Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Grand Vol]

Oh my! Cindy Lou Who has certainly put the Who Pudding, Who hash, and roast beast to good use. The Grinch's heart wouldn't be the only thing growing with her around.

We now return to our regularly scheduled discussion.......

Are those the same roast beasts that some environmental kooks say cause global warming by farting?

 

[Rifleman]

Remember when you asked who Bart was? Good times. Ha

No going back now . . .

 

[hog88]

Oh my! Cindy Lou Who has certainly put the Who Pudding, Who hash, and roast beast to good use. The Grinch's heart wouldn't be the only thing growing with her around.

We now return to our regularly scheduled discussion.......

One of your better works.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000 | Real Science

Joe Bastardi tweeted this. Him and Ryan Maue are must follows on Twitter

 

[BartW]

:lolabove: So you claim I should trust you as a source of information based on this and your off-base critique of a paper you clearly didn't read, and then you cite a "comment" to Dr. Lu's research by an blogger with zero credentials and no peer-reviewed research or funding for research. This makes you look like an imbecile and, to be clear, I say that out of pity, not anger.

Yet, you say I should not trust Dr. Lu? Hmm, let's see if he has been peer-reviewed by other scientists in a competitive forum.

Dr. Qing-Lin Lu's credentials:

Don’t just take my word for it, read the damn literature yourself. I did not say you shouldn’t trust Dr. Lu. You have a bad habit of putting words in others’ mouths. And the co-authors of that comment are not “an blogger”:

Dana Nuccitelli - BS astrophysics UC Berkeley, MS physics UC Davis. Works in private sector (tetra tech). 15 (academic) publications, writer for The Guardian
Dr. Kevin Cowtan - Department of Chemistry, University of York. UK. 50+ publications
Dr. Peter Jacobs - Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University. 12 publications
Mark Richardson - phD candidate in Meteorology, University of Reading. 3 publications
Dr. Robert G. Way - Department of Geography[cryoshperic sciences and remote sensing], University of Ottawa. 12 publications
John Cook - physics/postgrad honors in solar physics at University of Queensland, phD candidate in cognitive psychology at University of Western Australia. 50+ publications

I’ll spare you their full CVs. Now if you truly want to discuss the material instead of bantering about credentials, maybe you can start by addressing this part of my last post:

I am well aware that CFCs are greenhouse gases. So is the IPCC. An equally relevant fact is that they are far less abundant (ppt range) and thus contribute only about 20% of the radiative forcing that CO2 does. Yes CFC’s play a role, but to claim that they're the primary driver of present climate change is demonstrably false. How does an increased greenhouse effect from CFC’s cause global warming while a much larger increase in greenhouse effect from rising CO2 doesn’t? (discussed in the papers)

 

[hog88]

And Bart picks himself up off the mat, comes out swinging.....

 

[BartW]

Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler wonders why it’s so cold if global warming exists. Here’s the answer.

It is that time of year when the weather gets cold — even unexpectedly cold — and online humorists and armchair scientists rise up as one to ask a question: "What happened to 'global warming'???" It's a good gag, see, because it's cold and global warming implies that it will be warm. If you don't get it, please e-mail me and I will explain further.

With the current cold snap that's blanketing the country, even a member of Congress couldn't resist.

There are two options for what Hartzler, a Republican who represents Missouri's 4th District, hopes to accomplish here. The first is that she's making a joke about a serious environmental issue that has scientists around the world concerned about how mankind will fare under warmer conditions. We assume a member of Congress wouldn't make such a joke.

So let's assume Hartzler is actually wondering what happened to climate change (which is what conservative message-man Frank Luntz recommended Republicans call the effect). And for that we have an answer.

opcorn:

 

[508mikey]

Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler wonders why it’s so cold if global warming exists. Here’s the answer.



opcorn:

so did you email her, Albert E ?

 

[McDad]

And Bart picks himself up off the mat, comes out swinging.....

I think his tone is a bit terse in his reply. Maybe he's a "mad" fighter. You know, like Rocky Balboa.

 

[govols/cc]

I think we know where to find the hot air

 

[Rifleman]

Don’t just take my word for it, read the damn literature yourself. I did not say you shouldn’t trust Dr. Lu. You have a bad habit of putting words in others’ mouths. And the co-authors of that comment are not “an blogger”:

Dana Nuccitelli - BS astrophysics UC Berkeley, MS physics UC Davis. Works in private sector (tetra tech). 15 (academic) publications, writer for The Guardian
Dr. Kevin Cowtan - Department of Chemistry, University of York. UK. 50+ publications
Dr. Peter Jacobs - Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University. 12 publications
Mark Richardson - phD candidate in Meteorology, University of Reading. 3 publications
Dr. Robert G. Way - Department of Geography[cryoshperic sciences and remote sensing], University of Ottawa. 12 publications
John Cook - physics/postgrad honors in solar physics at University of Queensland, phD candidate in cognitive psychology at University of Western Australia. 50+ publications

I’ll spare you their full CVs. Now if you truly want to discuss the material instead of bantering about credentials, maybe you can start by addressing this part of my last post:

BartW, I see that you now freely admit that you referenced a comment, not a peer-reviewed paper, and that the primary author of that comment did not advance to the doctoral level of research. Kudos. Was that really so hard?

If the primary author isn't a blogger, you may want to let his LinkedIn profile know as it lists his occupation as such.

LinkedIn

I am also elated that Dr. Lu's paper has helped you recover your long lost skepticism. I sincerely hope that you will be able to wield that skepticism in the future whether or not you believe your politics allows you to agree with the assumptions of an author going in.

It is clear that your interest in this topic is politically, not scientifically, motivated. That is fine. We all have our own blind spots, and I sure have mine, but you may want to move beyond the political frame now and then.

It seems dishonest to me for you to say that you were not trying to undermine Dr. Lu's publication by questioning the quality of the paper and the integrity of the scientist who published it. It was patently obvious that you were trying to do just that.

Now that you have lost that argument in a most humorous and spectacular fashion, I am suddenly accused of putting words into "others' mouths".

I'm sorry, I'm sure you are as you say, "not trying to be a butt". Usually when people preface their comments that way, though, my internal heuristics tell me that what comes after usually features said person being a butt. In this, you were no exception.

 

[Rifleman]

who knew Dr. Lu was a UT fan, cool.

Well he very rapidly secured his PhD so he could move to the US from Australia to start a postdoctoral fellowship at Rutgers at the end of 1997.

His first full year in the USA was 1998.

We all know what happened in '98.

No other explanation, IMHO. :rock:

 

[BartW]

BartW, I see that you now freely admit that you referenced a comment, not a peer-reviewed paper, and that the primary author of that comment did not advance to the doctoral level of research. Kudos. Was that really so hard?

Where did I ever claim otherwise? Again, you’re putting words in my mouth.

If the primary author isn't a blogger, you may want to let his LinkedIn profile know as it lists his occupation as such.

LinkedIn

His LinkedIn states that he’s worked for Tetra Tech for 8 years, 6 months and as a climate blogger at the Guardian for 1 year, 8 months. I listed both in my blurb. You said the comment was authored by “an blogger with zero credentials and no peer-reviewed research or funding for research.” Demonstrably false.

I am also elated that Dr. Lu's paper has helped you recover your long lost skepticism. I sincerely hope that you will be able to wield that skepticism in the future whether or not you believe your politics allows you to agree with the assumptions of an author going in.

It is clear that your interest in this topic is politically, not scientifically, motivated. That is fine. We all have our own blind spots, and I sure have mine, but you may want to move beyond the political frame now and then.

Lol. I’m motivated to post here because as a scientist I can’t stand science denialists representing my alma mater on my favorite forum. There is, however, plenty of evidence indicating climate denial is ideologically motivated by libertarianism and more specifically free market fundamentalism. As a libertarian that upsets me. The haters will hoot and holler, but since you’re new I’ll put it out there again. I have never voted D or for either major party in presidential elections. I voted against gun control here in WA the last go-round. We probably have more in common than you think. I’m just very aware of how wrong some of my compadres are on this issue.

It seems dishonest to me for you to say that you were not trying to undermine Dr. Lu's publication by questioning the quality of the paper and the integrity of the scientist who published it. It was patently obvious that you were trying to do just that.

Already told you earlier:

I’m not discounting Lu’s idea based on this, I’m just calling out your baseless endorsement [of IJMPB].

You're making mountains out of molehills.

Now that you have lost that argument in a most humorous and spectacular fashion, I am suddenly accused of putting words into "others' mouths".

Danth’s Law

I can’t help but notice you once again conveniently ignored my invitation to actually discuss the contents of Lu’s paper. If you don’t want to get into it, that’s fine, but don't just try to play it cool.

 

[BartW]

I think his tone is a bit terse in his reply. Maybe he's a "mad" fighter. You know, like Rocky Balboa.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Einstein's theory that actions cause an equal and opposite reaction can be applied to this through out history. Imagine being on Earth in the 900's when an ice age happened. It's how the Vikings got so powerful.

Just .......damn.....brother I graduated from TSU and knew this was frigged up......Einstein? Lol

 

[allvol123]

Climate Change Mafia is infested with Jon Grubers.

Anythhing to cause fear, to secure more power.

 

[govols/cc]

Climate Change Mafia is infested with Jon Grubers.

Anythhing to cause fear, to secure more power.

And everybody but them is too dumb to know anything.

 

[apevol]

:lolabove: What's the "impact factor" of Think Progress, Champ! I'm pretty sure the comments below the article I referred you to are not scientifically sound, either. So, yeah, you are sounding like a jackass, sorry.

This is a well-respected Physics journal. Is it Science or Cell or Nature? No. But it is a respected source for scientific inquiry which you can't easily discount and Dr. Lu's work should be researched more.

I for one am not arguing that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. That it is a conservative and easily testable claim in my opinion.

However, it is an extreme claim that moving from 280 ppm CO2 to 450 ppm of atmospheric CO2 will create a planet unsustainable to human habitation. That is an extreme claim I have seen many climate scientists make without providing the extreme evidence to back it up. Yes, the atmosphere is a closed system but the number and varieties of feedback possibilities are not easily quantified. NOAA has shown that the Eastern US is sinking a lot more carbon due to lengthened growing seasons, for instance.

Many of these academics need to take more responsibility for educating the general public on these issues. If you cannot communicate to your butcher or barber in 10 minutes why your research proves something, then you do not deserve to consume your butcher's or barber's tax dollar.

Consider this: when I was a teen I got a stomach ulcer. My doctor told my parents the science was that stress caused this. They gave me the same med they would have given a 55 year old investment banker working 14 hour days.

Yet, there was a scientist at the University of Virginia named Barry Marshall who was trying to publish his work showing that a bacteria, Heliobacter pylori, was the actual cause of ulcers.

Of course, he was laughed at by all the "impact journals". No research funding came his way. This was settled science after all. He couldn't pay any young researchers to work in his lab so he could fully document the mechanism by which this bacteria caused stomach ulcers.

So one day Dr. Marshall resorts to drinking a cocktail of Heliobacter pylori juice witnessed by a another scientist. He gets a stomach ulcer believe it or not, and then shows a course of antibiotics kills the ulcer.

Only after this does his research start getting funded and his papers published. In fact, they gave him the Nobel Prize.

I got rid of my ulcer because a guy with a metal cleat stomped me at the bottom of a pile after I made a tackle one Friday night. A week later I had a puss-filled wound with red lines radiating off it and my PCP pumped me full of some hardcore antibiotics. Ulcer gone. Of course, I thought it was the original medication that healed it . . . because that was the scientific consensus.

Now I haven't seen anyone prove atmospheric CO2 is nothing to worry about. I have seen no proof that it is not a greenhouse gas and Dr. Lu's work, while interesting, is not trying to attack that issue.

However, my question for you that would end this debate in your favor: where is the definitive proof that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 170 ppm since the 1700s will destroy our planet?

Wow, man. I had ulcers as a teen also. Doctors thought there was no way I had them in my early teens. Ended up having to self diagnose, and force them to give me an endoscopy. This was after 10 years of burning hell in my belly.

 

[Rifleman]

Wow, man. I had ulcers as a teen also. Doctors thought there was no way I had them in my early teens. Ended up having to self diagnose, and force them to give me an endoscopy. This was after 10 years of burning hell in my belly.

It is a great case of recent scientific consensus being 100% wrong about a system, the human digestive tract, which is infinitely less complex than Earth's climate.

Yet, any suggestion that current climate models might have flaws that need to be addressed is met with overwhelming backlash.

In the end, we all suffer when scientists fear that asking critical questions will draw irrational attacks from hosts of frothing simpletons who have little understanding of the scientific process in the first place.

 

[govols/cc]

It is a great case of recent scientific consensus being 100% wrong about a system, the human digestive tract, which is infinitely less complex than Earth's climate.

Yet, any suggestion that current climate models might have flaws that need to be addressed is met with overwhelming backlash.

In the end, we all suffer when scientists fear that asking critical questions will draw irrational attacks from hosts of frothing simpletons who have little understanding of the scientific process in the first place.

