Climate Change Mega Thread

[CapitalB]

The Golfer?

After some googling,ohh the environmental scientists who made fun of the climate change deniers. Seems like a book backed up with science and evidence. Its everything a climate change denier hates.

[rustled]

Yes, Cathy Newman, I am. The entire premise of science is falsibility. If you come up with a theory, you first ask, "What if it's not true? What test can I do to test if it's false?" If you cannot do that, your theory is worthless in terms of whether or not it's actually true.

You seem to be mistaking different types of science. Climate theory is where they look at huge amounts of data which they use to model future weather patterns. Its how all of our weather channel stuff works, they don't bother testing it anymore because its been a literal proven science in daily use for decades. This isn't some theory they came up with then found data to support it. They were making standard weather prediction and at some point they started going off the charts crazy and they've been trying to figure out why.

Climate theory doesn't have the same ring to it as climate science, does it?

Popper saw falsifiability as a black and white definition; that if a theory is falsifiable, it is scientific, and if not, then it is unscientific. Whilst some "pure" sciences do adhere to this strict criterion, many fall somewhere between the two extremes, with pseudo-sciences falling at the extreme end of being unfalsifiable.
https://explorable.com/falsifiability

That's a significant problem for those supporting an unfalsifiable theory, I suppose.

Trying to figure our why is good. I think we're all in favour of that.

Trying to figure out what's best to do about it requires an open mind and a willingness to address the questions: "How do we know what we're doing to "fix" the climate is working?" and "What are we doing in case no matter how much of our resources we dedicate to reducing carbon emissions, we can't "fix" the climate?"

Trying to figure out what's best to do about it also requires we consider the consequences of all of our actions. Shame, that, since it really bums John Cook adherents out when they realize most of what we've done so far has actually done more harm than good.

[rustled]

The Golfer?

After some googling,ohh the environmental scientists who made fun of the climate change deniers. Seems like a book backed up with science and evidence. Its everything a climate change denier hates.

Is that who you think he is? That's it?

Gee, when you cited him and his disciples more than once in your OP, when you use the language he was responsible for coining, I figured you knew exactly who he was and why he did what he did, and you were A.O.K. with all of that.

I guess I'm not really all that surprised. Most people don't seem to know how involved he was in getting this juggernaut rolling, or what his personal motivation was. Probably doesn't matter much now that so much damage has already been done.

[The Green Barbarian]

Well, climate change denier where is your science?

I am not a "climate change denier" as I fully admit that the climate is always changing. If you want me to believe that man is somehow contributing to climate change, then where is your science? As Glacier said, the data doesn't support your position. And you just don't seem to want to admit that, as I know that would set in place a catastrophic event for every SJW on earth, as all of their other beliefs flush down the toilet with the AGW fraud.

[The Green Barbarian]

Its everything a climate change denier hates.

who denies the climate is changing? I don't know anyone. But I do know people who want to see evidence that man is causing changes. Glacier has already proven that this evidence doesn't exist. That's something every science denier still pushing the AGW fraud hates.

[floppi]

Well, climate change denier where is your science?

I am not a "climate change denier" as I fully admit that the climate is always changing. If you want me to believe that man is somehow contributing to climate change, then where is your science? As Glacier said, the data doesn't support your position. And you just don't seem to want to admit that, as I know that would set in place a catastrophic event for every SJW on earth, as all of their other beliefs flush down the toilet with the AGW fraud.

It doesn't matter to me if you don't want to believe man is contributing to oceanic and climate changes as that is your opinion. I'm pretty sure you didn't even bother to read the links I posted so what is the point of posting more links? We all know you will deny whatever is in the links without reading them. What was the data Glacier posted that didn't support my position? I didn't see any links to his graph an without an accompanying link to his source he might as well have photo shopped it.

[The Green Barbarian]

It doesn't matter to me if you don't want to believe man is contributing to oceanic and climate changes as that is your opinion.

I don't have an opinion either way. I'd like to see evidence that shows me that man is contributing. Where is it?

I didn't see any links to his graph an without an accompanying link to his source he might as well have photo shopped it.

Or, more likely, he gave proof to the fact that AGW so far is a massive hoax.

[floppi]

It doesn't matter to me if you don't want to believe man is contributing to oceanic and climate changes as that is your opinion.

I don't have an opinion either way. I'd like to see evidence that shows me that man is contributing. Where is it?

I didn't see any links to his graph an without an accompanying link to his source he might as well have photo shopped it.

