The Global Warming Thread

[Pyperkub]

With all the rapid advances we're making in clean energy, energy independence, etc. I'm not getting my panties in a bunch over it. There are a lot of smart people working on these problems, and I have confidence in mankind to avoid driving itself to extinction.

Fracking and Shale Oil extraction contribute to the problem (even before the Oil gets to our cars) however, and are definitely not clean, but are certainly sucking energy dollars away from cleaner energy. I think it's necessary, but for states like North Dakota to pass state resolutions that it's safe and effectively banning even basic scientific data collection to learn more about the externalities of the process is sheer stupidity and greed.

[Isgrimnur]

Seems like Lindzen has his own inconsistencies:

Lindzen has published a large body of peer-reviewed work on climate change, but his work remains disputed. It's very popular with the skeptic end of the media and he is also member of the academic advisory council to Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation.

His speech was criticised by the blog Skeptical Science. Climatologist Dr Gavin Schmidt also pointed out flaws in his presentation of temperature data at the blog Real Climate, resulting in an apology from Lindzen.

Now, several UK experts have got in on the act, offering their own critique of Lindzen's speech. They are climate physicists Professor Sir Brian Hoskins at Imperial College; Professor John Mitchell, of the University of Reading and the UK Met Office; Professor Keith Shine, University of Reading; Professor Tim Palmer, University of Oxford; and Professor Eric Wolff, British Antarctic Survey Science Leader.
...
The scientists also agree with Lindzen that scientists should base their arguments on "physical reasoning and data", and that uncertainties should not be exaggerated or ignored - indeed these points are the ground rules by which scientists operate.

Where they disagree is on Lindzen's inference that scientific uncertainty means scientists are ignorant about some key issues, implying we then don't have to be concerned.

[Combustible Lemur]

Reddit's Science Forum Banned Climate Deniers. Why Don't All Newspapers Do the Same?

Instead of the reasoned and civil conversations that arise in most threads, when it came to climate change the comment sections became a battleground. Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors. On one side, deniers accused any of the hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change of being bought by "Big Green." On the other side, deniers were frequently insulted and accused of being paid to comment on reddit by "Big Oil."

The end result was a disservice to science and to rational exploration, not to mention the scholarly audience we are proud to have cultivated. When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation

As expected, several users reacted strongly to this. As a site, reddit is passionately dedicated to free speech, so we expected considerable blowback. But the widespread outrage we feared never materialized, and the atmosphere greatly improved.

Most of me thinks its a hammer for a thumbtack. The other part of me thinks bravo let them drink a warm glass of stfu.


The other bit thinks all the new smileys are too much fun for my own good.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's December 20. I'm in Chicago. It's raining.

[Isgrimnur]

Records:
Max temp 67 (1877)
Min temp -9 (1963)

Precipitation 1.67 in 1895
Snow 11 in 1960

[Kraken]

Globally (although not in the eastern US), November 2013 was the hottest November on record. November 2013 also was the 345th consecutive month – and the 37th November in a row – with a global temperature higher than the 20th century average, the NOAA report added.

[LawBeefaroni]

Records:
Max temp 67 (1877)
Min temp -9 (1963)

Precipitation 1.67 in 1895
Snow 11 in 1960

Weather.com has 58F (1957) and -10F (1983) for Dec 20. Either way the avg is 29, the avg low is 22 and the avg high is 36. Felt like mid 40s this morning.

[Jaymann]

At least msduncan has financial backing:

Billionaires back denial movement.

[Chaz]

Hey, a week ago, temps were hovering between 0 and 20F, and we got a foot and a half of snow in back to back storms. Over the weekend, it was 60F.

Guys, this is all totally normal. Nothing weird is going on at all.

[Rip]

Loving the irony of a ship carrying scientists trying to collect data that supports global warming theories is stuck in the Antartic ice.

[Isgrimnur]

...where it's summer.

[The Meal]

Loving the irony of a ship carrying scientists trying to collect data that supports global warming theories is stuck in the Antartic ice.

...where it's summer.

Oooooh! Icy burn!

[Pyperkub]

The immediate costs of Climate Change Denial FUD in New Zealand:

A recent headline—"Failed doubters trust leaves taxpayers six-figure loss"—marked the end of a four-year epic saga of secretly funded climate denial, the harassment of scientists, and a tying-up of valuable government resources in New Zealand.

It’s likely to be a familiar story to my scientist colleagues in Australia, the UK, the US, and elsewhere around the world.

But if you’re not a scientist and are genuinely trying to work out who to believe when it comes to climate change, then it’s a story you need to hear, too. Because while the New Zealand fight over climate data appears to finally be over, it’s part of a much larger, ongoing war against evidence-based science.

The article ends up detailing the efforts to spread FUD in New Zealand and the costs to the public and the Scientists. A Heartland connection appears glommed on to the end, but a click-through to Wikipedia does reveal that Heartland was a sponsor of the FUD group in 2006 (donating at least $25k, apparently), though that money isn't directly tied to this fight - probably so that the group doesn't have to pay the costs it is trying to avoid (from the top click-thru linkof the article):

the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust's final appeal foundered. It was ordered to pay NIWA $89,000 in costs after losing the original case; the appeals court then made another costs order, with the amount yet to be finalised.

The trust didn't pay the first amount, and last month NIWA pursued liquidation, but a trustee has confirmed the trust has no money.

[El Guapo]

If there's global warming, why is it so cold?

This winter is not over, but so far, the most interesting fact about the Arctic blasts in the East might actually be how short they have been compared with the past.

The meteorologists Brandt Maxwell, of the National Weather Service in San Diego, and Robert Henson, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., have been doing some comparisons.


In the winter of 1976-77, they point out, the temperature in Chicago stayed below freezing for 43 days straight, and in 1985 the city had a below-freezing stretch of 40 days. The longest stretch so far this winter was 11 days. Similarly, New York’s longest stretch below freezing this year has been six days, less than half as long as the freezing periods in the 1970s.

Perhaps this is the real reason everyone is panicking about the cold: Winters have become so mild over the past 20 to 30 years that a blast of Arctic air feels extraordinary. “If you were 10 years old when this last happened and now you’re 40, that’s quite a chunk of your life,” Mr. Henson said.

In turn, the cold-weather angst may be influencing how people see the larger issue. Scientists studying human perception have found that our immediate, visceral experience of the world can influence our judgments on tangentially related questions. For example, the research shows that on a day perceived as hotter than normal, people are more likely to say on a survey that global warming is real, and vice versa.

It gets wackier: People surveyed in a hot room are more likely to say global warming is real, compared with folks in a cold room. Our rational minds may know the temperature is being controlled by a thermostat, but the logic somehow breaks down before we answer the survey questions.

It's basically a longer version of the xkcd comic, also with some theories on how global warming may create more variable weather regionally than previously.

[Holman]

Hot damn. You go, Bill Nye!

Bill Nye spent the 1990s providing science lessons to America's youth. Now he's pushing back against the country's know-nothing adults.

Nye will continue his crusade against misinformation this Sunday on "Meet the Press" with a debate against proud climate change denier Marsha Blackburn, the Republican congresswoman who serves as the vice chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.

The host of the once popular after-school staple "Bill Nye the Science Guy" took on committed creationist Ken Ham earlier this month in a debate over the origins of humanity.

[LordMortis]

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/ ... matechange

What a strange reaction

Humanity is in a period exactly like 1938-9, he explains, when "we all knew something terrible was going to happen, but didn't know what to do about it". But once the second world war was under way, "everyone got excited, they loved the things they could do, it was one long holiday ... so when I think of the impending crisis now, I think in those terms. A sense of purpose - that's what people want."

[Rip]

Hot damn. You go, Bill Nye!

Bill Nye spent the 1990s providing science lessons to America's youth. Now he's pushing back against the country's know-nothing adults.

Nye will continue his crusade against misinformation this Sunday on "Meet the Press" with a debate against proud climate change denier Marsha Blackburn, the Republican congresswoman who serves as the vice chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.

The host of the once popular after-school staple "Bill Nye the Science Guy" took on committed creationist Ken Ham earlier this month in a debate over the origins of humanity.

Was funny to see him confuse north and south pole. Bill that picture isn't the Antartic it is the Artic.

Antartic ice is at the highest min in modern times.

[DOS=HIGH]

Hot damn. You go, Bill Nye!

Bill Nye spent the 1990s providing science lessons to America's youth. Now he's pushing back against the country's know-nothing adults.

