Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

[Wooglin]

More Bluster. Bring it

You do understand that the only reason ice core data was ever used was because we cannot obtain direct atmospheric samples of the time before when we did not maintain records.
But they used different recordsssssss, noooooooooooooooooooo................

No kidding. Relevance?

You might want to read before pressing the reply button next time.

You might want to learn how to link properly to whatever it is you want someone to read first.

Ok. And this is relevant to splicing together datasets how exactly?

That data infact only goes out to 1950

LoL. No Kidding! I know you think you think you're being clever here but you're actually bolstering my point. Here's a question for you... What does that dataset look like up to present? Give that some thought and let's see if the bulb goes off.

For those living in the 21st century, refer my post above

As has been shown in my previous post, Antarctic data firmly matches up with NASA records. The PDF you showed is completely outdated and uses further outdated studies.

FAIL. Better luck with your cannibalism next time.

And here's where your ignorance shines, where your ego gets the best of reason and the chew toy in you comes out.

Here's the source for your own graph... http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)

Here's the "completely outdated" study I gave you again... http://www.researchgate.net/publicat...re_399_429-436

Petit, J. R. et al. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399, 429-436

You were saying????

I gave you a chance. You could have very easily confirmed this yourself and we could have had a discussion. But your ego got the best of you and now that shit sandwich you're choking on is your own damn fault. You're just grasping for a rebuttal, any rebuttal without really thinking about what you're rebutting, and all you've accomplished is to contradict yourself. Seriously, you're not fooling anyone here.

So now you have three choices:

- Slink away
- If you're just here to stir the pot then by all means, continue. Many here have been down this road many times and certainly won't mind the amusement it brings. It always ends the same way... See option 1.
- Try an honest discussion. Check the ego and be prepared to think about what you think you know. Bring well reasoned and well supported arguments and you'll find people here very open to listen and discuss.

Either way, Good Luck dude.

[Wooglin]

How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.

(2) How do scientists alert the world to a catastrophic threat?

“Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.”
— Harsh but operationally accurate Roman proverb.

We have seen this played out many times in books and films since the publication of When Worlds Collide in 1932 — A group of scientists see a threat. They go to America’s (or the world’s) leaders and state their case, presenting the data for others to examine and answering questions. They never say things like this…

In response to a request for supporting data, Philip Jones, a prominent researcher {U of East Anglia} said “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

– From the testimony of Stephen McIntyre before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (the July 2006 hearings which produced the Wegman Report).

They don’t destroy key records, which are required to be kept and made public. They don’t force people to file Freedom of Information requests to get key information; the response to FOIs is never like this…

The {climategate} emails reveal repeated and systematic attempts by him and his colleagues to block FoI requests from climate sceptics who wanted access to emails, documents and data. These moves were not only contrary to the spirit of scientific openness, but according to the government body that administers the FOI act were “not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation”. {The Guardian}

The burden of proof rests on those warning the world about a danger requiring trillions of dollars to mitigate, and perhaps drastic revisions to — or even abandoning — capitalism (as in This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate and “In Fiery Speeches, Francis Excoriates Global Capitalism“).

Steve McIntyre has documented the defensive and self-defeating efforts of climate scientists to keep vital information secret, often violating the disclosure policies of journals, universities, and government funding agencies. To many laypeople these actions by scientists scream “something wrong”. It’s not how people act when they have a strong case, especially with such high stakes.

Earth Burning
(3) Case study: the pause

Starting in 2006 climate scientists began to notice a slowing in the rate of atmospheric warming. By 2009 there were peer-reviewed papers about it (e.g., in GRL), and the pace of publications accelerated (see links to these 29 papers). In 2013 the UK Met Office published a major paper about the pause, which shifted the frontier of climate science from the existence of the pause to its causes (see links to these 38 papers). In the past few years scientists have forecast the duration of the pause (see links to 17 forecasts).

During this activists wrote scores, probably hundreds, of articles not only denying that there was a pause in warming — but mocking as “deniers” people citing the literature. The leaders of climate science remained silent, even those writing papers about the pause. While an impressive display of message discipline, it blasted away the credibility of climate science for those who saw the science behind the curtain of propaganda.

Eventually the tension grew so great that public mention of the discrepancy became acceptable, such as this mild note in Nature Climate Change (August 2014)…

“Climate science draws on evidence over hundreds of years, way outside of our everyday experience. During the press conference, scientists attempted to supplement this rather abstract knowledge by emphasising a short-term example: that the decade from 2001 onwards was the warmest that had ever been seen. On the surface, this appeared a reasonable communications strategy. Unfortunately, a switch to shorter periods of time made it harder to dismiss media questions about short-term uncertainties in climate science, such as the so-called ‘pause’ in the rate of increase in global mean surface temperature since the late 1990s.

“The fact that scientists go on to dismiss the journalists’ concerns about the pause – when they themselves drew upon a similar short-term example – made their position inconsistent and led to confusion within the press conference.”

The ritualistic phrasing of the “so called pause” is typical message discipline, despite the many scores of papers using the term. Another example of message discipline are the successful efforts to conceal from the public that most forms of extreme weather has not increased this decade (data here, and here).

Know your place
(4) The most incompetently conducted media campaign ever?

“Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it.”
— True when journalist Charles Dudley Warner said it in 1884. Still true today.

A kerfuffle occurred over claims that 2014 was the “warmest year” on record, with harsh denouncing of people pointing to substantial qualifications of that claim in the NOAA and NASA presentations (“it was more unlikely than likely”). Equally successful was the massive media campaign that convinced the public that California’s drought results from anthropogenic climate change, despite numerous studies showing that it is a minor factor. These were two in a long list of information operations by climate activists (see section 7 here).

The goal is always the same: keep the message simple, crush dissent (no matter how well founded). These propaganda successes required the complicit silence or active participation of scientists. This does not mean that the the climate change threat is a Potemkin Village. It means that many climate scientists behave as if it is one. Hence the public policy gridlock.

Now many climate scientists and activists are doubling down on these failed tactics. Stronger denunciation of critics. More extreme headlines such as “The beyond-two-degree inferno“ in Science and “Halfway to Hell” in New Scientist. I doubt these change any minds.

5) My personal experience

I first wrote about climate change 7 years ago, and have written 305 posts since. Most defended the IPCC against Left and Right (see my recommendations here). I found the climate a subject of interest as an important public policy issue and a test of our ability to see and respond to severe but long-term challenges.

In my 35 years in finance I’ve often relied on scientists for advice (in both the physical and social sciences), and developed methods for successfully engaging with them. These failed with most climate scientists. First, they were more reluctant to engage than in any other field I’ve worked with — including those doing secret work in defense and biotech.

Second, and more important, their responses were unlike anything I’ve seen before. A few responded in typical fashion. For example, I ask Roger Pielke Sr. a question and receive a full package of citations — which he’ll explain in detail, if asked. It’s the usual practice of scientists.

But in climate science a more common response is a probe to determine my tribe — us or them? Oddly, either way I often get snark (friendly or hostile, depending upon the how they ID my tribal identity). Probing, however careful, meets with hostility (classification as “foe”). The conversations often quickly became strange, as in the following examples. I could cite dozens more, many longer and odder.

Full posting here: http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/08/04/...-broken-87951/

[NoOneKnows]

Just to be clear, I posted the above reply in that form because I kept getting this stupid error.

[Officer of Engineers]

Parihaka pulls up a chair beside doc, steals his cigar and cracks open a 21yo bottle of Taylor's port, all the while mumbling into his beard something about youth being wasted on the young. That and lambs to slaughter.

Why didn't you say so? Looking at my scotch collection ... which one ...

Doesn't matter much, I can't have any but I think I will take a sniff of all of them.

And a roast beef sandwich with horse relish.

[JAD_333]

Just to be clear, I posted the above reply in that form because I kept getting this stupid error.