Or, more likely, he gave proof to the fact that AGW so far is a massive hoax.

And your evidence to the contrary, is where? Gotta go hopefully you'll have some some evidence to back whatever stance you have when I get back.

[The Green Barbarian]

And your evidence to the contrary, is where?

Contrary to what?

[The Green Barbarian]

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: The HadCRUT4 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling from 2002 through mid 2015, then this warming pause ended with a large El Nino event starting late 2015. The average of two analysis of satellite data gives a trend from 1979 to Nov. 2017 of 0.13 ºC/decade, which is less than half of the corresponding trend of 0.27 ºC/decade of the climate models. The mild warming of about 0.7 ºC over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half. See here.
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.


MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that. See here for more information.

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
See a Wall Street Journal article here.

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. The graph here shows changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL). A major study here shows that CO2 fertilization will likely increase the value of crop production between now and 2050 by an additional $11.7 trillion ($US 2014). See here for more discussion.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting. See here for graphs and discussion of extreme weather.

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of man-made global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming and the polar ice caps are breaking up and melting.
FACT: The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing. North polar temperature graph here. South polar temperature graph here. See here for sea ice extent.

[Bigjohn69]

They rely on opinions from non peer reviewed scare mongering .works on the low education types .

NOAA and NASA,,have put out and still do put out peer reviewed papers and data .

[rustled]

They rely on opinions from non peer reviewed scare mongering .works on the low education types .

NOAA and NASA,,have put out and still do put out peer reviewed papers and data .

John Cook's stuff works equally well.

How do you, personally, dismiss Judith Curry's peer reviewed work?

[Bigjohn69]

It is funny to watch folks with no clue dance around with no proof of anything .not once in this thread has NOAA or NASA been proven wrong

[Omnitheo]

Not really, there won't be any complex life living in the ocean if the ph falls to 5 but the effects of even minute changes in ocean's ph cause major damage in the ecosystem.

"In humans, for example, normal blood pH ranges between 7.35 and 7.45. A drop in blood pH of 0.2-0.3 can cause seizures, comas, and even death. Similarly, a small change in the pH of seawater can have harmful effects on marine life, impacting chemical communication, reproduction, and growth."

http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification

The ocean pH has changed from 8.2 to 8.1 in 100 years. Meanwhile the seasonal fluctuations are 100s of times that amount. I don't think it's a big concern. Maybe in 10 or 20 years it might become apparent that there is a problem looming, but a change of 0.1 is hardly even correlation with CO2, especially when you see the graph I posted showing it as low in the 1920s as now (though data points were much more sparse then, so a high degree of uncertainty exists in that).

8.1 to 8.2 is double. It’s an exponential scale....

Saying “.1 isn’t a big difference” when you have no understanding of what the numbers represent is like saying that having 24 chromosomes is no big deal. It’s only a difference of 1.

[Omnitheo]

Interesting GB did not cite his source for any of that. It’s plagiarized from https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Friends of Science (FoS) is a non-profit advocacy organization based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The organization takes a position that humans are largely not responsible for the currently observed global warming, contrary to the established scientific position on the subject. Rather, they propose that "the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change," not human activity. They argued against the Kyoto Protocol.[1] The society was founded in 2002 and launched its website in October of that year.[2][3] They are considered by many[weasel words] to promote climate change denial. They are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry.[4][5]

In October 2005 Barry Cooper set up the Science Education Fund at the University of Calgary which was able to access funds from the Calgary Foundation.[2] Critics remark that Cooper established the Science Education Fund to "obscure the political and financial interests behind the donations, not only providing anonymity to donors but also a tax break for their contributions to science education."[38] Friends of Science has been "criticized for its close financial ties to the Alberta patch."[38] In 2010, in the section on "Donations" published in the Friends of Science's newsletter in 2010, Chuck Simpson, the Past Director of Friends of Science called for fund raising to help this "small group of volunteers" with administrative costs. One of their problems is that they were unable to "attract money from corporations",[39][notes 14] although their antagonists claim the Friends of Science are funded by the petroleum industry[39] and close links to the oil and gas industry.[40] In April 2007, The Friends of Science newsletter claimed their "efforts to bring balance to the climate change debate are being restricted because of our lack of funding. We have mostly relied upon the good nature of our members, with some contributions from Charitable Foundations. There has also been some funding from 'big oil', but they seldom smile on us. They appear to believe that marketing is more important than historical climate information."[41]