97% Climate Change Consensus Debunked

This "consensus" is about as credible as a NorK election.

 

Ah yes, I was waiting for this; 'It's been a cold winter therefore there's no global warming'. See, there's 'weather' and then there's 'climate'. People should learn to differentiate between the two. F'rinstance, some parts of India which seldom see anything like frost or snow recently experienced unusually low temperatures. Obviously an Ice Age is imminent...
Weather=short-term, variable local events.
Climate=established, long-term, regional trends. This is why we have weather forecasts and not climate forecasts on TV.

 

The world's governments, including that of the USA under Reagan, were concerned enough over man's contribution to the erosion of the ozone layer, that protocols were put in place and unanimously agreed upon in order to limit the production of man-made chemicals which were exacerbating the problem.The Montreal Protocol was the result.
Serious climatic deterioration could have occurred had nothing been done, including an exponential rise in the rate of skin cancers, damage to essential crop production and a dangerous effect on the aquatic food chain through exposure to unfiltered Uv radiation.
http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/MP_A_Success_in_the_making-E.pdf

 

So thirty years is climate eh? Should I repeat what you wrote? yeah. Ah yes, I was waiting for this; it's weather. hahaahahahahahahahahaaha

 

Thirty years is a microscopic blip, and you're still clueless as to what climate and weather constitute. Let me help you out; the Earth is divided into climatic zones-polar, temperate, desert, tropical etc. Within those zones local weather may or may not be variable, and with degrees of variability or severity, and with lapses into extremes of weather not usually associated with those regions. Thirty years of cold winters in a localized area well-known for cold winters is not an exceptional event. Western Europe, however, despite a few exceptionally cold winters, is experiencing wetter and milder winters as a long-term, measurable trend.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/25/climate-change-uk-weather-wet-dry-met-office

 

I am clueless eh? Then where is your evidence that shows 120PPM of CO2 drives climate. you have none. Me, I have actual temperature graphs that show that the last 16 years has been a hiatus. I also have records showing between 1940 and 1970 was cool. And you have models that predict falsely that temperatures were going up and that ice would be gone in the Arctic. Hmm...nope! So before you go popping your chest with your silly little fists, ask yourself one thing, who you crappin?

oh, I almost forgot, climate is weather over time anywhere. And, if it is a localized area known for cold, then to have climate change wouldn't that have to change? Dah? If the climate hasn't changed in Chicago over thirty years, then there hasn't been any climate change. You just wrote that. LOL.

 

Name the fallacy.

Yeah all except my degrees in computer science and computer engineering.

You are simply not getting it are you. The availability of resources limits the accuracy of the code. You cant write highly accurate code when your resources are limited. The FORTRAN code that these models are based on was written to run with the available resources of a 5MHz mainframe. It is written for efficiency not accuracy.

It is when its the same code. These models are very very old.

Yes it does. The system wasn't put in place to get an average global temperature. So it is not optimized for that purpose. The purpose of the majority of most of the older records was for pilots to calculate lift. Why do you think so many of them are at airports? The use of those records to create a global temperature reconstruction is post hoc.

The satellites however were designed and launched for the express purpose of calculating an average global temperature so they are far more advanced and far more accurate.

OMG NOAA says that 2005 and 2010 were the hottest years ever!!!
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

Satalites say nope not even close

Homeopathy involves chemistry, anatomy, biology, etc. etc. and there are even universities that give medical PhD Its a perfectly apt comparison.

I find it humorous that you claim the only reason they couldn't reach a consensus was because of these oil industry scientists with absolutely no evidence.

All scientists and and even non-scientists such as engineers are equipped to evaluate the legitimacy of any science.

You have no evidence to support that it is even an issue. I however has multitudes of e-mails showing prominent climate scientists engaging in witch hunts to destroy anyone who disagrees with them.

No it means to each his own taste. That is fine by me. However, dont try and impose your taste on my livelihood.

 

then why put forth such an ignorant argument?

That is simply not the case. The fortran of yesteryear is nothing like the fortran of today.
And the models used are not the antiques you seem to think they are.

