Climategate II

...There was a recent study conducted by a "skeptic" that confirmed some degree of warming. But then the noisy press releases about the "skeptic" that was "won over" turned out to be BS.

You're talking about the Muller paper? He was a skeptic, a rather famous one. He was won over. One of his co-authors wasn't. How does that equate to "BS"?

The whole point I've gathered from this thread is that AGW alarmists scream worst case scenario without stating that such a scenario is a low probability event. In other words, they are misleading the public on the true nature of the situation. That reduces their credibility. Add to that the fact that they support commie goals for dealing with the situation and the politics become toxic. It makes AGW into a political issue rather than a scientific one.

The whole point I've gathered from this thread is that AGW alarmists scream worst case scenario without stating that such a scenario is a low probability event. In other words, they are misleading the public on the true nature of the situation. That reduces their credibility. Add to that the fact that they support commie goals for dealing with the situation and the politics become toxic. It makes AGW into a political issue rather than a scientific one.

An honest inquiry would include a clear link to the complete exchange for every highlighted quote. I'll wait for that to come out before passing judgment - without context, it's just quote mining.

No doubt there's probably some dishonesty and incompetence on the side of these scientists. All indications and data so far, though, show that the dishonesty and incompetence of AGW "critics" is 100 times as bad, so giving the critics anything less than 100 times the criticism given those writing the bulk of actual peer-reviewed papers is nothing less than completely dishonest.

For example, we have one "skeptic" on this thread who has stated, in the past, something as fundamental the measurements of CO2 increases in the atmosphere is a fabricated lie. How can that kind of "criticism" possibly be taken seriously by anyone with a triple-digit IQ, and why isn't that silly accusation hopped on with 100 times the zealotry of any misconduct by those who actually research AGW? Outright dishonesty, of course.

The degree of dishonesty needs to be taken to the power of pretenses importance, to arrive at a viable evaluation parameter. Dishonestly claiming something totally irrelevant and unimportant [say, that no more than three angels could simultaneously dance on a tip of a needle, and basing such claim on the trinity doctrine] is not that big a deal. Because of the zero importance power, dishonesty taken to the zeroth power does not amount to much. But when the sweep of the pretenses is overwhelming [redistributive rearrangement of the whole world economy, nothing less], even minuscule dishonesty, taken to such overwhelming power, becomes exceedingly large.

The whole point I've gathered from this thread is that AGW alarmists scream worst case scenario without stating that such a scenario is a low probability event. In other words, they are misleading the public on the true nature of the situation. That reduces their credibility. Add to that the fact that they support commie goals for dealing with the situation and the politics become toxic. It makes AGW into a political issue rather than a scientific one.

The IPCC reports actually tend to understate the dangers if anything. The way that they are created leads to only the dangers that nearly everyone agrees on being included. The estimates for the equilibrium temperatures appear to be very close to the true values. But the consequences of the temperature rise mostly seem to be worse than expected or at least will happen more quickly.

In particular it looks like sea level rise will be quicker than expected. And there are strong indications that the frequency of extreme weather events will increase more rapidly than expected. The Actic Ice Cap is going more quickly than expected. This will lead to albedo feedbacks leading to more rapid than expected temperature rises. As well you do not see much mention of the very nasty scenarios associated with massive methane release. The odds are against them happening but if they do it will be utterly disastrous. Also not that some dangerous possibilities that were raised were investigated and found to be unlikely and this was publicized. An example of that was the possible stopping of the Thermo-HHaline Circulation in the North Atlantic. This is now seen as unlikely.

So, some more cherry picked out of context emails. Does anyone here actually think that someone determined to make them look bad couldn't do so if they got hold of their emails this way?

The quickest way to counter this would be to release all the relevant emails and data, wouldn't it? That way supporters of AGW could simply point out where their opponents "cherry picked" the data. That isn't happening, though, which leads folks like me to draw certain conclusions about the veracity of the AGW crowd.

The only thing that matters is what the reality is, what can be proven. One thing the emails reveal is that the alarmists and exaggeration artists have been acting in coordinated fashion to "shape the narrative." That's something that isn't necessary if you actually have reality on your side.

Because, by, oh, 1966, no shaping of the narrative was necessary to convince people that smoking was addictive and deadly.

Oh. Wait.

What shaping of the narrative. The data linking smoking with a number of lung diseases wasn't cherry picked to provide a government-approved solution. What we're seeing in AGW is an attempt to hide or obscure data in the service of a specific political movement.

If the AGW guys don't want this controversy, they could just release their data and their analyses so others could double-check their findings (peer-review, anyone?). The fact that they are conspiring to not do that speaks volumes to people who are already leery of the entire claim.

...Because, by, oh, 1966, no shaping of the narrative was necessary to convince people that smoking was addictive and deadly.

Oh. Wait.

What shaping of the narrative. The data linking smoking with a number of lung diseases wasn't cherry picked to provide a government-approved solution. What we're seeing in AGW is an attempt to hide or obscure data in the service of a specific political movement...

That is precisely what the tobacco companies, and their paid cronies, were insisting.

Back to AGW: the only reason only one political movement's "solutions" are being heard is because the other main political movement is too fucking busy denying that there even is a problem to be addressed.

I doubt that's going to work out well.

Back to AGW: the only reason only one political movement's "solutions" are being heard is because the other main political movement is too fucking busy denying that there even is a problem to be addressed.

Can you honestly claim that a sensitivity of 2.4˚ (and most of that only at the highest latitudes) is that big of a deal? The truth is that it would be hardly detectable.

Back to AGW: the only reason only one political movement's "solutions" are being heard is because the other main political movement is too fucking busy denying that there even is a problem to be addressed.

Well, all they have to do is provide the data and the processes so others can replicate their findings. The fact they're not, and the fact that there is evidence they're colluding to hide that data and those processes indicate there may be something wrong with their conclusions, wouldn't you think? Or, are you so bought into the AGW argument you cannot see this?

I believe there may be warming going on, but I think it has more to do with coming out of a geologically-recent ice age, rather than anything man might be doing. The insistence, in the face of actual evidence, that mankind is to blame is, in my opinion, a position championed by those who wish to have more control over other peoples' lives. And the obvious attempt to hide data from the general public does nothing to alleviate that opinion.

And you're not doing any better, what with your championing the under-handed actions of the AGW advocates without question (and yes, I have yet to hear you question those actions). You are about as knee-jerk a statist as I have ever seen post on these forums. Gods forbid your fellow travellers might possibly be wrong.

In particular it looks like sea level rise will be quicker than expected. And there are strong indications that the frequency of extreme weather events will increase more rapidly than expected. The Actic Ice Cap is going more quickly than expected.

No the rate of sea level rise is falling. "Extreme weather Events"? Obviously you are talking about something other than the "Climate" as promulgated by IPCC and your claim is false anyway. And you are wrong about the Arctic Cap going more quickly than expected.

Could you possibly be anymore wrong?

What do you think about the latest sensitivity estimate of 2.4˚ That is less than a third of some of the original sensitivity estimates and much less than the current "consensus" of 3˚.

What are you alarmists going to do when the sensitivity drops so low that you don't have a cause? Directly supporting population controls?

Back to AGW: the only reason only one political movement's "solutions" are being heard is because the other main political movement is too fucking busy denying that there even is a problem to be addressed.

Can you honestly claim that a sensitivity of 2.4˚ (and most of that only at the highest latitudes) is that big of a deal? The truth is that it would be hardly detectable.

Whether the sensitivity is 2.4° or 4°, the degree of dislocation is dependent on just how much more CO2 gets pumped into the atmosphere, yes? And we are already off the worst case edge for that projection just since the worst case estimate was put together a half-decade ago.

Well, all they have to do is provide the data and the processes so others can replicate their findings. The fact they're not, and the fact that there is evidence they're colluding to hide that data and those processes indicate there may be something wrong with their conclusions, wouldn't you think? Or, are you so bought into the AGW argument you cannot see this?...

When even pronounced skeptics (like Muller, who made that argument a couple years ago) do their own studies and confirm, oops, they're right, that argument starts to lose a bit of its oomph, doesn't it?

There are many, many peer reviewed, published papers on these models and their effects. If all the skeptics have is sifting through peoples' e-mail looking for "gotcha" quotes, I am, in fact, pretty damned sure they don't have a valid case to make.

And you're not doing any better, what with your championing the under-handed actions of the AGW advocates without question (and yes, I have yet to hear you question those actions). You are about as knee-jerk a statist as I have ever seen post on these forums. Gods forbid your fellow travellers might possibly be wrong.

This is where you go off the rails. I do not argue for Kyoto, or a successor, or cap & trade. I think they'd all be very bad ideas.

