the Piwd Pipers of Denialism

[westwall]

Si Modo -

Well, you could answer the question, for one.

For the third time now - given you will not accept research nor the position of scientific bodies, nor the conclusions of scientists as evidence - what WILL you accept?

There is hardly lack of evidence of any kind - data, observational material that you can go and check yourelf, field trials....you name it and I'll present it for you so that you can understand what the scientific positions are based on.

No, because as we have stated to you on many occasions, consensus, nor "position statements" are science or even remotely scientific, they are OPINIONS based on a political agenda.

Feel free to continue with your blind fanaticism. You religious types are all alike. Whether you are arguing against evolution or the "right" for a person to be sceptical of your religion.

In any subject you all resort to persecution and inquisition.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

So basically you reject ALL science, all research and data, as being opinion.

I wonder why?

 

[Old Rocks]

Because both Walleyes and Sis live in a politically based alternative reality. One which has no connection with physical reality. Since science is all about physical reality, they reject science, period.

 

[Saigon]

The thing I find so baffling about these discussions is how obvious it all is.

Any scientific studies are rejected out of hand, because they are only "opinions". The positions of organisations like the American Physical Society are likewise dismissed - as mere "opinions".

Both Frank and Si Modo avoid the question of what evidence they would consider science.

Meanwhile, both Westwall and SSDD have posted quotes from politicians in the past week - which apparently are not opinions and are, in fact, real science. Despite the fact neither politician had any background in science.

No doubt Westwall, SSDD and Si Modo are all intelligent enough to see this themselves, in which case - why do it?

Is it theatre?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The thing I find so baffling about these discussions is how obvious it all is.

Any scientific studies are rejected out of hand, because they are only "opinions". The positions of organisations like the American Physical Society are likewise dismissed - as mere "opinions".

Both Frank and Si Modo avoid the question of what evidence they would consider science.

Meanwhile, both Westwall and SSDD have posted quotes from politicians in the past week - which apparently are not opinions and are, in fact, real science. Despite the fact neither politician had any background in science.

No doubt Westwall, SSDD and Si Modo are all intelligent enough to see this themselves, in which case - why do it?

Is it theatre?

Not Science

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

So basically you reject ALL science, all research and data, as being opinion.

I wonder why?

Hyperbole much? I reject science that rely's nearly 100% on computer models that are so poorly written that they are less accurate than random guessing. I reject scientists who falsify data to support their failed hypothesis. I reject position statements made by scientific bodies who's sole intent is to garner more funding for the scientists involved. I reject the corruption of the peer review process that punishes sceptics merely for having the temerity to produce a study that doesn't toe the line with the "consensus view" whatever that may be.

In other words I reject science the way it has been practiced by the worst climatologists over the last twenty years.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Do you accept field work, monitoring and observational work?

 

[westwall]

Because both Walleyes and Sis live in a politically based alternative reality. One which has no connection with physical reality. Since science is all about physical reality, they reject science, period.

And yet, we are the ones who are not advocating POLITICAL remedies for any of the sceptical views we have. You're a fraud. You work for one of the most polluting companies on the planet, you foul your neighbors air and water with your product and you gloat about the pain and suffering you cause because it makes you a paltrey few bucks.

Screw you olfraud, you're the worst example of humanity there is. You claim to care, but for a few bucks you'll **** over your whole state, you are neither conservationist, nor environmentalist. You are merely a political lackey who will bend over and do whatever your corporate masters tell you to do.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

Do you accept field work, monitoring and observational work?

Of course. So long as the data is rigorous and not falsified.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

The reason I ask is because I can accept that computer modeling is not a silver bullet, especially when it comes to what happens in future. I do think the models improve all the time, but I totally agree that they can not be the only method of understanding our climate.

The slightly puzzling thing for me is that most of what I read about climate isn't based on models -

1) Glacial melt - new research from the Andes shows massive loss from glaciers, matching similar research conducted in Alaska. Some glaciers have lost more than 50% of their ice since 1970, and are shedding ice faster than at any time in 300 years. 97% of the world's glaciers are in decline.

2) Temperature increases. Our records from 1650 might not be the most accurate, but at least since 1900 we have had reasonable ways of ascertaining the temperature. The 10 hottest years in the past 112 years all occur during the past 15 years.

3) Drought & floods. The patterns of drought & floods in Australia & Spain show a rapidly increasing pattern of severity and frequency. Both Sydney and Australia recorded their hottest temperatures ever last month, and droughts & floods devastate the country now at a frequency unknown in recorded history.

4) Rising sea levels. Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in). From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009, a faster rate of increase than previously estimated.

5) Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans. I agree that the 1751 figure might not be 100% reliable, but modern measurements do show changing pH.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

The reason people believe in climate change is not because of computer models - it's because of what they can see outside their living room window. Combine this with historical records and the kind of scientific measuring systems we now have, and the reality of what is happening to our glaciers, oceans and weather is hardly debatable.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

The reason I ask is because I can accept that computer modeling is not a silver bullet, especially when it comes to what happens in future. I do think the models improve all the time, but I totally agree that they can not be the only method of understanding our climate.

The slightly puzzling thing for me is that most of what I read about climate isn't based on models -

1) Glacial melt - new research from the Andes shows massive loss from glaciers, matching similar research conducted in Alaska. Some glaciers have lost more than 50% of their ice since 1970, and are shedding ice faster than at any time in 300 years. 97% of the world's glaciers are in decline.

2) Temperature increases. Our records from 1650 might not be the most accurate, but at least since 1900 we have had reasonable ways of ascertaining the temperature. The 10 hottest years in the past 112 years all occur during the past 15 years.

3) Drought & floods. The patterns of drought & floods in Australia & Spain show a rapidly increasing pattern of severity and frequency. Both Sydney and Australia recorded their hottest temperatures ever last month, and droughts & floods devastate the country now at a frequency unknown in recorded history.

4) Rising sea levels. Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in). From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009, a faster rate of increase than previously estimated.

5) Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans. I agree that the 1751 figure might not be 100% reliable, but modern measurements do show changing pH.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

The reason people believe in climate change is not because of computer models - it's because of what they can see outside their living room window. Combine this with historical records and the kind of scientific measuring systems we now have, and the reality of what is happening to our glaciers, oceans and weather is hardly debatable.

And some glaciers are gaining mass. Your studies never mention that do they? I wonder why....

Your assertion that the ten hottest years have occured in the last 15 is not born out by evidence that is CREDIBLE. Hansen has admitted that the last ten years have seen no increase in temperatures while the Met Office says it has been flat for 16. Who to believe? Either way BOTH reports blow the doors off of the claim that the last 15 have seen the hottest ten. And both reports are from warmists NOT sceptics.

The pattern of drought and floods has seen no increase in severity OR frequency in at least the last 60 years and one study places it for the last 100 years.

The rate of sea level rise has been stagnant. Actual photo's of beach front property over the last 100 years shows no increase in level at all. Tide gauges show no rise. The assertion is not born out by observable evidence. New studies performed by the warmists themselves claim the sea level rise rate is decreasing. Of course they were never able to show it did in fact increase but that is beside the point.

Ocean acidity is a total fraud. The pH of the oceans is an average of 8.1. If you burned every carbon bearing rock on the planet, the ocean acidity would drop to 8.0. Still very alkaline. So you see hard evidence (that number is unalterable and has been proven) shows the acidity levels of the ocean to be non-starters.

I too can go on and on. Every assertion you can make I can quite easily show has either happened in the past, when CO2 levels were supposedly safe, or are wildly exagerated.

 

[Saigon]

And some glaciers are gaining mass. Your studies never mention that do they? I wonder why....

Oh dear....is that seriously the best answer you can come up with? Honestly?

Again - 97% of the world's glaciers are in decline. A staggering 1% are gaining mass. Of course reports mention that "some" glaciers are gaining mass. You can read the report here: http://www.egu.eu/news/55/unprecedented-glacier-melting-in-the-andes-blamed-on-climate-change/

Please try and post with a little intelligence and common sense.

 

[Saigon]

The rate of sea level rise has been stagnant. Actual photo's of beach front property over the last 100 years shows no increase in level at all. Tide gauges show no rise. The assertion is not born out by observable evidence.

Tidal gauges show no rise? Are you sure?

 

[IanC]

the puzzling thing to me is that alarmists pick any and everything as 'evidence' to 'prove' catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

1. they claim that glacier retreat is somehow connected to CO2 even though glaciers have been retreating since we have been measuring them, roughly the 1850's. the greatest retreat was also in that era and scientists have been interested and concerned about the retreat for over 100 years. presumably warming temps and local conditions are the cause, while CO2 can only be even indirectly associated by unquantified additional warming since the middle of the last century.

2. temperature increases. during the last 10,000 years since the interglacial period started it is well accepted that temperatures spiked at the beginning and are gradually decreasing, while CO2 has gradually increased over the last 10,000 years and has now jumped dramatically because of fossil fuel burning and land use changes.

the thermometer record shows a temperature jump from unknown causes 1920-1940 that is just as steep as the temperature jump 1980-2000 which initiated the CO2 global warming scare. what is really bizarre is that the alarmists claim that because there has been no cooling in the 2000's that that should be considered warming (some have even called it accelerated warming). they obviously dont understand the concept of rate of change. likewise their claim of 10 of the last 15 years being the hottest is also of dubious meaning. the range of daily temperatures is smallest in the tropics and over oceans, and largest at the poles and over land, but the average range must surely be at least 30-40C. the difference in the top 25 'warmest' temps is less than 1% of that range, much much less than the difference to trip the thermostat in your house.

3. drought and floods, extreme weather. it used to be said that weather was not climate. with the paucity of real evidence for CAGW, weather is now the go-to evidence. but is weather really more extreme now? not if you look at the data. just because the media plays up weather that doesnt mean it happen in every other year or era. newspaper archives are full of natural weather disasters, many much worse than we are experiencing right now. isnt there an old saying about how 'a lie told often enough becomes accepted as the truth'?

