Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#4,302
#4,302
govols/cc said:
I assume to be a "scientist" you have to be an expert in cartoons and memes.
Click to expand...
It doesn't hurt.


China To Create Carbon Market And Cap Emissions

Tony Abbott denies China's carbon trading plan shows he is out of step

Australian prime minister Tony Abbott may be deposed after party revolt

1000x1000.jpg
 
#4,303
#4,303
Still linking to ThinkProgress while at the same time questioning the links others provide, eh Bart?
 
#4,304
#4,304
volinbham said:
Nice dodge.
Here's the basic question: is he misrepresenting the findings of the works he cites? If so how.
I posted this because he uses published research to reach a conclusion in the same manner the article in Climate Research does.
(as a side note I don't view ThinkProgress and it's offshoots is an unbiased source and clearly the article you posted began with conclusion first followed by selected studies and interpretations of findings to support said conclusion - BOTH articles cherry pick research to support an a priori conclusion)
Click to expand...
How can you say that? The conclusion is not based on any particular article, it’s an argument from fundamental physics.

And I’m not dodging, it’s just seriously not worth my time to go through random crap piece by piece. I’ve done it with sandvol and co. one [million] times too many. It lost its appeal. And this particular WUWT article is especially bland. The urban heat island effect? That denialist talking point died out years ago. Satellite (UAH/RSS) discrepancy is another PRATT. The blog mostly just harps on adjustments, which is pretty ironic since Anthony Watts actually got sorta famous for his surface stations project where he accidentally strengthened the evidence for AGW.

...kind of like the time former skeptic Richard Mueller (Berkeley physicist) took it upon himself to calculate global temperature records, only to arrive at the exact same conclusion as everyone else. According to the Watts article, Judith Curry is a part of Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study as well. The temperature records are not a conspiracy. Tbh, most denialists moved on from “the earth is not warming” to “the earth is warming, but it’s not caused by humans” in the 90’s (despite the fact that we’d already identified anthropogenic “fingerprints” in climate change, even then). Old crap is old.
volinbham said:
So long as JC agrees with the party line you take her word. When she goes off the reservation she is to be questioned eh?
Click to expand...
No, it’s just telling that even she is not willing to play along with this denialist talking point.
volinbham said:
I'm not a student, I'm a faculty member.
I've been a marketing faculty member for 25 years.
Click to expand...
No offense intended, I thought you meant you were working on the phD. Marketing eh. Wish I had something interesting to say about that :p
volinbham said:
My problem with it is how the broader conclusion that the impact is specifically quantified but this quantification is not subject to any peer review. The bigger conclusion of the amount of impact is an off-the-cuff guess yet it is treated in the article as science fact. When "deniers" do this they are attacted
Click to expand...
It’s not a wild ass guess, it’s a (conservative) round number estimate given in an interview. Sea surface temperatures have increased due to climate change: observable fact. Atmospheric water vapor increases with sea surface temperature: observable fact. The nor’easter was fed by tropical moisture, enhanced by warmer SST: observable fact.
volinbham said:
Why? If precipitation cycles over our history both pre and post the ramp of AGW then it weakens the conviction that heavier precip since is the result of climate change. That was the point of the blog.
Click to expand...
I’m not following. You gave a bad counterexample when you guessed England’s precipitation hasn’t been increasing like New England’s. England has been soaked recently.
volinbham said:
I think it is the same because the exact same figure in the Climate Progress article is used in it (UCS used the figure).
I said nothing about data fabrication. I simply said the the conclusion of the increase in precip since 1958 COULD be partially explained by beginning in a period of relatively low precip or low correlation between amount of precip and temperature. Had we looked at say 1900 to 2009 the magnitude of the change recently would not be as large.
That is what I understand the point of the critique to be.
Karl may have said "let's check the last 50 years" but clearly in climate change research you starting point impacts the magnitude of a trend you see.
Click to expand...
Kind of like “no global warming since 1998!” Yeah, I get that :)

The figures are not the same though. Are we looking at the same thing? Show me the ClimateProgress figure and UCS figure you believe are the same.

