Climate evidence is in.

[WoodDragon]

Why was I wrong?

Heh?

[hutch]

So full of criticism but they won't even read the reports to begin with. This is why they say "empty vessles make the most sound".

What's the point being drawn into debate with uneducated fools?

Thanks for persistently sabotaging this thread with so much bullshit. Obviously you are more intent on proving yourself right than debating the issues at hand.

You are nothing but a troll.

 

This has all been done in another thread...don't kid your self that this is a red hot topic here...all just a rehash...

[WoodDragon]

Hutch.

Forget about the last shit-fight.

Why can't you put some science-based fact on the table to support your claims?

And why won't you answer my questions above?

[hutch]

Why was I wrong?

Heh?

 

It's all in global cooling thread but if you really want I have previously read some more findings of the flood enquiry that also disprove your claim...I can dig them out but really I couldn't be bothered. Your claims have already been proven wrong......

[WoodDragon]

Hutch, stop dodging.

Tell me what about my statement was wrong.

[hutch]

Hutch.

Forget about the last shit-fight.

Why can't you put some science-based fact on the table to support your claims?

And why won't you answer my questions above?

 

It comes down to a "your scientist against mine" .... we've done that and it is stupid really, how can I debate you on science? How could I disprove a bloke who could tie me up easily in technical mumbo jumbo. All I do is look at the claims and weigh them up against what is actually happening in the real world....all I see is contradictions and errors time and time again. Every time something changes they rewrite the book....you can't really deny that...surely you can't....cause I can rake up heaps of examples if you want......I now have advantage of time on my hand that proves so many of the claims to be wrong...and that will just keep happening....the track record so far is not good..

[Halcyon Daze]

This has all been done in another thread...don't kid your self that this is a red hot topic here...all just a rehash...

 

This is simply a thread about the latest pivotal research (Which you haven't even bothered to read).

There's a lot that you don't bother with really, like backing any of your claims. Which makes me wonder why you're even contributing.

Give us something compelling mate, or piss off (pardon the french).

[hutch]

Hutch, stop dodging.

Tell me what about my statement was wrong.

 

Done that many times in global cooling...you do the work, I have already posted it and couldn't be bothered chasing it up for you....the experts don't agree with you but your right...mmm

[WoodDragon]

you do the work, I have already posted it and couldn't be bothered chasing it up for you....

See, this is the thing.

I've done "the work" - years of it, studying chemistry, physics, biology - and I know what the science says. And you haven't provided me with anything scientific that contradicts the staggering majority of scientific work that supports the fundamental physics of anthropogenic global warming.

Not a thing.

Nothing.

the experts don't agree with you but your [sic] right...mmm

Now you're just barking mad.

"[T]he experts" do agree with me. Or rather, I agree with them. Ninety seven percent of professionals at least, to be exact, and the three percent left over include non-climatologically-expert scientists who are demonstrably nutters, or who are completely partisan as a result of their involvement with fossil fuel lobbies or with conservative think-tanks.

The sad thing is that we've had this conversation before too, and strangely enough you and someone else found it sufficiently confronting to be told this that you negatised me about it at the time. Seriously, what was that about? Does the truth hurt you so much that you need to randomly negatise simple, factual posts?

Of course, you're possibly going to counter now with your own "experts"... Please, for the sake of due process, do that - list them here so that we can scrutinise their bona fides, and the veracity of their actual arguments.

Edited June 4, 2011 by WoodDragon

[WoodDragon]

And Hutch, those questions are still hanging.

They're fundamental to your entire argument, so why do you refuse to answer them?

[WoodDragon]

Hutch.

I notice that you are assiduously avoiding any comment about Anthony Watts' unavoidable disproof of his own conspiracy theory about climate science.

Once again, what's up with that?

[WoodDragon]

It comes down to a "your scientist against mine"

.

Ah yes, my thousands of professional climatologists and physicists against your handful of non-climatologists, paid shills, and outright crackpots...

There are very few serious scientists who dispute the science of global warming, and those that do have been shown to be wrong in their analyses.

Your best bet was Richard Muller, whom you proudly presented to me as a fait accompli against the scientific consensus. Except that I popped your bubble about Muller at the time, and he popped it again himself soon after.

If you can do better than Muller as your top expert, have at it.

Edited June 4, 2011 by WoodDragon

[Francois le Danque]

science aside, what i fail to understand is why anyone would WANT climate change not to be real. i mean it's obvious that the deniers don't want it to be true...otherwise what reason do they have to get so worked up about it? why bother going to all the effort to disprove something that isn't so implausible? as i already mentioned the only scientists who disagree with it have monetary incentives from polluting companies, so why should your average uneducated bogan care? nobody is paying you to be annoying.

i mean sure if people believed in the flying spaghetti monster or something, one may feel the need to correct them. but this is a simple straightforward concept: pollution is bad. it shouldn't be that big a deal. of course climate change is a big deal if it IS real, but YOU don't personally HAVE to do anything about it, so why do you care so much? what is your motivation for being so sceptical? what can really be lost if climate change IS real? i really fail to see the point of being so disruptive to people trying to do good for the planet.

if you decided it was real, would you have to feel bad when you contribute to it's worsening every day? because you should. it's much better to feel good about doing something helpful, than plug your ears and pretend the problem isn't there.

woody is obviously involved in climate science, judging by his knowledge on the matter and well presented arguments. i am a psychologist, and you hutch obviously have some very deep seated issues that are hindering your acceptance of a widely accepted theory. maybe you think yourself too good to be shown that you are wrong, or that you could possibly be damaging the planet. or maybe you feel a burning desire to waste the time of people who mean you no trouble (or at least didn't, prior to you opening your big mouth)? either way you have definite narcissism problems.

just remember that the world won't end if you admit climate change is real. but it might if you ignore it.

[WoodDragon]

woody is obviously involved in climate science

Frank, professionally my involvement is through the impact that changing climate has on the endangered species I researched for my PhD. To do that one needs a good understanding of the physics and of the chemistry, as well as of the biology. As an ecologist with a history in biomedical research and diagnostics, I understand the latter discipline very well, and the other disciplines at mid-undergraduate level plus what I have learned as a working biologist and a non-climate scientist who is nevertheless keenly interested in the science.

Aside from my involvement as an ecologist, I also trained (over a decade ago) as a scientific educator, so I spend a lot of my free time trying to correct misapprehensions and outright misrepresentations of climate science. The trouble is that blogs and fora are poorly equipped to filter wheat from chaff, so it's usually a fraught endeavour...

I am not a climate scientist per se, and I always try to make it clear that I am not. I am however trained in, and experienced in, assessing the work of my professional colleagues who are trained and experienced in scientific disciplines other than the fields I have worked in.

That's why I know that Hutch is wrong, even if he doesn't understand this himself.

As to what motivates deniers, there are several reasons. Some are simply turned off because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Others don't want to acknowledge that they bear a share of the responsibility, and they don't want to pay the true cost. Or they don't want to cut back on their current profligate lifestyles. Or they are simply constitutionally unable to comprehend the science involved, and/or the impacts that global warming will have on future generations and on global biodiversity. Or they are keen to keep making a profit from carbon emissions, or they want to take advantage of the political capital that can be levered from generating a fallacious controversy.

Very, very few actually base their beliefs in genuine scepticism.

[WoodDragon]

Frank.

As an addendum, I should note that the Dunning-Kruger effect is prominent in the psychology of denialism.

Keep an eye out for it - you will be astonished how much this permeates the denialist mindset.

Edited June 4, 2011 by WoodDragon

[Alchemica]

I'm cautious about entering the "debate" (as far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant if it's happening or not, we can't keep living the way we are...) but I'm curious... can anyone point me to credible evidence to dispute/confirm the following:

EDIT: Looks like it might be questionable

Edited June 4, 2011 by Alchemica

[hutch]

Bet that feels better Woody...looks like you have been busting to get all that out...glad I could be of some assistance to you....

[hutch]

science aside, what i fail to understand is why anyone would WANT climate change not to be real.

 

Thats a silly thing to say Frank.....You want the planet to warm up do you? Why would anyone want climate change to be real?

I guess if its real then its as good a reason as any to redistribute the wealth.....not long now....I got my handout.....us pensioners are on a winner with this one....

[hutch]

Of course, you're possibly going to counter now with your own "experts"... Please, for the sake of due process, do that - list them here so that we can scrutinise their bona fides, and the veracity of their actual arguments.

 

You think! ....You really think that do you? As if!.....I enjoy watching how you alarmists react....and boy do you....predictable as always.....anyone trample on your beliefs and the battle cry goes out..."We have a sceptic here people to the keyboards and attack" I'm not going to waste my time following up alarmist nonsense.....There is already a big percentage of the population doing that now...I'll just sit back and enjoy the show...you've got it under control.....

[hutch]

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than omnipotent moral busybodies.The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

CS Lewis.

