Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[Wild Cobra]

An I the only skeptic here?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, typical of you religious zealots. Re-write what someone says, and then tell them it's wrong.

You wanted to pretend that a huge mass of extra-warm (because of AGW), saturated air being pushed up the Himalayas would not cause additional snow melt. And the reason, you said, was because of adiabatic cooling. As if the magic of adiabatic cooling could account for all that localized heat. That's absolutely juvenile.

Of course adiabatic cooling works in saturated air. But you siezed on adiabatic cooling because there is no heat transfer. I think you're smart enough to know that it can't account for everything that would happen in the scenario you described - especially with fully saturated air. You just didn't expect anyone to call you on it.

I never said the process doesn't work... did I? Just that you trying to use that to explain the "disappearance" of all that heat was ridiculously stupid. And I don't think you're stupid - just disingenuous.

So instead, you also chose the logical fallacy route, just like FuzzyLump. (Who could have guessed.) You created a straw man, and proceeded to knock it down. But it's your own argument you knocked down, not mine. I laughed at your use of "adiabatic process" like it's some kind of magic that makes all the heat in the world just disappear. You want to use warming when it suits you, and disregard it when it's inconvenient. Just like all the other religious zealots.

What logical fallacy am i culpable of and be very specific. If you think its the fallacy of association you need to look it up and reread my rebuttal or at the very least attempt to address it some way. If its not then you need to reread your little diatribe here about repeating oneself mindlessly.

Further, are you going to just leave the adiabatic cooling process argument to a blanket generalization and then dismissal? Why cannot the reduction of air pressure as air rises account for lowered temperatures? At a certain height it will freeze. How do HVAC work?

If anything you should prove that the amount of warming is so much that despite the lowering pressures at higher al udes will not freeze all the way to the top of the mountains. He showed work demonstrated that it still freezes over the top. Your response is a blanket dismissal and ad hominem in the form of 'juvenile.'

You should also look up strawmen arguments while you are at it. I fail to see how his response to your 'look its snowing in the Himalayans global warming is a lie' argument with a discussion of what happens to air as it rises in response to encountering ing mountains is a strawman.

And I want to take an extra special moment to tell you to go yourself because you sat there and chastised us about trying to frame the debate in a certain way and look at you now: you're still trying to make this all about the Himalayas.

So heres an extra special you, head.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you know what BEST stands for?

I don't see what difference it makes. I actually pored through the BEST data when he was lying about the source of the chart so I am familiar with it. I at no point used BEST as a source claiming that the oceans were warming. i just talked about it to bring up an example of how he is a lying piece of .

This IS a strawman.

Now I did cite his Royal Society Paper which did say that the oceans warming the exterior of anatarctica were responsible for the retreat of the shelves on the exterior. This is interesting because it also talked about how the lower temperature at certain la udinal gradients still precipitated snowfall on the interior.

This is interesting in the sense that over certain al ude or pressure gradients snow still precipitates in the Himalayans just as it always has and that coupled with the higher energy at lower al udes picking up more water means that more snow past those gradients.

[MannyIsGod]

Again, typical of you religious zealots. Re-write what someone says, and then tell them it's wrong.

You wanted to pretend that a huge mass of extra-warm (because of AGW), saturated air being pushed up the Himalayas would not cause additional snow melt. And the reason, you said, was because of adiabatic cooling. As if the magic of adiabatic cooling could account for all that localized heat. That's absolutely juvenile.

Of course adiabatic cooling works in saturated air. But you siezed on adiabatic cooling because there is no heat transfer. I think you're smart enough to know that it can't account for everything that would happen in the scenario you described - especially with fully saturated air. You just didn't expect anyone to call you on it.

I never said the process doesn't work... did I? Just that you trying to use that to explain the "disappearance" of all that heat was ridiculously stupid. And I don't think you're stupid - just disingenuous.

So instead, you also chose the logical fallacy route, just like FuzzyLump. (Who could have guessed.) You created a straw man, and proceeded to knock it down. But it's your own argument you knocked down, not mine. I laughed at your use of "adiabatic process" like it's some kind of magic that makes all the heat in the world just disappear. You want to use warming when it suits you, and disregard it when it's inconvenient. Just like all the other religious zealots.

I "seized" at that process because thats the process at work. Keep digging your hole deeper. I enjoy it quite a bit.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't see what difference it makes. I actually pored through the BEST data when he was lying about the source of the chart so I am familiar with it. I at no point used BEST as a source claiming that the oceans were warming. i just talked about it to bring up an example of how he is a lying piece of .

This IS a strawman.

