Climate-gate

[Photizo]

... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Umbn6ZBuE ...

... http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/the-dangers-of-certainty/ ...

^ ... > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...l-MORE-people-Holocaust-claims-scientist.html

 

[rpenner]

^ ... > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...l-MORE-people-Holocaust-claims-scientist.html

Dr Spencer believe that people who label those against human-induced global warming ‘climate deniers’ will ‘kill far more people than the Nazis ever did.’
...
CAPTION: The radical claim was made by climate scientist Roy Spencer, who is a professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and a vocal denier of man-made climate change
...
In recent years the term has been associated with a series of views challenging the scientific consensus on issues including the health effects of smoking and the relationship between HIV and AIDS, along with climate change

Denier = Anti-science. Even the Daily Mail caption writers know that "denier" is the best description of Roy Spencer's position.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...b/21/nazis-climate-contrarian-credibility-gap

Yesterday, Roy Spencer took to his blog, writing a post entitled "Time to push back against the global warming Nazis". The ensuing Godwinian rant was apparently triggered by somebody calling contrarians like Spencer "deniers." Personally I tend to avoid use of the term, simply because it inevitably causes the ensuing discussion to degenerate into an argument about whether "denier" refers to Holocaust denial. Obviously that misinterpretation of the term is exactly what "pushed [Spencer's] button," as he put it.

However, this misinterpretation has no basis in reality. The term "denier" merely refers to "a person who denies" something, and originated some 600 years ago, long before the Holocaust occurred. Moreover, as the National Center for Science Education and Peter Gleick at Forbes have documented, many climate contrarians (including the aforementioned Richard Lindzen) prefer to be called "deniers."

... it's rather hypocritical of Spencer to complain about the use of a word meaning "a person who denies" when he has expressly admitted to denying these climate positions.

... US Secretary of State John Kerry [] said, "We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific fact,"

Spencer, Christy, and McNider offer perfect examples of what John Kerry was criticizing – shoddy, biased science being treated on equal footing with solid mainstream science. In reality, there should be an immense credibility gap between the climate contrarians who have been consistently wrong and who deny the inconvenient data, and the mainstream climate scientists whose positions are supported by the full body of scientific evidence.

When a fringe 2 to 4 percent minority - who consistently produce shoddy analysis and compare those with whom they disagree to Nazis - are given equal credibility by the media and policymakers as the 97 percent of scientific experts, we have a problem.

In other words, when accused of being niggardly with the truth, Roy Spencer inappropriately plays the racism card generating eye rolls from the literate.

 

[Photizo]

Denier = Anti-science.

Denier is a term used to denigrate someone skeptical of the claims made by the likes of ManBearPig and the IPCC; especially in light of the exposure of the latter as frauds.

IPCC = Anti Science.

fyi...your avatar was the inspiration behind my sombrero.

 

[rpenner]

a term used to denigrate

Climate contrarian Richard Lindzen and others disagree; Dictionaries disagree. Even Roy Spencer, in his own words, claims to deny.

An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming by the Cornwall Alliance.

WHAT WE DENY

1. We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
2. We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.
3. We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.
4. We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.

Signers of the above: http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blo...an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

• scientists and medical doctors like Dr. Roy W. Spencer (Principal Research Scientist in Climatology, University of Alabama, Huntsville, U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer aboard NASA’s Aqua Satellite, and author of Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor);

who is also listed on the Cornwall Alliance Advisory Board.
Here is David Legates and Roy Spencer, in a Op-Ed piece for The Christian Post on September 10, 2013. http://www.christianpost.com/news/c...ct-one-error-make-others-of-their-own-104158/

Unlike them, we deny "that most of it is human-caused, and that it is a threat to future generations that must be addressed by the global community."

someone skeptical of the claims made by the likes of ManBearPig

Having chosen to denigrate Al Gore by adopting a fictional advocacy in place of his actual one, you look like a hypocrite when you complain about "denier" when that is the actual correct word to describe Roy Spencer self-explained position. Also, Al Gore is not a climate scientist and only acted as an advocate of actual positions held by actual scientists (plus or minus some mistranslation).

and the IPCC;

Not a single, monolithic entity. The IPCC's position is described in large reports, nearly all of which is fact or fact-based opinion

especially in light of the exposure of the latter as frauds.

Still waiting for exposure of fraud.

• Monckton was wrong when he pronounced Cook (2003)'s claim of 97% consensus wrong. http://skepticalscience.com/debunking-climate-consensus-denial.html http://skepticalscience.com/Public-talk-explaining-consensus-paper-answering-critics.html
• Monckton was wrong when he described the graph at the bottom of this 2007 IPCC AR4 WG1 report as fraudulent. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-1-figure-1.html
• Neither are claims that the IPCC is bad at estimating future warming correct. http://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming.htm See also Table 2-4 on page 187 (29) of http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

Those were the first 3 hits I found with a Google search for "IPCC fraud" and none of them held water. Hopefully you have a better supported claim to make or once again you are the one using fact-free claims to denigrate worthy scientists.

IPCC = Anti Science.

As the authors are scientists, it seems you are encountering a misunderstanding when you assert that without basis in fact.

 

[Grumpy]

There's always a few nuts in the bag.

Grumpy

 

[Write4U]

There's always a few nuts in the bag.

Grumpy

We must try to find a fair representation of the scientific concensus re GW and this is as good as any, regardless of minor statistical details. By my count this somwhere of 1 in 9135!......

 

[Photizo]

Climate contrarian Richard Lindzen and others disagree; Dictionaries disagree. Even Roy Spencer, in his own words, claims to deny.

So what?

you look like a hypocrite

Why is using the term 'ManBearPig' considered by you to be denigrating algore? I look like a hypocrite? Seems you are the one denigrating by leveling that accusation at me...does a guy wearing a sombrero constitute one who looks like a hypocrite in your mind? It smacks of racism. Look in the mirror good sir and you will see what a hypocrite looks like.

Also, Al Gore is not a climate scientist and only acted as an advocate of actual positions held by actual scientists

Robert Young wasn't a doctor either, he just played one on TV...are you suggesting he (algore) doesn't really believe all the b.s. he spouts? ...that he's just acting...playing a role? Which begs the question...

Still waiting for exposure of fraud.

The exposure has already happened. Quit being so lazy. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Hopefully you have a better supported claim to make or once again you are the one using fact-free claims to denigrate worthy scientists.
As the authors are scientists, it seems you are encountering a misunderstanding when you assert that without basis in fact.

All is not what it seems, ESPECIALLY as it concerns the hoopla surrounding this man made global warming now man made climate change fiction. It's far more sinister--and don't ask me for facts either, because I haven't any.

As the authors are scientists, it seems you are encountering a misunderstanding when you assert that without basis in fact.

They were asserting DESPITE the facts and cooking the books so to speak (which seems to be the mo of most scientists), that sir is not doing science. Who are the hypocrites? Who truly misunderstands?

fact
fakt/Submit
noun
plural noun: facts
1.
a thing that is indisputably the case.

In light of that definition, man made global warming now climate change is NOT a fact...and with respect to 'science', the majority of 'scientists' are just whistling past the graveyard in so many of their assertions having no basis in fact. They simply do not possess the requisite knowledge or capacity to distinguish fact from fiction. Again, who are the lying, conniving, hypocrites?

 

[origin]

All is not what it seems, ESPECIALLY as it concerns the hoopla surrounding this man made global warming now man made climate change fiction. It's far more sinister--and don't ask me for facts either, because I haven't any.

The facts just get in the way of a good story, right?

 

[Photizo]

The facts just get in the way of a good story, right?

Certainly algore and the IPCC would tend to agree with you.

 

[wellwisher]

Manmade global warming has no precedent in the natural history of the earth. This is because humans only achieved this "possible" level of control over the climate in very recent geological time; past 100 years.

Therefore, since this is, at the best, the first example of manmade global warming, how do we factor out natural trends seeing there is no precedent to compare manmade to? It would be like doing the first experiment in the lab, without a control, and assuming that one data point is all you need to prove the premise. Since when does science accept one data point as implying the gospel truth of a phenomena? It appears science is not in charge, since it would not accept only one occurrence as proof for anything without a control.

The analogy is, say I claim I designed a motor that can get 100 mpg. I will use only one data point to prove this since that is all science needs according to this new trend in political science. I will take my one data point going down a steep hill, where I get over 100 mpg. In the journey of geological time, this is the one point I have, which I took on the hill of natural change.

What manmade global warming depends on is emotional appeal of fear to give more weighted to one data point that does not have an connection to controlled base data.

 

[origin]

Certainly algore and the IPCC would tend to agree with you.

Possibly true with Al, I have only heard about his movie (didn't like the Katrina references), but I must disagree with you on the IPCC, they are not perfect but they are certainly a reputable orginization doing their best.

 

[rpenner]

It would be like doing the first experiment in the lab and assuming that one data point is all you need to prove the premise.

Incorrect. The principle of conversation of energy is the scientific theory at issue. Global warming isn't a theory of science, but a theorem of well-accepted physical theories. Making the atmosphere more opaque to thermal radiation near the spectral peak of a 300 K blackbody while remaining transparent near the peak of a 5000 K blackbody will cause a shift in the equilibrium temperature of the surface. This too is a theorem of well-accepted physical theories. And burning fossil fuels more than accounts for recent rises in the amount of CO₂ in the air -- despite the tendency of CO₂ to be consumed by the shrinking forests and algae and dissolve in the oceans, hundreds of empirical measurements indicate the CO₂ concentration has gone up 50% in the past 150 years.

Now not all of that energy shows up in the atmosphere -- some of it is used to melt ice, some of it goes to heat the oceans. Weather is a giant heat engine being driven by the attempt to reach equilibrium on a spinning globe being heated on one side. So getting detailed predictions about the rate of heating of the air and comparing them with measurements is fraught with difficulties. But here again science is better than anti-science and the IPCC predictions have been much better than the predications of climate contrarians.

Contrarians:

Mainstream including IPCC FAR, SAR, TAR and AR4:

Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html

 

[rpenner]

Roy Spencer inappropriately plays the racism card generating eye rolls from the literate.

Having chosen to denigrate Al Gore by adopting a fictional advocacy in place of his actual one, you look like a hypocrite when you complain about "denier" when that is the actual correct word to describe Roy Spencer self-explained position.

I look like a hypocrite? Seems you are the one denigrating by leveling that accusation at me...does a guy wearing a sombrero constitute one who looks like a hypocrite in your mind? It smacks of racism.

Congratulations on your surgical skills, but contextomy is no way to win an argument on a forum when the context is right there.

 

[Photizo]

Making the atmosphere more opaque to thermal radiation near the spectral peak of a 300 K blackbody while remaining transparent near the peak of a 5000 K blackbody will cause a shift in the equilibrium temperature of the surface.

http://mysite.du.edu/~etuttle/weather/atmrad.htm

from the article: "If global warming is anthropogenic, then the only means of preventing it would be a significant reduction in human numbers, which seems politically impossible." Mark that.

getting detailed predictions about the rate of heating of the air and comparing them with measurements is fraught with difficulties.

Quite, and, not the least of which, is the tendency of those doing the science to devolve into practitioners of anti science--or worse... i.e.being nothing more than useful idiots to those at the top... willing accomplices bribed into promoting a great evil the extent of which many quite possibly are innocently ignorant of. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

the IPCC predictions have been much better than the predications of climate contrarians

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-modeling-procedures-need-serious-remodeling/

 

[Photizo]

Congratulations on your surgical skills, but contextomy is no way to win an argument on a forum when the context is right there.

Congratulations to you too , I enjoyed this: "In other words, when accused of being niggardly with the truth, Roy Spencer inappropriately plays the racism card generating eye rolls from the literate." :thumbsup:

 

[Write4U]

http://mysite.du.edu/~etuttle/weather/atmrad.htm

from the article: "If global warming is anthropogenic, then the only means of preventing it would be a significant reduction in human numbers, which seems politically impossible." Mark that.

So marked. But either way it is going to take a significant reduction in the use of pollutants. Now what are we goig to do about it? Just sit on our porch and wait until half the population dies?
Oddly, that would be Darwinian. Survival by natural selection.

Quite, and, not the least of which, is the tendency of those doing the science to devolve into practitioners of anti science--or worse... i.e.being nothing more than useful idiots to those at the top... willing accomplices bribed into promoting a great evil the extent of which many quite possibly are innocently ignorant of. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Don't forget to add, "........... good intentions, but no actions"

 

[Grumpy]

Photizo

from the article: "If global warming is anthropogenic, then the only means of preventing it would be a significant reduction in human numbers, which seems politically impossible." Mark that.

