Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

Some stunning photos. Well worth a look. A collection of photographs of disappeared and disappearing glaciers.

 

Bruce Molnia's Repeat Photos of Alaska, and What He Says They Reveal About Our World

 

 

Photographing Alaska's stunning landscapes has been a passion of Bruce Molnia's since the first time he visited the 49th state, as a Cornell University graduate student in the late 1960s.

 

While studying for his Ph.D. in geology – which would later lead him to a storied career with the U.S. Geological Survey in coastal, glacial, and ocean research – he came across the photos taken by the earliest American explorers of Alaska back in the early 1880s.

 

It was these photos – taken by everyone from John Muir in 1879 to later explorers like William Field and National Geographic's Bradford Washburn – that Molnia would use when he was asked in 1999 by then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit to find "unequivocal, unambiguous" proof that climate change was real.

 

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/alaskas-glaciers-capturing-earth-changing-our-eyes-20131125?cm_ven=Email&cm_cat=ENVIRONMENT_us_share

Edited November 30, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Assuming AGW plays no part perhaps an inspired guess as to what natural cycle(s) are causing the melt, or even, ridiculous suggestion I know, a link to any scientific papers that proffer an explanation.

[Gray-Wolf]

If you take that line four surely you have to say the glacier is 'augmented' by cold periods and wastage accelerated by warming? What then of the glaciers that are no more yet paleo data show have been around since the end of the last ice age?

 

If glacial response is so fast then why did the thermal max not do for them but current warming did?

 

For me I'll stick with the glaciologists and their experience/data sets ta!

[Methuselah]

Assuming AGW plays no part perhaps an inspired guess as to what natural cycle(s) are causing the melt, or even, ridiculous suggestion I know, a link to any scientific papers that proffer an explanation.

That's the crux of the matter: they don't have anything.

[knocker]

Subarctic Lakes Drying Up At A Rate Not Seen For 200 Years

 

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/subarctic_lakes_drying_rate_not_seen_200_years-125325

[BornFromTheVoid]

Following my North County Times and U-T San Diego letters to the editor on the relationship between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global warming, some subsequent letter writers praised me while others questioned my credibility.

 

This took a different twist after a letter from me that was published back in February 2013, when some individuals started to directly email me (I have now received more than 170 of these).

 

One challenged me to a debate about whether global warming and rising carbon dioxide was real science, or a hoax, and stated that I was “woefully ignorant of climate science and even the basics of how science works.†In response, I suggested we arrange a debate through an organization such as the National Academy of Sciences. The response: the academy could not “be relied upon to provide a neutral setting or neutral format,†and I was asked, “Has science now evolved into the telling of ‘tall tales,’ where logic and evidence are no longer required?†A follow-up email stated, “The climate cult does not want to get it right. Climate science is solo corrupt.â€

 

I decided to provide direct links to recent publications and other events dealing with man-made climate change to the group emailing me, who call themselves “global-warming realists†(it should really be “global-warming deniersâ€). I forwarded an announcement of a free video seminar, “Understanding and communicating the science of climate change: A chemist’s responsibility,†sponsored by the American Chemical Society. An email that followed asked whether the presenters (one the president of the society) were “too distinguished to understand the most elementary of logic?â€

 

I then recommended the group read the article “Global carbon dioxide levels near worrisome milestone†published in the May 2 issue of Nature. Return emails stated, “He (the author) just repeats the same old stuff that you gobble up as fact†and â€as to Nature, does Distinguished Jeffery (sic) know that Nature will not publish any disagreements with the prevailing dogma?â€

 

I next sent the announcement of the XIV Roger Revelle Commemorative Lecture at Scripps, “Melting Ice: What ss happening to Arctic sea ice and what does it mean to us,†presented on May 8 by John Walsh from the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. A response: “How can this be considered ‘science’ if (as I assume) no questioning of the paradigm is allowed and patented Democratic Party political language (e.g., “unprecedentedâ€) is used to promote the lecture?â€

 

I next suggested they look at the Aug. 2 issue of Science, which contained a special issue, “Natural systems in changing climates,†and a statement about the special issue from the editor. The responses: “An obligatory statement from the new editor of Science that she is fully on board with all the climate dogma and unable to think for herself is the central problem with science today,†and “How much better it would have been for the new editor to affirm her dedication to the scientific method rather than to faith-based science and the federal gravy train.†A footnote at the end of an email noted the new editor was “a blond who originally hails from Scripps.†By the way, the “blond†is a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

 

 

More of this unfortunate and all too common anti-science mindset here http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/nov/28/global-warming-deniers-guilty-of-attack-on-science/

[knocker]

I suspect the e-mails were being sent by the literati who can normally be found frequenting the comments section of WUWT.

[Gray-Wolf]

I take it you have not waded through the 'comments' section BFTV? ( having noted this at least 'the other place' will now read part of your post....lol) It would appear that the type of person that sends the type of E-Mail noted in the piece also spends a proportion of their day searching out such articles and disrupting them? It appears common place for similar to occur in the British Press too?

 

When you look at historical studies on the tactics used by the Tobacco industry to prolong the debate ( and so allow claimants from the class actions to die before the action got to court) a favoured one was to 'challenge the consensus' at every opportunity ( so as to give the impression that the 'science' was not settled?). It takes only a handful of folk working to this 'challenge the science' remit to create the illusion that the science, far from being settled, is still in full debate.

 

Folk posting such 'challenges' do not need follow scientific principles ( back up their stance with the supporting science) only to post. The readership will rarely question the lack of evidence as they read the exchanges as a 'conversation' ( which normally doesn't involve charts and papers and powerpoint contributions!) and leave with the impression of witnessing a real debate?

 

Sadly I do not know how you counter such behaviours and , with the tobacco debates, only deaths lent enough support to finally silence the debate? I think we are locked into the same hopeless situation with only 'irrefutable proof' swinging public opinion to of of dismissal of anything the misleaders post ( which is why 'weather events' being help up as 'proof' of change is such an annoyance to folk following the misleaders?).

 

I have 'accepted' all along that only climate change itself will convince those following the Misleaders that the impacts are real. I now wonder at the scale of evidence they will require to finally accept what Human pollution is responsible for?

Edited November 30, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Andrew Dessler tweets.

 

Great paper: those who know nothing about a subject don't know that they don't know.

This explains climate skeptics.

 

 

[Guest]

Andrew Dessler tweets.

 

Great paper: those who know nothing about a subject don't know that they don't know.

This explains climate skeptics.

Do you mean that some people can be so stupid that they do not even realise they are stupid?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Do you mean that some people can be so stupid that they do not even realise they are stupid?

 

So incompetent and uninformed that they think they know and understand everything?

Edited November 30, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[Methuselah]

The 'debate' that comes closest to this one is, in my honest opinion, the never-ending 'debate' between Darwinian Evolutionists and Young Earth Creationism: In both 'debates', the deniers are by-and-large scientifically illiterate, rely on fatuous demands for 'equal airtime' and are financed by swivel-eyed right-wing loonies and a hodge-podge band of fossil-fuel lobbyists...But, unlike YECs, climate-change sceptics never provide any testable theories of their own?

 

Have I missed anything? 

[Gray-Wolf]

I think that this 'debate' has the potential to influence the kind of losses that the planet will face over the coming decades though Pete? 

 

The debate over our 'history' does not appear to carry such costs with it?

[knocker]

Arrggh the GWPF

 

Denier Weirdness: Anthony Watts, Tim Ball and Nigel Lawson on The Very Secret Society

You know that Anthony Watts has descended into fruit cake land when you read junk like this at WUWT (archived here).

 

A secret meeting occurred between Lord Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and members of the British Royal Society. Why the secrecy? It is likely because this collective of specialists is scrambling to recover reputations after being misled.

Yep, a secret meeting between the very royal very secret scientific society and the very unroyal even more secretive Global Warming Policy Foundation.

What a lot of nutters there are at WUWT.  Do they really and truly think that after all the publicity the GWPF gave to the very Laughable Lord Lawson's engineering of a meeting with the Royal Society that it was somehow "secret"?  Sheesh!

You want to know why they called it "secret"?  It was because the members of the Royal Society refused to allow Nigel Lawson to turn the meeting into a media circus.  The GWPF milked it for much more than it was worth, as science deniers are prone to do.  

 

You know they are on a losing streak when they have to resort to getting conspiracy theorising greenhouse effect denier, Tim Ball and utter nutter Anthony Watts to help them do their dirty work (part of an incomprehensible mish mash of conspiracy theorising gobbledegook by Tim Ball archived here).

Here's an excerpt of what Nigel Lawson wrote on the GWPF website, which is kinda sad or weird or maybe funny if you're into black humour (full version archived here):

 

The charge that my critical views about climate change policy are based on inadequate exposure to reputable scientists was always absurd, not least given that the academic advisory council of the GWPF has on it, among others, the world’s most highly regarded physicist, Professor Freeman Dyson of Princeton, arguably the world’s most eminent climate scientist, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT (who flew over for the meeting), and three Fellows of the Royal Society.

 

Edited November 30, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

Well, what does Nigel Lawson know about science, for God's sake...He's an economist!

 

Might as well ask an ironmonger to cure non-Hodgekins Lymphoma? 

[UV-RAY]

Well, what does Nigel Lawson know about science, for God's sake...He's an economist!

 

Might as well ask an ironmonger to cure non-Hodgekins Lymphoma? 

I agree with you Pete, but what does Greenpeace and the WWF know about science either?

[Methuselah]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-43#entry2849918

 

But that's - as one would expect from an economist - all about short-term gain...

 

Need I say more?

I agree with you Pete, but what does Greenpeace and the WWF know about science either?

Not a lot. We are in total agreement on that one.

[Devonian]

I agree with you Pete, but what does Greenpeace and the WWF know about science either?

 

It's one thing to allege, without an iota of evidence, but it would be another to, say, look at their websites and point out where they differ from the science (I know they will differ from Wattism, or the square worldism of Goddard, take that as read  )?

 

My view is Greenpeace are the kind of activists the world needs, better them than we're insouciant to a man, woman about everything. Stand up to Russia or roll over and let it tickle our tummy? I think WWF are probably a bit conservative. There, I've given you a nice excuse to call me an extremist and save yourself the bother of doing anything about my request

[knocker]

 

4yrs running constant records are tumbling across the Northern hemisphere there"s constant evidence of cooling taking place ,also Arctic been cooling since 1998 http://hockeyschtick...lso-paused.html.

 

Anomalies of Northern Hemisphere annual surface air temperature (MAAT) since 1850 according to Hadley CRUT, a cooperative effort between the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), UK. The thin line represents the annual values, and the thick line is the simple running 3 year average. The average for 1979-1988 (10 yrs) has been set to zero, to make comparison with other temperature data series (above and below) easy. Last year shown: 2012. Last figure update: 25 January 2013.

 

Long Arctic surface annual air temperature series: Fairbanks (Alaska), Nuuk (Greenland), Akureyri (Iceland), Svalbard (Norway), Ostrov Dikson (Siberia), and Hatanga (Siberia). Annual values were calculated from monthly average temperatures. Almost unavoidably, some missing monthly data were encountered in some of the series. In such cases, the missing values were generated as either 1) the average of the preceding and following monthly values, or 2) the average for the month registered the preceding year and the following year. The thin blue line represents the mean annual air temperature, and the thick blue line is the running 5 year average. Click here to read about data smoothing. Data source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and RimFrost. Last year shown: 2012. Last update 21 April 2013.

 

http://www.climate4you.com/

[UV-RAY]

It's one thing to allege, without an iota of evidence, but it would be another to, say, look at their websites and point out where they differ from the science (I know they will differ from Wattism, or the square worldism of Goddard, take that as read  )?

 

My view is Greenpeace are the kind of activists the world needs, better them than we're insouciant to a man, woman about everything. Stand up to Russia or roll over and let it tickle our tummy? I think WWF are probably a bit conservative. There, I've given you a nice excuse to call me an extremist and save yourself the bother of doing anything about my request

Each to their own Dev, but the IPCC have actually used evidence gathered by the WWF and Greenpeace ( though not sure about Greenpeace ). IMO they are nothing more than middle class political ideologist with far too much time on their hands and far too few brain cells between them. So in your world they are super heroes but for the majority they are viewed in a different light and rightly so. 

 

Edit; I use to support the WWF and Greenpeace but that support was withdrawn in the late 90s.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

Each to their own Dev, but the IPCC have actually used evidence gathered by the WWF and Greenpeace ( though not sure about Greenpeace ). IMO they are nothing more than middle class political ideologist with far too much time on their hands and far too few brain cells between them. So in your world they are super heroes but for the majority they are viewed in a different light and rightly so. 

 

Edit; I use to support the WWF and Greenpeace but that support was withdrawn in the late 90s.

 

What research is that SI? Besides, shouldn't the quality of the research, not who conducted it, be the thing that matters?

[Methuselah]

Each to their own Dev, but the IPCC have actually used evidence gathered by the WWF and Greenpeace ( though not sure about Greenpeace ). IMO they are nothing more than middle class political ideologist with far too much time on their hands and far too few brain cells between them. So in your world they are super heroes but for the majority they are viewed in a different light and rightly so. 

 

Edit; I use to support the WWF and Greenpeace but that support was withdrawn in the late 90s.

I don't know that much about the WWF, SI. But, with the 64 million-year-old Earth, Greenpeace were clearly talking out of their bottoms...

 

But, that doesn't make the incoherent, evidence-free, wittering form WUWT and IceAgeNow anything other than garbage, does it?

Edited November 30, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[UV-RAY]

What research is that SI? Besides, shouldn't the quality of the research, not who conducted it, be the thing that matters?

Totally agree BFTV, but the quality of the research wasn't that good and was later dropped by the IPCC on receding glaciers. One small point would you take that stance if the quality of research was conducted by a sceptical scientist?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Totally agree BFTV, but the quality of the research wasn't that good and was later dropped by the IPCC on receding glaciers. One small point would you take that stance if the quality of research was conducted by a sceptical scientist?

 

Can you give me some links to the WWF or Greenpeace research that the IPCC used?

I would indeed take the same stance. Once it's peer reviewed by a reputable journal

[UV-RAY]

Can you give me some links to the WWF or Greenpeace research that the IPCC used?

I would indeed take the same stance. Once it's peer reviewed by a reputable journal

I'll dig some out tomorrow, they were regarding some Glaciers in the Himalayas that would have disappeared by 2035. It was well documented at the time and not just by sceptical sites as one of the researchers admitted that the statement was intended purely as a shock tactic, hence why the IPCC dropped it like a stone and rightly so Edited November 30, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer