BoyNextDoor
I hate liars
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Posts
- 14,158
By propagating like a virus. There are 3 billion people too many already. Soon there will be 4.8 billion too many.
biotic potential > carrying capacity = destruction
Climate continues to change.
- Thread starter phrodeau
- Start date
- Status
By propagating like a virus. There are 3 billion people too many already. Soon there will be 4.8 billion too many.
biotic potential > carrying capacity = destruction
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
Just like with capitalism corrections will occur. And with even more hand wringing and crying.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
An Open Letter To An Alarmist Shill/
Graham Woods, Ph.D. to Brian Cox, Ph.D.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2016/09/open-letter-alarmist-shill/
A brief excerpt:
...Along with any other panel member, you had a perfect right to nominate the dimensions of climate and climate change that you believe deserve to be put on the table, but as a non-specialist and a non-expert you had an obligation to confine those dimensions to those about which there can be very little doubt whatever: dimensions or facts that any intelligent non-specialist could, in principle, discover for herself. Here are some of them, the first and second groups surely safe from dispute by any climate scientist:
• Planet Earth is a dynamic planet in a dynamic solar system: thus climate change is, now and for millions of years to come, inevitable and unstoppable. In the absence of climate change, life as it exists on our planet simply wouldn’t.
• Our global climate system is almost incomprehensibly complex: across geological time and into the present affected interactively by the sun; the moon; possibly by some of the larger planets; by tectonic plate movement; volcanic activity; cyclical changes in the earth’s oceans; changes in the quantum and distribution of the earth’s biomass; changes in greenhouse gases that themselves are the result of changes in more underlying factors; by changes in the earth’s tilt and solar orbit; probably by changes in the earth’s magnetic field; and possibly by some other non-anthropogenic factors that at present scientists either don’t know about or whose impact they haven’t yet fully appreciated.
• ‘Consensus’ means ‘majority view’; majority views can be egregiously wrong (witness the work of apostates Marshall and Warren in the case of Helicobacter pylori and stomach ulcers).
• There is no published estimate of the degree of consensus on any aspect of climate or climate change that is so statistically robust that it can’t be contested; in any case, the size of the majority in favour of a scientific conclusion is logically disconnected from its validity: scientific hypotheses and conclusions are refined and proven by empirical data, not crowd appeal.
• There are now countless thousands of studies drawn from at least twenty scientific disciplines that aim to – or purport to – shed light on how the earth’s climate ‘works’. Many of their results and conclusions are, by their authors’ own reckoning, tentative; the results and conclusions of some studies contest the results and conclusions of others. There would be few, if any, aspects of climate that could claim 100% agreement among the relevant researchers except some of the raw data – and even many of these are contested, because different (though prima facie equally defensible) methods have been adopted to collect them.
• In 2016, the feedback loops and tipping points that are assumed to affect global climate systems are, in actual real-world settings, imperfectly understood, and tipping points in particular are largely speculative. This is true regardless of the possibility (even the likelihood) that the current ‘very rapid pulse increase’ in CO₂ is geologically unprecedented or the possibility that it will have irreversible climatic consequences.
• There is demonstrable scientific debate about the presumptive roles (yes, roles) of CO₂ in medium- and long-term climate change in the real world – and there is no conclusion about how CO₂ is related to these dimensions that is supported by incontestable empirical evidence.
• The impact of anthropogenic CO₂ is therefore a scientific question, not a matter on which ‘the science is settled’ or ‘the debate is over’...
• Planet Earth is a dynamic planet in a dynamic solar system: thus climate change is, now and for millions of years to come, inevitable and unstoppable. In the absence of climate change, life as it exists on our planet simply wouldn’t.