Nye will continue his crusade against misinformation this Sunday on "Meet the Press" with a debate against proud climate change denier Marsha Blackburn, the Republican congresswoman who serves as the vice chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.

The host of the once popular after-school staple "Bill Nye the Science Guy" took on committed creationist Ken Ham earlier this month in a debate over the origins of humanity.

Was funny to see him confuse north and south pole. Bill that picture isn't the Antartic it is the Artic.

Antartic ice is at the highest min in modern times.

Antarctic Sea Ice is at its highest extent but the continent is net losing land ice volume. Also, the graph shows sea ice extent hovering at record lows in 2011 yet record highs 3 years previous and after, hard to accept any long term trend happening. Arctic ice extent has been far less variable.

[Rip]

I know you guy hate this but I want to make sure that it is apparent that I don't just pull this stuff out my ass.

“Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science,” President Obama intoned in his second inaugural, “but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”
“This isn’t something around the corner,” Kerry said in his WMD speech. “This is happening now.” He cited California, “where millions of people are now experiencing the 13th month of the worst drought the state has seen in 500 years.”
This sounds dire and about what you would expect of a weapon of mass destruction. But scientists aren’t so quick to point their fingers at climate change. “I’m pretty sure the severity of this thing is due to natural variability,” climate scientist Richard Seager told the New York Times, that famous denialist rag.
California experienced a very similar drought in the late 1970s. That event had the same proximate cause as this one, a ridge of high pressure that sat off the California coast and diverted storms to the north. This isn’t climate change so much as climate redux. The more the climate changes, apparently, the more it stays the same.

Obama administration “science czar” John Holdren explained in a briefing, “Scientifically, no single episode of extreme weather, no storm, no flood, no drought can be said to have been caused by global climate change. But the global climate has now been so extensively impacted by the human-caused buildup of greenhouse gases that weather practically everywhere is being influenced by climate change.”
So there you have it, weather is climate. In this construct, climate change is completely non-falsifible.

The California drought is blamed on climate change, even though, as the New York Times report noted, “the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier in the winter, when the state gets the bulk of its precipitation.”

The severe snowfall in the Northeast is vaguely blamed on global warming, even though the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that spring snow cover will decline in the Northern hemisphere.
Whether it’s hot or cold, dry or wet, rainy or snowy—it’s climate change.

So, you turn to the latest IPCC report expecting table-thumping statements of complete assurance about the weather disasters wrought by climate change. Instead, on the issue of droughts, you get this warning label, “Because drought is a complex variable and can at best be incompletely represented by commonly used drought indices, discrepancies in the interpretation of changes can result.”
Contrary to Kerry, the report concludes mildly that “there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century.” It does hazard that “it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and northwest Australia since 1950.”

The IPCC report’s predictions about future effects of warming are over the next century. So, for instance, if you assume perfect clairvoyance on the part of the report’s authors, it is likely monsoon winds will weaken and monsoon precipitation strengthen … by 2100. To take this long-term guesswork and pretend it explains every drop in the barometer right now is absurd.
Besides, the facts counsel more caution rather than more certainty about the scientific consensus on climate change that is so often used as a political bludgeon. The Economist noted last year that “over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.”

and most importantly.

Even if Kerry were right in everything he says, he is powerless to do anything about it. Our carbon emissions are essentially static, but those of China and India are growing at a rapid pace. Writing in National Review, Oren Cass points out that “even the complete elimination of U.S. emissions would be quickly offset elsewhere.”
China and India aren’t going to let John Kerry bull-rush them into hindering their economic development—which has done so much to alleviate human misery—in response to a far-off theoretical threat of dangerous weather. The secretary of state can man the battle stations, but he will be lonely there. And if this winter is any guide, very cold.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... wdGe_ldWSo

[RunningMn9]

/sigh

[Kraken]

The last issue of Science News said that climate records indicate that the 20th century was abnormally wet for CA, and the current drought conditions, if they represent a return to the historical norm, will persist for centuries. Global warming adds uncertainty because the old normal no longer applies.

Blaming the drought on global warming is speculative. Blaming the uncertainty is valid. Or so saith my most trusted source for presenting current research to us laypeople.

As for snow in New England, the long-term trend toward shorter and milder winters is crystal clear, one severe winter notwithstanding. That's borne out both by statistics and by my experience as a gardener. Maybe it will change if the weaker Jet Stream becomes normal. We're conducting a huge experiment on an extremely complex system and no model can tell us exactly how it's going to play out.