If you want to look past Karl’s figure, go to the National Climate Assessment chapter I linked for you. It has figures going back to 1900.
volinbham said:
Here's my main beef. Virtually every observed weather event could be presented as "consistent with climate change" depending on which studies you choose to include in the article.
That is the tautology in action. That is my main critique of the Climate Progress article. It is clearly implying that the blizzard was worse than it otherwise would be due to climate change AND indicates in the last paragraph that this same article can and will be written for any future weather event.
Click to expand...
You’re still misinterpreting that last paragraph. The IPCC and NCA have regional climate predictions that are falsifiable. A global cooling or drying trend would be inconsistent with climate change. Deserts getting wetter or tropics drying out would generally be contrary to climate change. There’s a pretty extensive list of falsifiable predictions: stratospheric cooling, rising tropopause, decreasing diurnal temperature range, the list goes on…

volinbham said:
I'm not talking about obvious BS - I'm talking about scientific studies and conclusions. I've posted elsewhere in this thread research demonstrating that reviewers suffer from confirmation bias and are much harsher on research (to the point of nitpicking method) for conclusions that do not match their world view and more importantly; more lenient on research that does.
Do you scrutinize all this research or just studies that don't fit the IPCC narrative?
Click to expand...
The question is false. The IPCC encompasses all relevant literature. “The IPCC narrative” is reality, believe it or not.

I do think everyone scrutinizes research with unexpected results a bit more. Not necessarily to debunk it, but because it’s more interesting. Very few things in the literature are obvious BS. Some papers are better than others. Pretty much any scientific article is better than the “research” put out by (un)thinktanks with proven frauds like Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, Steve Milloy, Joe Bast, etc.
volinbham said:
But they are all working from the same data set right? If so, the bigger surprise would be them reaching different conclusions.
Click to expand...
No, they use much of the same raw data but their datasets do differ. And they use different interpolation methods. It shouldn’t be surprising that they differ by a few hundredths of a degree…
volinbham said:
I can't find a post on that page that addresses the 38% certainty.
Click to expand...
I checked the link and it should be functioning properly(?). See post #4179
volinbham said:
In general I prefer policy to be based on facts more than feelings but facts aren't always facts (see Food Pyramid) and there is a danger not considering all the impacts of policy because one is obsessed with the science part.
For example - the EPA coal mandates (5 years ago or so) completely ignored economic impact and omitted cost/benefit studies.
The policy makers who had a particular agenda simply presented "science facts" like number of kids who might not get asthma" to justify the policy but that was never weighed against number of kids who may be harmed by economic conditions, etc.
Policy has and should have may facets and constituents.
Click to expand...
No disagreement, but do you think nobody has done a cost/benefit analysis on climate change? Nobody’s taking economics into account?

This isn’t a problem that will go away if we ignore it hard enough. We must tackle it eventually, and better sooner than later because delaying is only co$ting us more.
 
#4,305
#4,305
volinbham said:
More of that science and resulting predictions. I'll note this is a major policy maker who is taking massive leaps
Playing Politics with the Weather | National Review Online
No fear mongering there - nope, not one bit.
Click to expand...
volinbham said:
Awesome - it's on the WH's blog
We Must Act Now to Protect Our Winters | The White House
Can anyone defend this statement as anything more than pure speculation?
This is from the head of the EPA - you know the supposed scientific-based policy maker.
Click to expand...
volinbham said:
And a bit more - just some back of the envelope calculations but if it's good enough for Climate Progress it should be acceptable here.
EPA Chief: 'Aspen
Click to expand...

Business-as-usual puts us on course for 5-10 F warming, globally. It could be more locally, but 15 F is a stretch. Idk what we should expect for Aspen specifically.

McCarthy is correct that winters are getting shorter and the wintersports industry is concerned. That said, McCarthy is a lifetime politician and not a scientist so you should take anything they say with plenty of salt.