4. rising sea levels. tide gauges put the SLR at ~2mm/yr and still do. satellite altimetry has put SLR at 3mm/yr since they came on line in the early 90's, and still do (of course there have been some rather dubious 'adjustments' to the data set). I find it interesting that some of the more seismically active regions in the world show a yearly increase of over 10mm/yr for the entire length of the record. should we be absolutely certain that they are only measuring sea level rise? hmmmm......how high can the water pile up before it spreads out to other areas?

5. pH is a logarithmic scale. talking about %change in [H+] is distortion meant to scare those who dont understand what is being discussed.


I could go on, and on, and I have done so in the past. the public should educate itself a bit more so that they dont get tricked by the logical fallacies and exaggerated conclusions that are mindlessly passed on through the media.


One of the biggest topics being discussed right now in the run up to AR5 is climate sensitivity. the number is plummeting, and with that decrease, so is the danger of catastrophe. why havent I heard about this great news in the media?

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

Perhaps taking one point at a time -

If 'local conditions' are to blame for the collapse of glaciers - why is it happening all over the world?

Are you aware that although glacirs have been melting since 1850 - that rate of decline seems to have been accelerating largely since the 1970's?

What explains this acceleration, if not rising temperatures?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/worldwide-glacier-retreat/

 

[IanC]

well, at least this time you didnt actually chop up a 'quote' of what I said to imply the opposite meaning.

I said-

presumably warming temps and local conditions are the cause

the temps have been warming since the LIA, local conditions affect the replacement of snow pack.

where is the direct relationship with CO2?

you cannot say we are xxx days ahead of schedule for glacial melt. they were melting before, they are still melting. you cannot say local conditions are different in y ways and z amount because of CO2 because there is no way to pick out the effect of CO2 from the rest of the pile.

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

you cannot say we are xxx days ahead of schedule for glacial melt. they were melting before, they are still melting.

We can say that they are melting faster than at any time in the past 300 years, and at a rate close to twice what it was in the 1950's. That is enough to convince most people.

You mentioned earlier that those who believe in AGW fixate on "anything and everything", but the fact is that:

CO2 emissions leads to warmer temperatures leads to glacial melt leads to ising sea levels

The five topics I mention all are inter-related and often counter-indicate. to my mind - and that of many scientists - there is no other cause except C02 which could possibly cause that linking.

 

[Saigon]

during the last 10,000 years since the interglacial period started it is well accepted that temperatures spiked at the beginning and are gradually decreasing,

And yet all of the 10 hottest years since 2001 occurred in the past 15 years.

That may be "well-accepted", but not by the American Meteorological Society

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[editec]

You know what I find amusing about those who deny the climate is undergoing some kind of change?

They apparently cannot yet see what BIRDS already fully understand.

A growing number of studies have documented shifts in avian migratory phenology in response to climate change, and yet there is a large amount of unexplained variation in the magnitude of those responses across species and geographic regions. We use a database of citizen science bird observations to explore spatiotemporal variation in mean arrival dates across an unprecedented geographic extent for 18 common species in North America over the past decade, relating arrival dates to mean minimum spring temperature. Across all species and geographic locations, species shifted arrival dates 0.8 days earlier for every °C of warming of spring temperature, but it was common for some species in some locations to shift as much as 3–6 days earlier per °C. Species that advanced arrival dates the earliest in response to warming were those that migrate more slowly, short distance migrants, and species with broader climatic niches. These three variables explained 63% of the interspecific variation in phenological response. We also identify a latitudinal gradient in the average strength of phenological response, with species shifting arrival earlier at southern latitudes than northern latitudes for the same degree of warming. This observation is consistent with the idea that species must be more phenologically sensitive in less seasonal environments to maintain the same degree of precision in phenological timing. PLOS ONE: Spatiotemporal Variation in Avian Migration Phenology: Citizen Science Reveals Effects of Climate Change

The above survey merely confirms what I am seeing right here in Maine. Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but a still, rather compelling to a birder like me.

Where I live cardinals were rarely if ever seen. As I have been keeping track of every species of bird on my land for over two decades, I know that until last year I had never seen a single cardinal.

Last year we had three nesting pairs. Beautiful song birds , too what a treat!

Also snowey egrets..never seen till last year on my pond.

Waterfowl of ALL types are now coming earlier and staying later, too as are most migratory species of song bird birds.

I can assure you that at least as it pertains to my region here in Maine? The migratory patterns of birds has changed in the last 21 years.

 

[IanC]

during the last 10,000 years since the interglacial period started it is well accepted that temperatures spiked at the beginning and are gradually decreasing,

And yet all of the 10 hottest years since 2001 occurred in the past 15 years.

That may be "well-accepted", but not by the American Meteorological Society

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

once the globe is at a particular temp, the next year is compared to the year before. you are concerned that we are a fraction of a degree warmer than before, I am not. if the last decade has not warmed or cooled then why would you find that reason for alarm? especially with all the monkey business going on with 'correcting and adjusting ' global temps. why are the values for the last decade different today than one year ago? did they misread the thermometers last year and only figure it out now?