Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

a proper discussion would include reviewing arguments and positions.
what's beeing done here is virtue signalling, which basicly means both sides of the fence demonstrate how consolidated theyt are in their position.
nothing's gonna come out of this except some entertainment, which btw is good enough for me

OK, I'll give your notion of a "proper discussion" another try. We've had lots of back & forth (a/k/a virtual signaling) on the accuracy of the thermometers, their "adjustments," etc. No need to repeat all that again. But what about the oft-cited discrepancy b'twn. the satellite-based temp measurements begun in 1979, and the ground-level thermometer readings, "adjusted" or not? I'm probably forgetting a chart, graph, or link from Jack's vast, encyclopedic resource library, so apologies in advance to him & others if this has been covered.

All I remember is that the sat-based system was pioneered in 1979 by John Christy & maybe Roy Spencer (when he worked for NASA?), and they are both considered well-known "skeptics." But maybe the sat temp readings was what induced their skepticism about the establishment position? As I recall, the satellites measured from a part of the atmosphere that would be more susceptible to measurable warming, thus eliminating many of the variables that need to be adjusted from the ground-based thermometers. Since this seems to challenge the core scientific consensus that warming is occuring, I would think there would be strong push-back from the consensus community.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

All I remember is that the sat-based system was pioneered in 1979 by John Christy & maybe Roy Spencer (when he worked for NASA?), and they are both considered well-known "skeptics." But maybe the sat temp readings was what induced their skepticism about the establishment position? As I recall, the satellites measured from a part of the atmosphere that would be more susceptible to measurable warming, thus eliminating many of the variables that need to be adjusted from the ground-based thermometers. Since this seems to challenge the core scientific consensus that warming is occuring, I would think there would be strong push-back from the consensus community.

Satellite temperature are adjusted:

UAH data

One might ask, Why do the satellite data have to be adjusted at all? If we had satellite instruments that (1) had rock-stable calibration, (2) lasted for many decades without any channel failures, and (3) were carried on satellites whose orbits did not change over time, then the satellite data could be processed without adjustment. But none of these things are true. Since 1979 we have had 15 satellites that lasted various lengths of time, having slightly different calibration (requiring intercalibration between satellites), some of which drifted in their calibration, slightly different channel frequencies (and thus weighting functions), and generally on satellite platforms whose orbits drift and thus observe at somewhat different local times of day in different years. All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. This is the unavoidable situation when dealing with less than perfect data.

Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released: New LT Trend = +0.11 C/decade « Roy Spencer, PhD

Our MSU/AMSU products use data from 14 different satellites. The data need to be intercalibrated before being merged together. This is a complex process, as shown in the flow chart below.

- First, adjustments are made for changes in local measurement time (diurnal adjustment) and Earth incidence angle.
- Then, intercalibration is performed by comparing measurements from co-orbiting satellites, yielding a set of “merging parameters”.
- Uncertainty that arises earlier in the process (e.g. from the adjustments for local measurement time) can cause uncertainty in the merging parameters, which adds to the uncertainty in the final results.

Because of the complex nature of the errors, they are difficult to calculate and describe using simple statistical methods. Instead, we use a Monte Carlo technique to produce a large number of possible realizations of the errors that are consistent with the sources of error that we have studied.

Carl Mears of RSS says

A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).

The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures | Remote Sensing Systems

This whole piece is worth reading. The first paragraph explains "cherry picking" and desribes "denialists." The rest is good coverage of the causes of the "hiatus".

Both UAH and RSS data sets show long term global warming using the WMO criteria for climate (30 years)

BTW - Roy Spencer and John Christy, who get all of the funding from NASA, NOAA, and DOE, are AGW deniers. They do not deny the "GW" part, they deny the "A" part. They both subscribe to the Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration of Global Warming which uses the word "deny" 5 times.

An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming | Cornwall Alliance

As to some of the problems with land temperatures I suggest you look at Cowtan and Way.

Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends - Cowtan - 2014 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library

which shows that HADCrut 4 underestimates Arctic warming.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

“The most savage controversies are those as to which there is no good evidence either way.” -Bertrand Russell

Some good evidence.

https://youtu.be/gIUN5ziSfNc?list=PL...U7n7ZJOE8wvzVr

https://royalsociety.org/topics-poli...idence-causes/

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, I'll give your notion of a "proper discussion" another try. We've had lots of back & forth (a/k/a virtual signaling) on the accuracy of the thermometers, their "adjustments," etc. No need to repeat all that again. But what about the oft-cited discrepancy b'twn. the satellite-based temp measurements begun in 1979, and the ground-level thermometer readings, "adjusted" or not? I'm probably forgetting a chart, graph, or link from Jack's vast, encyclopedic resource library, so apologies in advance to him & others if this has been covered.

