NASA: six decades of a warming earth

[Lagboltz]

Yeah, what was I thinking? It's all true .. it's those damned Republicans, led by the anti-Christ, Sarah Palin, who want to destroy the world ... it's a conspiracy.

Sorry, you just lost your credibility.

You're not willing to take the risk ... and I'm not willing to knowingly destroy this economy, and this country, on scientific data that is questionable, at best, and intentionally manipulated, at worst. .. especially when we know, going in, that we can't have any measurable impact on it.

'Tis a conundrum, isn't it?

I still can't understand why you allow yourself to believe that one erroneous sentence about the Himalayans and Chinese data - both thrown out after they were found tainted 5 years ago - would drive you to still call the entire body of the IPCC questionable at best and intentionally manipulated.

And now your best retort is my Sarah Palin comment? She was very outspoken about a word, “decline” taken out of context. This is an excerpt from wikepedia:
“...This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures...”

So you make a snide remarks and say my credibility is lost? Is that the best retort you've got?

In professing your disdain for the 800 IPCC scientists you claimed, “No GW crisis, no funding ... no funding, no job .. THAT is an agenda.” You had no basis for that except a gut feeling guess, when in fact none of those scientists were paid at all. And yet you say my credibility is lost.

You seem to have a deep mistrust in science. I can see now that I called it correctly many posts ago when I said that you embrace truthiness, “the quality of being considered to be true because of what the believer wishes or feels, regardless of the facts”

This ongoing dialog is a great educational experience for me to see how the mind of a mostly articulate anti-science conservative thinks. One who is able to rationalize his thoughts using snide remarks and fiction pulled out of his gut, and yet claims to be a scientist.

Yes, 'tis a conundrum, isn't it.

 

[GBFan]

I still can't understand why you allow yourself to believe that one erroneous sentence about the Himalayans and Chinese data - both thrown out after they were found tainted 5 years ago - would drive you to still call the entire body of the IPCC questionable at best and intentionally manipulated.

And now your best retort is my Sarah Palin comment? She was very outspoken about a word, “decline” taken out of context. This is an excerpt from wikepedia:
“...This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures...”

So you make a snide remarks and say my credibility is lost? Is that the best retort you've got?

In professing your disdain for the 800 IPCC scientists you claimed, “No GW crisis, no funding ... no funding, no job .. THAT is an agenda.” You had no basis for that except a gut feeling guess, when in fact none of those scientists were paid at all. And yet you say my credibility is lost.

You seem to have a deep mistrust in science. I can see now that I called it correctly many posts ago when I said that you embrace truthiness, “the quality of being considered to be true because of what the believer wishes or feels, regardless of the facts”

This ongoing dialog is a great educational experience for me to see how the mind of a mostly articulate anti-science conservative thinks. One who is able to rationalize his thoughts using snide remarks and fiction pulled out of his gut, and yet claims to be a scientist.

Yes, 'tis a conundrum, isn't it.

Ok, one last time ... I am not anti-science. In fact, as I said earlier, I made a ton of money with science. I started a company (later sold it) that used cutting edge science to build satellites you've never heard about. My particular expertise is in satellite communications, and end-to-end systems engineering and test. So, your cheap accusation about not understanding, or dismissing science, is baseless.

As a scientist, I also recognize a faulty scientific process. Unlike you, I am not so willing to accept flawed prima facie data that is not verified by an independent source. You have, several times, cited the 2009 IPCC report - a report that used the Chinese data that you, yourself, admit was defective. There has been no published update to that report - only a notice of error.

However, all that is moot - as I said, I recognize that the data reflects a changing climatological schema. So, we're arguing about nothing. The question is what do we do about it ... that is NOT a scientific decision. In fact, scientists have had very little input into that process.

It is, in the end, primarily a political decision. And, I vehemently disagree with the proposed reactive ideas put forth - everybody admits they will accomplish little or nothing ... and even worse, if our fellow nations don't join us in the effort. So, you propose that we destroy the American economy, despite the fact that it is generally acknowledged our efforts will accomplish exactly nothing.

You said it yourself - you're willing to take potentially catastrophic actions on the off chance that we might make a difference.

I'm not .. it's as simple as that. It has absolutely nothing to do with the science ... it has to do with the politics.

 

[steveox]

Sarah Palin should become President someday. Shes the Next Reagan

 

[Lagboltz]

Ok, one last time ... I am not anti-science. In fact, as I said earlier, I made a ton of money with science. I started a company (later sold it) that used cutting edge science to build satellites you've never heard about. My particular expertise is in satellite communications, and end-to-end systems engineering and test. So, your cheap accusation about not understanding, or dismissing science, is baseless.

As a scientist, I also recognize a faulty scientific process. Unlike you, I am not so willing to accept flawed prima facie data that is not verified by an independent source. You have, several times, cited the 2009 IPCC report - a report that used the Chinese data that you, yourself, admit was defective. There has been no published update to that report - only a notice of error.

However, all that is moot - as I said, I recognize that the data reflects a changing climatological schema. So, we're arguing about nothing. The question is what do we do about it ... that is NOT a scientific decision. In fact, scientists have had very little input into that process.

It is, in the end, primarily a political decision. And, I vehemently disagree with the proposed reactive ideas put forth - everybody admits they will accomplish little or nothing ... and even worse, if our fellow nations don't join us in the effort. So, you propose that we destroy the American economy, despite the fact that it is generally acknowledged our efforts will accomplish exactly nothing.

You said it yourself - you're willing to take potentially catastrophic actions on the off chance that we might make a difference.

I'm not .. it's as simple as that. It has absolutely nothing to do with the science ... it has to do with the politics.

You sound more like an engineer than a scientist. Hard science involves mathematical modeling of natural phenomena - from the almost closed book of particle physics to the chaotic dynamics of weather. Science requires a completely different conceptual approach than applied science, or engineering.

One major purpose of the IPCC is a multinational symposium with an unprecedented peer review process. The contributors are bodies of independent sources. What other possible independent body could possibly top that. You hold that the 800 contributors are scientifically corrupt. What other possible group could have the scientific objectivity and integrity to monitor that. A while ago the freedom of information act has opened up for the public scrutiny of the raw data now. I would say that's a good thing to help skeptics like you be satisfied that it is being monitored by denial scientists or at least by amateur scientists.

Of course there is no published update addressing the China data. Published updates are 5 to 7 years apart and are on the order of 3000 pages. The contributors cannot update as fast as might be desired because of the difficulty in coordinating the massive amount of contributors, reviews, and new data. You seem to be hung up on the five year old Chinese errors that don't amount to much when you look at the bubbling thermal landscape that Walter gave in the OP. The new IPCC fifth report is in it's final review and will be published this year. It no doubt corrects previous errors. It is said to have a higher confidence level in the results.

You say we are arguing about nothing. As I said, I have been mostly interested here in your thought process. Politics is irrelevant to that attempt. You have a contempt of the scientists, yet you profess to believe in their conclusions. You seem to have a strange disconnect between your personal feelings and your logical assessment of the results of the science. You have attacked the scientists and the data, but seem to have little knowledge of the science itself.

I never said that I want to take catastrophic action. That is what you mistakenly presume that I think. A lot of effective actions could be done in small steps with little economic risk and little effect on the current paradigm of American life.

 

[GBFan]

You sound more like an engineer than a scientist. Hard science involves mathematical modeling of natural phenomena - from the almost closed book of particle physics to the chaotic dynamics of weather. Science requires a completely different conceptual approach than applied science, or engineering.

One major purpose of the IPCC is a multinational symposium with an unprecedented peer review process. The contributors are bodies of independent sources. What other possible independent body could possibly top that. You hold that the 800 contributors are scientifically corrupt. What other possible group could have the scientific objectivity and integrity to monitor that. A while ago the freedom of information act has opened up for the public scrutiny of the raw data now. I would say that's a good thing to help skeptics like you be satisfied that it is being monitored by denial scientists or at least by amateur scientists.

Of course there is no published update addressing the China data. Published updates are 5 to 7 years apart and are on the order of 3000 pages. The contributors cannot update as fast as might be desired because of the difficulty in coordinating the massive amount of contributors, reviews, and new data. You seem to be hung up on the five year old Chinese errors that don't amount to much when you look at the bubbling thermal landscape that Walter gave in the OP. The new IPCC fifth report is in it's final review and will be published this year. It no doubt corrects previous errors. It is said to have a higher confidence level in the results.

You say we are arguing about nothing. As I said, I have been mostly interested here in your thought process. Politics is irrelevant to that attempt. You have a contempt of the scientists, yet you profess to believe in their conclusions. You seem to have a strange disconnect between your personal feelings and your logical assessment of the results of the science. You have attacked the scientists and the data, but seem to have little knowledge of the science itself.

