Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 Next
Comments 21551 to 21600:
-
nigelj at 12:07 PM on 7 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Blatz @12, my apologies. I miss read that map. My colour vision is not the greatest at the best of times, and I missed that note.
However like I said in my early post above, NOAA are confusing in how they depict data, and you are better to look at the NASA website. Also look at this website as it gives an indication of where weather stations in Africa are located, and no other data to confuse things.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:48 AM on 7 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
blatz @10 and @12, I have to disagree with nigelj, the grey shaded rectangles do represent no data (as distinct from the white shaded data, which represent "near average" temperature percentiles. That the grey shaded rectangles represent no data is clearly stated on the lower right hand side of the graph:
What Tony Heller purports to show is a contradiction between NOAA's map anomaly temperature for Dec 2016 (shown above), and NOAA's map of temperature percentiles:
The only problem is that the map the anomaly shows almost no data in Africa. In contrast the Land/Ocean version of the anomaly map does:
(All maps source from NOAA.)
Neither anomaly map accurately shows the data actually available. If you go to the GISS temperature analysis, and use the same month (Dec 2016), anomaly period (1981-2010), and the 250 km smoothing radius, it will show data over land only within 250 km of a reporting station. If you do you will see that there is reported data for South Africa, Zimbabwe and Zambia in the south, and for most of West Africa and East Africa north of the equator, but not for Libya. Tony Heller's map excludes all of that Southern African, and most of the Eastern African, north of the equator, data. The current NOAA map, on the other hand, shows data over far more areas than that, but that is because the land temperatures shown are based on a smoothed product, which deliberately fills in areas having no data using data from nearby sites (and averages across areas with data). In doing this, they use land data over land only.
Further, in the land only anomaly (unsmoothed version), they exclude data which do not have data from sufficient fields around them.
There method for doing this has been publicly available for over 10 years.
Finally, the hot temperatures shown over south, eastern Africa in the Land/Ocean anomaly map (in contradiction to UAH) are probably an artifact of the method. GISS, which smooths the same data using a different algorithm shows temperatures near the 1981-2010 anomaly value over that period, ie, agrees with UAH. That does not mean their global anomaly is out, however, as it is calculated from the unsmoothed data (as I understand it).
-
nigelj at 10:06 AM on 7 February 2017A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
Michael Sweet @ 20,
I think you make quite a good point that we have some costs now in mitigating climate change, but truly vast and ongoing costs in the future if we do nothing. It intrigues me why people can't see that, or don't want to see that. I will get to this below.
In fact climate change denial fascinates me. I'm not going to get into my educational background because that doesn't prove anything I say is correct, but I did do psychology at university in addition to more technical and a few papers in earth science subjects, hence the interest in the climate denial issue, and why and how people react.
In my view there are a variety of reasons for climate denial from people with vested interests, people with ideological concerns about the role of government, etc.
We also have evidence the human brain does not normally prioritise more distant future issues. This is possibly why some people can't grasp the issue. This concern about the future does vary from person to person. This partly explains why some people don't compute what you are saying in your post. However we have to encourage people to think more about the future of humanity and impacts on people over extended time periods.
And GW Bush may have got one thing right. He said "we are addicted to oil" and this probably has more psychological power than we realise. However I have decided to buy an electric car.
-
nigelj at 09:39 AM on 7 February 2017Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
"The term ‘air pollutant’ does not include carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride."
This just makes my blood boil, and is such retrograde, reactionary, badly informed decision making. Quite apart from the climate issue,which is bad enough, cars emit nitrous oxides that are hazardous to health. Are we to now give up on trying to improve that situation as well?
Regulations might in some cases have short term costs on business, but they have long term benefits for humanity that count for more which relate to health, quality of life etc. Of course regulations should be carefully considered on scientific evidence of whether risks are significant, but that's what Obama tried to do. Trump is throwing scientific evidence out of the door, and "trusting his gut". Well that is unlikely to end well.
Regulations also arguably stimulate innovation. The automobile industry is an obvious example.
Many Americans, with respect, are often such hypocrites. They preach about their constitution, and how special America is, and it's rights to free speech". Where are Republicans now that Trump is trampling over the free speech of the EPA, and other government bodies?
-
nigelj at 09:19 AM on 7 February 2017Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
Coal Miner @3, short term trends are indeed of little value. But we have had approximately a 45 year warming trend. This is not short term. Climate science recognises that 30 years is the important time frame to determine whether we have a sufficient trend.
Any trend under 30 years could be generated by quite significant natural cycles, as these opeate on 5- 30 year cycles, but once you get over 30 years there are no known natural cycles of such length that have anything like enough power to change the climate by orders of several degrees. There is plenty of research on this.
Just for once understand scientists are not stupid, and the very first thing they explored in regards to climate change was possible natural causes, and you can get much of this in the IPCC reports. Natural causes for the warming since the 1970s have been ruled out by very smart people, who have investigated this in considerable depth. This website has plenty of related articles.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:14 AM on 7 February 2017Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
uncletimrob,
I have been fairly successful if I start by saying that I want to be sure we (me and whoever I am trying to change the mind of regarding climate change and global warming), have a common basis for the discussion.
