"Duke University Study based on Data Agrees With Me" Topic

link

And for those who will immediately say "you're using an article from the Daily Fail?"

Here' the link to Duke:

link

JJ

that's good news, but is it reason enough to ignore climate change and not do what can be done to not contribute to it?
I think the practical answer is no.

Never suggested either ignoring it, nor do what can be done to not contribute. I won't start the dance on the extent to which man contributes nor what the reasonable and affordable solutions are.

Just find it interesting that the answer which seems to best fit the real data is one other than the "it's settled" version.

JJ

By all means let's use scarce and finite resources to combat a completely existential threat.

God forbid we use it to help fund better technologies to feed the world, cure diseases or (gasp) reduce the stupendous taxes I have to pay out every year!

The only viable solution to CO2 from combustion is to build Nuke plant

Climate change isn't about science, it's about controlling behavior because "doing right ain't got no end"

@Only Warlock,

There is an individual with (IIRC) a scientific /. analytical background who looked at that very question to decide wher effort and funding should be prioritized to get the most bang for the buck. I'll see if I can't find that article.

JJ

The only viable solution to CO2 from combustion is to build Nuke plant

How dare you use such profanity here in a family oriented board sir!!! Harumph! You'll give some environmentalist progressive a serious case of the vapors!

I jest of course. We should be building more fission plants, begin recycling spent fuel instead of burying it and devote more money to nuclear fusion research. The greens will wail, weep and gnash teeth at all these suggestions and claim there a money grabbing scheme by "Big Corporate, Big Oil, The 1%, etc.". (Shrug) what are you going to do?

This is why I won't argue the merits of climate science research with equally ignorant members of a toy soldier forum. It's an exercise in futility.

When JJ says, "Duke University Study based on Data Agrees With Me", it sounds like he has some valid reproducible scientific data that is in congruence with valid reproducible data produced at Duke University. What the title really should have been is, "Duke University Study based on Data Agrees With My Preconceived Confirmation Bias, Whilst the Majority of Studies Do Not".

Not picking on JJ, unless any of us are practicing climate scientists, we are ALL in the same boat. How non-professional, non-climate scientist wargamers view the data has absolutely no effect on the veracity and accuracy of the conclusions derived from that data.

If you want to argue about untrained and unsupported opinions, then be my guest. This is the perfect vehicle for it.

"This is why I won't argue the merits of climate science research…"

It is always good to use terms like "climate science" to distinguish it from real "science".

In science, a majority does not establish truth. A science report, written by non-scientists who then require the science reports to be modified to reflect those positions would seem inferior to one that is issued directly, no matter how many participated in the biased fraud.

I've never claimed to be a "climate" scientist, though I've spoken to the credentials in research I do have, but if "consensus" establishes truth, what say we ask a million people which is more reliable, a science that uses computer models that fail to reflect reality, or, a science that uses 1000 years of actual data that produces results that does.

How we view the data is in fact valid in the same way one does not need to be a carpenter to tell that one of four legs on a table is too short, nor a gourmet chef to tell that their dinner is raw, burnt, or made with spoiled ingredients.

And, by their own methodology, the claims of 97% and a majority are both untrue. You can look it up.

JJ

There's a lot of things going on here:

First and foremost, there's what the study says:

"– A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now," said Patrick T. Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. "But this could change.""

Unfortunately, there's no link to the actual study that I can find on the linked site, so we have to rely on the abstract.

What that says is that warming is indeed happening, though at a lower rate than anticipated and that it MAY be due to natural fluctuations.

Notably, this means that we would STILL need to make reasonable preparations to deal with the impact of higher temperatures, regardless of whether they are man-made or naturally occurring.

Likewise, even if you were to believe that global warming is purely a natural cycle, there are still extremely good reasons to be concerned about emissions and pollution.
Take a good look at China for a nice view of what happens when you don't.
I don't fancy wearing gas masks when I go to the grocery store.

