"‘Fears of man-made global warming exaggerated’ " Topic

link

MUMBAI: Two of three scientists at a session on climate change and society at the Indian Science Congress on Tuesday felt fears of man-made global warming were greatly exaggerated. Their presence at the conference was particularly significant in light of the current 'development-versus-environment' debates. "While I agree that glaciers are melting because of global warming, if this is because of man, then what was the reason for the melting of the glaciers in the Gondwana period long before man arrived on the planet?" asked Dhruv Sen Singh, Centre of Advanced Study in Geology, University of Lucknow.

"Climate change is a natural phenomenon while pollution is caused by man. We are definitely accelerating the process of climate change, but we cannot predict the rate or extent of climate change that can be attributed to man," Singh said. According to him, fears of climate change amount to propaganda and "unnecessarily cause panic". "The Cretaceous period 65 million years ago was the hottest in the history of the earth. Man was not around at the time," he added.

Damned dinosaur farts…

Singh said that if climate change was the cause of glaciers retreating, they should all be retreating at the same rate. "But in reality they are retreating at different rates, and some were advancing," said Singh. only at some places the sea level is rising, whereas at others it is constant, possibly due to the sinking of land," he added. As for extreme climatic events such as the Uttarakhand cloudburst, he said such cloudbursts were not new to the Himalayas. "These are cyclical events but not catastrophes. The devastation in Uttarakhand was caused by people living in hazard-prone areas, a function of India's high population density," he added. Rajesh Agnihotri senior scientist at the Radio and Atmospheric Science Division, National Physics Laboratory, who mapped changing trends in India's monsoons, said there was nothing to suggest that this was because of man-made climate change.

Other than the kool aid drinkers…

Hypothetically, even if man stopped industrial activity, stopped using cars and stopped using air-conditioners, monsoon patterns would still change," said Agnihotri. "Natural forces like solar intensity appear to be dominating monsoons to a greater extent than man-made climate change," he added.

But, hey, they are just climate scientists, so what do they know?

Waiting for the koolaid drinkers response…………(crickets)

Oh they will respond…I have no doubt. We'll be reminded of the magic "97%" number out of context, these two will be dismissed because "there is a consensus" and the usual load of baloney that comes from folks who refuse to acknowledge that data trumps models, and models that can't accurately predict are worthless for predicting the future or developing policy, no matter how many folks are convinced that they, inspite of actual data to the contrary, are right.

But, they will be here to point out how the disbelievers (outright) or those who acknowledge there is change, just don't buy in to the concept that the IPCC crowd actually knows or understands everything they claim to (like me) are sadly mistaken and woefully ignorant.

JJ

So, Singh agrees that global warming is occurring ("glaciers are melting because of global warming") and is at least partly anthropogenic ("We are definitely accelerating the process"), but we don't know exactly how much of the rate or extent of global warming can be attributed to man, and the rate and extent *of man's contribution* shouldn't be exaggerated.

I agree with all of that. Can I assume that both of you do, too?

There is no consensus on how quickly climate change will ultimately reduce human populations. How much time do we have if we don't change anything we are going? How much additional time will we gain if we stop living our high fuel consumption lifestyle? Nobody knows. So any talk of reductions smacks of control mongering. The rich will not be affected no matter what happens, and most of the talk about limiting/reducing our fuel/energy consumption comes from the filthy rich. They happen to be in positions of control/power already, and I'm sure that they want more. Control of the unwashed and uneducated masses is the ideal. As it stands, "we" have far too much freedom, especially of communication and speech. The same people who preach reduction of fuel use also preach of greater control of the Internet. Managing information so that egregious untruths don't get spread around the globe is seen as their duty….

No.

jpattern2

The fact that I post a dissenting voice from what should be acceptable sources does not mean I agree with everything they say. I am saying that their statements back my position that we don't "know" what is going on, despite loud claims to the contrary. And many of the "Profits of Doom" claims are baseless. So, as to your question as to what I accept from the article and will agree to, my response is:

"Not completely."

Happy to accept climate is continually changing. I don't "know" why and neither does anyone else.

The near two decade stoppage / pause / whatever with no heating as predicted argues against agreeing that GW is still occurring. Not saying we've reached an inflection point and it won't heat any more. Not saying that we've started a cooling cycle. Not claiming that the 18 year flat line will continue, nor if it does, for how much longer.

I am saying that given the lack of heating, global warming, by definition, is not occurring. Despite the consensus. Despite the predictions. Despite the bogus explanations. If the earth isn't warming, then it isn't warming. The "it is still heating but we don't know where the heat is going" argument is a load of crap until they can prove where it is going. If it is even occurring, which isn't currently in evidence. Absent that, it isn't warming despite what they wish were happening.

