PDA

View Full Version : Scientists break with climate change consensus?



Soflasnapper
10-13-2012, 03:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Some climate scientists, in a shift, link weather to global warming</span>
Drought and intense heat in the last decade leads some to believe there's enough evidence to establish a statistical pattern. It's a break with mainstream scientific thought. </div></div>

LA Times Science reporting (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-weather-climate-change-20121013,0,2353619.story)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The worst drought in half a century has plagued two-thirds of the nation, devastating farms and stoking wildfires that scorched almost 9 million acres this year. Withering heat blanketed the East Coast and Midwest, killing scores of people and making July the hottest month ever recorded in the U.S. And in the Arctic this summer, polar snow and ice melted away to the smallest size ever observed by man.

Extreme events like drought, heat waves, intense rainfall, flooding and fires have prompted many people to reconsider the connection between the weather and the changing climate. Now, a handful of scientists are among them.

In a break with the mainstream scientific consensus, a few prominent climate scientists now argue that there have been enough episodes of drought and intense heat in the last 10 years to establish a statistical pattern of extreme weather due to global warming.</div></div>

LWW
10-13-2012, 04:45 PM
And ... ?

Stretch
10-13-2012, 06:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And ... ? </div></div>

Pssst "whispers" That's your queue for an oppinion. St.

Soflasnapper
10-13-2012, 06:51 PM
Did you read the piece?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Nearly 75% of Americans now say global warming is affecting the weather in the U.S., according to a poll released this week by scientists at Yale University. The poll found that about 60% of Americans reported experiencing an extreme heat wave or drought this year, while an equal percentage said weather had worsened over the last several years. A companion poll reported earlier this year that 8 in 10 Americans had personally experienced at least one extreme weather event in the last year, and more than one-third said they had suffered as a result.

Jerry Lubell narrowly missed being one of them this summer, as a 100-foot wall of flames approached his Colorado Springs, Colo., home. The fire spared his house but left him shaken.

"It has me thinking," said the retired nuclear engineer, a longtime skeptic of the idea that human activity is behind global warming. "I haven't changed any fundamental opinions yet, but I might."</div></div>

The American people are beginning to believe their own eyes and ears and experience over the last couple years, and less and less the corporate funded propaganda crap, which was quite effective for a spell, moving the polling on that quite a bit to the doubting/denial side. It's moving back with a vengeance.

Now some scientists are drawing perhaps a premature conclusion (or not, I think it's probably sound) in a way that will resonate with the 60-70% of the people who are beginning to think this way.

It will put yet another huge issue concern squarely astride the corporate agenda of the right, in the short to medium term.

This country is being killed by corporatism all across the board. The sooner the people are aroused to oppose it, the better. The happy coincidence is that it will destroy the GOP's electoral strategy, just as the demographic shifts are also doing.

LWW
10-14-2012, 04:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And ... ? </div></div>

Pssst "whispers" That's your queue for an oppinion. St.
</div></div>

Yes, as even a chimp can cut and paste.

LWW
10-14-2012, 04:44 AM
I don't know of anyone who denies global warming ... so, again, what is your point?

You seem to ge claiming a link between GW and corporations, and yes this piece leads the Goremons reading it to say "SEE, I TO YOU SO!" even though not a scintilla of evidence supporting the Goremon mythology is presented.

An apt analogy would be claiming that since most people believe in thunder, then Thor must be real.

Soflasnapper
10-14-2012, 11:47 AM
I don't know of anyone who denies global warming ... so, again, what is your point?

You haven't been getting around, then. Or remember your own position, iirc.

Plenty of people state we have entered global cooling, and that the warming peaked and subsided variously in '98, or '05. You among them to my recollection.

If you mean to reference instead the notion that the AGW part is what is in dispute, that the warming is beyond what can be explained by natural cycles and is obviously the result of human behaviors and activities, yes, that's another fall back position of the deniers. Warming, yes, human causation, no, or at least not proven enough. That part is now crumbling before public opinion.

Then there's the last denier position. Ok, there's warming, and ok, there is human impact on the warming, but so what? Nothing can be done, or it would be ridiculously expensive for little to no effect. Admitting it all, in other words, and still arguing for inaction.

This is the last thing that is now crumbling as well. Once a strong majority of Americans think there is warming, that it is related to human activity, and that THEY AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE IN DANGER OF LOSING THEIR LIVELIHOODS OR LIVES to huge weather events because of it, then the consensus to look at remedies will be formed.

hondo
10-14-2012, 12:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And ... ? </div></div>

Pssst "whispers" That's your queue for an oppinion. St.
</div></div>

Yes, as even a chimp can cut and paste. </div></div>

Exhibit 237.

LWW
10-14-2012, 01:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know of anyone who denies global warming ... so, again, what is your point?

You haven't been getting around, then. Or remember your own position, iirc.

Plenty of people state we have entered global cooling, and that the warming peaked and subsided variously in '98, or '05. You among them to my recollection.

If you mean to reference instead the notion that the AGW part is what is in dispute, that the warming is beyond what can be explained by natural cycles and is obviously the result of human behaviors and activities, yes, that's another fall back position of the deniers. Warming, yes, human causation, no, or at least not proven enough. That part is now crumbling before public opinion.

Then there's the last denier position. Ok, there's warming, and ok, there is human impact on the warming, but so what? Nothing can be done, or it would be ridiculously expensive for little to no effect. Admitting it all, in other words, and still arguing for inaction.

This is the last thing that is now crumbling as well. Once a strong majority of Americans think there is warming, that it is related to human activity, and that THEY AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE IN DANGER OF LOSING THEIR LIVELIHOODS OR LIVES to huge weather events because of it, then the consensus to look at remedies will be formed. </div></div>

You show a horrible lack of understanding.

Many of us in the thinking class predicted what has now been observed.

Solar cycles are usable for climate predictions over many millennia.

We are in a lowered solar output era ... hence the warming has stopped for now.

Undoubtedly it will resume.

Global warming began roughly one thousand centuries ago ... with many shorter term coolings along the way.

The idea that humanity is behind it ... or could even stop and reverse as Obama promised ... is simply Goremon insanity.

The real tragedy is that we have the technology to adapt to these changes, but we are mired in the moronic junk science Goremon theology that our salvation lies in returning the human species to the seventh century ... and this moonbatology is not only wasting time, it has caused the deaths of millions of humans.

Soflasnapper
10-14-2012, 01:34 PM
Warming has stopped for now due to a solar minimum phase?

Except last year and now this year are both the warmest on the historical record (or at least this year is on track to break the record high global average temps).

The warming continues in the face of the solar minimums, and will return with a vengeance on steroids once that ends.

It's pitiful how obvious the Alinsky-style personalization of the science into the singular person of Al Gore is. A convenient thing to do, and fairly effective. But a complete logical fallacy.

LWW
10-14-2012, 03:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Warming has stopped for now due to a solar minimum phase?

Except last year and now this year are both the warmest on the historical record (or at least this year is on track to break the record high global average temps).

The warming continues in the face of the solar minimums, and will return with a vengeance on steroids once that ends.

It's pitiful how obvious the Alinsky-style personalization of the science into the singular person of Al Gore is. A convenient thing to do, and fairly effective. But a complete logical fallacy. </div></div>

Perhaps you might want to consider that even the HOUSE OF HANSEN (http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml) at NASA SHOW THE LAST SOLAR ACTIVITY PEAK to have been in 1998-2001 and to have bottomed out in 2009/10 ... and then to have began to rise sharply in 2011/2012.

The current projection is for a peak in 2014/15 ... far lower than the last peak ... and to plummet again until 2020 or so.

This is well established science and predicts accurately for as long as astronomical measurements have been recorded ... and even farther since ice core samples line up quite well with what we know this cycles to average.

As the great philosopher Lawrence "YOGI" Berra said ... "You can observe a lot just by watching."