Likewise, even if you were to believe that global warming is purely a natural cycle, there are very good reasons to diversify our energy production, both economical and in terms of national security and foresight.

The "consensus establishing truth" canard is a straw man argument. Thanks for that. Let me try to address it one more time. The consensus of medical doctors is that azithromycin is the best first round antibiotic for bacterial pneumonia. That by itself doesn't make it true. It simply means that to those people whose job it is to treat pneumonia are in agreement with that given treatment. I've explained this to you before.

I'd like to know your qualifications in stating that the computer models employed by climate scientists do not reflect reality. All the computer models? By every single researcher? By every single organization, institution and university? Can I assume that the computer models employed by biologists in studying population genetics, or the computer models used by cosmologists in predicting galaxy formation, or the biochemists studying enzyme mechanics DO actually reflect reality? So it's just the climate scientists? Who knew?

Your second paragraph is an example of a fallacy from false equivalency.

As for the consensus:
Oreskes 2004
Peiser 2005
Doran 2009
Anderegg 2010
Vision Prize Poll 2012
Skeptical Science Peer Reviewed Survey -Cook 2013

You look them up.

It is always good to use terms like "climate science" to distinguish it from real "science".

I'm afraid you have mistaken my intent. I have a degree in the "biological sciences" as opposed to the "physical sciences" . I consider them both to be real science. Likewise with "climate science". Do you have a better term to propose?

The 97% canard of that being representative of the number of scientists wh agree that AGW is the cause or major contributor to global warming is based on a sample space that is not representative of "all scientists" and of those surveyed it only counts the ones who included an opinion due to the cause. So if you want to claim that of those who responded and expressed an opinion ninety seven percent agreed, that is much different than saying ninety seven percent of scientists agree. Not expressing an opinion does not make a scientist stop being one.

As for the flawed models, to my knowledge, none of the IPCC models when fed actual data have predicted the lack of warming for nearly two decades. In my profession spanning two careers and over forty years, I've yet to see a case of a non-predictive model being right and something else being the problem. Never claimed all other models in the world are right and that it is only climate modeling, so that is a pile.

I' m not claiming I have data that the Duke study validates as to what IS. I am claiming that I am qualified to say that when models don't correctly predict reality when fed data leading up to that reality, the problem isn 't that the models are correct and science can 't prove what the answer is but rather the models themselves are flawed.

I also agree with Weasel that steps should be taken to improve things. I don't think flawed modeling is the basis on which to decide. India has already said "Hell no" to cutting their expansion of carbon emitters needed for their economy.

If you are really interested in fixing the world then do some research on this guy and his organization

Bjorn LOMBORG: My name Bjorn Lomborg. I'm a public intellectual, I guess you could say. And I run the Copenhagen Consensus Center, where we bring together lots of economists and seven Nobel Laureates to think about where do we spend money and do the most good per dollar spent.

BTW, global warming is a poor return on the dollar.

The 97% canard of that being representative of the number of scientists wh agree that AGW is the cause or major contributor to global warming is based on a sample space that is not representative of "all scientists" and of those surveyed it only counts the ones who included an opinion due to the cause.

Only on the Cook poll and Vision Prize poll, where the scientists were surveyed. The rest are meta-analyses based on peer reviewed research. Why would one care if the results are not representative of "all scientists"?. The overwhelming peer reviewed research in climate science points to AGW.

If you are really interested in fixing the world……….

Where did you get that idea?

My point is that the claim we keep being told is 97% of all scientists agree. I don't care, just pointing out that what is being shoveled is bunk.

What difference does it make how many peer reviewed papers say anything? If they are basing their predictions on models that suck, it really doesn't matter how much a group, not shown to be objective, pats themselves on the back.

I'll bet a huge majority of naturalists who have written articles on the efficacy of herbal remedies also agree with each other. Doesn't mean they are right either, does it?

