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

[DarrinS]

True or false:

The theory of man-made climate change implies that temperatures in all areas will rise by the same amount over time with additional atmospheric CO2.

??

Northern hemisphere should heat more rapidly and Greenland is like the so-called canary in the coal mine.


The current warmth in Greenland is not even unprecedented in the past century.

[Wild Cobra]

However, changes in solar heating rate over the last century cannot account for the magnitude and distribution of the rise in global mean temperature during that time period and there is no convincing evidence for significant indirect influences on our climate due to twentieth century changes in solar output.

True, but that magnitude is a small snippet of data, and is approximately the same change as 1750 to today. There are other factors besides the sun that make it difficult to see any particular net change in the gross change.

There is also the tremendous lag time for much of the latent energy, we could very easily see the warmed up waters from the 1700, because of latent energy collected near the south pole finally changing the surface temperature near and north of the equator. That is a very slow moving system, with an average 800 year lag for total energy released.

Again, conservation of mass and energy dictates that a particular level of warming is from the sun.

[temujin]

Looks dramatic until you actually look at numbers on the temperature side of that graph.

Insignificant

It's actually even more dramatic after you have looked at the data.

The pinatubo eruption of the 90 did just a little dip that bounced less than 2 years after.
And the iceland vulcano eruption of last year might even have hard times producing that smallish dip.

[temujin]

Just thought I would throw in what scientists are actually saying.

We talk about them and what they say a lot abstractly, so perhaps seeing what they say is worth a read or two.

Never mind, can't fight beliefs with data.

Beliefs are precisely what escapes from data, what can't be measured.

Mankind is en led to beliefs: just don't call them data, since they are ontologically different terms.

[temujin]

What fight. I can't do anything about it?
" (insert poverty, global waming etch)."

Yes you cant, "you" not government not anyone
else, you.

You are looking for someone else to accept you
responsibilities.

Government is was created to take care of
basic things they are good at. Things, we as
citizens have a common need for.

Government is not a human en y. It cannot
provide for people. It has no heart, it is has
no feelings. It is composed of political en ies
who have designs on powers to further what
they want........

It is composed of people just like you and I. Us!
They are not magical, they cannot perform
miracles. The are not smarter than us. They
cannot produce no more than what we give them,
taxes.

What part of that do you not undrstand?

I understand more than you might want me to.

Lonely, lonesome world.

No thanks, not for me.

[RandomGuy]

Never mind, can't fight beliefs with data.

Beliefs are precisely what escapes from data, what can't be measured.

Mankind is en led to beliefs: just don't call them data, since they are ontologically different terms.

That is actually the entire point of the thread.

I'm not really here to argue the merits of IPCC reports. Merely to show that a lot of what passes for skepticism of those reports and the data they summarize is less about real science or policy, and more about ingrained, illogical belief and knee-jerk anti-environmentalism.

[DarrinS]

That is actually the entire point of the thread.

I'm not really here to argue the merits of IPCC reports. Merely to show that a lot of what passes for skepticism of those reports and the data they summarize is less about real science or policy, and more about ingrained, illogical belief and knee-jerk anti-environmentalism.

data: 1 degree in 100 years

[LnGrrrR]

data: 1 degree in 100 years

Is 1 degree inconsequential?

If the temperature were continue to shift 1 degree warmer over the next 3 years, what would the consequences be?

[DarrinS]

Is 1 degree inconsequential?

If the temperature were continue to shift 1 degree warmer over the next 3 years, what would the consequences be?

Obviously a rate of (1 degree)/(3 years) would be much worse than a rate of (1 degree)/(100 years).


No such trends have continued unabated in Earth's history. That's also why I don't believe in "tipping points".

[MannyIsGod]

Two quick things:

Rapid climate change has occuoured in the past weather darrin "believes in" it or not.

Agw theory points to future acceleration in warming. Darrin acknowledges 1 degree of warming like agw theory says there should be and also claims that the temp increase has not occured or that we are cooling depending on the day.

Oh that darrin! Bless his heart.

[Wild Cobra]

That is actually the entire point of the thread.

I'm not really here to argue the merits of IPCC reports. Merely to show that a lot of what passes for skepticism of those reports and the data they summarize is less about real science or policy, and more about ingrained, illogical belief and knee-jerk anti-environmentalism.

No, you have that backwards. It's knee-jerk environmentalism.

[Wild Cobra]

Is 1 degree inconsequential?

If the temperature were continue to shift 1 degree warmer over the next 3 years, what would the consequences be?

But it won't. There are cycles in nature.

[LnGrrrR]

But it won't. There are cycles in nature.

So, just to ask, if it DID continue to shift warmer, at what point would it have some consequences? How many degrees?

[LnGrrrR]

Obviously a rate of (1 degree)/(3 years) would be much worse than a rate of (1 degree)/(100 years).

Ahhh sorry. I meant to say 1 degree each century. Thanks for calling me on that.

No such trends have continued unabated in Earth's history. That's also why I don't believe in "tipping points".

Why point out that 1 degree is inconsequential then? If you think it's going to shift back, would it matter if it were 1 degree or 5?

[RandomGuy]

Why point out that 1 degree is inconsequential then? If you think it's going to shift back, would it matter if it were 1 degree or 5?

Beware the fallacy of straight-line thinking.



I crunched the numbers in the graph, and examined the period 1906 to 2004, then 50% of all the CO2 emissions from that period took place in the period 1981-2004, approximately. The last 23 years emitted as much CO2 as the first 75 years.

Oddly enough, most of the changes seen here take place after 1981 or so.


This is the nature of exponential growth. CO2 emissions globally continue to grow by a percentage each year, roughly commesurate with global economic growth.

If one posits a 2.5% growth in emissions for the period 2004 to 2030, then that 24 year period sees emissions equal to the entire 98 years that preceded it.

If we are indeed having an effect, then we would expect that effect to be more pronounced in the next 24 years than it has been in the last 100.

Given that, all of these effects seem to be pretty likely to accelerate along with emissions.



Wild Cobra will have to work harder and harder to massage his figures to show that the sun is responsible for these effects, as the sun continues its pretty predictable short-term cycles.

Again, assuming that CO2 is one of the primary drivers of the observed warming trend.

[DarrinS]

Beware the fallacy of straight-line thinking.


...


This is the nature of exponential growth. CO2 emissions globally continue to grow by a percentage each year, roughly commesurate with global economic growth.

If one posits a 2.5% growth in emissions for the period 2004 to 2030, then that 24 year period sees emissions equal to the entire 98 years that preceded it.

If we are indeed having an effect, then we would expect that effect to be more pronounced in the next 24 years than it has been in the last 100.

Given that, all of these effects seem to be pretty likely to accelerate along with emissions.

...

Again, assuming that CO2 is one of the primary drivers of the observed warming trend.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/0...arbon-dioxide/


Except that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is logarithmic.

[MannyIsGod]

Feedbacks.

[DarrinS]

Feedbacks.

All positive? Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but do clouds also reflect sunlight?

[MannyIsGod]

Oh , you responded directly to something I posted? Was it because it was only one word?

I never said they were all positive. No need to move the goalposts. CO2 also isn't the only greenhouse gas.

More than one word, so I'm curious to see if you respond to this as well.

[RandomGuy]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/0...arbon-dioxide/


Except that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is logarithmic.

Oddly enough, so is exponential growth.

Log1.025(2)=28.1 This was, essentially, the log I used to determine how long it takes to double CO2 emissions.

Your skeptical meteorologist is free to publish his blog posts as article in peer reviewed journals. He should get cracking, so actual scientists can evaluate his claims. I sincerely hope he does.

[RandomGuy]

Science must end climate confusion
VIEWPOINT
Richard Betts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8451756.stm
Climate scientists need to take more responsibility about how their work is presented to the public, suggests the Met Office's Richard Betts. In this week's Green Room, he says it is vital to prevent climate science being misunderstood or misused.

Recently, I gave a talk on climate change in my local village hall in Devon, and not surprisingly I was given a hard time.

In fact, it started two days before that. Cut off from work by the snow (which, incidentally, had been forecast with almost pinpoint accuracy), I was out with the kids and being teased by the other dads.

"Where's all this global warming you're always on about, ha ha!"

The usual stuff, leading to the usual somewhat nerdy discussion on the difference between weather and climate, which was then cut short when one of the children crashed their sledge and asked if we had got that on video to send to a TV show such as You've Been Framed.

Of course, we are seeing the same comments in some parts of the press and on Twitter, from those who jump on any bit of cold weather to say it proves that global warming is not happening and we're all a bunch of idiots (or worse).

No matter how many times we say that "global warming" means a rise of average temperature across the world, decade by decade, and not every year being consistently warmer than the last in every place on Earth, there are still those that get this mixed up.

Warming world

Yes, we have had the coldest December in the UK for 14 years and now we are having a big freeze in early January; but the UK covers less than half of one thousandth of the Earth's surface.


Climate data shows that human activities are warming the world


Journey through climate history
Last year was actually the fifth warmest year on record as far as global temperatures were concerned.

The four warmest years were, in ascending order, 2002, 2003, 2005 and 1998. The last decade was the warmest on record, followed by the 1990s and then the 1980s, so the world is definitely warming up.

To be fair, people often make the same mistake but in the other direction, and link every heatwave, major flood, drought and famine to global warming.

Of course, we know that these things happen anyway, even without climate change - they may happen more often under a warmer climate, but it is wrong to blame climate change for every single event.

Climate scientists know this, but still there are people outside of climate science who will claim or imply such things if it helps make the news or generate support for their political or business agenda.

Mixed messages

Climate "sceptics" accuse climate scientists of exaggerating the evidence for human-caused climate change in order to secure their own funding; but actually I think that any vested interests in talking up the problem lie elsewhere.


Individual natural disasters are not evidence of climate change
The focus on climate change is now so huge that everybody seems to need to have some link to climate change if they are to attract attention and funding.

Hence the increasing tendency to link everything to climate change - whether scientifically proven or not.

The question is: do climate scientists do enough to counter this? Or are we guilty of turning a blind eye to these things because we think they are on "our side" against the climate sceptics?

It's easy to blame the media and I don't intend to make generalisations here, but I have quite literally had journalists phone me up during an unusually warm spell of weather and ask "is this a result of global warming?"

When I say "no, not really, it is just weather", they've thanked me very much and then phoned somebody else, and kept trying until they got someone to say yes it was.

Talking up of the problem then gives easy ammunition to those who wish to discredit the science.

They do not care whether the wrong information came from the scientists or from a second-hand source, they just say (quite rightly) that it's wrong and therefore why should they trust other parts of the science?

Climate scientists need to take more responsibility for the communication of their work to avoid this kind of thing.

Even if scientists themselves are not blaming everything on climate change, it still reflects badly on us if others do this.

We cannot simply say it is everyone else's fault; we need to be very clear about what can be used as evidence for or against climate change.

Long-term, large-scale trends and the overall statistics of extreme weather events can and should be part of this evidence base. Individual weather events, from heatwaves to big freezes, cannot be used either to prove or disprove climate change.

If we do not help the media, NGOs and the public to understand this, we have done nothing to stop them getting it wrong.

If our science is misunderstood and misused, and then turned against us, it really will be a case of We've Been Framed.
-------------------------------------------


This is what an actual scientist says his theory is.

One common tool creationists use in framing the creation/evolution debate is to distort what scientists are actually saying. This happens time and again.

This tactic is in full force when "look how cold it is" articles get used to "disprove" the theory of CO2 caused warming.

[DarrinS]

Oddly enough, so is exponential growth.

Log1.025(2)=28.1 This was, essentially, the log I used to determine how long it takes to double CO2 emissions.

Your skeptical meteorologist is free to publish his blog posts as article in peer reviewed journals. He should get cracking, so actual scientists can evaluate his claims. I sincerely hope he does.

"Real" climate scientists have their blogs too.

See http://www.realclimate.org/

So, no need to put something down because it is a blog.

[DarrinS]

No matter how many times we say that "global warming" means a rise of average temperature across the world, decade by decade, and not every year being consistently warmer than the last in every place on Earth, there are still those that get this mixed up.

Except for the last decade.


Or the period from 1940 to 1970.

[DarrinS]

Oh , you responded directly to something I posted? Was it because it was only one word?

I never said they were all positive. No need to move the goalposts. CO2 also isn't the only greenhouse gas.

More than one word, so I'm curious to see if you respond to this as well.

Since you said practically nothing, my response is .

[MannyIsGod]

I'm shocked.