We don't know how much, or how little, or if any amount of significance is man-attributable. As such, ANY comments and decisions based on the rate and extent of said contribution are meaningless. As are any of the far reaching, expensive and unsubstantiated "fixes" proposed.

We DO know that none of these proposed fixes are worth a lick if everyone of significance is not onboard – wouldn't you agree? China is growing in use of fossil fuel and coal. India as well Germany is switching to coal. Japan is going to coal. So all of the DiCaprio-Gore-Redford-Cameron-etc. "solutions" in the world seem pointless in addition to hypocritical, given the loudest voices. No? If not, then why not?

The data is pretty clear that there has been no significant, if any warming for nearly two decades. Can I assume that you'll accept that fact?

JJ

Or mabey just searching around off ball sites to cherry pick what supports your view.

100 years is not enough data to prove anything. This much is absolutely certain considering how long the world has been around. Certainly the weather, the air quality and even the glaciers are in decline. All of these are irrefutable facts.

Now the question is…is this a short term trend or have we really been responsible.

If you do something about global warming and do it turns out we are at fault, well maybe you've saved the world…or at least tried.

If you do something about global warming and it turns out to be false, then you have still at least done something to make the world a better place.

If you don't do anything about global warming and it turns out to be false, well you didn't waste any effort right?

If you don't do anything about global warming and it turns out to be true, you don't actually have anyplace else to run to now do you.

100 years is not enough data to prove anything.

Gross generalization that simply is not true. The fact that no warming has occurred for nearly two decades proves that 91) the earth isn't currently warming (2) the scientists can't explain why. It is certainly enough to prove trends in population growth, water consumption, fresh water availability, the history of successful green energy programs, population distributions, sea level rising or falling, glacial changes, etc. If you claim otherwise, then you are arguing with yourself about your irrefutable facts.

All of these are irrefutable facts.

By what measurements? How is the weather "in decline?" Are all of the glaciers in decline? If so, and it is natural occurrence, is it a "bad" thing? Air quality? OK how do you address that given the question I raised above about unwillingness of key p[layers to address the problem?

Now the question is…is this a short term trend or have we really been responsible.

Or is it a short term trend and we aren't responsible? Or is a longer term trend, and are we are or we not responsible? You artificially define the terms of your argument to fit your point rather than looking at the spread of possibilities. Not just here but in the rest of your points.

If you do something about global warming and it turns out to be false, then you have still at least done something to make the world a better place.

Or not. Remember the folks (some of who are now warmists) were predicting the coming ice age and wanted to put coal dust in the arctic to help melt the ice and protect all of the world from the coming ice age. That well intentioned but totally wrong effort would NOT have made the world a better place. But, hey…they KNEW. They were the best and brightest scientists on the subject. I submit that the same well intentioned but potentially disasterous results can occur here with the "warming" issue as well.

Nor did well intentioned but failed efforts like Spain's "green power' lunacy. Nor does wind power which doesn't provide enough power but slaughters birds, especially golden eagles. Or massive solar farms that incinerate birds and insects by the thousands – at what ecological cost?

You make an unwarranted assumption, and similarly do not even consider how that money spent could be better spent, or what the cost to benefit impacts would be.

Trying to "save the world" is of little comfort if you've doomed it instead because of believing bunk science, and acting on that mistaken set of beliefs.

I'm certainly not advocating doing nothing, or burying my head in the sand until we learn too late who, if anyone is right. But all of the approaches I've heard discussed to this point (1) are based on a lot of conjecture and little reality (2) have no chance of working without worldwide 'buy-in" and (3) have no real cost to benefit analysis metrics, nor have I heard any proposals for how to change direction if it turns out that what they are doing is ineffective, or worse, harmful. The stereotypical method seems to be (1) We KNOW what needs to be done (whether you do or not) (2) a course of action is taken. No metrics exist, no independent evaluation is taken. (3) if it is unsuccessful, the answer always seems to be "we just aren't spending enough" or "we haven't done it long enough" based on no actual data other than "it isn't working." No relooking at the assumptions, no relooking at the approach for possible defects. Nope. It is always "we're right and we KNOW so give us more money" regardless of the cost or impacts elsewhere.

Go back to the point I always make. If Global Warming is happening anyway, then I would consider it to be Nature digging a deep hole for us. Our actions are simply making the hole deeper.

Problems with holes, at some stage they become just a bit too deep to get out of…

Don't you get it?

The science is clear. Global warming is happening.
We are the primary cause

link

Too suggest otherwise you might as well call for a banning on the idea of heliocentrism. link

Well, if they keep finding artifacts from the Medieval and the Roman eras as the European glaciers melt/retreat, I personally am not going to get too worried about how deep the hole is.

Same with the 1000 year old tree stumps showing up in front of those Alaskan glaciers.

Pity the people living in those eras didn't leave us satellite temperature records for comparison…

Our actions are simply making the hole deeper.

Or not. We may have little to no effect as compared to what nature itself is doing.

@MrElmo: No it is not clear. It hasn't been happening for nearly two decades, no matter how much the true believers claim otherwise. Since it hasn't been happening and we are still doing what we are doing, that certainly does nothing to support the case that we are the primary cause.

To suggest otherwise is simply looking at the facts, which your source seems more than happy to ignore.

1. Nearly two decades of non warming = non-warming
2. Our continued if not increasing of actions that are supposedly causing the warming is having no effect, based on no warming = we are not the primary cause.
3. The models that have incorrectly predicted continued warming are wrong, based on non-warming = the models are unreliable.
4. The models being unreliable = they are no basis for decisions or predictions.
5. I'm not sure when the Pope became a climate scientist – he clearly has an agenda, but is as qualified to speak definitively on the subject as those other climate experts I've previously mentioned – DiCaprio, Gore, Redford, Cameron, etc.

So unless you have data that refutes the actual record of non-warming, you don't have much of a leg on which to stand.

The 97% consensus myth
link

link

link

And if you dispute my articles, just as I dispute yours, you are still left with eighteen years of your side being wrong.

Don't you get it?

JJ

Doing "something" to fix a problem you don't understand is not wise.
In the "Age of Reason" "doing something" included using mercury to treat various illnesses. Well, they were "doing something," weren't they? That turned out so well for all the people who developed severe mental disorders, maiming and death from a "solution" that was no solution at all.
Similarly, FDR spent a great deal of time and public capital "doing something" to stop the Great Depression, all of which at the time his party and the economic left considered to be essential to solving the problem, yet which many respected economists now believe only made the problems worse, expanded the suffering, and delayed the eventual recovery by nearly a decade.

So "doing something" about climate change is not in and of itself necessarily harmless at all. In fact, it might be very harmful, both economically and societally, and not even achieve the intended goal.

An excellent example of this in the environmental world is the near-global ban of DDT. This was done for environmental reasons, based on now discredited claims that DDT was killing off raptors in North America, and other claims that it was harmful to humans and the environment. At the time the ban was implemented, malaria was being wiped out due to the use of DDT to kill mosquitoes, primarily in Africa. Deaths from malaria had dropped significantly; the program was working. And then the well-intentioned "we must do something" DDT plan was put into place. Malaria deaths skyrocketed, killing literally millions of human beings (mostly Africans) who otherwise would not have died. All in the name of "doing something" to correct an "environmental crisis" that was neither valid nor fully understood.
And that's not the only unintended horror brought about by the "environmental crisis" crowd. Genetically modified crops and modern fertilization techniques combine today to feed hundreds of millions of people around the globe, people who used to live and suffer under the constant threat of famine. Yet environmentalists are actively attempting to stop these life-saving agricultural advancements based on nothing more than hyperbole and conjecture. Who knows how many people in the Third World have starved due to delays in agricultural development caused by these oh-so-noble activists? Yet these foolish fanatics refuse to consider for one moment that they might, just might, be wrong, and that their rush to "do something" might actually be doing far more harm than it will ever do good.

It's not that we might not need to do something about human influences on the climate. But what is being proposed as "doing something" is not based on a full understanding of the human impact (if any), and worse is based on predictive models that are clearly unreliable and incomplete. Furthermore most of the proposals are economically devastating, particularly on developing nations, but also on even developed nations as well, and, as Terrement correctly points out, cannot be considered effective unless they are applied to such gross environmental abusers as China. It does not good to put out the fire in your fireplace when your neighbors are setting fire to your walls.
Furthermore, the only truly currently viable solutions to the problem of carbon-based energy systems (if these really are a problem) is nuclear power. It works, it's essentially carbon-free, and, using modern systems that are available and proven, is environmentally and physically safer than any other method. Yes, despite Fukushima and Chernobyl. Yet environmentalist routinely rail against nuclear power, often with the most absurd claims of its impact.
Solar? Wind? They're no where near ready to be truly effective, and their negative environmental impact is actually huge (and usually glossed over by proponents). Biomass is also too new and unlikely to quickly rise to meet the current demand. Twenty or thirty years down the road? Maybe. Now? No.
So if "doing something" is building nuclear power plants and thus converting the power grid to a reliable, carbon-free power source we can do today, I'm all for it, because that would be doing something with positive results (more and cheaper power) regardless of whether it turned out to be environmentally needful. But if all the activists want to "do" is curb peoples freedoms or tax their hard-earned money in the faint hope that will do anything at all (which it won't), then I will oppose "doing something" most vehemently.

And then the well-intentioned "we must do something" DDT plan was put into place.

Totally politically motivated, and not based on science:

After seven months of hearings in 1971, which produced 125 witnesses and 9,362 pages of testimony, EPA Judge Edmund Sweeney concluded that according to the evidence:

"DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man … is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man … [and the] use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."

But Ruckelshaus, who had never attended even a day of the EPA hearings and had never (by his own admission) read any of the transcripts of those hearings, overruled Sweeney and formally banned DDT on January 1, 1972. His decision was chiefly a consequence of his close ties to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and others in the green movement.

The DDT ban was subsequently appealed, but to no avail, as Ruckelshaus had appointed himself as the appeal judge. After the appeal had been squelched, Ruckelshaus' obvious partisanship was on display for all to see. He began soliciting, on his personal stationery, donations on behalf of EDF: "EDF's scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard," he gloated, "and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had won."

link

'Well, if they keep finding artifacts from the Medieval and the Roman eras as the European glaciers melt/retreat, I personally am not going to get too worried about how deep the hole is.'

I would if I lived on a flood plain that had been under water back then. Wait a minute. Where I live was…

How bout them Cowboys!

How can anyone pretend that we are not altering the Environment in a bad way? Have they never seen the trash in the street, or been to a land fill or seen sewage and industrial waste being pumped into some body of water someplace.

The issue being discussed is not about the altering of the environment. It is about the altering of climate. Two very different things.

Pollution being dumped into a waterway is clearly identify able in terms of source, and the differences in the water measurable and directly attributable to the source. Air pollution, much the same. Climate isn't that cut and dry, with many more variables and interactions that are neither well documented or understood.

Here's how I look at. Feel bad for the polar bears and walruses when there is no more pack ice. That is what zoos are for. But on the other hand rather looking forward to all the new wars when people start migrating out of coastal flood plans and areas without drinkable water, like Vegas and L.A.
Just wait until they bring up the idea of diverting the Great Lakes again.

Just wait until they bring up the idea of diverting the Great Lakes again.

I have unilaterally declared The Great Lakes part of my United Water Emirates. It is all part of my brilliant plan for world domination!

Terrement-

The Wall Street Journal and Forbes are conservative news organizations and are not really very objective or reliable sources for a scientific debate that is as politically charged as climate change is.

I'm not familiar with your third link, though one thing strikes me as significant about all three is that they are opinion pieces. There is no data. There are no scientific papers offered, nor is there the slightest effort to challenge specific pro-change papers. Sorry, but it smacks of confirmation bias.

Look, this is a pointless debate. None of us are climate scientists. None of us have read ALL of the research literature, or even enough of it to draw a reasonably informed conclusion. So, we have to rely on more accessible sources. Check out the NASA climate change site. It's pretty informative and easy to digest. Also, both the CIA and the Pentagon have issued reports on the dangers to world economies presented by climate change. BTW, the NASA site refutes your claim that there has been no warming in 20 years.

There is also at least one clear case of human induced climate change. Check out the documentary "The Black Blizzard." It's about the dust bowl and how farmers changed the climate throughout the affected midwest.

Personally, I have read SOME of the research. I've looked at a couple of studies of 100,000+ year old ice cores that show a clear increase in chemistry and gases indicating an increase in CO2 and temps over the past 400 years or so. I've also looked at tree ring dating research that indicates temps and drought conditions increasing in the American SW over the the past 300-500 years. I'm an archaeologist and all of this research was part of human migration (not climate) research I was working on some years ago.

My point is that in the two examples I described--I guess I read only three or four research papers--there was what appeared to me to be a correlation between increased temps, droughts, migrations, and the increase of industrialization. Now, three or four papers are hardly definitive, and I would not pretend that I am knowledgeable let alone an expert on the subject of climate, but to me they represent a smoking gun.

Parzival, your 2:10 post is so full of politically and ideologically charged rhetoric that it undermines your argument, IMHO.