As for the fixing the world suggestion, it was addressed generally, not specifically at you. The point is there are much better ways and much bigger priorities than "fixing AGW".

The inference I draw from your posts are that you do believe AGW is a primary component in climate change, it is a threat,, and therefore the draconian cutbacks that Al Gore and his ilk want are necessary, regardless of cost or impact.

But since there is scientific results that explain what is happening more accurately and more precisely, your "settled science" isn't settled. As such, the way forward as dictated by the one true way believers is also now scientifically challenged.

Don't you think the steps that could be taken to best improve the world should be taken? Or are you so slavishly wedded to AGW that you'd rather waste. Money on that than on real priorities with real solutions that would have an almost immediate benefit…not a century from now…IF you were right?

Maybe not.

But I believe the approach taken by the group I cited is a far better place to put time, money and effort. If you disagree, please explain why.

JJ

What are the steps Lomborg proposes?

From a glance at wikipedia, he's a political science phd that advocates welfare economics around the world.
That doesn't really help us have a discussion.

Maybe you can fill us in so we can have a discussion?

Heck, what are the steps YOU propose?

What are reasonable measures to address pollution, industrial emissions, ensure clean air and water, energy production and diversification, in your opinion?

Tell us what we SHOULD be doing.

Bjorn Lomborg?????
The Guy's an economist, not a scientist, and when he tries to play the scientist, he gets smacked hard:
The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD)said the following about The Skeptical Environmentalist

that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty-cf. Danish Order No. 533 of
15 December 1998-have been met. In consideration of the extraordinarily wide-ranging
scientific topics dealt with by the defendant without having any special scientific
expertise, however, DCSD has not found-or felt able to procure-sufficient grounds to
deem that the defendant has misled his readers deliberately or with gross negligence.
In accordance herewith and subject to the proviso that the book under review is to be
evaluated as science, DCSD has arrived at the following.

Ruling:

Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall
within the concept of scientific dishonesty.
In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence,
however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this
characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards
of good scientific practice.

In other words, Bjorn practiced scientific misconduct, but wasn't found guilty since he lacked a mens rea. Hardly a good fist impression when weighting an idea.

His other book Cool It has more of the same. He cherry-picks the low end of the IPCC projections and the high end of economic disruptions to make a case against preventative measures, under-estimating deaths caused by climate change by estimating less deaths due to cold while ignoring deaths caused by more frequent and severe heat-waves as well as more insect-born diseases on the warming side… Or as somebody rational would see it, more the same as The Skeptical Environmentalist.

And let's not forget the 4 million dollar Prince John style gift from the Australian people where in an era of shrinking research funding, a large percentage of the budget is siphoned-off to form the consensus project in the University of Western Australia's Business School. link

It's his concept and the group he co-founded, not him that is important:

Our Approach

The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think tank that researches the smartest solutions for the world's biggest problems by cost-benefit, advising policy-makers and philanthropists how to spend their money most effectively.
That's where you can make the greatest difference, where every dollar you spend is liable to have the greatest impact."- Bill Gates
We are solutions-oriented, and our approach improves knowledge and gives an overview of research and facts within a given problem, which means that the prioritization is based on evidence. We host forums in which the topics are debated and a final consensus is reached.
In particular we focus on the international community's effort to solve the world's biggest challenges and on how to do this in the most cost-efficient manner.

link

They are after best practices NOW on priorities NOW that fix real things NOW…not fixing some supposed 100years from now scenario driven by faulty models.

Top outcomes

The Copenhagen Consensus seeks to inform the policymaking process and place an emphasis on delivering quantifiable results and targeted solutions that cut down on feel-good factors and give publicity to the do-good side of development.
"Copenhagen Consensus is an outstanding, visionary idea and deserves global coverage" – The Economist
Because of our advocacy for data-driven work on smart solutions, the Copenhagen Consensus Center has been voted into the top 20 in the University of Pennsylvania's yearly "Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program"study.
Additionally, Director Bjorn Lomborg was named one of the world's 100 most influential people by Time Magazine, one of the 75 most influential people of the 21st Century by Esquire magazine, and one of the 50 people who could save the planet by the UK Guardian for his work with Copenhagen Consensus. He has repeatedly been named one of the top 100 public intellectuals by Foreign Policy.

