Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 Next
Comments 8901 to 8950:
-
Philippe Chantreau at 15:59 PM on 2 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
I note that you do not adress any substantive point about what was happening behind the e-mails that you so eagerly condemn on the Soon/Baliunas communications.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 15:57 PM on 2 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
I can only infer from your response that you condone the pitiful Soon/Baliunas piece and associated perversion of peer-review as "acceptable" scientific behavior. So be it then.
The IPCC compiles scientific research, published in scientific journals. Its goal is to identify where the weight of the evidence points. If Curry or Lindzen have insights to share, they need to hack it out in the literature, like everyone else.
-
nyood at 14:35 PM on 2 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
@nigelj, Philippe Chantreau. Comments 53, 55.
Thanks for all the detailed replies, i can see where you are coming from and that you accept the political behaviour by the "11" as legit and only consequent. I can not change this view, only express that it does not go along with my understanding of scientific behaviour.
In the end the IPCC is not researching itself but only analyzing and interpreting and they have a clear mandate, so even the egomaniac behaviour of M.Mann can be excused, he is only doing his job.
It is just not fair, the IPCC is mising an organ that tries to falsify itself, here you will claim that they do that carefully, I will say: This is up to the skeptics that are cornered, shamed and excluded and people like Lindzen or Curry are no lunatics, just to name the best.
To the moderators reponse which i want to shorten with:
"9 separate investigations have completely exonerated all scientists of all charges"
This might be true, at the same time they were scolding the "11" for a lack of ingenuousness and transparency.
Since i am called upon to read the OP again i want to conclude with a final note and then i will stop bothering you:
The "Hockestick" that you use in the OP is an audacity and always will be.
You know this. You know that warming periods are missing. You are aware of that it is targeting the public and media that do not know better.
It is the very manipulative method that you accuse the skeptics of.
This is the political thinking and acting i am talking of.
Moderator Response:[DB] "The "Hockestick" that you use in the OP is an audacity"
The "Hockeystick" has long been affirmed and validated as correct by science and has been independently replicated by numerous independent bodies, including this one from the Trump Administration in 2017:
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
Ad hominems, accusations of impropriety and political ideology snipped.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 12:03 PM on 2 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Nyood at 51 cites e-mail in which the infamous 2003 Soon/Baliunas paper is discussed. That calls for some context.
This paper was so bad that it really could not make it in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. This was a problem for fake skeptics, who denigrate the peer-review process and the validity of proper science publishing, but nonetheless trumpet loudly any and every "paper" they think defends their camp if it has even only the appearance of being peer-reviewed. The timing of pending legislation further suggests that this was a poor attempt at presenting in Congress a competing point of view to what by then had necome well established scientific understanding. Unfortunately for Imhofe and others, their chosen paper was total bunk.
The Soon/Baliunas paper was a piece of junk, squeezed through a unusual process that could be worked to allow for hand picking friendly reviewers. It was a blatant perversion of the true peer-review mechanism and its intention, and it benefited from an organized publicity campaign to attract attention that it could never have gathered on its own merits.
It is entirely legitimate that real scientists be up in arms against such an underhanded and dishonest campaign. Any researcher worth their salt who sees such deceitful nonsense as Soon/Baliunas being elevated to the same level of validity as careful, sincere scientific work should be outraged, and should do something about it. It is only in our weird post-truth world that someone can manage to twist this situation into conspiratory paranoid wordage.
The Soon Baliunas paper was so bad that half of the editorial board resigned in protest when they realized what had happened. In Nyood's selected quotes, the authors express surprise and doubts about Von Storch himself, some of it seemingly rooted in not knowing his character well. It should be said that Von Storch showed integrity and attempted to do the right thing; he unfortunately met a very different attitude from the likes of De Freitas, Legates amd others, and separated himself from the journal with the following words:
"editors used different scales for judging the validity of an article. Some editors considered the problem of the Soon & Baliunas paper as merely a problem of 'opinion', while it was really a problem of severe methodological flaws. Thus, I decided that I had to disconnect from that journal, which I had served proudly for about 10 years."
There is plenty more to read on this pathetic fiasco, including that the "paper" was in part underwritten by $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, or how the journal had been specifically targeted by so-called skeptics because they identified weaknesses in the review process.
So, as it turns out once again, the concerns of the people cited by Nyood were entirely legitimate, justified, and their reaction was appropriate. A lack of such reaction in a case like this would be suspicious, not the other way around.
-
Eclectic at 11:49 AM on 2 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
BillyJoe @12 , you must certainly be "a glutton for punishment" ~ being up to Potholer54's video #35 already! But they are a bit addictive in their humorous style.
I would be interested to hear your critique of his videos, and especially about any errors you notice. Off the top of my head, I can think of the way he somewhat "up-played" [is that a word?] the magnitude/extent of the Medieval Warm Period ~ but then again, the video was made in 2012, before the publication of later research. And again, his comments may have been intended rhetorically to "draw in" the more Conservative viewers and lull their initial antagonism.
If you do comment further, I hope it can be on this thread. Possibly the moderators will approve it as being on-topic, as videocentric comment (not just ClimateAdam's videos). Katherine Hayhoe is an excellent speaker, too. Quite a star performer !
-
BillyJoe at 10:55 AM on 2 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
sdinardo, I did say "each to his own".
I'll have a look at Katherine Hayhoe's "Global Weirding" after getting through Eclectic's suggestion of Potholer54's series of 50 videos. I'm at #35 and it is far more informative and entertaining than anything I've seen from Climate Adam (although I have picked up a couple of minor errors probably related to the fact that his earlier videos are nearly ten years old).
-
nigelj at 09:24 AM on 2 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
blub @47, modelling an existing physical process and using it to predict future trends is completely different from making a new scientific discovery or making an engineering invention. I fear it is therefore you who need to improve your critical thinking.
-
nigelj at 09:15 AM on 2 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
nyood @51, I hear where you are coming from, and I have already read many of these emails ages ago, but I have to agree with eclectic. I would say a lot of the paranoia is in your own reaction to them, and you are indeed making a mountain out of a molehill.
Mann was expressing his frustrations with a publication stacked with climate sceptics. I can understand this. It's hardly sinister and no different from the rhetoric we hear from sceptics themselves!
Perhaps he went too far suggesting other scientists not submit to that publication, but meh. I dont know. Seems like a molehill to me.
The pause was longer than was expected so obviously caused some concern and worried discussion among scientists, so I'm not sure why this is seen as a big deal, but in the end it turned out to be understood better, and a nothingburger. I've explaned this @30 but you fail to acknowledge the comment, learn and move on.