Well Garrison that goes to show that buying property that was underwater until the Little Ice Age came along might not have been an ideal choice…

On the other hand at 3mm per year it might be a while before you have to take to a boat…

Mandt2 there was a paper in 2013 by dendrochronologists describing sampling biases in past studies that produced errors in the chronologies. There has also been work showing that CO2 fertilization effects were significant and not accounted for in various studies.

Actually nuclear is not carbon free (it takes energy to extract ores, build stations, refine fuels, transport fuel… )

Burning coal for energy releases more radioactivity into the ecosystem than nuclear power generation.

I think clean coal and carbon capture are potentials for the future, but reduce reuse and recycle are more important and many countries are profligate with their energy use.

I personally believe that mankind is effecting the climate – and in ways other than just burning fossil fuels*. We all need to green our ways as much as possible, and governments need to step up to the plate, and encourage efficiency in energy use.

Just because climate scientists are saying they do not know what effect mankind has on the planet, is not an excuse for us to continue polluting and burning excessive fossil fuels, we don't have the opportunity of a reset button if we get it wrong.

@mandt2,

I reject you dismissal of WSJ and IBD as sources, unless you similarly dismiss everything said by LW sources. The source does not establish the truth of a statement, the facts do. What's more, I doubt you can show me where LW sources ever report negatively on this or other politically hot issue, even if there is merit to the information.

As for the NASA data contradicting me, the Royal Met Office, as well as the IPCC members have all noted the flatline. The IPCC has been grasping at straws to explain just how the eart is still heating without a rise in temps,

@Maddaz11,
I do not and never have proposed doing nothing. I have, justifyably, demanded that things done are provably beneficial and with a cost benefit analysis. Otherwise, you end up with tremendously expensive failures like Spain's government run green energy program, or, God forbid, the equivalent of the "by God we need to do something NOW to save the earth!" Crowd putting coal ash in the arctic to melt the ice to prevent the next ice age.

Air and water pollution, nuclear winter, the population bomb were all going to destroy the planet and the same solution was given. Rich western nations needed to disarm, give billions away to the Third World and lower their standard of living.

Sorry, but I'm done. I am tired of smaller cars, smaller homes, increasing fuel costs and constantly being blamed for all the worlds ills.

We were told nuclear energy would be so cheap there would be no need to meter it to homes. Then the doom and gloom brigade showed up and stopped that.

I want a big house, and a big car and if 100 years from now the oceans are a few feet higher or the temperature a couple degrees warmer, than adapt or die. Just like the last billion years on this planet.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Terrement-

I don't know what LW is.

Sorry, but both WSJ and Forbes are not sources for scientific fact, data, or analysis. They are news and editorial publications with a decided bias in favor of business. Also, as profit based businesses they must pander to their market, and their stockholders. For example, when Rupert Murdoch purchased the WSJ he stated he wanted to make it more business friendly. So much for objective reporting and financial analysis. If you want the facts, data, and "truth" about science you go to a scientific journal, report, or other publication.

I have, justifyably, demanded that things done are provably beneficial and with a cost benefit analysis. Otherwise, you end up with tremendously expensive failures like Spain's government run green energy program, or, God forbid, the equivalent of the "by God we need to do something NOW to save the earth!" Crowd putting coal ash in the arctic to melt the ice to prevent the next ice age.

Did you demand a cost/benefit analysis prior to the invasion of Iraq? If so, how did that work out for you? Okay, to mirror your hyperbole, let's stop ALL scientific research unless we are able to produce a cost/benefit analysis that guarantees positive and profitable results. Think of the money we'll save.

Mandt2 there was a paper in 2013 by dendrochronologists describing sampling biases in past studies that produced errors in the chronologies. There has also been work showing that CO2 fertilization effects were significant and not accounted for in various studies.

goragrad-

As I said, dendro was tangential to the research I was doing and it was long before 2013. Did the paper challenge the validity of dendro as a whole or just certain off-shoot analyses? Dendro has long been one of the methods used for archaeological dating in the southwest. It's usefulness as a dating and climate tool has been verified by correlation with the numerous other dating methods we use, such as Carbon dating, archaeomagnetic dating, thermoluminescence, stratification, and artifact seriation to name a few. Nevertheless, I'd be really interested in reading that paper. Do you have the source?

On the other hand at 3mm per year it might be a while before you have to take to a boat…

You know that isn't the issue here. Right? The issue, as described in the CIA and Pentagon reports is how climate change is affecting and will continue to affect worldwide food production. Nations living on the edge, will find that shorter, drier, growing seasons are inhibiting their ability to feed their people. The "Arab Spring" was not triggered by some sudden surge in the quest for freedom and democracy throughout the middle east. It was triggered by a grain crop failure in Russia in 2010 following years of drought induced poor yields. The U.S. and Canada also saw reduced yields, consequently grain shipments to Middle Eastern countries were severely reduced causing popular unrest and ultimately revolt.

