First Five Months of 2015 Hottest on Record

[Ben Dhyan]

Science isn't supposed to be political. Perhaps the politics should stay out and we should just look at the science.

Of course.......

 

[metis]

Metis...we have been over all this stuff before...National Geographic is a looney green hack magazine for lefties.... Science is not supposed to be political, but that's what the cagw crowd are making it.....a fear campaign to persuade the chicken littles to pay for a carbon tax and save the planet...lol....

Again, you literally have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

UN IPCC agw climate model predictions are just that.....predictions...naturally all climate scientists who get paid good money by their governments to produce the predictions, stand by them...but the observed temperatures are not increasing as they were expected with increased CO2.....and so the science is not settled...if the pause continues...the AGW theory will have to be abandoned... Iow, the science is only as good as its ability to predict correctly...if it doesn't, it has been falsified and refuted...that is the scientific method....

You are mistaken....the anomaly graphs are used by the UN IPCC so that the different data sources which came into use at different times relative to the earlier can be compared on the same graph....the IPCC does not use absolute temperature...but in any case, if absolute temperature was used ...it would not change the data...the pause is real... So you are in error and if you do not accept it, then please provide an actual absolute temperature graph for the same period?

In fact, your point on the tmeperatue anomaly graphs show you are ignorant of the technical side of basicscience...and should bow out now before you are further embarrassed..

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming.

 

[metis]

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming.

And the earlier estimates actually have shown to be too conservative.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am a scientist who has "stuck to the science" for over 50 years now, so you simply do not know what you are talking about, nor do you seem to really care.

What kind of scientist?

 

[Ouroboros]

That's what most of the skeptics (those who do not believe that humans are predominately responsible for all the warming), many of the luke warmers (those who believe that humans maybe partly responsible), and even some of the true agw believers, believe....that regardless of the cause of the warming....the money planned to be spent on mitigation would not likely prevent the event, and it would be far wiser to spend it on adaption.....

The problem I see is that the global warming deniers have no motivation to change anything. Why reduce pollution if it's not a problem? At least the AGW crowd have incentive to change things to the better, even if AGW is true or not.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem I see is that the global warming deniers have no motivation to change anything. Why reduce pollution if it's not a problem? At least the AGW crowd have incentive to change things to the better, even if AGW is true or not.

Even deniers have good reason to reduce pollution & encourage conservation.
There's far more at stake than just AGW.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And the earlier estimates actually have shown to be too conservative.

That's true. I was going to mention that as well but forgot somehow.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming.

That paper is dubious and will probably never be accepted for use in UN IPCC climate change studies....

 

[Ouroboros]

Even deniers have good reason to reduce pollution & encourage conservation.
There's far more at stake than just AGW.

But why? The AGW deniers rely on the belief that nature will self-adjust and absorb the pollution. The AGW deniers claim that pollution doesn't change the climate. The logical conclusion is that if AGW isn't true, we don't have to change pollution, since pollution doesn't affect our climate. It's wasted money.

In SoCal we know about how pollution affects inversion and weekend rain. But if it didn't, why even bother spend the money? Politicians, companies, people, we could all save our money if we didn't have to address something that's a non-issue.

So, exactly what would motivate a AGW-denier to stop pollution in your opinion?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And the earlier estimates actually have shown to be too conservative.

The NOAA authors of this paper have adjusted some of the observed data to change the trend slope...it will probably have to be retracted at some point...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem I see is that the global warming deniers have no motivation to change anything. Why reduce pollution if it's not a problem? At least the AGW crowd have incentive to change things to the better, even if AGW is true or not.

The problem is that the AGW alarmists take the predictions as real and ignore the non-alarming observed reality...lol..

 

[Revoltingest]

But why? The AGW deniers rely on the belief that nature will self-adjust and absorb the pollution. The AGW deniers claim that pollution doesn't change the climate. The logical conclusion is that if AGW isn't true, we don't have to change pollution, since pollution doesn't affect our climate. It's wasted money.

In SoCal we know about how pollution affects inversion and weekend rain. But if it didn't, why even bother spend the money? Politicians, companies, people, we could all save our money if we didn't have to address something that's a non-issue.

So, exactly what would motivate a AGW-denier to stop pollution in your opinion?

I find common ground with deniers in the following areas.....
- Pollution has deleterious effects on us, wildlife & real estate values.
- Energy conservation has economic & strategic military benefits.

Btw, I once lived in LA & worked in Hawthorne.
I recall how pollution was a big issue to be addressed long before AGW arose.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Even deniers have good reason to reduce pollution & encourage conservation.
There's far more at stake than just AGW.

The skeptics are not in a position to do anything...it is the 200 world governments of the UN that have signed up for AGW that have the money to do whatever it is they will do... Unfortunately there are many misanthropists among the conservationists whose radical activism prevents real pollution mitigation...

 

[Ouroboros]

I find common ground with deniers in the following areas.....
- Pollution has deleterious effects on us, wildlife & real estate values.

In what way? How does it effect us deleterious?

- Energy conservation has economic & strategic military benefits.

Pollution reduction is not necessarily the same as energy conservation. Many times it takes more effort, technology, and energy to reduce pollution from a factory. It's usually an added cost.

Btw, I once lived in LA & worked in Hawthorne.
I recall how pollution was a big issue to be addressed long before AGW arose.

Well, pollution did affect people, because pollution did affect the climate, weather, air quality, etc. AGW says that pollution affects the world in the same way. AGW deniers say that the world climate is not affected by human pollution. AGW deniers have no real motivation for reducing pollution unless they accept that pollution does affect something.

Again:
AGW suggests that human pollution does affect the world climate.
AGW deniers says it doesn't.

The reason to reduce pollution is because it does affect us, the climate, or at least something. Denying AGW is just denying AGW, nothing else.

I really don't see an argument from AGW denial to reduce pollution.

 

[Ouroboros]

The problem is that the AGW alarmists take the predictions as real and ignore the non-alarming observed reality...lol..

Sure. Sometimes the alarmist might get too noisy and perhaps even exaggerate their claims. But I'm not quite sure why it really matter. If the deniers are right and there's no threat, then we will eventually know anyway and we just spent a lot of money fixing and improving our world without reason. But if the deniers are wrong and there's a threat, then I sure hope we do everything we can to protect ourselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

In what way? How does it effect us deleterious?

Some effects of pollution....
Lead (from gasoline, paint, shotgun pellets & plumbing) is a neurotoxin which is particularly dangerous to children.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/lead/health.htm
Even after removing tetraethyl lead from most gasoline (not aviation fuel), engine exhaust damages respiratory systems.
Effect of motor vehicle emissions on respiratory health in an urban area.

Pollution reduction is not necessarily the same as energy conservation.

While not the same, they are related.
Reducing fossil fuel usage thru conservation will proportionately reduce pollution, eg, ozone, mercury, CO2, carbon nano-particulates.

Many times it takes more effort, technology, and energy to reduce pollution from a factory. It's usually an added cost.

I favor a cost-v-benefit approach regarding pollution, with additional consideration for strategic concerns (eg, energy independence from hostile countries).
Factories have some advantages over distributed sources in reducing pollution because mitigating systems can be more cost effective due to large scale, eg, scrubbing mercury from coal. Consider that pollution results in lost work days, medical costs, lower IQs, shorter life spans, & reduced quality of life.

Well, pollution did affect people, because pollution did affect the climate, weather, air quality, etc. AGW says that pollution affects the world in the same way. AGW deniers say that the world climate is not affected by human pollution. AGW deniers have no real motivation for reducing pollution unless they accept that pollution does affect something.

I'm giving reasons (with links to additional info) that pollution reduction & conservation are worthwhile independent of AGW.
This serves my agenda of getting them to support public policy which will secondarily mitigate AGW.

Again:
AGW suggests that human pollution does affect the world climate.
AGW deniers says it doesn't.
The reason to reduce pollution is because it does affect us, the climate, or at least something. Denying AGW is just denying AGW, nothing else.
I really don't see an argument from AGW denial to reduce pollution.

So you would tell AGW deniers that there it's not worth reducing polution, ie, environmental contamination unless it causes GW?
Oh, dear!

We have 2 major AGW camps......deniers & believers.
Do you want to sway the deniers so that they go along with good environmental policy?
If so, we need to avoid the sky-is-falling-shrill-Al-Gore kind of dialogue.
It should be about detente....not a war of words.
Find common ground.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That paper is dubious and will probably never be accepted for use in UN IPCC climate change studies....

This assertion is based on ... what?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This assertion is based on ... what?

How NOAA rewrote climate data to hide global warming pause

How NOAA rewrote climate data to hide global warming pause

The number of excuses for the global warming pause or hiatus had grown to more than 66 when the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) added yet another one to the list in a just-published study in Science. In their argument that came out yesterday, NOAA said that long-existing instrument bases have masked rising sea surface temperatures. Once they "readjusted" the data, the warming hiatus disappeared. By cooling the past, they were able to make the most recent years even warmer.

This assessment has drawn heavy criticism from both sides of the bitter climate debate, but one thing no one disputes: NOAA may have overstepped its authority in rewriting climate history and relying on faulty data sets. By making the early 1900s colder, and using only land-based temperature stations and less-reliable ocean temperatures, NOAA can now readjust the past to chart a new future.

As Marc Morano of the site Climate Depot noted in an interview with National Geographic, "NOAA's new study will have "virtually no impact in the climate debate. … This latest study merely adds to the dueling data sets and of course time lines in the climate debate."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Climate scientists speculate: Global warming 'hiatus' never happened - THonline.com: National/World

Climate scientists speculate: Global warming 'hiatus' never happened
The argument draws criticism from both sides of the rancorous debate over man-made climate change.

"The main claim, that it uncovers a significant recent warming trend, is certainly dubious," wrote a panel of climatologists at the libertarian Cato Institute.


"I don't find this analysis at all convincing," wrote Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech. "While I'm sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don't regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on."


More surprising, however, was the fact that researchers on the opposite side of the debate also rejected the idea of a vanishing slowdown.


"It is a bit misleading to say there is no hiatus," said climate scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.


"I would argue the study is misleading on the implications of its results," said Piers Forster, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Leeds, in England. "This study has not 'magiced' the hiatus away or somehow corrected the IPCC."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sure. Sometimes the alarmist might get too noisy and perhaps even exaggerate their claims. But I'm not quite sure why it really matter. If the deniers are right and there's no threat, then we will eventually know anyway and we just spent a lot of money fixing and improving our world without reason. But if the deniers are wrong and there's a threat, then I sure hope we do everything we can to protect ourselves.

The skeptics in general are not deniers, they agree there has been warming, and even that human derived CO2 does contribute to warming, but they do not accept that humans are the main cause, but that the observed warming is mainly due to natural variations... If this is the case..the cost of a lot of the AGW mitigation will be wasted...and the money would be better spent on reducing particulate pollution and global warming adaptation....