There's certainly no reason to read anything sinister or questionable into the scientists discussion at the time about the pause. Scientists sometimes express doubts like anyone else. Your reaction to this is either verging on hysterical, or is contrived.
You do not seem to apply the same standards to the sceptics. Look at the awful politicised stuff written by C Moncton, and W Soon who failed to declare funding sources and got caught and censured. There's a long list of far more troubling things than anything about climategate.
Since you just repeat the same stuff over and over, and have not responded to most of the specific points I have made, I wont be responding to you further until you change to something else.
-
Livinginawe at 08:55 AM on 2 December 2019CO2 was higher in the past
Thank you michael sweet and nyood for your enlightening thoughts;
I knew I was off topic, but I'm new to the forum and I didn't understand how vast the forum is. I also realize my question was more philosophical in nature and does not merit discussion on this forum...so thank you for responding. The forum seems filled with intelligent people presenting good data and I shall greatly enjoy delving through its contents.
Moderator Response:[DB] Your question and statements were on-topic and such are always welcome here. As you note, the site is quite vast (thousands of discussion threads exist, on all of the near-several-hundred most-popular denier mantras and years of blog posts and re-posts). You can either use the Search function to find threads to review or look at the Taxonomy of denial (or sorted by Popularity).
-
Eclectic at 08:30 AM on 2 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Nyood , you use the phrase "borderline paranoid".
The reading of your posts suggests (strongly) that you should give that term a great deal more thought ~ using introspection.
(But it's a sad fact that the paranoid cannot usually be reasoned out of their paranoia, in large or small matters.)
Another phrase to think on: # Making a mountain out of a molehill.
Meanwhile, despite all the controversy, the physical Earth is warming . . . ice is melting; seas are rising and acidifying.
-
nyood at 07:51 AM on 2 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
@ Ma Rodgers and nigelj
I feel like you do not want to understand why i find it hard to trust people that talk like this. These "11" are the elite, they lose all intregrity with the leaking and i am scared by people like you that are willing to accept such behaviour considering the enormous power these "advisers" have:
M.Mann:
"It is pretty clear that the skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board30(Whetton, Goodess, ...). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he’s an odd individual, and I’m not sure he isn’t himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and with Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon andBaliunas paper, that couldn’t get published in a reputable journal.This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!"
"So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.."
This is borderline paranoid. This extreme focus on public and media perception and on control of the peer reviewed processes is way beyond any professional behaviour.
P.Jones:
"I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met(eorological) Office press release with Doug’s paper that said something like—“half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998”!Still a way to go before 2014.I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying “where’s the warming gone”? I know the warming is on the decades scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away."
There are countless emails of this kind. Please try to be neutral and read them all, you can skip the skeptical explanations in black like i did and read only the colored quotes:
This is all about power, i avoided to get into the political side of climate change, i was all busy with the science, eventualy i turned my atention to climategate and my worst apprehensions came true. Climategate reads like a second - rate thriller, this is indeed sinister.
Moderator Response:[DB] You keep rehashing old lines of inquiry that have been utterly exhausted. Please re-read the OP of this post and the linked articles within it. Why? Because 9 separate investigations have completely exonerated all scientists of all charges:
"The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate."
And, as discussed here:
"Far from exposing a global warming fraud, “Climategate” merely exposed the depths to which contrarians are willing to sink in their attempts to manufacture doubt about AGW. They cannot win the argument on scientific grounds, so now they are trying to discredit researchers themselves.
Climategate was a fake scandal from beginning to end, and the media swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. The real scandal is the attacks on climate science which have done untold damage to the reputation of the scientists involved, public trust in science, and the prospects of mitigating future warming."
Further, the court has ruled that academic emails can be withheld:
"emails are proprietary records dealing with scholarly research and therefore exempt from disclosure"
Continuing to keep rehashing the same tired points without providing any new, credible sources to support your position is sloganeering, a practice that runs afoul of this site's Comments Policy.
The science has long moved on. If you do not have any new, credible sources, you should too.
-
sdinardo at 07:18 AM on 2 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
@BillyJoe 2, I'd add Katherine Hayhoe's "Global Weirding" series as an effective climate-change-explainer to the masses. As for Climate Adam, let's grant perhaps that there is room for differenting 'styles' in presentation depending on intended audience, as long as there is accuracy?
-
nyood at 06:48 AM on 2 December 2019CO2 was higher in the past
LivinginAwe @98
The plants have already adapted to the long term decline of CO2 in earth history. This is why grasses and other C3 type plants evolved. The most sturdy plants are believed to be able to deal with even 50ppm.
Eventualy all CO2 should be stored in primerly limestone, yet the decline is very steady and it will take many more million years to completly deplete all CO2 if that ever happens. After our ice age, when Antarctica moves away from the pole again, which is expected to happen in ~90 mio years, the ice age will end and the warming oceans will release the "rest" of the CO2 that is still held by them (1000-2000 ppm).
My take on this is that earth has already experienced these situations, there is a barrier when it comes to warming that saves us from overheating and there is also a barrier when it comes to cooling and CO2 declining that saves life.
So in a way you are right, CO2 might help our plants and the greening effect is already documented by Nasa, but we do not know how the plants will deal with this sudden increase of CO2 made by us.
Moderator Response:[DB] "CO2 might help our plants and the greening effect is already documented by Nasa"
According to the most recent research, the Earth stopped getting greener 20 years ago:
"the vegetation greening trend indicated by a satellite-derived vegetation index (GIMMS3g), which was evident before the late 1990s, was subsequently stalled or reversed"
Note that this 2019 research paper was published AFTER the 2016 NASA article on that topic and contains later information.
Further discussion here:
"The study published yesterday in Science Advances points to satellite observations that revealed expanding vegetation worldwide during much of the 1980s and 1990s. But then, about 20 years ago, the trend stopped.
Since then, more than half of the world’s vegetated landscapes have been experiencing a “browning” trend, or decrease in plant growth"
Further discussion of such is off-topic for this thread, but can be pursued here, "CO2 is plant food".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:42 AM on 2 December 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48
jgestiot @2,
I agree that All economic activities that are contrary to the achievement of Any of the Sustainable Development Goals, and improvements and expansion of that understanding, need to be corrected. And Policy that correctly Governs the Economic activity will be required because the freer socioeconomic-political systems have proven to Develop problems and Develop powerful resistance to correcton.