- Then I ask what they know about the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Based on how they answer I work to ensure there is an agreement of understanding about the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
- I follow that with a question about why the rapid recent increase of CO2 has occurred. This is where I can usually determine how difficult it will be to change the mind I am dealing with. Helping people understand that actions like burning wood pellets and bio-fuel do not create "New Carbon" is usually required.
- After we agree that excess CO2 is being created by human activity I move on to asking if they understand that future generations will not be able to continue to benefit from activity like burning fossil fuels. I find that twist can set some people onto a tangent about the false claims of peak oil or that you can't live without burning fossil fuels. But I remain focused on establishing the understanding that future generations cannot continue to benefit from that way of living. I even add points about the damage done so far by the activity including vicious fighting over the ability to benefit most from the burning of fossil fuels, including the human tragedies that have been created in places like the Middle East, Africa, Indonesia and Ukraine.
- If I do not get acceptance that the excess CO2 is created by human activity, particularly burning fossil fuels, and do not get acceptance that major past and current day problems are the result of pursuits of benefit from those activities, I make sure there is no doubt about how close-minded and wrong the person is choosing to be. I state how unhelpful people who choose to think that way are.
- If I do get acceptance of the fundamantal unacceptability of a portion of the hopefully eternal history of humanity benefiting from an unsustainable and damaging activity like the burning of fossil fuels I am set for a longer fruitful conversation. I move on to helping them understand the potential changes due to the excess CO2, especially the challenges that will be faced by future generations. I share a main concern of mine as a Structural Engineer, the difficulty of knowing what climate conditions need to be designed for so that a structure can perform successfully into the future. That includes pointing out that rapid rates of climate change make it more difficult to predict exactly what change of climate is to be expected in any location. I then add that as a gardener I appreciate how much more difficult it will be for farmers to figure out what they can most successfuly grow in a coming season. I would really like to start with this fundamental purpose of life point, but find that it is usually best to bring it up after getting a shared understanding of the unacceptability of a political, social or economic desire or pursuit (any of the many unacceptable desires and pursuits work as a basis for bringing up this fundamantal point. I then point out that other efforts by people wanting to be helpful share the objective of advancing humanity to a better future and struggle to overcome the damaging impacts created by those who do not care to responsibly limit what they choose to do, what they try to get away with, what they are unwilling to accept is unacceptable).
Sometimes I have gotten particularly short with a person who is clearly not interested in better understanding this issue or the importance of helping to advance humanity. In those cases I regret questioning "why the person thinks anyone should care about the interests of someone like them who seems determined to believe what they wish and do as they please in pursuit of personal pleasure and benefit without caring to actually understand the potential or likely consequences of their actions, without trying to be helpful rather than harmful." I think that all the time, and generically share that sentiment with people, but I try to not direct it at an individual.
-
nigelj at 09:09 AM on 7 February 2017Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
Coal Miner @5 says:
"Agree that unelected bureaucrats in any department should not be able to make rules and regulations for people. We have how many doing that today? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? It's totally out of control and is destroying our nations economy and jobs."
What are you even saying? Unemployment in America has dropped from 12% at the peak of the financical crash to about 5%, a very low level by global standards. Remember capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment, so is unlikely to get to zero. America has just last month had record job creation, and even Trump has commented on this. So clearly regulations are not the onerous burden you claim. Here is some data and discussion:
www.cnbc.com/2016/07/18/obamas-record-on-jobs-versus-five-other-presidents.html
You can find other economics and job data for America on Trading economics.com a global financial database, so not a partisan body. Its all been good on jobs and economic growth on the whole. Some groups are admittedly not doing so well, but they are in a minority.
Trumps claims of devastation are simply a huge fiction.
-
nigelj at 08:59 AM on 7 February 2017Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
OPOF @1
I do like your basic philosophy of basing our societal and economic and environmental laws and decisions on what is going to be good for the future of humanity. It gives a powerful singular focus. It is also compatible in a practical sense with current generation still having a very good life if only people would think it through. It just requires balance and good sense. It's a big topic and I would love to have the time to explore it more.
However much of the world does accept your premise. Right now America is the state choosing to be different, by turning both backwards and inwards. And we haveTrumps attack on science, and freedom of information and free speech of climate and other organisations. But this will eventually collapse under the weight of reality, and it's inherent logical and evidential absurdidities.
However we should acknowledge some people in America have been left behind by globalisation, and do more to help them. But not in the Trump kind of way, that will not end up really helping them.
-
nigelj at 08:32 AM on 7 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Blatz @10,
Just one other comment. December was an unusually hot month more so over the oceans than land. This should be apparent looking at the various NOAA maps. However that was just december, and probably reflects the influence of the tail end of el nino ocean phenomenon, in addition to underlying global warming.
We have another different ocean cycle called the pacific interdecadal oscillation that operates on about 30 year time frames. It has been in a negative phase during the period of the so called"pause" and almost certainly contributed to this slowdown. It is likely to switch to a positive phase over the next 10 years. I have seen an article on this, but don't have time to track it down. This will add to the robust greenhouse gas warming we are seeing. It's not going to be great. This is more important than counting the number of weather stations over Africa.
-
uncletimrob at 08:27 AM on 7 February 2017Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
@3 well of course trends don't mean anything - even I know that. Only long term trends and accumulations/comparisons of data of various kinds that all agree, are the trends are likely to be correct.
I suspect you haven't really any idea what you are talking about, but thank you for your erudite summary of OPOF's and my comments.
-
Coal Miner at 08:25 AM on 7 February 2017A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
Best bet if you don't get what you want from Trump is for ALL AGW believers to stop driving, turn down the winter T-stat to 60 max, don't fly, go to bed when it gets dark, install solar thermal and PV panels, etc. Show the world that you are serious. Walk the talk. Climate summits can be held online - no more flying around the world for those.
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
-
nigelj at 08:21 AM on 7 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Blatz @10
The grey area on the global land temperatures map does not designate "no data". It designates temperatures slightly lower than the average by a factor of minus 1. Look at the key at the base of the map.
With respect are you seriously telling me you haven't looked at this scale? I will say it again, I see no evidence that Africa has "almost no weather stations" and I have yet to see a shred of proof of this. I do remain open minded.
Regarding giss data, good question. All the maps both from NOAA and Giss use the same pool of raw data, or have access to it. They just select that data slightly differently and present their maps slightly differently. Personally I find NOAA a bit confusing, but it appears technically correct.
The bottom line is december was an abnormally hot month as a global average, and this is clear from any of the global maps we are discussing, there is clearly a lot of variation in this place to place. Big deal, you would expect that due to regional climate influences.
-
Coal Miner at 08:17 AM on 7 February 2017Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
#1 - very biased comment.
#2 - see #1 for how not to communicate. it looks like preaching, not like science.
Short term trends in global temperatures do not mean AGW is real. It might be, but "trends" are not proof of anything. The trend is that a majority of 5 year olds believe in Santa Claus.
Moderator Response:[JH] Your post constitutes sloaganeeing which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
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.
-
michael sweet at 08:13 AM on 7 February 2017A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
Coal Miner,
I find it interesting that you "Don't want to rush massive government regulation and economic disruption if it isn't AGW. If it is AGW then we will have to come up with some reasonable plan to change our energy systems."
President Johnson asked the National Academy of Sciences in 1966 if AGW was important and the answer then was Yes it is! How much longer do you propose we should sit on our hands?
I notice that you do not care at all about the distruction to the economy by the various changes caused by AGW. For example, in Florida alone, where I live, over 1 Trillion (thats with a T) dollars of real estate are at risk from sea level rise by the year 2100 data. Even the low scenarios will flood Maimi by 2100. If we continue on business as usual, as you suggest we should, that will be a lot of damage nationwide. We currently see billions of dollars a year damage from extreme climate caused by AGW. Farming will take a huge hit.
If we were to put in a moderate carbon fee (and dividend to keep the money out of government hands), we could start to get AGW under control. If it turned out that the economy was badly affected we could reduce the fee. If AGW was worse than we currenly hope we could increase the fee.
I am constantly amazed by skeptics who are willing to risk trillions of dollars of almost certain future damage but are unwilling to take even a tiny step to limit that risk because it might affect the current economy. The fact that British Columbia has put in a carbon fee and their economy has thrived makes no difference. Germany has built out a lot of green energy and leads the world economically.
The most recent assessment of sea level rise in the USA (linked above) suggests that with BAU, if it turns out bad, we will see severe damage in my lifetime. We can only hope that does not come to pass.
-
uncletimrob at 07:57 AM on 7 February 2017Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
@OPOF, yes I also find it hard to understand the way some people think. Without mentioning any names, a colleague of mine who has a masters degree in Physics - so obiously knows something about the scientific method and the mathematics that supports it - is in complete denial about observable trends in global temperature. I even invited him to process the data himself to which the reply was " why would I want to process dodgy data? ".
I have no idea how to discuss such things with intelligent people who have closed minds. Of course there are also underlying beliefs that obscure the facts for some people, such as a belief in young earth creation "science".
Any suggestions as to how to communicate are welcome!
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 06:52 AM on 7 February 2017It's the sun
Largely yes Charlie74.
If the output from the Sun varied significantly then that most certainly would matter. But the Sun's output actually varies to such a small extent over the solar cycle that a reasonable approximation is that it is constant.But the strength of the greenhouse effect then modulates that impact. On Earth the climate is around 30 C warmer than it would be just from the strength of the Suns rays alone. On Venus it is over 500 C warmer than you would expect.
How strong the sunlight is sets the minimum temperature. But the GH effect raises it above that minimum. -
nigelj at 06:33 AM on 7 February 2017A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
Coal Miner @17, well you say you are still trying to figure out whether we are causing climate change. I have been through the same process, and looked carefully at both sides of the debate. I started as a believer, was briefly a sceptic, but back to a believer.
While I basically lean a lot towards science, and trusting mainstream science, I never take anything for granted. I always read all sides of issues and the "devil is often in the detail".
I have just found overall that the IPCC case for climate change is transparent and upfront, in the main, and the denialist claims are mostly based on highly misleading claims, taking things out of context, etc.
But a couple of things convinced me we are altering the climate. The nature of the warming since 1980 is interesting. Google greenhouse signatures, or greenhouse fingerprints. For example nights are warming at a faster rate than days, (this has been extensively measured) and this is consistent with the greenhouse effect rather than solar activity.
