"Climate Report Released" Topic

This had the makings of a great thread but it dies before we can really get into it.

I know, I feel cheated.

There's nothing in that report that wasn't already reported in the peer reviewed literature. What's newish is the starker language used in the report. Science is by it's very nature quite conservative (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that) and institutionally biased towards least drama ( most would rather be in the lab writing grant proposals and more papers than deal with the wingnut brigade and the 101st chairborn.

I haven't seen any satisfactory answer to this question, but I'll ask it again. What's your threshold for changing your opinion on the subject? What evidence do you need to see? Or is this just tribal wrangling and rooting for the home team?

Speaking for myself, my bs filter (as in anything that fails to meet that low bar in unworthy of my time and energy) starts at a mechanism that does not implicate co2 in the current warming, yet is capable of explaining the paleoclimate relationship between co2 and temperature.

In other words the same old GIGO.

In other words the same old GIGO.

The irony of that statement is just one of the hidden gems on this Board.

It is just another product of the entreanched Deep State climate activists to protect their grant money. And is as deeply flawed as all the previous alarmist ravings.

You forgot to include "sheeple", "world wide conspiracy" and probably "Illuminati".

The dodge of Martin's questions duly noted. "Entreanched" indeed.

Break out the tinfoil hats folks

"You forgot to include "sheeple", "world wide conspiracy" – Sorry I didn't to hurt the feelings of all you true believers. You might have gotten triggered.

In the riots over the imposition of a punitive carbon tax in France, one irate Frenchman said that the elites were worried about the end of the world, while the common man was more worried about the end of the month.

I'm not hurt at all, but thanks for the concern.

I'm sure the naysayers have thoroughly read and thoughtfully considered the report and supporting research before the kneejerk denials.

Or rubber stamped it by the AGW followers of the one true religion.

It's a report written by those who's money depends on there being a crisis. Is it really a surprise that its all doom and gloom?

jdg

Yes those vast sums of money…
Unlike those very reliable "scientists" that gets payed millions by the oil companies (and that's salaries not grant millions)

You know those astrophysicist are only payed if there is an outer space. Funny how they always claim there is an outer space.

I studied Virology in undergrad university. My professor would drive up in his Ferrari or his Escalade, or his Countach (depending on the day). He was paid to teach about viruses and received trillions of dollars in grant money.

But I never saw any viruses. Apparently they are very small, but I don't believe him. I don't think they exist, beyond a way to soak money from hard working tax payers.

Same like those damned astrophysicists! Outer space doesn't exist….has anyone even been there?

Oh ya, and Courtney Love killed Kurt Cobain.

(PS. Only the first sentence is actually true)

It is just another product of the entreanched Deep State climate activists to protect their grant money. And is as deeply flawed as all the previous alarmist ravings.

It's a report written by those who's money depends on there being a crisis.

Now I can agree with these.

It is just another product of the entreanched Deep State climate activists to protect their grant money. And is as deeply flawed as all the previous alarmist ravings.

I never really understood why this is considered a strong argument. First of all, most of these summary reports are written on a volunteer basis (as a part of the professional time). Furthermore, It's not like there are other things that faculty would be researching if AGW were not a thing. For example, Paleoclimate can be used for reconstructing past climates and this is useful for agw research, but it's an important endevour in its own right. Same with atmospheric modelling, glacial modeling, almost all of physical geography and the list goes on. Even scientific dead-end are epistemological and methodologically useful.
Luminiferous aether was a dead-end. But the theoretical work needed to disprove it helped shore up the foundation of relativity. So was Luminiferous aether a waste? I would argue not.

Secondly, Academia does not pay nearly as well as the private sector. Many top climate scientist, especially those with serious modelling and computing chops, will make an order of magnitude more in take-home pay working in the financial sector, and that's putting aside lucrative (if volatile and reputation destroying) dole of wingnut welfare.

It's a report written by those who's money depends on there being a crisis.

The requirements to get all the fields involved, and to fake the concillence of the data is mindblowing.

Let me ask, at what bullet point do you hop of the train?

• The Earth's atmosphere keeps the planet much warmer than it would be without it.
  
• The principle components to the warming effect (AKA. Greenhouse Gases) are CO2, CH4 and H2O.
  
• The ability of the above gases are empirically proven to contribute to the greenhouse effect in the laboratory, in a manner that is consistent with the predictions of particle physics. (See John Tyndall who was the first to measure the infra-red absorption of gases in 1860 when working off of Fourier's [Yes, that guy from Math and Physics] first notions about the greenhouse effect way back in the 1820s)
  
• The quantity of these gases in the atmosphere has grown sharply since the start of the industrial revolution
  
• We know that the increase is principally due to human action via isotope ratios. As predicted by particle physics and verified by empirical research, Carbon14 is created by the high energy bombardment of Nitrogen13. However the half-life of Carbon14 is short on a geological timescale and would be non-existent for all practical purposes in fossil fuels, and thus if the fossil fuel produced carbon is added to the atmosphere, the C14 share of atmospheric CO2 should decrease over time… and it has.
  
• The average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has shown a trend consistent with an increasing temperature and continues to increase.
  
• This increase in temperature significantly correlates with greenhouse gas increases on a multi-year scale. Unfortunately the temperature data is too noisy for year to year correlations due to outside effects such as air pollution and ocean currents to name 2.

  The above is agreed by virtually scientist, however it's the next logical conclusion that attracts the ire of so called "skeptics"

• The observed heating has been caused by increased greenhouse gases.

I never really understood why this is considered a strong argument.

Lol. It's not.

And expect the rest of your comments to be brushed aside with a big dose of "handwavium".

Climate sceptics are on the same level as creationists, and flat earthers, their brain is sprayed with super strength Scotchgard, all facts just pour out their ears.

I never really understood why this is considered a strong argument.

When they are using only data the supports their beliefs, or working up computer models that prove that they are right.

Oh and lets not forget coming up with numbers.

So any report that shows that the planet is doom and that we are all going to die due to Global Warming/Climate Change…

Needs to be considered wrong.

Apparently the only thing which might convince the skeptics is for there to really be a climate catastrophe which brings down civilization and kills millions (or billions). Even then, some will probably claim it was not caused by man's actions.

And while frankly there would be a certain amount of pleasure in being able to say "I told you so," I'd much rather try to prevent the catastrophe and let my grand children survive.

So once again I will state that my position is that It doesn't matter if climate change is real or not. We should ACT as if it is. Switching over to non-fossil fuels (in a rational, well-planned manner) would be a good thing, climate change or no. And eventually we'll have to do it anyway as the fossil fuels become too scarce and expensive. So let's do it now.

Well said, Scott. But one point: don't call what goes on here as skepticism. It's not. It's simple and steadfast denialism. There is a difference.

So everyone should stop driving Lincolns and Cadillacs.

And busy themselves collecting fire wood in case a mini ice age shows up, which it will sooner or later.

It's simple and steadfast denialism.

Yes it is because they have prove nothing and so many reports have made up numbers or exclude information that disapproves their claims.

Oh and I drive a Honda Ridgeline.

climate catastrophe which brings down civilization and kills millions (or billions).

Like what happens in the movie…

The Day After Tomorrow

imdb.com/title/tt0319262

or better yet

Geostorm

imdb.com/title/tt1981128

Pure fiction and fantasy.

Though I would like to know of what Climate event that could happen that ends up killing millions when it happens.

When Tambora & Krakatoa blew the climate around the world was impacted greatly but humans have come a long way since the 500's and lived through it.

climate.nasa.gov/blog/183

link

Those were catastrophic events that did impact the climate around the world.

But both were volcanic and mankind had nothing to do with them.

Or us getting hit by another meteor again. Since the several big strikes that the Earth has seen impacted the climate not for a few years but for thousands of years.

link

Oh and a large meteor strike would end up killing billions within a very short period of time.

Some heretics will never submit to the one true religion of AGW no matter what the goat entrails predicts.

See how infantile the intelligent discourse on the Science board has become part 1:

Like what happens in the movie…

The Day After Tomorrow

imdb.com/title/tt0319262

or better yet

Geostorm

imdb.com/title/tt1981128

Pure fiction and fantasy.

Of course it's fiction and fantasy. They are Hollywood movies. Science-fiction ones at that. I'm sorry Mithmee, did you think they were documentaries?

When Tambora & Krakatoa blew the climate around the world was impacted greatly but humans have come a long way since the 500's and lived through it.

How did you get your "impacted greatly" and how humans "lived through it" from the links you provided? Way to overstate your case. The link shows that in the year after the eruptions the world cooled less than 1 degree C and that there may have been a "few tenths of a degree" cooling for a few years after that. Do you even read your own links? Hardly "impacting greatly". Thanks for the hyperbole. Don't make stuff up to bolster a weak argument.

Since Pinatubo in 2001 dropped the world's temperature by .6 degrees C for a period of at least 15 months I should be happy that I survived that too. Maybe we can make T-Shirts: "I survived Pinatubo!". I remember having a bad summer, that's about it.

link

Just for the record, no one here ever disputed that the volcanic eruptions have a momentary, short term effect on climate. They drop the temperatures for a relatively short time due to particulate aerosols increasing the atmosphere's albedo. This has been explained multiple times.

So how come the same proxy science that tells us about the temperature drops during large volcanic eruptions, is attacked when used to show that the overall global temperature has increased over the last 100 years? You can't have it both ways and cherry pick what you want.

Or us getting hit by another meteor again.

Non sequitur.

And finally, see how infantile the intelligent discourse on the Science board has become part 2:

Some heretics will never submit to the one true religion of AGW no matter what the goat entrails predicts.

Ahh, Vince, your only contributions to these threads are your tired and asinine conflations of science and religion. I don't expect anything different and you don't disappoint.

Yes it is because they have prove nothing and so many reports have made up numbers or exclude information that disapproves their claims.

I guess it would be silly of me to ask for a well documented example of the above claim.

Tell me, why aren't these "errors", "misrepresentations", and "exclusions" in the peer reviewed reports every found out by the many meta analyses that are undertaken and published?

Also, why is there no consilience amongst the handful of reports that purportedly show that anthropogenic global warming isn't happening? Isn't that worrisome?

Oh and I drive a Honda Ridgeline.

How nice for you. What is the relevance of that?

I live for your approval. Now that I took my turn to poke the bear, this old man is going back to playing with his toy soldiers.

Over and out.

I live for your approval.

Sorry to hear that.

Now that I took my turn to poke the bear….

Instead of "poking", how about contributing to the conversation is a more meaningful way?

….this old man is going back to playing with his toy soldiers.

And this old man thinks that perhaps that is for the best…..for all those involved.

Not so fast, Bowman. You don't get off so easily. Assuming you have made the point that "global warning" is real and is actually happening, the question is what to do about it.

Al Gore and his ilk have argued that what we need is a "carbon tax" that would fiscally punish people for driving cars. The rational would be that by making you pay more for operating a car, you would drive less and thereby "save the planet."

The problem is that even with a punitive carbon tax, people would not change their driving habits one bit. People would still have to get to work, so the planet would still suffer and the only change would be more money in the government's coffers at the expense of the people. Indigent people would suffer disproportionately because the elites could afford it and they could not. So Al Gore would pay the tax and feel good about himself with no real personal loss, but the poor guy making minimum wage would have to pay the same amount to get to work and would suffer disproportionately. That's why the French workers are rioting about and I support them 100%.

There is an element of hypocrisy in this thread with regard to Canada's contribution to global warming. I've noticed that several Canadians in these threads have googled websites to describe the nuts and bolts of global warming, but none of them have mentioned Canada's massive contribution to global warming caused by the exploitation of the tar sand sites in your western provinces.

Finally, there is the problem of the third world's huge contributions to global warning. While the liberal elites have chastised the United States for failing to sign the Paris accords, the record shows that we have met or exceeded the standards set in those accords while Coal India is eagerly building dozens of new coal-fired power plants and the limits agreed to by China are a joke.

Not so fast, Bowman. You don't get off so easily.

How am I getting off so easily?

This is a Science board not a political board. I'm arguing about the veracity of the science of climate change in the face of those who say that:

1) global warming doesn't exist
2) the science is all wrong
3) the science is only proxied and therefore not real science
4) there is a worldwide cabal and conspiracy of all governments, scientific organizations, universities, research institutes, government agaencies and scientists to delude the world that global warming exists.
5) global warming is a Chinese plot to weaken the US
6) those that understand the science are likened to religious zealots.

It's hard to settle on a good, effective solution that has the least negative effects on the fewest people when a large proportion of the population deny that there even is a problem.

According to the rules of TMP, the politics of what should be done about global warming should be handled by the Blue Fez. This is the science board and here we (supposedly) confine the conversation accordingly.

