Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Greylock Crescent]

According to the IPCC AR5 report,

The mistake the IPCC made

So ... one post uses the IPCC AR5 as a creditable source, and after that source is shown discrediting your assertion, your next post seeks to discredit that source?

Contradictory statements like those are hardly useful in any rational or scientific discussion.

And the pause is discussed in The Economist, desperately at The UK Independent, at LiveScience, and by Judith Curry, who addressed it in a recent meeting of the American Physical Society, saying:

For the past 15+ years, there has been no increase in global average surface temperature

Yes, let's look at that, shall we. The "No increase in global average surface temperature" is false (0.05C is not zero). Therefore, your last source is either unreliable or hyperbolic.

Your first and second source, in addition to providing mitigating factors, actually refute the whole notion of a "pause" to begin with, by factoring in warming at the polar regions:

An alternative way of looking at the pause’s significance was to say that there had been a slowdown but not a big one. Most records, including one of the best known (kept by Britain’s Meteorological Office), do not include measurements from the Arctic, which has been warming faster than anywhere else in the world. Using satellite data to fill in the missing Arctic numbers, Kevin Cowtan of the University of York, in Britain, and Robert Way of the University of Ottawa, in Canada, put the overall rate of global warming at 0.12°C a decade between 1998 and 2012—not far from the 1990s rate. A study by NASA puts the “Arctic effect” over the same period somewhat lower, at 0.07°C a decade, but that is still not negligible.

It is also worth remembering that average warming is not the only measure of climate change. According to a study just published by Sonia Seneviratne of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, in Zurich, the number of hot days, the number of extremely hot days and the length of warm periods all increased during the pause (1998-2012). A more stable average temperature hides wider extremes.

"if these Arctic surface temperatures were included in global temperature estimates, then the average global increase went from 0.05C per decade to 0.12C per decade – effectively eliminating the “pause”."

And your third source says:

Considering the continued increase in greenhouse gases and their inexorable impact on the planet's energy balance, it is clear that the global-warming pause is just a snooze button and we will wake up to continued warming one of these days because greenhouse gases trap more of the sun's energy and it is either being stored in the ocean or being thrown back to space — and neither will continue ad infinitum

So two of your sources contradict your own assertion. A third does not accept your assertion as a valid sign that global warming is not happening. And your fourth begins with either a falsehood or hyperbolic statement.

Worse yet, is the unscientific reaction that loses the forest for the trees. Cherry picking a data set, misrepresenting that data "no warming in 15 years" (or 17.5, which was your first assertion), and ignoring or dismissing the subsequent scientific reaction to that data (your comments suddenly criticizing the IPCC and, by proxy, its fundamental scientific conclusions) are not rational contributions to scientific discussions.

Rest assured, as new data is obtained, it will be used to update the scientific conclusions accordingly. Just as has been done here. This does not dismiss the preponderance of evidence that global warming is not only real - it's already here.

 

[AgentCoop]

I've seen some truly ridiculous examples of Obama-bashing over the years, but I believe this is the first time I've ever encountered "I don't care for the content of this TV show...and it's all Obama's fault!!!"

Does this mean I can blame him for the finale of How I Met Your Mother?

 

[Yanks]

A very levelheaded look at the facts and the "scientific method" of anthropogenic climate change.

If you care for an objective view if the IPCC "science" then give it a read.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/17/crises-in-climatology/

If not, the sky is most certainly falling and we all are going to die.

I will refrain from further discussion on "climate change" or "global warming" in this thread.

It's really sad that a show called "COSMOS" conveys ideology in such a mannor that generates this type of discussion.

I don't believe Carl would approve.

 

[Yanks]

According to the IPCC AR5 report, the Earth's temperature hasn't warmed in about 17.5 years, despite the increase in CO2. Climatologists refer to this as "the pause"

you're still not showing me your evidence supported sources.

gturner may be reluctant to post supporting evidence because, if he were to do so, that evidence would demonstrate that his sweeping, poorly sourced statements, such as the one above, are utter falsehoods:

“Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis” presents clear and robust conclusions in a global assessment of climate change science—not the least of which is that the science now shows with 95 percent certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century. The report confirms that warming in the climate system is unequivocal, with many of the observed changes unprecedented over decades to millennia: warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, diminishing snow and ice, rising sea levels and increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.

These and other findings confirm and enhance our scientific understanding of the climate system and the role of greenhouse gas emissions; as such, the report demands the urgent attention of both policy makers and the general public.

That quote, by the way, is from the Foreward to the IPCC AR5 report, titled: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.

