Climate Change News collection

[Canvas]

A good summary on why Nuclear is the safe alternative to carbon fuels.

I have been of that position for a long time, at least regarding coal. The coal industry causes far more pollution than the extremely terrible disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Those were extremely bad, and caused extensive damage but were isolated and rare instances. Coal is poisoning people day in and day out. Look at the air in the big cities of China! And it isn’t just the smoke from burning coal that is bad. The areas it is mined become horribly damaged. Appalachia is full of toxic swamps where they dump waste, and the modern method of mountaintop removal devastates whole regions. Not to mention the health and safety dangers to the miners and people who live in coal country.

Health and environmental impact of the coal industry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A toxic crisis in America’s coal country

Families in West Virginia say the coal mines have poisoned their water. Now they're fighting back.

www.bbc.com

Nuclear plants are a viable stop gap measure that if well managed and safety precaustions are taken, can provide much of our energy needs and reduce the need for coal, oil and natural gas.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

And now you are suddenly an expert on all things Steve and without hint of bias have ruled that he’s “got no credentials.”

I haven’t seen any yet that would qualify him to have his word taken over NASA. But of course I am open to being proven wrong, if such stellar credentials show up.

Except credentials are not THE grounds for whether he is correct or not.

That would be an example of moving the goalposts since you haven’t shown he is wrong in his points but merely shifted the terms from the accuracy of his claims and evidence to his expertise or credentials.

Even if we were to establish the bona fides of whomever in the discussion, the question would still be whether the claims of either party are true. So, you are introducing a red herring rather than actually addressing the point.

See also: genetic fallacy or appeal to authority.

 

[HarryStotle]

I will assume this is sarcasm, and you really mean “isn’t science quite fallible.” The answer is that science has proven to be less fallible than any other means of discovering how the physical world operates. In fact, it has been getting better and better as the network of scientists grows and results are examined and challenged by more and more scientists.

Still doesn’t add up to your “experts” being correct, no matter how you rephrase the point. And merely because science has been “getting better and better” in some fields or areas does not mean that is the case in all areas. Nor does it mean that the science is good enough in this particular field of climatology to make it completely trustworthy when the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of human beings are in the balance. The models do not allow for that kind of trust, no matter how much faith you have in them.

The models need to be bulletproof no matter the source of the bullets, and clearly McIntyre has sufficient expertise to shoot targeted bullets. Your attempts at bullet proofing have been dubious – more dubious than his claims, in fact.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Except credentials are not THE grounds for whether he is correct or not.

The are the grounds for a non-expert deciding who to believe. And unless I am mistake, we are both non-experts in this field, right?

See also: genetic fallacy or appeal to authority.

The appeal to authority is not a fallacy is all circumstances. If the authorities cited are an elite group of people are in a position to know of what they speak, their authority is relevant and should not automatically be discounted. E.g. , It is a legitimate appeal and no fallacy to argue that most physicians believe that a high fat diet is unhealthy, and therefore a high fat diet is unhealthy. Or that physicians overwhelmingly say that autism is not caused by vaccines. They are in a position to know. The mother of a kid who got vaccinated and then developed autism is not. In that case, and in the present case, it is no fallacy to appeal to the expertise of those who do know, and have been shown by reputation to know, of what they speak.

Bottom line: neither you nor I are qualified to review Steven’s paper.

 

[Ender]

For me to believe Steve, I would have think NASA is full of idiots, because they do not agree with all of his conclusions. Source integrity matters. NASA has put men on the moon. Steve has just spent time looking for data to disprove global warming.

Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick were the two people who blew up Mann’s Hockey Stick, so his background in this area is fairly impressive. Given that Mann’s graph was the centerfold of the IPCC Third Assessment Report it would seems that truth actually is more important than reputation. At least sometimes.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

For me to believe Steve, I would have think NASA is full of idiots, because they do not agree with all of his conclusions. Source integrity matters. NASA has put men on the moon. Steve has just spent time looking for data to disprove global warming.

Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick were the two people who blew up Mann’s Hockey Stick,…

It is not such a done-deal as you might imagine. Read here.

 

[Theo520]

It is not such a done-deal as you might imagine. Read here .

I think your link argues that reconstructions are good science, not that Mann’s was without error.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is not such a done-deal as you might imagine. Read here .

I think your link argues that reconstructions are good science, not that Mann’s was without error.

All models and reconstructions have errors. Mann’s “hockey stick” has errors, and some subsequent reconstructions are better. But they are not substantial errors that would undermine the general conclusions draw from that reconstruction.

 

[Theo520]

All models and reconstructions have errors. Mann’s “hockey stick” has errors, and some subsequent reconstructions are better. But they are not substantial errors that would undermine the general conclusions draw from that reconstruction.

You don’t draw conclusions from a reconstruction and Mann’s ‘graph’ had significant errors, like eliminating the medieval warming period.

This article digs into some of his mistakes

Global Warming Bombshell

A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

www.technologyreview.com

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

All models and reconstructions have errors. Mann’s “hockey stick” has errors, and some subsequent reconstructions are better. But they are not substantial errors that would undermine the general conclusions draw from that reconstruction.

You don’t draw conclusions from a reconstruction…

Of course you do. That is why the reconstructions were done - to develop conclusions. It wasn’t out of idle curiosity that this work and others like it were done.

and Mann’s ‘graph’ had significant errors,

That opinion is not shared by the scientists cited in the article above about the hockey stick controversy.

 

[Theo520]

That opinion is not shared by the scientists cited in the article above about the hockey stick controversy.

Read your link again, and stop shifting the goal posts. It said other reconstructions also showed we were seeing rapid warming.

Mann’s reconstruction had serious scientific flaws. Why didn’t you respond to my posted criticism of Mann’s work?

 

[Ender]

All models and reconstructions have errors. Mann’s “hockey stick” has errors, and some subsequent reconstructions are better. But they are not substantial errors that would undermine the general conclusions draw from that reconstruction.

Mann’s graph is garbage, as was obvious from the day he presented it, despite the fact that it was the central image of the IPCC 3rd Assessment Report. That it eliminated both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age should have been enough to raise all sorts of red flags. That the IPCC bought into it, proclaimed it to the world, and then quietly stepped away from it when its problems were demonstrated (by McItyre and McKitrick) says a great deal about everyone involved in that scam.

It is not such a done-deal as you might imagine. Read here

Wikipedia? Seriously, you’re looking to them? There is not a more politicized source of information on the planet. They are quite useful for looking up mundane information, but on any topic that is at all controversial, and global warming might be at the top of that list, the articles reflect the biases of whoever last updated them.

Everything about the Hockey Stick smells, and the IPCC was absolutely complicit in featuring it despite concerns that had been raised before publication.

…an L.A. [a Lead Author - Michael Mann] was given final say over a section which included as its (and the IPCC’s) featured product, his very own chart, and which allowed him to leave out not only entire studies that presented contrary evidence, but even to use another strategically edited data set that had originally displayed contrary evidence. (John Christy, testimony before Congress, April 2011)

My main unanswered question is: How did Michael Mann become a Lead Author on the TAR? He received his Ph.D. in 1998, and presumably he was nominated or selected before the ink was dry on his Ph.D. (Judith Curry, 2014)

Mann’s Hockey Stick is a tar baby. The more you try to defend it the worse your position becomes. Think of it as the Huckster Sticky and leave it alone.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Mann’s graph is garbage, as was obvious from the day he presented it, despite the fact that it was the central image of the IPCC 3rd Assessment Report. That it eliminated both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age should have been enough to raise all sorts of red flags.

Let’s look more closely at the MWP and the LIA with an open mind. The MWP (950-1250) was a time of warming climate in the North Atlantic region, and it may have been related to similar warming in other regions, including China. It is not clear that this event was global in the sense that can be measured today with satellites. In particular, the tropical Pacific during the same period was colder. The points is that the MWP as described only from these reports may not be as accurate and as complete as it should be to be used to judge a modern reconstruction of global temperature. Similarly, the LIA (1300-1850) was a period of three particularly cold periods separated by intervals of slight warming. There is evidence of advancing glaciers from various regions over this 550 year period, but there are also indications that these advances were not globally synchronous, but were a series of regional climatic changes that were approximately synchronous. However there likely was modest cooling over the Northern hemisphere.

So now let’s look at numbers. Here is a combination of several reconstructions.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Mann’s reconstruction is the dark blue. As you can see, even Mann’s reconstruction has a slight dip in the LIA, so it is incorrect to say that he erased it. Other reconstructions show a more pronounced dip during that period, but still have the characteristic rise in the 20th century, the same as Mann.

I know you would rather make this about Mann, but it is more than that. It is these other reconstructions too. Calling all these reconstructions garbage and a scam and a fraud may make you feel better, but it does not prove any point.

It is not such a done-deal as you might imagine. Read here

Wikipedia? Seriously, you’re looking to them? There is not a more politicized source of information on the planet.

So says the far-right echo chamber, and no one else.

 

[Theo520]

The MWP (950-1250) was a time of warming climate in the North Atlantic region, and it may have been related to similar warming in other regions, including China. It is not clear that this event was global in the sense that can be measured today with satellites.

No, we don’t have Sat evidence but what we do have should not have been erased by Mann. There is plenty of evidence it wasn’t limited to the North Atlantic region and China.

It’s also very unscientific to make such a claim, that the spinning earth would only get several targeted hot spots for several centuries while the rest of the world somehow avoided any effects or heat transference. VERY STRANGE LOGIC there, especially without a very sound theory on why this would happen.

This site collects research from all the continents validating it was global. CO2 Science

This page shares such research on South America
http://www.co2science.org/subject/s/southamericamwp.php

This page shares such research for the Oceans of the world
http://www.co2science.org/subject/o/oceanmwp.php

They have it for all the continents, if you look in the index.

 

[Ender]

Let’s look more closely at the MWP and the LIA with an open mind. The MWP (950-1250) was a time of warming climate in the North Atlantic region… It is not clear that this event was global …Similarly, the LIA (1300-1850) was a period of three particularly cold periods separated by intervals of slight warming. … there are also indications that these advances were not globally synchronous

So, we can’t tell from actual historical records whether a 300 year warm period was global in scope, or even whether a 550 year cold period was really global either. How can people believe this stuff?

Here is a superposition of IPCC temperature graphs. The red line is from the 1990 report; the blue line is Mann’s Hockey Stick of 1999, which became the graph celebre of the 3rd TAR. (Ignore the black and green lines). There is no correlation between the red and blue lines; actual historical data is simply expunged. Whatever else may be true of global warming, this is scam, not science.

Ender: Wikipedia? Seriously, you’re looking to them? There is not a more politicized source of information on the planet.

So says the far-right echo chamber, and no one else.

Even the MSM couldn’t ignore this one.

Wikipropaganda On Global Warming

National Review: Wikipedia Is A Stunning Example Of How The Propaganda Machine Works

www.cbsnews.com

In theory Wikipedia is a “people’s encyclopedia” written and edited by the people who read it - anyone with an Internet connection. So on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion.

Not on global warming. On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The MWP (950-1250) was a time of warming climate in the North Atlantic region, and it may have been related to similar warming in other regions, including China. It is not clear that this event was global in the sense that can be measured today with satellites.

No, we don’t have Sat evidence but what we do have should not have been erased by Mann.
There is plenty of evidence it wasn’t limited to the North Atlantic region and China.

1. It was’t erased. It just doesn’t appear as prominently as you want.
2. And you can’t be as sure as you appear to be that it was enough of global event to totally discredit all these other reconstructions - not just Mann. (I notice you keep zeroing in on him and ignoring the fact that his general conclusions are generally confirmed by others.)

It’s also very unscientific to make such a claim, that the spinning earth would only get several targeted hot spots for several centuries while the rest of the world somehow avoided any effects or heat transference.

The degree of non-uniformity of climate trends is not so surprising. There are many factors that have long time-constants, on the order of centuries, that could account for why some parts of the earth are warming while other parts are cooling - for a while. You are applying your intuition of what should be rather than relying on fact.

VERY STRANGE LOGIC there, especially without a very sound theory on why this would happen.

If something happens for which we do not have a very sound theory explaining exactly how it happened then — it just didn’t happen???

This site collects research from all the continents validating it was global.

It is not a matter of it being either global or not global. It is the extent to which is it global. I am not disputing that the MWP or the LIA happened, and that they may have had a wide reach. I just said the degree to which they happened are not inconsistent with the majority of temperature reconstructions we have today.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Let’s look more closely at the MWP and the LIA with an open mind. The MWP (950-1250) was a time of warming climate in the North Atlantic region… It is not clear that this event was global …Similarly, the LIA (1300-1850) was a period of three particularly cold periods separated by intervals of slight warming. … there are also indications that these advances were not globally synchronous

So, we can’t tell from actual historical records whether a 300 year warm period was global in scope, or even whether a 550 year cold period was really global either.

Not to the precision you would need to support the claims of all modern temperature reconstructions being garbage.

Here is a superposition of IPCC temperature graphs. The red line is from the 1990 report; the blue line is Mann’s Hockey Stick of 1999, which became the graph celebre of the 3rd TAR. (Ignore the black and green lines). There is no correlation between the red and blue lines; actual historical data is simply expunged. Whatever else may be true of global warming, this is scam, not science.

When I look at that graph I do not see the smoking gun you see.

Ender: Wikipedia? Seriously, you’re looking to them? There is not a more politicized source of information on the planet.

So says the far-right echo chamber, and no one else.

Even the MSM couldn’t ignore this one.

Wikipropaganda On Global Warming - CBS News

This is not an opinion put forth by CBS news. It is a reprint of an article that appeared in the National Review, and was clearly the opinion only of Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe, an organization known for denying climate change.

 

[Theo520]

• It was’t erased. It just doesn’t appear as prominently as you want.
• And you can’t be as sure as you appear to be that it was enough of global event to totally discredit all these other reconstructions - not just Mann. (I notice you keep zeroing in on him and ignoring the fact that his general conclusions are generally confirmed by others.)

You are deflecting again.

It was erased, the flaw was identified in his coding (read my link)
You can’t cite any other historical example of such a bizarre occurrence. The earth either warms or it doesn’t. It doesn’t isolate to a selected zip code (pre heat island effect).

Very strange that you support this selective warming when it isn’t even supported by a theory, you seem to just ‘wish it so’.

I provided you with extensive peer reviewed research that confirms the medieval warming period was global. But you ignored it, no surprise there.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

• It was’t erased. It just doesn’t appear as prominently as you want.
• And you can’t be as sure as you appear to be that it was enough of global event to totally discredit all these other reconstructions - not just Mann. (I notice you keep zeroing in on him and ignoring the fact that his general conclusions are generally confirmed by others.)

You are deflecting again.

It was erased, the flaw was identified in his coding (read my link)
You can’t cite any other historical example of such a bizarre occurrence. The earth either warms or it doesn’t. It doesn’t isolate to a selected zip code (pre heat island effect).

It looks like you are deflecting from the main question of whether the various temperature reconstructions are accurate.

But to answer your questions anyway, a error in the code was found, but did it make enough of a difference to substantially change the main conclusion of the reconstructions? And did all the other temperature reconstructions that substantially agreed with Mann also have that same coding error?

As I showed, the Mann hockey stick did not erase the MWP or the LIA. As for “the earth either warms or it doesn’t”, that is clearly an oversimplification, which you can see by examining the North Atlantic Oscillation. That does have a shorter period than the times involved in the LIA, but it illustrates that uneven heating or cooling over long periods of time is not impossible, or even bizarre. In fact, it would be more surprising if all areas of the earth always warmed or cooled in lock-step.

Very strange that you support this selective warming when it isn’t even supported by a theory, you seem to just ‘wish it so’.

I don’t know of any theory that precludes uneven warming.

I provided you with extensive peer reviewed research that confirms the medieval warming period was global.

Do those peer-reviewed results show that the MWP was identical everywhere? Remember, even the Mann graph showed a slight MWP. So it is not a matter of whether it was global or not. And even if it is global, you have not shown that the degree of discrepancy between that and the various reconstructions (not just Mann’s) is enough to discredit their general conclusion.

So stop deflecting and answer the question of whether the modern temperature reconstructions are accurate enough to conclude the industrial age warming is farther and faster and than at any time in the last 100,000 years.

 

[Theo520]

It looks like you are deflecting from the main question of whether the various temperature reconstructions are accurate.

Is that your statement? I thought we were talking about Mann, and I showed how Mann’s reconstruction had severe faults plus I showed a significant body of peer reviewed research that confirmed the MWP was global in scope. You’ve completely evaded responding to these points, which is why I say you are deflecting.

Your biased wiki article was not sufficient to discuss the other temp reconstructions, which I guess makes it the perfect deflection