Does that explain the expletives, or did you simply lose your cool? Delete or clean up your post asap.

[NoOneKnows]

Does that explain the expletives, or did you simply lose your cool? Delete or clean up your post asap.

That explains the images.
Even if I wanted to

---

Posting Permissions
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

[JAD_333]

That explains the images.
Even if I wanted to

---

I'll do it for you.

[NoOneKnows]

I'll do it for you.

Does Woogli get any warnings for his off-topic rants or is it limited to newcomers.

[Doktor]

Why didn't you say so? Looking at my scotch collection ... which one ...

Doesn't matter much, I can't have any but I think I will take a sniff of all of them.

And a roast beef sandwich with horse relish.

No cigar, Col?

Oh and those sammiches will bring Yellow to the table. Got your pad and the guns?

On the topic, Wooglin nailed it again, I only mss ACG, for a complete feeling. NoOne, it's a lengthy thread, read it, mate. Read it again with the links. You are running out of chances with an honest discutant.

[NoOneKnows]

No cigar, Col?

Oh and those sammiches will bring Yellow to the table. Got your pad and the guns?

On the topic, Wooglin nailed again, I only mss ACG, fr a cmplete feeling. NoOne, it's a lengthy thread, read it, mate. Read it again with the links.

Did you read the reply I posted before JAD had it deleted?

At any rate, these are the relevant bits apart from the swearing

[Officer of Engineers]

No cigar, Col?

Oh and those sammiches will bring Yellow to the table. Got your pad and the guns?

Nah, have my old handy hockey stick.

[Doktor]

Did you read the reply I posted before JAD had it deleted?

At any rate, these are the relevant bits apart from the swearing
[ATTACH=CONFIG]39873[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]39874[/ATTACH]

Hey, you could've quoted it with a better spelling (coffee still didn't hit).

No, I've missed it. What those graphs represent? Is the CO2 the sole cause for the planet's warming, pardon climate changing? This is the PC term de jeur, now, right?

[NoOneKnows]

It busts these nonsensical claims

To make it worse, your graph is splicing together data from a proxy taken from an Antarctic ice core, where co2 levels are lowest globally, and modern data from Mauna Loa, where local co2 levels are much higher.

So when the graph states that co2 has never been above this line.... yeah, maybe in Antarctica where co2 is lowest using an ice core proxy.

It's deliberately misleading

Co2 Dispersion:

Anyway, your graph is based off this study, at least in part. The ice core record shown here is the majority of the record shown in your own graph. Co2 does not end at 400ppm in the actual ice core record, but yours does. Why? Like I said earlier, it's spliced together with a modern data set (Mauna Loa), and that's just misleading.

[bolo121]

Was reading the kerfluffle with great enjoyment (sadly am financially challenged at the moment and so no scotch to hand)

Just a question to NoK (heh), wasnt wooglin saying you were quoting a record with 2 spliced datasets?
You now have replied with pics of one of them (antarctic ice cores).
But how does it bust the earlier statement? The timelines that wooglin and pari use also seem to be much longer than the ones you show.

[Parihaka]

Does Woogli get any warnings for his off-topic rants or is it limited to newcomers.

:parihakapuffsonhisstolencigar: Actually, what he has been trying to explain is that grafting two sets of data is often not a good idea.

The Vostok record covers Millenia, each individual sample covering centuries. Were one able to send instruments back in time and take records from day to day and year to year the way Moana lea and the modern Antarctic do, every part of those Millenia covered in the Vostok cores would also show fluctuations as great and greater than the modern data sets.

In short the Vostok data is heavily smoothed, the modern data is not, being only the tiniest fraction of any point on the full graph. It's not apples and oranges, it's an apple seed vs a containership of bananas.
I understand this is a passion for you and you've been primed that whoever disagrees with the warmest press releases is both stupid and evil. On this site however you've had the great fortune to run across a large number of very educated people across a broad range of discipline. It is a very good place to learn, but there are no safe spaces and we don't care if your feelings are hurt. If you can't handle that.......