Extremism in Climatology

[chalk2]

Do you know what they call an analyst that is that far from reality?

Unemployed.

Do you know what they call global warming alarmist so far from reality?

Grant recipient.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

Many may not know what "climate scientists" have said in the past.

In the 1970's major scientific and climate organizations endorsed ice age concerns, which included NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA, CIA, etc.

In the 1970's the fears of a coming ice age showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, by prominent scientists and throughout the media. A few of the examples are as follows:



Climate Extremism exists today: through news and printed media, international and national political groups, scientific organizations, and climate scientists.

CO2 is not a pollutant. Nor is CO2 the control knob to control earth's global atmospheric temperature.

Science is based on accurate, repeatable experimentations and observations. Extremism is based on the over promotion of speculations and conjectures. The past history of the "ice age is coming" shows what many can overly state from very limited data.

Extremism continues to be live and well today in Climatology. Why people jump on the bandwagon and resist to get off is socially and psychologically related to "group thinking", a problem in every age.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty, (II Corinthians 3:17) even in learning scientific matters.

.

Indeed. I actually remember all of this.

 

[hurste1951]

Do you know what they call an analyst that is that far from reality?

Unemployed.

Do you know what they call global warming alarmist so far from reality?

Grant recipient.

Let's make a wild guess and assume you have no earthly idea how grants are awarded to scientists. Hint: they don't grant the money based on what the results are.

And again, as was pointed out earlier, the area highlighted in your graphic seems like it is still within the range of prediction scenarios, so I assume you missed that part.

 

[fargonic]

Again, this week at the AGU meeting the following was presented.

I already noted a couple of points about the CATO poster at AGU. Perhaps you missed them.

First off I'm interested that in their selection of "recent" articles they went as far back as 2011 for Lindzen and Choi which had a sensitivity well below anyone else's lower bounds and less than 1deg C. Since they aren't very clear on how they calculated their average if they included one that was for all intents and purposes an outlier it will act as a lever point which will pull the mean down a bit. Perhaps if they had stuck with MEDIAN instead they would have less impact from extremes.

As I noted most of the science settles on a mean of about 3deg C. Considering that all CATO did was select a few studies ranging over several years and estimates from 2013 were still coming in with about 3deg C I will assume that the CATO poster will have to stand the test of time.

Apparently much below 1.5deg C sensitivity of CO2 causes problems for the paleoclimate data.

 

[fargonic]

Indeed. I actually remember all of this.

Then you must also remember that from 1965 to 1979 that 62% of the peer reviewed articles on climate change predicted warming whereas only 10% predicted cooling. Right?

You can read the details of what actually happened in the 1970's here: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

 

[Heissonear]

Do you know what they call an analyst that is that far from reality?

Unemployed.

Do you know what they call global warming alarmist so far from reality?

Grant recipient.

No one can overturn what you presented.

 

[Heissonear]

The IPCC has tried from the beginning to try and hide behind Anthropogenic Global Warming. Science was not their objective. Those who have helped promote the IPCC consensus science have had their hand out also.

The continuing fiasco of IPCC Climate Summits and Assessment Reports are all a show of greedy aristocrats and fearmongers. A lowly bunch.

Richard Lindzen, former professor of meteorology at MIT, once said about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis:

"The consensus was reached before the research had even begun. The IPCC virtually ignored evidence that showed the hypothesis wrong, including failed predictions. Instead of revisiting their science, they moved the goal posts from global warming to climate change and recently climate disruption. Mainstream media have aided and abetted them with misleading and often completely scientifically incorrect stories. These are usually a reflection of their political bias."

I find it interesting how many so called "scientists" defend the IPCC based pseudo-science and proaganda - seen clearly by denying acceptance of more recent scientific research publications rightfully exposing the errors in the IPCC over promoted "CO2 induced Global Warming" science they continue to hide behind.

Once on the bandwagon many do not face up and jump off the bandwagon.

The increase in a small amount of CO2 "Greenhouse Gas" has been Extremely blown out of proportions. Those who brought such about were Extremists.

 

[Heissonear]

Most researchers on the CAGW Bandwagon ARE USING THE FORCASTED RESULTS OF AGW CLIMATE MODELS as the bases for their studies on effect to earth systems like the biosphere.

You would think they would understand that the climate models have been shown to be unskillful and unreliable.

As one non-bandwagon viewer has observed and stated about this parade of "scientific research":

From personal observation, I would hazard that about 80 to 90 percent of current climate science papers use these models as the basis for predicting catastrophic results for all sorts of scenarios. If there is no guarantee of the model prognostications, why should any of these papers even see the publication light of day?"

As presented last week at the 2014 AGU meeting, a paper was presented showing the diversion of climate computer model data from real world observation data.


http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/agu_2014_fall_poster_michaels_knappenberger.pdf

“We conclude that at the global scale, this suite of climate models has failed. Treating them as mathematical hypotheses, which they are, means that it is the duty of scientists to, unfortunately, reject their predictions in lieu of those with a lower climate sensitivity.

Unless (or until) the collection of climate models can be demonstrated to accurately capture observed characteristics of known climate changes, policymakers should avoid basing any decisions upon projections made from them. Further, those policies which have already be established using projections from these climate models should be revisited. ”

 

[Heissonear]

Why have Climate Extremists promoted how CO2 has made the earth heat up "unprecedentedly"?

Jo Nova looks at Phil Jone’s warming periods and finds little impact from higher CO2 levels compared to the earlier record. Here is her quote——

“More mysteries for “science minds” to explain: the world warmed just as fast in the 1870s as it did in the 1980s without all the CO2 (see the graph). Why are some people 95% certain that CO2 caused the latter, when they don’t know what caused the former? They also don’t know why the world started cooling 700 years ago, and started warming 300 years ago, long before our emissions increased”

JoNova

.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg

 

[fargonic]

As presented last week at the 2014 AGU meeting, a paper was presented showing the diversion of climate computer model data from real world observation data.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/agu_2014_fall_poster_michaels_knappenberger.pdf

I know this will be ignored as it has been in the previous posts but what do you think about the inclusion of Lindzen and CHoi in that poster? Do you not feel it is an outlier?

But I am fascinated that this one estimate from a Libertarian ThinkTank (ie not a climate research facility) would hold such much sway when so many other estimates show a higher number? And those other estimates are not from a "meta analysis" but actual research.

I am not against meta-analyses but this one still look suspicious to me since they draw a conclusion on a calculated average from their literature review but it seems somewhat arbitrary to go back to 2011 to find Lindzen and Choi which would seem to pull the entire thing down.

Why didn't they go with a median instead to avoid the problems that arise from a sensitivity below 1.5deg C?

Maybe when they write a full paper we can have a more detailed discussion.

 

[fargonic]

Why have Climate Extremists promoted how CO2 has made the earth heat up "unprecedentedly"?

I am hopeful that readers of these threads will remember that virtually no climate scientist on the earth actually believes the warming is solely due to CO2.

That for decades and decades scientists have actually been looking at the totality of the forcings, positive and negative and human-caused as well as natural.

If only people would remember that they could look past the strawmen thrown up on these threads time and again.

The truth is more nuanced than that.

 

[Loudmouth]

No one can overturn what you presented.

The actual warming fell within the predicted range. What needs to be overturned?

 

[fargonic]

The actual warming fell within the predicted range. What needs to be overturned?

Remember that Heissonear and Chalk appear to be arguing against the strawman of climate "Extremists". This means the only data that counts for them is the stuff at the extreme end of the data.

As you and I both noted the graph Chalk presented appeared to contain the current temperature. Apparently it wasn't "extreme" enough so it allows the people building the strawman argument a lever.

Thankfully they didn't realize that it did little but actually confirm the predictions, albeit on the lower end.

My fear as that these threads which consistently and repeatedly misrepresent the actual science will be read without critique. That is why I am glad you and others are providing a counterpoint. Even if Heissonear studiously ignores certain posters who disagree with him, it is good that the fuller story is presented.

 

[dad]

Let's make a wild guess and assume you have no earthly idea how grants are awarded to scientists. Hint: they don't grant the money based on what the results are.

I wonder if results desired often come into play? Scientists are like lawyers, in that we can hire them to prove whatever nonsense we want to pay to say is right. (obviously this does not usually include honest and godly men and women of science-although some of these seem to be eager to please men, and defend ungodly nonsense that they should know better if they knew God and His word)

 

[Loudmouth]

I wonder if results desired often come into play?

The temperature data is usually collected by government agencies, not the scientists who are writing the papers.

 

[dad]

Please present just ONE shred of evidence that is consistent with a different state past.

The climate in the past was different!!

 

[Loudmouth]

The climate in the past was different!!

The types of changes your different state past requires would be much more fundamental than that. You would have to change every fundamental force, such as the weak and strong force. The climate being different would be the least of your worries. The Earth blowing up as atomic nuclei disintegrate would be much more of a concern.

 

[dad]

The temperature data is usually collected by government agencies, not the scientists who are writing the papers.

I can take the data and come up with different conclusions. We should take the known quantities into account such as God's word and how it reveals what it was and will REALLY be like. The folks who play around with data and assume that all things continue as they were and will continue to do so in the areas that cause/caused the climate changes are short sighted false prophets.

 

[Loudmouth]

I can take the data and come up with different conclusions.

The difficult bit would be coming up with a conclusion that is supported by more than your fantasies.

We should take the known quantities into account such as God's word and how it reveals what it was and will REALLY be like. The folks who play around with data and assume that all things continue as they were and will continue to do so in the areas that cause/caused the climate changes are short sighted false prophets.

Then show us the math with God included in the equations.

 

[dad]

The types of changes your different state past requires would be much more fundamental than that.

No. Fundamental changes also would affect climate...obviously!!

You would have to change every fundamental force, such as the weak and strong force.

This is news!!!?? But actually we do not need to change what we have, we (God) simply may have needed to take away something that was also here as a force, and then the remaining stuff would need to get along the best way it knew how! Regardless of how God will manke the new heavens and earth, and their laws, the main thing is that they will be made, and be different than what we have now...obviously. It sure seems to me that in a bible past where trees could grow in weeks, that this would probably not have been under ice!

The climate being different would be the least of your worries. The Earth blowing up as atomic nuclei disintegrate would be much more of a concern.

Absurd. The One who created the world knows how and what to change in a wonderful way! The chaos and random universe exploding nonsense is nothing more than ignorance based fear mongering.