Dr. Curry’s “Climate change: no consensus on consensus” - challenged
Posted: 02 November 2012 10:05 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4350
Joined  2010-08-15

hello, I hope your all doing well.  Me I been busy and feeling pretty good.

And I’m still into the Global Warming alarm thing.
And hope you don’t mind a little self promotion.

Judith Curry recently provided a perfect example of crazy-making that begged serious critical review.
Reading it I decided to reply.

I’ve written a paragraph by paragraph review of her ‘readers digest’ -
{I hope to get enough time and interest and do her full study, it isn’t that much longer, or substantive, than this digest.}

Dr. Curry’s “Climate change: no consensus on consensus” - challenged

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2012 08:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4849
Joined  2007-10-05

Good job CC.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2012 10:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

Nice breakdown!

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2012 12:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3210
Joined  2011-08-15

Just finished Dr Schneider’s lecture on climate change. He lays it all out in detail, especially how the deniers spin the stats and confuse the public by using the media to cast doubts on the issue of AGW. The charts were awesome and his explanations could be easily understood by the layman. He ends on a positive note, IF countries act soon. Excellent lecture!

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2012 01:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2424
Joined  2007-07-05
Thevillageatheist - 04 November 2012 12:57 PM

Just finished Dr Schneider’s lecture on climate change.

Link?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWgLJrkK8NY&playnext=1&list=PL4229AB98829E25EB&feature=results_main

I like the way he starts off saying science is not about BELIEVING.

His discussion of the word “Likely” is interesting too.  It’s meaning varies with different people.

psik

[ Edited: 04 November 2012 02:19 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2012 05:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3210
Joined  2011-08-15

It’s this one Psikey, if it comes up that is. The topic is “is the science settled”?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmlHbt5jja4&feature=related

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2012 11:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2424
Joined  2007-07-05

Climate Change 2012 by Peter Sinclair

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwpnmsLwinI

Interesting but scary arctic ice animation.

psik

[ Edited: 09 November 2012 09:15 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2012 10:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4350
Joined  2010-08-15

allow me a rant


WUWTW

In light of the fruitless dialogue I’m having with Curry fans at her:
“Climate change: no consensus on consensus” thread:
I though I’d write a letter.

======================
Dear Judith Curry fans and other Republicans,

Recently I listened to an interesting talk given by Dan Leonard, of WSI (The Weather Channel):
“Seasonal Forecasting - How is it Possible?”
{search YouTube for: “Weather and Climate Summit - Day 2, Dan Leonard”}
It was part of a series taken at the “Weather and Climate Summit” this past January
and though it has to do with forecasting temperatures more than long term climate issues I still found it interesting.

Particularly when a good deal of the last half of Dan’s talk was about examining WSI’s bad forecast for December 2011.  It’s a fascinating review of the complexity of our atmosphere’s heat distribution engine.

Towards the end it got me to thinking about the way “skeptical” folks and denialists “frame” their arguments and justifications.  Always making out the “consensus” scientist as the bad guy and any little flaw as a “smoking gun” to attack.

During this talk it was interesting seeing how professionals go at their tasks.  They made a very bad forecast, they focused on examining and understanding what went wrong and now they were sharing that learning process with other meteorologists.  Just another day in the continuing education that is science.

I bring this up because I am disturbed by the extent to which the “AGW skeptical” community depends on character assassination, sinister implications, heck even out and out paranoia and the one-world government and black helicopters thing.  With never a straight answer to be offered.

You claim I’m naive because I don’t see it your way - after all it’s so freak’n obvious.  So obvious none of you bothers to provide any objective list of evidence justifying your demonization and distrust? 

Why should I believe your claims of the supposed sins and frauds the community of climate and Earth scientists have committed - when you can never offer straight answers?

Why am I naive, because I believe serious professionals - folks who are dedicated to understanding and learning and figuring out how our planet’s global heat distribution engine operates?  Why do you find it more naive than believing something you can’t objectively support?

And you with the denialist mindset… ever consider your own naivety?  I believe your problem is that you can’t admit to yourselves that you’re dreadfully scared of changing anything about your lives and business?  Thus you refuse considering anything that might upset your boat. Like the guy who refuses to see a doctor for those chronic pains because the doctor might have bad news.

How naive is it assuming scientists are all part of a world conspiracy to take away your god blessed life-style? 

How naive is it to assume that evidence across dozens of disciplines and nations of researchers - can be coordinated in order to trick us into a one world government? 

The real world isn’t that simple.  Scientists are competitive and intent on outdoing the next scientific team.  Flawed or manipulated evidence get’s discovered and exposed by competing teams. 

But the denialist expects me to believe that’s all a front?  Even though, you don’t produce any simple objective lists outlining all these supposed frauds.

