What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

unbelievable

yup you caught me

[Guillermo]

There is a most interesting Q & A interview to Prof. Phil Jones (remember who he is?) which is being widely commented at the 'realists' blogs.

You can find it here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Although Jones defends himself and the AGW theory, of course, it is most interesting to realize how evasive he is in several of his answers.

I want to highlight from there and comment some of his statements:

Warming trends for several periods:

Period Length (years) Trend (ºC per decade) Significance

1860-1880 --- 21 ---- 0.163 ---- Yes
1910-1940 --- 31 ---- 0.15 ---- Yes
1975-1998 --- 24 ---- 0.166 ---- Yes
1975-2009 --- 35 ---- 0.161 ---- Yes

In his words: "the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other."

Comment: Let's think a little bit about it...mmmm.....mmmm....Holy Cow! How does that match with AGW? (particulalrly if we compare 1860-1880 vs 1975-1998). Boston?


"the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level."

Comment: 0.12ºC, significantly less than the decadal trend for 1975-1998 as we saw upwards, because....

"The trend this time (January 2002 to the present) is negative (-0.12C per decade)" (although he says it's not statistically significant the fact is that it was a cooling period)

Comment: Boston, you insulted and scorned us (agnotologists and the like) when we said there was a cooling from 2002 to 2009. Would you please now say the same to Mr. Jones?


"Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

Comment: he admits the MWP could have been warmer than present. So proponents (and us their supporters) of the MWP being warmer than present were not so stupid and agnotologists after all. Boston?

"It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the (climate) debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view."

Comment: Wow! Look Mr. Obama, this guy seems to be saying science is not settled! Boston: call the Inquisition!


I have a lot of more comments, but I don't want to bother the audience, just entertain it by banging Boston in the head once more time to see if he finally learns something about not calling us agnotologists and the like (as you know this was an old method in schools used with the pigheaded boys. Most of the times it was to no avail )


Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Boston the Scientist Monk learning....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93SgXeu-SeY

[Dave Gudeman]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

"the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level."

Comment: 0.12ºC, significantly less than the decadal trend for 1975-1998 as we saw upwards, because....

"The trend this time (January 2002 to the present) is negative (-0.12C per decade)" (although he says it's not statistically significant the fact is that it was a cooling period)

Actually, you can't say "the fact is that it was a cooling period". If it is not statistically significant, that means that the errors in the measurement are large enough that you can't say with any confidence that there really was a cooling period.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Marco1

You are misquoting me and putting words in my mouth at the same time.

I say that those who join environmental movements and the warmers side of the argument in this thread, do so because of their preconceived view of the world and not because of any after the fact scientific research or conviction.

Their values, acquired early in life, fall in line with attacking progress and development and personal success at the same time and propose going back to the past as a solution. If possible back to the middle ages. Like any other tyrannical movement, their views must be imposed on others for their own good and for the good of the majority. THe GW movement offers this and so they jump on the bandwagon.

Wrong. I happen to be one of those who believe global warming is real, and I believe it's at least partly due to mankind. I don't hate progress, I don't hate other people's personal success, and I don't propose we go back to the past as a solution for GW. The past is what's caused the problem, derrrrr....we need to go forward.

I say there is nothing good about the past and I also say, review your values because they are driving your life without you realising it.

The difference between global warming preachers and the rest, is that GW supporters want to IMPOSE sanctions and taxes that clearly will chastise any form of development and even existing industries as they are now. Most GW supporters know that the science behind it is bogus, yet they still push for it because of all the other "benefits" they see in it. The so called benefits are a mandate to impose social engineering and attacks on personal success the likes Stalin or Castro could only dream about.

Wrong again. No one is trying to destroy development or existing industries. You must be one of the people who claimed that imposing energy saving standards on home appliances was wrong, because (take your pick; one or all of the following): 1. They were unnecessary; free-market competition would do the job. 2. The standards were impossible to meet. 3. Meeting them would drive companies out of business, and/or drive prices up until people couldn't afford them.

What really happened? The standards were met with no muss and no fuss. Appliances became dramatically more energy efficient in a short period of time; more so than they had in years of waiting for market forces to do the job. No one went out of business. And the price of appliances didn't go up enough to notice.

I'll bet you were also one of those who said the government had no business requiring seat belts or air bags, weren't you? I can just imagine you passionately explaining how the research showing they would save lives was skewed, riddled with fraud, incomplete and wrong; that they would kill more people than they saved; that they would contribute to making the price of automobiles prohibitive and drive car companies out of business; and that it was all just a power play by control freaks trying to take our freedoms away from us.

It is important always to know what drives us and denying it outright does not really help. If you like the blue colour there is a reason buried in your subconscious linked to a set of values you have acquired at some stage. That particular value is unlikely to be a handicap ever, since it is universally accepted that colour preferences is a personal choice and will never become a social imposition. There are other values who are as pervasive as the liking of a colour over another but that are so strong to determine our very future.

One of them is the idea that rich and money is wrong and evil, ad that poor is always good and virtuous. The consequences of such negative anti-value is so damaging that most people when confronted about it, tend to deny it vehemently, and try to legitimate it with philosophical decorations.

The fact remains that if someone is convinced that there is something wrong about money, and that it is dirty, and other things should take priority, that is precisely what will happen and lack of money will be the main event in the person life. This would be ok if it remained at personal level but unfortunately what happens is that it goes out as hate towards "those rich bastard who only think about money" and so we get the polarisation we can see in all walks of life.

That's a steaming pile of pseudo-scientific, pseudo-psychological horse apples. Like most people who believe man-made climate change is real, I don't think "rich and money is wrong and evil, and that poor is always good and virtuous." And to insinuate the mere fact that I deny it proves it's true is about on a par with most of the 'thinking' I've seen on this thread by you and your ilk.

This is a complex issue and worth a debate on it's own, yet I bring it up only to show that just as the "anti-value" of money is dirty, the anti-value rich is evil drives those who choose to support the global warming theory only because it suits their preconceived notions and not because they have any insight into the science.

Again, typical of the mindset on this thread. You deny global warming because you're intelligent, informed and rational; anyone who argues with you is obviously doing so only "because it suits their preconceived notions and not because they have any insight."

You remind me of a date I had with a psychology major back in 1971. She was monomaniacally focused on explaining to me the hidden motives behind everything I said and did...and strangely enough, no matter why I thought I was saying or doing things, it was really all simply part of my pathetic attempts to seduce her.

I took about two hours of it. Then I drove her back to her dorm, and told her, "get out of the car. Thank you. Now...explain to me how this is just part of my plan to get into your pants." She was actually starting to do so as I drove away. Incurable.....

Frankly, your post is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. I'm copying and sending it to a couple of my friends; I expect they'll get a good laugh out of it too.

[Guillermo]

More 'disinformation' from Prof. Jones:

Question D:
Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

Answer:
"This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period."

(Note: He did not answer to the Watts/sqm question)


Now let's re-read Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory,
Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria.

http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrom...s_nkj_2009.pdf

"The most significant solar event in the 20th century was the extraordinarily high level and the prolonged (virtually over the entire century) increase in the intensity of the energy radiated by the Sun (Fig. 3). A similar rise in solar radiation has not been observed in at least 700 years."

See attached figure.

More:
"The Earth, after receiving and storing over the twentieth century an anomalously large amount of heat energy, from the 1990's began to return it gradually. The upper layers of the world ocean, completely unexpectedly to climatologists, began to cool in 2003. The heat accumulated by them unfortunately now is running out."

"For several years until the beginning in 2013 of a steady temperature drop, in a phase of instability, temperature will oscillate around the maximum that has been reached, without further substantial rise."

"...we should fear a deep temperature drop, but not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming."

"....the implementation of the Kyoto protocol aimed to rescue the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off at least 150 years."


Bolded are mine.
Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Dave Gudeman

Actually, you can't say "the fact is that it was a cooling period". If it is not statistically significant, that means that the errors in the measurement are large enough that you can't say with any confidence that there really was a cooling period.

I have not said it is statistically significant but that it was a cooling period ( 7 years). And I sustain that.

Your assumption of the meaning of "statistically significant" as "errors are large enough..." is not correct. What it means is that the period is not long enough to be representative of a multidecadal tendency.

Cheers.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Boston the Scientist Monk learning....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93SgXeu-SeY

Muy divertido.
Very funny.

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Frankly, your post is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. I'm copying and sending it to a couple of my friends; I expect they'll get a good laugh out of it too.

Troy, coming from you the above statemet is rater funny.

However, I acknoledge that it is very difficult to find people interested in an open debate about their values. To do so with an open mind is even harder. Too close to home and no chance to blame others for it. Denial is the first line of defence and you are clearly not alone.

As for your date...hehe how interesting and how un-romantic. You should have debated the capacity of the sense of smell to detect the best DNA match for the perpetuation of the species. Now that would have put her in a spin ... priceless.
Piti she was probably correct, just not the right place nor the right time...yet still probably very correct.

[hoytedow]

My mind is closed to AGW simply because AGW is ridiculous. P.S. Phil Jones admitted to the fraud, so what more is there to say. He even tried to keep the Medieval Warming Period out of the records, when it was warmer than it is now, when there was no real developed industryand when the population of the earth by humans was relatively minute by today's standards.

AGW has been debunked. It is a religion whose god has clay feet(mother earth).

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Troy, coming from you the above statemet is rater funny.

However, I acknoledge that it is very difficult to find people interested in an open debate about their values. To do so with an open mind is even harder. Too close to home and no chance to blame others for it. Denial is the first line of defence and you are clearly not alone.

Your first line of defense seems to be to impugn the motives, education, and psychological stability of anyone who would dare disagree with you.

To have an open debate about values, both sides would first have to define their values. You appear to have none, judging by the complete lack of shame in your debating style, and I certainly haven't told you what mine are. For you to unilaterally assign me some that seem to be a mishmash of class hatred, Luddism, and '60's radical socialism, then accuse me of being in denial for pointing out those are not in fact my values, is a poor substitute for debate.

You aren't Dr. Phil, this isn't the Oprah show, and I'm not playing along with your lame attempts at pop psychoanalysis. Sorry....

[Marco1]

Well...I could say that the indication that one has hit the mark is usualy the other side 's strong objection and outrage at the suggestion ... hehe ... You are excused however since most people wouldn't know what their own real values are if they hit them in the face.

[Tug]

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Well...I could say that the indication that one has hit the mark is usualy the other side 's strong objection and outrage at the suggestion ... hehe ... You are excused however since most people whouldn't know what their own real values are if they hit them in the face.

People also simply object to being thrown at, period--no matter how lousy the thrower's aim is, or whether they actually get hit or not.

You'd love to have it both ways, wouldn't you? If anyone protests the bs you're throwing, it's because it hit home...and if they keep silent, it's also because it hit home. Fortunately, in the real world someone saying something doesn't make it true.

But outrage is a strong word for such a minor tempest in a teapot. Shall we just say mildly disgusted by your attempted perfidy, and let it go at that?

[Dave Gudeman]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Wrong. I happen to be one of those who believe global warming is real, and I believe it's at least partly due to mankind. I don't hate progress, I don't hate other people's personal success, and I don't propose we go back to the past as a solution for GW. The past is what's caused the problem, derrrrr....we need to go forward.

I believe you, Troy. I've always maintained that the large mass of support for global-warming alarmism comes from people who just have a normal and healthy respect for the authority of established science. That's why I think the tactic to change your mind is not to attack your motives, but to convince you that in this particular case established science has allowed itself to be taken over by politics and cannot be trusted.

Wrong again. No one is trying to destroy development or existing industries.

However, in this you are wrong. There are people who want to do just that. Some of them are modern nature-worshipers or have other anti-human religious convictions that I suspect would make even you yearn for the warm, human-loving embrace of creationism. Look up "Khmer Rouge" if you don't think that people like this actually exist or actually want to do terrible things to humanity.

One thing that I've noticed about you, Troy, is that you tend to judge things based on associations. You despise AGW skeptics because you associate them with creationists, for example. But what about the association of AGW alarmism with anti-human, eco-terrorist, and communist groups? Shouldn't that, according to your own principles, cause you to be suspicious of it?