There is an element of hypocrisy in this thread with regard to Canada's contribution to global warming. I've noticed that several Canadians in these threads have googled websites to describe the nuts and bolts of global warming, but none of them have mentioned Canada's massive contribution to global warming caused by the exploitation of the tar sand sites in your western provinces.

I believe I have, but like Bowman said, I don't see how this is germane to the discussion of whether global warming exists. As per Bill's rules, I limit myself here to discussing the science, and keep the policy related stuff to the Blue Fez. But I must confess that it has become quite pointless and repetitive in the past 4 years. I've been saying more or less the same thing for the past 3.5 years

TMP from my post at 01 Jun 2015 7:19 a.m. PST
Before we start dealing with the political question of what to do with reducing GHG emissions, we have to first agree that there is a problem. Furthermore, and here's the tragic/ironic part is that all of this was more or less settled in 1992 at the Rio conference. Had we started mitigation then, the pace of change would have been slower, less drastic, require less fanciful technology and would have averted billions to trillions in mal-investment for infrastructure that is unsustainable. In many ways, it's similar to trying to save for retirement at 25 vs trying to save for retirement at 55.

IMO the global warming debate is a political debate.

Agreed. But the science behind it isn't.

It is when there are individuals who are attempting to use it to further their own beliefs.

Of course it's fiction and fantasy. They are Hollywood movies. Science-fiction ones at that.

Yes they are but we have individuals/groups who are claiming that the planet is doomed.

Those claims are also just Science Fiction Fantasy.

Once again, I'll invoke Hitchen's Razor.

No they are claiming that the oceans are going to rise by 150 – 200 feet.

link

Well I am not buying that at all.

But that is what the Global Warmers believe in.

Do you even fully read and understand the links you link to? Read the very first sentence and then look at the map provided. As usual your imagination and hyperbole are getting the better of you. Nowhere in your link does it say "we are doomed".

Plus, the Hitchen's Razor applies to your unsubstantiated assertions. So I can just "hand wave" that all off.

The current levels of our oceans are about 130 meters higher than the historic minimum and are about 200 meters below the historic maximum about 100 million years ago.

Murray-Wallace, C. V., & Woodroffe, C. D. (n.d.). Pleistocene sea-level changes. Quaternary Sea-Level Changes, 256–319.

The last time CO2 levels got to over 420 ppm was 15 million years ago. The world was 5-9 degrees warmer and the ocean levels were 120 feet higher than they are now. So like the article surmises, if we burn off all our fossil fuels its not outrageous to expect a 200 foot increase in the future (a few millenia according to your link). Remember, the oceans at 100 million years ago were 600 feet higher than today.

Unfortunately, your link is a crappy piece of journalism with no reference to the scientific articles it quotes.

But that is what the Global Warmers believe in.

It's not a matter of belief really, is it? The jet that I'm sitting in doesn't fly because I have a belief in it flying. It flies because of sound engineering and scientific principles. Same with Climate Science. We have broken through a threshold unseen for 15 million years.

link

Oh right. You are able to tell me the world was "5 – 9 degrees warmer 15 million years ago."

"The current levels of our oceans are about 130 meters higher than the historic minimum and are about 200 meters below the historic maximum about 100 million years ago."

And we are supposed to just accept that? Did one of your ancestors pass down down that little tidbit?

With all respect, sometimes it just gets a little thick.

Your Google-foo is strong, but you are not yet a Jedi.

And we are supposed to just accept that? Did one of your ancestors pass down down that little tidbit?

With all respect, sometimes it just gets a little thick.

Your Google-foo is strong, but you are not yet a Jedi.

These might be a good primer. link

link

PDF link

Tumbleweed. It's called science.
You know how humans are generally very bad at flying, no matter how much we flap our arms we can't take flight.
Yet every day millions of humans fly, not only fly, but fly at speeds far far above even the fastest birds.
Because of science.

Another source I should have added is chapter 5 (Paleoclimate) of the IPCC 5 Working Group 1 report.
PDF link

Martin, you may find this hard to believe, but I always do appreciate your well-considered replies and documentation.

Martin, you may find this hard to believe, but I always do appreciate your well-considered replies and documentation.

I'm an educator. I never found ridicule and embarrassment to go well with pedagogy.

10-4

Tumbleweed, specific to your questions:

link

Hope that helps.

Thank you Bowman.