All I remember is that the sat-based system was pioneered in 1979 by John Christy & maybe Roy Spencer (when he worked for NASA?), and they are both considered well-known "skeptics." But maybe the sat temp readings was what induced their skepticism about the establishment position? As I recall, the satellites measured from a part of the atmosphere that would be more susceptible to measurable warming, thus eliminating many of the variables that need to be adjusted from the ground-based thermometers. Since this seems to challenge the core scientific consensus that warming is occuring, I would think there would be strong push-back from the consensus community.

on the culture of discussion topic:
scepticism is innate scientific behavior.
if in science two opposing sides discuss something the result is that both sides learn something.
in public/political discussion, you are done when you are proven wrong.
that is why there is a sentiment to exclude the public from scientific discussion altogether from the science side, which does not hinder so called journalists from commenting on stuff they do not understand, like 2 scientists saying opposing things and still be both correct.

example: are nuclear power plants good for the environment? yes in terms of reducing CO2 and other emmisions. no because the nuclear waste issue is unsolved and no because of the catastrophic failure risk. the sum result is political.

politics do not go along well with scepticism. they sell facts and (their) solutions and truth.


OT: i said virtue signalling, basicly showing your side that you are a good representative of it's cause, without any real contribution to a dialogue.

Edit: i hope i made clear, why i see this thread as mostly entertaining and not as much a discussion

[Exile]

I figured Jack would have encyclopedic-like access to materials in response to my question! Actually, some of it looks new to me so glad I asked, but maybe it had already been posted on the other related threads.

I'll be studying up, but in the meantime I did see that Spencer is associated with the Cornwall Alliance which has a Christian evangelical theme. Didn't see Christy listed on the Cornwall site except as Spencer's research associate, but I'll look further. Nobody seems to dispute either of these scientist's credentials, only their methodology. And thus far I haven't read accusations of bias against either of them based on religious preference. The fact that they are both so highly credentialed and accomplished as scientists seems to belie insinuation that religious influence has compromised their findings. It's sorta like Happer -- was his opinion that CO2 is harmless any different before the faux energy co. promised to donate to his nonprofit? Don't think so.

I can see that the accuracy of the sat temp data is also disputed. As I read through your materials, and from strictly a layman's perspective, I will also be questioning why the sat-based temp readings appear to average out consistently cooler, and why the ground readings appear to be only adjusted upward. Hopefully I'll learn first if these two assumptions are correct, and second the reasons why. We'll see . . . without a scientific background I'm already behind many of you guys.

In the meantime, here's an interesting article on Christy and his strained relationship with the establishment scientific community. Considering the source, it appears reasonably neutral. Nothing about religious affiliation or bias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us...cion.html?_r=0

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

like 2 scientists saying opposing things and still be both correct.

example: are nuclear power plants good for the environment? yes in terms of reducing CO2 and other emmisions. no because the nuclear waste issue is unsolved and no because of the catastrophic failure risk. the sum result is political.

But a scientist would take this logic to the next step and try to predict how harmful the "nuclear waste issue" being "unsolved" and the catastrophic failure risk was compared with the other options that will be chosen by default if they are used as a reason to avoid nuclear power. He would have to compare the known health issues of burning fossil fuels to generate all that electricity that the nuclear power could generate. He would find that unless the "unsolved nuclear waste" and "catastrophic failure risk" was likely to kill hundreds of thousands of people every single year, then nuclear power is still the less risky path and therefore the most logical option. But most people don't think it through that far. They just say something about nuclear waste and conjure up the danger of a "catastrophic" nuclear failure and don't bother comparing these risks with the tremendous damage we are doing to peoples health by NOT choosing nuclear power.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

on the culture of discussion topic:
scepticism is innate scientific behavior.
if in science two opposing sides discuss something the result is that both sides learn something.
in public/political discussion, you are done when you are proven wrong.
that is why there is a sentiment to exclude the public from scientific discussion altogether from the science side, which does not hinder so called journalists from commenting on stuff they do not understand, like 2 scientists saying opposing things and still be both correct.

example: are nuclear power plants good for the environment? yes in terms of reducing CO2 and other emmisions. no because the nuclear waste issue is unsolved and no because of the catastrophic failure risk. the sum result is political.

politics do not go along well with scepticism. they sell facts and (their) solutions and truth.


OT: i said virtue signalling, basicly showing your side that you are a good representative of it's cause, without any real contribution to a dialogue.

Edit: i hope i made clear, why i see this thread as mostly entertaining and not as much a discussion

All valid & worthwhile points, but the thread topic was not "Does current climate science confirm or dispel claims of dangerous global warming?" or something along those sorts of more strictly scientific lines of inquiry. Instead, the thread discussion was started by reference to an article written in a political journal that predicts that, based on the prior expanse of human history, humans will adapt to & overcome any such changes to the climate through the development of new technologies that are largely unforeseeable at this time. This obviously involves scientific & technological inquiry, but also necessarily entails questions of politics, philosophy, history, psychology, and maybe even religion (for some).