Instead you endlessly flog Mann and his hockey stick as though dynamic science doesn’t include mistakes and ragged edges.  You never mention that all those flaws and uncertainties you consider so sinister where in actuality discussed and were part of the science moving forward.  Rather than accepting such facts of science - you intend to continue distracting, misdirecting and avoiding the real issues by forcing your paranoid beliefs {that your life style is under attack and that climatologists are an enemy} into swamping what should be a sober discussion.

Shame on you.

===================================


There’s an educational seven part video series that explains the fundamentals of what is happening in our global heat distribution engine.
I challenge any “skeptic” out there to explain why I should ignore this sort of stuff.

[ Edited: 12 November 2012 10:10 PM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 09:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2424
Joined  2007-07-05

Banker’s comments:

Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must Be Avoided
http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 November 2012 06:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4849
Joined  2007-10-05

Thanks for the link, psikey. I downloaded the report and will read it over the weekend.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 December 2012 05:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2424
Joined  2007-07-05

Leaked IPCC Draft Report: Recent Warming Is Manmade, Cloud Feedback Is Positive, Inaction Is Suicidal

The draft 2013 Fifth Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leaked this week makes clear inaction on climate change would be devastating to modern civilization. The report finds that the human fingerprint on climate has grown more obvious, concluding “it is virtually certain” the energy imbalance that causes global warming “is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance.”

Yes, I know, the easily-duped deniers and their media stooges have reported the opposite is true, that solar forcing has been a significant driver of recent warming, but the deniers are as likely to be right as the flat earthers. The only question is why anyone still listens to them. I’ll repost a debunking of their nonsense below.

The draft Summary for Policymakers (the only thing 99% of people will ever read) finds:

  It is extremely likely [”>95% probability”] that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature since the 1950s. There is high confidence [“About 8 out of 10 chance”] that this has caused large-scale changes in the ocean, in the cryosphere, and in sea level in the second half of the 20th century. Some extreme events have changed as a result of anthropogenic influence.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/16/1334921/leaked-ipcc-draft-report-recent-warming-is-manmade-cloud-feedback-is-positive-inaction-is-suicidal/?mobile=nc

10 degrees F, what fun!

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 December 2012 08:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4849
Joined  2007-10-05

That is frightening, pisk. Thanks for the link.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 December 2012 10:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  471
Joined  2012-07-02

The good news is we’re currently in the process of a rapid and radical shift to clean, renewable energy infrastructure. On top of that, we’ll have so much abundant energy and technologies at our disposal that we’ll be putting quite a bit of effort into cleaning the biosphere as well. Combined with what I suspect is a greater capacity for the Earth’s biosphere to clean itself, and the issue will be solved in our near future.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 December 2012 06:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4849
Joined  2007-10-05

That sounds good, Robert, but it is not true. A Google search turned up this as the top hit: Global carbon dioxide emissions reach new record high, from the Max Planck Institute. If you take the time to look around you’ll see that rather than agreeing to clean the biosphere, international negotiators cannot get past the point of agreeing that we need to do something about CO2 emissions, so they schedule more meetings to talk about it further. See the recent unproductive climate conference in Qatar for example.

Yes, the European Union and some other nations such as Costa Rica are transforming their economies from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Norway and Denmark are financing that transition by selling crude oil to other nations. The U.S. is moving toward producing more energy with natural gas than with coal, but unfortunately we’re extracting the natural gas through hydraulic fracturing with no studies of the potential environmental consequences. Still, the U.S. is reducing it s carbon footprint, which is good news. The bad news is the coal companies are not going to look at the state of the planet and agree to cease operations. No, they’ll ship their coal to India and China: two nations which have done little to nothing to curb their appetite for fossil fuels. Even if the rest of the world gets off fossil fuels entirely the emissions from India and China will be enough to drive climate change past the already dangerous point we have reached into civilization threatening territory.

Your last sentence is simply wishful thinking.

[ Edited: 17 December 2012 06:57 AM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 December 2012 11:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I agree with Darron.  People seem to forget that natural gas is still made up of hydrocarbons.  While using it for energy doesn’t release quite as much carbon dioxide per energy unit as does coal, it’s still dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.  Even if we converted all the land vehicles on the planet to use electricity, just the energy cost of scrapping all of them and building the new ones would be huge.  And, it’s not yet feasible to run aircraft on non-carbon energy sources. I suppose we could go back to putting sails on ships, but that would be economically crazy for any company.  Nuclear is fine, but there’s only a finite amount of uranium so that would be a short term, very expensive source. 

There’s no reasonable way for us to convert CO2 back industially; we have to let plants do it, and between the CO2 acidifying the ocean so the plankton are less able to grow at the surface, and our continuing need to cut down the forests, both for construction, and in poorer areas for fuel, it’s extremely doubtful that we’ll be able to reverse the trend until it becomes catastrophic enough that we reduce the animal (including human) population on the planet quite significantly.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 December 2012 11:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2424
Joined  2007-07-05

Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate

http://skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile