World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner;11619135:

That’s because their science is up to snuff to get published in peer-reviewed jnls, tho occasionally a skeptic article does pass peer-review. I remember a skeptic here on CAF citing an article that supposed disproved the greenhouse effect. It was in an obscure Hungarian journal. My climate scientists friend knew the author and very politely dismissed his ideas, which never were published in a mainstream journal.

You can go back over some of the earlier posts on CAF on AGW, and some skeptics here posted long lists of references supposedly disproving AGW.

One time I sent the list to RealClimate.org and asked if anyone knew about this articles and/or authors. On poster took the time to debunk all of them. Some were written by anthropologists and philosophers. Some actually did support AGW, instead of disproving it as the CAF poster had claimed. Some were really old and had not been disproven long time back. I did a google search and found that list on a denialist site – the CAF poster had simply copied and pasted it.

Also that Oregon Petition list of “scientists” who reject AGW has all sorts of bogus people on in, including a cast member of MASH, some dentists, a Dixie Chick, and some scientists who in fact do not (or no longer) reject AGW.

One by one the last true skeptics’ arguments have been refuted…even Lindsen’s “iris theory” holds water no more. Some of the scientist “skeptics” also rejected the idea that smoking can cause cancer and in general reject anything that suggests our lifestyle can cause any problems or harms.

Here are some sites that help with who the denialist industry-supported skeptic “scientists” are, and why their claims are unsubstantiated, even deceitful:

• skepticalscience.com/

• desmogblog.com/
• realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki
• climatecrocks.com/

The above is attributed to me, but it was actually posted by someone else.

As I have said before in previous MMGW threads, it eventually assumes the character of a high school debate; “my quote is better than your quote”. There are legitimate scientists who a) don’t believe MMGW is going on or b) Dont think its a big deal.

And there are people on the other side who say they’re wrong.

And there are people who say those people are wrong.

And on a thing the majority of Americans don’t believe in any more, and which the rest of the world ignores, and which the major promoters ignore in their own lives.

And why should they not ignore it? Nothing we do in this country will make a difference when the rest of the world ignores it.

“Mitigation” in this country will indisputably cause suffering and, probably, cost lives. This against speculative crises that even the MMGW promoters don’t agree on in terms of timing and severity. Lately, of course, some have even said it’s too late to do anything about it anyway.

And to claim the numerous negative opinions by scientists cited previous threads have been debunked is simply an erroneous claim. MMGW promoters make claims like that, but then so does every high school debater.

 

[Tomdstone]

Al Jazeera? Really? Are not they known for being a mouthpiece for various terrorist organizations?

I did not know that. Can you supply some evidence to show that A J is a mouthpiece for terrorist groups?

 

[frobert]

lynnvinc;11619831:

The above is attributed to me, but it was actually posted by someone else.

As I have said before in previous MMGW threads, it eventually assumes the character of a high school debate; “my quote is better than your quote”. There are legitimate scientists who a) don’t believe MMGW is going on or b) Dont think its a big deal.

Check

And there are people on the other side who say they’re wrong.

Check

And there are people who say those people are wrong.

Check

And on a thing the majority of Americans don’t believe in any more, and which the rest of the world ignores, and which the major promoters ignore in their own lives.

Check

And why should they not ignore it? Nothing we do in this country will make a difference when the rest of the world ignores it.

Check

Yet there are many individuals who do not ignore it. I am doing what I am able to do for myself and my family. In the process I have moved to a much better area which is sustainable in food and water, I am more involved in my community than I have been in the past, I have made some wonderful friendships, I have found an ideal church within walking distance. However, I hope and pray that you are right and climate change turns out to out to be just an unwarranted scare.

“Mitigation” in this country will indisputably cause suffering and, probably, cost lives. This against speculative crises that even the MMGW promoters don’t agree on in terms of timing and severity. Lately, of course, some have even said it’s too late to do anything about it anyway.

Check. Timing is difficult, climate is an interplay of many factors some of which are not well understood, it changes over decades sometimes more quickly. If we have passed the tipping points, as many believe, it is too late to change much and even if we haven’t it is too late to change much for all the reasons you state.

And to claim the numerous negative opinions by scientists cited previous threads have been debunked is simply an erroneous claim. MMGW promoters make claims like that, but then so does every high school debater.

Check. Faith based arguments are impossible challenge successfully.

It’s amazing how close we are to full agreement.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner;11620990:

Check

Check

Check

Check

Check

Yet there are many individuals who do not ignore it. I am doing what I am able to do for myself and my family. In the process I have moved to a much better area which is sustainable in food and water, I am more involved in my community than I have been in the past, I have made some wonderful friendships, I have found an ideal church within walking distance. However, I hope and pray that you are right and climate change turns out to out to be just an unwarranted scare.

Check (we have passed the tipping points)

Check, faith based arguments are impossible challenge

It’s amazing how close we are to full agreement.

Then let’s agree on one more thing. I have absolutely no problem with anyone who has decided, for whatever reason, to use less energy than before. Lots of reasons to do that; sheer family economics being one of them.

It might be just a trifle “tinfoil hat” to move to a place where food and good water are plentiful, but since I already live in such an area, far be it from me to critique one who once did not and was concerned about it. I might be motivated to do the same.

We all have our prejudices. I spend a lot of my time outdoors, and always have. I have seen scorching hot and dry summers, bitter winters, nice summers and mild winters. I was told by my grandfather to expect recurrent heat/droughts every so often. He experienced them (the 1930s were the worst, he said) and cautioned against ever expecting climate stability; to be prepared for harsh winters, droughty summers,along with better conditions, and to try to stay flexible in the face of them.

I have personally experienced those cycles. I have to live with them and their consequences, and I do. I know how to do that. As I have said before “I feel it on my own hide”, and nothing has ever convinced me that during my lifetime or my grandfather’s, we have truly experienced anything but recurring cycles.

And it isn’t just local. Our cycles coincide with changes as far away as Australia, but in reverse, in Australia’s case.

The one “manmade global warming” argument with which I agree is the one about which I posted a site above. In case you missed it, here it is again. I think you will find it interesting if you haven’t already watched it. I have tried his recommendations myself, and they definitely work, as paradoxical as they might seem.

ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html

 

[Ender]

Seriously though, I haven’t read all your post and I don’t deny that you have some valid arguments but much of you post is based on things taken out of context and/or the propaganda of vested interests.

If you think I have taken something out of context then attack that specific point and make an argument to support your position, but a vague “out of context…propaganda…vested interests” charge doesn’t go very far.

There are a few things coming to together in the not too distant future. What to expect: An increase in billion and multi-billion dollar weather events, flooding, drought, etc that the governments of world will not be able to repair or mitigate much of the damage.

How do we know this? Is this what is predicted by climate models? If so, isn’t it relevant to note that all of the climate models failed to predict that warming would (or even could) stop for 15 years?

Ender

 

[frobert]

frobert;11621045:

Then let’s agree on one more thing. I have absolutely no problem with anyone who has decided, for whatever reason, to use less energy than before. Lots of reasons to do that; sheer family economics being one of them.

It might be just a trifle “tinfoil hat” to move to a place where food and good water are plentiful, but since I already live in such an area, far be it from me to critique one who once did not and was concerned about it. I might be motivated to do the same.

We all have our prejudices. I spend a lot of my time outdoors, and always have. I have seen scorching hot and dry summers, bitter winters, nice summers and mild winters. I was told by my grandfather to expect recurrent heat/droughts every so often. He experienced them (the 1930s were the worst, he said) and cautioned against ever expecting climate stability; to be prepared for harsh winters, droughty summers,along with better conditions, and to try to stay flexible in the face of them.

I have personally experienced those cycles. I have to live with them and their consequences, and I do. I know how to do that. As I have said before “I feel it on my own hide”, and nothing has ever convinced me that during my lifetime or my grandfather’s, we have truly experienced anything but recurring cycles.

And it isn’t just local. Our cycles coincide with changes as far away as Australia, but in reverse, in Australia’s case.

The one “manmade global warming” argument with which I agree is the one about which I posted a site above. In case you missed it, here it is again. I think you will find it interesting if you haven’t already watched it. I have tried his recommendations myself, and they definitely work, as paradoxical as they might seem.

ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html

This video was excellent. I had read articles on the theory but the video brought it home. There are 3 important facts Savory brings out. 1) climate change is happening (man made or otherwise); 2) we have to do something about it; 3) there are things we can do. Certainly grazing, conservation and probably many other cost effective solutions. There are forces that are preventing positive action. Let’s work together and make sure we defeat those forces. One other thing that Savory emphasized at the beginning, technology is not going to solve the problem which means it is up to ourselves.

Look at Peak Prosperity. It is not a climate change site but it does present content about our changing world and how to prepare for the changes.