I never said that I want to take catastrophic action. That is what you mistakenly presume that I think. A lot of effective actions could be done in small steps with little economic risk and little effect on the current paradigm of American life.

I have nothing BUT contempt for pseudo-scientists who will sell their professional integrity. (They quit being scientists when they sold out) THAT is my problem -

I recognize that you didn't say you want to take 'catastrophic' action - but that doesn't change the fact that the proposals currently being suggested (things like Cap & Trade, outlawing coal as an energy source) WILL be economically catastrophic.

I'm interested, though, in your suggestion of "lot of effective actions could be done in small steps with little economic risk and little effect on the current paradigm of American life" - how about spelling some of them out?

 

[Lagboltz]

I have nothing BUT contempt for pseudo-scientists who will sell their professional integrity. (They quit being scientists when they sold out) THAT is my problem -

I recognize that you didn't say you want to take 'catastrophic' action - but that doesn't change the fact that the proposals currently being suggested (things like Cap & Trade, outlawing coal as an energy source) WILL be economically catastrophic.

I'm interested, though, in your suggestion of "lot of effective actions could be done in small steps with little economic risk and little effect on the current paradigm of American life" - how about spelling some of them out?

I also have nothing but contempt for pseudo-scientist who will sell their professional integrity. They are financed by parma, oil industries, etc. However, if you are talking about the 800 scientists volunteering for IPCC, I would say that you seem to be seriously escalating your disdain for them. If so, is it still the China data that's bothering you? Perhaps the Himalayan statement? The IPCC discounted that data five years ago. Make a special look for it in the new publication due this year. It's time to get over that and move on.

 

[GBFan]

I also have nothing but contempt for pseudo-scientist who will sell their professional integrity. They are financed by parma, oil industries, etc. However, if you are talking about the 800 scientists volunteering for IPCC, I would say that you seem to be seriously escalating your disdain for them. If so, is it still the China data that's bothering you? Perhaps the Himalayan statement? The IPCC discounted that data five years ago. Make a special look for it in the new publication due this year. It's time to get over that and move on.

Your list of 'effective actions' that could be done in small steps with little economic risk??

 

[Lagboltz]

Your list of 'effective actions' that could be done in small steps with little economic risk??

That's a digression for now.

Look, I'm not trying to taunt you, or whatever; I seriously want to know if you really have that much contempt for the climate scientists, or if you are just playing games. I hate to be repetitious, but I'm serious in wondering if your problem is with the two mentioned flaws in the IPCC report, or is it something else.

 

[GBFan]

That's a digression for now.

Look, I'm not trying to taunt you, or whatever; I seriously want to know if you really have that much contempt for the climate scientists, or if you are just playing games. I hate to be repetitious, but I'm serious in wondering if your problem is with the two mentioned flaws in the IPCC report, or is it something else.

One of the things I learned was that a scientist's integrity is paramount ... there can be no excuse - none whatsoever - for intentionally submitting false data. But, the only crime that is worse than that is to USE that data without verifying its accuracy. That is, simply, either incompetence or deceit. They have no credibility - not the Chinese, and, especially, not the IPCC. Then, to use that data, get caught, not admit it for 4 years, and then finally admit they intentionally falsified their findings. That doesn't call into question all the rest of the data - it invalidates it. You have no way of knowing what data was manipulated, and what data was valid. So, yes, I categorically reject all findings ... not because I seriously believe that they are all false, but because I don't know which ones are lies and which ones aren't. And, frankly, we're better off not doing anything than doing the wrong thing.

I hope that clears up your confusion. Now, let's digress --- what are these simple things?

 

[Lagboltz]

One of the things I learned was that a scientist's integrity is paramount ... there can be no excuse - none whatsoever - for intentionally submitting false data. But, the only crime that is worse than that is to USE that data without verifying its accuracy. That is, simply, either incompetence or deceit. They have no credibility - not the Chinese, and, especially, not the IPCC. Then, to use that data, get caught, not admit it for 4 years, and then finally admit they intentionally falsified their findings. That doesn't call into question all the rest of the data - it invalidates it. You have no way of knowing what data was manipulated, and what data was valid. So, yes, I categorically reject all findings ... not because I seriously believe that they are all false, but because I don't know which ones are lies and which ones aren't. And, frankly, we're better off not doing anything than doing the wrong thing.

I hope that clears up your confusion. Now, let's digress --- what are these simple things?

No digression.
Let me repost these wiki excerpts from post 43:
"By 2011, nine separate investigations by the British government and multiple independent ethics committees had been completed. None found any evidence of fraud or manipulation of data. The CRU data was also independently replicated."

"... a new analysis of temperature data by the independent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group, many of whom had stated publicly that they thought is was possible that the CRU had manipulated data, concluded that "these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

"Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report, however, stated, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations."

The IPCC was exhonerated more than three years ago. Do you trust the findings of the nine investigations done by outside groups. The groups are itemized somewhere in the web along with details of their findings. I could look them up for you if you want.

 

[GBFan]

No digression.
Let me repost these wiki excerpts from post 43:
"By 2011, nine separate investigations by the British government and multiple independent ethics committees had been completed. None found any evidence of fraud or manipulation of data. The CRU data was also independently replicated."

"... a new analysis of temperature data by the independent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group, many of whom had stated publicly that they thought is was possible that the CRU had manipulated data, concluded that "these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

"Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report, however, stated, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations."

The IPCC was exhonerated more than three years ago. Do you trust the findings of the nine investigations done by outside groups. The groups are itemized somewhere in the web along with details of their findings. I could look them up for you if you want.

I think I've stated my position, and my justification enough times ... I'll say it again ... I believe in global climate change .. I do NOT believe that it is man caused ... even the concept that human activity might be influencing it is unproven to me ... and I have absolutely no reason to believe the supposed recommendations to mitigate the climate change will have the desired effect. The very concept that global climate change, which has been going on for millenia, is all of a sudden "occurring as a result of human activity " is laughable.

 

[Lagboltz]

I think I've stated my position, and my justification enough times ... I'll say it again ... I believe in global climate change .. I do NOT believe that it is man caused ... even the concept that human activity might be influencing it is unproven to me ... and I have absolutely no reason to believe the supposed recommendations to mitigate the climate change will have the desired effect. The very concept that global climate change, which has been going on for millenia, is all of a sudden "occurring as a result of human activity " is laughable.

Yes, I know you have stated your position, but you have inconsistencies in your thinking that I don't yet understand. The science of IPCC states that GW is man made. The science of IPCC was reviewed by nine independent groups who found the conclusions to be valid. You stated in post 47,

I am not so willing to accept flawed prima facie data that is not verified by an independent source.

The data was verified by nine independent sources. Are you now backing away from that position? It seems that your justification for feeling as you do is no longer valid by your own statement. You say the conclusion of all the independent studies are laughable. Are you rejecting all predictions that any science group may make if they consider GW to be man caused? Laughability is not a scientific basis for for your denial although you say that you accept science.

Finally, I can go through the idea of exactly how the the current man-made situation is much different than the climate change of the preceding millenia. The science involves just a touch of chaos theory, how the physical chemistry of water and CO2 differ as far as planetary equilibrium conditions, and how and why the earth's climate makes a transition between the bistable states of the ice ages vs the warm periods.

But I think you are the only one on this board that would understand it, it would be too long and boring for everyone else, and finally I don't think you would be receptive to it anyway. So, I think that effort would be way too futile for me.

 

[GBFan]

Yes, I know you have stated your position, but you have inconsistencies in your thinking that I don't yet understand. The science of IPCC states that GW is man made. The science of IPCC was reviewed by nine independent groups who found the conclusions to be valid. You stated in post 47,

I am not so willing to accept flawed prima facie data that is not verified by an independent source.

The data was verified by nine independent sources. Are you now backing away from that position? It seems that your justification for feeling as you do is no longer valid by your own statement. You say the conclusion of all the independent studies are laughable. Are you rejecting all predictions that any science group may make if they consider GW to be man caused? Laughability is not a scientific basis for for your denial although you say that you accept science.

Finally, I can go through the idea of exactly how the the current man-made situation is much different than the climate change of the preceding millenia. The science involves just a touch of chaos theory, how the physical chemistry of water and CO2 differ as far as planetary equilibrium conditions, and how and why the earth's climate makes a transition between the bistable states of the ice ages vs the warm periods.

But I think you are the only one on this board that would understand it, it would be too long and boring for everyone else, and finally I don't think you would be receptive to it anyway. So, I think that effort would be way too futile for me.

You're probably right ... fool me once, shame on you ... fool me twice, shame on me.

But, let me leave you with this single thought ....

In 2009, global warming was a $900 billion industry.
In 2014, global warming will be a $350 billion industry.

Looking for a motive? There's about 550 billion ones.


Oh ... by the way ...

According to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), the human effect on climate is “likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs.”

Addressing reports produced by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the NIPCC indicates:

Global climate models produce meaningful results only if we assume we already know perfectly how the global climate works, and most climate scientists say we do not (Bray and von Storch, 2010). Moreover, it is widely recognized that climate models are not designed to produce predictions of future climate but rather what-if projections of many alternative possible futures (Trenberth, 2009). Postulates, commonly defined as “something suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief,” can stimulate relevant observations or experiments but more often are merely assertions that are difficult or impossible to test (Kahneman, 2011). Observations in science are useful primarily to falsify hypotheses and cannot prove one is correct (Popper, 1965, p. vii).

 

[Lagboltz]

The quote by Popper has been well known in the sciences for ages.

I looked at the site you cited. It had a lot of the language you find at a web forum such as this HOP. These are misc. fragments:
Church of Global Warming’s dogma
turning the Earth into a huge TastyBake oven
Miami will name its first outdoor ice-skating rink after Al Gore
global warming fraudsters ... criminal charges
swat them off the world stage with a rolled-up temperature chart

Sort of humorous from a deniers perspective, but what is interesting is that kind of metaphor will turn off liberals and undecideds, and only appeal to the audience that agrees with them anyway. I am turned off by that sort of language whether it is given by liberals or conservatives.

So I went to the NIPCC site. I couldn't find any technical information there except buried in videos that seemed to be press conferences sponsored by conservative groups. I listened and took a page of notes on over two hours of videos, until they started repeating themselves.

About 15% of what saw of the videos was some whining about not getting coverage from the MSM, introductions of speakers, and back patting (Joe Bast). Bast was quite outspoken about a corporate conspiracy supporting AWC. The major focus of NIPCC was on countering IPCC reports issue by issue. They kept emphasizing disagreements giving political or social reasons rather than technical reasons.

About 3-5% of the discussion was on scientific findings, but admittedly it was just a press conference. The main scientific thrust is threefold:
(1) There is no measured GW in the last 16 years;
(2) CO2 doesn't cause GW.
(3) You can't predict the climate future.

These are the topics closest to technical that I was able to find:
There is a definite anthropogenic rise in CO2. (Dr. Carter)
CO2 won't change the acidity of the ocean. (Dr. Carter)
The sea level will rise by about 7 in., not 24 in. (Dr. Carter)
Plants will grow faster with CO2 (Dr Idso)
CO2 will not cause GW since H2O is predominate as a green house gas. (Dr Soon)
The future of climate change can't be predicted. (Dr Soon)
There will be no improvment in climate if emissions are lowered (Dr Soon)

One final surprising note is that Dr Soon said that lung cancer is not caused by smoking. I had to replay that three times before I could believe my ears. See here, Dr Soon! You are already in an unpopular position on GW, let alone bring up another controversial position in an unrelated area.

So, my conclusion is that I have to remain totally skeptical about item (1) and (2) above unless there is an independent review by an outside agency (Preferably several reviews as in the IPCC case). Or an in-depth science debate between the two sides. (Forbidding all social and political arguments).

I am not concerned about item (3) because it is a corollary of item (2). Future CO2 release can be closely estimated. It is largely the CO2 that is the basis of IPCC prediction. The only controversy here is how much CO2 affects the climate.

I have more to say about Dr Soon's statements, how distant climate history fits in, and the future release of CO2 if anyone is interested, but this is already too long and I doubt if many are reading this.

 

[PLC1]

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/

"Long-term trends in surface temperatures are unusual and 2013 adds to the evidence for ongoing climate change," GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said.

This visualization shows how global temperatures have risen from 1950 through the end of 2013:

The evidence of a warming Earth is undeniable, and yet, many people want to try to deny it, not based on the science, but on politics.

Once you set aside the pundits, the politics, Al Gore, cap and tax, the science is solid. Now, what do we do about it? There is no way we can reverse it, so we'd better learn to live with it. Perhaps if we had a better prediction of what is likely to happen in a particular location, we could be better prepared.