Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Emperor's Prize, Jul 23, 2013.
I don't see anyone arguing over the existence of the "hiatus". The contention, from my perspective, are gturner's sweeping, generalized, unscientific and factually incorrect statements such as: "the Earth's temperature is lower than when the new crop of drivers on the highway was born" and "According to the IPCC AR5 report, the Earth's temperature hasn't warmed in about 17.5 years." The very IPCC report gturner references shows that these are simply not true.
Look, it's not as if there were a post that stated, "Don't forget the "hiatus" in the rise of global temperatures which, while the earth's temperature did continue to rise to highest levels in centuries, it did rise at a slower pace than the decade preceding the previous fifteen years. Of course, there are potential mitigating factors for this hiatus, including volcanic eruptions, lower solar output, and missing temperature data from the arctic regions - which we know are warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world - but this new set of data warrants both a closer scrutiny of current climate models and a closer scrutiny of further temperature data."
That, at least, would have been a scientific and rational post. But that's not what gturner posted. Instead, we got sensationalized or misrepresented data that ignores the scientific response to that data, as well as the overwhelming alread-accepted scientific evidence.
These posts follow the trend of making sweeping statements that are either untrue, misinformed, or misrepresentative of facts, scientific and otherwise.
There's no substantiation for the assertion that the SPM "does not come from scientists." In fact it does.
And the SPM is not an "unsupportable claptrap ... which has virtually no connection to the output of the climatologists conclusions therein." The language in the SPM is strikingly similar to that from the Technical Summary:
And each of those summary points is supported, in the SPM, by the scientific data expanded upon within the TS.
This is why I went with the SPM in the first place - to provide more concise (yet still scientifically supported statements) within the context of the discussion.
And finally, the two cited sources include contributors from the "Key Economic Sectors and Services" and "International Cooperation: Agreements and Instruments" and focused almost exclusively on his area of expertise, "My focus in this letter is exclusively on one section of the SPM, namely SPM.5.2, International Cooperation. I am not representing nor referring to any other parts of the SPM."
So while this doesn't discredit the notion that a large conference of people would be rife with debate, infighting, and special interests, it's worth noting that neither source objects to the fundamental science behind the report - the science which supports the conclusions in the SPM (which is, as seen above, is reflective the content in the TS). Furthermore, gturner's post also ignores the overwhelming fact that that vast majority of scientists that contributed to the AR5 did not resign in protest.
Provide references to justify your hysteria.
...and please show with references, charts, excel spreadsheets, etc of just how the IPCC uses the "Scientific Method".
The only "reluctance" I see is that the technology isn't quite there yet and the stuff that works cost too damn much.
Folks can't be naive enough to think folks are just going to sit around and say "no more coal" or burning gas/diesel has to stop because of... This is a liveliyhood thing.
The sky isn't falling... it's that simple. No matter how many movies are made.
We ARE talking about the standard of living for billions here.
Changes like this take generations and the cost of that global change should NOT be shouldered by the good ole USA.
So when the technology is affordable and functional, it will happen. Not before. the government should promote new technoligies (research etc), but they should stay out of the market. The current administration has proven that isn't going to work.
Companies like Tesla are what is needed to lead this change.
You don't see why because you're coming from a place of logic and accepting factual data as reality. Climate change denial is all about protecting the interests of a very rich and politically powerful minority who have successfully politicized the issue enough that they get ordinary people of the same ideological persuasion to drink their kool-aid to their own eventual detriment.
So you're saying you got nothing. OK then.
You're right, of course -- it's all about the rich oligarchs spending tons of money to twist the facts and mislead people in order to hold onto power, just like they've always done. But they're being shortsighted by clinging to the status quo. Lots of companies have found there's plenty of profit to be made in investing in green technologies and devising new solutions. And of course investing in the continued survival and prosperity of human civilization is more profitable in the long term, while clinging to an unsustainable present lifestyle isn't going to last. The rich and powerful may be protecting their own interests, but don't they care about their children, the endurance of their dynasties?
There was a time when monarchs invested their power and resources in creating things that would preserve their dynasties and their reputations for generations to come, like pyramids and cathedrals. They were as concerned with the future as they were with the present. If the rich and powerful directed their resources toward saving the world rather than letting it burn, it would benefit them more in the long run, give them a legacy they could pass on to their heirs, as well as being a monument that would endure through the ages. So ultimately those corporate oligarchs are working against their own best interests by spending so much money on denialist propaganda and preserving the status quo. They're foolish not to recognize that.
I'm not going to read 824 pages and then say I "got something".
I've provided referenced rebuttle... if that's not good enough, then fine.
Actually, you provided a link to Anthony Watts' blog, and he is far from an unbiased (much less peer-reviewed) source.
...and the article I posted is referenced... read the comments below the article if you doubt it's contents...
Don't know what to tell you.
It's true and we really can't tell other countries that they can't have what we currently have because it will wreck the planet. Especially when we've been doing it for decades and continue to do so. Even here, people aren't going to change the way they live.
It's affordable now, it's just that oil is cheap. As long as it remains that way, nothing will ever be done. If oil got too expensive to extract and refine, we'd be driving electric cars in a year. Especially if they could find a way to make a profit off charging them.
Off topic (although this thread is all over the yard), but what are you considering for your house? I've been looking into a lighting system that during the day uses sunlight to light rooms. It's almost like a big fiber optic system. It looked interesting.
I was watching a Vice documentary on climate change. If we were to stop 100% of all activity that is contributing to climate change, it would take a few centuries to recover at this point. The sad fact is that it is already too late to stop it and we're just going to have to deal with it now. The poor and people in third world countries are going to face the worst of it which is really a tragedy because they have contributed the least to the problem. Hopefully we can try to reduce some of the effects, but it would help that people actually understand that there really is a problem and we need to be ready for it.
I wouldn't bet on that. The larger a country, the greater the effects will be. Russia, North America, China, those are incredibly large land masses with long coast lines that are going to be affected big time. And as stated before, Sahara could be going green, great opportunity for African nations.
From the IPCC AR5 report:
The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) [is] 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade)which is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012) [of] 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade. --- IPCC AR5.
What that means is that temperatures might be 0.075 degrees lower than it was 15 years ago, or it might be 0.225 degrees higher, or it might be somewhere in between, based on rough trends. Notice that the mid-range value (0.05C) is much less than the error bar of 0.2 degrees C.
Going by HadCRUT CRUTEM4, 1998 had a temperature anomaly of 0.835 C, while so far 2014 has an anomaly of 0.762 C (2013 was 0.791), and the people born in 1998 are turning 16 and hitting our highways - on a planet that's cooler than when they were born.
Another cherry-picking post, using only one set of data to ignore all other data and make a scientifically false statement.
It's a shame because the first part of the post was an accurate description of the data - namely that data sets aren't in 100% agreement but the aggregate of those data sets shows a continued increase. But by focusing on only one data set and ignoring the conclusions of your own source (that the combined data represent a 0.05C increase), as well as ignoring some of the subsequent scientific alterations to the data (including missing arctic data which places the increase at 0.12C, for example) your post is simply more of the same sensationalist misrepresentation.
You're just babbling.
CRUTEM is the data set built by the people of Climategate fame. I'm picking that data set because it would be the one dearest to a warmist's heart, even though it's not going to show much significant difference from the dataset maintained by the NCDC in Asheville, NASA GISS, or any other data set, because they all use the same set of inputs. Pick a data set, any data set, and I'll be able to make the same point, with a slight difference in the second or third significant digits.
The IPCC AR5 data doesn't say that this year might be warmer than 1998, because it isn't. Their estimates of the temperature rise are based on curve fitting, end points, and other mathematical measures to try and extract a signal from the noisy year-to-year variations. You don't pick two random points on a sine wave or audio waveform and use the slope between the two points as a measure of an underlying linear phenomenon without doing a whole bunch more math, with curve fitting and regression and a ton of other tools. Since the waveform sample is necessarily pretty short, you get pretty big error bars no matter what technique you use, yet you can definitively say that, based on the data, a given year is hotter or cooler than 1998, at least at the points sampled, at the times those samples were taken.
Talk about a babbling post.
The IPCC (and science, in general) is not like the Bible. One can't simply pick and choose which passages (or findings) to quote, while ignoring the others. Yet again, your post ignores (or marginalizes) the accumulation of multiple data sets and mitigating factors, cited in your repeatedly offered IPCC report, which find that, yes, there is a continuing (albeit reduced) warming trend. And, too, your post further ignores the other scientific conclusions explaining the reduced rate of warming.
Um, then how do climatologists pick which findings to cite, while ignoring others? And what multiple data sets am I ignoring? I've mentioned CRUTEM from the Hadley Center at East Anglia, the National Climactic Data Center (NCDC), and NASA GISS. I could've mentioned the Berkley Earth dataset, but didn't. Is there some set of magic data sets that only you know about? Please share if so. If there was any data set that didn't show the pause, alarmist climatologists would be posting it all over the Internet, so it should be easy for you to find.
Please also share the conclusion that explain the reduced rate of warming, because I'd like to be the first to offer those up to the community of climatologists, since at this point they only have conjectures and a few hypotheses, some of which are mutually exclusive, and none of which has much if any actually supporting data as yet, which is why they keep offering up new ideas as to the cause of the pause, even as we speak. There are many things that could potentially cause such an event, but no conclusion has been reached.
As some top climatologists have pointed out, some of the conjectures that the warming is being masked by natural variations also mean that if natural variations are that large, then they could also be responsible for the bulk of the warming during the previous two decades, so some of the explanations are also a poison pill for the global warming movement.
One of the more obvious explanations for the pause is that the global temperature goes up when El-Ninos are dominant over La-Ninas, goes down when La-Ninas are dominant, and holds steady when they're about equally matched. Since 1998 they've been equally matched, as they were shortly after the 1940's. Problem solved.
And yet again, we have post that ignores the vast majority of evidence ... all of which has already been presented to you and anyone else reading the thread. And since this data clearly indicates overwhelming evidence for global warming over the period of centuries, any fluctuations of decades, is hardly enough to refute these conclusions - much less offer a "poison pill" for global warming (especially considering the fluctuations still demonstrate ongoing warming).
Look, it's pretty clear to anyone who wants to objectively view the entire set of data, that global warming is real and it's happening right now. Whether or not your posts engage with this reality is not something I can't control. And, unfortunately, it's pretty obvious what kind of pattern your posts present: make sweeping, sensationalist, often factually erroneous statements and, when pressed, offer only minimal support that ignores the rest of the data.
That's clearly not science. Your posts are, however, welcome to join the legitimate scientific discussion ... whenever they objectively represent the totality of data, evidence and scientific conclusions.
Separate names with a comma.