It's been a bad week for deniers

I agree with above to some degree. I have Muller's book Physics for Presidents. I do not find his new statements to be a total reversal. In the past he simply said we have to study the data honestly and thoroughly, and avoid jumping to conclusions. I appreciate his new position though, it is a contribution to mankind to jump into the fray to right the ship after the "hide the decline" fiasco.

 

Since all the data is easily available, does not switch data sets or time, I would hardly call this hide the decline type "trick". I don't think you can ever satisfy all arguments of all people reading a paper, so it is appropriate to publish then get feedback. She is co author on the papers so she is in a position to modify them based on this feedback. Curry is entirely off base here with these critism.

As to the urban heat island affect not entirely being removed from global temperatures there may still be a point. We will have to wait for peer review on that one. One legitimate point for Curry here in my mind.

There are all sorts of legitimate and illegitimate statistical ways to show data. This graph is about global temperatures for climate in the last 200 years. The easiest, least biased way, to show this data is to stretch out the temperature (y-axis) to show the data and compress the time to allow people to look. Other methods are also available.

Everyone agrees that data needs to be smoothed in climate data. To show climate variability 1-3 years is appropriate. But these papers are looking for climate change a process that lasts 30 year periods. I prefer 11 years for the solar cycle, but 10 years is entirely legitimate. This does not show what is happening in the last 5 years, but we really don't know as pertains to climate change. This data only shows climate variability. MBH 99 switched scales and started with 10 year smoothing then jumped to shorter smoothing and jumped to add the individual high year 1998. This exaggerated the affect of climate variability. Curry is arguing that the data should be manipulated to show more flattening the way jones and mann manipulated data to show more warming. I do not like this misleading type of analysis.

 

As usual some substantive issues about BEST are raised at Curry's Climate etc. site. Along with the usual noise (which we can set aside)

What surprises me (although perhaps it should not) is that people are very willing to look for problems in the BEST analysis, though apparently not interested at all in doing it better themselves. Unprocessed surface temperature data are widely available. Computer power is not a limitation. Is the topic interesting, or not?

Mojo has introduced us to the very interesting goecraft web site, which also refers to the Scotese paleo maps. Both are highly deserving of your attention. And, if you get very interested in the topic of plant stomates as recorders of past atmospheric CO2, start by reading the literature that 'geocraft' cites. Then read the others, and the newer ones as well. the current state of or understanding is not quite as summarized at geocraft.

At the very least, you will find out that atmospheric oxygen and CO2 came to be (about) as they are today from 350 to 320 million years ago. That was a unique, enormous mismatch between photosynthesis and decomposition. It led to burial of most of the coal there is, and resulted in an atmosphere that suits us pretty well.

The extreme of burning as much fossil fuels as we might possibly, is effectively an effort to undue that. It also provides much-needed energy to civilization, and mountains of profit to energy companies. Without passing any judgment on the latter two, I always encourage people to reflect upon the first.

 

I might proffer the opinion tht while providing much needed energy for civilization, one could also argue that that civilization waste huge amounts of that energy, AND, the human population of ~7 billion is not sustainable,, energy wise, or else wise.

Icarus

 

So, the guy who was/is a pillar of denialism, who was paid by oil industry and David and Charles Koch to prove AGW-gate but found otherwise no evidence, is a wacko? where does it put you, mojo?

 

Icarus, you may have seen the McKinsey CO2 abatement cost curves that I linked to here previously (gray literature). The reductions with negative costs are almost all from increased energy efficiency, in different fields.

So, as you suggest, energy waste is something that we might be addressing more aggressively. Front-end costs and long-term savings.

One might imagine long-term sustainability with 7 B or 9 billion people. It would require I think some large investments at least, and perhaps some new technologies as well. Our entry into the 21st century thus far does lead to much optimism with that, but there is always the chance that we might wise up. Or get lucky with future climates.

Natty dreads there, cyclo.

 

efficiency is a loaded term but yes, if you come to think there isn't any other way. And it is not necessarily front-end costs vs long term savings as in many cases it is actually no extra cost or cheaper to build something more efficient.

Not to start whole urban vs suburban, but if you take into consideration infrastructure costs it is cheaper in many cases to build higher density communities.

Same thing with higher efficiency appliances, water heaters, light bulbs, etc they are not inherently more expensive when build in large volumes, and as they are wear and tear items there would be no additional replacement costs.

what can I say? I love da man!

 

Hello. Nothing much has changed. For years...except the weather - which is always changing (and the climate as well.)

This week is no different.

There are rhe alarmist warmists and their zealous religious followers. Then there are the true scientists who watch them in amazement. These are the realists who are jeered as 'deniers'.