Why? It's an absolutely false assessment of the possibilities. I recently got a ride in a Tesla S, it is a very powerful car that has an electric range of over 200 miles. It belongs to one of our McMillionaires whose McMansion's roof is covered by solar cells, he actually sells carbon free electricity back to Duke. In addition he has a Peltz turbine running on the power of water going downhill. His house was built with 8 inches of insulating foam around the exterior and costs him near nothing to heat and cool. While all this is only possible with lots of money, so were cars and refrigerators at the beginning. We do not need to limit the population artificially if we can achieve the same result with better technology. A carbon free energy future is possible with existing technology, it just takes the will(which is all that money is)to do it. Once we are not pumping megatons of carbon into the atmosphere the Earth will recover from our damage. But buckle up, scooter, it's going to be a scary ride over the next few decades, even if we stop polluting today. Hope you don't expect to retire to southern Florida or the Keys.

Grumpy

 

[wellwisher]

Incorrect. The principle of conversation of energy is the scientific theory at issue. Global warming isn't a theory of science, but a theorem of well-accepted physical theories. Making the atmosphere more opaque to thermal radiation near the spectral peak of a 300 K blackbody while remaining transparent near the peak of a 5000 K blackbody will cause a shift in the equilibrium temperature of the surface. This too is a theorem of well-accepted physical theories. And burning fossil fuels more than accounts for recent rises in the amount of CO₂ in the air -- despite the tendency of CO₂ to be consumed by the shrinking forests and algae and dissolve in the oceans, hundreds of empirical measurements indicate the CO₂ concentration has gone up 50% in the past 150

If you look at the absorption spectrum of the atmosphere, water is the biggest IR absorber in terms of range and total magnitude. If you notice the blue outgoing energy from the surface and look at the various gases, H2O and O2 have the most absorption in this range. The CO2 IR absorption seems to be mostly at the end of the blue peaks, at the coolest temperatures.

What I can't help noticing is the outgoing coincides with the shape of the water curve.

 

[joepistole]

If you look at the absorption spectrum of the atmosphere, water is the biggest IR absorber in terms of range and total magnitude. If you notice the blue outgoing energy from the surface and look at the various gases, H2O and O2 have the most absorption in this range. The CO2 IR absorption seems to be mostly at the end of the blue peaks, at the coolest temperatures.

What I can't help noticing is the outgoing coincides with the shape of the water curve.

And you think this material from a right wing nut case website is relevant or even true?

 

[rpenner]

What I can't help noticing is the outgoing coincides with the shape of the water curve.

Correct -- the black body spectrum near 300 K corresponds to a HOLE in the water vapor absorption spectrum. Also water vapor reaches its equilibrium concentration in the atmosphere via phase changes.
While CO₂ plugs a good part of the hole in the water vapor absorption spectrum and achieves equilibrium by slower means of photosynthesis and acidification of the oceans.

Thus while water vapor does indeed act like a greenhouse gas, it relaxes to equilibrium in days, not decades like CO₂ and in climatology plays a secondary role. Water vapor concentration is closely linked to surface temperature and anything the causes surface temperatures to trend up will cause water vapor to trend up, leading to a positive feedback effect to primary cause of global climate change.

That was just off the top of my head, but if you would like more on this topic, please go here:
http://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

// Edit:

And you think this material ... is relevant or even true?

Joe -- the image probably came from here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_gases

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Role_of_water_vapor

Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields. The atmospheric concentration of vapor is highly variable and depends largely on temperature, from less than 0.01% in extremely cold regions up to 3% by mass at in saturated air at about 32 °C.(see Relative humidity#other important facts)

The average residence time of a water molecule in the atmosphere is only about nine days, compared to years or centuries for other greenhouse gases such as CH
4 and CO2. Thus, water vapor responds to and amplifies effects of the other greenhouse gases. The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that more water vapor will be present per unit volume at elevated temperatures. This and other basic principles indicate that warming associated with increased concentrations of the other greenhouse gases also will increase the concentration of water vapor (assuming that the relative humidity remains approximately constant; modeling and observational studies find that this is indeed so). Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this results in further warming and so is a "positive feedback" that amplifies the original warming. Eventually other earth processes offset these positive feedbacks, stabilizing the global temperature at a new equilibrium and preventing the loss of Earth's water through a Venus-like runaway greenhouse effect.