They can hire Gruber

 

[Rifleman]

His LinkedIn states that he’s worked for Tetra Tech for 8 years, 6 months and as a climate blogger at the Guardian for 1 year, 8 months. I listed both in my blurb. You said the comment was authored by “an blogger with zero credentials and no peer-reviewed research or funding for research.” Demonstrably false.

I'm not sure if you are trolling here, or if your IQ is really this low.

Your own post says he is a blogger not a research scientist. How is that "demonstrably false"?

Where is a list of his peer-reviewed research exactly?

It looks like he did a couple of student-level conference presentations while in grad school, where incidentally he failed to advance to dissertation (perhaps the one peer-review he ever faced) and he has done some work on counting the number of scientists who agree with him, but he has no fundable research in the sciences.

Also, I don't think you know what the word "blurb" means, unless that was just intended to be an onomatopoeia standing in for the generally nonsensical character of your speech as you drool over your bowl of mush in whatever ward for the mentally debilitated they keep you in.

 

[LouderVol]

And Bart picks himself up off the mat, comes out swinging.....

I'm not sure if you are trolling here, or if your IQ is really this low.

Your own post says he is a blogger not a research scientist. How is that "demonstrably false"?

Where is a list of his peer-reviewed research exactly?

It looks like he did a couple of student-level conference presentations while in grad school, where incidentally he failed to advance to dissertation (perhaps the one peer-review he ever faced) and he has done some work on counting the number of scientists who agree with him, but he has no fundable research in the sciences.

Also, I don't think you know what the word "blurb" means, unless that was just intended to be an onomatopoeia standing in for the generally nonsensical character of your speech as you drool over your bowl of mush in whatever ward for the mentally debilitated they keep you in.

not to be intimidated Rifleman responds with a quick one-two punch.

 

[volinbham]

Lol. I’m motivated to post here because as a scientist I can’t stand science denialists representing my alma mater on my favorite forum. There is, however, plenty of evidence indicating climate denial is ideologically motivated by libertarianism and more specifically free market fundamentalism.

My primary issue with your responses is how you simply refuse to acknowledge the ideological motivation behind AGW folks as well.

The blog post you included is a perfect example - it moves freely from science into punditry while treating both as the same. It practically accuses another scientist (Dr. Lu) of bad intentions simply because his work is counter to their dogma. I'll note that the flaws they point out are not limited to "contrarian" research but similar methodological flaws have been pointed out in supportive research (though it is always minimized by those in the club).

I found it very ironic that they quote their own vanity site while complaining about vanity outlets for "contrarian" sites and publications. That site is a laugh riot in unsupported statements presented as fact. (a common denier tactic?)

The primary point I agree with from Rifleman is that you appear to be closed minded to any research that conflicts with your view (even going as far to trash the motives of respected and qualified researchers - done throughout this thread - if they don't fit the view). If you are fighting the fight for science you should open your mind and recognize the warts and ideological dogma in ALL sides of the debate; not just the side that doesn't match your world view.

 

[volinbham]

Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler wonders why it’s so cold if global warming exists. Here’s the answer.



opcorn:

Why don't we ever see this response to the countless people who use a hot day or week in the Summer as proof of or the direct result of AGW?

 

[volinbham]

Yet, any suggestion that current climate models might have flaws that need to be addressed is met with overwhelming backlash.

This is the irony for me. The backlash is to be hyper critical of contrarian research.

All the research should be subject to the same standards yet it is not.

I'll have to see if I can dig it up but a sociologist pointed out to his colleagues how the field is overwhelming liberal in world view (less than 10% were conservative).

The first reaction was "so what, we are unbiased". This was followed by well perhaps liberals are smarter or better suited to the field, etc.

Subsequent experiments showed real bias in rating of scientific study (no surprise) with acceptances being highly correlated with consistency in world view (liberal conclusions/interpretation of the data) and rejections being highly correlated with contradictions in world view (conservative conclusions/interpretation of the data).

There is certainly a confirmation bias in scientific research and it has been empirically documented.

In this particular area (AGW) it seems to be worse given the veracity with which we see attacks on science that doesn't fit the narrative (let alone the examples of data manipulation). We see the commentary from strong proponents lamenting the "pause" since it gives critics ammunition (when it should at least cause them to question some underlying assumptions). Anomalies are simply nuisances to be explained away as opposed to possible indicators of flawed assumptions, conclusions etc.

I'm not an AGW denier. I am a critic of how the science has been politicized and the increasing close-minded actions taken by those vested in their view.