Global Warming: Recent Data

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:10 am

monkey_brain wrote:http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/figure-1-5-sod-annotated3.png

Look at the source before you trust the statistics, folks.
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Audit is far too kind.

Let's hear the arguments, too, monkey_brain, not just see a picture. Tell us what it represents.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3122
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:42 am

Ron-The-Elder wrote:Hi, Kim. Nice to read your posts again. Thank you for the sincere responses.

My comment regarding Aussie Climatologists was meant to be humorous, but as you said, I failed to "know my audience". Please forgive.

Thank you for the offer to discuss this issue in earnest, but I am afraid that we would be preaching to the choir. As you apparently forgot from our interactions in other forums over the years I worked in the field of environmental safety and health for over thirty-five years. My ineffectual glibness was directed at those stating the obvious.

Hi, Ron,
Thanks for that. I do remember you from various other conversations but would be lying if I said I remembered exactly where you stood on climate science, and when you opened with such an, ah, poorly chosen selection of sources I responded accordingly. Thanks for not taking umbrage!

Ron-The-Elder wrote: However, I do not hold Climatologists as the world's experts as you do. I look to physics, chemistry, and biology as well for confirmation as to the health of our world's climate. I do not consider Global Warming a done deal as do you, nor do I dismiss professionals from the engineering, and energy production community as liars and self-serving cheats. I believe they as occupants of this planet have as much to lose as do you and I.

Two points I'd like to make here:
1. Climatologists are the specialists in climate (doh!) and they should be our primary source. We may go to a GP for a check-up but we will go to a skin specialist if he finds a suspicious lump on our arm, and then to a cancer specialist if that turns out to be necessary, won't we? Going to a geologist or a physicist or chemist for climate science is like going to an osteopath or immunologist or biochemist instead of that cancer specialist.
2. Individual engineers and others in the fossil fuel industries do have as much to lose as we do but their companies have no soul, no morals, no conscience and a hell of a lot of leverage so we can't trust anything that comes from the industry, first hand or second hand. They will only tell the truth if it happens to coincide with maximising their profits. This may seem exaggerated or :alien: -theoretical but do - let's make that stronger - DO read the links I provided earlier.
Ron-The-Elder wrote: I would like to take you up on the offer for a beneficial, expert, and honest discussion of the topic in so far as we are able. Perhaps we can begin with a list of resources that both you and I consider to be worthy, honest, and credentialed. As I said previously,

I like NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/ and consider them unbiased.
I also respect NOAA: http://www.weather.gov/

Both excellent. You can add parallel organisations in other countries - CSIRO here, Met Office and Hadley Centre in the UK, etc.
Ron-The-Elder wrote:Both you and I should agree on IPCC: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... nteractive

Absolutely reliable but a bit cautious and conservative because of the rules under which it operates. Nothing contentious gets through. That means that if they say "at least" 2C temp rise, you can bet your house on at least a 2C rise. However, upper limits are often understated, so when they say "2 - 5C", it's quite likely that the outcome will be 5C and possible that it will be 7C.

Ron-The-Elder wrote: I found: http://www.climatealliance.org/co2-moni ... &L=0#c3130 Don't know much about it, but would like to learn more.

New to me but looks good.
Ron-The-Elder wrote:What are your suggestions / candidates for reliable sources? :coffee:

You've mentioned the scientific bodies. Next come the specialist blogs, with RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/ at the top of my list. It can get a bit technical but the people behind it are at the top of the field and they always provide references to sources.
On the policy side I like Climate Progress http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/
Leaders of the smite-the-ungodly pack are DeSmogBlog http://www.desmogblog.com/ and Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/.
There are more, but I would encourage a good solid browse on these few, following links they recommend. That way you will find places catering to your own interests.

And remember, the science is settled, although there is always more to learn. It's as well established as evolution plate tectonics, the connection between smoking and cancer, and the perils of DDT. We need to move on from dealing with the misinformers who say otherwise, so that we can get on to doing something about mitigation.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3122
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:50 am

Kim OHara wrote:
2. Individual engineers and others in the fossil fuel industries do have as much to lose as we do but their companies have no soul, no morals, no conscience and a hell of a lot of leverage so we can't trust anything that comes from the industry, first hand or second hand.
There is no reason to believe Big Oil now than there was to believe Big Tobacco in 1994:

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19763
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Bhikkhu Pesala » Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:32 am

It's good to listen to the other point of view too.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Buddhist view is that all conditions are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not subject to our wish or control. Or, there is a great mountain of rock approaching from all four directions, so meditate to get free from suffering.
AIM WebsitePāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
 
Posts: 2053
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:22 pm

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:It's good to listen to the other point of view too.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

But even better to listen to the other other point of view, i.e. expert responses to the Swindle (pun intended):
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a polemical[1] documentary film that suggests that the scientific opinion on climate change is influenced by funding and political factors, and questions whether scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming exists. The program was formally criticised by Ofcom, the UK broadcasting regulatory agency, which upheld complaints of misrepresentation made by David King.
...
In response to the programme's broadcast, John T. Houghton (co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988–2002) assessed some of its main assertions and conclusions. According to Houghton the programme was "a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming", which he noted had been endorsed by the scientific community, including the Academies of Science of the major industrialised countries and China, India and Brazil. ...

That is from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle, and it's only a small part of the article - please do read the rest.
Or you can go to CSIRO, the Aussie equivalent of NOAA, at http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/Why-The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle-is-wrong.aspx or to AMOS, a similar body, for http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/27, or RealClimate at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/. Without exception, informed opinion is that the GGWS is deliberately inaccurate and misleading.

:namaste:
Kim

Edit: fixed typos. :embarassed:
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3122
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:25 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Kim OHara wrote:
2. Individual engineers and others in the fossil fuel industries do have as much to lose as we do but their companies have no soul, no morals, no conscience and a hell of a lot of leverage so we can't trust anything that comes from the industry, first hand or second hand.
There is no reason to believe Big Oil now than there was to believe Big Tobacco in 1994:


Thanks, Tilt.
You do know the connections between the two disinformation campaigns, I take it?

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3122
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby monkey_brain » Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:34 pm

Kim OHara wrote:
monkey_brain wrote:http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/figure-1-5-sod-annotated3.png

Look at the source before you trust the statistics, folks.
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Audit is far too kind.

Let's hear the arguments, too, monkey_brain, not just see a picture. Tell us what it represents.

:namaste:
Kim



Errrm, it's a chart from a recent IPCC draft report. It proves nothing but certainly speaks to the issue of model projections from the recent past vs actual recorded temps, which in turn bears on the *pace* of increasing temperatures.

As for the unkind innuendo against McIntyre, I would say his blog is often extremely interesting, and that McIntyre puts the contrarian critique forward about as well as it can be put forward. And a record of actual achievements, as the wikipedia article mentions. If McIntyre can't be considered a "respectable" critic of AGW, then it would seem such a beast cannot exist.
monkey_brain
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:07 pm

monkey_brain wrote:Errrm, it's a chart from a recent IPCC draft report. It proves nothing but certainly speaks to the issue of model projections from the recent past vs actual recorded temps, which in turn bears on the *pace* of increasing temperatures.

Hi, MB,
I can see it's a chart. I have no evidence that it's "from a recent IPCC draft report" except the words at the top of it - and I could whip up one of those myself in half an hour. It does not say anything about model projections by itself because we don't know what the alphabet soup is supposed to mean. Please explain!
As for the unkind innuendo against McIntyre, I would say his blog is often extremely interesting, and that McIntyre puts the contrarian critique forward about as well as it can be put forward. And a record of actual achievements, as the wikipedia article mentions. If McIntyre can't be considered a "respectable" critic of AGW, then it would seem such a beast cannot exist.

"Stephen McIntyre (born c. 1947) is a Canadian mathematician, former minerals prospector,[1] and semi-retired mining consultant who is best known as the founder and editor of Climate Audit." Wikipedia says so - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre - and I'm sure he wouldn't let them get away with saying anything that was both unfavourable and untrue, so it must be true. Note: no climate science qualifications whatever. Best known for his blog.
Read the rest of the wikipedia articles and you will see plenty about his negativity (to put it mildly) towards the climate science community. You will not see anything about how any of his arguments have changed climate science for the better, because they haven't. All his work amounts to nothing more than harassment and annoyance of people who know better.
If McIntyre can't be considered a "respectable" critic of AGW, then it would seem such a beast cannot exist.

He is, in fact, about as "respectable" as they come - which drives home how thin the competence of denialists is. There are very few of them - less than 100 regularly getting published worldwide, by my guess (many are listed at http://www.skepticalscience.com/misinformers.php) - and they are not very good scientists, or are scientists working outside their field of expertise, or are not scientists at all.

If you looked at the pie-chart blog post I mentioned you would have found:
Desmogblog wrote:I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. ... By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.

Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science. ...
A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.
Anyone can repeat this search and post their findings. Another reviewer would likely have slightly different standards than mine and get a different number of rejecting articles. But no one will be able to reach a different conclusion, for only one conclusion is possible: Within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.

Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.


:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3122
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:15 pm

Kim OHara wrote:Thanks, Tilt.
You do know the connections between the two disinformation campaigns, I take it?

:namaste:
Kim
Sounds like there is something more to Add here. I am all ears/eyes.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19763
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:36 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Kim OHara wrote:Thanks, Tilt.
You do know the connections between the two disinformation campaigns, I take it?

:namaste:
Kim
Sounds like there is something more to Add here. I am all ears/eyes.


You nailed it without knowing?
:jawdrop:
Wow!
Read on ...
http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942 and/or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
A brilliant book but one of the scariest I have read.
You can hear Oreskes talk about it on Youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVPIA6l2OTg if you prefer. The introduction is inept but Oreskes herself speaks very well.

:coffee:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3122
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:40 pm

Kim OHara wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Kim OHara wrote:Thanks, Tilt.
You do know the connections between the two disinformation campaigns, I take it?

:namaste:
Kim
Sounds like there is something more to Add here. I am all ears/eyes.


You nailed it without knowing?
:jawdrop:
Wow!
Read on ...
http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942 and/or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
A brilliant book but one of the scariest I have read.
You can hear Oreskes talk about it on Youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVPIA6l2OTg if you prefer. The introduction is inept but Oreskes herself speaks very well.

:coffee:
Kim
Thanks.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19763
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby SDC » Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:13 am

Are we going to ever have a thread about what can be done to make things better or is convincing people of its validity more important?

This is a serious question with zero sarcasm.
User avatar
SDC
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm
Location: North Jersey

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby retrofuturist » Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:24 am

Greetings SDC,

SDC wrote:Are we going to ever have a thread about what can be done to make things better or is convincing people of its validity more important?

This is a serious question with zero sarcasm.

I think such a topic would need to be predicated first on the explicit assumption that global warming is a real and dangerous phenomena.

"What can be done to make things better?" assumes that there is a problem, and secondly, that it is possible and desirable to do something about it.

This is a serious response with zero sarcasm.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14724
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby SDC » Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:51 am

Right on, Retro.

Just to clarify, I'm not proposing we start that thread, I just can't believe I haven't seen it yet. I guess proving it is more important.
User avatar
SDC
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm
Location: North Jersey

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby monkey_brain » Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:31 am

Kim OHara wrote:
monkey_brain wrote:Errrm, it's a chart from a recent IPCC draft report. It proves nothing but certainly speaks to the issue of model projections from the recent past vs actual recorded temps, which in turn bears on the *pace* of increasing temperatures.

Hi, MB,
I can see it's a chart. I have no evidence that it's "from a recent IPCC draft report" except the words at the top of it - and I could whip up one of those myself in half an hour. It does not say anything about model projections by itself because we don't know what the alphabet soup is supposed to mean. Please explain![


Sorry, I thought you were super up on this stuff. Very much in the news of late has been the so-called "hiatus" and how it was going to be dealt with in the latest IPCC report.

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-c ... 1164.story

And the leaked 2nd draft report was all over the news back in Dec. 2012:

http://theconversation.com/human-role-i ... port-11357

And SkepticalScience has posts on it: http://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html

The original leaker's link: http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/ Surely it has been hosted many other places by now. And the chart I put up can be found on p36 of Chapter 1, with explanatory annotations.