I've seen some truly ridiculous examples of Obama-bashing over the years, but I believe this is the first time I've ever encountered "I don't care for the content of this TV show...and it's all Obama's fault!!!"

Does this mean I can blame him for the finale of How I Met Your Mother?

Yes it does.

 

[davejames]

Rest assured, as new data is obtained, it will be used to update the scientific conclusions accordingly. Just as has been done here. This does not dismiss the preponderance of evidence that global warming is not only real - it's already here.

Exactly. It might be easy to nitpick one source of data here or there (as the deniers like to do), but the current assessment on global warming is based on a multitude of sources from hundreds of different scientists around the world. And after much research they've determined that the most likely explanation for what they see is CO2 emitted by humans.

Just like if you see a dead cat on the street, the most likely explanation is that it got hit by a freakin car. Not that someone dropped a box on it, or stomped on it, or shot it in the head. Lol.

Yeah maybe those other things could all logically be possible... but it would still be damn unlikely. And it seems to me that's the mistake the deniers continually make with their criticism.

 

[Amaris]

A very levelheaded look at the facts and the "scientific method" of anthropomorphic climate change.

If you care for an objective view if the IPCC "science" then give it a read.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/17/crises-in-climatology/

If not, the sky is most certainly falling and we all are going to die.

I will refrain from further discussion on "climate change" or "global warming" in this thread.

It's really sad that a show called "COSMOS" conveys ideolagy in such a mannor that generates this type of discussion.

I don't believe Carl would approve.

Anthropomorphic? Your climate takes on human traits?
That said, you just cited a blog that has no reference sources at all.

Do you even science?

 

[Squiggy]

It's really sad that a show called "COSMOS" conveys ideolagy in such a mannor that generates this type of discussion.

You mean science?

It's not supposed to be fair and balanced. Science doesn't give a toot if you believe in it or not. That's the great thing about science! It's true regardless what you think!


(It's hilarious that you made that comment a few posts after bringing up ACA. We all know what you were saying.)

 

[Christopher]

Like I've said, the original Cosmos was strongly political in its condemnation of nuclear proliferation and its emphatic secular humanism. Sagan was a committed liberal activist, and I'm sure the original Cosmos generated a lot of controversy in its day. Sagan was never afraid to court controversy or speak out on a political issue.

So complaining about Cosmos having a political or moral stance on current events or ideologies demonstrates a lack of familiarity with what Cosmos was all along. It's not about science as a detached, abstract thing irrelevant to everyday life -- it's about showing that science affects and shapes everything in our lives, that making responsible decisions about the world we live in requires understanding and using science, not denouncing or denying it.

 

[Squiggy]

As long as there's a party that tends to discount science, shows about science are going to be inherently politically biased.

 

[Amaris]

Watched an episode of this on my DVR this afternoon. The one about the age of the earth/leaded gasoline.

After watching the show I really enjoyed it somehow DIDN'T come out of it wanting to speak-out against the show, start a blog against it, or try and to have it removed from TV.

Why is this show so controversial, now?

Because some people want to be coddled. They want to be told that their uninformed and ignorant opinions are just as valid as scientific fact, and that's not happening here. Neil's not going on about Bigfoot, UFOs, or Psychics, he's talking about scientific discovery. Real scientific discovery.

I say we start some protest/feed back and have those religious shows that come on before the news on Sunday mornings start talking about science.

Because that's basically what's happening here, right? People are upset because this science show isn't showing their side of things?

That's it, yes. There are so many shows on television that purport to be about science, but are nothing more than opinion shows wrapped in a pseudo-scientific shell. They cater to the viewer, almost inviting them in to feel that their uninformed opinions are true.

 

[Awesome Possum]

It's funny how people who believe in bullshit think that they are freethinkers. It's almost like how people in a cult think that everyone else are idiots.

How wildly ironic, considering that I believe that the climate goes through countless natural and often catastrophic changes, based on the piles of geologic evidence, whereas you believe the climate is entirely driven by mankind's sin and greed, and that anyone who points to the actual data is a denier, a heretic, and probably and evil dirty Jew.

No, actually anyone who refuses to accept the available data because it doesn't agree with their politics is an idiot. I don't know why you had to drag the Jews into this, I doubt they've done anything to you.

I do like that you try to make absurd claims about what climate change actually is. That helps convince the people with room temperature IQs, but no one else. I thought you were better than that.

Random nonsense that isn't backed up.

I know, you wrote a lot of text. But I don't care because you refuse to post actual unbiased sources. Maybe it's because they don't exist, maybe you're just too lazy to bother or maybe you think that just making shit up is as good as peer reviewed evidence. I don't pretend to know how your mind operates and I really don't know.

