How to communicate complex data to a non technical audience?
  • How to best compare model predictions against observations?
  • What is are the most reliable sources of such plots to use in public presentations?

I’ll start with the third question first.  When selecting figures to use in presentations or testimony, I am looking for the most credible figures to use.  I use figures from the most recent IPCC assessment where possible.  A second choice is a figure from the published literature.  However, in public presentations and testimony, they are looking for the most up-to-date analysis with the latest observations (which aren’t in peer reviewed publications owing to research-publication time lags).  Hence I have often used Ed Hawkins’ update of figure 11.25 from the AR5 comparing model projections and surface observations (Ed was the author of fig 11.25).

With regards to John Christy’s figure, he is the author of one of the main observational data sets used in the comparison. I don’t know the source of the time series that Gavin provided, but the observations in gavin’s figure vs Christy’s figure do not look similar in terms of time variation.  I have no idea how to explain this.  I have to say that I think John Christy’s figure is more reliable, although some additional thought could be given to how to define the beginning reference point to eliminate any spurious influence from El Nino or whatever.

Why don’t I draw my own figures for such presentations?  Apart from the issue of lack of time and lack of artistic skill in making such plots look nice, I regard published diagrams or diagrams made by originators of the data sets to have a higher credibility rank, as well as being a source of analysis independent from the person summarizing the information (i.e. me).

The issue of comparing models to observations has been hashed out here (Spinning the climate model – observation comparison Part I, Part II, Part III) and at other blogs (e.g. Lucia’s, etc.).   How to compare depends on the point you are trying to make.  For example, in Gavin’s first time series plot, I am not sure what the point is of comparing to scenario R4.5.   I don’t see that the baseline matters that much, if you are mainly comparing trends.

I really like the histogram, this conveys exactly the point I wanted to make, although explaining this to a nontechnical audience in ~1 minute is pretty hopeless.  I also like Ed Hawkin’s figure 11.15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Data provided by John Cristy

Resorted to the phrase "Ad Hominim attacks" 

Graphs provided are from a blog post 

 

 

I'm going with the scientists on this one.

 

Cato organization huh? Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

Data provided by John Cristy

Resorted to the phrase "Ad Hominim attacks" 

Graphs provided are from a blog post 

 

 

I'm going with the scientists on this one.

 

Cato organization huh? Good luck!

The last was actually from a presentation given at the AGU.

And all you can do is throw empty insults.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446295/michael-mann-house-testimony-climate-change-embarrassing-rude

In his testimony to the House Science Committee on Wednesday, Michael Mann, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, told the story of Trofim Lysenko, a plant scientist who worked for Stalinist Russia:

Lysenko was a Russian agronomist and it became Leninist doctrine to impose his views about heredity, which were crackpot theories, completely at odds with the world’s scientists. Under Stalin, scientists were being jailed if they disagreed with his theories about agriculture. And Russian agriculture actually suffered, scientists were jailed, many died in their jail cells and potentially millions of people suffered from the disastrous agriculture policies that followed from that.

The gist of Mann’s anecdote was that scientists who challenge the ruling government’s diktat on any given scientific issue are demonized and punished while innocent bystanders suffer. In the here and now, this would seemingly apply to the minority of scientists brave enough to question the reigning dogma of climate science. After all, these are the folks who have been threatened by top law-enforcement officials, personally and professionally attacked by their peers, and even driven out of their academic positions due to the harassment.

But astonishingly, Mann was not talking about those scientists: He was talking about himself. In his alternative universe, he and other climate scientists are the martyrs, oppressed and silenced by the Politburo. Never mind that Mann — a tenured professor at one of the country’s top public universities — opened his testimony by reciting a prodigious list of awards he has won, books he has authored, scientific organizations he leads. He is celebrated by the media and environmental groups around the world, and yet in front of Congress he talked like a guy on his way to the Gulag. It takes a special blend of hubris, juvenility, and dishonesty to portray yourself as a victim when you are really the bully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a quick search on the Cato Organization.

Interesting groups you quote 

 

IMG_5710.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sail4beer said:

I did a quick search on the Cato Organization.

Interesting groups you quote 

 

IMG_5710.JPG

Again, the information in #322 was presented at the AGU...

https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/31/deniers-lies-and-politics/

 

Lies, damned lies and more lies

I always thought that there would be consequences for lying during Congressional testimony.  I guess not.  Mann got caught out in several blatant lies during the Hearing.

This is pretty classic:  Mann denies calling me a denier [link]

A number of statements have been attributed to me. I don’t believe I’ve called anybody a denier

when he states this in his written testimony:

Bates’ allegations were also published on the blog of climate science denier Judith Curry

Mann ‘denies’ being associated with the Climate Accountability Institute [link].  Julie Kelly writes in an article Michael Mann Embarrasses Himself Before Congress

Turns out Mann appears to be a bit of a denier himself. Under questioning, Mann denied being involved with the Climate Accountability Institute even though he is featured on its website as a board member. CAI is one of the groups pushing a scorched-earth approach to climate deniers, urging lawmakers to employ the RICO statute against fossil-fuel corporations. When asked directly if he was either affiliated or associated with CAI, Mann answered “no.” [JC note:  Mann also lists this affiliation on his CV]

Some additional ‘porkies’ are highlighted in an article by James Delingpole.

Venal motives

Michael Mann’s testimony plays to the theme of the evil oil companies and Koch brothers being responsible for climate denial.  I’m still waiting for my check (according to Mann, I’ve earned one).

Lets take a look at Mann’s venal motives.  A little birdie dropped this in my mailbox this morning:

fundraising_2-1.png?w=500&h=237

x

fundraising_1.png?w=500&h=268

 

The sent time  on the email is just moments after the Hearing.  Apparently Michael Mann now has a Political Action Committee (PAC)  314.action

I imagine that my receiving this information will intensely provoke someone’s paranoia.

Red Teams

Well I have to say that I feared our key messages got lost in all the bickering and nonsense of the actual Hearing.

I was very heartened to see this article by Chelsea Harvey in the WaPo:  These scientists want to challenge climate research.  Congress is listening.  This article is basically about the ‘Red Team’ strategy discussed by Christy and myself.  It is a good and article, and I would like to thank Chelsea Harvey for writing this.

I will have lots to say on this topic in coming months.

JC reflections

Well, the Hearing was rather bizarre.  I don’t think anyone got out of it what they wanted (other than MM with his PAC donations).  I hope that my written testimony will result in reflection by some scientists.  And it seems possible that the Red Team idea will develop legs.

Some establishment scientists are calling for climate scientists to boycott these Hearings.  Well, that would be fine with me.  Scientists who don’t want to engage in respectful discussion and debate should stay home, and preach to their choirs.

Here is some advice for Lamar Smith.  If you hold another Hearing on climate change and the democrats invite Mann, either cancel the Hearing or call Steve McIntyre and/or Mark Steyn as witnesses.  Several times during the Hearing, the thought popped into my mind that I wished Mark Steyn was here.  Who could forget his performance at Ted Cruz’s previous Hearing [link].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From her blog...

blog, blog, blog... for days. 

Not real science

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

From her blog...

blog, blog, blog... for days. 

Not real science

Education

1982 Ph.D. The University of Chicago, Geophysical Sciences
1974 B.S. cum laude Northern Illinois University, Geography

 

Professional Experience

2002- Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
1992-2002 Professor, University of Colorado-Boulder, Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Environmental Studies Program
1989-1992 Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Penn State
1986-1989 Assistant Professor, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University
1982-1986 Assistant Scientist, Department of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Awards/Honors

2006 Georgia Tech Sigma Xi Award, Best Faculty Paper Award
2004 Fellow, American Geophysical Union
2002 NASA Group Achievement Award for CAMEX-4
1997 Elected Councilor, American Meteorological Society
1995 Fellow, American Meteorological Society"
1992 Henry G. Houghton Award, the American Meteorological Society
1988 Presidential Young Investigator Award, the National Science Foundation Councillor

Professional Activities (last five years)

World Meteorological Organization / International Council of Scientific Unions / International Ocean Commission / World Climate Research Programme

Global Energy and Water Experiment (GEWEX) Radiation Panel (1994-2004 )
GEWEX Cloud System Studies (GCSS) Science Steering Group (1998-2004 )
Chair, GCSS Working Group on Polar Clouds (1998-2004 )
Chair, GEWEX Radiation Panel SEAFLUX Project (1999-2004)
Science Steering Group, Arctic Climate System (ACSYS) Programme (1994-2000)
Steering Committee, IGAC/SOLAS Air-Ice Chemical Interactions (2003- )

American Meteorological Society

Executive Committee of the Council (1998-2000)
Councillor (1997-2000)
Awards Committee (1995-1997)
Editor, Journal of Applied Meteorology (1993-1996)

National Science Foundation

Panel to review NCAR (2002)
Co-Chair, Science Working Group, Surface Heat Balance of the Arctic (SHEBA) (1993-1996)
Atmospheric Sciences Observing Facilities Advisory Panel (1994-1997)
Arctic System Science (ARCSS) Steering Committee (1993-1995)

Department of Energy

Executive Committee, Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program (93-96) Chair (1997-2000) and Member (1993-2000), Science Steering Committee, ARM Alaska site

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Lead Mission Scientist, FIRE Arctic Cloud Experiment (1996-1999)
Technology Subcommittee of the Earth System Science and Applications Advisory Committee (1997-2003)
Review Team, Earth System Science Pathfinder Missions (1998-1999)

NAS/NRC

Climate Research Committee (2003-2006)
Space Studies Board (2004-2007)

NOAA

Steering Committee for the Postdoc Program in Climate and Global Change, 1994-1998
Council on Long-Term Climate Monitoring 2002-2004
Climate Working Group 2004-2008

Other

Executive Committee for AGU Board of Heads and Chairs (2004-)
External Review Committee, Environmental Sciences Department, Rutgers University (2000-2001)
External Review Committee, Dept of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue Univ (2003)
Nominating Committee, AGU Atmospheric Science Division (2004-)

 


 

RESEARCH GRANTS

 

Current Research Grants

Towards the Understanding and Parameterization of High Latitude Cloud and Radiation Processes. DOE ARM, 12/01/02-11/30/08, $720,000 (PI)

Applications of Aerosondes to long-term measurements of the atmosphere and sea ice surface in the Beaufort/Chukchi sector of the Arctic Ocean, NSF, 9/1/99-8/31/06, $3,997,402. (PI)

Arctic Regional Climate Model Intercomparison Project: Evaluation and Interpretation of Cloud and Radiation Fields Using Data Products from FIRE.ACE. NASA, 12/03-12/07, $525,000. (PI)

UAV Systems Analysis for Earth Observations: Education and Outreach. NASA, 3/05-3/08, $350,000 (PI)

Global analysis of ocean surface fluxes of heat and freshwater: satellite products, NWP analyses, and CMIP simulations. NASA, 10/1/05-9/30/10, $1.4M. (PI)

Parameterization of cloud particle activation and diffusional growth. NASA, $450,000, 11/1/05-10/31/08 (PI)

 

TEACHING

Courses Taught

Hurricanes (Georgia Tech, grad/undergrad)

Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (Georgia Tech, graduate)

Thermodynamics of the Earth System (Georgia Tech, undergraduate)

Preparing Future Faculty (University of Colorado; graduate)

Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (University of Colorado; graduate)

Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere and Ocean (University of Colorado; graduate)

Aircraft Probing of the Lower Atmosphere (University of Colorado; graduate)

Future Faculty Training (University of Colorado; graduate)

Engineering Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer (University of Colorado; undergraduate)

Engineering Senior Design Lab (University of Colorado; undergraduate)

Survey of Meteorology (Purdue University; undergraduate)

Atmospheric Thermodynamics (Purdue University, Penn State University; undergraduate)

Atmospheric Physics (Purdue University, Penn State University; graduate) Cloud and Precipitation Physics (Purdue University; graduate)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

Data provided by John Cristy

I'm going with the scientists on this one.

