Climate Change Deniers Using Same Methods as Tobacco Industry, Says Physicist

[bshole]

And you're pulling this from your gut? Jesus fucking Christ.

Actually its a matter of record... crop fertility has gone up in the last century in perfect lockstep with the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Why do you think obesity is a health epidemic? Too much food!!! That has literally never actually occurred in human history save for the last century.

 

[dphantom]

Ooops...I meant 870 years.

It is just an order of magnitude off.

 

[werepossum]

ROFLMFAO!! Isn't it the truth? Because the people of Miami will lack the technology to avoid or mitigate against the deluge?!?!

That is what drives me batty about this debate sometimes. The predictions of doom and destruction that civilization is destined to..... LONG AFTER WE ARE DEAD AND MOLDERING in our graves. Its bad enough that we ignore problems that are harming civilization today, its worse when we enact policies that harm civilization today to avoid some harm that may or may not occur to our great grandchildren 100 years from now.

This is true. However, there are surely things we can do that won't hurt civilization. In home construction for instance, there are some construction techniques which conserve energy and are actually cheaper - they just aren't how most carpenters learned to frame.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It is just an order of magnitude off.

Minor details. Damn, I hope they don't revoke my PE over this!

 

[werepossum]

Minor details. Damn, I hope they don't revoke my PE over this!

Is it in climate science? If so, you're probably okay.

 

[xBiffx]

Minor details. Damn, I hope they don't revoke my PE over this!

I wouldn't beat yourself up too much. If NASA can do it, anyone can.

 

[Paul98]

That's true, but I've taken my stand on Ocean Cycles. On an increasingly well understood scientific argument. I am not moved by the warming of the 80s and 90s because it lines up perfectly with this argument. It matches the temperature rise and the Ocean Cycles of the 30s and 40s.

If we warm while the Oceans oppose that trend, then we've broken the direct relationship between our temperature record and the Ocean Cycles. I'd need a substantial scientific argument, lined up with empirical evidence, before allowing any other argument to displace CO2.

Oceans > CO2 > Anything else

"Anything else" would have a hell of a lot of scientific explaining to do.

Lol so you will believe in global warming if basic physics brakes. .. Yeah that's reasonable... give me a break. I have you an explanation already

 

[Paratus]

Lol so you will believe in global warming if basic physics brakes. .. Yeah that's reasonable... give me a break. I have you an explanation already

Hey Paul wanna play a round?

 

[Jaskalas]

Lol so you will believe in global warming if basic physics brakes. .. Yeah that's reasonable... give me a break. I have you an explanation already

Could you try that again in English?

1: I already stand behind AGW. Our CO2 emissions will warm the planet.
2: I believe it is minimal, and observations from the 20th century are almost entirely influenced by the Ocean Cycles, specifically the PDO and AMO.
3: I believe man's contribution can be more accurately discerned while the PDO and AMO are negative and not pumping heat into the atmosphere.

If the warming continues it would be the first noticeable divergence from the Ocean Cycle in the history of our temperature record. THAT would be a significant development worthy of consideration.

I've already said these things multiple times.

 

[werepossum]

Lol so you will believe in global warming if basic physics brakes. .. Yeah that's reasonable... give me a break. I have you an explanation already

The technical term for an explanation as to why your model failed to show the predicted result is "excuse".

 

[Paratus]

Could you try that again in English?

1: I already stand behind AGW. Our CO2 emissions will warm the planet.
2: I believe it is minimal, and observations from the 20th century are almost entirely influenced by the Ocean Cycles, specifically the PDO and AMO.
3: I believe man's contribution can be more accurately be discerned while the PDO and AMO are negative and not pumping heat into the atmosphere.

If the warming continues it would be the first noticeable divergence from the Ocean Cycle in the history of our temperature record. THAT would be a significant development worthy of consideration.

I've already said these things multiple times.

The PDO and AMO neither contribute nor remove OHC. They only move it around. Your hypothesis does not account for the observed increase in OHC and the only way your hypotheses holds together is to posit 50 years of a worldwide conspiracy/incompetence to fudge OHC numbers.

ARGO shows increasing OHC
IPCC agrees there is increasing OHC
NOAA agrees there is increasing OHC.

Even Judith Curry agrees CO2 causes global warming:

Originally posted by Judith Curry

"If all other things remain equal, it's clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet," she told the committee.

The technical term for an explanation as to why your model failed to show the predicted result is "excuse".

As I was trying to show with the glass of ice water analogy, the fact that we have a difficulty in calculating the temperature of the water at every position in the glass at all times, doesn't mean that after several hours in the sun the ice won't be melted and the water will won't be at air temperature.

It's the same with global warming. The fact that it's difficult to predict exact temperatures at any given time doesn't mean the earth is now cooling and CO2 becomes transparent to IR light.

 

[Jaskalas]

1: I already stand behind AGW. Our CO2 emissions will warm the planet.

Even Judith Curry agrees CO2 causes global warming:

I say potato, you say potato... why?! You speak to confirm(?) what I've been saying for months, you even quote me on it, but your tone is argumentative as if you were reading something else.

Please take the time to read what you're quoting.

 

[Jaskalas]

The PDO and AMO neither contribute nor remove OHC. They only move it around.

I say 50-60 year Ocean Cycles, which have been scientifically documented, affect global temperature... and you argue against that? Would you make this same argument against El'Nino and La'Nina? The distribution of Ocean Heat Content GREATLY controls our temperature record and weather patterns.

You're not going to argue against that fact, are you?

Your hypothesis does not account for the observed increase in OHC and the only way your hypotheses holds together is to posit 50 years of a worldwide conspiracy/incompetence to fudge OHC numbers.

OHC from the 1960s. Before satellites. I'd argue we didn't even have quality surface temps over the ocean at that point, let alone down to depths of 2,000 meters. Some surface buoys maybe? 21 of them by 1970. Those measured down to a depth of 3 meters. Not enough to create an ACTUAL measurement of OHC or global temperature with an accuracy of 0.01C, or hundredths of a degree.

You apparently stand by the "quality" of this 50+ year record, prove it. Bring me to task. SHOW US the global map from 1960 with OHC down to 2,000 meters. You can't, and I attest that is because it does not exist. We did not have extensive measurements before ARGO. Our OHC record is 10 years old, PERIOD!

I await the OHC map from 1960.

Oh, but before you present it. I'd like to show you what I'm saying. The lack of data, as demonstrated by the supposed "global" temps of 1850 with a mighty 1 thermometer in the Southern Hemisphere. Yeah, accurate to hundredths of a degree... covering practically nothing. That's the sort of "quality" data you're trying to pawn off on us today, with OHC before ARGO.

What I suspect is going on here, is the use of proxy data. Not actual measurements, but IPCC studies and computer models to estimate what OHC might have been in 1960. Is that where this claim of 0.06c since 1960 comes from?

ARGO shows increasing OHC

An increase in the Southern Hemisphere only, yes we've covered that. You'd then reply telling me it's due to complexities and OHC mixing. Which is exactly my point, 10 years is not long enough to smooth out natural Ocean Cycles which last for 50-60 years. ARGO is going to need more time.

 

[Paratus]

I say 50-60 year Ocean Cycles, which have been scientifically documented, affect global temperature... and you argue against that? Would you make this same argument against El'Nino and La'Nina? The distribution of Ocean Heat Content GREATLY controls our temperature record and weather patterns.

Locally, not globally. OHC only comes from one place. The sun. El'Nino, La'Nina, AMO, PDO can only move the heat contained in the ocean. They can move it from the shallow ocean to the deep and vice versa. They can move it from the ocean to the atmosphere. What they cannot do is create heat nor directly remove it from the Earth. That is my point.

You're not going to argue against that fact, are you?

The AMO and PDO may raise or lower the global temperature but over time each cycle will be higher than the last because total OHC is governed by the retained heat due to greenhouse gasses.