With the current 97% scientific consensus apparently only extending to agreement on the existence of AGW, it's only natural to explore if there are reasons other than the science that can explain the diversity of opinion that departs from that core agreement and which is so contentious both inside & outside the scientific community. To that end, it seems like this thread has led to a reasonable exchange of information & ideas, and maybe even created a slightly improved understanding of where each side is coming from. Whether that understanding serves to improve consensus or further polarize remains to be seen.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'll be studying up, but in the meantime I did see that Spencer is associated with the Cornwall Alliance which has a Christian evangelical theme. Didn't see Christy listed on the Cornwall site except as Spencer's research associate, but I'll look further.

I use UAH data, I have really no issues with it.

Spencer is much more open about his religious views. He is an avowed creationist. The Evolution Crisis: Dr. Roy Spencer

John Christy is an ordained minister and former Baptist missionary. Some Southern Baptists are end-timers.

The Alliance churches are generally end-timers and Dominionists. As an aside Both Steven Harper (our former prime minister) and Sarah Palin are members of those churches as well.
Do Stephen Harper and Sarah Palin share beliefs about end times? | Vancouver Sun

This is a truly religious spin on climate. Does Spencer religious views influence his views on climate? I am not a mind reader. But if he practices what he preaches ...

If the world is coming to and end, climate change does not matter. In fact, it may be welcomed.

Climate change is just another sign of the end times, according to half of America | Grist

[fryewe]

Sydney Morning Herald...referring to a paper by psychologist and climate activist Stephan Lewandowsky:

...universities have become havens for intolerance, orthodoxy and unscholarly distortion.

My favourite example, which encapsulates all of the above, was provided by Dr Lee Jussim, a professor of social psychology at Rutgers University in the US. He dissected a paper published by a respected journal, Psychological Science, in 2013, and found that it was rubbish, and probably published because the journal's editors shared the ideological bias of the article's conclusion.

The paper was entitled "NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax". The abstract of the study states: "Endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science … This provides confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science."

Note the term "conspiracist ideation". The English language is being brutalised in the social sciences to create a false sense of rigour.

When Jussim checked the data, he found that of the 1145 participants in the study, only 10 thought the moon landing was a hoax. Of those who thought climate science was a hoax, almost all of them, 97.8 per cent, did NOT think the moon landing was a hoax.

The social psychologists who conducted the study had disguised the data and smothered it under a layer of obfuscation. No peer reviewer or journal editor took the time to check the raw data. Instead, the paper was published because it buttressed a pervasive ideological bias in the field.

Jussim's argument is sustained at book length in The Righteous Mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion, by Dr Jonathan Haidt, professor of ethical leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business.
Haidt's central thesis is that the academy has gone from being a haven for heterodoxy to a centre of rigid orthodoxies that are compromising scholarship:
"The American Academy has become a politically orthodox and quasi-religious institution. When everyone shares the same politics and prejudices, the disconfirmation process breaks down...


Read more: Distorted universities need a reality check
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Looks like an obvious attempt to "other-ize" skeptics.

Why would that be needed if the science and required actions are so obvious, and the consensus so strong?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

then nuclear power is still the less risky path and therefore the most logical option.

Notice the safest one

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal electricity – world avg 60 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170
Coal electricity- China 90
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I use UAH data, I have really no issues with it.

Ha-Ha! Of course you have issues with it, or you wouldn't have added what you did to the rest of your post! But that's fine, religious influence certainly has the potential to be relevant, but only if there's some evidence of actual bias affecting the science itself. Otherwise it's insinuation, and that's exactly what you and others repeatedly complain is being done to discredit the establishment position! No worries, I'll read it all, but you may want to examine the influence of your own bias in this regard.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Sydney Morning Herald...referring to a paper by psychologist and climate activist Stephan Lewandowsky:



Looks like an obvious attempt to "other-ize" skeptics.

Why would that be needed if the science and required actions are so obvious, and the consensus so strong?

EXACTLY!

[newhaul]

From your numbers I would have to say that natural gas is the top safe producer and coal is a close second . The death rate from nuke power is not accurate IMO at they don't take into account are the deaths from conditions caused by the exposure to ionizing radiation that may not show for many years and even not until the next generation after exposure. I'm not denying it is a good choice for power generation . Actually the opposite but if you are going to show stats you should really know the long term effects. Remember cradle to grave.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Notice the safest one

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal electricity – world avg 60 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170
Coal electricity- China 90
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

Is there an equivalent list for bombs? I'm sure nuclear bombs would show similar numbers compared to conventional weapons based on stockpiles which would, in effect, reveal them to be less effective.

The problem with cherry picked statistics like the above is that they exclude risk. For example a nuclear plant going BOOM! is a very, very bad thing. Not so much for coal oil and gas. A skeptic might also suggest that those numbers are referring to staff at generating plants only and the low value of nuclear deaths is a result of the extreme safety processes required by the technology.



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by newhaul

From your numbers I would have to say that natural gas is the top safe producer and coal is a close second .

If you look again at the numbers he posted, it is showing deaths per TWH (not total deaths without regard for how much energy it produces) so coal is the most dangerous and nuclear is the least dangerous. The list is rank ordered from most to least dangerous.