This article from this website discusses these fingerprints or signatures. It is an adavced discussion, but the page has a link to a more basic version if you want. It is well worth a read. It is the best thing you will read all week. Its great! (Im starting to sound like Trump)
www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm
I agree we need to be reasonably certain before major change of economic direction etc. However I think we do have enough certainty.
I also look at it this way: We will run out of oil eventually anyway, and even if climate change was a fizzer the oil is there if we were to ever decide to use it again.
The cost of renewable energy has also dropped dramatically making concerns about economic change somwhat academic. So if we change our system, and find we didn't really need to, then the worst result is not massively disruptive anyway.
-
Charlie74 at 06:16 AM on 7 February 2017It's the sun
'If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature'.
Is this opening comment a suggestion that the sun is not the main control of temperature of the Earth?
-
nigelj at 06:13 AM on 7 February 2017A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
Tom Curtis @15, Fair enough. I wasn't aware of her singapore speech. However it's interesting that we had roughly the same concerns overall.
Just on capitalism, here is a good book on one possible future for capitalism: Post Capitalism, by Paul Mason. He doesn't seem to lean particularly left or right, and it's a thoughtful take on the issue. Coal Miner might also be interested.
-
blatz at 06:08 AM on 7 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
nigelj @11
Thanks for your response. I'm still a bit confused as to why they show so much grey "no data" area over africa. Does the GHCN not use GISS data? I understand the "realclimatescience" page is a dishonest source. But they haven't doctored those NOAA plots other than the arrow and text. If the plots are using the GISS data (and I believe they do), they should claim that in the "data source" section.
-
nigelj at 05:39 AM on 7 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Blatz @10
Please understand you are looking at a climate sceptical website. They have printed a NOAA land Plot of global temperatures, (accurately) but "added" their own annotation claiming theres no data. That is simply their unproven assertion. NOAA do not claim there is no data. Just look at my link to the original NOAA map on their website.
Read my post above, and links provided to a map of weather stations in Africa. There is plenty of data for Africa, although not much for central Africa, but there is still some data here. Where data is limited, they extrapolate between known adjacent data points.
The bottom line is we don't have perfect numbers of weather stations evenly dispersed globally, but we have more than enough to compute a highly reliable global average, and regional averages.
-
Coal Miner at 05:06 AM on 7 February 2017A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
16 - Tom
You may be exactly right on your preferred interpretation. Both articles I mentioned in #8, are only one more piece of evidence in the very long AGW thread of evidence (for both sides). I'm still open minded on AGW - each of us has to decide what is correct and what isn't.
15 -nigelj
I agree the climate has changed since at least ~ 1980. Winters are a lot warmer in Alaska where I used to live back then. May be AGW, may not be, I'm still trying to figure it out. Don't want to rush massive government regulation and economic disruption if it isn't AGW. If it is AGW then we will have to come up with some reasonable plan to change our energy systems. In the mean time, PV panels are cheaper, and I heard a while back that the Israelis are successfully using solar hot water heaters. If your local county government will approve, make the switch today.
http://www.backwoodssolar.com/products/solar-panels?p=1
>
-
blatz at 04:42 AM on 7 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
I'm also looking for help debunking this one:
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data-is-fake-data/
I think the key question is why is so much of Africa showing "No Data" in the Land Only plot. If that is correct we need a clear explanation for where the Africa land data is coming from. "Interpolated from ocean data" is not going to be good enough for hte denial crowd. Any Help?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:41 AM on 7 February 2017Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
This type of policy decision is not being made by people who are unaware of the reality of what is going on, the best explanation for what is going on, and the actions required to improve the future for all of humanity.
There should be very little doubt that the people pushing for this policy change understand what is going on and are deliberately choosing to push for activity that future generations will not be able to continue to benefit from.
They likely Know It All. They likely understand that the pursuits of benefit they push for will only benefit a portion of current day humanity to the detriment of many others, particularly to the detriment of future generations of humanity.
Human made-up games of competition for Popularity and Profitability clearly only produce Good Results for the future of humanity if people who have other interests are kept from being able to Win in the games. Those type of people really need to be kept from playing in the games. However, when they do get away with "Winning", such people need to have their "Undeserved Win" nullified, the sooner the better for the future of humanity.
It is understood that increased knowledge about climate science innoculates people from being tempted to believe claims that are not the best explanation of what can be observed to be going on.
Innoculating people against the temptation to be greedier or less tolerant should help limit the potential for "Winning" by people who are not interested in developing a constantly improved future for all of humanity.
The USA has at times provided genuine global leadership towards a lasting better future for all of humanity. However, it is undeniable that the current gerenation's wealth and power was the result of "winning" through unsustainable and damaging pursuits of benefit (like delaying the reduction of sulfur in diesel, and delaying the termination of coal burning) on top of the benefit of not having any of the battles over global influence being fought on, and setting-back the development of, mainland USA.
The USA leadership has massive military and economic influence which makes it a major factor regarding the future of humanity. It can be the greatest helper or the greatest threat to the future of humanity. It all depends on the type of people who "Win" the leadership.
The Trump Team actions will clearly be another set-back in the history of the advancement of humanity. Even if they fail in their unacceptable pursuits of "Winning" the lack of Better leadership in the USA will be a delay of Good actions, clearly being detrimental to the future of humanity.
A USA First objective of leadership that does not limit its actions to things that will clearly improve the future for all of humanity (and not even sustainably improve things for the least fortunate USA citizens) is clearly a Threat that can be very popular and profitable for some.
The fact that so many USA voters have developed powerfully made-up minds determined to fight to defend or excuse such understandably damaging desires and admire undeserving made-up Images/Impressions is not Good. It is Sadder than Sad! It is Bad!
Hopefully enough of the population can be effectively innoculated against the temptations to be greedier and less tolerant to limit the negative consequences of the action plans of the likes of the Trump Team. And hopefully the portion of the global community that understands the importance of helping to advance humanity will be able to effectively help that portion of the population of the USA (and all other nations) in their efforts to change minds, helping those who have been misled become aware of how to be more helpful than harmful.
Effectively promoting the 'increased awareness and understanding of climate science and the critical importance of applying that understanding to advance all of humanity to a lasting better future for all' is one of the many helpful fronts for innoculating people, increasing the portion of the population that understands how to make their lives meaningfully helpful.
Open admission. I have relatives and aquaintances who I have to admit may be lost causes as far as the future of humanity is concerned. No amount of added understanding seems to change their minds. They really do focus on their personal interests, and continue to make up easily deflated excuses. However, that is probably to be expected. I live in Alberta, a hotbed of the promotion of self-interest.
What is encouraging is that even in Alberta people who are determined to pursue self-interest any way they can get away with are not the majority of the population. The majority are reasonable people who will admit to having been tempted to misunderstand something and are willing to change their mind.
-
Tom Dayton at 23:28 PM on 6 February 2017Global warming hiatus claims prebunked in 1980s and 1990s
Haze: Bates's claims are without merit. Eli Rabbett provides context (especially the supposed rushing to publication and lack of archiving) for the detailed rebuttal that was posted by Peter Thorne who (unlike Bates) was directly involved with the people and processes of the actual science-doing.
Variable Variability has a devastating rebuttal of fake journalist David Rose’s even more outlandish accounting of Bates's claims. The Great White Con has more. Also regarding Rose's baselines deception: And Then There's Physics.
Zeke described how the recent study by he and coauthors solidly backed the conclusions of the Karl et al. paper.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:40 PM on 6 February 2017A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
nigelj @15, you are being too kind by far to those who misrepresent Figueres. The false interpretation preferred by Coal Miner requires that Figueres be intending to destroy capitalism, and that she deliberately and knowingly employs fraudulent data inorder to create a climate scare to that end. It requires all three elements underlined above to be true, but provides evidence for none of them. Against that, the context of the quote, suggest not one of the three. Further, her comments elsewhere (response to first question in interview) indicate that she accepts the science of climate change of the basis of the IPCC findings (which is not unusual given that she is a diplomat, not a scientist). Her clear motivation is the risks from climate change as determined by the IPCC (video in the link to the original source of the quote), and she clearly envisions an ongoing role for the private sector (speech in Singapore).
That is all in addition to the fact that accepting Coal Miner's interpretation requires you to be a conspiracy theorist.
-
Haze at 21:01 PM on 6 February 2017Global warming hiatus claims prebunked in 1980s and 1990s
The claims by Dr John Bates, a climate scientist (it seems actually a meteorologist) formerly responsible for NOAA’s climate archive, (https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/) do bring a sense of unease about this discussion on "the pause". Dr Bates says this: "The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s" Dr Bates goes on to say:
"I questioned another co-author about why they choose to use a 90% confidence threshold for evaluating the statistical significance of surface temperature trends, instead of the standard for significance of 95% — he also expressed reluctance and did not defend the decision. A NOAA NCEI supervisor remarked how it was eye-opening to watch Karl work the co-authors, mostly subtly but sometimes not, pushing choices to emphasize warming. Gradually, in the months after K15 came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy."
Are these comments valid? They seem to be and if so do lead to questions about the veracity of some authors.
-
nigelj at 19:34 PM on 6 February 2017A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
Coal Miner @13.
This UN woman said basically we want to transform the economic development model. We have absolutely no information or idea what she really meant. This is why I didn't speculate.
Toms answer is just an intelligent guess and quite good but we can't be certain. She could also want to sensibly modify capitalism, or be talking about something else to do with the economic system, or she could want to make capitalism more capitalist. We just don't know.
You really need to remember the old saying "innocent until proven guilty".
You also need to stop seeing all criticism of capitalism as an attempt to destroy it. You did say it was good to be a "a sceptic" right? I'm a big fan of private ownership of business, but some aspects of capitalism seem wrong to me, especially when fans of capitalism seem to think business can do what it likes, without regard to our safety or the environment.
The theory of evolution is not just an idea, it is considered very strong science by virtually all scientists, just the same as is the theory of relativity or quantum "theory".
Climate change is complex, but the key facts are the planet is warming since about 1970 in a certain type of way, with certain characteristics, that points at CO2, and not solar influences.
I agree with your last paragraph.
-
nigelj at 19:17 PM on 6 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Bruce @7, I work in a high level technical capacity and hugely value my privacy. I think privacy should be a basic human right, and nosey authorities only have a right to intrude if they have compelling evidence of serious criminal fraud.