Now I did cite his Royal Society Paper which did say that the oceans warming the exterior of anatarctica were responsible for the retreat of the shelves on the exterior. This is interesting because it also talked about how the lower temperature at certain la udinal gradients still precipitated snowfall on the interior.

This is interesting in the sense that over certain al ude or pressure gradients snow still precipitates in the Himalayans just as it always has and that coupled with the higher energy at lower al udes picking up more water means that more snow past those gradients.

Well the BEST study was meant to just reconstruct surface station temperature records so he's absolutely using it as a straw man. Satellite observations completely show the trend is the same and he's well aware of that.

[MannyIsGod]

Yes. Are oceans part of the Earth's surface?

Earth is obviously meant to impart land. I would think that would be obvious in this situation.

You're more than welcome to disregard BEST and go off of satellite observations, however. They show the same thing.

[DarrinS]

Earth is obviously meant to impart land. I would think that would be obvious in this situation.

You're more than welcome to disregard BEST and go off of satellite observations, however. They show the same thing.

Earth is 70% ocean.

Why is BEST planning to incorporate ocean data in future analyses?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Earth is 70% ocean.

Why is BEST planning to incorporate ocean data in future analyses?

Still going with the strawman I see. I still fail to see what BEST not having compiled the ocean data available has to do with you lying about where you got the Guardian mailer chart from.

Might as well bring up Hansen again while your at it.

[DarrinS]

Still going with the strawman I see.

You can tell BEST to cancel their use of ocean data.

I still fail to see what BEST not having compiled the ocean data available has to do with you lying about where you got the Guardian mailer chart from.

WTF are you talking about?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You can tell BEST to cancel their use of ocean data.





WTF are you talking about?

For the first where do i attribute BEST to ocean figures. As for the latter when I get home i will dig it up out of this thread. We both know what I am talking about either that or your memory is . It basically went like this:

Me: where did you get the chart from.
you: BEST
Me: Can you link it for me?
you: BEST.org
me: I am poring over this data and I am finding it nowhere. is it in a particular study or dataset.
you: what you want me to do your work for you?
WC: This is the link to the mailer Darrin got it from: guardian.uk.co/linkto tymailer

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And yet

Please explain the source of the second graph and how it was plotted as the values do not correspnd to the same data points.

Here is NASA's



Here is the explanation of their methodology.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/

The source of both graphs is Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. They do not correspond to the same data points because the aren't. The second graph is the last ten years. And you call other people dumb?F

You gave unlinked charts, head. The only stupidity was that.

Now that i know the source I feel that more explanation is in order. Which study is that chart from? The reason is clear as for example http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/B...Variations.pdf this study only analyzes urban surfaces and not the aggregate. Note how the GIS chart clearly labels land/ocean.

You gave us some random chart, head. What do the temperature points actually reflect?

You ever going to link the study that you pulled the graph from? This may come as s surprise to you but no one other than WC takes you at your word here. So you can circle jerk with him or justify a single thing you say.

Berkeley


Earth


Surface


Temperature


If you weren't so busy having tantrums, you'd notice the answers to several of your questions were easily gleaned from info on the graphs.

Just to point out further how disingenuous you are. Here are three studies submitted for review done at Berkley over the past month. They all look at particular subsets and if you look inside of any of them they all have arbitrarily labeled graphs too.

http://berkeleyearth.org/resources.php

What is the context of that graph? You don't know do you?

What do you mean by the "context" of the graph?

Dumb noises. its not hard to figure out.

HERE is an example study from BEST. It is looking at the SUBSET of variations within LAND surface tempurates. If you look in the link you will see similarly arbitrary labeled axes with the idea that if you know the study you have the appropriate CONTEXT of wht you are looking at.

If for example the data from the graphs was pulled from this study then it would obviously indicate that only about 25% of the Earth's surface is being discussed.

We have no context. We just have you giving vague directions as to where the data came from because you got your information from a mailer and lack critical thinking skills.

Where is the data from the graph from? Do I need to put it plainer so your dumb ass can figure it out?

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague

[DarrinS]

Another fail from Fuzzy bag

Data from both graphs is from BEST. They are different time scales and the first graph stops near year 2000.

[DarrinS]

But you sure showed me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Another fail from Fuzzy bag

Data from both graphs is from BEST. They are different time scales and the first graph stops near year 2000.

No actually if you look at the link at the bottom the graphs data was compiled by the Global Warming Policy Foundation using BEST's dataset. That is not remotely the same thing.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is funded by the coal mining lobby. Its a sad day when WC shows more integrity that you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From that link describing the second graph:

But a report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.

