Global cooling

[mac]

CB--I saw Steven Schneider speak, and read some of his work. He wrote about the attacks by right wingers. This summarizes the approach, on issues broader than climate change:

http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/silencing-the-scientists-the-rise-of-right-wing-populism/

It is why I don't let the bullies here have the last word, and don't worry much about tone when the lies start coming fast and furious.

[swchandler]

" It seems that anyone with an agenda can massage a technical report into what they want it to read. "


coboardhead, your comment is spot on, and it is representative of what is happening so frequently these days, especially in politics. Also, I'm with you about "holding off on the big end of global warming party for now". I'd like to see some of those big receding glaciers reflect some substantial growth over the next few years. Maybe the Russians that are predicting the next ice age will invest in monitoring and documenting the rapid glacial growth we should be experiencing.

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Mac. The article you highlight is the American view of the world, not ours. I'm sick to death of a serious issue being turned into a political left/right battleground, and bullying issue.

If the Met Office, and the East Anglian Climate Research Centre (both non political and very much pro-warming) can both issue clear statements that 'there has been no significant warming', they are stating, albeit reluctantly, what they must see as a fact. You say there HAS been warming, they say there HASN'T. Your argument is with them, not a person who accepts, and quotes their statement.

C.B. I am aware of how quotes can be manipulated, but I am not trying to prove anything. I am just trying to highlight contradictions, and, like you, I want to know the truth. What really IS happening, or going to happen.

The things I've quoted seem to me to be logical objections to the warming concensus. If that logic is faulty then, as you say, time will tell. As Judith (forgotten her second name) stated, the next 5 years may clarify the issue.

Meanwhile, I'm off tomorrow morning for two weeks out of touch with it all. I very much doubt that much will have changed on return!

[techno900]

In my opinion, anyone that takes a strong stance on one side or the other regarding global warming and the predictions for the future, is a fool, or they just simply spin the issue toward their political agenda knowing that they could be wrong.

We will eventually know the truth, hopefully in my lifetime so that the politics of the issue will no longer be pushed. We should act when we absolutely know what we are trying to accomplish.

Reducing CO2 in not a bad thing, but let's not go bonkers over it just yet.

[mac]

GT--this is not an American view of the world, this is a Murdoch, or perhaps Australian game. The key part that is spun on global warming is the missing phrase--since when. In the case of the flattening of the curve, there has been no significant increase in the average temperature since about 1998. But over the record of time we have, there is no doubt that averages temperatures have risen. A nicely balanced article from the Economist can be found here, along with the necessary graphs--and error bands: http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions
As I explained, at some length, the best science says that the 1998 peak temperatures were anomalous high points in what has, thankfully, been a slower rise in temperature than the alarmists on the left would have had it. But most scientists never bought the alarmism. You have yet to comment on this point; it is critical to understanding. Temperature data is by its nature chaotic, and no data point can be taken out of context.

This is played up by the right wing denial machinery in totally unscrupulous ways. There is a right-wing cartoonist named Bruce Tinsley, who is repeating talking points of the Reason Foundation. How do I know? He cites them. He tries in today's cartoon to make much of the news that "Arctic sea ice increased by 60% this year over 2012." He is repeating the right wing argument that using two data points, and ignoring the other dozens, establishes a trend! Yet this kind of stuff goes out to folks like NW, who only read from sources like the Drudge report. It is indicative of the lack of critical thinking.

To say that this is an accident, a result of left wing paranoia, or not happening, is to ignore the clear evidence. Follow the money.

Responding is a different matter. I generally agree with Techno's reasoning. A good idea to reduce carbon, for temperature, national security, and eventual need. But don't go overboard.

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Mac. Forget the Murdoch slant. Stating that all sceptics are mere pawns of his political agenda is a) an insult to their intelligence, and b) ridiculous!

You state that because we 'shout' that the Arctic ice has increased this year by a record near 1 million square miles, we are misusing data points. No. The reason I'm stating it is because the 'authorities (IPCC, East Anglian, Met office ) stated in the 2007 report that the Arctic would be free of ice by 2013! Who is manipulating data now?

To repeat the obvious; ... No computer models, or climate authorities predicted a 15 year 'pause' (their word) ,flattening of the curve (yours) regardless of which data points were to be used.

No authority, or computer model, has given a convincing logical explanation of their failure to do so, or WHY it has occurred. If the leaked IPCC report is to be believed, they are not doing so either.

So forgive us sceptics if we 'smell a rat', and take their latest report with a pinch of salt!

P.S. Must sign off now, and away in morning, so unable to access internet for next couple of weeks.

[keycocker]

I stand with Technos viewpoint as well.

[mac]

GT-follow the logic. Saying that there are unprincipled folks doing dirty work around climate change does not claim that all skeptics are pawns. Quality skepticism reads across the political spectrum.

I cited the Reason foundation because they are shilling this shit. If you believe that two points defines a trend I would be amazed, I was under the distinct impression that you were a teacher well grounded in math and know that is hooey.

What I said to you, that you have again ignored, is that the 1998 high temperature appears to have been an anomaly, part of a short term cycle. That doesn't change the trend--it fits well within the error bands. All of the other metrics show continued warming--particularly the most disturbing one, heat stored in the deep ocean.

[coboardhead]

Mac... I have been looking at graphs of atmospheric global warming. I think if you or I were interpreting the data, we would probably take 1998 out of the model since it was a likely anomoly as a result of a very strong El Niño. Same with data that shows cooling, as a result of volcanic activity. When you remove both, the flattened graph is more important.

What I do not understand is why this obvious mathematical tweak (comparing recent "cooling" to a false high) has gained such traction.

Techno...it would be great to have the luxury of a wait and see stance. And, I agree we cannot break the bank. But, we are building infrastructure and facilities for a lifespan of 75 years, or more. We need to have some sort of POLITICAL consensus on how far we need to hedge our bets. That's the crux.

[techno900]

coboardhead,

If you mean infrastructure on the coast and the raising sea levels?, it's just a matter of cost. Since the federal, state and city governments are almost all in deep debt, I would keep costs at a minimum regardless of direr predictions.

Since costal living has been increasing at a breakneck pace, I wonder way? I guess our insurance premiums as well as government subsidies and bailouts take care of those that take on the added risk of living at the beach. This I don't like.

I recently moved to North Carolina and had the option of where to live. The Outer Banks wasn't a serious option because of storms, but I did look at Wilmington for awhile. However, the 100 yr. storm history and storm surge models turned me away from there as well. It simply wasn't worth the risk and anxiety with every low pressure area that forms off the coast of Africa.

The point is - living on a coast has risks, even if there wasn't global warming and rising sea levels (not saying there is), storms and earth quakes have and will continue to happen.

I would stick with historical models and not guess about the future, especially the rising sea levels. Fortunately, I can take a wait and see stance.