And a back-of-the-envelope calculation should at least note that an inch of rain is not equivalent to an inch of snow. Amarillo and Aspen have comparable annual precipitation…
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,306
#4,306
World's biggest sovereign wealth fund dumps dozens of coal companies

Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG), worth $850bn (£556bn) and founded on the nation’s oil and gas wealth, revealed a total of 114 companies had been dumped on environmental and climate grounds in its first report on responsible investing, released on Thursday. The companies divested also include tar sands producers, cement makers and gold miners.

As part of a fast-growing campaign, over $50bn in fossil fuel company stocks have been divested by 180 organisations on the basis that their business models are incompatible with the pledge by the world’s governments to tackle global warming. But the GPFG is the highest profile institution to divest to date.


A report by Goldman Sachs in January also called time on the use of coal for electricity generation: “Just as a worker celebrating their 65th birthday can settle into a more sedate lifestyle while they look back on past achievements, we argue that thermal coal has reached its retirement age.” Goldman Sachs downgraded its long term price forecast for coal by 18%.

On Wednesday, a group of medical organisations called for the health sector to divest from fossil fuels as it had from tobacco. The £18bn Wellcome Trust, one of the world’s biggest funders of medical research , said “climate change is one of the greatest challenges to global health” but rejected the call to divest or reveal its total fossil fuel holdings.

In January, Axa Investment Managers warned the reputation of fossil fuel companies were at immediate risk from the divestment campaign and Shell unexpectedly backed a shareholder demand to assess whether the company’s business model is compatible with global goals to tackle climate change.
Click to expand...
 
#4,307
#4,307
BartW said:
Business-as-usual puts us on course for 5-10 F warming, globally. It could be more locally, but 15 F is a stretch. Idk what we should expect for Aspen specifically.

McCarthy is correct that winters are getting shorter and the wintersports industry is concerned. That said, McCarthy is a lifetime politician and not a scientist so you should take anything they say with plenty of salt.

And a back-of-the-envelope calculation should at least note that an inch of rain is not equivalent to an inch of snow. Amarillo and Aspen have comparable annual precipitation…
Click to expand...

I simply present it as how the warmist side trots out completely unsupported predictions as the reason we MUST DO SOMETHING BIG NOW!

I think it's a particularly important example since it represents the proposed policy of the country yet it completely overblown and unsupported.

Once again we see that policy makers playing fast and loose with the facts while at the same time calling out their opponents for doing the same thing.
 
#4,308
#4,308
BartW said:
World's biggest sovereign wealth fund dumps dozens of coal companies
Click to expand...

Interesting given that about 25% of Norway's GDP comes from oil production.

If they care so much why not slow the production?

I would imagine this has more to do with the performance outlook for these investments than anything else.

It's right in the first paragraph

The world’s richest sovereign wealth fund removed 32 coal mining companies from its portfolio in 2014, citing the risk they face from regulatory action on climate change.
Click to expand...

and

“Our risk-based approach means that we exit sectors and areas where we see elevated levels of risk to our investments in the long term,” said Marthe Skaar, spokeswoman for GPFG, which has $40bn invested in fossil fuel companies. “Companies with particularly high greenhouse gas emissions may be exposed to risk from regulatory or other changes leading to a fall in demand.”
Click to expand...

Clearly they hear BS like Aspen will be Amarillo justifying a regulatory regime along with actions the EPA has already taken against coal and realize it's a risky investment.

It's their fiduciary duty.
 
Last edited:
#4,310
#4,310
volinbham said:
I simply present it as how the warmist side trots out completely unsupported predictions as the reason we MUST DO SOMETHING BIG NOW!

I think it's a particularly important example since it represents the proposed policy of the country yet it completely overblown and unsupported.

Once again we see that policy makers playing fast and loose with the facts while at the same time calling out their opponents for doing the same thing.
Click to expand...
Sure, I’ve agreed there are ridiculous claims lobbed out by both sides. You won’t find them in the literature though. I just think the TP article you chose to single out is a poor example. But I’ll let it die.