 

[frobert]

If you think I have taken something out of context then attack that specific point and make an argument to support your position, but a vague “out of context…propaganda…vested interests” charge doesn’t go very far.
How do we know this? Is this what is predicted by climate models? If so, isn’t it relevant to note that all of the climate models failed to predict that warming would (or even could) stop for 15 years?

Ender

Why do I not take you seriously? Take a peak at the exchange between myself and Ridgerunner.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Please charitably discuss the issues. Not each other and not how each other post.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner;11621115:

This video was excellent. I had read articles on the theory but the video brought it home. There are 3 important facts Savory brings out. 1) climate change is happening (man made or otherwise); 2) we have to do something about it; 3) there are things we can do

. Certainly grazing, conservation and probably many other cost effective solutions. There are forces that are preventing positive action. Let’s work together and make sure we defeat those forces. One other thing that Savory emphasized at the beginning, technology is not going to solve the problem which means it is up to ourselves.

Look at Peak Prosperity. It is not a climate change site but it does present content about our changing world and how to prepare for the changes.

Desertification of 90% of the world’s land surface ought to be concerning, and I think anyone can easily understand what Savory is saying by simply going out on a summer day and feeling the heat arising from bare earth and the relative coolness on and particularly under packed vegetation. Rather than radiating heat into the atmosphere, the vegetation absorbs it and moderates it with evaporation. Reminds one somewhat of the “heat sinks” that cities now are because of all the concrete and asphalt. The remedy, as Savory points out, is actually fairly simple in the countryside; more mob grazing by more hoofed animals.

And, of course, his remedy sequesters carbon, for those who worry about atmospheric carbon.

Perhaps most importantly, nobody has to do without heat in winter, because anti-desertification measures do not make utility bills “skyrocket”.

 

[frobert]

If you think I have taken something out of context then attack that specific point and make an argument to support your position, but a vague “out of context…propaganda…vested interests” charge doesn’t go very far.
How do we know this? Is this what is predicted by climate models? If so, isn’t it relevant to note that all of the climate models failed to predict that warming would (or even could) stop for 15 years?

Ender

First of all I want to apologize for my last remark. The moderator was nice enough to point out that it was not charitable and I agree it wasn’t.

My last paragraph contained an opinion of what is at stake. If and when they come about it will be a strong indication that climate has truly changed. We will only know for sure that climate change has taken place after it has happened.

The vested interest are the companies that were talked about in my post about the study where a billion dollars was being spent on denier information.

What was taken out of context? Most of the information that was in the emails used to condemn scientists was allegedly taken out of context. There were 8 separate investigations by profession associations. I won’t give links because the information is easy to find and I hesitate to give short summaries because without the full content they do not give the full picture. In spite of my misgivings here are two summaries:

The American Meteorological Society stated that the incident did not affect the society’s position on climate change. They pointed to the breadth of evidence for human influence on climate, stating “For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.”

The American Geophysical Union issued a statement expressing concern that the emails were “being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change” and reaffirming their 2007 position statement with regard to human influences on climate. They stated that “Science and the scientific method is seldom a linear march to the ‘correct’ and indisputable answer. Disagreement among scientists is part of the energy that moves inquiry forward.”

I believe there several unscientific results were improperly reported but it does not change the overall body of knowledge by much. Scientists want to advance their careers and publications are a way to do it. Its human nature that a minority of scientists will cheat and do worse, I like to believe that most people, scientists among them are honest and decent.

 

[DaveBj]

As if there wasn’t already enough opinion floating around on this thread, here’s some more. The writer, while not a scientist, has been following the debate for 20 years.

washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/21/newman-confessions-of-a-global-warmist-wannabe/

 

[Ridgerunner]

As if there wasn’t already enough opinion floating around on this thread, here’s some more. The writer, while not a scientist, has been following the debate for 20 years.

washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/21/newman-confessions-of-a-global-warmist-wannabe/

Reminds me of something an old business associate used to say, tongue in cheek, about his smoking: “If you quit smoking, you don’t live longer, it just SEEMS longer.”

Maybe the author of this article hasn’t really followed the debate for 20 years. Maybe it just SEEMS like 20 years because the MMGW bombardment is so incessant.

 

[DaveBj]

Reminds me of something an old business associate used to say, tongue in cheek, about his smoking: “If you quit smoking, you don’t live longer, it just SEEMS longer.”

Maybe the author of this article hasn’t really followed the debate for 20 years. Maybe it just SEEMS like 20 years because the MMGW bombardment is so incessant.

 

[RACJ]

Warmer weather is “feared”? Scientists must scare easily!

 

[vz71]

Warmer weather is “feared”? Scientists must scare easily!

Funny.
But it is more likely the ignorance driving the cash cow is losing in favor of healthy skepticism towards climate predictions.

I would be afraid too if my income was threatened.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Warmer weather is “feared”? Scientists must scare easily!

Your post reminds me somewhat of the remembrance of the 'white pig" from my early childhood.

My bedroom was on the east side of the house. We lived in the country. One morning I woke up and looked outside, and there, in the distance, among some trees and brush was a WHITE PIG!.

Now, being a country kid as I was, and having been told how pigs can be very dangerous, particularly to children, I was horrified at the sight. I informed and showed my slightly older sister, and we stared through the window at the white pig.

It never moved, and we became increasingly convinced it was waiting there in case some unwary child went to the east side of the house, in which event it would pounce and eat us up.

It was there day after day, clearly waiting its chance, until one day my mother instructed me to go to the east side of the house for some reason I no longer recall. I told her I couldn’t because of the white pig. She was taken somewhat aback and so I showed her the indisputable evidence that the white pig was, indeed, there, waiting, among the trees and the brush.

She looked for just a moment, then told my sister and me to watch her. She went out of the house. My sister and I watched in horror as my mother walked resolutely right toward the white pig!

Then my mother STOOD on it!!! We knew we would be motherless in seconds, but then she returned to the house and told us what the reality was.

You see, we had had some concrete work done and apparently one of the workmen had inadvertently left a bag of cement out there. The rain fell and hardened it, then softened the bag and washed it away. VOILA! White pig.

My sister and I eventually did go visit the demystified white pig and, yes, it was just a big, smooth chunk of concrete. And we stood on it too, to show each other and ourselves how brave we were. Still, it took some time to overcome our fear of what we knew for certain was not a white pig.

And so, sometimes I think those who most get into “fear fads” are, in truth, looking at a “white pig” among the trees. And until someone actually goes and undeniably demonstrates that it’s nothing but a bag of cement, they’ll fear it. And even then, and even if the demonstration is dramatic, they’ll have some residuum of belief…and fear.

 

[Ender]

First of all I want to apologize for my last remark. The moderator was nice enough to point out that it was not charitable and I agree it wasn’t.

That’s OK. The moderator’s skin is thinner than mine.

My last paragraph contained an opinion of what is at stake. If and when they come about it will be a strong indication that climate has truly changed. We will only know for sure that climate change has taken place after it has happened.

There are several issues that all get jumbled up in these debates

• Is the Earth (still) warming?
• What role has man played?
• How much more warming will occur?
• What effects will there be?
• How strong is the evidence?

Like yours, there are a lot of opinions out there, but the fact that opinions differ on both the causes and the effects should not be taken to mean that people have different levels of concern for the environment. If your mother makes you take an umbrella to school because she thinks it will rain while my mother allows me to leave mine because she believes it will not rain, this cannot be taken to mean your mother is more concerned about your health than my mother is about mine.

The vested interest are the companies that were talked about in my post about the study where a billion dollars was being spent on denier information.

There are vested interests on both sides. Don’t let your opinion of the science involved be based on your opinion of the scientists involved.

Most of the information that was in the emails used to condemn scientists was allegedly taken out of context.

That others took things out of context is certainly no indication that I did the same.

The American Meteorological Society stated that the incident did not affect the society’s position on climate change.

We’re discussing whether actions taken by individuals were inappropriate, not assessing the validity of their scientific positions.

Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."

“Not yet clearly the case” is about as far from exonerating them as one could get.

The American Geophysical Union issued a statement expressing concern that the emails were “being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change”

Again, this is a weasily side-stepping of the issue. That the best defense they can offer is that the emails were being exploited is tantamount to admitting that the accusations are true.

“It’s human nature that a minority of scientists will cheat and do worse…”

Yes, and this (yet again) brings my question to the fore: if the science is all on their side why did major players in the AGW debate find it necessary to “cheat and do worse”?

Ender

 

[Marie5890]

The extreme weather patterns over the past few years are symptoms of the climate warming.

Yes, that means big snow storms, deep freeze weather patterns are symptoms

 

[estesbob]

The extreme weather patterns over the past few years are symptoms of the climate warming.

Yes, that means big snow storms, deep freeze weather patterns are symptoms

So what is not a symptom?

 

[vz71]

The extreme weather patterns over the past few years are symptoms of the climate warming.

Yes, that means big snow storms, deep freeze weather patterns are symptoms

Wait a second here.
I was told a few years ago that this would be a symptom of global cooling and the beginning of an ice age.

So which is it?