You've made up your mind that climate change can't exist because you've bought into the bizarre mindset that science is wrong because it doesn't agree with your bullshit. Nothing will ever convince you, you're blind to reality. I pity you and hope that one day you can cut through the nonsense and see reality.

Maybe walls of text, mind games, claims that aren't based on evidence was enough to convince you that climate change isn't happening despite the evidence, the fact that scientists almost universally agree on it and the fact that governments and corporations are currently preparing themselves for the effects of it. But you'll need to try harder that what you're currently doing. It might work on the average Fox News viewer, but they can be tricked using a card that has "Turn card over for further instructions.." printed on both sides.

 

[gturner]

Um, I know you don't realize it, but climate scientists are the ones wrestling with the pause, which has gone on for 15 to 18 years, depending on what statistical starting point you use (due to some math that would no doubt be over your head). The importance of it is that such an event almost never occurred in any of the hundreds of model runs used by the IPCC and other organizations, and the divergence of the models from the real world indicates that the models run much too hot. Most climate scientists acknowledge this, and in two more years measured temperature will lie outside the range of all the models.

The reason scientists can both say there's been no warming, while pointing to things like a 0.04C per decade, is that the measured warming is far less than the error bars on the measurement. It might actually be less than zero, which the IPCC also acknowledges. As climate scientists have said, statistically it's no different than zero.

To put 0.04C per decade into perspective, even that is one third of the warming rate we experienced from 1910 to 1940, and one-sixth the warming rate from 1975 to 2000 (according to HadCRUT4 combined land and sea temperatures - here, where you can also see the downward trending blue line from 2000 or so till today). The IPCC had predicted up to 0.4C per decade, dialing that back in AR4 to 0.2C per decade for the next two decades. Now they have the pause, and the alarmists have bounced around the phrase "the pause is killing the cause."

The numerous ad-hoc explanations for the pause vary widely, from denying that there is such a pause, to claiming the heat is actually here but hiding in the deep ocean, to claims that it's due to aerosols from Chinese coal plants, to natural ENSO and NAO oscillations, many of which are discussed in AR5.

If you take the 0.04C as a benchmark and project it out for forty years (when even the young members here will be retiring), and convert it into a relative distance from the equator, it means that the young members will retire into the same climate that currently exists 15 miles south of where they presently live. Unless they think people 15 miles to their south are suffering horribly from heat stress, the rise can't be a rational worry.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I see a block of text, but nothing that supports what you are saying. I can pull a block of text out of my ass too, that doesn't make it become magically true because I believe in it.

Derp.

 

[Amaris]

I see a block of text, but nothing that supports what you are saying. I can pull a block of text out of my ass too, that doesn't make it become magically true because I believe in it.

Derp.

It is a good example of how pseudo-science, and partisan ideology, prevents proper application of the Scientific Method.

 

[Trekker4747]

There's no reason to not believe in Global Warming, there's plenty of evidence that the dinosaurs ruled over a very lush and tropical planet, something vastly different than what humans rule over today. The planet IS warming, we're still coming out of the last Ice Age, in fact. So Gobal Warming IS happening.

Now, is it happening naturally, is it man-made, or some combination or both? My vote is on the latter. The Earth is warming naturally coming out of the Ice Age and we're sort of speeding things along by dumping tons and tons of toxins in the air.

I mean you cannot honestly believe we can have a billion cars on this planet dumping billions of tons of pollutants into the air and it's causing no effect.

Here, take this:

There's 1 billion cars on the planet.

Cars in the US produce 1 million tons of CO2 a day.

(There are 250 million cars in the US alone. A quarter of cars in the world. Ergo, all of the cars on the planet produce 4 million tons of CO2 per day.)

There's around 400 billion trees.

One tree produces about 260 pounds of oxygen per year.

So, on this planet every day we have 1 billion cars producing 4 million tons of CO2. Yet people want to claim humans cannot have an impact on the environment.

During that same day 400 billion trees produce about 142 million tons of oxygen. (Enough to sustain all of life on earth.)

So, while cars alone are only providing 2% as much of a pollutant as trees are producing oxygen (and mind you, just calculating ONE pollutant produced by cars and cars alone) it's still a pretty significant fraction. That must be having *some* effect.

All on averages a single tree can convert 66 lbs of CO2 into O2 over the course of a year. This comes to 13.2 billion tons of CO2 converted over the course of a year by all of the trees in the world, or 36 million tons a day.