There is no evidence climate scientists have schemed to commit some crime, and precious little evidence they have even made a genuine mistake.
If Donald Trump hands over all his business correspondence over the years, I might change my mind. So far he has certainly hidden a lot of things.
Please stop bullying and harassing climate scientists. It's at the stage where it is getting creepy.
-
nigelj at 19:08 PM on 6 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Bruce @6
I think you are wrong about all of that. The whole thing is a beat up. I suggest you read the following article by Carbon Brief by a climate researcher from Berkely Earth. They have certainly replicated the NOAA temperature adjustments. You don't need NOAAs source code on their methods, just the raw temperature data.
www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise
-
bruce14421 at 18:32 PM on 6 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
"The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) has asked the District of Columbia federal District Court to safeguard roughly 8,000 pages of privileged correspondence between nine climate scientists"
So what have they got to hide? I worked for a large multinational corporation for over 20 years in a technical capacity and would not have the slightest problem if all the emails I ever wrote were made public. I had nothing to hide or be ashamed of.
-
bruce14421 at 17:59 PM on 6 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
For a start, the study has not been replicated by other researchers, how can it be when the original source code has been “lost” and NOAA now say the computer it was on failed and everything has been lost and it is impossible to replicate the original and the code was not backed up. How convenient!
NOAA has now decided to replace the sea temperature dataset just 18 months after it was issued, because it used “unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming”.
The Karl dataset used upwards adjustments of readings from fixed and floating buoys to agree with water temperature measured by temperature affected ships manifolds. What blatant corruption.
US senate attempts to get all the relevant data on the how the dataset was created were arrogantly ignored by NOAA, knowing that the obama administration would protect them. But that is no longer the case and the coming months should be interesting as full details emerge of NOAA’s corruption.
Moderator Response:[JH] You have made many assertions in your post without any documentation of their sources. Your assertions therefore constitute sloaganeeing which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
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.
-
chriskoz at 17:41 PM on 6 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
villabolo@4
We hear more and more around the world that current climate for science in US resembles Lysenko's times in USSR:
Donald Trump reminiscent of Stalin
Alan Finkel did not say Australia would accept persecuted american scientists but I guess he does not even need to say that: they will start migrating en mass. Like I did in early 2000s (I migrated from Seattle to Sydney), certainly for different reasons at that time. But the move itself is very easy and requires only minimal (or not at all) language and culture adjustment, as I can say from my experience. I would never imagine back 13y ago when I was moving, that I would have left behind such madness. Let's hope that Americans come to terms and impeach the raving manman quickly before the situation worsens and consequences spill to the rest of the world.
-
Coal Miner at 16:19 PM on 6 February 2017A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
12 - Tom, you have to use the right data:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/
He got more votes in the states that matter. I think we can agree on that, right? HRC agreed.
-
Coal Miner at 16:09 PM on 6 February 2017A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
Moderator, sorry I did not mean CAPS as yelling, I just wanted to add emphasis. I'll refrain if I post again. Not sure what you define as sloganeering.
Noone commented on the NOAA Offical who said there was in fact a warming pause that was hidden by altering data in order to affect the Paris Agreement on climate change.
As you'd expect, I do disagree with most of comments 9, 10, 11 and 12. Although the UN Official did not use the word capitalism, it's not far fetched to think that was her intent as described in the investors article:
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
We'll never know the story on O's b.c.; nor will we ever know if it was the HRC campaign in '08 or the Trump campaign that started it. No authentic "original" b.c. was ever offered. Doesn't matter. It's history. On evolution, it's a theory. May have happened. May not have happened. Noone knows for certain; although many on both sides claim their side is correct; and there is evidence for both; and some of it comes down to what you "believe" - and that's OK too. I don't know on evolution - and either way it's not a big deal to me - I relate better to science that involves physics, numbers, etc rather than biology, etc - I did not like biology. :) I'm still trying to figure out if AGW is manmade or not. I'm skeptical but I am investigating it. It's complicated. I think my final decision could go either way.
I see no problem with being skeptical of something you don't know for sure - particularly if may cause massive disruption. In the mean time, I'd say go for it - do your part - conserve, convert to renewables, stop driving and flying, grow your own food - nothing wrong with any of that.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:44 PM on 6 February 2017A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
Coal Miner @8, Trump has convincingly demonstrated over a number of years that he believes what is convenient for him to believe. He managed to believe against all evidence that there was reason to doubt the location of Barak Obama's birth (which is moon landing level conspiracy theorizing). He manages to believe that he got more votes than Hilary Clinton, and that more people attended his inauguration that Barack Obama's first inauguration, both against clear evidence. If he cannot be convinced on a simple numerical relationship such as "greater than", why on Earth would he be convinced against his political interests on a matter that requires quite complex maths to treat of fully.
Indeed, I can safely say that nobody who so poorly fact checks his preferred information sources while demanding utmost rigour in fact checking something they don't want to be convinced of will ever be convinced by data.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:37 PM on 6 February 2017A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
Coal Miner @8:
"Friday a UN Climate Offical said AGW is a hoax designed to destroy capitalism. Story is on investors.com, zerohedge, and others. Today a NOAA scientist says there was a pause and scientists altered the data for political reasons to make it appear there was no pause. I saw that on Zerohedge."