Responsible Governing of human activity is required for humanity to have a sustainable future. It would be nice if the entire population pursued expanded awareness and improved understandig and applied that learning to help achieve and improve the Sustainable Development Goals. But that is a Fairytale Fantasy. The reality is that Responsible Governing will require some self-correction resistant people to be externally corrected 'against their harmful desired free-will'.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:30 AM on 2 December 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48
jgestiot @2,
Total population is a concern. But the real concern is the Total Impact of the Total population.
A Total population of 1 billion having essentially the same impact as the current total global population Solves Nothing.
That is why the earliest global leadership agreements required the largest and earliest reduction of impacts to be from 'The largest impacting portion of the population'.
That is still the requirement, getting all of the highest impacting people to dramatically reduce the impact of how they act. That then sets the 'Bar' for All Others to aspire to develop to:
- upper limits on those who have lower impact but need to improve how they live
- lower limits for the people who need to 'Catch Down' to the reduced levels of impact corrected to by the leaders of the reduction of impact (All higher impacting people must participate in the reduction, not just Those Who Care).
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:53 AM on 2 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Blub;s latest post here seems to be a variant of "you don't know everything, so you know nothing", which allows him/her to reject anything that science has established that goes against his/her desires to believe (or disbelieve). If science can be wrong, then it must be wrong when it disagrees with blub.
...and of course confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, etc. only afflict other people, not blub.
-
jgestiot at 04:38 AM on 2 December 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48
Although every single bit helps, there is no solution to Climate Change until we start dealing with human population. If we halve our carbon footprint and in the meantime we double our population, we are left with the same problem. In my opinion, we should implement a worldwide one-child policy and move away from economic policies that promote unsustainable growth.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:54 AM on 2 December 2019Why does CO2 cause the Greenhouse Effect?! | Climate Chemistry
nigelk @28,
In addition to a photon from a higher energy CO2 molecule going in any direction, reducing how much energy 'Goes up and out', the increased movement of CO2 molecules transfers movement energy to other molecules in all directions, so that is also energy that does not continue to 'Go Up and Out'.
Less energy 'going directly up and out' means it will be warmer inside of the stuff that intercepts the energy on its way 'up and out' if there is more of that stuff.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:46 AM on 2 December 2019Why does CO2 cause the Greenhouse Effect?! | Climate Chemistry
nigelk @28,
Your description seems pretty close to complete.
The UCAR Center for Science Education explanation of "Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation" is more complete, including the mention of the "Vibation" effect Climate Adam included in his video.
-
michael sweet at 01:08 AM on 2 December 2019CO2 was higher in the past
Livinginawe,
You are way off base. The world was doing fine before humans evolved. Wiping out a large percentage of all living creatures (both animals and plants) does not count as "saving" the planet.
Read some of the historical accounts of how much life existed before humans came to a location. They describe so many fish on the Grand Banks fishery that ships were slowed by running into them and they could be scooped up in baskets from the surface. There were so many whales in the Gulf of St. Lawerence that the noise of them breathing at night made it difficult for sailors to sleep.
Life adapts to slow changes. The problem with AGW is that the change is way to fast for life to evolve (in addition to the many other harmful pollutants humans release).
-
Livinginawe at 23:51 PM on 1 December 2019CO2 was higher in the past
Noting that atmospheric CO2 levels have been falling since the Jurassic period and was approaching a level that some scientist claim cannot support plant life (150 ppm)...Is it possible that mankind has evolved to SAVE the living planet instead of DESTROY it? Of course, we may well bring about our own distruction and most of the animal life on the planet...But wasn't the earth headed for a cold death? Carbon and oxygen has been locked away in carbonaceous sedimentary rock, coal, oil, and methane gas. Alas, along comes man to extract all that carbon and oxygen from the ground and breathe new life into a dying planet.
What are your thoughts? Am I way off base? (I honestly mean no harm and I certainly do not want to start an angry debate...It has just been a curious thought of mine for over twenty years).
-
MA Rodger at 21:04 PM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
I'm not sure what "critical thinking" blub @47 expects.
Of course, stock market prices are not goverened by physical processes and I have no inkling of the meaning of his terms "robust model" and "accurate." The remaining examples he provides appear to concern a mixture of issues regarding modelling problems or limits to scientific knowledge. I don't see how GCMs relate to any of this, again assuming that is the concern expressed. And that said, you don't even need a GCM to demonstrate GHG-induced Climate Change. I consider the argument set out by the commenter up-thread (all eight comments extant and snipped) appear to be simply arguing that there is no ontological truth, something which is philisophically correct but scientifically flat wrong.
-
Eclectic at 20:58 PM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Blub @47 ,
. . . and why haven't we invented anti-gravity yet?
. . . and why not a cure for every cancer?
. . . and biological regeneration to give humans a 1000-year lifespan?
. . . etcetera.
Blub ~ when you have ignited some critical thinking in yourself , then perhaps you will see your way clear to actually discussing the topic of this thread. Rather than hand-waving and discussing confirmation bias (without insight).
-
blub at 19:37 PM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
This will be my last post on this site in hope of igniting some critical thinking.
If modelling of complex physical processes is robust why don´t we haven´t already predicted high temperature superconducting materials on which we could transfer energy without loss?
Why were we not able to model plasma confinement for the last 60 years to enable nuclear fusion which would enable abundant cheap energy?
Why are there no models to predict stock market moves accurately?
Why are we not able to model even solar cell processes accurately?
Are robust models accurate? -
MA Rodger at 18:43 PM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
nyood @28,
I fear you rely on the commentaries of climate change deniers rather than the source documents they cherry-pick from.
Tom Wigley was taking issue with Kevin Trenberth in 2009 not 1997 (1997 also the date of the hockeystick work) and it was an entirely civilised and understandable interchange (although the actual e-mail thread does suggest that there was some history to the interchange).
Wigley argued that the global temperature evolution 2000-10 could be explained by ENSO, volcano & solar variation (as per Foster & Rahmstorf 2011) but this was not entirely what Trenberth was saying (note the CERES reference). Then Trenberth responds pointing this inexactness out with perhaps allusions to some past interchange.
I fail to see how this 2009 interchange in any way relates to uncertainty in climatology being kept private, unless it is within the febrile mind of a climate change denier.
-
blub at 18:11 PM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Please get some knowledge on CONFIRMATION BIAS!
All you do is bullying and i am getting moderated? strange site...
-
nigelk at 17:09 PM on 1 December 2019Why does CO2 cause the Greenhouse Effect?! | Climate Chemistry
Sorry if this question is too simple.
