Climate science arrogance

Here, do some reading by real scientists instead of a cartoonists propaganda website.

Results: http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/aps-curry.pdf

Transcript: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf

Highlights:

 

LOLOLOLOL.......so the American Institute of Physics is now, in your confused little brain, "a cartoonists propaganda website"? LOLOLOLOL.

Did you read Dr. Spencer Weart's article? Of course not. You've closed your mind to the actual science and fallen for the lies and propaganda of the fossil fuel industry. Accurate information about this subject would blow your mind and undermine your precious but fallacious denier cult myths.

Judith Curry is one of the handful or so of actual scientists who are in the denier camp. The rest of the climate science community considers her positions to be really shoddy, unsupported-by-the-data science.

You cite a 573 page pdf. from a meeting of the American Physical Society's CLIMATE CHANGE STATEMENT REVIEW WORKSHOP where they took testimony from a panel of (supposedly) expert witnesses, which included Curry and several other deniers, like John Christy and Richard Lindzen. 573 pages and you didn't specify what parts of it you thought supported your ignorant, anti-science denier cult myths. In reality, that document doesn't support your denial because there are several actual experts who told the truth about the state of the science. Regardless of what misinformation and BS the deniers added to that meeting, the actual position of the APS is this:

National Policy 07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE
American Physical Society
(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.


Climate Change Commentary
(adopted by Council on April 18, 2010)

There is a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research to support the technical aspects of the 2007 APS statement. The purpose of the following commentary is to provide clarification and additional details.

The first sentence of the APS statement is broadly supported by observational data, physical principles, and global climate models. Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite. The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor. The third sentence notes various examples of human contributions to greenhouses gases. There are, of course, natural sources as well.

The evidence for global temperature rise over the last century is compelling. However, the word "incontrovertible" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2007 APS statement is rarely used in science because by its very nature science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century. (Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)

The first sentence in the third paragraph states that without mitigating actions significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and health are likely. Such predicted disruptions are based on direct measurements (e.g., ocean acidification, rising sea levels, etc.), on the study of past climate change phenomena, and on climate models. Climate models calculate the effects of natural and anthropogenic changes on the ecosphere, such as doubling of the CO2-equivalent [1] concentration relative to its pre-industrial value by the year 2100. These models have uncertainties associated with radiative response functions, especially clouds and water vapor. However, the models show that water vapor has a net positive feedback effect (in addition to CO2 and other gases) on global temperatures. The impact of clouds is less certain because of their dual role as scatterers of incoming solar radiation and as greenhouse contributors. The uncertainty in the net effect of human activity on climate is reflected in the broad distribution of the predicted magnitude of the consequence of doubling of the CO2-equivalent concentration. The uncertainty in the estimates from various climate models for doubling CO2-equivalent concentration is in the range of 1°C to 3°C with the probability distributions having long tails out to much larger temperature changes.

The second sentence in the third paragraph articulates an immediate policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to deal with the possible catastrophic outcomes that could accompany large global temperature increases. Even with the uncertainties in the models, it is increasingly difficult to rule out that non-negligible increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2. Thus given the significant risks associated with global climate change, prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now while continuing to improve the observational data and the model predictions.

The fourth paragraph, first sentence, recommends an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on Earth's climate. This sentence should be interpreted broadly and more specifically: an enhanced effort is needed to understand both anthropogenic processes and the natural cycles that affect the Earth's climate. Improving the scientific understanding of all climate feedbacks is critical to reducing the uncertainty in modeling the consequences of doubling the CO2-equivalent concentration. In addition, more extensive and more accurate scientific measurements are needed to test the validity of climate models to increase confidence in their projections.

With regard to the last sentence of the APS statement, the role of physicists is not just "...to support policies and actions..." but also to participate actively in the research itself. Physicists can contribute in significant ways to understanding the physical processes underlying climate and to developing technological options for addressing and mitigating climate change.*

[1] The concentration of CO2 that would give the same amount of radiative impact as a given mixture of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, etc.). The models sum the radiative effects of all trace gases and treat the total as if it comes from an "equivalent" CO2 concentration. The calculation for all gases other than CO2 takes into account only increments relative to their pre-industrial values, so that the pre-industrial effect for CO2 and CO2-equivalent are the same.

* In February 2012, per normal APS process, the Panel on Public Affairs recommended four minor copy edits so that the identification of sentences and paragraphs correspond to the 2007 APS Climate Change Statement above. View the copy edits.

 

You don't seem to be very with it. I never said such thing but much of what the true believers post here comes from the cartoonists website, the very un Skeptical Science.

You are also not very aware of what went on around the APS statement and why they had to add an addendum and why they are coming out with a new statement. BTW, the APS sponsored the workshop I linked to.

Judith Curry is labeled a "denier" by ignorant true believers because she is an actual climatologist that has not climbed on the CAGW bandwagon and not a media whore like Hansen, who is not even an atmospheric scientist or the Communications Fellow and cartoonist John Cook of Skeptical Science.

Here is a link to the bios of the work shop attendees. Not that you read much of anything. http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-bios.pdf

Did you read any of the links? Of course not. You've closed your mind to the actual science and fallen for the lies and propaganda.

 

You don't seem to have any comprehension of the issues or the facts regarding AGW/CC. You're too full of misinformation and lying propaganda to have any room for the truth of the matter.

A lot of good sound science, from the major peer reviewed science journals, that debunks the denier cult lies and pseudo-science, can indeed be found at the Skeptical Science website. Your pathetic attempt to denigrate John Cook as just a "cartoonist" is typical of the denier cult smear attacks on climate scientists who report the truth about our predicament. Here's some accurate info that your cult wants to deny.

About Skeptical Science

The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.

About the author
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

You've been misled about the significance of that "workshop". It's obvious that you did not actually read it. The document does not support your denier cult positions as you have been fooled into imagining that it does by the denier cult propagandists on the denier cult blog that you C&P'd that excerpt from.

If and when the APS updates their position statement on global warming and climate change, it will very likely be to strengthen their attribution of the warming to mankind and to even more urgently urge the world to take action to deal with this crisis.

Judith Curry is labeled a denier by almost all of the other climate scientists because she is a denier of the scientific conclusions that the vast majority of climate scientists have reached based on the preponderance of evidence and the laws of physics. Her scientific work is suspect and not well respected by her peers. She has not managed to publish anything that actually refutes the scientific research and conclusions that are accepted by 97% of the world climate science community.

Unless the APS actually changes their position statement, all of your nonsense about this is just more denier cult hot air. You are the one who has fallen for the lies and propaganda generated by the fossil fuel industry in their attempt to ward off restrictions on carbon emissions, dude. I accept and trust the almost unanimous testimony of the world climate science community, which is based on decades of intensive research by tens of thousands of scientists all around the world, and which only insane people would label "lies and propaganda".

 

Guess that is why she is a guest speaker at APS and currently worked on the APS new statement, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee, member of the NOAA Climate Working Group, former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group, former professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder and has held faculty positions at Penn State University, Purdue, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison then eh?

 

We contribute a minuscule amount of CO2 to the total atmospheric CO2. It is a harmless gas that we need. Without it, we would be gone.

 

Does replying to posts in large, bold font get your point across better?

 

COLD SHOULDER: ABC, CBS Exclude Scientists Critical of Global Warming for More Than 1,300 Days:

Like a simple parlor trick, the networks are able to make skeptical scientists vanish, at least from the eyes of their viewers.

In some cases, the broadcast networks have failed to include such scientists for years, while including alarmist scientists within the past six months. ABC, CBS and NBC’s lengthy omission of scientists critical of global warming alarmism propped up the myth of a scientific consensus, despite the fact that many scientists and thousands of peer-reviewed studies disagree.

Neither CBS nor ABC have included a skeptical scientist in their news shows within the past 1,300 days, but both networks included alarmists within the past 160 days -- CBS as recently as 22 days ago. When the networks did include other viewpoints, the experts were dismissed as “out of the scientific mainstream” or backed by “oil and coal companies.”

More...

 

Your ignorance is astonishing, although not too surprising in a denier cultist.

Mankind is currently adding about 30 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. "Miniscule"??? LOLOLOL.

Mankind's activities have increased CO2 levels by about 42% so far over the pre-industrial levels that had stayed constant for the last ten thousand years. "Miniscule"??? LOLOLOL.

CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and these increased levels of it are causing the Earth to heat up and that extra heat is causing previously stable climate patterns to change.

You anti-science denier cultists are sooooo confused and misinformed.

 

That is the hypothesis, you do know it is an unproven hypothesis don't you?

 

And justifiably so. There is no need to balance truth with falsehood.

 

You mean there is no reason to balance the Meme with other facts, which of course, is not science.

 

LOLOL. Apparently, most of what you think you "know" is just plain wrong.

The scientific Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is a solidly established scientific Theory, not a "hypothesis". You obviously don't know enough about science to comprehend the difference between the two.

Hypothesis vs Theory

Hypothesis

*A hypothesis is a possible (tentative) scientific explanation or prediction of an observation or set of observations.

*In general, a hypothesis is based on a rather limited set of data.

*A hypothesis must be testable through a scientific investigation.

*Observations gathered during investigations provide evidence that either support or do not support hypotheses. If evidence supports the hypothesis, the hypothesis is said to be valid.

*Usually one or more scientists working together make hypotheses.

Theory

* A theory is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. A theory is used to explain many different hypotheses about the same phenomenon or a closely related class of phenomena.

* Scientific theories are well-established and highly-reliable explanations that have been verified multiple times by repeated testing and have a great deal of empirical evidence that confirm them as valid.
Scientific theories are capable of being tested by many different scientists working independently of each other.

* A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Theories can be disproven.

 

And it's been over 50 years since ABC and CBS has excluded scientists who believe the earth is flat.

 

Real simple question, are you a physist, scientist, mathematician, engineer working to collect the information on the charts and graphs you love to pop up here? Are you knowledgeable in the forcing, the wavelengths, etc..? Or are you merely going to a site and copying and pasting someone else's data? If so, then you are merely at the mercy of the individual. Me I've been reading blogs by scientists, biologists, mathematicians and seeing how the minipulation is occurring. But hey, watch out for that unicorn.

 

And if only you would start reading real scientific papers written by real scientists, you might learn something.

Might.

Meanwhile, you still cannot explain even the simplest observations, such as the fact that the Earth's surface, on average, is about 30°C warmer than the Moon's surface, on average -- even though Earth and Moon are the same distance from the Sun and get the same solar radiation.

The rest of us learned that one in sixth grade. But maybe you were sick that day.

 

Me??? I am a nurse - so I have no iron in this fire. No reason to want to uphold some vast conspiracy. But I have been studying climate science for 16 years now and this much I can absolutely aver

The scientist have it right - Co2 is rising and the world is warming which is making the climate change

 

So how do you know the scientists you follow have it right? You do know they have been challenged by other scientists now. So you the nurse, you're just convinced they're right. You need no proof to alter your lifestyle eh? Well, sorry, for me I need evidence and none is available today. Just to remind you, no matter your thought, correlation does not mean cause.

 

Blah, blah, blah. Again, you failed to provide the evidence to your story that an increase of CO2 will directly affect temperature. BTW, using the moon is a very bad attempt at some point here. The moon has no atmoshpere to speak of. It also has very little gravitational pull.

 

Climate has always changed throughout the Earth's history. There is nothing that is so "unstable" today that warrants an alarmist attitude. Humans are becoming more and more conscious of the environment, and adapting, in order to improve our air quality. The climate will still change no matter what we do. We could drop our CO2 output to zero, and the climate will still eventually change. There is enough skepticism among scientists and climatologists to say that AWG is not settled science.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no need to be an alarmist with so much skepticism for this unsettled science.

 

You see, it was once "settled" that the Earth was flat. Of course, there were many skeptics, who turned out to be correct. With this much skepticism for AWG, it is most certainly not settled science.

 

OF course they have been challenged - that is what science DOES. The fact that they have risen to the challenge and shown that they are correct is even more convincing - you want an example of that? Try the "BEST" study http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings?/study/

I have read more research papers than I can count - reviewed more denialist websites than I can count and still am convinced it is happening - what have you done to research the topic?

- - - Updated - - -

OF course they have been challenged - that is what science DOES. The fact that they have risen to the challenge and shown that they are correct is even more convincing - you want an example of that? Try the "BEST" study http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings?/study/

I have read more research papers than I can count - reviewed more denialist websites than I can count and still am convinced it is happening - what have you done to research the topic?

- - - Updated - - -

OF course they have been challenged - that is what science DOES. The fact that they have risen to the challenge and shown that they are correct is even more convincing - you want an example of that? Try the "BEST" study http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings?/study/

I have read more research papers than I can count - reviewed more denialist websites than I can count and still am convinced it is happening - what have you done to research the topic?

 

The only sceptics are those being paid by Murdoch and his ilk to spread (*)(*)(*)(*)e disguised as "news" i.e. Faux news

The denialists rabbit on about how there is some grand conspiracy by scientists to make money for themselves and ignore the business interests of big oil, coal industry and of course right wing media owners like Murdoch - who apart from lining their own pockets with increase in sales that any argument will generate (witness how many scientific disagreements" they run - it sells) also want to increase stock portfolios and returns in these fossil fuel industry
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...16/climate-change-contrarians-5-stages-denial

- - - Updated - - -

Climate - like underwear does not change by itself - it needs a something to make it change.

 

An interesting read about Cook the cartoonists behind the scenes shenanigans.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/b...n-and-skepticalscience-well-orchestrated.html

- - - Updated - - -

You are only making yourself look foolish with your advocacy and misinformation.

 

you've just described the process for cc and agw...it was once settled the earth was always the same temp, then it was settled man could not change the climate very, very, very, few dared to suggest otherwise...

150 yrs later only a handful of flat earth types hold out against the near unanimous accepted scientific conclusions of cc and agw...