In addition to being reported on Zerohedge, it was also reported on YourNewWire.com and a wide range of other fake news sites. Unfortunately for YourNewsWire.com, whose motto is "News. Truth. Unfiltered.", they partially give the game away by providing a link to their source - a source dated October 2nd, 2015. So much for the "News" part of the motto.
Indeed, not even YourNewsWire's source is reporting news, for Christiana Figueres (the official in question) actually said the quoted words on February 3rd, 2015. Coal Miner's news is all of two years out of date.
It gets worse. What Figueres actually said was:
"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.
This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."
This was said in relation to the Paris Agreement. Astute readers will see no mention of "capitalism" or "hoax" in Figueres words. The closest you get is the mention of "the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution", but the economic model reigning since the industrial revolution was not capitalism (which is a later development), but the model of industry powered by fossil fuels. While some features of capitalism developed with the industrial revolution, the trade was not free, but based on deliberately restricted production in colonies to provide (exclusive) markets; while using those same colonies as cheap sources of raw materials.
The sum of it is that the belated reports Figueres words by Investor's Business Daily "verballed" her. More correctly, they quoted her out of context, which is a form of lying. The constant repetitions since have not bothered to fact check the claim, nor correct the misrepresentation (including the repetition above by Coal Miner). (In passing, I might note that that falsifies the other two claims in YourNewsWire's motto.)
Finally, if Coal Miner cannot be bothered fact checking something so simple as a simple quotation in English, why would we imagine he will be bothered to fact check any detailed science he is presented with, or convinced by it?
-
villabolo at 12:35 PM on 6 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
In other news:
LYON, France (Reuters) - French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron on Saturday called on U.S. scientists, academics and entrepreneurs at odds with Donald Trump's administration to move to France.
The former economy minister, one of the frontrunners in the upcoming presidential election, urged U.S.-based scientists working on climate change, renewable energy or health issues who were wary of the new political situation to seek refuge across the Atlantic.
"I want all those who today embody innovation and excellence in the United States to hear what we say: from now on, from next May, you will have a new homeland, France," he said.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/macron-offers-refuge-france-u-scientists-entrepreneurs-181048938.html
Parlez vous anglais?
-
nigelj at 12:24 PM on 6 February 2017A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
Coal Miner @8
"Friday a UN Climate Offical said AGW is a hoax designed to destroy capitalism. Story is on investors.com, zerohedge, and others."
She didn't say this. What she actually is reported to say is this: "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
Thats all she said in the article!
I just don't see the words destroy capitalism. Neither do I see this implied. Neither do I see any of her statement linked to climate change. Neither do I see her say climate change was made up, to destroy capitalism, or otherwise change the economic system!
-
nigelj at 12:06 PM on 6 February 2017A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
Coal Miner @ 8
"Simplistic videos claiming CO2 absorbs IR heat from the earth, but not explaining why this happens at the molecular level will be met with justified skepticism."
Well a video at that level is quite a good idea.
However just remember Americans have presumably been to school and learned about The Theory of Evolution in some detail, and basic genetics, at the level of cells at least. This doesn't stop plenty of people still being in denial about the theory of evolution.
Some people are very hard to convince, because their thinking is strongly driven by ideology or belief, and others are just not good at science.
In the end people need to be encouraged to trust science, not blindly of course, but right now there seems to be a bizarre distrust of science that lacks any real justification.
-
Coal Miner at 11:15 AM on 6 February 2017A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
Statements about "the majority wanting more done on climate change" are not going to convince anyone. What percentage of people understand the actual science down at the molecular level? Very few. Maybe a video which explains that - starting with IR radiation hitting CO2 molecules and what happens next at the various wavelengths, and the energies involved, etc, etc, etc would be of value.
I think Trump will go along with anything which he is convinced is real and true. He loves his country - that is clear:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI
He is not "anti-science" but he's not going to blindly believe "science" until he or his administrators can understand it - particularly if the "science" proposes radical hits to the economy. He drives a hard bargain - his life has proven it. Renewables provide ~5% of our energy. To replace conventional forms is great, but it will be a radical, very expensive change. How many of you drive fossil fuel cars? Use lights from FF energy? Heat with FFs? If so, why?
Friday a UN Climate Offical said AGW is a hoax designed to destroy capitalism. Story is on investors.com, zerohedge, and others. Today a NOAA scientist says there was a pause and scientists altered the data for political reasons to make it appear there was no pause. I saw that on Zerohedge.
Stop whining and bashing Trump; and start PROVING BY SCIENCE to the common man that there is warming. Do not stand up and whine and show no evidence for your case. If you can PROVE YOUR CASE using science so it is understandable you will probably get better results. Simplistic videos claiming CO2 absorbs IR heat from the earth, but not explaining why this happens at the molecular level will be met with justified skepticism.
Moderator Response:[JH] The use of all caps is akin to shouting and is therefore prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. In addition, your entire post verges on the brink of sloganeering which is also prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
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.
-
nigelj at 08:13 AM on 6 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Mamaafrica @1
The article you reference claims NOAA has "almost no temperature data for Africa, and none for Central Africa".