Seeking some ways to generate all the power we need without endlessly dumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere? That would be a good idea. Some suggestions: partner with China and India to develop a thorium fission cycle. That would eliminate both the proliferation and meltdown risks associated with fission today, and allow cheap, plentiful energy. Double down on research into fusion, even though it hasn't been successful to date. Review the government created incentives that exist and either eliminate them or ensure that they don't tilt towards coal and other dirty tech.

OTOH, is the problem real? Yes, and anybody who sides with Rick Perry, Rush Limbaugh, and the "hoaxists" is either dishonest or stupid. Probably both.

In particular it looks like sea level rise will be quicker than expected. And there are strong indications that the frequency of extreme weather events will increase more rapidly than expected. The Actic Ice Cap is going more quickly than expected.

No the rate of sea level rise is falling...

Cite?

Can you honestly claim that a sensitivity of 2.4˚ (and most of that only at the highest latitudes) is that big of a deal? The truth is that it would be hardly detectable.

Whether the sensitivity is 2.4° or 4°, the degree of dislocation is dependent on just how much more CO2 gets pumped into the atmosphere, yes?

What do you mean by the degree of dislocation?

And we are already off the worst case edge for that projection just since the worst case estimate was put together a half-decade ago.

No we are pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than the worst case estimate and the temperature is currently not climbing, contrary to all of the predictions of the alarmists.

In particular it looks like sea level rise will be quicker than expected. And there are strong indications that the frequency of extreme weather events will increase more rapidly than expected. The Actic Ice Cap is going more quickly than expected.

No the rate of sea level rise is falling...

Cite?

Yes I certainly can provide a cite, but I am waiting for JustCurious to either back off of his claim or try to justify it.

If he tries to claim that the last 10 years are too short of a time frame to show a flattening of the trend then that falsifies JustCurious's claim. He is the one who has to show an accelerating rise in sea level.

... the dishonesty and incompetence of AGW "critics" is 100 times as bad ...

Ah, a quantitative assertion. (Care to show us the data and calculation of how you got that number, "100"?)

I see a rough parity (so rough I wouldn't dare to try to quantify it) between the unknowledgeable "deniers" and the unknowledgeable "believers." Neither of those groups makes much difference; both groups consist of people who came to their "beliefs" about climate from approaches other than scientific, and typically political. Jumbling them up with the people who actually do know what they're talking about is either a failure to successfully discriminate between different groups, or a deliberate attempt to lump together dissimilar groups.

Besides, it is only the alarmists (and the unknowledgeable believers who follow them) who are insisting that the entire world economy be collapsed to "save us" from the catastrophe they imagine. Nobody on the other side, whether knowledgeable critic or unknowledgeable denier, is bothering anybody else with such destructive nonsense. The onus is entirely on the alarmists to prove the claims they have made. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and should expect to receive extraordinary scrutiny. Claiming that we need to radically alter, for the worse, the entire world economy is an extraordinary claim.

At this point, it's inevitable that the investigations will be crowdsourced, whenever all the information comes out. False claims and their claimants will eventually be relegated to the usual kook fringes of the Internet. As the years roll by, reality will happen, the data will continue to flow in, and we can compare it to the breathless predictions of the alarmists, if there's still even any point in bothering. Some people are doing that already.

It might be useful at some point, although I doubt we'll ever see it, for the actual climate-scare victims to bring lawsuits against the climate-scare perpetrators. For instance, if you suffered economically because your government was so gullible that they agreed to the Kyoto Protocol (and actually followed through with their promises under it, which the more clueful signatory countries did not), you ought to be able to recover damages for the harm you suffered.

In a just world, both the lawmakers and the climatologists testifying before them would have to carry liability insurance for malpractice to cover such damages, just as, say, medical doctors and lawyers do now for their practices, sufficient so that the victims can be made whole (if they are still alive).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 150827.htm

The closest match, with a much lower degree of uncertainty than most other studies, suggests climate sensitivity is about 2.4 degrees...

"When we first looked at the paleoclimatic data, I was struck by the small cooling of the ocean," Schmittner said. "On average, the ocean was only about two degrees (Celsius) cooler than it is today, yet the planet was completely different -- huge ice sheets over North America and northern Europe, more sea ice and snow, different vegetation, lower sea levels and more dust in the air.

"It shows that even very small changes in the ocean's surface temperature can have an enormous impact elsewhere, particularly over land areas at mid- to high-latitudes," he added.

Schmittner said continued unabated fossil fuel use could lead to similar warming of the sea surface as reconstruction shows happened between the Last Glacial Maximum and today.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 150827.htm

Indeed.

The closest match, with a much lower degree of uncertainty than most other studies, suggests climate sensitivity is about 2.4 degrees...

"When we first looked at the paleoclimatic data, I was struck by the small cooling of the ocean," Schmittner said. "On average, the ocean was only about two degrees (Celsius) cooler than it is today, yet the planet was completely different -- huge ice sheets over North America and northern Europe, more sea ice and snow, different vegetation, lower sea levels and more dust in the air.

"It shows that even very small changes in the ocean's surface temperature can have an enormous impact elsewhere, particularly over land areas at mid- to high-latitudes," he added.

Schmittner said continued unabated fossil fuel use could lead to similar warming of the sea surface as reconstruction shows happened between the Last Glacial Maximum and today.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 150827.htm

Indeed.

A new study suggests that the rate of global warming from doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be less than the most dire estimates of some previous studies -- and, in fact, may be less severe than projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007.

Yes indeed

A new study suggests that the rate of global warming from doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be less than the most dire estimates of some previous studies -- and, in fact, may be less severe than projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007.

Yes indeed

This quote unequivocally states global warming is occurring. I'm glad you've come around to acknowledge and agree with it.

A new study suggests that the rate of global warming from doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be less than the most dire estimates of some previous studies -- and, in fact, may be less severe than projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007.

Yes indeed

This quote unequivocally states global warming is occurring. I'm glad you've come around to acknowledge and agree with it.

The article also says (indeed, it is the main thrust of the article) that GW is neither as severe or as rapid as speculated by studies. No one here has said GW isn't occurring, the debate is about AGW. It seems to me there is no need for a mad rush off the cliff with half baked economy destroying ideas when the "crisis" may not be as severe as predicted.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111124150827.htm

This is right in line with what I've predicted on several of these threads: It will probably take several more cycles of the IPCC Assessment Reports for them to slowly "walk back" the higher claims of sensitivity until they finally get down to something close to reality. (I.e., for them to climb down from their panic state.) They'll drag it out for decades if they can. This is only the beginning.

Of course they'll put it down to "more data" and "we now know so much more" and "the science keeps changing" and so on. All trivially true. And none of which will change the fact that they were wrong back when they were insisting that they were right, and that they were mocking and ridiculing and abusing those who had both the understanding and the courage to point out that they were wrong back when they were wrong but kept insisting that they were right.

Once they've climbed down to admitting to more reasonable levels of sensitivity to CO₂, other things will also fall into place, namely, they'll have to face the redistribution of attribution of historical records of various warmings and coolings to other causal factors. That'll be fun to watch.

Statements past: "We know for sure that CO₂ levels explain this warming and nothing else can possibly explain it."

{Eventually, slowly, over decades, they grudgingly admit to lower level of sensitivity to CO₂ levels.}

Statements future: "We're still right! We've always been right! We always will be right! No matter what we say! We're always right, whatever we say, whenever we say it! Because what we say, when we say it, is always the Current Truth! And don't you dare ever say we're wrong! Because the Truth is always changing! So we can never be wrong!"



I wonder if some of them will ever get around to wondering how some of us could tell they were overstating the sensitivity years ago? Naaahhh...

...The article also says (indeed, it is the main thrust of the article) that GW is neither as severe or as rapid as speculated by studies. No one here has said GW isn't occurring, the debate is about AGW. It seems to me there is no need for a mad rush off the cliff with half baked economy destroying ideas when the "crisis" may not be as severe as predicted.

It basically claims that the sensitivity is at the lowball of the current mainstream estimates, 2.4°C per doubling. It also points out that such sensitivity may result in as much change as has been seen from the last glacial maximum to the present day over the next couple hundred years.

That's pretty much in line with my take away on the other stuff I've read. That the climate change alarmists' suggestions for dealing with it are insane does not mean it is not going to be a seriously non-trivial problem. You are looking at sizeable dislocations of coastal communities, inundations of some island nations and, less certainly, aridification of large swaths of the tropics and sub-tropics.

How one concludes, "aw, hell, let's just keep on. It's all good" is a mystery to me.

"It shows that even very small changes in the ocean's surface temperature can have an enormous impact elsewhere, particularly over land areas at mid- to high-latitudes," he added.

Indeed.

Does no one consider to interpret this contention in the opposite direction? That enormous changes in land area albedo, snow accumulation, and perhaps even vegetation coverage may have very little effect on ocean temperatures and circulation?

Troll.