• Our global climate system is almost incomprehensibly complex: across geological time and into the present affected interactively by the sun; the moon; possibly by some of the larger planets; by tectonic plate movement; volcanic activity; cyclical changes in the earth’s oceans; changes in the quantum and distribution of the earth’s biomass; changes in greenhouse gases that themselves are the result of changes in more underlying factors; by changes in the earth’s tilt and solar orbit; probably by changes in the earth’s magnetic field; and possibly by some other non-anthropogenic factors that at present scientists either don’t know about or whose impact they haven’t yet fully appreciated.
• ‘Consensus’ means ‘majority view’; majority views can be egregiously wrong (witness the work of apostates Marshall and Warren in the case of Helicobacter pylori and stomach ulcers).
• There is no published estimate of the degree of consensus on any aspect of climate or climate change that is so statistically robust that it can’t be contested; in any case, the size of the majority in favour of a scientific conclusion is logically disconnected from its validity: scientific hypotheses and conclusions are refined and proven by empirical data, not crowd appeal.
• There are now countless thousands of studies drawn from at least twenty scientific disciplines that aim to – or purport to – shed light on how the earth’s climate ‘works’. Many of their results and conclusions are, by their authors’ own reckoning, tentative; the results and conclusions of some studies contest the results and conclusions of others. There would be few, if any, aspects of climate that could claim 100% agreement among the relevant researchers except some of the raw data – and even many of these are contested, because different (though prima facie equally defensible) methods have been adopted to collect them.
• In 2016, the feedback loops and tipping points that are assumed to affect global climate systems are, in actual real-world settings, imperfectly understood, and tipping points in particular are largely speculative. This is true regardless of the possibility (even the likelihood) that the current ‘very rapid pulse increase’ in CO₂ is geologically unprecedented or the possibility that it will have irreversible climatic consequences.
• There is demonstrable scientific debate about the presumptive roles (yes, roles) of CO₂ in medium- and long-term climate change in the real world – and there is no conclusion about how CO₂ is related to these dimensions that is supported by incontestable empirical evidence.
• The impact of anthropogenic CO₂ is therefore a scientific question, not a matter on which ‘the science is settled’ or ‘the debate is over’...
(lots) more...
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2016/09/open-letter-alarmist-shill/
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Keep the fake news off this thread.
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
The Gaia theory has it's roots in that the sun has increased it's output over 30% yet the average temp. on Earth has not even closely risen as much. The Earth would seem to be a self-regulating system.
But for much of the Earth's history, humans have not flourished and increased. That is only in last couple of 100K years. Not really a long time in geographical terms.
Humans have almost gone extinct before. Global warming at that time saved us.
The perameters for us to live and thrive on this planet are quite narrow. The southern hemisphere due to orbit wobbles receives far more sun light than the north does. And a 10% in crease could render the southern hemisphere damn near uninhabitable. Certainly would not be able to raise crops well in it.
Eventually orbit wobble will bring excess sunlight to the north. Hopefully other things have not jacked up temps so high that the extra sunlight does not spell the end for northerners.
10k years in Earth time is part of a second in comparison to human time. We need to think long term. Very long term.
Think about your great grand kids!
But for much of the Earth's history, humans have not flourished and increased. That is only in last couple of 100K years. Not really a long time in geographical terms.
Humans have almost gone extinct before. Global warming at that time saved us.
The perameters for us to live and thrive on this planet are quite narrow. The southern hemisphere due to orbit wobbles receives far more sun light than the north does. And a 10% in crease could render the southern hemisphere damn near uninhabitable. Certainly would not be able to raise crops well in it.
Eventually orbit wobble will bring excess sunlight to the north. Hopefully other things have not jacked up temps so high that the extra sunlight does not spell the end for northerners.
10k years in Earth time is part of a second in comparison to human time. We need to think long term. Very long term.
Think about your great grand kids!
thør
Karhu-er
- Joined
- May 29, 2002
- Posts
- 92,350
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
90% consumed by organisms!
Gaia on guard!
Hopefully we don't pollute the oceans enough to harm said organisms. Like with an oil spill or something.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
A $100,000 Prize
$100,000 Challenge unmet
http://www.informath.org/Contest1000.htm
by Douglas J. Keenan
It has often been claimed that alarm about global warming is supported by observational evidence. I have argued that there is no observational evidence for global-warming alarm: rather, all claims of such evidence rely on invalid statistical analyses.
Some people, though, assert that the statistical analyses are valid. Those people assert, in particular, that they can determine, via statistical analysis, whether global temperatures have been increasing more than would be reasonably expected by random natural variation. Those people do not present any counter to my argument, but they make their assertions anyway.
In response to that, I am sponsoring a contest: the prize is $100 000. Anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation should be able to win the contest.
A time series is any series of measurements taken at regular time intervals. Examples include the following: prices on the New York Stock Exchange at the close of each business day; the total rainfall in England each month; the total wheat harvest in Canada each year. Another example is the average global temperature each year.
Most data sets used in the study of climate are time series. Yet there are almost no climate scientists that have competence in the statistical analysis of time series.
Statistical incompetence has misled climate scientists into believing that they can distinguish between purely random series and series generated with a trend. The purpose of the Contest is to show that such a belief is false, at least for the series of global temperatures.
Terms of the Contest
The file Series1000.txt contains 1000 simulated time series. Each series has length 135: the same length as that of the most commonly studied series of global temperatures (which span 1880–2014). The 1000 series were generated as follows. First, 1000 random series were obtained (for more details, see below). Then, some of those series were randomly selected and had a trend added to them. Each added trend was either 1°C/century or −1°C/century. For comparison, a trend of 1°C/century is greater than the trend that is claimed for global temperatures.
A prize of $100 000 (one hundred thousand U.S. dollars) will be awarded to the first person who submits an entry that correctly identifies at least 900 series: which series were generated without a trend and which were generated with a trend.
For instructions on how to submit an entry, see the Contest Entry page. Each entry must be accompanied by a payment of $10; this is being done to inhibit non-serious entries. There is a limit of one entry per person.
A person submitting an entry must also specify their real name. Names will be kept confidential, except in very unusual circumstances. If someone wins the Contest, though, then their name will be made public. If the name that they specified at submission was not real, then the prize is forfeited.
Anyone considering submitting an entry should read my critique of the statistical analyses that have been done by the IPCC. The critique illustrates some of the potential pitfalls in analyzing the time series.
(During the generation of the 1000 series, in the first step described above, the initial 1000 random series were obtained via a trendless statistical model, which was fit to a series of global temperatures. The trendless statistical model is preferable to the trending statistical model relied upon by the IPCC, when the models are compared via relative likelihood.)
After someone submits an entry to the Contest, the entry is assessed as to whether it is prize-winning. The person who submitted the entry is then informed about the result of the assessment. No further information is provided to the submitter: in particular, the submitter is not informed about how many of the 1000 series their entry correctly identified.
The Contest closes at the end of 30 November 2016 (UTC), or when someone submits a prize-winning answer, whichever comes first.
When the Contest closes, the computer program (including the random seed) that generated the 1000 series will be posted here. As an additional check, the file Answers1000.txt identifies which series were generated by a trendless process and which by a trending process. The file is encrypted. The encryption key and method will also be posted here when the Contest closes.
UPDATE [2016-12-01]. The Contest has now closed. No winning entry was received. The ANSWER, the PROGRAM (Maple worksheet), and the function to produce the file Answers1000.txt (with the random seed 7654321) are now available. There are also some Remarks on the Contest.
http://www.informath.org/Contest1000.htm
by Douglas J. Keenan
It has often been claimed that alarm about global warming is supported by observational evidence. I have argued that there is no observational evidence for global-warming alarm: rather, all claims of such evidence rely on invalid statistical analyses.
Some people, though, assert that the statistical analyses are valid. Those people assert, in particular, that they can determine, via statistical analysis, whether global temperatures have been increasing more than would be reasonably expected by random natural variation. Those people do not present any counter to my argument, but they make their assertions anyway.