[noxiousdog]

The last issue of Science News said that climate records indicate that the 20th century was abnormally wet for CA, and the current drought conditions, if they represent a return to the historical norm, will persist for centuries. Global warming adds uncertainty because the old normal no longer applies.

Can climate have a historical norm? I would vote no.

That observation is independent of human influence on climate, though, in which I would vote that yes we do.

[Kraken]

I couldn't find the SN article that I remembered reading but this Nat Geographic story covers the same ground (and I might have simply misremembered the source).

B. Lynn Ingram, a paleoclimatologist at the University of California at Berkeley, thinks that California needs to brace itself for a megadrought—one that could last for 200 years or more.

As a paleoclimatologist, Ingram takes the long view, examining tree rings and microorganisms in ocean sediment to identify temperatures and dry periods of the past millennium. Her work suggests that droughts are nothing new to California.

"During the medieval period, there was over a century of drought in the Southwest and California. The past repeats itself," says Ingram, who is co-author of The West Without Water: What Past Floods, Droughts, and Other Climate Clues Tell Us About Tomorrow. Indeed, Ingram believes the 20th century may have been a wet anomaly.

"None of this should be a surprise to anybody," agrees Celeste Cantu, general manager for the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. "California is acting like California, and most of California is arid."

Unfortunately, she notes, most of the state's infrastructure was designed and built during the 20th century, when the climate was unusually wet compared to previous centuries. That hasn't set water management on the right course to deal with long periods of dryness in the future.

Point being that there is not sufficient evidence to link this drought to global warming, although I did turn up a couple of studies implicating warmer ocean temperatures.

SN does have a cover story this week about how the wine industry is adapting to climate change. Haven't read it yet but will link it if it's pertinent and interesting.

[Pyperkub]

The last issue of Science News said that climate records indicate that the 20th century was abnormally wet for CA, and the current drought conditions, if they represent a return to the historical norm, will persist for centuries. Global warming adds uncertainty because the old normal no longer applies.

Can climate have a historical norm? I would vote no.

That observation is independent of human influence on climate, though, in which I would vote that yes we do.

Of course it does have a norm, whether that norm is valid for predicting future norms is the problem.

[noxiousdog]

Of course it does have a norm, whether that norm is valid for predicting future norms is the problem.

But "normal climate" is redundant. That's the whole point of climate.

[Pyperkub]

Of course it does have a norm, whether that norm is valid for predicting future norms is the problem.

But "normal climate" is redundant. That's the whole point of climate.

I was thinking in terms of a mathematical (ok, statistical) construct... but for this argument we'll probably want the future expected norm as compared to the norm for human history, which will likely vary (greatly?) from the norm over the Earth's history.

After all, the point is more regarding whether the Earh's climate will be fit for human habitation more than anything else. The earth abides, dude.

[noxiousdog]

I was thinking in terms of a mathematical (ok, statistical) construct... but for this argument we'll probably want the future expected norm as compared to the norm for human history, which will likely vary (greatly?) from the norm over the Earth's history.

I don't have any idea what that means. Climate has varied throughout even recorded human history.

After all, the point is more regarding whether the Earh's climate will be fit for human habitation more than anything else. The earth abides, dude.

Of course it will, but not necessarily in the same places it is now.

Regardless, I'm being pedantic. It's purely a language usage thing.

[RunningMn9]

I would expect that "normal" simply means "what we would have expected to happen without human impact". Not "normal" meaning "static climate that doesn't change".

There are all sorts of climate forcings that affect the system to varying degrees and have produced uncountable climatic shifts since the planet had climate.

My concern about this one is that this is the first one that is happening while we are trying to feed a global civilization of 7+ billion humans.

[Rip]

A co-founder of Greenpeace told lawmakers there is no evidence man is contributing to climate change, and said he left the group when it became more interested in politics than the environment.

Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist and business consultant who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like the one he helped establish use faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet.

Moore said he left Greenpeace in the 1980s because he believed it became more interested in politics than science.

“After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,” he said. “Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/ ... latestnews

[Isgrimnur]

Well, that doesn't match up with what Richard McNider and John Christy are saying in the Wall Street Journal.

The two fundamental facts are that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space.

What is not a known fact is by how much the Earth's atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide.

