 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Climate Change Again - New Report
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: David Carter (UK) Date: 21 May 18 - 10:47 AM Or to be very precise Bruce, and to actually quote what the Nature Geoscience actually says about the article it carries: "A team of climate scientists has delivered a rare bit of good news: it could be easier than previously thought to limit global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, as called for in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. But even if the team is right — and some researchers are already questioning the conclusions — heroic efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions will still be necessary to limit warming." The full article is here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: beardedbruce Date: 21 May 18 - 10:39 AM There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored. Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, "We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models." Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Donuel Date: 18 May 18 - 08:29 PM This thread is a true tribute to the truth of John from Kansas. Stu you got one thing dead wrong BB you got it all wrong. gillymor got it right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Stu Date: 17 May 18 - 11:55 AM Even a cursory look through the literature on climate change (that's the stuff the actual scientists working in the field write, peer-reviewed) would show that we moved on some time ago from the discussion about whether global warming is happening to what the consequences are. The bias shown in reporting that the article highlights is pretty much non-existent, given that for science at least the matter is pretty much settled; indeed the climate deniers have had a platform for way too long as the stakes are high if we don't react with definitive action soon. In fact, the two-year cooling is a bit of a false-flag as it doesn't alter the trend of climbing temperatures and amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and is a natural fluctuation, a wobble on the upward trajectory of the graph. The cooling is largely due to El Nina cooling the Pacific and this has effects on global temperatures, and this will be reversed when El Nino kicks in and water temperatures rise again. Articles that enable the sort of science-denial shown in statements such as the one Acme quoted above are motivated by non-science concerns that seem to be mainly related to religion, right-wing ideology or business. Of course in the Trumpish/Brexiteer world we live in it seems people prefer simple but wrong explanations to complex and correct ones. Climate science is massively complex, and trying to get certain parts of our society to pay attention for more than a few seconds is becoming increasingly difficult. This is why it is these very people who tend to make shit up* *See also flat-earthers, chem trail advocates, creationists, moon-landing deniers and Man U fans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Stilly River Sage Date: 17 May 18 - 11:30 AM Does that make NASA a global warming denier? No, it makes you slow on the uptake. It is called Climate Change, "global warming" has little meaning in regard to the changes taking place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: gillymor Date: 17 May 18 - 09:38 AM Another perspective from the WaPo It looks like you're the one pushing an agenda, as usual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 18 - 08:06 AM Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you'd know it, since that wasn't deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier? Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, "global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius." That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century. "The 2016-2018 Big Chill," he writes, "was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average." Isn't this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy? In this case, it didn't warrant any news coverage. In fact, in the three weeks since Real Clear Markets ran Brown's story, no other news outlet picked up on it. They did, however, find time to report on such things as tourism's impact on climate change, how global warming will generate more hurricanes this year, and threaten fish habitats, and make islands uninhabitable. They wrote about a UN official saying that "our window of time for addressing climate change is closing very quickly." Reporters even found time to cover a group that says they want to carve President Trump's face into a glacier to prove climate change "is happening." In other words, the mainstream news covered stories that repeated what climate change advocates have been saying ad nauseam for decades. That's not to say that a two-year stretch of cooling means that global warming is a hoax. Two years out of hundreds or thousands doesn't necessarily mean anything. And there could be a reasonable explanation. But the drop in temperatures at least merits a "Hey, what's going on here?" story. What's more, journalists are perfectly willing to jump on any individual weather anomaly — or even a picture of a starving polar bear — as proof of global warming. (We haven't seen any stories pinning Hawaii's recent volcanic activity on global warming yet, but won't be surprised if someone tries to make the connection.) We've noted this refusal to cover inconvenient scientific findings many times in this space over the years. Hiding The Evidence There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored. Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, "We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models." Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed. How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven't seen any increase in violent weather in decades? Crickets. Reporters no doubt worry that covering such findings will only embolden "deniers" and undermine support for immediate, drastic action. But if fears of catastrophic climate change are warranted — which we seriously doubt — ignoring things like the rapid cooling in the past two years carries an even bigger risk. ************************************************************************ Suppose, Brown writes, the two-year cooling trend continues. "At some point the news will leak out that all global warming since 1980 has been wiped out in two and a half years, and that record-setting events went unreported." He goes on: "Some people could go from uncritical acceptance of steadily rising temperatures to uncritical refusal to accept any warming at all." ************************************************************************ Brown is right. News outlets should decide what gets covered based on its news value, not on whether it pushes an agenda. Otherwise, they're doing the public a disservice and putting their own already shaky credibility at greater risk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 31 Aug 17 - 05:32 AM Sometimes I think it is worth letting climate change take its full course. It is worth it as they will finally have the proof they are demanding, and when their children and grandchildren suffer, they will only have themselves to blame. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Stu Date: 31 Aug 17 - 04:01 AM "I think it is safer to say if the theory predicts something that is later found to be "fact" then the theory is functionally useful (in context)." No. No. No. Go and read up and what a scientific theory is. This sentence makes zero sense at all, it's self-contradictory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Mr Red Date: 31 Aug 17 - 03:08 AM If something is proven, then it is a certainty. If not it's just a theory. I think it is safer to say if the theory predicts something that is later found to be "fact" then the theory is functionally useful (in context). eg Relativity struggles with Quantum Mechanics Life just ain't binary. And I can prove that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Stu Date: 30 Aug 17 - 04:14 PM "...it's just a theory." There's an issue, right there. Go and find out what a theory is and why theories aren't "just" anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Aug 17 - 12:04 PM "...it's just a theory..." You are arguing from ignorance, Nigel. The scientific process's finest achievements are its theories. Theories are the best explanations we have for the phenomena we observe. They are accumulations of evidence and interpretations thereof from as many angles as possible. Science does not concern itself with proofs. In fact, the best science always challenges notions that looks like they're in danger of reaching triumphalist certainties. You may be certain that certain phenomena occur. I can touch my fingertip and thumb tip together, that much is as certain as certain can be (you could always ask me for a video). But knowing that is not science. All the science is in the observation and the explanation of evidence. And there's always someone waiting to turn your notions on their heads. That's how human knowledge expands. There's no other way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Vashta Nerada Date: 30 Aug 17 - 10:03 AM As to the links above, the NOAA story was nine years old, and climate science has really come into its own since then. The ARS Technica story seemed to ask odd questions and let the topic fizzle, stopping at questioning just one professor from Colorado. But what about later this year? Does exceptionally warm water in winter augur a harsh hurricane season? The short answer is not really, says Phil Klotzbach, an atmospheric scientist at Colorado State University who specializes in seasonal hurricane activity. "They really don't correlate well with Atlantic hurricane activity," he said of winter sea surface temperatures. "I think the primary issue is that Gulf sea surface temperatures are always plenty hot to support major hurricane activity during the season." Klotzbach was wrong, and the apparently incurious author offers no examination of what those factors of "vertical wind shear and moisture levels" are, just uses this piece to dismiss the theory that the current conditions could cause real problems because this guy says so. From the Atlantic article: Climate scientists, who specialize in thinking about the Earth system as a whole, are often reticent to link any one weather event to global climate change. But they say that aspects of the case of Hurricane Harvey—and the recent history of tropical cyclones worldwide—suggest global warming is making a bad situation worse. . . . A mild statement a little further down notes "A draft version of a major U.S. government review of climate science due out later this year says there is "medium confidence" that human activities "have contributed to the observed upward trend in North Atlantic hurricane activity since the 1970s."" - but this draft is issued by the Trump administration, burying federal science, dismissing experts in order to craft the Orange businessman's version of things. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Vashta Nerada Date: 30 Aug 17 - 09:37 AM Man made contributions to Harvey's severity. Paving without zoning or planning. It's a major contributing factor, but 50 inches of rain is still unprecedented and would have inundated the region. We know that the severity and impact of hurricanes on coastal cities is exacerbated by at least two factors: higher sea levels, caused primarily by the thermal expansion of seawater; and greater storm intensity, caused by higher sea temperatures and the ability of warm air to hold more water than cold air. The heat of an urban area and the pavement that has been laid willy-nilly in Houston conspired to aggravate the impact of all of that rain. The questions people need to ask themselves - are they willing to just build wherever, or will they move out of flood plains. Will they zone so runoff is better managed? Will communities work to move the poorest, most vulnerable, into safer areas without marginalizing them or simply rendering them homeless? Will media start addressing Climate Change as a real thing and keep up the pressure on local, state, and federal managers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Greg F. Date: 30 Aug 17 - 09:30 AM used to be an invented career that paid better than six figures by oil companies Still does pay - courtesy of the Koch brothers and our Sec. of State Exxon-Mobil Tillotsen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Donuel Date: 30 Aug 17 - 08:16 AM Climate change deniers used to be an invented career that paid better than six figures by oil companies. To take up that mantle for free is foolish, behind the times and futile. Severe is a word that was useful once upon a time when related to meteorology. That was then. Now the word is extreme. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: David Carter (UK) Date: 30 Aug 17 - 07:57 AM Scientific method starts with theories, then proceeds to people trying to falsify the theory. Not proofs, proofs are a thing for pure mathematics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Nigel Parsons Date: 30 Aug 17 - 07:41 AM Renewed after 3 years, so I've just spotted Steve's response: From: Steve Shaw - PM Date: 02 Nov 14 - 09:09 PM Well, Nigel, the scientific method does not deal in certainties, ever (we tend to leave that approach to religion). Those little caveats you point to are not attempts at arse-covering. They are what science always does. You misread, I'm afraid. "Scientific method does not deal in certainties". I though scientific method was intended to start with theories, and proceed to proofs. If something is proven, then it is a certainty. If not it's just a theory. Of the two of us I feel it is the soi disant scientist who doesn't understand scientific method. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Iains Date: 30 Aug 17 - 06:45 AM A little background. http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/txhur.pdf https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/a-sizzling-gulf-of-mexico-could-bring-more-spring-storms/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/did-climate-change-intensify-hurricane-harvey/538158/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Aug 17 - 05:39 AM "Severity" I think we can say, from our knowledge of physics, that a hotter world may mean more energetic storms. There's more energy available for the storm system, both from hotter air and ocean and from the release of a greater amount of latent heat of condensation as that extra water vapour that the hotter air can now hold condenses back into water. A double energy whammy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Mr Red Date: 30 Aug 17 - 04:12 AM Hurrican Harvey wasn't caused by Climate Change. But the severity was. Hotter oceans (provable fact), faster winds (known result). And more water carried! The number of severe hurricanes (and typhoons) is possibly on the increase but, given the numbers, difficult to ascertain. The number of lesser hurricanes is statistically greater than "since records began". As reported in the New Scientist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Greg F. Date: 29 Aug 17 - 06:47 PM Ann Coulter: "I don't believe Hurricane Harvey is God's punishment for Houston electing a lesbian mayor. But that is more credible than "climate change"." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Nov 14 - 09:09 PM Well, Nigel, the scientific method does not deal in certainties, ever (we tend to leave that approach to religion). Those little caveats you point to are not attempts at arse-covering. They are what science always does. You misread, I'm afraid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Nov 14 - 09:05 PM We just can't behave ourselves. Emissions are at their highest-ever levels in spite of "protocols". We look at thousands of wind turbines that operate with the sort of technology that my bike dynamo used to light up my bike lights when I was kid in the 50s (when you stopped pedalling the lights went out) and feel good about it instead of investing in energy conservation and carbon capture. We have India and China enjoying massive growth and the US doing next to bugger all about its emissions. We're stuffed unless we go down one path, and a few years ago I never thought I'd hear meself saying it: nuclear power is the only answer, and we need to get on with it, fast. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Nigel Parsons Date: 02 Nov 14 - 08:37 PM ""2 November 2014 – Citing "clear and growing" human influence on the climate system, a United Nations report issued today has warned that if left unchecked, climate change will increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems."" Lovely quote, and it does represent accurately the linked report. However, read it carefully: a United Nations report issued today has warned that if left unchecked, climate change will increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems The "get out clause" in that quote is "will increase the likelihood of". If there was any degree of certainty in the "scientific method" being used, it could state that "a United Nations report issued today has warned that if left unchecked, climate change will cause severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems" Many declarations can be better understood by looking at what they are careful to avoid saying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Ed T Date: 02 Nov 14 - 02:21 PM ""2 November 2014 – Citing "clear and growing" human influence on the climate system, a United Nations report issued today has warned that if left unchecked, climate change will increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems."" UN Report |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Jeri Date: 14 Apr 14 - 06:43 PM Oyster gotta swim; clam gotta burrow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Richard Bridge Date: 14 Apr 14 - 06:32 PM Maths is a hard science, not a soft science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: GUEST Date: 14 Apr 14 - 06:28 PM ""One man's clam....Is another man's oyster"". They are indeed both filter-feeding marine bivalve molluscs, but, beyond that, they are actually different ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: GUEST Date: 14 Apr 14 - 04:52 PM Looks like a good time to get into the cartography business. Remember the breakup of the old USSR. Map-selling companies were printing like crazy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 13 Apr 14 - 11:08 PM One man's clam.... Is another man's oyster. We know that giant forests and giant beasts once lived above and below both tropics. Of course there is change. ADAP ! ! ! Sincerley, Gargoyle Where we once grew wheat...we might grow rice...wbere we once grew cattle, we might grow GMO mice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: GUEST,Stim Date: 13 Apr 14 - 10:09 PM "Some graduate work in the hard sciences" means that, for one reason or another, you were unable to sustain yourself in a graduate program, PDQ. One assumes that you were able to turn things around and ultimately found you way into something that was meaningful and manageable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:20 PM Can't be arsed. There are plenty like him around here. Best to shrug. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Greg F. Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:18 PM I thought you were supposed to be a scientist. PeeDee is a professional, card-carrying jackass and has been since his first post years since. With his undergraduate degree he thinks he knows more than actual scientists. Do a search if you don't wish to take my word for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: pdq Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:14 PM You would be more entertaining if you "lighten up". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:12 PM It wasn't meant to be considered as such, which is why I started it with "I think". I thought you were supposed to be a scientist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: pdq Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:01 PM That is an opinion, so it cannot be considered science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Apr 14 - 07:55 PM I think I can safely say that I've never read such arrant nonsense in my life, and this on a forum inhabited by pete, Goofus and Wacko! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: pdq Date: 13 Apr 14 - 07:45 PM A bachelors degree requires a lot of hard work and is not given away for just showing up. Math, music, art, philosophy and others are "products of the mind" but not true science. Anthropology is a classic "soft science". It is a hybrid of many disiplines of which some are opinion-based, not fact-based. Chemistry, biology, geology... "hard sciences". Fact-based and tested over and over. As close to Truth as we humans can get. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Ed T Date: 13 Apr 14 - 07:27 PM "Show you yours, and I will show you mine" Now that you have impressed us that you have a degree, of some type, (unlike others on mudcat), show us some related results on the topic. Your challenge, since you brought it up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Apr 14 - 07:21 PM I have batchelors degree [sic] and some graduate work in hard sciences Where I come from we have bachelors' degrees, retaining "Batchelor's" for dried peas. I got my bachelor's degree in a science discipline. I don't recall whether it was hard science or soft science. I don't think the profs ever apprised us of the difference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Greg F. Date: 13 Apr 14 - 06:42 PM I have batchelors degree and some graduate work in hard sciences Please tell us the universities that granted these degrees so we can warn people away from what- judging by your grasp of science- are mere diploma mills. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: pdq Date: 13 Apr 14 - 06:32 PM Dear Mr. Ed... You have given one link to a very lame site where a statistician takes one item, CO2 concentration, applies statistical ideas about probability, and comes to a "conlusion" that is completely devoid of science. That is your entire contribution to this thread. Come back after you take at least one science class. I have batchelors degree and some graduate work in hard sciences and I am here if you need an answer to any of your little questions. Least I can do for a beginner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Ed T Date: 13 Apr 14 - 06:22 PM I don t have time for your tantrum nonsense, pdq. If you have anything meaningful to add on the topic, I would like to see it. If you "spent your load" with the earlier stuff, it's ok, I understand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: pdq Date: 13 Apr 14 - 06:08 PM Well, Mr. Ed... Perhaps you should go back to what you do most of the time and post a link to site with professionally-written talking points. You know that talking points work because people like you do no have to think. They try to make someone who knows nothing about a subject talk like an expert, at least their small minds tell them so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Ed T Date: 13 Apr 14 - 06:00 PM Feeling dejected because the stuff you recently posted on this topic means much to anyone, pdq. You will just have to try harder and think bigger. ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Greg F. Date: 13 Apr 14 - 05:43 PM false premise = shit results Thanks for explaining yourself and your method and your results, PeeDee. Now, about those 95% + of the worlds climate scientisss..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: pdq Date: 13 Apr 14 - 05:17 PM false premise = shit results Them's the facts, ma'm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: Richard Bridge Date: 13 Apr 14 - 05:14 PM Statistics establish a correlation with the stated degree of probability. They do not of themselves (please note those two words) establish cause and effect. Popper appears to overlook the methodology of scientific observation. One posits a theory, then formulates what it will predict, then tests those predictions. Thus, in fact, observation roots speculation which may then be tested. Ever studied stats, Peedee? It was the only one of my subsidiaries in which I got first. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change Again - New Report From: pdq Date: 13 Apr 14 - 05:09 PM Thanks, Mr. Ed... At least you made an attempt to discuss the statement rather than hauling-off and calling people who disagree with you horrible names (see "Jack The Ass" and "The F Word"). All you need to know about Global Warming is that the average temerature has risen 1 degree Celcius since the heart of the Irish Troubles of 1848 until 1998, 150 years. Since then it has gone back down 0.12 degrees. All the rest of the noise is political and it is bullshit. |