That is the clear and present danger of climate change. Forget whether or not humans have caused or accelerated it. That's really not the issue. We have a choice. Either we research and develop ways in which we can influence climate change, which would almost certainly cost billions. Or we can continue to spend trillions, and waste tens of thousands of lives on fighting oil wars in the Middle East, or trying to prevent friendly governments from being overthrown by their hungry people.

The cause and affect appears every bit as robust a correlation to me as does plate tectonics and LA earthquakes.

Mike-

Your candor is admirable. But…

Sorry, but I'm done. I am tired of smaller cars, smaller homes, increasing fuel costs…

So, on one hand you don't like increasing fuel prices, but you want to drive a bigger car?

…and constantly being blamed for all the worlds ills.

Whoa is us. We have it so tough. That is, if there was any truth to what you say, which there isn't. Oh sure, we are to blame for some of the world's problems, but certainly not "all." Not even most.

Mandt2,

Try arguing honestly.
Opinion pieces in those sources you can question all you want. Reporting of fact is a different matter. I see you offer no reply on Left Wing sources. I'll give you a chance to be just as dismissive of them,moth wise you are being hypocritical.

Your cost benefit on the Iraq war has nothing to do with this discussion and is meant as a distraction. Please stay on topic.

Your next argument is similarly bogus, a straw man that purports an extreme of my position and then attacks me for something I never stated. Please show anywhere I have been against the conduct of research.

My argument about cost benefit was based on two concrete examples of where this was not done, was an abject and costly total failure, and the other would have been an unmitigated disaster. You seem to be taking the position that such analysis is unneeded because something has to be done. I happen to be one who does not think that if your boat has a leak and is taking on water that drilling largest holes to let it out is a sound approach. You've also not accepted my challenge of providing a workable, affordable and acceptable program that has metrics to measure progress and adjust as we go, nor how it can succeed without the likes of China, India, Germany, Japan, and many 3rd world locations as well.

As I said cherry picking data from right wing sources. I see your passion but reject your arguments as pure political silliness. The consensus of scientific evidence is against you. Heck evan thanks bastion of liberal thinking the pentagon is worrying about climate change.

And you are Cherry Picking from the left. Blah Blah Blah.

Here are a few FACT points.

1) Global warming has paused (or stopped) for the last 15 years or so, exactly the length of time the sun has gone into its dormant cycle.
2) it was warmer than now at various times in the past prior to global industrialization.
3) none of the global warming predictions have been accurate thus far regarding temerature, sea level rise, or polar glaciation.

So, could there be man-made global warming? Certainly there could. Is there irrefutable proof? No there is not. When none of your theories match predictions and you do not acknowledge you may be wrong, it's no longer science. It's a Faith.

One of those facts Warlock is wrong, the other ones shows total lack of understanding the science of the histroy of the world, the third one I can not comment on.

(Rolls eyes) no, not wrong.

link

I suspect, Gunfreak, that I know rather a lot more than you about the "History" of the world if that is your response.

link

link

link

Thank you, Gunfreak.

I always find it to be a sign of drinking the denial koolaid to rail against "manipulated temperature data" wile in the same breath expounding on how RSS data shows that there is no trend, even though RSS data is derived from inderect measurement of microwave radiation on the air column and there's daily updates to altitude calibration for each salelite.

Global warming has paused (or stopped) for the last 15 years or so, exactly the length of time the sun has gone into its dormant cycle.

And the person who wrote that (I'm assuming that warlock didn't come up with that claim first) is either statisticly innumerate or deliberately deceitful.

First of all, the lack of a statistically significant trend does not indicate that there is no trend. It could simply indicate that the white noise in the data is drowning out the signal in a short period of time. If the lack of trend is simply due to the arbitrary length to time in the time series rather than any material changes in the environment, this is very strong evidence that the culprit is white noise.

Second, using regression to solve for H0 (null hypothesis/absence of trend) instead of solving for H1 (measuring a trend) is sloppy work and mathematically unsound, since by its nature, the error bars in trend estimating approaches 0 as the number of cases approaches infinity. As such, its often the case that its not the trend that's changing, but the confidence intervals that grow. Therefore a more rigorous way to see if the trend has changed is via the mathematical technique of change point analysis
link .
Furthermore there's a great post by Stefan Rahmstorf about changes in trend.

link

Lastly, the former record year for global temperature was boosted considerably by the largest El Niño ever recorded. 2014 beat that record without an El Niño boost…

First of all, the lack of a statistically significant trend does not indicate that there is no trend. It could simply indicate that the white noise in the data is drowning out the signal in a short period of time. If the lack of trend is simply due to the arbitrary length to time in the time series rather than any material changes in the environment, this is very strong evidence that the culprit is white noise.

It matters if the profits of doom and their models predicted a continuing rise. Your explanation relies on a lot of "if"s.

As I stated above, (09 Jan 2015 11:10 a.m. PST ) I don't know and am not claiming that it is a case as you describe, a temporary flatlining before heating restarts, or if it will stay flat for a much longer period of time, or if it is an inflection and the start of a downturn.

The point is, the IPCC folks don't know either. Their models don't predict it. They can't explain it. Yet we are told that "Hey, it's OK, these guys are EXPERTS so we need to do what they say."

Pretty lame basis for extensive and expensive changes in way of life and economies.

Do you have any links about the independent validation and verification of their computer models? I haven't seen any – maybe just not aware of ones that exist. But the folks who generated them also saying they are good to go is like the stereotypical suspect in an organization having done something questionable, and then appointing that person to investigate and rule on the issue.

From your linked article

if you want to find out something about the signal of climate change rather than about short-term "noise". All climatologists know this and the IPCC has said so very clearly

Yet there seems to be a significant amount of concern among those same scientists as to why the models were wrong. Emails back and forth. Topics of discussion. Only now, years later is a mathematician stepping in to "rescue" them. If this were indeed the case, shouldn't the experts have already known this and figured it into their calculations? What else is yet to occur that similarly hadn't been considered? Or where the results of a specific interaction hadn't occurred before and was left out of the equations due to a simplifying assumption? Or variables either being more constrained, less constrained, or otherwise "not helpful?"

I'll close with my usual "it doesn't matter" as whether the IPCC folks are right, the Deniers are right, or the skeptics like me who think it is somewhere in the middle but do not pretend to know enough to model a century from now, are right. Without that "magic silver bullet" of all the folks needed to be onboard – including all those who have clearly indicated they AREN'T onboard – like China, India, Germany, and many third world countries – then it is futile, and really does not matter.

JJ

Their models don't predict it. They can't explain it

Do you understand the concept of white noise? Or do I have to get remedial?

I understand it fully. Given the actions of the IPCC folks, they sure don't. Maybe you need to remediate them.

Do you understand computer modeling and verification? Or do I need to follow your lead and start talking down to you as you seem to think is appropriate?

I find it instructive that the 18 month period in that article is brushed aside because it is too short a time interval, but a twenty year interval is acceptable to them for proving their point.

There are also some good points to read from both sides of the argument in the comment section of that last link. Highly recommended. Bring an open mind.

But I'm not going to argue with you. Either the models are independently verified, or they are not. As far as I know, they are not

The models can be relied upon to accurately predict or not. If feeding in past data does not result in what we have now, it is foolish to believe they can accurately predict a century ahead with it and use those predictions as drivers for specific, unproven and expensive actions.

Finally, as indicated above, I truly believe IT DOES NOT MATTER, for the reasons cited. Not against trying to be cleaner, greener. But the profits of doom are totally off their rocker if they think what they are proposing will be acceptable – even if they are right and the non-compliance dooms us all. I don't see the world willing to bite the bullet. IF the warnings are true. Certainly not based on what we have to date. If it were, we wouldn't have China and India increasing coal consumption, Germany switching to coal from oil, and much of what else we see today.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to be amused by and collect more "tipping points of doom" predictions that have a pretty poor record to date.

JJ

But I'm not going to argue with you. Either the models are independently verified, or they are not. As far as I know, they are not

There's a whole suit of models here:
link

Here's the code repository for the NASA GISS AR5 model
simplex.giss.nasa.gov/snapshots
and here's the documentation: link
The CMIP3 used in the 4th IPCC:
link

The models can be relied upon to accurately predict or not. If feeding in past data does not result in what we have now, it is foolish to believe they can accurately predict a century ahead with it and use those predictions as drivers for specific, unproven and expensive actions.

Here's the thing, the Earth is a chaotic system, in that similar starting states can lead to multiple end states. Therefore, unless you're able to plug-in Laplace's daemon into your code, it's impossible to create a program with today's inputs and model the temperature of Washington DC for 4pm on the 4th of July 2044. However, it is possible to calculate warming on a decade+ time scale since in aggregate the sources of bias in the data will cancel each other out and cluster over the central tendency.