So why can't the sources on the right come to a consensus?

[Rip]

Because there is no consensus to be had. For me that is the point. The only people with a consensus have more political agenda than scientific and have been wrong on prediction more than they have been right.

When they reach a consensus and use that consensus for even vaguely accurate predicition then I will accept it as proven science.

The real point here is that one of the founders of Greenpeace observed and left due to an observed shifting of the organization as a science first politics after organization to one that was led by politics and then sought out science to validate that politics. Politics has a way of subverting all that it touches. It always wants to lead and is never content with following.

[GreenGoo]

While I have no doubt Green Peace is a political organization, I'm curious what the flaws were in the models they're using.

As for the whistle blower, I'm on board with labeling Green Peace a shyster organization, but I wouldn't mind hearing something other than his say so. One man's word is not worth a lot when we have the vast majority of climate scientists on the other side of that word.

edit: and 1986? Hell, the "hole" in the ozone layer was a hotly disputed topic at that time. No wonder his models were faulty.

So 20 (excuse me, 18) years ago dude has a falling out with Green Peace and blows the whistle on himself today for the shitty math he did back then?

Honestly, I give this guy as much credibility as I give you on this topic Rip. Less, since chances are good he's got a bone to pick.

Again, if this guy has ANYTHING to show us, let's see it. Let's get it peer reviewed. Let's see what the rest of us are missing. Otherwise...

[Rip]

Flash: Climate scientists make conclusions that bolster the likliehood that more money will be thrown at climate science research. Film at eleven.

[Isgrimnur]

And energy companies that profit from fossil fuel sales and lax emissions standards are the paragons of reasoned research that support unbiased findings?

[RunningMn9]

Rip, didn't we *just* come to an agreement that you don't have a fucking clue about what you are talking about, and that you were going to stop pretending that you do?

[GreenGoo]

Flash: Climate scientists make conclusions that bolster the likliehood that more money will be thrown at climate science research. Film at eleven.

Lol. So the entire thing, across the globe, is nothing but a scam for grant money?

Do you hear yourself? No wonder the creationists are making progress. Science is just a ponzi scheme, apparently.

[RuperT]

OK Rip, assuming some market for global cooling science, how long before evidence on both sides has equal value? I mean, it's been a big deal for a while now.

[Rip]

It has been a big deal for a while now and yet the predicted doom appears no closer.

All the people spazzing and freaking out about it reminds of a bunch of doomsdayers.

Sadly there are dozens of things more likely to endanger our way of life if not our very lives but alas it is obvious many of you are oblivious to them and I am apparently not about to shift your awareness of them. I guess I will just have to accept that and wait until those dangers are knocking at the door and the weather is still doing what the weather has always done and hope our course can be reversed.

Only two more years maybe a tad longer before NK is able to reach us with nuclear missles and I doubt Iran will be far behind. Hopefully I will be able to gather the resources and a plan to weather the storm (the non-climate created one) and endure the post American superpower world.

[RunningMn9]

A co-founder of Greenpeace told lawmakers there is no evidence man is contributing to climate change, and said he left the group when it became more interested in politics than the environment.

Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist and business consultant who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like the one he helped establish use faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet.

Moore said he left Greenpeace in the 1980s because he believed it became more interested in politics than science.

“After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,” he said. “Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”

Why would an ecologist/business consultant be an authority on the scientific case for human-caused climate change?

Especially when he doesn't appear to know that "human-caused climate change" has been shown to be true through the course of normal scientific experimentation, several times. This is only news to people that get their science from media reports and actors, rather than from actual scientists. "Human-caused climate change" has nothing to do with computer models.

[The Meal]

Because there is no consensus to be had. For me that is the point. The only people with a consensus have more political agenda than scientific and have been wrong on prediction more than they have been right.

When they reach a consensus and use that consensus for even vaguely accurate predicition then I will accept it as proven science.

Not sure about the "predicition" part, but how does your mind feel about a 97% consensus?

In 2012, National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell investigated peer-reviewed literature published about climate change and found that out of 13,950 articles, 13,926 supported the reality of global warming. Despite a lot of sound and fury from the denial machine, deniers have not really been able to come up with a coherent argument against a consensus. The same is true for a somewhat different study that showed a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists supporting both the reality of global warming and the fact that human emissions are behind it.