Statistical models demonstrate that recent severe weather is caused by climate change

[Jaskalas]

Warming has been much faster over the last 100 years since...

Hansen Lies To The Washington Post

The hockey team is getting bolder and bolder with their lies. None more than the director of GISS.

Climate change is here — and worse than we thought
By James E. Hansen, Friday, August 3, 5:52 PM
When I testified before the Senate in the hot summer of 1988 , I warned of the kind of future that climate change would bring to us and our planet. I painted a grim picture of the consequences of steadily increasing temperatures, driven by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.
But I have a confession to make: I was too optimistic.
My projections about increasing global temperature have been proved true.
Climate change is here — and worse than we thought – The Washington Post
​

Temperatures have actually been lower than Hansen’s lowest 1988 forecast, which assumed that humans quit emitting CO2 after the year 2000. The graph below is right off his web site.

More Temperature Figures

”scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.”
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
​

His graph shows almost no warming for a decade, which is not what any honest person would call steadily increasing temperatures.
In 1999, Hansen wrote the exact opposite

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?
​

Since then, temperatures have hardly changed. What happens to a person before they decide to start lying about everything?

 

[Throckmorton]

Hansen Lies To The Washington Post

All that means is that the model is not 100% precise... and no model is. Models only approximate reality.

Do you think any economist can predict what our nation's GDP will be next year? Obviously not. But does that mean you don't pay attention to economic models? No


Meteorologists use models to predict the weather. You probably watch their forecasts and take them into account when you're making your plans. But do you expect them to be accurate 100% of the time and have 100% precision?


If your state issues a hurricane evacuation notice, do you ignore it because "meteorology models only approximate reality"??

 

[monovillage]

It's always good to see alternative views of submitted papers. Here's Dr. Judith Curry's post on the Hansen, Sato, Ruedy paper.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/27/loaded-dice/

One of her comments.

JC comments: Hansen’s idea for presenting extremes in this way is a powerful one, but misleading. I agree with suggestions by Tamino and Sardesmukh et al., here are some other suggestions.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Here is Lars Ulrich from Metallica refuting the claims that ckimate change is happening:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS6udST6lbE

 

[MrMuppet]

Since you joined in June, let's bring you up to speed. The first time anyone heard about the other planets warming up as well, it was in a paper looking for reasons for Earth's warming. In that paper, it had a few blurbs about the other planets warming up. Then, it went on to explain that the increase in solar output, while causing the warming on the other planets, wasn't significant enough to explain all or most of the warming on Earth.

The anti-global warming people repeatedly quoted those blurbs about the other planets warming up, until people like you started repeating them as if they were the exclusive reason for Earth's warming.

Sorry, the climatologists aren't stupid. They haven't ignored increases in solar output while coming to the conclusion that the majority of Earth's warming is due to mankind. If you are foolish enough to think that they ignored solar output as a factor... "Look at me! Look at me! I don't have a degree in climatology. In fact, I've never taken a course in climatology. But, I've solved global warming! The 99% of the climatologists who are looking at me like I'm an idiot are wrong."

^ Well, obviously they indeed can ignore it, since if anyone brings it up, the masses will just chant the above.

Thanks for the history lesson, but I fail to see any relevance at all? I didn't hear it from there anyway (although it still would've been a red herring). I read it on NASA, NatGeo, Space.com, and MIT News:

"Odyssey Studies Changing Weather And Climate On Mars"
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html

"And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress."
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html

"Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says"
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

"MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon"
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html

"Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find"
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

"New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change"
http://www.space.com/2071-storm-jupiter-hints-climate-change.html


At least Muller ignored climate change on other planets in his latest paper. Moreover, Muller thought the change in solar activity was too small not to ignore (bassed on data assumed by the IPCC).

A study in Science, however, did not ignore solar activity (cycle length in this case):

I vertically flipped the top chart, because I find it easier to compare that way.


Why don't you guys just refute it, instead of spamming appeals to ridicule and fallacies?

They are using this as an excuse to tax me more and take away more of my freedoms (they've even banned the good ole incandescent lightbulb here in the EU, now we have to have tons of mercury in our homes instead and poor lights), so this is an important issue for me that concerns me a lot.

Btw, in Sweden a gallon of gas is roughly 60 SEK or 9 USD. It's almost entirely "geen" taxes.

 

[MrMuppet]

India and China produce several times less CO2 per capita than we do... Following your logic, California and Wyoming should emit the same amount simply because they happen to both be "states".

So responsible peoples and nations should be punished for the irresponsible acts and ways of life of irresponsible peoples and nations that for a long time have given birth to way too many children?

If you're going to be all authoritarian and dictatorial about the issue, a more fair solution would be to impose a limit based on different countries' area. Or arable or otherwise workable land.

If certain peoples and nations choose not to live within theirs means, they should be the ones having less means per capita. Other peoples and nations shouldn't have to suffer for their lack of foresight or discipline.

 

[PokerGuy]

Believing any of the trash spewed forth by Hansen is laughably stupid. They would have been better off saving a few trees by never printing his complete garbage. He's a political activist with a political agenda.

Of course, the morons and fools will lap it up and take his word as gospel. The high priest Gore will be pleased with the faithful followers

 

[sandorski]

Meanwhile, in the real world, Climate Change continues unabated...

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yet I don't see anyone giving up using the internet and saving the world by reducing their carbon footprint/electrical use.

 

[Matt1970]

And in typical fashion our Government has the answer. Let’s turn organizations that discharge greenhouse gasses into a money making scheme. It won’t make a damn bit of difference but you will now have to pay the government for the right to pollute the air.

 

[MrMuppet]

It won’t make a damn bit of difference but you will now have to pay the government for the right to pollute the air.

It's not even pollution. It's plants' oxygen. The plants grow faster and thrive with more CO2. Indoors greenhouses have something like 3x the natural CO2 levels to offer the best possible environment for the plants (to stimulate growth).

 

[fskimospy]

^ Well, obviously they indeed can ignore it, since if anyone brings it up, the masses will just chant the above.

A study in Science, however, did not ignore solar activity (cycle length in this case):

I vertically flipped the top chart, because I find it easier to compare that way.

Why don't you guys just refute it, instead of spamming appeals to ridicule and fallacies?

They are using this as an excuse to tax me more and take away more of my freedoms (they've even banned the good ole incandescent lightbulb here in the EU, now we have to have tons of mercury in our homes instead and poor lights), so this is an important issue for me that concerns me a lot.

Btw, in Sweden a gallon of gas is roughly 60 SEK or 9 USD. It's almost entirely "geen" taxes.

I like how you linked to climate change on other planets as if that somehow refuted man caused climate change. It's one of the fundamentally dishonest arguments against it as it presumes that scientists believe that mankind is the ONLY mechanism, when of course no one believes that.

I also did enjoy your linking of a nearly 30 year old study that has been widely discredited. Their fundamental conclusion and the reason the study became famous was because it appeared to show a really strong correlation between sun activity and global temperatures. There were just a few problems. First, they included filtered data and unfiltered data in the same plots, which is a big scientific no-no. You can't take two separate sources of information and treat them as the same. Secondly and much more embarrassingly, after updating their work to try and address these issues, their temperature correlations that appeared to work so well going into the 1980s were the result of an arithmetic error.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

 

[cybrsage]

Meanwhile, in the real world, Climate Change continues unabated...

Good. I do not want a glacier in my backyard.

 

[PokerGuy]

Meanwhile, in the real world, Climate Change continues unabated...

Yep, it sure does, just as it always has. :thumbsup:

 

[cybrsage]

LOL. To you, a person living in a massive mansion is actually having less of an environmental impact than 100 people living in an apartment building, because you're basing everything on per-building pollution.

He might be, he might not be. You have, not surprisingly, not included any information which could be used to see which of the two sets has a worse environmental impact.

If the one man causes 10 units of pollution (to make it easy to follow) and the apartment complex causes 100 units of pollution, which of the two is harder on the environment?

It is not a trick question - it is obvious to everyone that more pollution is worse. It does not matter how many people it took to make that pollution - more pollution is worse than less pollution.