An algorithm is an algorithm. A formula is a formula.

Sure, accuracy of x decimal places or the number of iterations a given piece of code can reasonably accomplish, or the amount of data that can be processed is based on processor speed and computing time. But the days of 125K memory are long gone and efficient code is not longer a critical critieria.

Nonsense. They have evolved as both the language and the hardware have.
I can't believe you are actually putting for such a ridiculous argument. the models ARE part of the science. They are not static and the people working on them are continually striving to improve and refine them.

Either you are trying hard to obfuscate, or you truly don't know what you are talking about.

Huh? how does one "optimize" a local temperature log to create an accurate average? this is spurious argument.

Are you suggesting that post hoc analysis of large data stores is not valid? you should instantly consult with Google, NSA, Facebook, et.al., since they are spending billions on data mining that according to you is worthless.

Of course they are more advanced and accurate. Can you quantify this improved level of accuracy?
Are you suggesting that scientists are not aware of this improvement in measurement and are deliberately ignoring it as an entire group in peer review?

Exactly what is that chart showing? While I have respect for amateur programmers building applications and blogging about them, I think I'll stick with professional peer reviewed data from NOAA and GISS and the like.

we aren't talking about homeopathy and you might think it apt, but I think it ridiculous.

I find it humorous that you ignore vested interests when convenient.

what a ridiculous statement.

while I agree scientists and engineers have basic analytical skills but in the absence of domain expertise, they do not have any particular or unique ability to ascertain the validity of an experimental regime nor its resulting data.

Perhaps you should examine the funding for denialist organizations. The poltical contributors to politicians who oppose any legislation to control carbon emissions.

Look up the definition of a proverb. It isn't used as a literal translation from the french.

My "taste" on your livelihood? how do you figure that one?

 

Its not ignornat at all you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about.

The ignorant statement is you assuming that they are new. The GISS source codes is free to read. Lots of code written in the 70s and 80s.

And what we are talking about is old code yet you insist its new because you dont know any better.

You assume a lot in that statement.

Either you are trying hard to obfuscate, or you truly don't know what you are talking about.

The answer is you don't. The local temperature records that make up the global average surface records were never intended to be used for a global average. Through most of the 20th century as all these weather stations were installed at airports pilots weren't at all concerned with accuracy to a tenth of a degree.

I'm saying that a post hoc analysis is inherently less accurate than one that was constructed priori. Especially when you see that the post hoc analysis is also extremely ad hoc. Ad hoc adjustments such as the bucket adjustment are down right laughable, not that you know what that is.

We can see that there is an improved accuracy of the satellite record of approximately 0.1-0.4C. And it has gotten consistently larger over time which means that the surface record has some inherent systemic error or systemic error built into the method that are getting worse over time.

Why do you think the GISS and CRU still exist when we have a satellite record? The GISS especially? Because they run hot and allow alarmists to ignore the satellite data.

Cant your read its right there in the key for you. Its the RSS satellite data from 1996 to present using a 12 month mean. I always love when forum libs try to argue climate science yet have no clue what the woodfortrees.org database is. If you don't know what the woodfortrees.org database is and how to reads its graphs then you are pretty poorly educated on the whole debate.

We are talking about science and pseudo-science.

I insist that the first thing you have to do is show something more than 'there may exist' argument.

Why do you you say that? The climate might be complicated but speaking as an engineer the degree that climate scientists simplify the climate makes their arguments dog (*)(*)(*)(*) simple. For educated people it isn't hard to follow at all.

And there is your degrees of separation argument. Same type of argument 911 turthers use to connect anyone they want with Bin Laden. News flash I can connect you to big oil using the same type of argument.

 

what an information rich response.

Those are the pieces of code that function appropriately and don't need to be updated. They rely on core functions that have not required updating as new functionality is added to the language.
For a supposed computer scientist, you are being disengenous at best.

.

gimme a break. go peddle that crap to abacus crowd.

I don't assume anything. Your contention that the models are all antiques and therefore inaccurate is an attempt at obfuscation.