[hutch]

http://www.climatech...f-west-virginia

Rate of arctic ice melt each day now equels the size of west Virginia

(ah thats a great old show...."The Virginian") and I just realized there is 2 c's in arctic...for some reason I always thought of it as artic....who'd of thunk it....

Arctic Ice pack is melting at approximately 54,000 square kilometers a day as the world warms. It's an area almost equal to the State of West Virginia and that is in just one day.

Why haven't we seen this headline? Possibly because when journalists check it's the average rate of summer melt as the ice decreases from winter maximum of 14 million square km² in April toward a minimum of 4.5 million km² in September. Few people know this much ice melts every summer, but they don't a similar amount of ice forms every winter.

Accurate measures of Arctic ice began in 1978 with the launch of NASA's Nimbus-7 satellite. It took a couple of years to sort out the data so the data set properly begins in 1980. Over that time the winter extent has not varied much, but until the last few years the summer extent was declining. It reached a minimum in September 2005.

This triggered scary headlines. BBC correspondent Richard Black said "Arctic ice 'disappearing quickly." Black had a history of perpetuating the alarmism promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its major authors at the Climatic research Unit (CRU). He was the gang's contact, as a 12 October 2009 email from Michael Mann notes. It is part of the discussion about Kevin Trenberth's infamous comment. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

They were upset about an article by BBC employee Paul Hudson wondering why cold temperatures were occurring globally. Mann wrote, "extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). From what I can tell, this guy (Paul Hudson) was formerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?" Hudson received the first set of leaked emails, but sat on them for five weeks. Apparently frustrated with Copenhagen looming, the whistleblower sent them to a Russian IPO in November of 2009.

Many people recognized actions and behaviors outside the normal; few understood the extent of deception and manipulation. Mann's comments may be inferred to indicate there's the initial deception built in to the entire process of climate science practiced by the IPCC and CRU. Then there were deliberate counterattacks with more deception and misleading information, orchestrated through RealClimate.

Compliant media amplified and distorted, government departments were complicit, as were the multitude of researchers receiving government funding to prove the hypothesis. Most were ignorant of the facts or the historical context of melting ice, sea level rise or most other natural phenomenon.

Results of ice extent in 2005 created more sensational speculations. Champion alarmist Seth Borenstein headlined in 2007, "Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years." Borenstein adds credibility by quoting NASA scientist Jay Zwally. "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." James Hansen, identified as, "the lone-wolf researcher often called the godfather of global warming" says we have hit a "tipping point". The story is without balance. Not a single dissenting opinion is provided.

Borenstein's sensationalism was matched by BBC reporter Jonathan Amos under his headline " Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013." He quotes Naval Postgraduate School Professor, Wieslaw Maslowski. "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007, so given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." Maybe Borenstein and Amos should ask the scientists about their predictions. How and why were they so wrong?

Claims that an area the size of West Virginia melted today is accurate but out of historical context. Similarly, they took the trend from 1980 out of context. They assumed the decrease in summer ice extent would continue. Maslowski acknowledged they took the maximum decrease they could determine. It is terrible science and completely indefensible. What was the ice extent in the 1930s when it was warmer than today? What happened during the Medieval Warm Period? Average rate of daily summer melt is an area the size of West Virginia. The world is warming because it is summer. The headline is only sensational if you don't know the facts or the context and that, combined with natural fears, is what they exploit.

 

[rahli]

science aside, what i fail to understand is why anyone would WANT climate change not to be real. i mean it's obvious that the deniers don't want it to be true...otherwise what reason do they have to get so worked up about it? why bother going to all the effort to disprove something that isn't so implausible?

 

Some folk are ideologically opposed to other folk telling them what is best for them. And will even go so far as preferring to die in their own greed and filth.

Other folk take great pride in their life long efforts to harness the natural environment through world building engineering feats and refuse to acknowledge that their efforts may in the long run be responsible for the loss of control (habitability) of the natural world, with the natural sciences, which they don't fully comprehend, then required to take the baton to continue the race. Maybe they can take pride in the fact that the baton will have to go back to the engineers once a sustainable direction has been negotiated through science and god help us all, politics. That is if these folk are alive long enough to see it happen, considering many are doing all they can to die knowing they were right in their life works after all. What else matters??

These are the biggest issues in climate policy. Not understanding the climate science but understanding those who will do everything in their power to maintain their power. Even if it be only in their own heads. The media must also come on board and stop using words like blame, instead use words like responsible. Its a real shame that the word blame fits so much better on the front page of the news paper.

[qualia]

"loonie greens" - lol

[WoodDragon]

Alchemica.

That Harris and Mann graph is complete fabricated fantasy, as your edit indicates. There is no scientifically-derived dataset to support it, and I challenge anyone to find one. The real temperature trends for a similar time span look like this:

and the original source data are clearly linked to, here, so that anyone can corroborate it for themselves.

Importantly, when looking at the graph above, one should remember that the 2004 value has since been exceeded a number of times, and last year the anomaly was 0.63 C - which is off the graph above.

If anyone want to see the temperature record over varying scales of time, this Wikipedia summary is a good one.

Another discussion of Harris and Mann here, for the morbidly curious. Note how some fundie Xians dropped in to comment with completely science-free faff.

I have no idea what numbers Harris and Mann used to fabricate their graph, but if they didn't just make it up I suspect that they chose an un-named local Holocene temperature reconstruction, or more likely that they took parts of several local reconstructions and pieced the bits together. Local reconstructions, being confined to only one site, exhibit far greater swings than global averages. However they did it, they are deliberately and mendaciously lying, and given that they are supposed to be Christians they are complete hypocrites too. Either that, or they're so certifiably deluded that they should probably be medicated.

Whichever is the case, they are certainly not competent climatologists, nor indeed climatologists at all, and the fact that people apparently pay for their 'weather forecasting' services shows that there really is one born every minute. They do illustrate one thing though - that any idiot with Excel might draw a graph and spread nonsense around the internet, that then necessitates experienced people going around with a pooper-scooper to clean up after said idiots. Sadly, as Mark Twain apparently said, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes"...

[WoodDragon]

Hutch, I've previously refuted your penchant for regurgitating the quote from Trenberth's stolen email. As you seem to be particularly hard of learning, you might try again to avail yourself of truth, and read this explanation, or you might actually do some proper investigation of your own and find some first-hand accounting and data-based context.

As for the West Virginia references, that is another media distraction. It's not science - get it? Those tabloid sort of comparisons are an attempt to make changes in ice cover real in people's minds, and to sensationalise the subject matter when there are no other ways to get lay people to think carefully about the stuff. What matters is the overall trajectory of Arctic sea ice loss, and that loss has been inexorable since the mid 1960s:

If you can't interpret the graph above because it depicts anomaly, then this one might help you:

Again, the steady decrease is clear, even with the overlying 'noise' of random short-term fluctuations such as the North Atlantic Oscillation.

As to the focus of your quoted piece on predictions of ice-free Arctic Sea by 2013, that again is a cherry-picking of silly sensationalist babble. If you were familiar with the scientific discussion of this matter, you'd know that the predictions vary from the 2030s to the 2050s. But make no mistake: if humans do not quickly and significantly reduce their carbon emissions, the planet will warm sufficiently to melt the summer Arctic sea ice, and if the planet reaches that stage of warming then all bets are off for a cosy future for our species.

The changes in the Arctic are a great preoccupation to many people who have no mere academic interest in the science. Listen to Admiral David Titley, Chief Oceanographer and Navigator of the US Navy. The US Navy is extremely concerned about the security implications of warming, from many perspectives. Listen to what Titley says, and then come back and tell us why you are better informed, or smarter than he is, when it comes to Arctic sea ice, or indeed to any of the science related to global warming.

Need more sea ice explanation? You should watch this, which I have drawn to your attention several times before. Seriously, watch it. Listen again to Titley, who is adamant about the trajectory of sea ice. Why would people such as he, who have no vested interest in promoting what you say is a fraud, support the consensus of climatology?

Are the facts in these videos wrong? If so, please give times stamps for anything you disagree with, and provide the evidence that contradicts it. I would be surprised if you can come up with even a single thing.

Dude, if you really believe the likes of Watts and Bolt, you're being suckered big time. Their job is to pull the wool over the eyes of people like you, and they do it well. Doesn't it concern you in the least that every time their claims are cross-checked, they fall to pieces like the houses of cards that they are? For another example of the crap that so-called 'sceptics' push, watch this video on CO2 and temperature, and tell me that the denialists are right and that scientists are wrong.

Hutch, take a look at yourself. You're happy to yell about how climatology is "a SCAY-UM, I tells ya, a SCAY-UM!", but when pushed to justify what you say all you do is pout and spit the dummy and provide staw-man links and cartoons, and never any actual data or other scientifically-evidenced case to support your claims.

What do you think that indicates?