Am I correct in thinking that the primary mechanism of CO2 heating the atmosphere is
- infrared photon strikes a CO2 molecule
- CO2 molecule moves faster as a result, transferring energy to other molecules in the atmosphere
and the secondary mechanism is
- infrared photon strikes a CO2 molecule
- at some later time, CO2 emits an infrared photon
- if that photon happens to go downwards, it will either strike another CO2 molecule, or strike the earth's surface
thanks
-
Doug_C at 15:30 PM on 1 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
We live in the age of Youtube and memes, I don't half understand the appeal, but sitting with my 13 year old nephew and some of his friends and watching them totally enjoy them, I'm guessing Climate Adam is reaching younger people btter than some dry presentations as Nigel says.
As for carbon dioxide, how many times does it need to be explained that it traps heat, that's the issue here. Not whether it is also used in photosynthesis to create the hydrocarbons life on Earth is based on.
Us humans have already killed half the life on Earth and we're heading for eliminating much if not most of the remaining biosphere, it's really hard to see how we're going to survive that kind of ecological collapse.
Understanding extinction — humanity has destroyed half the life on Earth
As Nigel also says, why get sucked into a discussion of whether carbon dioxide is "good" or "bad" when the only issue in regards to catastrophic climate change is whether it traps heat and if it is effective in doing so in the Earth's atmosphere.
All the evidence says that carbon dioxide is highly effective in moderating the Earth heat budget, it's the most important persistent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. If you removed all the CO2 then within decades the water vapour would be gone as well leaving an Earth that is hardly livable.
Increase the atmospheric concentration and Earth warms so rapidly that isotherms migrate poleward so fast most of their associated biotas can't keep up or adapt and they go extinct. When half the Great Barrier Reef dies in two years and with everything else going on with this crisis, should we be wasting any effort pandering to those who would deny your house is on fire just to watch you burn.
-
Eclectic at 13:43 PM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Nigelj @43 = Blub or Blurb ?
Tch, tch, tch . . . please leave the humorous comments to the good Blub.
He is doing very well with the levity & logical legerdemain. Rather than argue any sort of coherent case against AGW, he prefers to deflect into a sophist's jungle of Ultraviolet Catastrophes, Post-Modern Nihilism, Vitamin-C in apples, and the astounding suggestion that the world's climate scientists are ignorant about QM & black body radiation. Goodness me, what next?
I am chuckling as I wait for Blub to explain how String Theory disproves Global Warming by CO2/greenhouse.
-
nigelj at 12:33 PM on 1 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Regarding the health dangers of CO2, I recall reading somewhere that a couple of people have died in homes in the UK when they started using new types of highly sealed window joinery units, and airtight house construction, so when people closed all the windows in winter they literally asphyxiated. You really need to leave a few windows open all the time, just very slightly, to prevent both CO2 build up and dampness. If you wake up feeing headachy and sluggish or just bad, its probably high levels of CO2 in the room.
-
nigelj at 12:22 PM on 1 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
I have to confess I'm not a huge fan of Climate Adams style, as I have said before, but this is probably a generational thing as I get older. His style would probably connect well with younger people much better than a dry sort of dissertation and hes very genuine.
What concerns me is he gets sucked in to repeating over and over that CO2 is not bad, which is exactly what the denialists want him to say. But very smart people can sometimes be naieve like this.
-
nigelj at 12:10 PM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Blub, oops apologies for calling you blurb. A typo. Hopefully you can see the funny side of it.
-
BillyJoe at 11:30 AM on 1 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Eclectic, thanks. They are not really for me though I'll take a look but something I can recommend. It does looks like they're more for the educated layman than for the general public (and you are right about the low rez early videos!)
Hank, yes I thought I recognised the name and it is these four exchanges that I remember. It was marvellous to see the 20 claims progressivley retracted over the course of those four videos until there was only one left.
-
scaddenp at 11:16 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
"Give me 10-100Million dollars and i will design a model which will show that cimate correlates with anything you want it to correlate..."
Sure. Go to FF companies and put your case. Coming up with an alternative model that excuses them would be fanastic. Of course, FF companies have massive modelling resources themselves (I worked for years on basin modelling) but for some reason choose to spend money on what is politely called PR, rather than trying for an alternative model.
Frankly you are just demonstrating how little you know about how climate models are constructed.
As far as I can see, since the science is doesnt say what you want to hear, you are frantically trying to find excuses for disbelieving the science but are unable to show any actual evidence. Ie you are indulging in motivated reasoning, not critical thinking. Can you think of evidence that would change you mind? If you cannot, then your beliefs are based on your values and identity, not on reason and observations. This is not the site for you. "You cannot reason a person out of a position they were not reasoned into".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:57 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
blub @39,
Review the Most Used Climate Myths on this site (top of left hand side).
Also review the "links by Arguement" under "Resources".
There are plenty of robust examples of "What is not causing the warming". Many of them also are robust examples of "What is not causing the increase of CO2".
Robust evidence indicates what is not happening, as well as indicating what is actually happening.
-
nigelj at 09:46 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Blurb @36
"Now I perfectly understand why alarmists are getting more and more heat from all kinds of movements. Not even one reply was actually based on sound understanding of science or refering to my content instead nothing but insults and mantra like repetition of empty arguements like:"
Actually alarmists seem to be getting less and less heat from denialists. Even The Heartland Institute is pulling back a little bit.
Calling your comments incoherent is not an ad hominem. It's a simple fact they are hard to read and decipher.
"So it is with climate models. They are not perfect, everyone knows that, but they are good enough to be taken seriously, especially given whats at stake. = OPINION"
No its not opinion. The implications of climate change for the planet are well documented in the last IPCC report. If you want to arge that its an opinion whether they are serious fair enough, but that doesnt make the science or modelling an opinion. However its hard to see on what basis why any sane person would try to argue climate change is not serious.
"Give me 10-100Million dollars and i will design a model which will show that cimate correlates with anything you want it to correlate..."
It would be a junk model and would likely not be published and would certainly be ridiculed. Denialists have published a few curve fitting models like this and they have not fared very well.
"Nigelj mentions: "There is an understanding of why variations in tree ring growth relate to temperatures, ie causation. You seem utterly confused and incoherent."
No you are quoting me selectively. I said "tree ring proxy data is not based only on correlations between tree rings and temperatures. There is an understanding of why variations in tree ring growth relate to temperatures, ie causation. You seem utterly confused and incoherent."