However this is false. A quick check using google shows plenty of data is available for Africa as below. Data for Zambia is minimal but it does have some weather stations as below.
tahmo.org/african-climate-data/
The article in your link has a map of global land surface temperatures that in central Africa that are slightly cooler than average. This is entirely correct.
The article also has a map of combined land / ocean temperatures that shows central africa around Zambia as warmer than average. The article in your link claims this map is false, but it is also correct, but confusing to grasp. This map is a "blended" map that averages all temperatures over land and oceans regardless of geography, so is technically correct. The map in your article neglected to mention it was blended (probably deliberately). The annotation is in fact there in the original map by Noaa as below:
The NASA data don't blend or merge data like this, and so their map is a bit different and equally valid. It just depends how you are presenting data. I just take a general lay persons interest in climate change, and don't claim any expertise, but I can work this stuff out easily enough. The thing is, always check the original data and source material and the fine print. Denialist websites tend to be very missleading.
-
John Hartz at 06:54 AM on 6 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Mamaafrica: Check out:
Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists by John Abraham, Climate Consensus - the 97%, Guardian, Feb 5, 2017
-
Mamaafrica at 05:56 AM on 6 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
I am searching for responses to this article, just shared with me by a climate-change denying relative. Can you help? https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data-is-fake-data/
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:38 AM on 6 February 2017A punchy climate book from a citizen scientist
Villaboo... That matches what I would expect from Amazon.
-
barry1487 at 16:33 PM on 5 February 2017Global warming hiatus claims prebunked in 1980s and 1990s
bobbyj, made a quick reply in the Hansen 88 thread.
https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm#120318
Moderator Response:[PS] Thank you for your cooperation. Most appreciated.
-
barry1487 at 16:31 PM on 5 February 2017Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
bobbyj on another thread asked how last year's temps (GISS) fit with The Hansen model.
As 2016 annual anomaly came in at 1C, this puts last year's anomaly very close to the B scenario line for 2016. (Slightly above, actually, but that's random variation)
-
barry1487 at 16:24 PM on 5 February 2017Global warming hiatus claims prebunked in 1980s and 1990s
Alexandre @ 1,
Tamino claimed several times that the hiatus is statistically not even there (e.g. here). How does the SkS team weigh in in this issue?
To be clear, the OP is about the 'pause' from the 40s to the 70s, Tamino on the recent slowdown.
While SkS have examined the so-called pause from a variety of angles, Tamino's take is that calling a pause is statistically invalid.
-
barry1487 at 16:20 PM on 5 February 2017Global warming hiatus claims prebunked in 1980s and 1990s
At @ 8,
Pause for thought.
There was this now infamous comment in a leaked e-mail from the University of East Anglia, “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried."
The email was written in 2009, so a continued 15 years of no warming takes us to... 2024. Often misconstrued as 15 years only, but the language is quite clear.
-
nigelj at 05:48 AM on 5 February 2017A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
ELIofVA @6
I agree. I think we have two separate but related issues that are making climate change a challenge to deal with. First we have the science, then what we do to resolve the problem. This makes climate change a dimension more complex than debates about evolution, and closer to the bitter debates about tobacco.
On the science we have two groups spreading doubt and attempting to undermine the science. Firstly we have groups with vested interests in fossil fuels, and secondly we have groups who dislike government regulation on philosophical or ideological grounds (which translates ultimately to emotive grounds). They have formed a sort of alliance. These groups clearly have Donald Trumps ear and he has unfortunately appointed many of these people to his administration. It's a hostile takeover and rejection of science, in favour of short term profit goals and populism in the worst sense of the word populist.
We have to continue to counter these denialist arguments, obviously. However it's clear the majority of people in most countries do actually agree we climate change is a serious problem. You see this in various polls as below.
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/what-the-world-thinks-about-climate-change-in-7-charts/
I also think eventually about 95% of people will accept we are altering the climate. It just takes time for new science to gain traction. For example the theory of evolution took some time to be accepted. However given climate change must be tackled right now, we have to do our best to counter the denialist campaigns and get more people on side.
The other related but separate issue is how to resolve the climate problem, and the human psychology related to this. In some ways this is the greater challenge right now. We are basically asking people to make some financial sacrifices now to help future generations. This is a lot to expect, but it is the right thing to do ethically and even in a practical sense in ensuring humanity has a future and viable future economy. We should be conserving the environment to enhance the chances of future generations, not squandering the environment and handing them considerable challenges that we know won't have easy solutions.
To better persuade people we need to better show that the costs of transition to fossil fuels are not as great as they fear, and that the denialists claims are not fact based. It is fear of the unknown and complexities of distant future events that is holding people back.
It is hard to break such a long reliance on fossil fuels, and it plays on our subconscious minds I would say. Habits are hard to break. I suspect many people are asking is transitioning to renewable energy the right thing to do? Should we leave coal in the ground? I think we should, but this is the question that needs profound leadership and answers.
There is also a question of political leadership. Unfortunately politicians are funded in election campaigns by lobby groups, including oil companies, and it's reasonable to speculate this affects their preferred policies. So we have the bizarre situation in The USA, where the majority of the public do want more done on climate change, from various polls, but they are ignored completely by Congress (and now Trump as well). This is a tough issue to resolve, as it requires politiicans to be brave and do the right thing.
Prev 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 Next