[RandomGuy]

But you sure showed me.

BEST used several datasets.

the "Global Warming Policy Foundation" has a very definite narrative, and didn't really specificy which data set they used or how they arrived at their second graph.

Good critical thinking would lead one to ask if the dataset was cherry-picked.

Cherry picking data is one of the things that people with agendas tend to do.

The links you tend to provide do this rather regularly.

Given this track record, I think a bit of skepticism of your chosen sources is fair.

Don't get all whiny about it. That is the consequences of being a hack. Suck it up.

(edit)

If you don't know how the graph was arrived at, you should ask yourself why the Global Warming Policy Foundation wasn't forthcoming or transparent in presenting their methodology.

I am not going to hold my breath waiting though. I doubt you looked even if such information was presented. I ain't lookin' for it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

BEST used several datasets.

the "Global Warming Policy Foundation" has a very definite narrative, and didn't really specificy which data set they used or how they arrived at their second graph.

Good critical thinking would lead one to ask if the dataset was cherry-picked.

Cherry picking data is one of the things that people with agendas tend to do.

The links you tend to provide do this rather regularly.

Given this track record, I think a bit of skepticism of your chosen sources is fair.

Don't get all whiny about it. That is the consequences of being a hack. Suck it up.

thats the whole point of him trying to keep saying it was from BEST. look at the dates. he probably still had the link in his inbox to tell him about GWPF's new stuff.

[Wild Cobra]

Check it out yourself.

Berkeley Earth releases new version of the BEST dataset; February 17, 2012

The above site links to BEST which in turn has links of their data sets.

[DarrinS]

Fuzzy and RG having fits over nothing. That graph was attempting to show that there has not been any warming in the last decade. You can debate whether or not that is meaningful, but it is not generally disputed that there has been no significant warming since 1998. If you can show that some nefarious coal mining group altered BEST's data, thats a different matter.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy and RG having fits over nothing. That graph was attempting to show that there has not been any warming in the last decade. You can debate whether or not that is meaningful, but it is not generally disputed that there has been no significant warming since 1998. If you can show that some nefarious coal mining group altered BEST's data, thats a different matter.

No Darrin. They have their panties in a wad, so it's something to them. The evidence simply shows what they wish not to believe.

[boutons_deux]

Current Rate of Ocean Acidification Worst in 300 Million Years

We first wrote about this issue in early 2007, and this section, which quoted Stormy from Angry Bear, will help bring readers up to speed:

….there are side effects to our love affair with CO2 that are not often mentioned. In fact, whether the earth cools or warms is absolutely irrelevant to these effects. I repeat: Absolutely irrelevant.

One of the most startling effects is the acidification of the oceans. Since 1750, the oceans have become increasingly acidic. In the oceans, CO2 forms carbonic acid, a serious threat to the base of the food chain, especially on s fish of all sizes. Carbonic acid dissolves calcium carbonate, an essential component of any life form with an exoskeleton. In short, all life forms with an exoskeleton are threatened: s fish, an important part of the food chain for many fish; coral reefs, the habitat of many species of fish….

The formation of carbonic acid does not depend upon temperature. Whether the oceans warm or cool is irrelevant. Of concern only is the amount of CO2 that enters the oceans.

Consider the scope of the paper in Science, per a very good discussion in ars technica:

A new paper in Science examines the geologic record for context relating to ocean acidification…The research group (twenty-one scientists from nearly as many different universities) reviewed the evidence from past known or suspected intervals of ocean acidification…They find that the current rate of ocean acidification puts us on a track that, if continued, would likely be unprecedented in last 300 million years.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/...=Google+Reader

[boutons_deux]

Economist William Nordhaus Slams Global Warming Deniers, Explains Cost of Delay is $4 Trillion



Yale economist William Nordhaus has eviscerated the 16 scientists who wrote a disinformation-filled Wall Street Journal piece in late January. Yes, three dozen climatologists already debunked the posers (see “Dentists Practicing Cardiology”), as did I.

But Nordhaus’s blunt piece — “Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong” – is worth reading because he is no climate hawk. You may recall his October article that found “Oil and Coal-Fired Power Plants Have Air Pollution Damages Larger Than Their Value Added.” It use an uber-low, uber-lame, uber-outdated “price” for CO2:

We use the social cost of carbon for the year 2000. This cost will rise over time as greenhouse gases ac ulate and marginal damages increase. We assume that the central estimate of the social cost of carbon is $27 per ton of carbon (Nordhaus 2008b).

The actual social cost of carbon today is at least 5 times that price and more than 10 times that in the near future (or now, see here). The International Energy Agency (IEA) noted back in 2008 that just to stabilize at 550 ppm (roughly 3°C or 5.4F warming), which would likely still be catastrophic for humanity, you’d need a price of “$90/tonne of CO2 in 2030,” which is to say $330 a metric ton of carbon. You need a 2030 CO2 price of “$180/tonne in the 450 Policy Scenario” — $660 a metric ton of carbon.

So when a guy like Nordhaus slams disinformers hard, that’s a big deal. Let me excerpt his key rebuttals and then his economic analysis:

The first claim is that the planet is not warming…. The finding that global temperatures are rising over the last century-plus is one of the most robust findings of climate science and statistics.
A second argument is that warming is smaller than predicted by the models…. In reviewing the results, the IPCC report concluded: “No climate model using natural forcings [i.e., natural warming factors] alone has reproduced the observed global warming trend in the second half of the twentieth century.”
The sixteen scientists next attack the idea of CO2 as a pollutant. They write: “The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant.”… In short, the contention that CO2 is not a pollutant is a rhetorical device and is not supported by US law or by economic theory or studies.
The fourth contention by the sixteen scientists is that skeptical climate scientists are living under a reign of terror about their professional and personal livelihoods…. The idea that climate science and economics are being suppressed by a modern Lysenkoism is pure fiction.
A fifth argument is that mainstream climate scientists are benefiting from the clamor about climate change…. One of the worrisome features of the distortion of climate science is that the stakes are huge here—even larger than the economic stakes for keeping the cigarette industry alive. Tobacco sales in the United States today are under $100 billion. By contrast, expenditures on all energy goods and services are close to $1,000 billion. Restrictions on CO2 emissions large enough to bend downward the temperature curve from its current trajectory to a maximum of 2 or 3 degrees Centigrade would have large economic effects on many businesses. Scientists, citizens, and our leaders will need to be extremely vigilant to prevent pollution of the scientific process by the merchants of doubt.


http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/0...is-4-trillion/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy and RG having fits over nothing. That graph was attempting to show that there has not been any warming in the last decade. You can debate whether or not that is meaningful, but it is not generally disputed that there has been no significant warming since 1998. If you can show that some nefarious coal mining group altered BEST's data, thats a different matter.

Its pretty obvious what they did. They didn't adjust the signal for random noise and then cherry picked a certain segment. Thats why you see so many data points however when you go into what BEST actually does when looking for trends they do a bounded convolution sum. BEST does a good job of showing the sigmas in their data and the evolution of the graphs from the raw data with all the noise to one year averages, three year averages etc.

They then use their own statistically justified normalization. What GWPF most likely did is take raw data for individual data points, showed the noise and then tried to call it a day. Nothing to see here its getting cold in january global warming is a lie.

The point is that the GWPF who made the graph is not BEST and when asked what the context and where the graph came from you said it was BEST.

When someone wants to find that graph they go here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...icy_Foundation

and not

http://berkeleyearth.org/

That you see no problem with trying to mislead people like that may not be surprising but it demonstrates quite clearly what kind of person that you are: a deceptive one.

[MannyIsGod]

Fuzzy and RG having fits over nothing. That graph was attempting to show that there has not been any warming in the last decade. You can debate whether or not that is meaningful, but it is not generally disputed that there has been no significant warming since 1998. If you can show that some nefarious coal mining group altered BEST's data, thats a different matter.

I can put together a graph of data points of a single day and put it up against a graph of a longer time frame and show whatever I want. The graph of the decade is meaningless on its own in a climate context. When used in that manner, its either an obvious tool for deception or one made out of complete ignorance.

Either way, it really doesn't do your case any good.

[DarrinS]

Its pretty obvious what they did. They didn't adjust the signal for random noise and then cherry picked a certain segment. Thats why you see so many data points however when you go into what BEST actually does when looking for trends they do a bounded convolution sum. BEST does a good job of showing the sigmas in their data and the evolution of the graphs from the raw data with all the noise to one year averages, three year averages etc.

They then use their own statistically justified normalization. What GWPF most likely did is take raw data for individual data points, showed the noise and then tried to call it a day. Nothing to see here its getting cold in january global warming is a lie.

The point is that the GWPF who made the graph is not BEST and when asked what the context and where the graph came from you said it was BEST.

When someone wants to find that graph they go here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...icy_Foundation

and not

http://berkeleyearth.org/

That you see no problem with trying to mislead people like that may not be surprising but it demonstrates quite clearly what kind of person that you are: a deceptive one.

So much hot air -- so little said.