In response to that, I am sponsoring a contest: the prize is $100 000. Anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation should be able to win the contest.
A time series is any series of measurements taken at regular time intervals. Examples include the following: prices on the New York Stock Exchange at the close of each business day; the total rainfall in England each month; the total wheat harvest in Canada each year. Another example is the average global temperature each year.
Most data sets used in the study of climate are time series. Yet there are almost no climate scientists that have competence in the statistical analysis of time series.
Statistical incompetence has misled climate scientists into believing that they can distinguish between purely random series and series generated with a trend. The purpose of the Contest is to show that such a belief is false, at least for the series of global temperatures.
Terms of the Contest
The file Series1000.txt contains 1000 simulated time series. Each series has length 135: the same length as that of the most commonly studied series of global temperatures (which span 1880–2014). The 1000 series were generated as follows. First, 1000 random series were obtained (for more details, see below). Then, some of those series were randomly selected and had a trend added to them. Each added trend was either 1°C/century or −1°C/century. For comparison, a trend of 1°C/century is greater than the trend that is claimed for global temperatures.
A prize of $100 000 (one hundred thousand U.S. dollars) will be awarded to the first person who submits an entry that correctly identifies at least 900 series: which series were generated without a trend and which were generated with a trend.
For instructions on how to submit an entry, see the Contest Entry page. Each entry must be accompanied by a payment of $10; this is being done to inhibit non-serious entries. There is a limit of one entry per person.
A person submitting an entry must also specify their real name. Names will be kept confidential, except in very unusual circumstances. If someone wins the Contest, though, then their name will be made public. If the name that they specified at submission was not real, then the prize is forfeited.
Anyone considering submitting an entry should read my critique of the statistical analyses that have been done by the IPCC. The critique illustrates some of the potential pitfalls in analyzing the time series.
(During the generation of the 1000 series, in the first step described above, the initial 1000 random series were obtained via a trendless statistical model, which was fit to a series of global temperatures. The trendless statistical model is preferable to the trending statistical model relied upon by the IPCC, when the models are compared via relative likelihood.)
After someone submits an entry to the Contest, the entry is assessed as to whether it is prize-winning. The person who submitted the entry is then informed about the result of the assessment. No further information is provided to the submitter: in particular, the submitter is not informed about how many of the 1000 series their entry correctly identified.
The Contest closes at the end of 30 November 2016 (UTC), or when someone submits a prize-winning answer, whichever comes first.
When the Contest closes, the computer program (including the random seed) that generated the 1000 series will be posted here. As an additional check, the file Answers1000.txt identifies which series were generated by a trendless process and which by a trending process. The file is encrypted. The encryption key and method will also be posted here when the Contest closes.
UPDATE [2016-12-01]. The Contest has now closed. No winning entry was received. The ANSWER, the PROGRAM (Maple worksheet), and the function to produce the file Answers1000.txt (with the random seed 7654321) are now available. There are also some Remarks on the Contest.
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Posts
- 28,080
Huge masses of tiny plastic particles probably won't do them any good. Gotta work on the plastic-eating protozoa problem, hey? Let them eat plastic and shit petroleum -- which can be scooped-up and used. Keep on dreaming...Hopefully we don't pollute the oceans enough to harm said organisms. Like with an oil spill or something.
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
There is a good chance.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110328/full/news.2011.191.html
Genetically modified grown in huge vats and fed waste plastic. Might be possible.
Just don't ever release it into the wild.
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Posts
- 28,080
Yeah, like mongooses in Australia. Or was that bunnies?
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
The motherfuckers persecuted, demonized, ostracized and retaliated against others for the last eight years. They politicized science and they promoted and promulgated pseudoscience.
Now the cowards won't stand up and take responsibility for what they did.
Energy Department Seeks To Avoid Responsibility
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Do try and get your facts right before posting.