"Actually you seem confused... Now for the third time: my arguementation was actually not that tree rings in particular are bad proxis, but that proxy studies in general are not confirmed or evident by statistical correlation or robustness and that the thought chain of doing so has no logic or causality. You do not seem to comprehend."
Your two different criticisms both imply tree rings are bad proxies. You are just stating your opinion about proxies with no supporting evidence, just an empty assertion. Proxies have their uses an nobody claims they are highly accurate, thats why they have quite large error bars. Start with looking up tree ring proxies on something like wikipedia below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendroclimatology
The logic and causality seems obvious enough, here is part of the picture:
"Dendroclimatology is the science of determining past climates from trees (primarily properties of the annual tree rings). Tree rings are wider when conditions favor growth, narrower when times are difficult. Other properties of the annual rings, such as maximum latewood density (MXD) have been shown to be better proxies than simple ring width. Using tree rings, scientists have estimated many local climates for hundreds to thousands of years previous. By combining multiple tree-ring studies (sometimes with other climate proxy records), scientists have estimated past regional and global climates."
-
blub at 09:44 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Hi One Planet Only Forever,
thanks for your kind reply.
You mention: "...you would unlimately not be able to sustain any perceptions you create that do not actually match or reasonably explain the robust diversity of observations and information that is available."
Have you ever considered that this "robust diversity of observations and information" is actually not as robust as you say? And if so wouldn`t the first part of your sentence also aply to WMIP5 models?
Can you elaborate on what actually "robust diversity of observations and information" means in terms of physical causality of climate change?
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering snipped.
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:38 AM on 1 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
mrkt, that's just an unpublished web document. So not actually a peer-reviewed document of any credibility.
Unlike some previous studies, which had some methodological flaws (like not being published), this study presents a different, sobering look at increases in atmospheric CO2 levels:
"Growing evidence suggests that environmentally relevant elevations in CO2 (<5,000 ppm) may pose direct risks for human health. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations could make adverse exposures more frequent and prolonged through increases in indoor air concentrations and increased time spent indoors.
We review preliminary evidence concerning the potential health risks of chronic exposure to environmentally relevant elevations in ambient CO2, including inflammation, reductions in higher-level cognitive abilities, bone demineralization, kidney calcification, oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction.
This early evidence indicates potential health risks at CO2 exposures as low as 1,000 ppm—a threshold that is already exceeded in many indoor environments with increased room occupancy and reduced building ventilation rates, and equivalent to some estimates for urban outdoor air concentrations before 2100.
Continuous exposure to increased atmospheric CO2 could be an overlooked stressor of the modern and/or future environment. Further research is needed to quantify the major sources of CO2 exposure, to identify mitigation strategies to avoid adverse health effects and protect vulnerable populations, and to fully understand the potential health effects of chronic or intermittent exposure to indoor air with higher CO2 concentrations."
Jacobson et al 2019 - Direct human health risks of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:30 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
blub @36,
"Give me 10-100Million dollars and i will design a model which will show that cimate correlates with anything you want it to correlate..."
I believe you could try but you would unlimately not be able to sustain any perceptions you create that do not actually match or reasonably explain the robust diversity of observations and information that is available.
Dr. Roy Spencer has repeatedly tried to get 'his interpretation of satellite data to indicate temperatures in the atmosphere, not at the planet surface' to prove that global average surface warming is not happening the way the climate science has determined it most likely is happening at the surface. He has had to correct his interpretation many times when the results of his way of interpretting the data failed to make sense. But he persists in trying to make-up any possible claim that warming is not occurring, or is not significant, or is beneficial even those everyone with increased awareness and understanding of what is going on 'actually knows better'.
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:28 AM on 1 December 2019Sea level rise is exaggerated
Not sure what your definition of "uniformly even" is. Did you expect them to be so?
Firstly, global sea level rise is a global average and the surface of the oceans are anything but level (the surface of the oceans follow the gravitic shape of the Earth and are also subject to solar, lunar, sloshing and siphoning effects and oceanic oscillations, etc, all of which need to be controlled for).
From the NCA4, global average sea level has risen by about 7–8 inches since 1900, with almost half (about 3 inches) of that rise occurring since 1993:
From NOAA STAR NESDIS:
"Only altimetry measurements between 66°S and 66°N have been processed. An inverted barometer has been applied to the time series. The estimates of sea level rise do not include glacial isostatic adjustment effects on the geoid, which are modeled to be +0.2 to +0.5 mm/year when globally averaged."
Regional SLR graphics are also available from NOAA STAR NESDIS, here.
This is a screenshot of NOAA's tide gauge map for the Western Pacific (NOAA color-codes the relative changes in sea levels to make it easier to internalize):
Clicking on the Funafuti, Tuvalu tide gauge station we see that sea levels are rising by 3.74 mm/yr (above the global average) there, with a time series starting around 1978 and ending about 2011:
However, the time series used by your BOM link for Funafuti (1993-2019) is shorter and the BOM also does not apply a linear trend line to it like NOAA does:
Feel free to make further comparisons, but comparing a set of graphics with no trend lines vs those with trend lines is no comparison at all.
From the recent IPCC Special Report 2019 - Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate - Summary for Policy Makers, September 25, 2019 release (SROCC 2019), the portions on sea level rise:Observed Physical Changes
A3. Global mean sea level (GMSL) is rising, with acceleration in recent decades due to increasing rates of ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (very high confidence), as well as continued glacier mass loss and ocean thermal expansion. Increases in tropical cyclone winds and rainfall, and increases in extreme waves, combined with relative sea level rise, exacerbate extreme sea level events and coastal hazards (high confidence).A3.1 Total GMSL rise for 1902–2015 is 0.16 m (likely range 0.12–0.21 m). The rate of GMSL rise for 2006–2015 of 3.6 mm yr–1 (3.1–4.1 mm yr–1, very likely range), is unprecedented over the last century (high confidence), and about 2.5 times the rate for 1901–1990 of 1.4 mm yr–1 (0.8– 2.0 mm yr–1, very likely range). The sum of ice sheet and glacier contributions over the period 2006–2015 is the dominant source of sea level rise (1.8 mm yr–1, very likely range 1.7–1.9 mm yr–1), exceeding the effect of thermal expansion of ocean water (1.4 mm yr–1, very likely range 1.1–1.7 mm yr–1) (very high confidence). The dominant cause of global mean sea level rise since 1970 is anthropogenic forcing (high confidence).
A3.2 Sea-level rise has accelerated (extremely likely) due to the combined increased ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (very high confidence). Mass loss from the Antarctic ice sheet over the period 2007–2016 tripled relative to 1997–2006. For Greenland, mass loss doubled over the same period (likely, medium confidence).
A3.3 Acceleration of ice flow and retreat in Antarctica, which has the potential to lead to sea-level rise of several metres within a few centuries, is observed in the Amundsen Sea Embayment of West Antarctica and in Wilkes Land, East Antarctica (very high confidence). These changes may be the onset of an irreversible (recovery time scale is hundreds to thousands of years) ice sheet instability. Uncertainty related to the onset of ice sheet instability arises from limited observations, inadequate model representation of ice sheet processes, and limited understanding of the complex interactions between the atmosphere, ocean and the ice sheet.
A3.4 Sea-level rise is not globally uniform and varies regionally. Regional differences, within ±30% of the global mean sea-level rise, result from land ice loss and variations in ocean warming and circulation. Differences from the global mean can be greater in areas of rapid vertical land movement including from local human activities (e.g. extraction of groundwater). (high confidence)
A3.5 Extreme wave heights, which contribute to extreme sea level events, coastal erosion and flooding, have increased in the Southern and North Atlantic Oceans by around 1.0 cm yr–1 and 0.8 cm yr–1 over the period 1985–2018 (medium confidence). Sea ice loss in the Arctic has also increased wave heights over the period 1992–2014 (medium confidence).
A3.6 Anthropogenic climate change has increased observed precipitation (medium confidence), winds (low confidence), and extreme sea level events (high confidence) associated with some tropical cyclones, which has increased intensity of multiple extreme events and associated cascading impacts (high confidence). Anthropogenic climate change may have contributed to a poleward migration of maximum tropical cyclone intensity in the western North Pacific in recent decades related to anthropogenically-forced tropical expansion (low confidence). There is emerging evidence for an increase in annual global proportion of Category 4 or 5 tropical cyclones in recent decades (low confidence).
B3. Sea level continues to rise at an increasing rate. Extreme sea level events that are historically rare (once per century in the recent past) are projected to occur frequently (at least once per year) at many locations by 2050 in all RCP scenarios, especially in tropical regions (high confidence). The increasing frequency of high water levels can have severe impacts in many locations depending on exposure (high confidence). Sea level rise is projected to continue beyond 2100 in all RCP scenarios. For a high emissions scenario (RCP8.5), projections of global sea level rise by 2100 are greater than in AR5 due to a larger contribution from the Antarctic Ice Sheet (medium confidence). In coming centuries under RCP8.5, sea level rise is projected to exceed rates of several centimetres per year resulting in multi-metre rise (medium confidence), while for RCP2.6 sea level rise is projected to be limited to around 1m in 2300 (low confidence). Extreme sea levels and coastal hazards will be exacerbated by projected increases in tropical cyclone intensity and precipitation (high confidence). Projected changes in waves and tides vary locally in whether they amplify or ameliorate these hazards (medium confidence).
B3.1 The global mean sea level (GMSL) rise under RCP2.6 is projected to be 0.39 m (0.26–0.53 m, likely range) for the period 2081–2100, and 0.43 m (0.29–0.59 m, likely range) in 2100 with respect to 1986–2005. For RCP8.5, the corresponding GMSL rise is 0.71 m (0.51–0.92 m, likely range) for 2081–2100 and 0.84 m (0.61–1.10 m, likely range) in 2100. Mean sea level rise projections are higher by 0.1 m compared to AR5 under RCP8.5 in 2100, and the likely range extends beyond 1 m in 2100 due to a larger projected ice loss from the Antarctic Ice Sheet (medium confidence). The uncertainty at the end of the century is mainly determined by the ice sheets, especially in Antarctica.
B3.2 Sea level projections show regional differences around GMSL. Processes not driven by recent climate change, such as local subsidence caused by natural processes and human activities, are important to relative sea level changes at the coast (high confidence). While the relative importance of climate-driven sea level rise is projected to increase over time, local processes need to be considered for projections and impacts of sea level (high confidence).
Projected Changes and Risks
B3.3 The rate of global mean sea level rise is projected to reach 15 mm yr–1 (10–20 mm yr–1, likely range) under RCP8.5 in 2100, and to exceed several centimetres per year in the 22nd century. Under RCP2.6, the rate is projected to reach 4 mm yr-1 (2–6 mm yr–1, likely range) in 2100. Model studies indicate multi-meter rise in sea level by 2300 (2.3–5.4 m for RCP8.5 and 0.6–1.07 m under RCP2.6) (low confidence), indicating the importance of reduced emissions for limiting sea level rise. Processes controlling the timing of future ice-shelf loss and the extent of ice sheet instabilities could increase Antarctica’s contribution to sea level rise to values substantially higher than the likely range on century and longer time-scales (low confidence). Considering the consequences of sea level rise that a collapse of parts of the Antarctic Ice Sheet entails, this high impact risk merits attention.B3.4 Global mean sea level rise will cause the frequency of extreme sea level events at most locations to increase. Local sea levels that historically occurred once per century (historical centennial events) are projected to occur at least annually at most locations by 2100 under all RCP scenarios (high confidence). Many low-lying megacities and small islands (including SIDS) are projected to experience historical centennial events at least annually by 2050 under RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. The year when the historical centennial event becomes an annual event in the mid-latitudes occurs soonest in RCP8.5, next in RCP4.5 and latest in RCP2.6. The increasing frequency of high water levels can have severe impacts in many locations depending on the level of exposure (high confidence).
B3.5 Significant wave heights (the average height from trough to crest of the highest one-third of waves) are projected to increase across the Southern Ocean and tropical eastern Pacific (high confidence) and Baltic Sea (medium confidence) and decrease over the North Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea under RCP8.5 (high confidence). Coastal tidal amplitudes and patterns are projected to change due to sea level rise and coastal adaptation measures (very likely). Projected changes in waves arising from changes in weather patterns, and changes in tides due to sea level rise, can locally enhance or ameliorate coastal hazards (medium confidence).
B3.6 The average intensity of tropical cyclones, the proportion of Category 4 and 5 tropical cyclones and the associated average precipitation rates are projected to increase for a 2°C global temperature rise above any baseline period (medium confidence). Rising mean sea levels will contribute to higher extreme sea levels associated with tropical cyclones (very high confidence). Coastal hazards will be exacerbated by an increase in the average intensity, magnitude of storm surge and precipitation rates of tropical cyclones. There are greater increases projected under RCP8.5 than under RCP2.6 from around mid-century to 2100 (medium confidence). There is low confidence in changes in the future frequency of tropical cyclones at the global scale.
Challenges
C3. Coastal communities face challenging choices in crafting context-specific and integrated responses to sea level rise that balance costs, benefits and trade-offs of available options and that can be adjusted over time (high confidence). All types of options, including protection, accommodation, ecosystem-based adaptation, coastal advance and retreat, wherever possible, can play important roles in such integrated responses (high confidence).C3.1. The higher the sea levels rise, the more challenging is coastal protection, mainly due to economic, financial and social barriers rather than due to technical limits (high confidence). In the coming decades, reducing local drivers of exposure and vulnerability such as coastal urbanization and human-induced subsidence constitute effective responses (high confidence). Where space is limited, and the value of exposed assets is high (e.g., in cities), hard protection (e.g., dikes) is likely to be a cost-efficient response option during the 21st century taking into account the specifics of the context (high confidence), but resource-limited areas may not be able to afford such investments. Where space is available, ecosystem-based adaptation can reduce coastal risk and provide multiple other benefits such as carbon storage, improved water quality, biodiversity conservation and livelihood support (medium confidence).
C3.2 Some coastal accommodation measures, such as early warning systems and flood-proofing of buildings, are often both low cost and highly cost-efficient under current sea levels (high confidence). Under projected sea level rise and increase in coastal hazards some of these measures become less effective unless combined with other measures (high confidence). All types of options, including protection, accommodation, ecosystem-based adaptation, coastal advance and planned relocation, if alternative localities are available, can play important roles in such integrated responses (high confidence). Where the community affected is small, or in the aftermath of a disaster, reducing risk by coastal planned relocations is worth considering if safe alternative localities are available. Such planned relocation can be socially, culturally, financially and politically constrained (very high confidence).
C3.3 Responses to sea-level rise and associated risk reduction present society with profound governance challenges, resulting from the uncertainty about the magnitude and rate of future sea level rise, vexing trade-offs between societal goals (e.g., safety, conservation, economic development, intra- and inter-generational equity), limited resources, and conflicting interests and values among diverse stakeholders (high confidence). These challenges can be eased using locally appropriate combinations of decision analysis, land-use planning, public participation, diverse knowledge systems and conflict resolution approaches that are adjusted over time as circumstances change (high confidence).
C3.4 Despite the large uncertainties about the magnitude and rate of post 2050 sea level rise, many coastal decisions with time horizons of decades to over a century are being made now (e.g., critical infrastructure, coastal protection works, city planning) and can be improved by taking relative sea-level rise into account, favouring flexible responses (i.e., those that can be adapted over time) supported by monitoring systems for early warning signals, periodically adjusting decisions (i.e., adaptive decision making), using robust decision-making approaches, expert judgement, scenario-building, and multiple knowledge systems (high confidence). The sea level rise range that needs to be considered for planning and implementing coastal responses depends on the risk tolerance of stakeholders. Stakeholders with higher risk tolerance (e.g., those planning for investments that can be very easily adapted to unforeseen conditions) often prefer to use the likely range of projections, while stakeholders with a lower risk tolerance (e.g., those deciding on critical infrastructure) also consider global and local mean sea level above the upper end of the likely range (globally 1.1 m under RCP8.5 by 2100) and from methods characterised by lower confidence such as from expert elicitation.
To sum:
1. Global sea levels continue to rise, with the rise itself accelerating (due to an acceleration in land-based ice sheet mass losses). This will continue, for beyond the lifespans of any now alive.
2. Beware of the eyecrometer. It will deceive you, if you allow it to.
SLR Components, from Cazenave et al 2018
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:19 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
nyood @20,
Others have already provided accurate responses.
I wish to add my own 'improvement of the awareness and understanding' to help you appreciate the accurate context and perspective.
You claim I missed the point of your comment because your "... concern was that the hiatus is considered to be something bad by some authors of the emails. It does not need any skeptic here, it is the authors themselfs, hence the terms pschology and political thinking. ... It is about considering good news (less warming) as bad news. Despite of all poralization one would hope that these scientists still want the best for humanity and not see cooling as a problem."
The reason for concerns by climate scientists regarding short-term less rapid temperature rise (hiatus) or short-term cooling is that the they are only short-term events in the temperature data. However, each one is claimed by the worst of the skeptics to be proof that the warming has ended and the science is wrong.
It is almost as bad to try to claim that concerns about any of the many short-term reductions in the rate of temperature rise due to added CO2 in the atmosphere are wrong because 'cooling is Good'.
The Escalator I pointed you to in my earlier comment should have made that clear. Either it was not obvious to you, or you never checked it out. To be clearer, in the escalator it can be seen that at the end of each 'hiatus or cooling event that you claim everyone should be thrilled to see', there is a dramatic step up to the start of the next 'hiatus or cooling event that you claim everyone should be thrilled to see'. Can you see how anyone more aware and understanding of what is really going on would not be Thrilled?
Sustainable Cooling would indeed be Good. But the science is clear that that will only happen if the levels of CO2, and other human generated ghgs, in the atmosphere are reduced. And the reduction of CO2 is almost certain to only happen when the use of fossil fuels is ended.
And until the use of fossil fuels is ended the CO2 and other ghgs will continue to increase. And the science is clear that a 1.5 C total warming is the point beyond which the climate impacts can be very severe. Even a 2.0 C warming is likely to be very hard on the future generations.
And as michael sweet has pointed out there has already been more than 1.0 C of warming with the CO2 only at 410 ppm (a 140 ppm increase from pre-industrial) but is currently rising at more than 20 ppm per decade.
Any claim to see "A cooling trend in the temperature data" without a reduction of CO2 is "Claiming False Hope" (now and in the past), and deserves the be corrected. And promoters of the harmful fictional claims deserve to be ridiculed if they persist in unethically resisting becoming more aware and better understanding.
-
blub at 09:05 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Now I perfectly understand why alarmists are getting more and more heat from all kinds of movements. Not even one reply was actually based on sound understanding of science or refering to my content instead nothing but insults and mantra like repetition of empty arguements like:
Many thousands of climate scientists (with hardly any exceptions) have a bias in the direction of understanding and using the climate data from pyrometers and proxies. The information they produce is internally logically consistent, and (so far) has been pragmatically correct.
what do you even mean by logically consisten? statistcal robustnes? What is pragmatically correct? These are empty phrases. Thousand of people agree on thousands of things everyday in this world. This is not proof of anything.
So it is with climate models. They are not perfect, everyone knows that, but they are good enough to be taken seriously, especially given whats at stake. = OPINION
Give me 10-100Million dollars and i will design a model which will show that cimate correlates with anything you want it to correlate...
Nigelj mentions: "There is an understanding of why variations in tree ring growth relate to temperatures, ie causation. You seem utterly confused and incoherent."
Actually you seem confused... Now for the third time: my arguementation was actually not that tree rings in particular are bad proxis, but that proxy studies in general are not confirmed or evident by statistical correlation or robustness and that the thought chain of doing so has no logic or causality. You do not seem to comprehend.
This discussion is a waste of time. Good luck
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering, ad hominems and inflammatory rhetoric snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
mrkt at 08:44 AM on 1 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
The following seems to be a fairly thorough reveiw of CO2 toxicity.
Carbon dioxide toxicity and climate change: a serious unapprehended risk for human health.
P.N. Bierwirth, PhD
Emeritus Faculty
Australian National UniversityFirst draft - Web Posted 25 February, 2014
Current Version – 23 Dec 2016
Web Published: ResearchGate DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.16787.48168https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a53f/3a6f7a0db8cfd006c51f19c76a68f3386f7e.pdf
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:38 AM on 1 December 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48
nigel southway,
Human activity resulting in accumulating impacts that are likely to produce negative consequences is an accurate description of the impacts of excess CO2 added to the environment by the burning of ancient hydrocarbons.
Claiming "It is not pollution" does not change the reality.
Policies to curtail the use of fossil fuels are not in the interests of developed perceptions of superioriy in the Western World. Those policies are in the interests of the future of humanity.
In summary, all of the Sustainable Development Goals are a very robustly established set of objectives required to be achieved for humanity to have a lasting future that will actually be able to be sustainably improved.
Some perceptions of superiority need to be corrected to achieve those goals. Those corrections are undeniably Good Things no matter how disappointed some developed interests in the Western World become as a result of their achievement.
Truly sustainable perceptions of superiority are not at risk. Only the unsustainable ones have to be worried about. And those worriers should not deter responsible leadership from enacting the policies required to help achieve all of the Sustainable Development Goals, especially the Climate Action goal because achieving that one quicker makes it easier to sustainably achieve the Others.
-
nigelj at 08:26 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Blub @20, just because something could be wrong doesn't mean it is wrong, so prove the greenhouse effect is wrong by submitting a research paper, and stop filling up this website with sophistry. Even Einsteins theories may have some problems in them because they can't be reconciled with quantum theory, but they are good enough to do all sorts of reliable calculations. So it is with climate models. They are not perfect, everyone knows that, but they are good enough to be taken seriously, especially given whats at stake.
-
nigelj at 08:18 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
NYood @28
"This is another example from 2009 where uncertainty is expressed, but must never be admitted in public"
I strongly disagree. Of course there will be uncertainties and scientists are not going to publish their every utterance, just like you or anyone wouldn't, but the IPCC reports openly admit areas of uncertainty and in painstaking detail and pedantry. Read the summary for policy makers.
It's the sceptics who have never admitted uncertainty about their sceptical positions, and who have the most politiciesd processes, eg The Heartland Institute promotes climate scepticism and is a right wing political think tank, that tries to influence processes and other organisations. There are many similar organisations eg the GWPF. You cannot get more politicised than that, by any definition of political.
-
nigelj at 08:09 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Blurb @19, tree ring proxy data is not based only on correlations between tree rings and temperatures. There is an understanding of why variations in tree ring growth relate to temperatures, ie causation. You seem utterly confused and incoherent.
-
nigelj at 07:41 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Sorry for repeating some stuff mentioned by MS @27. Missed that post somehow.
-
nigelj at 07:24 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
nyood @23, I hear you about Wigley but you are not seeing the bigger picture. He has ultimately been proven incorrect by the longer passage of time, so the obvious increasing temperatures since 2014, and the increasing levels of concern coming from the IPCC and most of the climate science community.
You are also again taking a few comments by a couple of scientists utterly out of context, and also assuming this somehow represents thousands of scientists and you just cannot do that. There is no rigour in your 'scepticism'.
Again the emails you list are no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Scientists argue and bicker like anyone, and will obviously not like some junk science being published. Of course they are political in terms of talking about processes and organisational issues, anyone is, and this is a far cry from letting personal party politics intrude.
You have no smoking guns, no fraud or serious errors, no party politics, nothing, so your comments look more and more like paranoia to me.
You say "This is wrong to me, ten years ago we were estimating with a warming of 3°C, now we have come to the lowest threshold of 1,5°C. To me the explanoray power of the IPCC declines towards none."I assume you are talking about climate sensitivity. You are wrong. The IPCC has not said climate senstivity is at the lower threshold of 1.5 degrees, and you provide no internet link to where they have said that.
All the IPCC have said is climate sensitivity is somewhere between 1.5 degrees and 4.5 degrees. Most published research is around 3 degrees, and the latest modelling also finds this. Papers finding climate sensitivity of 1.5 degrees have not been widely accepted and have flaws. Some relevant material:
skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/new-climate-models-predict-warming-surge
"The Soon and Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a “legitimate” peer review process anywhere....I do not want such peolpe (Mann) to advise our gouverments, can you understand that?"
You say you don't want people like Mann advising governments, despite the fact he has exposed some real problems with the Soon and Balinaus paper and the peer review process at that point. You make no sense at all. You should be thanking Mann, not criticising him. It's his job to identify problems, as well as do research.
-
nigelj at 06:54 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
nyood @20
"If the IPCC wishes it will get warmer or stay hot, just because they will be right is demasking and reduces integrity."
I think you have just misinterpreted things a bit. The IPCC don't wish it to remain hot. Let me explain. The IPCC have always stated that the temperature trend going forwards will be a positive trend of largely increasing temperatures on 30 years plus timeframes, and out to 2100, but it will have periods of flat or slightly declining temperatures of about 10 years due to the intermittent effects of ocean and sunspot cycles. So the IPCC have always accepted there will be some small cooling periods.
The so called pause after 1998 had scientists puzzled, because it looked like it was lasting more than 10 years, and there was no obvious explanation at the time, thats all. It ended with the high temperatures of 2o15 - 2018, and has been explained by certain ocean processes and some bad temperature data that underestimated temperatures. If you look at any temperature dataset the pause is just a flattening off around 2002 - 2010.
Claiming these flat periods are desirable is a nonsense. They are just inevitable and there will probably be more, but they will be temporary because they are a natural cycle intruding on the underlying warming from greenhouse gases.
Prev 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 Next