As for the unkind innuendo against McIntyre, I would say his blog is often extremely interesting, and that McIntyre puts the contrarian critique forward about as well as it can be put forward. And a record of actual achievements, as the wikipedia article mentions. If McIntyre can't be considered a "respectable" critic of AGW, then it would seem such a beast cannot exist.

"Stephen McIntyre (born c. 1947) is a Canadian mathematician, former minerals prospector,[1] and semi-retired mining consultant who is best known as the founder and editor of Climate Audit." Wikipedia says so - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre - and I'm sure he wouldn't let them get away with saying anything that was both unfavourable and untrue, so it must be true. Note: no climate science qualifications whatever. Best known for his blog.
Read the rest of the wikipedia articles and you will see plenty about his negativity (to put it mildly) towards the climate science community. You will not see anything about how any of his arguments have changed climate science for the better, because they haven't. All his work amounts to nothing more than harassment and annoyance of people who know better.


Thanks, I did read it. It's not super bad for a Wikipedia article on a controversial subject.

In a field as interdisciplinary as Climate Science, it seems natural that many of the errors, if such there are, will be due to lack of depth in the supporting disciplines. Like statistics. McIntyre's "negativity" arrives via his expertise in statistical analysis which generally dwarfs the standard found in a typical climate science expert (how could it be otherwise). Your favorite climate blog, SkepticalScience, calls his discovery of flaws in the NASA temperature records 2000-2006 an impressive achievement. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=102 To be sure, they downplay their significance, after that admission.

Your world of angels and devils fails to due justice to McIntyre, and to gadflys in general.
monkey_brain
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby chownah » Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:42 am

I think a more important issue to discuss is what can we do to defang those who use fear, uncertainty, and doubt as their major tool to influence public policy.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby chownah » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:07 am

"McIntyre's "negativity" arrives via his expertise in statistical analysis which generally dwarfs the standard found in a typical climate science expert (how could it be otherwise). "

Way massive assumptions here all around. Having a bachelors degree in mathematics does not mean that one has highly developed expertise in statistical analysis.....no way of knowing how much expertise a climate science expert might have unless you ask her about it.....it could be otherwise by just being otherwise.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Bhikkhu Pesala » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:07 am

Kim OHara wrote:But even better to listen to the other other point of view, i.e. expert responses to the Swindle (pun intended):

It would be better to consider the Buddhist point of view. You're wasting an awful lot of your remaining precious time on the planet due to your one-sided view about the significance of global warming. It's all just chicken and duck stuff, and won't ever lead to the end of suffering.
AIM WebsitePāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
 
Posts: 2053
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Kim OHara » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:18 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings SDC,

SDC wrote:Are we going to ever have a thread about what can be done to make things better or is convincing people of its validity more important?

This is a serious question with zero sarcasm.

I think such a topic would need to be predicated first on the explicit assumption that global warming is a real and dangerous phenomena.

"What can be done to make things better?" assumes that there is a problem, and secondly, that it is possible and desirable to do something about it.

This is a serious response with zero sarcasm.

Metta,
Retro. :)

I would love to have such a thread but every previous attempt has been derailed by people who deny the problem exists.
Maybe we could start one that begins by saying explicitly that any such denial will be strictly OT and will be shunted over here quick-smart?

Retro, if you have any doubts about the bits of your response that I bolded, please tell us and I will respond as best I can.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3122
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Kim OHara » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:23 am

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:
Kim OHara wrote:But even better to listen to the other other point of view, i.e. expert responses to the Swindle (pun intended):

It would be better to consider the Buddhist point of view. You're wasting an awful lot of your remaining precious time on the planet due to your one-sided view about the significance of global warming. It's all just chicken and duck stuff, and won't ever lead to the end of suffering.

With respect, Bhikkhu Pesala, that post does not respond to - in the sense of answering - the post it replies to.
Nor does it make sense to me in its own terms.
Are you saying that global warming is not significant, or that it is serious but that my preoccupation with it is not a skillful (Buddhist) response?
I look forward to a substantive response, and will respond in turn to the best of my ability.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3122
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dan Rooney and 11 guests