So, sure, again well over the pollution caused by cars but consider that every animal on the planet is dumping CO2 into the air, and there's more than just cars dumping CO2 into the air, there's factories and probably all sorts of other vehicles. And these numbers only work if we assume even distribution of both trees and polluters, which isn't the case. The CO2 producers are not int he same place as the CO2 consumers.

Humans have to be having an impact, however small, on the planet.

 

[JarodRussell]

And the body heat generated by 7 billion people and their pets and cattle!

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I see a block of text, but nothing that supports what you are saying. I can pull a block of text out of my ass too, that doesn't make it become magically true because I believe in it.

Derp.

It is a good example of how pseudo-science, and partisan ideology, prevents proper application of the Scientific Method.

Indeed. The missing element is that science is a self-correcting process, one that necessarily incorporates new data into its method to alter, enhance, and, when warranted, rewrite its conclusions. One doesn't just grab onto a new data set and proclaim it contradicts a preponderance of evidence and rigorously challenged and accepted conclusions ... without that new data set having gone through a similarly rigorous process. And to suggest that such a comparatively small, and incomplete! set of data would fundamentally alter preexisting conclusions would be a thoroughly unscientific and irrational statement.

ETA:

(due to some math that would no doubt be over your head).

Stay classy, gturner.

 

[JarodRussell]

Easy example. If the Bible was a collection of scientific works, it would be constantly updated to incorporate new findings and interpretations.

 

[gturner]

I see a block of text, but nothing that supports what you are saying. I can pull a block of text out of my ass too, that doesn't make it become magically true because I believe in it.

Derp.

It is a good example of how pseudo-science, and partisan ideology, prevents proper application of the Scientific Method.

Indeed. The missing element is that science is a self-correcting process, one that necessarily incorporates new data into its method to alter, enhance, and, when warranted, rewrite its conclusions. One doesn't just grab onto a new data set and proclaim it contradicts a preponderance of evidence and rigorously challenged and accepted conclusions ... without that new data set having gone through a similarly rigorous process. And to suggest that such a comparatively small, and incomplete! set of data would fundamentally alter preexisting conclusions would be a thoroughly unscientific and irrational statement.

And that's what the skeptics and climatologists are doing. The IPCC greatly lowered its estimate of climate sensitivity from AR4 to AR5 because of new data from multiple papers and multiple lines of inquiry that showed the Earth wasn't warming nearly like what was predicted. In fact, it seems to be behaving like the skeptics said it would.

Just last week Lennart Bengtsson, who had been director and head of research for the European Center for Mid-Range Weather Forecasting, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, director of the International Space Science Institute, who won the EU's Descartes prize for his studies of climate change in the Arctic, won the World Meteorological Organizations IMI price, and who has published 225 papers in the field, joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation. In an interview about joining he said:

I also respect individuals that speak their mind as they consider scientific truth (to that extent we can determine it) more important than to be politically correct. I believe it is important to express different views in an area that is potentially so important and complex and still insufficiently known as climate change.

My interest in climate science is strictly scientific and I very much regret the politicisation that has taken place in climate research. I believe most serious scientists are sceptics and are frustrated that we are not able to properly validate climate change simulations. I have always tried to follow the philosophy of Karl Popper.

He's also adamant that the science isn't settled, and that the projections are more faith than fact since the models fail validation, and observations keep indicating a low climate sensitivity.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Indeed. The missing element is that science is a self-correcting process, one that necessarily incorporates new data into its method to alter, enhance, and, when warranted, rewrite its conclusions. One doesn't just grab onto a new data set and proclaim it contradicts a preponderance of evidence and rigorously challenged and accepted conclusions ... without that new data set having gone through a similarly rigorous process. And to suggest that such a comparatively small, and incomplete! set of data would fundamentally alter preexisting conclusions would be a thoroughly unscientific and irrational statement.

And that's what the skeptics and climatologists are doing.
...
the projections are more faith than fact since the models fail validation, and observations keep indicating a low climate sensitivity.

Except, that's not what any of your posts in this thread were doing. They presented sweeping, hyperbolic, factually erroneous and unsourced statements. The notion that there is "more faith than fact ... and observations keep indicating a low climate sensitivity" in the current scientific conclusions is an example of one of those sweeping, hyperbolic, and factually erroneous statements. The overwhelming majority of observations support very high climate sensitivity to human-produced greenhouse emissions. And the current scientific consensus regarding the current effects of global warming are based on that overwhelming evidence. Statements that repeatedly ignore (or significantly marginalize) that overwhelming evidence, as your posts have done (and continue to do with this one), are scientifically unsound and irrational.