 

[MrMuppet]

I like how you linked to climate change on other planets as if that somehow refuted man caused climate change. It's one of the fundamentally dishonest arguments against it as it presumes that scientists believe that mankind is the ONLY mechanism, when of course no one believes that.

I also did enjoy your linking of a nearly 30 year old study that has been widely discredited. Their fundamental conclusion and the reason the study became famous was because it appeared to show a really strong correlation between sun activity and global temperatures. There were just a few problems. First, they included filtered data and unfiltered data in the same plots, which is a big scientific no-no. You can't take two separate sources of information and treat them as the same. Secondly and much more embarrassingly, after updating their work to try and address these issues, their temperature correlations that appeared to work so well going into the 1980s were the result of an arithmetic error.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

Your first paragraph is an attempt at fallacious reversing the burden of proof. The AGW camp has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that GW is antroprogenic. If other planets are experiencing GW too, that proves GW is a naturogenic process and not necessarily anthropogenic. Further, it suggests that GW is to be expected, even without CO2 emissions, and at least not entirely manmade.

Your second paragraph is interesting and is more akin to the proper, intellectually honest way of arguing and how an objection can be addressed. I will take a look at it. But if the entire paper was based on "a big scientific no-no", how did it pass the peer-review process of Science?

 

[cybrsage]

It could have passed peer-review the same way the IPCC report passed it and yet is still chock full of some of the worse science seen in the history of mankind. The IPCC report actually claimed a layman's hiking magazine was an authoritative peer reviewed scientific report.

 

[fskimospy]

Your first paragraph is an attempt at fallacious reversing the burden of proof. The AGW camp has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that GW is antroprogenic. If other planets are experiencing GW too, that proves GW is a naturogenic process and not necessarily anthropogenic. Further, it suggests that GW is to be expected, even without CO2 emissions, and at least not entirely manmade.

It is most certainly not a shift of the burden of proof, it is pointing out your own fallacious reasoning. Temperatures changing on other planets does nothing to refute the arguments for AGW because the arguments for AGW already accept such a concept in their framework. Therefore pointing out such data does not serve the purpose you claimed it did.

Your second paragraph is interesting and is more akin to the proper, intellectually honest way of arguing and how the objection can be treated. I will take a look at it. But if the entire paper was based on "a big scientific no-no", how did it pass the peer-review process of Science?

You will have to take that up with Science, I haven't read into the peer review process for this paper, nor am I aware of any resources available with which to do so. Regardless, anyone familiar with science should be able to understand why including two (or in this case 3!) different types of data and treating them as a single variable is a big problem and should be treated with a high degree of skepticism. As for their arithmetic errors, that's just inexcusable.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

If the topic is too important not to act does it matter if the result of acting is negligible while the costs of acting are enormous and crippling?

Pray tell!

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

This argument is a patently illogical, as it implicitly assumes that if there are natural causes of significant warming, then it's impossible that there are unnatural causes (for example, human behavior) for significant warming. Apply this same reasoning to other effects, and the absurdity of your conclusion is obvious:

Humans have died for at least 100,000 years. Therefore, the atomic bomb cannot kill people.

Women have gotten pregnant naturally for millennia. Therefore, in vitro fertilization cannot possibly be effective.

or even

Cool days have been occurring on earth for at least a few billion years. Therefore, air conditioning cannot lower the temperature.

Careful...youll drag nehalem into this.

 

[fskimospy]

Careful...youll drag nehalem into this.

lol, good one.

 

[cybrsage]

I did laugh.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Temperatures changing on other planets does nothing to refute the arguments for AGW because the arguments for AGW already accept such a concept in their framework.

Current arguments for AGW do not address the potential impact of GCR modulated by solar winds within their framework....this potentially significant external forcing is currently being studied.

 

[PokerGuy]

Current arguments for AGW do not address the potential impact of GCR modulated by solar winds within their framework....this potentially significant external forcing is currently being studied.

Are those solar winds taxable, and can we use them to increase government reach and power? No? Then they are clearly not relevant to the discussion

 

[Smoblikat]

It took a group of NASA scientists to figure out that changes in climate were caused by climate change? Thank god we cut their money.