The REAL climate change thread

Page 6 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sat Mar 21, 2015 8:42 am

Keeping it real (as we must, on this thread), Mark Twain once said (and the pinhed repeats it ad infinitum), that "People are not listening to you when you are talking to them, because they are thinking about what they are going to say next."

Allow me to elaborate:

-- On the internet, the believers in anthropogenic global warming (the non-scientist ones, that is, since it's the internet) don't actually read or write. They get their talking points from the same few denier-debunker sites. There's no evidence that they read them, they just copy them.

-- The debunker talking points are aimed at things that skeptics are alleged to say, except skeptics mostly don't actually say those things, the debunkers just pretend they say those things.

-- The folks that copy-paste the debunker talking points can't tell the difference, because they neglect to read what they are actually responding to--other than reading just far enough to find a buzz word that also appears in the debunker points.

-- Thus, the same canned talking points are copied all over the web, even though most skeptics do not say the things that that are being debunked.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sat Mar 21, 2015 8:47 am

^
Got that?

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:16 am

Richard A. Betts is always riffing on this theme:

"The focus on climate change is now so huge that everybody seems to need to have some link to climate change if they are to attract attention and funding.

Hence the increasing tendency to link everything to climate change - whether scientifically proven or not.

The question is: do climate scientists do enough to counter this? Or are we guilty of turning a blind eye to these things because we think they are on "our side" against the climate sceptics?

It's easy to blame the media, and I don't intend to make generalisations here, but I have quite literally had journalists phone me up during an unusually warm spell of weather and ask "is this a result of global warming?"

When I say "no, not really, it is just weather", they've thanked me very much and then phoned somebody else, and kept trying until they got someone to say yes it was.

Talking up of the problem then gives easy ammunition to those who wish to discredit the science.

They do not care whether the wrong information came from the scientists or from a second-hand source, they just say (quite rightly) that it's wrong and therefore why should they trust other parts of the science?

Climate scientists need to take more responsibility for the communication of their work to avoid this kind of thing.
Even if scientists themselves are not blaming everything on climate change, it still reflects badly on us if others do this.
We cannot simply say it is everyone else's fault; we need to be very clear about what can be used as evidence for or against climate change.

Long-term, large-scale trends and the overall statistics of extreme weather events can and should be part of this evidence base. Individual weather events, from heatwaves to big freezes, cannot be used either to prove or disprove climate change.

If we do not help the media, NGOs and the public to understand this, we have done nothing to stop them getting it wrong.
If our science is misunderstood and misused, and then turned against us, it really will be a case of We've Been Framed."

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:55 am

Speaking of Richard A. Betts, who has been criticized for being too apolitical, I would just like to point out that in reality he does have political positions.

Betts' "neutrality" really is just his position on how far he will go for the sake of a good cause.

There are two things he chooses to not resort to, even for a good cause:

-- Hypocrisy (while you are denouncing the other side's tactics, you can't be doing the same thing yourself),

-- Bad science (getting the right answer is not enough--if the science is bad, the other side will catch it).

And one of the reasons he gives for forswearing hypocrisy and bad science is that it's short-sighted. A short-term win is not worth the long-term damage to your credibility, and to the credibility of your cause.

These issues have resulted in some conflict between the IPCC and the advocacy groups. The IPCC tries to be conscientious, and they don't like the way some of the "communicators" have set themselves up to be discredited, which hurts the whole cause.

John Cook's essay on "Consensus Messaging" is his rebuttal to criticism directed at him by the IPCC. He said he's used to being attacked by deniers, but not by his erstwhile allies:

"One objection against consensus messaging is that scientists should be talking about evidence, rather than consensus. After all, our understanding of climate change is based on empirical measurements, not a show of hands. But this objection misunderstands the point of consensus messaging. It’s not about “proving” human-caused global warming. It’s about expressing the state of scientific understanding of climate change, which is built on a growing body of evidence."

"Consensus messaging recognises the fact that people rely on expert opinion when it comes to complex scientific issues. Studies in 2011 and 2013 found that perception of scientific consensus is a gateway belief that has a flow-on effect to a number of other beliefs and attitudes. When people are aware of the high level of scientific agreement on human-caused global warming, they’re more likely to accept that climate change is happening, that humans are causing it and support policies to reduce carbon pollution."

This is true, of course. Most people cannot read the primary literature, evaluate the quality of the raw data, and work through the analysis to see if they reach the same conclusions.

So they really are in a situation where all they can do is ask: "So, what do the smart guys say about that?"

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:57 am

But the show-of-hands approach (how many deniers out there? How many debunkers?) didn't work very well on, for example, Albert Einstein.

In Germany, a book was published in 1931 entitled "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein" in an effort to discredit the theory of relativity.

Einstein (being somewhat of a scientist himself) was puzzled by the approach. Why were they voting on the matter instead of using evidence and analysis?

So his response was this:

"Why a hundred? If I'm wrong, it would only take one to prove me wrong."

On another occasion, he said this:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

What many people don't know about scientists is that they welcome any effort to prove them wrong. They learn more by being proven wrong than they can ever learn any other way.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:45 am

pinhedz wrote:-- An 11,000-year temperature reconstruction published by Shaun Marcott (Assistant Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and a firm believer in anthropogenic global warming) has led to the publication of a very important paper entitled "The Holocene Temperature Conundrum" (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014). This study was requested by the IPCC, and everyone concerned about anthropogenic global warming should read it;
In their effort to resolve the "holocene temperature conundrum" generated by Shaun Marcott's paper, the IPCC will be dealing with the question of time resolution. The 72 data sets used by Shaun Marcott for his reconstruction of temperature during the holocene used primarily marine and terrestrial fossils, biomolecules, or isotopes that were recovered from ocean and lake sediments, tree rings (all with low time resolution) and ice cores (with relatively high time resolution).

Since the paper attracted so much attention--and attracted many questions along with the attention--Shaun eventually compiled a list of FAQs addressing, among other things, the time-resolution issue:

Q:  Why use marine and terrestrial archives to reconstruct global temperature when we have the ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica?

A:  While we do use these ice cores in our study, they are limited to the polar regions and so give only a local or regional picture of temperature changes.  Just as it would not be reasonable to use the recent instrumental temperature history from Greenland (for example) as being representative of the planet as a whole, one would similarly not use just a few ice cores from polar locations to reconstruct past temperature change for the entire planet.

Q:  Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A:  Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer.  Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record.  Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:05 am

Lately I've been hearing a lot of whining from multimillionaires who built their $5 million dollar mansions on Florida beaches, and they're afraid that the climate won't show proper respect for their real estate.

I got on word for them--YURT.

Just roll it up like an umbrella, and then  set it up again 100 yards up the beach. Very Happy


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:23 am

Testing ... testing ...


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  Yakima Canutt on Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:16 pm


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Mon Apr 13, 2015 11:12 am

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged states to ignore the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, but--according to EPA Admninistrator Gina McCarthy--the states are ignoring McConnell and working toward compliance.

She says that even states that are suing the EPA are preparing carbon-reduction plans to meet their obligations under EPA’s proposed rule.

“It is going to happen” she says, ”We have the legal—not just right and authority but responsibility—to do it. People expect us to do it. I don’t see any utility thinking we’re not going to do it. So the politics are one thing and reality is another.” bounce

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Mon Apr 13, 2015 11:14 am

pinhedz wrote:Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged states to ignore the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, but--according to EPA Admninistrator Gina McCarthy--the states are ignoring McConnell and working toward compliance.

She says that even states that are suing the EPA are preparing carbon-reduction plans to meet their obligations under EPA’s proposed rule.

“It is going to happen” she says, ”We have the legal—not just right and authority but responsibility—to do it. People expect us to do it. I don’t see any utility thinking we’re not going to do it. So the politics are one thing and reality is another.” bounce
The notion that politics is not reality might not be entirely realistic, however. Consider, for instance, the case of Gov. Matt Mead of Wyoming:

Casper Star Tribune Communications, 14 Jan 2015

CHEYENNE — Gov. Matt Mead is pledging to keep fighting "with bulldog determination" for the future of Wyoming coal.

Mead told Wyoming legislators in his state of the state address Wednesday that he has never seen an onslaught against a single industry like what he described as the Barack Obama administration's anti-coal agenda.

Mead, a Republican sworn in last week to his second consecutive term, said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has had "a green light to go after the coal industry, and six years later coal is still targeted by federal regulators."

"In coming years, I will continue to work with bulldog determination on coal initiatives, port expansion, new technology and value-added products," Mead said. "And in coming years, we don't need to let up, we need to double down. We must assure coal's continuity."

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Mon Apr 13, 2015 11:15 am

Why is Gov. Mead so uncooperative? Your guess is as good as mine, I reckon.


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Mon Apr 13, 2015 11:17 am

There are also states that heavily depend on coal for heat and electricity (the Union of Concerned Scientists says that coal generates 44% of our electricity):


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Mon Apr 13, 2015 11:18 am

The polls have told us that a majority of the general public public believes that the climate is changing, and that human activity is the cause.

It should be a simple next step to ask the public to make some sacrifices to save the planet.

And so, the President is making this simple request--to support measures that will raise your electricity bill. Please excuse the clip's inflammatory title--the pinhead did not give the clip that title--but "skyrocket" is the Pesident's term (bad choice of words, perhaps):


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:32 am

Climate change! affraid

They had 18 ships stuck, but now they're moving again. Just one freighter was damaged a bit:


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:56 am

Professor Garry Clarke, a professor Emeritus in Glaciology at the University of British Columbia, predicts that the glaciers in Western Canada could be 95% gone by 2100 (this assumes the predictions of the current IPCC models are correct).

How will this affect the future well being of the human race?

The affect on sea level would be small, because the volume of water currently held in glaciers is extremely small (most of the worlds ice is on top of Greenland and Anarctica).

The most serious effects will be to Canadian tourism. The Athabasca Glacier, for example, is a major tourist attraction, and Dr. Clarke says: "Athabasca Glacier is doing badly at present and will fare worse as climate warming continues."

And Banff National Park attracts 3-4 million tourists every year, many of whom come to see its brilliant emerald lakes, such as Lake Louise. However, the greenish color comes from minerals carried in by glacial meltwater. So, as the glaciers disappear, these lakes would look very different by the end of the century.

Clarke warns: "The future of this kind of tourism is dim."

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sun Apr 19, 2015 7:21 am

In the possibly good news department, experts say it is just common sense that fossil fuel production and consumption inevitably must peak and then decline. The question they are trying to address is--when?

The graph below shows World Total Fossil Fuel Consumption, past and predicted – the long view (covering approximately The Age of Homo Sapiens). The red star in the graph represents where we are now, or were recently).

Source: OilPrice.com “Declining Fossil Fuel Supplies and the Energy Trap“, Tom Murphy, 31 Oct 2011.



Mitigation measures might spread the curve out a bit, but the general shape would be much the same--in the long view.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sun Apr 19, 2015 9:22 am

^
So should we just keep running on oil until it's gone?

That might not be wise:

“The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.”

-- Sheikh Zaki Yamani

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:32 am

Here's another interesting graph. Smile

Or at least it would be interesting if it showed anything, which it doesn't seem to. scratch

But it's interesting that it doesn't seem to show anything--in fact that's exactly the point. geek


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Fri May 01, 2015 10:02 am

Back Real Climate. Very Happy

As we all know, the pinhed can't do liberal arts or political science. Neutral

The pinhed can only do graphs and scientifical stuff like that.

But sometimes even the pinhed needs a comedy break. Very Happy

So, here is one of the great moments in climate change. Razz



The plaque says: "LEST WE FORGET THOSE WHO DENIED."

One of the illustrious honorees--James Delingpole--had the following to say:

"I am one of several climate change sceptics to have been celebrated and immortalised in an exciting new, prizewinning art installation at Anglia Ruskin, one of Britain’s largest universities (Modesty, James. Modesty!)."

"It comprises a faux-stone slab (made out of plywood) engraved with my own name and that of five other British climate sceptics – Christopher Booker, Nigel Lawson, Christopher Monckton, Melanie Phillips, Owen Paterson – beneath the legend “Lest We Forget Those Who Denied.” The sculpture has been described as an “oil painting with a difference” because a continuous stream of engine oil drools symbolically over the “deniers'” names, like tragic sea otters after an Exxon spill."

"The piece, which won the university’s 2015 Sustainability Art Prize, was the creation of third year fine art student Ian Wolter."

"Wolter has explained his meisterwerk thus:

“With this work I envisage a time when the deliberate denial of climate change will be seen as a crime because it hinders progress towards a low carbon future.”

"The prize – £250 and a certificate – was presented to him by the head of the university’s art department."

"Among those who have praised the work is the director of the university’s Global Sustainability Institute, Dr Aled Jones."

"Dr Jones told me:

“It’s a very impressive installation, complex and very political.”

"I quite agree and am hugely proud to find myself in the distinguished company of some of Britain’s finest journalists and most brave and outspoken politicians, including a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and the former Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs."

"Jolly well done, young Ian! And thank you for caring."

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sun May 17, 2015 10:32 am

Back to REAL climate--when Alaskans were terrified of warmth:


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun May 17, 2015 10:43 am

[censored by Chenoweth]


Last edited by Yakima Canutt on Tue May 19, 2015 2:50 pm; edited 1 time in total

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun May 17, 2015 10:44 am

I think you're confusing climate with weather.


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun May 17, 2015 10:50 am


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sun May 17, 2015 11:46 am

People confuse REAL climate with UNREAL climate all the time. Rolling Eyes

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The REAL climate change thread

Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:31 am


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum