Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

[Lectro]

Those are a just a few of the scientists.

Go enquire about their credentials - call them "fucking morons" -- leave everybody out because there is not a Single qualified scientist on the OGB who can personally speak to the issue...

 

[RJKarl]

Ok, how about this: I am an active research scientist, PhD from Princeton, running my own neuroscience lab 3 yr now with ~20 first or last peer reviewed authorships.

I am not a climate scientist.

However, there are some very significant concerns with how the practice of science has been distorted by politics and individual greed when it comes to the IPCC. The released emails two years ago were really damning, which is IMHO a big reason why so many countries have backed off. The overwrought predictions have- so far- been wrong, and enough of the data has been cherry picked to undermine the whole endeavor.

What I think we (as a country) can say right now is that we don't really understand the drivers of global climate change yet, and therefore we don't know what is happening, what will happen, and if there is any need or ability to do anything about it. Furthermore, it may well be that our focus on C02 has delayed/distorted that understanding significantly.

My suggestion is that nobody- of any ilk, background or training- should be passionate about their interpretation of what is happening. There are way too many unprovable hypotheses floating around, and too little objective analysis.

Like everything else in the world, tying power and money to basic science is nearly always a bad thing.

The big money is being spent to prove it doesn't exist. The fossil fuel companies are spending billions every year to protect their turf.

Conversely, if climate change is dramatically impacted by man, it will cost governments around the world countless billions to rectify what they can. It would behoove them for it not to exist. It would also cost them huge revenues in fossil fuel taxes. Governments (especially in industrialized nations) would benefit greatly if climate change didn't exist.

 

[Lectro]

I think healthy skepticism is fine...in fact I'd expect it of learned men, and especially of scientists. I appreciate 93's post, even when it doesn't confirm my own biases.

What I can't stand is pedants like Lectro and pour glibly and gleefully setting up straw men that no amount of science could ever knock down for them.

The pedantry is completely yours , good man. You simply have not displayed a healthy scepticism which is why you remain unaware of so many in the scientific community who have come out against the IPCC and what they see as a deeply flawed reliance on computer modeling.

It is actually people like yourself who are intolerable...speak as if they are of an independent mind yet do nothing in the way of demonstrating this claim. No real looking around...after all, these climate mandates have come down from on high...as if it were a religious impulse to concede and believe. From there you just repeat every homily as if it were an auto de fe.

 

[Lectro]

A basic primer for truly healthy scepticism. I am not able to paste the visuals - charts, graphs,etc,.

Please feel brave enough to visit on your own. Except for the revelatory and revolutionary content the site is benign.


Getting things into perspective: The BIG picture 2
Surface temperatures (GISS) for the year 2012 compared to average 1998-2006: 72N-60S Arctic Antarctic 22
Surface temperatures (GISS) for November 2013 compared to average 1998-2006: 72N-60S Arctic Antarctic 2
Latest global monthly temperature estimate: UAH RSS HadCRUT NCDC GISS 2
Change over time of global monthly temperature estimates: UAH RSS HadCRUT NCDC GISS C2
CO2 and global monthly surface temperature estimates: CO2 HadCRUT NCDC GISS
Sea surface temperature estimates: UAH HadSST NCDC 2
Sea level: SeaLevelChange SeaLevelChangeRate 2
Sea ice extension: Arctic and Antarctic: NSIDCnow IRAC-JAXAnow NSIDCsince1978 Arctic sea ice thickness and -drift: ACNFS 2
Snow cover: Northern hemisphere Europe-Asia Alaska-Canada USA-Canada NorthernHemisphereSince19662
For those who want a more comprehensive, but still rapid monthly or annual update, click in the appropriate cell in the table below for download:

YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANNUAL
2013 update update update update update update update update update update update
2012 update update update update update update update update update update update update update
2011 update update update update update update update update update update update update update
2010 update update update update update update update update update update update update update
2009 update update update update update update update update update update update
If you want to be on the mailing list for the above monthly newsletter, please mail the Webmaster to that effect.

Click here for information about book on climate published 30 November 2009. Now also as e-book.



About this web site: Climate4you

The objective is to provide information on meteorological and climatologically issues of general and specific interest.

The purpose is to assist reflective people to form a personal opinion on meteorological and climate matters. The purpose is not to provide a forum for discussions, as there are many fine web sites providing excellent possibilities for this.

It is definitely not the purpose to encourage a passive personal approach by providing a list of 'correct' answers to a list of 'key' questions, but rather to stimulate active, personal thought and analysis. The motto of the Royal Society of Great Britain: nullius in verba - take nobody's word for it, is still highly relevant.

The main emphasis of the present web site is therefore to provide the interested reader with data and other information on meteorology and climate. Climate change information needs to be both accurate and undistorted, and analysis unemotional. Respecting the notion that information always should be the starting point for personal thought, analysis and interpretation, links to information sources (digital and written) are provided throughout the web site.

The least objective part of the present web site is presumably the section on 'Climate Reflections', which is constructed around some of the webmaster's personal interpretations of certain data series. A slightly longer essay (in Norwegian) on the general climate theme can be downloaded by clicking here. An updated version of this text has been published as a book and e-book.

Some debates, books and other initiatives relating to global climatic changes, appears to be somewhat frustrated by an apparent lack of basic knowledge on updated meteorological conditions and their variations across time and space. Also when it comes to the likely effects of climate change, the lessons of history often appear to be unknown or forgotten. In Europe it is only little more than 200 years since the recognition that Earth is a dynamic planet began to transpire as a result of basic geological research. Previously, in Europe it was widely believed that Earth essentially was unchanging, and only about 6000 years old according to a study of the Bible by James Ussher (1581-1656), the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh, Ireland. Today it is equally easy to forget that it is only about 160 years since about one million people in Europe died of starvation and epidemic diseases because of climate-induced harvest failures.

The recent focus on climate change has resulted in an increased awareness that climate is not as constant as it may have appeared previously. In this context, even the most extreme and divergent forecasts of future climate may have done some good. This is, however, a situation that should not continue much longer, as it confuses and disillusionates political decision-makers and the general public about the value of so-called ‘climate experts’. In addition, the initial humble scientific attempts of modelling the future climate have unfortunately developed into a large-scale example of groupthink with its own dynamics, making informed political judgment difficult.

Air temperature remains a central theme in discussions on global climate change, and admirable attempts to estimate the global temperature have been published by different research teams or -institutions. However, a number of issues relating to obtaining representative measurements of surface air temperature still remains, especially in or near areas affected by urban development. Even in Arctic regions it might be difficult to obtain representative air temperature measurements, despite all professional efforts. Also the varying degree of temporal stability displayed by the various global temperature records deserves attention.

The difficulty of identifying a new climatic trend deviating from a background of natural variations is therefore real and constitutes an important difficulty for both scientists and policy-makers. As an example: Is it possible to conclude that the late 20th century global temperature increase is unique in relation to previous temperature increases? Or could it just as well represent part of the natural temperature increase following the end of the Little Ice Age ? Click here to read a few reflections on this interesting question. Another important issue is the changing relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature in recent times ?

The immediate need for climate scientists appears to be improving empirical knowledge on climate change, past and present, and to understand the limitations of the different types of approach to forecasting climate. For the decision-makers the lesson presumably is to allow wider margins for future climatic change; cooler as well as warmer, wetter as well as drier, windier as well as less windy, etc. Preparing for warming only may not be entirely prudent. After all, modern climate change may just be a continuation of ever lasting natural rhythms of climate change.

Climate science remains a highly complex issue where simplification tends to lead to confusion, and where understanding requires knowledge, openness to new hypotheses, thought and effort.

The present website is under continuous development, and updates and new material will be added whenever possible, relevant or needed. A list of the 25 latest key updates are shown in the lower part of the panel to the left.

Thank you for your interest.



Yours sincerely, Ole Humlum

Click here for bibliography.

 

[ONW]

I loved this bit from his UNIS homepage:

"Teaching:

Physical geography (as opposed to non-physical geography), glaciology (I watch ice), glacial geomorphology (I watch ice change), periglacial geomorphology (I watch the edges of where ice freezes change), climatic geomorphology (I am a surveyor), geomorphic mapping using aerial photos (I am a surveyor with an airplane), history of geomorphology (I write about the history of the things I've done), statistics for geographers (I created a new field of study that I call math), the physical geography of Svalbard (I know how to get to my office), glacial- and periglacial processes (I watch ice melt not only on its periphery but also in the middle)."

He missed his calling as an expert in writing resumes.

 

[93Deac]

The big money is being spent to prove it doesn't exist. The fossil fuel companies are spending billions every year to protect their turf.

Conversely, if climate change is dramatically impacted by man, it will cost governments around the world countless billions to rectify what they can. It would behoove them for it not to exist. It would also cost them huge revenues in fossil fuel taxes. Governments (especially in industrialized nations) would benefit greatly if climate change didn't exist.

Sure. But of course, loads of govt-derived funding and diplomatic effort are being spent to wrestle for political and economic control over the developing and developed worlds using climate change as the leverage. Don't act as if the governments, politicians or lobbyists are acting altruistically. In fact, the severe ethical lapses that have come to light almost mandate that there is some other imperative... or rank incompetence, which is just as bad.

I reiterate my original stance. The bias of politics and money should be restrained and we should wait and see what the science tells us.

 

[ONW]

Sure. But of course, loads of govt-derived funding and diplomatic effort are being spent to wrestle for political and economic control over the developing and developed worlds using climate change as the leverage. Don't act as if the governments, politicians or lobbyists are acting altruistically. In fact, the severe ethical lapses that have come to light almost mandate that there is some other imperative... or rank incompetence, which is just as bad.

I reiterate my original stance. The bias of politics and money should be restrained and we should wait and see what the science tells us.

I don't think anyone on this board is making that claim.

 

[RJKarl]

As ONW says, no one is saying governments are acting altruistically. In reality, governments would prefer climate change not to exist. It's costs them revenues and focus on other pressing issues.

Those who say governments around the world are benefiting from climate change are sopping up the fossil fuel industry's Kool-Aid and brainwashing efforts.

 

[Lectro]

Youtube "Doomsday Called Off"

A diverse group of scientists throughout the 9 or 10 minute piece.

About half way into it you get the dissenting opinions (based in actual experimentation and not computer models) -- a group from the Niels Bohr Institute as they drill, examine and discuss their divergent findings in the ice core of Greenland.

More esteemed men and women of science who disagree with the IPCC's claims --

 

[93Deac]

As ONW says, no one is saying governments are acting altruistically. In reality, governments would prefer climate change not to exist. It's costs them revenues and focus on other pressing issues.

Those who say governments around the world are benefiting from climate change are sopping up the fossil fuel industry's Kool-Aid and brainwashing efforts.

nonsense. I think it is naive not to assume governments are exploiting climate change fears for their own gain, both domestically and internationally. why do you think the Copenhagen Accords keep falling apart?

that's also why I think political involvement in climate research can only bias the science.

 

[ONW]

Youtube? You are using youtube as a reference. Are you fucking kidding me?

And you are totally misqualify Pauling's contribution to science btw. He was a fantastic scientist.

 

[RJKarl]

nonsense. I think it is naive not to assume governments are exploiting climate change fears for their own gain, both domestically and internationally. why do you think the Copenhagen Accords keep falling apart?

that's also why I think political involvement in climate research can only bias the science.

How does a government benefit? Industrialized nations will hundreds of billions in tax revenues from fossil fuels. Where do they get it back?

They keep falling apart because manufacturing and fossil fuel entities are spending billions to make certain they aren't passed.

 

[93Deac]

How does a government benefit? Industrialized nations will hundreds of billions in tax revenues from fossil fuels. Where do they get it back?

They keep falling apart because manufacturing and fossil fuel entities are spending billions to make certain they aren't passed.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. My contribution to this thread is to note that (1) as a scientist, there is enough contradictory data that I believe the science is far from settled and (2) personal ambition and political involvement has muddied the science considerably. There is obviously a reason for the latter, particularly given that we don't actually know what is happening climate-wise in the real world. There are vested interests on both sides willing to exploit fear in advance of knowledge for personal and political gain, including govts. If you won't accept this (which seems pretty obvious to me given events over the last 8 years), then what can I say?

Edited to remove commentary which could be perceived as personal.

 

[BigTreeDeac]

While somewhat valid, I'm confused as to what your two points have to do with the actual validity of a scientific premise or tenet, though.

As to your first point, "far from settled" is way too heavy handed. There is nowhere near enough contradictory evidence to say the matter is far from settled. There is room for debate but your statement makes it seem as though both sides are supported similarly and they simply are not. That aside, the presence of contradictory evidence has never been used as a reason to immediately refute or substantially question a widely held scientific tenet. In fact, there is contradictory evidence to every single scientific tenet because A) it almost assuredly had to contradict a previous thought at some point and B) there are always researchers trying to make a major discovery that shifts our understanding. Isolated finding are not used to crumble widely accepted scientific truths because such a system would result in no accepted scientific facts period. If so-called deniers wanted to engage in a debate over the extent of climate change and mankind's involvement, they might get their wishes but as their name states that isn't their goal. They want there to be an open and accepted debate (with equal footing given to both sides) in which the discussion is whether climate change actually occurs and of course that if it did it is natural and humans aren't doing anything to make it worse. If you think the science bears out such a debate as valid, to each their own.

As to the second part, using ambition or perceived ulterior motives to discredit science would also result in there being literally no accepted scientific work. My entire career has been driven by ambition. Every piece of data I published was, in part, published to advance my career. I have reaped financial, personal, and political (at least in the scientific community) success as a direct result of my research. And the same goes for nearly every researcher in history, yourself included. It would not be fair of me to discredit your work because you used it to advance your career. There are plenty of examples of fraudulent data being published to advance careers but the basis for that data ultimately being considered fraudulent is that others demonstrate it is (and often the researcher then admits it). It is not lessened simply because enough people think the author published it due to ambition. We judge scientific data on its merits, not on what we perceive to be the motivation for its publishing. That is a really dangerous road for a scientist to even consider going down. Skepticism is great but discrediting, in any meaningful way, decades of research on multiple continents by vast numbers of researchers due to it being "muddied" is taking the science out of science. And yes, pro-climate change folks are every bit as guilty of this type of thinking as the deniers.

eta: not trying to paint you as a true denier. Just not sure your points move the needle one way or the other with respect to how one should view the balance of evidence on this subject. Good luck with your writing if you are submitting any grants for an upcoming deadline.

 

[93Deac]

"It would not be fair of me to discredit your work because you used it to advance your career"

No, but it would be absolutely fair to cast my work into question if there was evidence that I intentionally overlooked/neglected contradictory data, tweaked my model to get the outcome that I wanted, or make predictions based on my hypotheses that were empirically shown to be incorrect.

All three of those things appear to have happened with founding members of the IPCC. This, in combination with structurally reinforced confirmation bias and the fact that projections are not matching reality, is more than sufficient for me to be skeptical about how robust the models are, and therefore the hypotheses that underlay them.

Second, the term "settled science" implies that we understand enough about how man has influenced climate that only trivialities are left. I contend the relationship between natural and man-made influence is still poorly understood (and yes, I absolutely believe we impact our climate). I think you can agree that when even hypothesis-based predictions are grossly inaccurate, then there exist non-trivial inputs that are not understood.

Skepticism is the basis of how science is conducted. Attempts to paint those who have reason to be skeptical as 'deniers' is tribalism at its worst. I really dislike that word and the implications. But then again, I also dislike it when non-scientists distort science for political purposes- on both sides.

Bottom line, I don't think we understand exactly what is going on with the climate right now. For example, post hoc attempts to explain why the real world is not complying with IPCC projections is a sign that something is wrong with our hypotheses. Therefore, we should keep open minds until more is understood regarding how and why our climate changes (e.g., not 'settled' science). This is particularly true since actions taken on those conclusions may have huge effects on our economy and could make the climate situation worse rather than better. Kind of a climate precautionary principle.

Roger on due dates. We are funded right now, but times are getting tight everywhere.

 

[pourdeac]

What I can't stand is pedants like Lectro and pour glibly and gleefully setting up straw men that no amount of science could ever knock down for them.

That's bullshit dude. I have a BS in chemistry, minor in comp sci. Started as a physics major. PhD in chemistry. I've taken 6 PChem classes including lots of thermo, stat thermo, quantum, etc. I am probably one of the most qualified people to be commenting on this stuff on these boards.

10 years ago the IPCC scientists you believe in said they were 95% sure that CO2 was the only contributor to global warming since the 1800s. That is a fact. They pointed to the hockey stick as proof. Fact. They said there was zero evidence the sun had any effect on global climate. Critics such as myself spelled out exactly why that could not be the case, including the glaring problem that the "glass" (CO2) wasn't warming, all of the warming was at the surface. All of the physical evidence backed solar activity as being the primary cause. Solar physicists 15 years ago in fact were predicting the sun was peaking and would start to cool. I raised all of these issues 10+ years ago on TOB.

You (plural you) said I was a moron. You said 98% of the scientists believed in the IPCC report, which was 100% of global warming since the 1800s. That was your response. Do you understand what that means?

Now 10 years later, the IPCC was forced to change the theory. Repeat...the theory from the IPCC scientists TODAY is not the same theory as it was 10 years ago. They were forced to admit the critics were correct...that the sun was a primary driver of 20th century climate change. Why?

ALL of the physical evidence points to the sun being at a minimum a major contributor. NASA sent up sats to measure heat exchange, and low and behold it was amazingly fast....as if there was no "glass" in the greenhouse. The sun cooled and we saw an immediate cooling on earth which also could not have happened with "glass" in the greenhouse. And of course the hockey stick was proven a fraud. So the so called "morons" of 10 years were correct dude. You can not get around that fact. The IPCC scientists are now saying the same thing.

So this isn't a matter of me trying to convince you of something I believe in, I'm just relaying what the IPCC scientists YOU believe in are now saying...which NOW aligns quite a bit with what critics have been saying all along.

But what's the response? We're morons and 98% of scientists believe...blah blah blah. You guys don't even understand what you're' supposed to believe in. The critics of 10 years ago were right.

 

[ONW]

You have a PhD. in chemistry by taking only six pchem classes?

 

[pourdeac]

The problem with the IPCC theory now is....the solar physicists were correct. The sun is starting to cool. It was predicted 15+ years ago. Some even think we'll be in a mini-ice age in the 2020s. The solar cooling caused a major problem this year with the newer models because the physical data they had to input COMPLETELY wiped out the CO2 effect. In order to preserve the CO2 effect, they had to resort to another cooling driver, and they pointed to ocean temps which they also said they had little understanding of.

So at the same time they claim they understand things with 95% accuracy, the IPCC scientists now admit they don't understand a primary component of the model. That pretty much ends their ability to say anything with 95% accuracy...let alone 5% accuracy...and I also raised this point years ago.

In order for them to model ANYTHING with any ability they have to understand every component of the model with a high degree of accuracy. They needed to understand ocean temps, atmospheric hydration, CO2 regulation/production, etc. All of it. But they don't, so how in the world can a computer model predict a tiny change in temp with any accuracy? It can't and there isn't a sole I've brought this up to one on one who had a response. It's a primary tenant of science. You can't have a lot of inaccurate data add up to a highly precise result.

Here's a great analogy. You're flying in a plane at night so you have to rely on instruments. Your compass is accurate +/- 20%, your speedometer is accurate +/- 20%, your altimeter is accurate +/- 20%, and you really can't make out any physical features on the ground so the accuracy there is horrible. You leave the Dash with a flight plan to fly to St. Louis. The theory is the flight plan. With no accurate instruments you could end up in Bermuda or crashing into Grandfather Mt...or hell..going upside down into Groves stadium 2 miles from the airport. Those error rates mirror the accuracy of the climate data used to generate the models.

When the IPCC scientists said they don't understand ocean temp regulation AT ALL, that is like saying your compass has no accuracy. You can not fly a plane in the dark accurately without a compass. Again, the critics made the point years ago....the IPCC scientists are saying it now.

Remember this when they back track once again....and/or when the solar modelers finally get some love.

 

[pourdeac]

You have a PhD. in chemistry by taking only six pchem classes?

LOL....you seriously think that? Wow.

 

[ONW]

That's bullshit dude. I have a BS in chemistry, minor in comp sci. Started as a physics major. PhD in chemistry. I've taken 6 PChem classes including lots of thermo, stat thermo, quantum, etc. I am probably one of the most qualified people to be commenting on this stuff on these boards.

10 years ago the IPCC scientists you believe in said they were 95% sure that CO2 was the only contributor to global warming since the 1800s. That is a fact. They pointed to the hockey stick as proof. Fact. They said there was zero evidence the sun had any effect on global climate. Critics such as myself spelled out exactly why that could not be the case, including the glaring problem that the "glass" (CO2) wasn't warming, all of the warming was at the surface. All of the physical evidence backed solar activity as being the primary cause. Solar physicists 15 years ago in fact were predicting the sun was peaking and would start to cool. I raised all of these issues 10+ years ago on TOB.

You (plural you) said I was a moron. You said 98% of the scientists believed in the IPCC report, which was 100% of global warming since the 1800s. That was your response. Do you understand what that means?

Now 10 years later, the IPCC was forced to change the theory. Repeat...the theory from the IPCC scientists TODAY is not the same theory as it was 10 years ago. They were forced to admit the critics were correct...that the sun was a primary driver of 20th century climate change. Why?

ALL of the physical evidence points to the sun being at a minimum a major contributor. NASA sent up sats to measure heat exchange, and low and behold it was amazingly fast....as if there was no "glass" in the greenhouse. The sun cooled and we saw an immediate cooling on earth which also could not have happened with "glass" in the greenhouse. And of course the hockey stick was proven a fraud. So the so called "morons" of 10 years were correct dude. You can not get around that fact. The IPCC scientists are now saying the same thing.

So this isn't a matter of me trying to convince you of something I believe in, I'm just relaying what the IPCC scientists YOU believe in are now saying...which NOW aligns quite a bit with what critics have been saying all along.

But what's the response? We're morons and 98% of scientists believe...blah blah blah. You guys don't even understand what you're' supposed to believe in. The critics of 10 years ago were right.

This part. Not questioning your education, just observing that it pretty amazing.