Climate Change!

[mzungu]

Finally a scientific view on climate change. A very interesting documentary. I hope you all enjoy it:
(at the end of each part there is a lag before the second part automatically plays)
Climate Change | Watch Free Documentary Online

 

[[serious]]

There has been real "scientific views" on climate change for a while. 3+ hours is a bit much of an investment without some more info. Where does he come down on:
1. the existence of climate change
2. the causes of climate change

 

[RickG]

Finally a scientific view on climate change. A very interesting documentary. I hope you all enjoy it:
(at the end of each part there is a lag before the second part automatically plays)
Climate Change | Watch Free Documentary Online

I've watched the first four so far and they are quite revealing. One significant thing anyone can observe is the tone difference one finds on climate change denial sites as opposed to climate change sites that are run by actual climate scientists. One is based on ideology and the other is based on science. Hmmmm, kind of like creationism.

 

[mzungu]

I've watched the first four so far and they are quite revealing. One significant thing anyone can observe is the tone difference one finds on climate change denial sites as opposed to climate change sites that are run by actual climate scientists. One is based on ideology and the other is based on science. Hmmmm, kind of like creationism.

The road to scientific erudition is an arduous one and not for the faint hearted. This is what happens when science is mixed with politics and or religion. Most scientists who have religious beliefs know that the two are vastly differing in scope. Science does not delve into the spiritual and religions should not conduct their dogmas as if it were science.

Creationists seem to forget that the meaning of religion is basically a spiritual guide and not a test tube. This also goes for the deniers who use politics to influence science.

I am glad you took the time to watch the documentary as it is clear that it is not influenced by proponents nor deniers of climate change.

 

[RickG]

One thing overlooked, especially by the media is that most of the global warming is going into the oceans, some 80% if memory serves.

(Source: Global heat content, data from Church et al 2011. via Skeptical Science).

 

[idscience]

One thing overlooked, especially by the media is that most of the global warming is going into the oceans, some 80% if memory serves.
(Source: Global heat content, data from via Skeptical Science).

That is interesting. I just watched a video on youtube. This is the title:
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

and the NASA scientist said that the upper 1km of the oceans have only increased two tenths of a degree Celcius in 50 years. Watch the video. I found it informative.

 

[RickG]

That is interesting. I just watched a video on youtube. This is the title:
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

and the NASA scientist said that the upper 1km of the oceans have only increased two tenths of a degree Celcius in 50 years. Watch the video. I found it informative.

May I ask what you got out of that youtube video with respect to global warming?

 

[idscience]

May I ask what you got out of that youtube video with respect to global warming?

It was clear to me the data shows it is not occurring to the extent to what we where told. If the oceans are not heating up, and the far more heat is excaping into space than was perceived, then it isn't the problem we were told it was.

What did it say to you?

 

[RickG]

It was clear to me the data shows it is not occurring to the extent to what we where told. If the oceans are not heating up, and the far more heat is excaping into space than was perceived, then it isn't the problem we were told it was.

What did it say to you?

It said to me that you are not going to actual climate science sources to get climate science information. But let me explain and you be the judge.

In the video they interviewed Dr. Roy Spencer, an atmospheric physicist, at the Univ. of Ala. Huntsville. All of the accolades that they gave Spencer were true. However, what they didn't tell you was all the problems Dr. Spenser has getting published in the area of climate science. The reason he has those problems is because his science is quite a bit below scholarly. The book he wrote mentioned in the video is a work full of errors. The reason he went to the public domain to publish is because much of what he writes about cannot pass peer review.

Nevertheless, the title of the video is also the title of a Forbes Magazine article reviewing a recent article he published in the very young, growing and prestigious journal, Remote Sensing. The problem is Remote Sensing did something a prestigious scientific journal should never do; they published an article outside the area of expertise. You see, most journals, and especially the top journals publish only material that can be reviewed by experts in the field that is being reviewed. If you want to find questionable science, look in the scientific journals that publish a lot of articles outside their stated area of expertise. The journal, Energy and Environment, especially has a problem with this, but that's another story.

Anyway, here is what happened. Mainly what the youtube video talks about is the article published in "Remote Sensing". the article can be found here: Remote Sensing | Free Full-Text | On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance

The Forbes article can be found here: New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Forbes

As soon as the article appeared, it was immediately criticized by the greater climate science community due to a plethora of problematic claims in the paper. After reviewing the complaints, the article and what the greater climate science literature showed, the Editor and Chief (Wolfgang Wagner) resigned with a published statement for his resignation in the Journal Remote Sensing. Some of the highlights include:

"I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011, the main author’s personal homepage, the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes, and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News, to name just a few."

"The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature, a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers."

The full statement buy Wagner can be found here. It is well worth reading.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf

Roy Spencer also has some problems with other papers he has published in "fringe" journals as well, but that's another story.

The bottom line in the Spencer/Braswell article is that they grossly underestimate climate sensitivity by not looking at the entire world and making some amazingly unsupported claims about clouds and their relation to ENSO. And one thing that is really surprising and damaging things toward the paper is that they excluded 3 data sets "they" obtained themselves. Seems those data sets did not agree with their conclusions. So, their data at the very least is cherry picked.


When obtaining information about a particular subject, especially a controversial one, here is what I suggest doing in order the get the best and most accurate information.

1. Look at the published peer review literature as a primary source
2. Determine the tone of what is published, especially on the internet. Are they discussing only the science or are ideologies or political views expressed in the literature. That is a clear sign they are pushing an agenda rather than skeptically reviewing the science.
3. Blogs. Are they run by climate scientists? Are the feature articles they publish by credible climate scientists or people who don't have climate science credentials.
4. Blogs. Do stick to the science and caution about ad hominems or making claims that cannot be supported? Or is it a hostile environment.
5. News organizations. That's a really bad place to get science.

Look at what I have presented, review what I have linked. Tell me what talks about science and what talks about agendas and politics. Be open and honest about what you find. Fair enough?

Oh just one last thing about there being no warming. Look at this NASA graph.

And let's look at temperature records for 5 different sources, one of which is Roy Spencers UAH record.

 

[idscience]

The peer review process is censored. Your charts are very interesting but are the result of faulty models. I am unable to cite yet because I have to meet the required posting number. The scientists involved in the climate issue have been shown to be frauds. Climate change (formally global warming) has become a political issue. Money and power are driving it, not science. The IPPC is a political institution

“The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.”

This is from the Telegraph.

I can't give you all the refs as my blog has dozens of links. Most recently the National Center for Science Education who are the champions of evolution and climate change, had expanded their board members to include a scientist named
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Peter Gleick[/font]. His crime, obtaining documents from the Hartland Institute by lying about who he was. Much of the narrative is about this lapse in judgement, but there is more. Among the boring budget documents was one climate strategy paper that allegedly revealed a sinister plot to dissuade K-12 teachers from teaching science. The problem was, it was a fake to make global warming skeptics look bad. Gleick sent the documents off anonymously to several journalists in hopes of restarting an issue where non exists anymore.

“… challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013… According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.”

“… Zorita was a UN IPCC Contributing Author of the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Since 2003, Zorita has headed the Department of Paleoclimate and has been a senior scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre in Germany. Zorita has published more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific studies… Zorita’s stunning candor continued, noting that scientists who disagreed with the UN IPCC climate view were “bullied and subtly blackmailed.”

Your first chart for example is an "adjusted" chart" Code for fudged the numbers. On my blog I have the actual chart with the raw data. I believe that is the chart from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NiWA). They have been caught manipulating their data just like the Brits.
When you can't get critical papers published, and you can't get raw data when requested or are told it as lost or deleted, you have to wander.
These guys have lost all their cred, and my respect.

 

[CabVet]

Your first chart for example is an "adjusted" chart" Code for fudged the numbers. On my blog I have the actual chart with the raw data. I believe that is the chart from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NiWA). They have been caught manipulating their data just like the Brits.

Oh, so you don't even know where your chart is from?

 

[idscience]

Oh, so you don't even know where your chart is from?

What I don't know is where his chart came from. Yes, I do cite the source of all my information so there is no confusion. I am having difficulty right now because I am unable to post images or links yet.

 

[apache1]

If you don't believe in climate change, just ask the people of West Liberty, Ky., I would say a lot of them believe it. They were hit IN THE SAME EXACT SPOTS by 2 different tornadoes 2 days apart in an area of Appalachia that rarely experiences tornadoes to start with. The states of Ky., Tn., In, Mo, etc., has been hammered extremely hard this week. This past winter in much of the country was almost non-existent, while much of Europe (not just the Scandanavian part) had sub-zero weather and bitter blizzards for weeks at a time.

 

[CabVet]

What I don't know is where his chart came from. Yes, I do cite the source of all my information so there is no confusion. I am having difficulty right now because I am unable to post images or links yet.

So, what is the source of your data? No need to post the link, just tell me where it is.

 

[idscience]

If you don't believe in climate change, just ask the people of West Liberty, Ky., I would say a lot of them believe it. They were hit IN THE SAME EXACT SPOTS by 2 different tornadoes 2 days apart in an area of Appalachia that rarely experiences tornadoes to start with. The states of Ky., Tn., In, Mo, etc., has been hammered extremely hard this week. This past winter in much of the country was almost non-existent, while much of Europe (not just the Scandanavian part) had sub-zero weather and bitter blizzards for weeks at a time.

Why do you equate tornadoes with climate change? Al Gore?

This is the falacy of climate change. By coining that term anything can be deemed climate change now. Of course the climate has cycles. Temps will naturally move up or down. What I am not convinced of is that man is contributing to the collapse of the ecology. That there is a phenomanon as Global Warming taking place today that is any more than natural occurrance. When I hear polititions like Rick Perry labeling those who are skeptical of Global Warming as racists, and others equating them to holocaust deniers, I begin to question motives, how much is political speak out for cash, and how much is actuall science. Add to that Climate gate, ausi gate and the faking of memos to demonize skeptics and I am sorry, I am skeptical.

Flags raise for me when people get unduly upset. When an anger arises beyond the effect of the issue, something else other than science is involved.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Why do you equate tornadoes with climate change? Al Gore?

This is the falacy of climate change. By coining that term anything can be deemed climate change now. Of course the climate has cycles. Temps will naturally move up or down. What I am not convinced of is that man is contributing to the collapse of the ecology. That there is a phenomanon as Global Warming taking place today that is any more than natural occurrance. When I hear polititions like Rick Perry labeling those who are skeptical of Global Warming as racists, and others equating them to holocaust deniers, I begin to question motives, how much is political speak out for cash, and how much is actuall science. Add to that Climate gate, ausi gate and the faking of memos to demonize skeptics and I am sorry, I am skeptical.

Flags raise for me when people get unduly upset. When an anger arises beyond the effect of the issue, something else other than science is involved.

Do you watch The O'Reilly Factor?

 

[idscience]

So, what is the source of your data? No need to post the link, just tell me where it is.

It is from the Telegraph UK. search title
Climategate: the scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens…

 

[apache1]

Why do you equate tornadoes with climate change? Al Gore?

This is the falacy of climate change. By coining that term anything can be deemed climate change now. Of course the climate has cycles. Temps will naturally move up or down. What I am not convinced of is that man is contributing to the collapse of the ecology. That there is a phenomanon as Global Warming taking place today that is any more than natural occurrance. When I hear polititions like Rick Perry labeling those who are skeptical of Global Warming as racists, and others equating them to holocaust deniers, I begin to question motives, how much is political speak out for cash, and how much is actuall science. Add to that Climate gate, ausi gate and the faking of memos to demonize skeptics and I am sorry, I am skeptical.

Flags raise for me when people get unduly upset. When an anger arises beyond the effect of the issue, something else other than science is involved.

No, I can't stand Al Gore. This is my own non-scientific observations over my life. I live in an area in the Southern United States, but not that far south. When I was a little boy, you could have literally ice skated on the river near where I live 13 miles to the county seat and not worry about falling in. Most winters now, the river doesn't even freeze, much less thick enough to ice skate on. Retired GM and Ford employees that moved back home after living in Detroit tell me that winters years ago up there you might as well have been in Alaska or Greenland. Now, the winters there are more like a really bad winter here in the South. Also, the last few years the Pacific Ocean, which are very cold north of Santa Barbara, Ca. (and ain't as warm as Florida even south of San Diego, for that matter!), in waters off Oregon and Washington that normally cold water species such as salmon, steelhead, and hake are commonly found, fisherman are catching Spanish mackeral, marlin, jack crevalles, hammerhead sharks, etc., fish you normally did not see there, more like fish you would see off Cabo San Lucas or Puerto Vallarta, or off Florida Keys or Bahamas, not something you would catch off of Astoria, Oregon. Don't tell me something ain't going on. Whether manmade or natural cycle, I don't know, but something going on nevertheless.