I don’t agree with the proposed policy, but it’s true that we must do something now. If we continue kicking the can we’ll only have to do something bigGER later. We know more than enough to act and we still have realistic options. Let’s get on with it already.
volinbham said:
Interesting given that about 25% of Norway's GDP comes from oil production.

If they care so much why not slow the production?

I would imagine this has more to do with the performance outlook for these investments than anything else.

It's right in the first paragraph
and
Clearly they hear BS like Aspen will be Amarillo justifying a regulatory regime along with actions the EPA has already taken against coal and realize it's a risky investment.

It's their fiduciary duty.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’m sure they divested from palm oil operations in SE Asia because of the US EPA…

It is mostly driven by financial interests, though. Norway knows that climate change is real and regulation is inevitable (where not already present). It’s the same for big oil. The big 5 all acknowledge the reality of climate change and support a carbon tax. Investors are starting to take notice. The carbon bubble is going to burst and it won't be pretty.
 
#4,312
#4,312
BartW said:
Business-as-usual puts us on course for 5-10 F warming, globally. It could be more locally, but 15 F is a stretch. Idk what we should expect for Aspen specifically.

McCarthy is correct that winters are getting shorter and the wintersports industry is concerned. That said, McCarthy is a lifetime politician and not a scientist so you should take anything they say with plenty of salt.

And a back-of-the-envelope calculation should at least note that an inch of rain is not equivalent to an inch of snow. Amarillo and Aspen have comparable annual precipitation…
Click to expand...

5-10 F Warming? It had better get moving then.
 

Attachments

  • IPCCvsUAH.png
    IPCCvsUAH.png
    139 KB · Views: 4
#4,315
#4,315
volinbham said:
Please tell me you don't think I was attributing all of the divestures to the EPA and the US.
Click to expand...

'twas in jest. The point was that some of Norway's divestitures reveal not just concern for the Oil Fund, but legit concern about climate change in general.

Norway has already committed to reducing its emissions by 40% from 1990 levels (matching the EU target).
 
#4,316
#4,316
A 50th anniversary few remember: LBJ's warning on carbon dioxide

President Lyndon Baines Johnson, in a February 8, 1965 special message to Congress warned about build-up of the invisible air pollutant that scientists recognize today as the primary contributor to global warming.

"Air pollution is no longer confined to isolated places," said Johnson less than three weeks after his 1965 inauguration. "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels."


"To the best of my knowledge, 1965 was the first time that a U.S. President was ever officially warned of environmental risks from the accumulation of fossil-fuel carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," Caldeira said in an email. "This year will mark a half-century of Presidential knowledge of the risks of climate change. I wish I could say that there has been a half-century of concerted efforts to reduce these risks.

"The science of climate and the carbon-cycle that was reported to President Johnson in 1965 largely holds up today, demonstrating that climate science is a mature science," Caldeira added. "Climate scientists are still arguing about the details, but knowledgeable people have agreed about the fundamentals for a long time."
Click to expand...
 
#4,317
#4,317
LBJ was a blowhard anyway, I prefer one of his more controversial quotes myself..
 
Last edited:
#4,320
#4,320
After Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" I looked at historical temperatures for several million years as recorded in geologic and ice data. Then I realized that the only hot air was coming out of Gore's flatulent mouth. Once carbon credits were proposed I knew it was a scam to fleece the population and leave us carbon free as well as cash free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#4,321
#4,321
The earth has never held a static temperature, yes the climate is always changing. How about the little ice age, the earth warmed back up with zero carbon going into the atmosphere. There is zero concrete evidence that carbon causes warmer temperature. Do you scientists that promote global warming also believe the Americas were populated via the Bering strait?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,323
#4,323
myrobbins7 said:
After Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" I looked at historical temperatures for several million years as recorded in geologic and ice data. Then I realized that the only hot air was coming out of Gore's flatulent mouth. Once carbon credits were proposed I knew it was a scam to fleece the population and leave us carbon free as well as cash free.
Click to expand...
$$$$$$
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    45.9 KB · Views: 0
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top