It was rabbits. Also, cane toads.
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
Foxes too. The four legged kind!
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
Holy Fuck! Wouldn't that be a catastrophe! Turn the world steam-punk.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
The “polar vortex” is the scary sciencey sounding name for “winter”. The climate extremist kooks have managed to dumb down their fellow believers to the point where slapping a new name on normal things that have been around forever can scare the weak minded believers. “Polar vortex” is not new. The cold it delivers is not new. It did not come into existence due to CO2. And it is not behaving differently because of CO2. But “climate change”is causing those afflicted with true believer status to become more and more gullible and less capable of critical thinking. And the NYT enjoys profiting from that, apparently.
-"hunter"
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,472
The polar vortex Is more liberal fake news.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
An updated list of at excuses for the 18-26 year statistically significant ‘pause’ in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related debunkings.
1) Low solar activity
2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
3) Chinese coal use [debunked]
4) Montreal Protocol
5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]
7) Stratospheric Water Vapor
8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]
9) Stadium Waves
10) ‘Coincidence!’
11) Pine aerosols
12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”
13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data”
14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]
16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
17) AMOC ocean oscillation
18) “Global brightening” has stopped
19) “Ahistorical media”
20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]
21) Few El Ninos since 1999
22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”
23) “Not scientifically relevant”
24) The wrong type of El Ninos
25) Slower trade winds [debunked]
26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]
27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here
28) ENSO
29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations
30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific
[paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch]
31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”
32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important
33) NAO & PDO
34) Solar cycles
35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”
36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?
38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
[debunked] [Dr. Curry’s take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]
39) “Slowdown” due to “a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum”
40) The “pause” is “probably just barely statistically significant” with 95% confidence:The “slowdown” is “probably just barely statistically significant” and not “meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change”
41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:
The “recent hiatus in global warming is mainly caused by internal variability of the climate” because “anthropogenic aerosol emissions from Europe and North America towards China and India between 1996 and 2010 has surprisingly warmed rather than cooled the global climate.”
[Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal effects on climate, but as of now, they “surprisingly warm” the climate]
42) Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ really is missing and is not “supported by the data itself” in the “real ocean”:
“it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself. Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic.” [Josh Willis]
43) Ocean Variability: [NYT article]
“After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the “pause”] is ocean variability. That’s actually quite impressive progress.” [Andrew Dessler]
44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:
” I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Ocean’s is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do.”-Andrew Dessler. Debunked by Josh Willis, who Dessler says “knows the data better than I do,” says in the very same NYT article that “it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself” – [Josh Willis]
45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:
“Ultimately, the challenge is to come up with the parsimonious theory [of the ‘pause’] that fits all of the data” [Andrew Dessler]
46) We don’t have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the “pause” is due to such natural cycles:
“If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don’t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don’t think we even know if it IS a cycle.” [Andrew Dessler]
47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both
“this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future.” [Andrew Dessler in an NYT article ]
48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:
It’s the Atlantic, not Pacific, and “the hiatus in the warming…should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke” [John Michael Wallace]
49) The other papers with excuses for the “pause” are not “science done right”:
” If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.” [Carl Wunsch]
50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway: [Carl Wunsch in an NYT Article]
“The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up…How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?”
51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]
[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] [“pause” due to natural variability]
52) ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend
PLOS one Paper Macia et al. discussed in European Commission news release here.
Additional related comments from climate scientists about the “pause”
1) My University screwed up the press release & didn’t let me stop them from claiming my paper shows the “hiatus will last another decade or two.” [Andrew Dessler]
2) “This [the ‘pause’] is not an existential threat to the mainstream theory of climate.” [Andrew Dessler]
3) “In a few years, as we get to understand this [the ‘pause’] more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.” [Andrew Dessler]
1) Low solar activity
2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
3) Chinese coal use [debunked]
4) Montreal Protocol
5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]
7) Stratospheric Water Vapor
8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]
9) Stadium Waves
10) ‘Coincidence!’
11) Pine aerosols
12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”
13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data”
14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]
16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
17) AMOC ocean oscillation
18) “Global brightening” has stopped
19) “Ahistorical media”
20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]
21) Few El Ninos since 1999
22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”
23) “Not scientifically relevant”
24) The wrong type of El Ninos
25) Slower trade winds [debunked]
26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]
27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here
28) ENSO
29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations
30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific
[paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch]
31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”
32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important
33) NAO & PDO
34) Solar cycles
35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”
36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?
38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
[debunked] [Dr. Curry’s take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]
39) “Slowdown” due to “a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum”
40) The “pause” is “probably just barely statistically significant” with 95% confidence:The “slowdown” is “probably just barely statistically significant” and not “meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change”
41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:
The “recent hiatus in global warming is mainly caused by internal variability of the climate” because “anthropogenic aerosol emissions from Europe and North America towards China and India between 1996 and 2010 has surprisingly warmed rather than cooled the global climate.”
[Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal effects on climate, but as of now, they “surprisingly warm” the climate]
42) Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ really is missing and is not “supported by the data itself” in the “real ocean”:
“it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself. Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic.” [Josh Willis]
43) Ocean Variability: [NYT article]
“After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the “pause”] is ocean variability. That’s actually quite impressive progress.” [Andrew Dessler]
44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:
” I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Ocean’s is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do.”-Andrew Dessler. Debunked by Josh Willis, who Dessler says “knows the data better than I do,” says in the very same NYT article that “it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself” – [Josh Willis]
45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:
“Ultimately, the challenge is to come up with the parsimonious theory [of the ‘pause’] that fits all of the data” [Andrew Dessler]
46) We don’t have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the “pause” is due to such natural cycles:
“If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don’t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don’t think we even know if it IS a cycle.” [Andrew Dessler]
47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both
“this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future.” [Andrew Dessler in an NYT article ]
48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:
It’s the Atlantic, not Pacific, and “the hiatus in the warming…should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke” [John Michael Wallace]
49) The other papers with excuses for the “pause” are not “science done right”:
” If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.” [Carl Wunsch]
50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway: [Carl Wunsch in an NYT Article]
“The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up…How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?”
51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]
[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] [“pause” due to natural variability]
52) ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend
PLOS one Paper Macia et al. discussed in European Commission news release here.
Additional related comments from climate scientists about the “pause”
1) My University screwed up the press release & didn’t let me stop them from claiming my paper shows the “hiatus will last another decade or two.” [Andrew Dessler]
2) “This [the ‘pause’] is not an existential threat to the mainstream theory of climate.” [Andrew Dessler]
3) “In a few years, as we get to understand this [the ‘pause’] more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.” [Andrew Dessler]
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/c...climate-change-basics/climate-change-deniers/
To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, one study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening and is human-induced.
These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting on climate change. One study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave equal weight to the scientifically discredited views of the deniers.
This discrepancy is largely due to the media's drive for "balance" in reporting. Journalists are trained to identify one position on any issue, and then seek out a conflicting position, providing both sides with roughly equal attention. Unfortunately, this "balance" does not always correspond with the actual prevalence of each view within society, and can result in unintended bias. This has been the case with reporting on climate change, and as a result, many people believe that the reality of climate change is still being debated by scientists when it is not.
To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, one study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening and is human-induced.
These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting on climate change. One study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave equal weight to the scientifically discredited views of the deniers.
This discrepancy is largely due to the media's drive for "balance" in reporting. Journalists are trained to identify one position on any issue, and then seek out a conflicting position, providing both sides with roughly equal attention. Unfortunately, this "balance" does not always correspond with the actual prevalence of each view within society, and can result in unintended bias. This has been the case with reporting on climate change, and as a result, many people believe that the reality of climate change is still being debated by scientists when it is not.
- Status
Similar threads