A Considered Critique of Berkeley Temperature Series | Watts Up With That?

And yes, I know this is posted on a site run by a retired meteorologist.

Jeff Id's closing thought:

Prayer to the AGW gods.

All that said, I don’t believe that warming is undetectable or that temperatures haven’t risen this century. I believe that CO2 helps warming along as the most basic physics proves. My objection has always been to the magnitude caused by man, the danger and the literally crazy “solutions”. Despite all of that, this temperature series is statistically speaking, the least impressive on the market. Hopefully, the group will address my confidence interval critiques, McIntyre’s very valid breakpoint detection issues and a more in depth UHI study.
Holding of breath is not advised.

 

"There are rhe alarmist warmists and their zealous religious followers"

Yes you are entitled to this opinion. Others may want to read

Ensuring America's Freedom of Movement: A National Security Imperative to Reduce U.S. Oil Dependence | CNA

and the earlier CNA report referenced on the same page (National security and the threat of climate change). After having read them, form your opinions about wackos, zealots, and so forth.

But watch your step because it was retired high-ranking military officers who wrote the CNA reports. So far, they might only have uforya in their gunsights.

 

No matter how wrong it is!

 

The authors of this report accept the IPCC's overblown claims of increasingly dangerous weather, spread of disease, etc., etc., as a given (as well as most here).

...FINDINGS

Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America’s national security. The predicted effects of climate change over the coming decades include extreme weather events, drought, flooding, sea level rise, retreating glaciers, habitat shifts, and the increased spread of life-threatening diseases. These conditions have the potential to disrupt our way of life and to force changes...


All the purported well-reasoned assertions of this group are based on false assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out. They are not scientists studying the climate.

The U.S. has enormous energy capabilities, if only the enviro-zealots would allow their development and use.

 

Let me give you a piece of friendly advice Ufour,, You are out of your depth arguing science, scientific method, scientific conclusion with the likes of Chogan, Tochatihu, cylclo, and even Austin Green (who would probably agree with your opinion).

These people actually know and practice scientific methods, argue their cases cogently, and are willing to have a degree of healthy skepticism. Unfortunately for you, citing links from places like "watts up with that" does not cut it in the kind of discussion that goes on here.

Sorry,

Icarus

PS. See below,, I might add that "Climate Audit" and it's founder Steve McIntyre also falls short, in a scientific converesation..

 

Steve McIntyre comments on BEST:

Closing Thoughts on BEST « Climate Audit

I see nothing that indicates a bad week for skeptics.

 

Oh, Mr. Ickes, Thou Great Arbiter, thanks for setting me straight. I am so humbled. Forgive me for the intrusion.

I had no idea of the power you posses, having shown no indication thereof in any of your previous posts. I must have missed your coronation.

Sorry. I'll refrain from any further 'converesation'. Once again, so sorry to intrude on your territory.

 

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

George Washington

 

U4,

You are certainly welcome to participate, and opine anyway you wish. I am merely pointing out that you are out of your depth debating those with much more connection to real science.

That is all,

Icarus

PS You do reenforce my notion by citing lame links to TV weather men and industry funded pundits posing as experts. The above cited posters know much of the source material, and know their citations.

 

This is a privately owned forum, which means all of us participate at the pleasure of the owner. In other words, there is no right to free speech in these threads. The moderators are amazingly tolerant, but I would advise everyone to stay away from personal attacks.

Tom

 

Since I was called out, I guess I should mention those things that I believe about the thread.

I believe ofourya has the right to his opinion.
I do agree with him that it is unlikely climate change threatens america's national security, but others may define national security differently than me.

I find good evidence on a number of things.

The earth has been warming in recent time. The records on ghg are also accurate, as is the physics, so there is anthropological component to global warming. This is causing the sea levles to rise and the artic ice mass to melt.
Note McIntyre in his climate audit seems to agree with all of this but has problems with the accuracy of the temperature record
I find compelling evidence that the temperature record in GISS, NCDC, and B.E.S.T are fairly accurate.

The US does have enormous energy capabilities. The main energy that the united states imports is oil, and given the lack of easy to get to reserves, government encouragement for demestic oil will still leave the US dependant. Energy independance can only be done by reducing oil consumption, substituting other energy sources for oil, or some technological breakthrough in unconventional reserves. enviro-zealots don't really have anything to do with this lack of domestic oil capability.

I do not find compelling evidence that gw increases the probability of
Earthquakes, tornados, or huricanes.

 

Is wilful ignorance a right?

 

just so you can see what real willful ignorance is.