Warming, Measurements and Science Stuffs

[Masbee]

On both sides of this issue, people with agendas stretch, and often break, the truth. The misinformed repeat the misinformation with the absolute certainty and zeal of the converted. It isn't hard, or even all that interesting, to find things said that aren't true.

barfo

Ah, falling into the "both sides do it equally, so it basically cancels out" lie.

It is almost exclusively the supporters of AGW (and conveniently supporters of massive increases in government taxation, regulation and power) who piously and contemptuously fling in the face of skeptics (and yes, full on deniers) their claim that the science is "settled" and that "all scientists agree" and those who deny this are ignorant, greedy tools, or worse.


And this goes well beyond name calling. Find a prominent AGW supporter who has been attacked, ostracized, ignored, and marginalized by the climate science community. Oh, that's right. Hasn't happened.


Instead it has happened to skeptics. Those same skeptics who are looking smarter and smarter every year as their long standing critiques of the AGW Science Mafia have been looking closer to the "truth" than the failed predictions of the anointed climate "scientists".

 

[barfo]

Ah, falling into the "both sides do it equally, so it basically cancels out" lie.

No, that wasn't what I was saying. Both sides don't do it equally.

It is almost exclusively the supporters of AGW (and conveniently supporters of massive increases in government taxation, regulation and power) who piously and contemptuously fling in the face of skeptics (and yes, full on deniers) their claim that the science is "settled" and that "all scientists agree" and those who deny this are ignorant, greedy tools, or worse.

Well, why would the skeptics piously and contemptuously fling that in their own faces?

And this goes well beyond name calling. Find a prominent AGW supporter who has been attacked, ostracized, ignored, and marginalized by the climate science community. Oh, that's right. Hasn't happened.

Find a prominent climate change denier who has been attacked, ostracized, ignored, and marginalized by the denier community...

Instead it has happened to skeptics. Those same skeptics who are looking smarter and smarter every year as their long standing critiques of the AGW Science Mafia have been looking closer to the "truth" than the failed predictions of the anointed climate "scientists".

I think the skeptics are actually useful - but that doesn't make them right (or wrong). In the long run, the truth will win out. I'm betting on the scientists rather than the crackpots, but who knows.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

No, that wasn't what I was saying. Both sides don't do it equally.

barfo

Looks like denial to me. When you start your post with "no."

 

[barfo]

Looks like denial to me. When you start your post with "no."

Yes, good point.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You also seem to deny the fact that there are many scientists in the fields directly related to climate research who think AGW is a scam. So it really matters which scientists win, eh?

I think the one who have the upper hand are the ones with $50M in grants and don't get caught lying.

 

[barfo]

You also seem to deny the fact that there are many scientists in the fields directly related to climate research who think AGW is a scam. So it really matters which scientists win, eh?

Too bad you had to include that bolded part, isn't it? Would be so much more convincing if it wasn't there.

It seems logical to me that the scientists who are actually studying the issue are probably the ones who will win. Retired dudes who once upon a time were geologists or something probably won't win.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Deny this guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

I know you will.

 

[barfo]

Deny this guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

I know you will.

Roy Spencer does exist.

So if you can find one dude who agrees with you, you must be right?

barfo

 

[jlprk]

Or if he can base this thread on one study that has defects, he wants us to believe that every study is defective.

 

[Denny Crane]

Roy Spencer does exist.

So if you can find one dude who agrees with you, you must be right?

barfo

The University of Huntsville, Alabama collects and maintains one of the most referenced and used satellite temperature datasets used in the study of the planet's "temperature" (whatever that really means).

Dr. Roy Spencer published and maintained that dataset along with John Christy. Christy is an atmospheric scientist, with impeachable credentials as well. The two of them are both skeptical of Al Gore's climate claims (as well as the scientists who profit from the scam).

Now there's "two dudes" who are real scientists.

Maybe the scientists should win, and the politicians and their sycophants should lose.

 

[barfo]

The University of Huntsville, Alabama collects and maintains one of the most referenced and used satellite temperature datasets used in the study of the planet's "temperature" (whatever that really means).

Dr. Roy Spencer published and maintained that dataset along with John Christy. Christy is an atmospheric scientist, with impeachable credentials as well.

So, they never got any grants to do that work, right? Because that would make them corrupt, according to you. Have you examined their data? How do you know it isn't falsified?

Good that you admit Christy's credentials are impeachable, though. Saves me from having to look him up again.

The two of them are both skeptical of Al Gore's climate claims (as well as the scientists who profit from the scam).

Now there's "two dudes" who are real scientists.

Maybe the scientists should win, and the politicians and their sycophants should lose.

I'm totally in favor of the scientists winning and the politicians taking their cues from the scientists. However, Spencer and Christy are not the only scientists in the world, merely nearly the only ones that agree with your politics.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

So, they never got any grants to do that work, right? Because that would make them corrupt, according to you. Have you examined their data? How do you know it isn't falsified?

Good that you admit Christy's credentials are impeachable, though. Saves me from having to look him up again.



I'm totally in favor of the scientists winning and the politicians taking their cues from the scientists. However, Spencer and Christy are not the only scientists in the world, merely nearly the only ones that agree with your politics.

barfo

Maybe you might look at what their data set is and who uses it, and how it's been corrected over time.

I have no idea what their politics are.

Maybe the guys getting grants should be administrators instead of guys writing papers and doing the pro quo thing for their politician benefactors.

 

[barfo]

Maybe you might look at what their data set is and who uses it, and how it's been corrected over time.

I'll leave it to the specialists in the field to do that. I'm not that interested.

I have no idea what their politics are.

Ok, that's got to be the most implausible claim ever made on S2. The only reason you've ever even heard of those guys is their politics! You gave me a link to a wiki page that mostly talks about Spencer's politics. I guess you averted your eyes when you looked it up for me?

barfo

 

[jlprk]

Those darned scientists lie all the time to make money. The businessmen who oppose them work for free.

This computer I'm typing on is an illusion, created by charlatans.

I post for free, while Denny makes money from his posting. Therefore, believe me, not you, you corrupt Music Man traveling salesman, you purveyor of medicinal herbs containing a thousand health remedies.

Wheeeaa. Going to crash now. Denny runs a good board and lets us argue with him.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'll leave it to the specialists in the field to do that. I'm not that interested.



Ok, that's got to be the most implausible claim ever made on S2. The only reason you've ever even heard of those guys is their politics! You gave me a link to a wiki page that mostly talks about Spencer's politics. I guess you averted your eyes when you looked it up for me?

barfo

They may have voted for Obama for all I know. I'm not interested in their politics, but rather the best science can do. The "consensus" thing is by nature a political thing. You know like a vote or election.

 

[Denny Crane]

Those darned scientists lie all the time to make money. The businessmen who oppose them work for free.

This computer I'm typing on is an illusion, created by charlatans.

I post for free, while Denny makes money from his posting. Therefore, believe me, not you, you corrupt Music Man traveling salesman, you purveyor of medicinal herbs containing a thousand health remedies.

Wheeeaa. Going to crash now. Denny runs a good board and lets us argue with him.

I'm all in favor of scientists making money. Good for them. It's when they take $50M in grants from the government and politicians direct that $50M to them that science is questionable.

 

[Denny Crane]

Christy's testimony before congress in 2012.

In case you're wondering...

1) Here's a second scientific analysis of those 37 CMIP5 computer models that agrees with the first.

2) I am expert enough about computer modeling to see he's 100% spot on. It has nothing to do with politics, but truth.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit...20/HHRG-112-IF03-WState-ChristyJ-20120920.pdf

2. RECENT CLIMATE MODEL SIMULATIONS

One of the key questions policymakers ask is what will happen with the Earth’s weather in the decades to come. More importantly, they want to know how things might change specifically for their constituents. One pathway to seek answers is to examine the output of climate models that attempt to predict likely outcomes. If one has confidence in the model projections that terrible weather is on the horizon, then it is tempting to devise policy that the same models say would indicate would somehow mitigate that problem.

In Figure 2.1 below, I display the results from 38 of the latest climate model simulations of global temperature that will be used in the upcoming IPCC AR5 assessment on climate change (KNMI Climate Explorer). All of the data are given a reference of 1979-1983, i.e. the same starting line. Along with these individual model runs I show their average (thick black line) and the results from observations (symbols). The two satellite-based results (circles, UAH and RSS) have been proportionally adjusted so they represent surface variations for an apples-to-apples comparison. The evidence indicates the models on average are over-warming the planet by quite a bit, implying there should be little confidence that the models can answer the question asked by policymakers. Basing policy on the circles (i.e. real data) seems more prudent than basing policy on the thick line of model output. Policies based on the circles would include adaptation to extreme events that will happen because they’ve happened before (noted above and below) and since the underlying trend is relatively small.

 

[barfo]

They may have voted for Obama for all I know. I'm not interested in their politics

Maybe you aren't interested in the very narrow sense of who they voted for, but you are totally their fanboi because of their politics. I note that your next post is about Christy's congressional testimony, not a scientific talk he gave at the last conference.

And statistically, a creationist like Spencer probably didn't vote for Obama.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Maybe you aren't interested in the very narrow sense of who they voted for, but you are totally their fanboi because of their politics. I note that your next post is about Christy's congressional testimony, not a scientific talk he gave at the last conference.

And statistically, a creationist like Spencer probably didn't vote for Obama.

barfo

I'm interested in the truth. I know computer modeling isn't reliable and they say it is unreliable. The ones who say it is reliable and forecast the apocalypse are ones I find hard to believe.

These are the guys that gather the data and are experts in what the data means. They look at their own data and don't see apocalypse. What "politics" do they care about? What's their agenda, cheaper energy? Neither one of these two take $.01 from the petroleum industry, so you can't play that card against them.

 

[barfo]

I'm interested in the truth. I know computer modeling isn't reliable and they say it is unreliable. The ones who say it is reliable and forecast the apocalypse are ones I find hard to believe.

I won't argue your credentials in computer modeling, but you are (a) wrong when you say it isn't reliable (it depends upon the problem and the model); and (b) clearly biased.

These are the guys that gather the data and are experts in what the data means.

They are two such guys. There are many other such guys who disagree with them.

They look at their own data and don't see apocalypse. What "politics" do they care about? What's their agenda, cheaper energy? Neither one of these two take $.01 from the petroleum industry, so you can't play that card against them.

Their political agenda is, at a minimum, self-promotion. You can't claim a guy who writes a book titled "Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor" is non-political.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I won't argue your credentials in computer modeling, but you are (a) wrong when you say it isn't reliable (it depends upon the problem and the model); and (b) clearly biased.



They are two such guys. There are many other such guys who disagree with them.



Their political agenda is, at a minimum, self-promotion. You can't claim a guy who writes a book titled "Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor" is non-political.

barfo

If computer models were accurate, they wouldn't actually crash test cars. Modeling a car accident is way less complex than modeling the planet. The computer model wouldn't satisfy anyone about the safety of the vehicles.

The models are studied, and compared with actual results. If the models are 400% higher than actual and people tout them as reason the apocalypse is on us (rather, take some anti capitalist social action that otherwise isn't justified)... I say there's the real bias. Be the denier.

The book is warning that politics driven science leads to bad science. Golly gee, the honest scientist wants good science. You want something else?

 

[jlprk]

2) I am expert enough about computer modeling to see he's 100% spot on. It has nothing to do with politics, but truth.

Maybe when you were younger, but I will step forward to tell you, you've lost your figure and you need to lose the ego.

 

[Denny Crane]

Maybe when you were younger, but I will step forward to tell you, you've lost your figure and you need to lose the ego.

Ego has nothing to do with the truth. It's as obvious as the lights going out when you turn off the switch. The technology is what it is, no matter how you want it to be otherwise.

 

[jlprk]

At your advanced age, you must do your modelling privately now.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/warming-593355-global-temperature.html

Mark Landsbaum: Climate alarmists' search for proof going cold

Even China’s coal-burning is offered to explain lack of global warming.

Recall global warming hysteria’s halcyon days? Just 13 years ago, Dr. David Viner, senior scientist at Britain’s University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit, confidently predicted that, within a few years, winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event.”

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Of course, that doesn’t mesh with what happened. This past October, the UK Express headlined, “Worst winter for decades: Record-breaking snow predicted for November.”

By the end of November, Brits were shivering, “as Britain faces snow, ice and plummeting temperatures,” reported the Mirror newspaper. “Most of Scotland has been issued severe weather warnings for ice, and temperatures are expected to remain low, causing problems with snow and ice across the country.” Winter yet lay ahead.

We shouldn’t pick on Great Britain. There is plenty of global warming foolishness here at home. Recall James Hansen, global warming guru whose alarmist campaign was underwritten by his NASA paycheck. By the 2020s, Hansen predicted in 1986, the U.S. average annual temperature would rise 9 degrees Fahrenheit, or more, and up to 3 degrees by the 2010s.

A funny thing happened on the way to the 2010s and 2020s. It didn’t get so hot. In fact, depending on which data set you use, it probably has cooled down for 17 years.

...

There’s no shortage of inventive excuses for why things aren’t so hot, including, incredibly, China’s increased use of coal, even though “dirty” fossil fuel is supposed to increase, not decrease temperatures.

Implicit in this “where-did-the-heat-go” shell game is an inconvenient reality.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

http://io9.com/new-study-shows-the-pause-in-global-warming-comes-fro-1484259046

 

[Masbee]

http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/18/ugly-climate-models


Ugly Climate Models

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can't explain the last 15 years.



n September the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the final draft of Climate Change 2013: The Physical Sciences Basis. The report's "Summary for Policymakers" flatly states: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased."


Pretty much everyone concerned with this issue agrees that those are the facts. But what is causing the planet to warm up? Here is where it gets interesting........


The IPCC now reports that the observed global mean surface temperature increased at a rate of 0.12 degree Celsius per decade from 1951 to 2012, for a total increase of about 0.72 degree during that period. At that rate, the global average temperature by the end of this century will be more than one degree higher than it is now. An increase of just one degree more is unlikely to be catastrophic.

 

[Masbee]

Find a prominent climate change denier who has been attacked, ostracized, ignored, and marginalized by the denier community...



I think the skeptics are actually useful - but that doesn't make them right (or wrong). In the long run, the truth will win out. I'm betting on the scientists rather than the crackpots, but who knows.

barfo

Here you go: Richard Lidzen (denier) and his story of being attacked, ignored and marginalized. Note he is tenured meteorology professor at MIT, climatologist, contributor to previous IPCC reports.


As well, this story is a decent summarization of the criticisms of the "alarmist" AGW scientists and the politicians and political groups that support them.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html?page=3

 

[Denny Crane]

You hear the one about the global warming scientists who went to antarctica to take pictures of ice flows they expected to have receded and who ended up getting stuck in the ice that wasn't supposed to be there?

 

[barfo]

Here you go: Richard Lidzen (denier) and his story of being attacked, ignored and marginalized. Note he is tenured meteorology professor at MIT, climatologist, contributor to previous IPCC reports.

I think you misread what I typed.

barfo