I dug up some work by the statistician Tamino on change-point analysis using the principle global mean temperature data sets, and none show a statistically significant deviation from the underlying temperature trend that has existed since 1970.

Or if you prefer, plotted out graphically:

link

Martin,

A plethora of models not independently accredited are no better than one uncredited one.

You are using a false argument as well. I've never claimed the models should be able to predict exact weather in an exact place and date. My point is that virtually all of the ones favored by the IPCC crowd did not predict the virtual flat line. A simple Google search will provide a number of non-denier/RW sites with articles about climate scientists concerned about/unable to explain lack of warming. See for yourself. If the answer was as simple as white noise, I would have expected that explanation right away, rather than one unprovable supposition after another as holes are shot in the latest. The fact that the models didn't predict and the scientists are at a loss to explain leads one to conclude that perhaps they don't understand things as well as they claim, and the uncertainties deserve further investigation rather than the settled science mantra.

However, no one believes them enough to change significantly, or at least there is no evidence, as per my China, India, Germany, Japan, third world examples.

So you can post all the graphs you want. Questions remain, and no one cares. Must not be that compelling of an argument.

JJ

link

India's coal mining plans may represent the biggest obstacle to a global climate pact to be negotiated at a conference in Paris next year. While the United States and China announced a landmark agreement that includes new targets for carbon emissions, and Europe has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent, India, the world's third-largest emitter, has shown no appetite for such a pledge.
"India's development imperatives cannot be sacrificed at the altar of potential climate changes many years in the future," India's power minister, Piyush Goyal, said at a recent conference in New Delhi in response to a question. "The West will have to recognize we have the needs of the poor."

Mr. Goyal has promised to double India's use of domestic coal from 565 million tons last year to more than a billion tons by 2019, and he is trying to sell coal-mining licenses as swiftly as possible after years of delay. The government has signaled that it may denationalize commercial coal mining to accelerate extraction.

"India is the biggest challenge in global climate negotiations, not China," said Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development.

link

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is pushing Japan's coal industry to expand sales at home and abroad, undermining hopes among environmentalists that he'd use the Fukushima nuclear accident to switch the nation to renewables.

A new energy plan approved by Japan's cabinet on April 11 designates coal an important long-term electricity source while falling short of setting specific targets for cleaner energy from wind, solar and geothermal. The policy also gives nuclear power the same prominence as coal in Japan's energy strategy.

link

Germany, UK and Poland top ‘dirty 30' list of EU coal-fired power stations
Environmental study highlights health effects from pollution, with Germany coming top, and the UK third in total coal consumption

THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

You can see just how seriously all of these major players are taking this. They may talk the good talk, but in the end I suspect the bottom line will be what the country in question sees as the bottom line NOW not EVENTUALLY (kicking the proverbial can down the road).

Coal worldwide included in this report – it is going up.
PDF link

Take the India quote:
""India's development imperatives cannot be sacrificed at the altar of potential climate changes many years in the future," " and put just about any country in there and the results are probably going to be exactly the same.

So, y'all better hope the scientists in the OP are right, or the deniers are right, or the skeptics are right.

Much to do being made of "the hottest year on record"

or not:
link

"There are dueling global datasets — surface temperature records and satellite records — and they disagree. The satellites show an 18 year plus global warming ‘standstill and the satellite was set up to be "more accurate" than the surface records. See: Flashback: 1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.'
Any temperature claim of "hottest year" based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous "hottest years". This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges. The claim of the "hottest year" is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts. "Hottest year" claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18 plus year ‘pause' or ‘standstill'.

so I'm sure there is a tipping point over which to freak out because we are all doomed.

Even former NASA global warming chief scientist James Hansen, the leading proponent of man-made global warming in the U.S., conceded in 2011 that the "hottest year" rankings are essentially meaningless. Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that's 0.018F). "It's not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record," Hansen admitted on January 13.

Your link goes to Climate Depot, "a project of CFACT," which is a conservative climate change-denial group, heavily funded by Donors Trust, which is primarily funded by the Kochs, Exxon Mobil, other fossil fuel corporations, and many hidden donors.

It doesn't matter where the link goes. The quotes are quotes, the data is data, and an increase of 0.04 degrees F is less than background noise.

Of course there is no LW funding by groups like the Heinz foundation or Soros backed groups or hidden donors for the alarmists…

You might want to look at the adjacent thread that discusses Lonborg and his group out of Copenhagen, and their conclusion about the best and worse return on the dollar for solving the world's most pressing problems.