Yeah, guess none of those sources knew what they were talking about when they honored the founder, did they?

As for budget being siphoned off, how much do the AGW boondoggles like the most recent one in South America – you know the one where they claimed their entire carbon footprint for the event was offset by the surrounding rainforests? As if there is an "on-off" switch for its use? Like it isn't already in use doing what it does? Those intellectually "honest" folks?

Spare me.

So what is it we should be doing?

Look at the links I provided.

Can you summarize the approaches recommended in your links? Maybe a pithy bulleted list?

No, you can read them. That way there is nothing lost in translation, nor misrepresented by the biases that folks who call me a denier think I have.

I don't do pithy. I do wallpaper.

If you need sound bites, here's a 3 minute video

link

Times of India, the world's largest English newspaper and major news outlets in Norway (Bergens Tidende) and Ecuador (El Universo) among others, have published an article by Bjorn Lomborg and the Post-2015 Consensus Expert Panel discussing the 19 smartest post-2015 targets as selected by the Expert Panel.
We have selected the 19 targets that we expect to produce the greatest benefits. The expert analyses suggest that if the UN concentrates on these top 19 targets, it can get $20 USD to $40 USD in social benefits per dollar spent, while allocating it evenly across all 169 targets would reduce the figure to less than $10. USD
Consider a couple of targets that help people directly through health benefits. Tuberculosis (TB) is a ‘hidden' disease. Over two billion people carry the bacterium that causes it, about 10% of those people will develop TB at some point, and about 1.5 million people each year die from TB. But treatment is inexpensive and, in most cases, highly effective. Spending a dollar on diagnosis and treatment is a low-cost way to give many more years of productive life to many people. Ebola may get the headlines, but TB is a much bigger problem."

link

Your first link led to a bunch of buzzwords.

Clicking around the site a bit, did you read their section on climate change?
Seems they are not deniers.

link

Neither am I. Just don't buy crappy recommendations based on crappy models

Please read
TMP link
from 1:39 on in the last day of the post. You're welcome to help him out.

link

Looks like NOAA agrees with me as well.

But they say the warmer temperatures due to global warming are making the Cali drought worse. So fossil fuels are making Cali's drought the "worst in history"….

Actually, another study says the drought is likely natural variability and NOT AGW:

The drought was likely set off by La Nina – a pattern of cooler than normal ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific – which has historically been linked to reduced precipitation in the West, the study says. But even after the La Nina broke down, a pattern of warm ocean temperatures in the western Pacific set up a storm track that arched northeastward through the Pacific, away from the Golden State.

This series of atmospheric and ocean events led to three straight very dry years, though the study stressed the lack of rain and snow was not uncommon.

"Multi-year droughts appear regularly in the state's climate record, and it's a safe bet that a similar event will happen again," said Richard Seager, report lead author and a professor at Columbia.

Global warming contributed to extreme heat waves in many parts of the world last year, but cannot be definitively linked to the California drought, according to a report released Monday.

The third annual analysis of extreme weather events underscored the continuing difficulty of teasing out the influence of human-caused climate change on precipitation patterns.

One of three studies examining the California drought in 2013 found that the kind of high-pressure systems that blocked winter storms last year have increased with global warming.

West Coast warming linked to naturally occurring changes
But another study concluded that a long-term rise in sea surface temperatures in the western Pacific did not contribute substantially to the drought. And researchers noted that California precipitation since 1895 has "exhibited no appreciable downward trend."

link

I wonder, in reality, how much other data and conclusions suffer from:

"… the continuing difficulty of teasing out the influence of human-caused climate change on (fill in the AGW blank)."