 

[idscience]

No, I can't stand Al Gore. This is my own non-scientific observations over my life. I live in an area in the Southern United States, but not that far south. When I was a little boy, you could have literally ice skated on the river near where I live 13 miles to the county seat and not worry about falling in. Most winters now, the river doesn't even freeze, much less thick enough to ice skate on. Retired GM and Ford employees that moved back home after living in Detroit tell me that winters years ago up there you might as well have been in Alaska or Greenland. Now, the winters there are more like a really bad winter here in the South. Also, the last few years the Pacific Ocean, which are very cold north of Santa Barbara, Ca. (and ain't as warm as Florida even south of San Diego, for that matter!), in waters off Oregon and Washington that normally cold water species such as salmon, steelhead, and hake are commonly found, fisherman are catching Spanish mackeral, marlin, jack crevalles, hammerhead sharks, etc., fish you normally did not see there, more like fish you would see off Cabo San Lucas or Puerto Vallarta, or off Florida Keys or Bahamas, not something you would catch off of Astoria, Oregon. Don't tell me something ain't going on. Whether manmade or natural cycle, I don't know, but something going on nevertheless.

I agree with you. What was normal 20 40 years ago isn't today. That is a very small slice of time geologically speaking. The climate was much warmer during the medieval warm period then today. I lay the whole thing out on my blog with numerous sources (30 I think) that show there is nothing to be alarmed about. Where is Gore now? Off the map. He was set up to be the first carbon trillionaire. The U.N. told the U.S.A. they wanted 2 trillion dollars of tax payer money each year to fight a substance that is less than 1 percent of the atmosphere. The EPA deemed Co2 a poison even though it is essential for life. Follow the money!

 

[RickG]

The peer review process is censored. Your charts are very interesting but are the result of faulty models. I am unable to cite yet because I have to meet the required posting number. The scientists involved in the climate issue have been shown to be frauds. Climate change (formally global warming) has become a political issue. Money and power are driving it, not science. The IPPC is a political institution

The peer review process is how good science gets published and bad science doesn't. It not censored in any way. The graphs I showed are not models. They are actual recorded data plotted on a graph. Giving citation only asks for you to give your source. There is nothing keeping you from posting your source as you did with the youtube video. As for climate science frauds by legitimate climate scientists, there have been none. Absolutely none at all. There have been accusations that prompted 5 official inquires where no wrong doing was found. Would you be refering to the East Anglican Univ. Climate unit where their server was hacked? Let's see now. Illegal break-in of a email server, illegally publishing "parts" of those emails and misrepresenting them. You see idscience, when you compare the entire email in context with the "quote mined" part you can see the deliberate misrepresentation. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Do you condone that kind of behavior? As for the IPCC, WG1, the work group that reviewed the science and published it are composed of 100% practicing climate scientists and absolutely no politicians.

Might I suggest learning something about a subject before blindly criticizing it.

This is from the Telegraph.

I can't give you all the refs as my blog has dozens of links. Most recently the National Center for Science Education who are the champions of evolution and climate change, had expanded their board members to include a scientist named
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Peter Gleick[/font]. His crime, obtaining documents from the Hartland Institute by lying about who he was. Much of the narrative is about this lapse in judgement, but there is more. Among the boring budget documents was one climate strategy paper that allegedly revealed a sinister plot to dissuade K-12 teachers from teaching science. The problem was, it was a fake to make global warming skeptics look bad. Gleick sent the documents off anonymously to several journalists in hopes of restarting an issue where non exists anymore.

Global warming skeptics make themselves look bad.

Your first chart for example is an "adjusted" chart" Code for fudged the numbers. On my blog I have the actual chart with the raw data. I believe that is the chart from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NiWA). They have been caught manipulating their data just like the Brits.]/quote]

My first chart is linked from NASA's website. Are you accusing NASA of publishing fudged numbers. Perhaps you should look at the actual published numbers which can be obtained from NASA. And where did you get your numbers, couldn't possibly be from NASA as you claim because they are different. Here's some direct links to the data.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)
Data.GISS: Data and Images

And what about the other graph. Its shows plots from the five major climate organizations, one of which I already pointed out is by Dr. Roy Spencer for whom I already showed his flawed paper. Even his graph supports the other four climate organizations that warming is occurring.

When you can't get critical papers published, and you can't get raw data when requested or are told it as lost or deleted, you have to wander.
These guys have lost all their cred, and my respect.

More baseless accusations based what appears to be ideology rather than a review and understanding of the actual science.

Instead making a lot of accusations that I know you can't back up, how about choosing a specific attribute why you think there is no global warming and let's discuss it, sticking to the topic and the science. You choose the specific topic; ex: It's the Sun, It's cooling, It's not CO2, etc...