 

 

Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. Since November 2000 he has been Alabama's State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall scientist and now a Principle Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

Dr. Christy has served as a Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996 and 2007) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the satellite temperatures were included as a high-quality data set for studying global climate change. He has served on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama and has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional committees.

Dr. Christy received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois (1984, 1987). Prior to this career path he had graduated from the California State University in Fresno (B.A. Mathematics, 1973, Distinguished Alumnus 2007) and taught Physics and Chemistry as a missionary teacher in Nyeri, Kenya for two years. After earning a Master of Divinity degree from Golden Gate Baptist Seminary (1978) he served four years as a bivocational mission-pastor in Vermillion, South Dakota where he also taught college math. He was featured in the February 2001 issue of Discover magazine and in a National Public Radio profile in 2004 in which his diverse background was highlighted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, sidmon said:

....    ...    ...

The sent time  on the email is just moments after the Hearing.  Apparently Michael Mann now has a Political Action Committee (PAC)  314.action

I imagine that my receiving this information will intensely provoke someone’s paranoia.

Red Teams

Well I have to say that I feared our key messages got lost in all the bickering and nonsense of the actual Hearing.

I was very heartened to see this article by Chelsea Harvey in the WaPo:  These scientists want to challenge climate research.  Congress is listening.  This article is basically about the ‘Red Team’ strategy discussed by Christy and myself.  It is a good and article, and I would like to thank Chelsea Harvey for writing this.

I will have lots to say on this topic in coming months.

...   ...   ...

So are you a scientist in scientifically studying how to influence politicians?

If you begin with a desired outcome, it isn't science. I'm just a lowly engineer and I know this.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

So are you a scientist in scientifically studying how to influence politicians?

If you begin with a desired outcome, it isn't science. I'm just a lowly engineer and I know this.

-DSK

Tell that to Mann and Schmidt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, sousou said:

I actually have a question related to the very first post in this thread. In the case of a storm like Irma, how much energy is "removed" from from the oceans and dissapated through the atmosphere? Or is that not even the correct way to think about it? Maybe the question is... where does all the energy go in a storm like Irma?

This question was lost in the shitstorm but the answer might get this thread back on the science track. I'm not a meteorologist so I welcome corrections but here's what I think. Energy in a hurricane comes mostly from warm surface water. The water vapor is sucked into the vortex and gets dissipated as rain up high because forming raindrops releases the heat of condensation. This keeps the hurricane going. Cooler water and air up high is left in its wake like a heat engine. Some of the energy is dissipated as friction with the air and water. When it gets over land, much more friction from lifting, accelerating, and banging stuff together dissipates more energy and the lack of warm water reduces the energy available to keep the hurricane alive. This is like a car slowing down when you take your foot off the accelerator because friction from tires and axles (which get hot) dissipate the energy of the car's motion.

So, the way I see it, the warm water energy is used to keep the hurricane going and also gets dissipated as friction. The hurricane 'engine' may 'detune' due to wind shear and other conditions. The balance between engine output and friction determines whether the hurricane grows or wanes much like whether a car speeds up or slows down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sidmon said:

Lies, damned lies and more lies

I always thought that there would be consequences for lying during Congressional testimony.  I guess not.  Mann got caught out in several blatant lies during the Hearing.

This is pretty classic:  Mann denies calling me a denier [link]

A number of statements have been attributed to me. I don’t believe I’ve called anybody a denier

when he states this in his written testimony:

Bates’ allegations were also published on the blog of climate science denier Judith Curry

Mann ‘denies’ being associated with the Climate Accountability Institute [link].  Julie Kelly writes in an article Michael Mann Embarrasses Himself Before Congress

Turns out Mann appears to be a bit of a denier himself. Under questioning, Mann denied being involved with the Climate Accountability Institute even though he is featured on its website as a board member. CAI is one of the groups pushing a scorched-earth approach to climate deniers, urging lawmakers to employ the RICO statute against fossil-fuel corporations. When asked directly if he was either affiliated or associated with CAI, Mann answered “no.” [JC note:  Mann also lists this affiliation on his CV]

Some additional ‘porkies’ are highlighted in an article by James Delingpole.

Mate, you seem quite happy to accuse others of ad hominem attacks, yet that's clearly what this is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DFL1010 said:

Mate, you seem quite happy to accuse others of ad hominem attacks, yet that's clearly what this is. 

Mann straight up lied before Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2017 at 3:43 PM, Panoramix said:

The picture just says what happens if the ice melts not that it is going to melt. For the Antarctic you seem full of certainties. You must be aware that a gigantic berg is about to sail away from the Antarctic coast. I would be very surprised if the phenomenon is actually linear. 

This is a good point.  A number of factors have been identified as contributors to nonlinear global warming including the simple fact that the Arctic (and Greenland) have very different geographic influences (surrounded by land) than the Antarctic (surrounded by ocean).

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

And while the Greenland ice sheet is smaller than the Antarctic ice sheet, it's actual contribution to sea level rise is greater, according to this source:

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_level.html

volarslr.gif.6fdf7e5214470272b75b0c769ede7064.gif

Their worst case potential is the opposite; if melted completely:

  • Greenland would lead to a global sea level rise of 7.2 m (24 ft).
  • Antarctica would lead to a global sea level rise of 58 m (190 ft.).

But any significant melting in Greenland alone (10%, for example) would be disastrous for many (~2.4').

 

To put this in some perspective, I am reminded of a graphic I found ~five years ago (below) showing an 860 mile diameter blue sphere "representing all of the water on, in, and above the Earth": https://water.usgs.gov/edu/gallery/global-water-volume.html

global-water-volume-large.thumb.jpg.097e468b7ae9914e4c14e5f75e9d14a2.jpg

The same page says that "Ice caps, Glaciers, & Permanent Snow" amount to 1.74% of total water.  Several sources mention that "If all land ice melted, sea level would rise approximately 70 meters (230 feet) worldwide."

To visualize this a little better, I used Rhino/Grasshopper like a smart whiteboard to sketch this little model (attached) - interpretation below:

water_volume.png.7aae4229e20344c4d609419c859f05e5.png

Interpretation:

The volume of water in a sphere 860 miles in diameter divided by the surface area of the earth (7918 miles in diameter) results in an average water depth ("thickness") of ~1.7 miles.  Of that, the 1.74% that is ice would be 155 feet of water worldwide (not sure why that is less than the 230 feet figure found elsewhere, but it's close enough for this rough, non-academic visualization).

Other insights that can be derived from these numbers:

  • 1.7 miles of water depth is only 0.02135% of Earth's diameter (0.00021).
  • 860 miles is about 1/10th (11%) of earth's diameter, while total water volume in that sphere is 0.12813% of Earth's volume (0.00128).
  • At the scale of a basketball (9.55"), 1.7 miles of water would be just 0.00204 inches thick!

water_vol.gh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck you.

 

Now I am enjoying sailing but in few years I am planning to move up on the Alps and grow coffee. They already started to grow olives up high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think we've seen enough charts and graphs yet..

keep trying.......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Keith said:

I dont think we've seen enough charts and graphs yet..

keep trying.......

Are remarks like this considered clever in your world? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grey Dawn said:

 

This question was lost in the shitstorm but the answer might get this thread back on the science track. I'm not a meteorologist so I welcome corrections but here's what I think. Energy in a hurricane comes mostly from warm surface water. The water vapor is sucked into the vortex and gets dissipated as rain up high because forming raindrops releases the heat of condensation. This keeps the hurricane going. Cooler water and air up high is left in its wake like a heat engine. Some of the energy is dissipated as friction with the air and water. When it gets over land, much more friction from lifting, accelerating, and banging stuff together dissipates more energy and the lack of warm water reduces the energy available to keep the hurricane alive. This is like a car slowing down when you take your foot off the accelerator because friction from tires and axles (which get hot) dissipate the energy of the car's motion.

So, the way I see it, the warm water energy is used to keep the hurricane going and also gets dissipated as friction. The hurricane 'engine' may 'detune' due to wind shear and other conditions. The balance between engine output and friction determines whether the hurricane grows or wanes much like whether a car speeds up or slows down.

Thank you for the reply. Was also curious how much heat / energy leached out of earth (if any at all). And then the follow on,  would a series of very large storms remove enough energy from the ocean to have any impact on future storms. Seems like it does in the immediate aftermath based on the "cold trail" that follows storms like Irma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sousou said:

Thank you for the reply. Was also curious how much heat / energy leached out of earth (if any at all). And then the follow on,  would a series of very large storms remove enough energy from the ocean to have any impact on future storms. Seems like it does in the immediate aftermath based on the "cold trail" that follows storms like Irma.

The energy doesn't leak out of the earth immediately. It's just transformed from warm water locally to warm air or warm debris somewhere else. The cold trail is just because energy was removed from that local spot by the hurricane engine. To leak out of the earth requires radiation or atmospheric loss which does occur but not necessarily due to hurricanes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sidmon said:

The graph was presented as part of his testimony before Congress. 

Read the pdf to see the context in which it was presented.

And, to your point, its been brought up...Read the whole thing:

<snip>

Why don’t I draw my own figures for such presentations?  Apart from the issue of lack of time and lack of artistic skill in making such plots look nice, I regard published diagrams or diagrams made by originators of the data sets to have a higher credibility rank, as well as being a source of analysis independent from the person summarizing the information (i.e. me).

<schnipp>

I really like the histogram, this conveys exactly the point I wanted to make, although explaining this to a nontechnical audience in ~1 minute is pretty hopeless.  I also like Ed Hawkin’s figure 11.15.

. . .and none of that really addresses my points.  I do find it curious, that someone with all the qualifications you listed, can't be sussed (or find someone) to do a little graphing work.  It's a couple of lines of R code.

It would be interesting to get the raw observational data, and run some naive forecasting using that as input, to see how much error different forecasting methods produce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ProaSailor said:

Are remarks like this considered clever in your world? 

The title of this thread is a misnomer.  It should have been SILENCE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this guy Christy said: "it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

And then he says: "From my analysis, the actions being considered to 'stop global warming' will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole. We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming."

I think he is saying that there isn't much we can do to stop climate change and that it really doesn't matter that much because it isn't as bad a most people say.

But if he is wrong on either of these, the consequences are dire. If we try and save the planet we either are successful, or have wasted our efforts.

Kind of reminds me of this little growth I had on my arm.  I thought it was nothing but asked my doctor about it anyway.  She said it might be cancer and I should get it checked. So I weighed the options. 1) waste a doctor visit needlessly or 2) save the doctor visit and die of cancer.  So I went to the doctor.  It was nothing.  But during the visit they found some melanoma which could have killed me.  Maybe man has little impact on climate change but can have a large impact on saving the planet.  Given that most scientists disagree with Christy, seems worth taking the chance to save the planet.  The worst that could happen is we waste the effort.

By the way, from what I have read, the soot and dust cool the planet and are part of the reason that models have not tracked observations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just the fluctuations of the ufos plasma discharges there, Sid, and the mainstream scientists are trying to hide It so they don't have it seek federal funding to investigate the actual phenomena.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

I did a quick search on the Cato Organization.

Interesting groups you quote 

 

IMG_5710.JPG

Your source is The Nation????  Is it really necessary to ask what a left wing rag thinks of anyone who doesn't adhere to progressive orthodoxy? I love the line "toxic corporate propaganda", gives you a pretty good idea of the way they think.

How about questioning the source of the "97% consensus"? Here he is:

Herr Cook.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was more of a let's see some "real" credentials thing. That was just one of many things that came up about the Cato Group. I think this thread needed a clip about Cato, as Sidmon accuses the AGW group of groupthink, as do many people think of Cato as the same paid by interested parties. 

As far as how the whole debate will unfold, I would hope the "deniers" are correct since I have 2 young girls and hopefully grandchildren to carry on the debate. I'm not a scientist, but I rely on the collective knowledge of the scientific community for truth in reporting discoveries and hypotheses for review. 

I will stand against Sidmon's argument until someone can spell it out for me a little more clearly. Cliff note version with background experience from the poster. 

That said, I'm glad there is a debate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

aid, I'm glad there is a debate...

It is a debate that is 10:1 one one side. Should not even be a debate.  The rest of the world is not debating this, just the US.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So not to take sides allene222, but not sure Russia, India, China, Brazil, and Mexico are giving more than lip service to the issue...

Though I'm pretty sure that in China and Russia, there is no debate, so you're right from that perspective B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, allene222 said:

It is a debate that is 10:1 one one side. Should not even be a debate.  The rest of the world is not debating this, just the US.  

Big thanks to Ajbram, Monsoon, and all the other scientists trying to save the planet.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The data I saw said US 49% believe in Global Warming.  Rest of the world, 90%.  It did not break out Russia but I think China is pretty committed from what I read. I think you are right about Russia.  But among the climate scientists, they debate the small stuff.  Scientists always debate but on the question of is there man made climate change? Not much of a debate.  Just a small minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the US (as this thread shows on occasion, we have a bad habit of calling people who don't agree with us "idiots" or other such terms.  Its hard to think how we are going to bring the remaining folks over to one side (or the other for that matter, as each side is equally guilty of this) by calling them names and making them feel defensive.  Defensive people tend to get more stubborn, not less stubborn.

Also in all the name calling and hyperbole being used on both sides,  I think alot of the nuance get's lost.  Which in the end is detrimental to everyone,  the planet included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ProaSailor said:

Are remarks like this considered clever in your world? 

why so angry... ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of a course in philosophy.  One query was "How do I know what I know?"  This was in reference to Socrates who led people to answers through questions.   I found it interesting in that there are levels of fact.

Most basic level is I Know This is true because I experienced it...for example you touched the oven while it was on and got burned.

Next abstract level is I know this is true because someone I know and trust experienced it and told me...for example, your Mom tells you the oven is hot and you trust her.

Next abstract level relates to trustworthy source and perhaps preponderance of evidence...for example, I read it in a book that had lots of citations.

Note that the only thing you can know is true is the first basic level...all the rest rely on trust...ie Faith.   So skeptics hardly know anything (like myself).  People who do not trust easily (again, like myself) find it hard to have faith in anything.

Note also that SCIENCE (the topic of this stuff) is all about trust with the exception of a few folks who undertake direct experiments..."If I can see further, it is because I am standing on the shoulders of Giants."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2017 at 7:22 PM, Crash said:

So not to take sides allene222, but not sure Russia, India, China, Brazil, and Mexico are giving more than lip service to the issue...

Though I'm pretty sure that in China and Russia, there is no debate, so you're right from that perspective B)

https://www.ft.com/content/3f1ba5ba-ddac-11e6-86ac-f253db7791c6

China is quite aware that its future as an economic powerhouse relies on renewables and not killing their population through smog. Not to mention some $30+ billion in investments in renewable energy projects outside of China. Lip service? maybe. but economically sound lip service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now