Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Jeff Lebowski]

Time to invest in dike-building companies.

OK, maybe our great-great-great-great-grandkids should invest in dike-building.

Unbelievable how much water is stored in the ice in Antarctica.

[Pelado]

Time to invest in dike-building companies.

OK, maybe our great-great-great-great-grandkids should invest in dike-building.

Unbelievable how much water is stored in the ice in Antarctica.

Wrong thread:

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...coming-to-Utah

[Jeff Lebowski]

Wrong thread:

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...coming-to-Utah

[cowboy]

Time to invest in dike-building companies.

OK, maybe our great-great-great-great-grandkids should invest in dike-building.

Unbelievable how much water is stored in the ice in Antarctica.

I'm not a global warming skeptic, and I'm certainly not anti-science, so I'd like to ask some serious questions without the blow-off responses. The first has to do with the ice mass in Antarctica. Isn't it growing through all of this? If so, what is the cause? Second, we're all familiar with the hockey-stick graph that shows a correlation between global temperatures and global industrialization. However, it's my understanding that there were two cataclysmic volcanoes in the 19th century that substantially cooled the earth, on of them I believe has been credited for the year without a summer that forced the Joseph Smith Sr. family to move to New York. Is it possible that we are just seeing global temperatures rebound from those volcanic events, and the correlation to industrialization is coincidental, or at the very least vastly overstated? If not, why? Third, have any of the dire predictions from 10, 15, or 20 years ago not been overstated? I'm no expert, but if memory serves me correctly, we were supposed to have lost the ice caps and California was supposed to be underwater by now according to the projections from 15 years ago. With that kind track record, it makes even a science lover like myself question the severity of the problem.

[Indy Coug]

You fit a moving average trend line and extrapolate out 100 years. Science!

[Flystripper]

Third, have any of the dire predictions from 10, 15, or 20 years ago not been overstated? I'm no expert, but if memory serves me correctly, we were supposed to have lost the ice caps and California was supposed to be underwater by now according to the projections from 15 years ago. With that kind track record, it makes even a science lover like myself question the severity of the problem.

I am no expert, but I don't remember any of those predictions from 15-20 years ago with the exception of crazy people in Sunday school saying California was going to break off an fall into the sea as a part of the last days.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm not a global warming skeptic, and I'm certainly not anti-science, so I'd like to ask some serious questions without the blow-off responses. The first has to do with the ice mass in Antarctica. Isn't it growing through all of this? If so, what is the cause?

Sea ice vs land ice (it is melting land ice that is problematic) and area vs. volume.

http://theconversation.com/why-is-an...-growing-19605

Second, we're all familiar with the hockey-stick graph that shows a correlation between global temperatures and global industrialization. However, it's my understanding that there were two cataclysmic volcanoes in the 19th century that substantially cooled the earth, on of them I believe has been credited for the year without a summer that forced the Joseph Smith Sr. family to move to New York. Is it possible that we are just seeing global temperatures rebound from those volcanic events, and the correlation to industrialization is coincidental, or at the very least vastly overstated? If not, why?

Explained here:

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/.../07_02_15.html

So it's also understandable that, with the emerging report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IGCC), some people want to understand how volcanoes might factor into the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations-specifically carbon dioxide (CO2)-that is being reported worldwide. The changes in global CO2 concentration during the past 600,000 years have mimicked the changes in global temperature. And, after all, volcanoes are awesome natural forces that release lots of carbon dioxide (CO2) right? Could volcanoes be a significant global-warming villain?

...

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

...

A short time ago (geologically speaking) the question "Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?" would have been answered differently. Volcanoes would have tipped the scale. Now, human presence, activity, and the resultant production of CO2, through the burning of fossil fuels, have all climbed at an ever-increasing rate. On the other hand, looking back through the comparatively short duration of human history, volcanic activity has, with a few notable disturbances, remained relatively steady.

Volcanoes are still awesome, even though they don't produce CO2 at a rate that swamps the human signature, contributing to global warming. In fact, spectacular eruptions like that of Mount Pinatubo are demonstrated to contribute to global cooling through the injection of solar energy reflecting ash and other small particles.

Third, have any of the dire predictions from 10, 15, or 20 years ago not been overstated? I'm no expert, but if memory serves me correctly, we were supposed to have lost the ice caps and California was supposed to be underwater by now according to the projections from 15 years ago. With that kind track record, it makes even a science lover like myself question the severity of the problem.

California being underwater in 15 years was not the scientific consensus (Al Gore is a nut - ignore him). For the last 10 years or so, world temps have flattened somewhat due to an el nino event. These happen (and will continue to happen) periodically, but they are short-term anomalies that unfortunately don't have a long-term impact on GW. There will alway be some level of noise in the short term, but it is the long-term changes that matter. Climate models are not expected to accurately track short-term noise. From what I understand, the impact of AGW will occur gradually over several centuries.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You fit a moving average trend line and extrapolate out 100 years. Science!

That may be a cool actuarial trick for fudging data, but that is not how science is done.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

This is really funny. OK, so two (HOLY COW! TWO!) British publications reported on this controversy. And what is the controversy? Some guy had his paper rejected so he claims it must have been due to bias. Could be. The system certainly isn’t perfect. It could also be that his paper was crap. Either way, this is just another anecdote.



No, you are mischaracterizing what I have said. I have never said that the process is perfect and I most certain have NEVER said that we can trust the process because it is based on altruism and the people involved are perfect. Yikes, what a ridiculous straw man you just floated there. In fact, the opposite is true. The scientific method is designed so that we don’t have to rely on altruism. Yes, some people will fudge data and some people will show bias. But the system is based on hard evidence and repeatability. If there is a major flaw in the logic or the data, it gets exposed eventually.

This notion of “a cloistered community whose livelihood depends on the existence of a condition” is just utter nonsense. It is not a cloistered community. It is a huge number of scientists from a wide variety of related disciplines. And the way science works is that people are always probing the edges, testing hypotheses, and performing verification. If someone can prove definitively that well-established assumptions are incorrect, that would be award-winning work that would make a career. The really funny thing about this notion is that the one thing scientists seem to relish more than anything is when they have a chance to poke a hole in someone else’s work by finding mistakes.

And the idea that funding for an entire field of science is only granted if people produce a certain outcome is bullshit, pure and simple.



Another anecdote based on some guy claiming persecution. Yawn...



In other words, thousands of scientists around the world from many different sub-disciplines and organizations are all part of a massive, coordinated conspiracy. Time to take off the foil cap, amigo.



You keep referencing this “wrong 98% of the time” number so I guess I should respond to that. It is yet another straw man. Climate science is NOT wrong 98% of the time. When you chase this rumor down, it typically ties back to some knucklehead who is grossly ignorant of how modeling works (in general), crowing that climate models don’t EXACTLY predict conditions 98% of the time. Duh. Nobody ever claimed that they would do that. They predict general long-term trends. Actual climate data shows a great deal of fluctuation. No climate model is ever expected to match short-term fluctuations. That is like saying an olympic archer is a terrible shot because he only hits the dead center of the bullseye 2% of the time.

Furthermore, long-term climate models are only one part of climate science.



Soviet Union, North Korea, and Saddam Hussein.

Hitler just called. He is upset you left him out of the paragraph.



Well according to you, it is the overwhelming majority of scientists engaged in this kind of fraud and dishonesty. Again, not a little group of fringe scientists who fudge data and then claim they are being persecuted when they are called on it, but the entire worldwide group of climate scientists and the vast number of scientists in related disciplines (marine biology, wildlife, range science, water resource management, etc.) that are impacted by climate change and are doing research and publishing on those impacts. Yes indeed, which scenario is most believable?

Did you consult all those marine biologists and wildlife researchers when you told us on here that the dust bowl was because of global warming? It sounds like you want to be pro-science only when it fits your inane internet comment. Also, why don't you do a little informal survey and determine what they thought back in the late 90s would happen to temperatures over the next 15 years. That would be a hoot. Given that they have defeated human frailty, I'm sure you'll get reliable answers.

It must be great for these guys like Michael Mann. Be wildly wrong all the time, shift the goalposts when you are wrong ("errr...we didn't expect the oceans to absorb this much heat") and then call all those who question you a bunch of Yeti believers, including someone who ran Germany's chief climate research outfit -- and then despite all that guys like JL, Soonercoug and ER can't wait to get in that circlejerk with you because they're just so damn into science that has a bad habit of producing invalid predictions. The rest of us rubes who believe in science that isn't mutually masturbatory and not hellbent on quelling critique that doesn't advance The Cause apparently just don't understand that appeal.

And just put your bullshit strawman to rest, I and others on here have stated that we believe that AGW probably exists. We just don't believe in the hysterics that go along with it. Others in the general population aren't as forgiving and they've just tuned the political faction of the global warming movement out. That's what happens when you're wrong all the time.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Did you consult all those marine biologists and wildlife researchers when you told us on here that the dust bowl was because of global warming? It sounds like you want to be pro-science only when it fits your inane internet comment. Also, why don't you do a little informal survey and determine what they thought back in the late 90s would happen to temperatures over the next 15 years. That would be a hoot. Given that they have defeated human frailty, I'm sure you'll get reliable answers.

It must be great for these guys like Michael Mann. Be wildly wrong all the time, shift the goalposts when you are wrong ("errr...we didn't expect the oceans to absorb this much heat") and then call all those who question you a bunch of Yeti believers, including someone who ran Germany's chief climate research outfit -- and then despite all that guys like JL, Soonercoug and ER can't wait to get in that circlejerk with you because they're just so damn into science that has a bad habit of producing invalid predictions. The rest of us rubes who believe in science that isn't mutually masturbatory and not hellbent on quelling critique that doesn't advance The Cause apparently just don't understand that appeal.

And just put your bullshit strawman to rest, I and others on here have stated that we believe that AGW probably exists. We just don't believe in the hysterics that go along with it. Others in the general population aren't as forgiving and they've just tuned the political faction of the global warming movement out. That's what happens when you're wrong all the time.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about regarding something I said about a dust bowl - global warming connection. Do you have a link you can share?

As for the rest of your post:

[Uncle Ted]

Time to invest in dike-building companies.

OK, maybe our great-great-great-great-grandkids should invest in dike-building.

Unbelievable how much water is stored in the ice in Antarctica.

I don't know about great-great-great-great-grandkids given we should see a four foot rise in 200 years or less. I think maybe our grandkids could get a start on it down in New Orleans... its already under the water.

And NASA says there is nothing we can do about it so it seems like a safe investment.

[Uncle Ted]

I'm not a global warming skeptic, and I'm certainly not anti-science, so I'd like to ask some serious questions without the blow-off responses. The first has to do with the ice mass in Antarctica. Isn't it growing through all of this? If so, what is the cause? Second, we're all familiar with the hockey-stick graph that shows a correlation between global temperatures and global industrialization. However, it's my understanding that there were two cataclysmic volcanoes in the 19th century that substantially cooled the earth, on of them I believe has been credited for the year without a summer that forced the Joseph Smith Sr. family to move to New York. Is it possible that we are just seeing global temperatures rebound from those volcanic events, and the correlation to industrialization is coincidental, or at the very least vastly overstated? If not, why? Third, have any of the dire predictions from 10, 15, or 20 years ago not been overstated? I'm no expert, but if memory serves me correctly, we were supposed to have lost the ice caps and California was supposed to be underwater by now according to the projections from 15 years ago. With that kind track record, it makes even a science lover like myself question the severity of the problem.

Isn't Yellowstone overdue for the big one?

Oh, wait... the Scientists said don't worry: http://rt.com/usa/scientists-debunk-...ion-viral-513/

Too bad. This could have solved our global warming problem.

[SeattleUte]

You're referring to the analysis by Christopher Monckton, the British non-scientist, Conservative party political advisor and columnist? I'm on the edge of my seat wondering if THIS time, he's going to be objective and accurate in his analysis.

I don't know anything about Christopher Monckton but non-scientists might well be better able to articulate a scientific based argument than scientists. It happens all the time. Lawyers do it all the time, with the help of expert witnesses. Scientists aren't necessarily trained or experienced in persuading particularly non-scientists to agree with them. By the way, for a $1,000 an hour a bet scientists would be lining up to help disprove global warming in court.

[SeattleUte]

Uncle Ted is a scientist.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't know anything about Christopher Monckton but non-scientists might well be better able to articulate a scientific based argument than scientists. It happens all the time. Lawyers do it all the time, with the help of expert witnesses. Scientists aren't necessarily trained or experienced in persuading particularly non-scientists to agree with them. By the way, for a $1,000 an hour a bet scientists would be lining up to help disprove global warming in court.

There you go, folks. Lawyers are far better communicators than scientists. And if those dumb scientists could get SU-level hourly rates, they would come out of the closet in droves and state what they REALLY believe.

There are some scientists who are outstanding communicators. I attending a one-day workshop organized by this guy on communicating science to the general public. He is very good:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...e-chris-mooney