OHC from the 1960s. Before satellites. I'd argue we didn't even have quality surface temps over the ocean at that point, let alone down to depths of 2,000 meters. Some surface buoys maybe? 21 of them by 1970. Those measured down to a depth of 3 meters. Not enough to create an ACTUAL measurement of OHC or global temperature with an accuracy of 0.01C, or hundredths of a degree.

We've had the ability to take meaningful accurate deep water temperature readings since the early 20th century. See Nansen and Niskin bottles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nansen_bottle).

You apparently stand by the "quality" of this 50+ year record, prove it. Bring me to task. SHOW US the global map from 1960 with OHC down to 2,000 meters. You can't, and I attest that is because it does not exist. We did not have extensive measurements before ARGO. Our OHC record is 10 years old, PERIOD!

I await the OHC map from 1960.

Oh, but before you present it. I'd like to show you what I'm saying. The lack of data, as demonstrated by the supposed "global" temps of 1850 with a mighty 1 thermometer in the Southern Hemisphere. Yeah, accurate to hundredths of a degree... covering practically nothing. That's the sort of "quality" data you're trying to pawn off on us today, with OHC before ARGO.

What I suspect is going on here, is the use of proxy data. Not actual measurements, but IPCC studies and computer models to estimate what OHC might have been in 1960. Is that where this claim of 0.06c since 1960 comes from?



An increase in the Southern Hemisphere only, yes we've covered that. You'd then reply telling me it's due to complexities and OHC mixing. Which is exactly my point, 10 years is not long enough to smooth out natural Ocean Cycles which last for 50-60 years. ARGO is going to need more time.

See above

 

[Paratus]

Here's some info about early and mid 20th century deep water record keeping:
Warming of the Worlds Oceans 1955-2003 PDF

Nansen-bottle stations were occupied by ships and personnel of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution from 1931 to about 1981. Most of these data are in archives, but using them intelligently to depict the state of the ocean and to assess time changes in it requires knowing how the observations were made, what accuracies can be assigned to them, and generally how to approach them. This report describes the evolving methods on Woods Hole stations for measuring temperature, depth of observation, salinity, and dissolved-oxygen concentration, and for determining station position. Accuracies generally improved over time, although estimates from the early years are sparse, and even later there is indefiniteness. Analytical error is to be distinguished from sloppy sample collection and other blunders. The routine for carrying out Nansen-bottle stations, from the late 1950s through the 1970s, is reviewed.

 

[theeedude]

That's how I see it too.
But I think the tide is turning. I see a lot of solar on the roofs, and costs are coming down. $35,000 Teslas. What people don't realize is that we are a battery advance away, either in terms of manufacturing cost or capacity, from electric car being superior to gasoline powered one for the majority of drivers.
On top of that, young people are just not that into cars, and a lot of them prefer higher density more energy efficient urban apartments to suburban sprawl where you have to drive everywhere.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

We 'skeptics' are legion, thanks for your concern though.

Ah yes, trotting out that old canard.

Please.

Its an overwhelming scientific consensus that GW and CC are happening, get over it.

In fact, the discussion isn't really about what's happening and what will be the consequences, but rather what can we do about it.

Oh and yeah and...ocean acidification.

Good luck with that one.

EDIT: every time you read a website where they complain about "establishment elite", "media bias" and "liberals", you know its a winner.

 

[Cozarkian]

Here's some info about early and mid 20th century deep water record keeping:
Warming of the Worlds Oceans 1955-2003 PDF

One of the guys who helped take the measurements rebuts that article and calls into question that article.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]I learned to deploy Nansen water bottles and reversing thermometers for deep-sea sampling in 1949. I spent the rest of the subsequent decade seagoing, for the most. I can’t remember how many bottle casts I made, or how many bathythermographs I deployed. There had to be thousands in the waters off coastal California. Other students and post-docs were doing the same farther offshore in the eastern Pacific, from the E.W. Scripps. In the westernmost Atlantic, a similar cadre worked from the Atlantis.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]In the 1960s, more ships were out at sea: from Fisheries Laboratories, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (now NOAA), and research institutions at Scripps (La Jolla, Calif.), Woods Hole (Massachusetts), Miami, and Texas A&M (in the Gulf of Mexico). The British sailed the new Discovery, the Germans the new Meteor, and there were small ships sailing from Denmark, Japan, and France. Many cruises were dedicated to the geophysics of the sea floor, where deep-ocean casts for water and temperatures were few and far between.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Surface water samples were taken routinely, however, with buckets from the deck and the ship’s engine-water intake valve. Most of the thermometers were calibrated into 1/4-degrees Fahrenheit. They came from the U.S. Navy. Galvanized iron buckets were preferred, mainly because they lasted longer than the wood and canvas. But, they had the disadvantage of cooling quickly in the winds, so that the temperature readings needed to be taken quickly. I would guess that any bucket-temperature measurement that was closer to the actual temperature by better than 0.5° was an accident, or a good guess. But then, no one ever knew whether or not it was good or bad. Everyone always considered whatever reading was made to be precise, and they still do today. The archived data used by Levitus, and a plethora of other oceanographers, were taken by me, and a whole cadre of students, post-docs, and seagoing technicians around the world. Those of us who obtained the data, are not going to be snowed by the claims of the great precision of “historical data found stored in some musty archives.”

[/FONT]

 

[Paul98]

Anyone living near water should understand how much the temperature of the water effects the air temp. Also should understand how much wind effects where the warm surface water is. You seem to think global warming is wrong if that doesn't change

 

[Paratus]

One of the guys who helped take the measurements rebuts that article and calls into question that article.

[/SIZE][/FONT]

But that's actually the point. They had a known process. That process has a certain imprecision. Imprecision can be dealt with a couple of ways. Correction factors can be applied to improve accuracy when possible. Error bars are used to document the rest of the uncertainty.

Here's a little secret. (Not really ). We still do this today, even with our high- tech sensors. I'm not even talking about sensors used for climate change specifically.

At work we apply calibration curves to, voltage sensors, current sensors, flow rate sensors, pressures sensors, temperature sensors, etc. Then our procedures use + error bars on when to take action.

I see no reason why climate measurements cannot use standard scientific practices on their data.

 

[hal2kilo]

But that's actually the point. They had a known process. That process has a certain imprecision. Imprecision can be dealt with a couple of ways. Correction factors can be applied to improve accuracy when possible. Error bars are used to document the rest of the uncertainty.

Here's a little secret. (Not really ). We still do this today, even with our high- tech sensors. I'm not even talking about sensors used for climate change specifically.

At work we apply calibration curves to, voltage sensors, current sensors, flow rate sensors, pressures sensors, temperature sensors, etc. Then our procedures use + error bars on when to take action.

I see no reason why climate measurements cannot use standard scientific practices on their data.

Yes you always have to apply calibration coefficients in any measurement system to make up for differences within the measurement system.

 

[Jaskalas]

Anyone living near water should understand how much the temperature of the water effects the air temp. Also should understand how much wind effects where the warm surface water is. You seem to think global warming is wrong if that doesn't change

This about determining Climate Sensitivity, not saying "global warming is wrong". Essentially an argument over how much we'll warm. My stance is to assault the notion that 20th century warming was largely from CO2.

 

[schmuckley]

Can we point to the funding sources of the climate change proponents?

^This

 

[schmuckley]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...tic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

[schmuckley]

That's how I see it too.
But I think the tide is turning. I see a lot of solar on the roofs, and costs are coming down. $35,000 Teslas. What people don't realize is that we are a battery advance away, either in terms of manufacturing cost or capacity, from electric car being superior to gasoline powered one for the majority of drivers.
On top of that, young people are just not that into cars, and a lot of them prefer higher density more energy efficient urban apartments to suburban sprawl where you have to drive everywhere.

Teslas have a larger Carbon footprint than some combustion-engine vehicles.
They still get their power from burning at the power plant.Then there's all the battery components..