Sev
10-14-2012, 05:59 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...t-prove-it.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html)

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it
</span>
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg
This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996</span>

Soflasnapper
10-14-2012, 06:18 PM
Excuse me for ignoring the headline and the writer at the conservative Tory tabloid publication. One should make sure independently of such reporting what the study actually says, as the Daily Mail has a past history of distorting scientific papers for ideological reasons.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Dorothy Bishop, professor of neuroscience at Oxford University, in her blog awarded the Daily Mail the "Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation",[79][80][81][82] calling the Daily Mail's article "the worst misrepresentation of a scientific article in a national newspaper."[83 </div></div>

They've also lost 6 libel cases where they smeared people for political reasons in recent years.

LWW
10-14-2012, 07:31 PM
Did you bother to read the article and see it's root source?

Obviously not.

Soflasnapper
10-15-2012, 08:09 AM
It characterizes the root source, but does not link to it.

There is evidence I provided that the UK Daily Mail has a history of distorting original scientific studies, and making false and libelous charges proven in court that cost them settlement monies, for partisan political reasons.

Not a credible source. Newspapers are in general a horrible source to rely on for what scientific papers say, even when they are not blatantly skewing things for political reasons.

LWW
10-15-2012, 09:21 AM
It seems that no source that disputes the Goremon agenda is ever credible to you.

Soflasnapper
10-15-2012, 10:41 AM
Uh, Lar? Remember this?

I don't know of anyone who denies global warming ... so, again, what is your point?

So, to back up your claim, you admit you deny global warming, claim the Met Office denies global warming, and accidentally today I heard Glenn Beck deny global warming.

So which is it? You know of no one, or you yourself deny it and a whole bunch of other people?

You don't know yourself? Oedipus, much? (For he was the most ignorant of men, who didn't even know who he was.)

Soflasnapper
10-15-2012, 12:33 PM
Did someone say distorting original scientific studies, and making false charges?

Yes, that was me, as to the UK Daily Mall's past practice.

So it is not surprising, but I'll admit gratification, to see that they did so in this very piece.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Scientist Quoted In Daily Mail Article Said Article Misrepresented Her Views.

Judith Curry, a climate scientist who frequently criticizes the IPCC, was quoted by the Daily Mail as saying that models used to predict future climate change are "deeply flawed." She responded on her website that she did not tell the Daily Mail reporter Rose that the new data showed the models are "deeply flawed" and that she "agree[s] that 16 years is too short" a period to measure whether climate change is occurring:

I have no idea where the 'deeply flawed' came from, I did not use these words in any context that Rose should be quoted [sic] (perhaps I used them somewhere on my blog?) Also, I agree that 16 years is too short, given the timescales of the PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which is associated with La Niña] and AMO [Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which is associated with El Niño], to separate out natural versus anthropogenic variability (but this cuts both ways: the warming period between 1980 and 1998 was arguably amped by the PDO and AMO). [JudithCurry.com, 10/14/12]
</div></div>

LWW
10-15-2012, 12:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Uh, Lar? Remember this?

I don't know of anyone who denies global warming ... so, again, what is your point?

So, to back up your claim, you admit you deny global warming, claim the Met Office denies global warming, and accidentally today I heard Glenn Beck deny global warming.

So which is it? You know of no one, or you yourself deny it and a whole bunch of other people?

You don't know yourself? Oedipus, much? (For he was the most ignorant of men, who didn't even know who he was.) </div></div>

I don't believe you heard any of them say that.

The claim is that their has been no GW for XX years.

That is not claim a that there has been none in the past, nor there will be none in the future.

In fact, the opposite is claimed.

Your naive belief that the global temperature has been on a constant rise is risibly false.

Soflasnapper
10-15-2012, 02:48 PM
C'mon man, that is weak. We're talking present tense.

The deniers are legion, and so have different talking points.

One denier position is that there has been no warming since (fill in the year-- 1998, 2005, whatever).

Meaning, whatever natural variation was going on has ended, no reason to think it will return, and therefore, once again, the so-called 'alarmists' are talking smack.

The Met's data set is different from the two others, which show greater warming and therefore continued warming, by simply NOT OMITTING the polar regions, as the Met's do for whatever reason.

You know, the polar regions, where the warming trend is the greatest? Where the thermostat of the world is set via albedo and other feedback effects, including on the jet streams, etc.?

So you try to say you believe global warming is occurring, just not occurring for the past 15 years. THAT MEANS IT IS NOT OCCURRING!