I can't believe you are actually putting for the argument that these models have not be continuously refined over the decades they have been in use.

And everyone knows that. Here is how GISS deals with it.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html
Q. Why can't we use just raw data?
A. Just averaging the raw data would give results that are highly dependent on the particular locations (latitude and elevation) and reporting periods of the actual weather stations; such results would mostly reflect those accidental circumstances rather than yield meaningful information about our climate.

Q. Can you illustrate the above with a simple example?
A. Assume, e.g., that a station at the bottom of a mountain sent in reports continuously starting in 1880 and assume that a station was built near the top of that mountain and started reporting in 1900. Since those new temperatures are much lower than the temperatures from the station in the valley, averaging the two temperature series would create a substantial temperature drop starting in 1900.

Q. How can we combine the data of the two stations above in a meaningful way?
A. What may be done before combining those data is to increase the new data or lower the old ones until the two series seem consistent. How much we have to adjust these data may be estimated by comparing the time period with reports from both stations: After the offset, the averages over the common period should be equal. (This is the basis for the GISS method). As new data become available, the offset determined using that method may change. This explains why additional recent data can impact also much earlier data in any regional or global time series.

Another approach is to replace both series by their anomalies with respect to a fixed base period. This is the method used by the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the UK. The disadvantage is that stations that did not report during that whole base period cannot be used.

More mathematically complex methods are used by NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NOAA/NCDC) and the Berkeley Earth Project, but the resulting differences are small.

Nice generalization, but I agree that specifically designed data collection should be more accurate.

I am familiar with the issue of bucket adjustments both insulated and uninsulated and the period of time in which such measurments were relied on for surface temp. readings

It seems logical to me that like most "plug" numbers, it is a serious scientific wild ass guess. The emphasis on scientific, but nonetheless a guess and subject to question. OTOH, if a base line measurement is inaccurate yet applied consistently over time, the trend and deviation data would also be consistent and of relevance.

gotta run back at ya when I have time.



We can see that there is an improved accuracy of the satellite record of approximately 0.1-0.4C. And it has gotten consistently larger over time which means that the surface record has some inherent systemic error or systemic error built into the method that are getting worse over time.



Why do you think the GISS and CRU still exist when we have a satellite record? The GISS especially? Because they run hot and allow alarmists to ignore the satellite data.



Cant your read its right there in the key for you. Its the RSS satellite data from 1996 to present using a 12 month mean. I always love when forum libs try to argue climate science yet have no clue what the woodfortrees.org database is. If you don't know what the woodfortrees.org database is and how to reads its graphs then you are pretty poorly educated on the whole debate.



We are talking about science and pseudo-science.



I insist that the first thing you have to do is show something more than 'there may exist' argument.





Why do you you say that? The climate might be complicated but speaking as an engineer the degree that climate scientists simplify the climate makes their arguments dog (*)(*)(*)(*) simple. For educated people it isn't hard to follow at all.



And there is your degrees of separation argument. Same type of argument 911 turthers use to connect anyone they want with Bin Laden. News flash I can connect you to big oil using the same type of argument.[/QUOTE]

 

Lear to properly use the quote feature and you might get the gift of a response.

 

Scientific hypothesis is not based on scientific proof. The science of Global Warming, now called "climate change" is only a hypothesis as it cannot be proven scientifically. Study of the cycles of the climate based on historical fact from the start of earth time that facts can accurately be recorded; shows the planet remains in the pre-glacial cycle. While the earth may be in a warming period, it has not been scientifically proven that humans are the cause or than humans can make changes that will result in any significant alteration of the cycle. Climate change is an on going thing. There has always and will always be climate change. No one can state the climate isn't changes because it has always been changing. The question is whether we can significantly alter its inevitable change. I say we cannot. And, our best option is to learn to live with the changes.

 

The question is not whether climate is changing, but to what extent, if any, human activity is accellerating change or exacerbating it.
It quite clear that human activity-such as squirting tons of chemicals into the atmosphere as with the ozone hole issue-can affect our climate. We can, if the will is there, do something about it, and the ongoing success of the Montreal Protocol clearly demonstrates that.
Why is it that whenever I bring Montreal up I'm met with silence from the deniers?

 

No scientist doubts that we contribute but the real question is if we make that much of a difference. For instance, the IPCC has yet to reduce their claim of climate sensitivity to CO2 yet the observations keep going the wrong way for them compared to their computer modeling. Some wonder when they will be forced to change sensitivity.

Another unanswered question is whether warming is even bad since it warms more at the poles than the equator.

With all of the unknowns, the observations deviating from the predictions, virtually none of the alarmist predictions showing up the next question is do we shackle the rest of the world with higher prices just to quell a fear that may not be real? Who would be hurt the most? It would not be us though we would suffer higher prices too hurting the poor and those that can least afford it since it would drive up the cost of everything. It would hurt the countries that need cheap energy the most.

The Montreal Protocol was based on simple and easily proven science of CFC interaction. Climate science is nothing like the science of CFCs.

 

question is. is it worth it models have show if the USA stopped all its carbon based CO2 emissions it would only lower the climates temp by .06 degrees, but raise the cost of energy by billions annually decimating the economy and causing hundreds of thousands to go into poverty

 

The latest calculation of the steps that have been proposed is that it will lower temperature by 0.018 by 2100. Pretty insignificant.

 

When you consider that average global temperature is measured in 10ths of a degree the average rounding error is 0.025 degrees so this proposed plan's effects are indistinguishable from 0.

 

Yes politically, there was the damage of the ozone layer, a long period of political rhetoric on "global warming", then global "cooling" later termed "climate change". Look up "climate change". The history of the climate. The "climate cycle". And be sure you look up research that results in "scientific proof" not just a "scientific hypothesis". ( which if you don't know hypothesis means a "guess".)

- - - Updated - - -

Unless you understand the research process you will have trouble understanding research studies and their findings.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/abs/408184a0.html

Yes, it is. Here's a primary source paper on the subject from Nature. It focuses mainly on the idea of source and sink and the carbon cycle, and how anthropogenic (man-based) sources affect that cycle.

 

Actually there's a book called "The Economics of Global Warming" by William R. Cline that describes the devastation to the economy due to Global Warming: "Estimates are presented for economic damages, ranging from agricultural losses and sea level rise to loss of forests, water scarcity, electricity requirements for air conditioning, and several other major effects. The study concludes with a cost- benefit estimate for international action and a discussion of policy measures to mobilize the global response."

 

Got a book on the cost effects of global cooling? To hit the target to stop CO2 requires going from about 14% non carbon production of energy to over 90% and that ain't gonna happen. It's not even feasible without destroying the economy in a much more spectacular fashion.

 

Is there a source for these statistics?

If there is then it sounds like the economy is destroyed either way, so I'll be on the side of saving the planet.

 

You have a choice, destroy the economy based on a the output of computer models of which none now match actual observations, or adapt like normal.

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/abs/ngeo868.html <-- increasing of ocean temperatures and mean temp of El Nino effect

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/abs/nature10915.html <-- last time there was a massive glacial melt it was preceded by a drastic increase in atmospheric CO2
(Computer models are based off of evidence such as this, history repeats itself, etc., etc.)

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6041/418.short <-- Effects already being seen in coral reefs due to increasing of ocean acidification due to higher atmospheric CO2

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI3979.1 <-- Longer droughts seen in times of global warming, would only get worse with climate change (or an increase in overall global temperature)

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/abs/nclimate1633.html <-- another just like above

What I'm trying to show here is that models are based off of history and what's been viewed in the past, because they are cycles. While they may not be exact as a physicist's prediction of how fast a ball will fall from a certain height, Ecologists can be very accurate when predicting climate change.

Models are used in many areas of society, even business. A business will shift based off of a model for the upcoming quarter, just as science shifts its recommendations of action based off of models.

 

I FOUND THE PAPER!!!

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024

- "Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 97.2% endorsed the consensus."