Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 19821 - 19840 of total 20264 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 1, 2015 - 07:23am PT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/19/cold-weather-winter_n_6713104.html?cps=gravity_2845_-980849388569303515
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Mar 1, 2015 - 07:30am PT
Or you could listen to the senator with the snowball
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 1, 2015 - 10:45am PT
Did you or anyone else ever produce any hard numbers on denier funding?

I posted hard numbers on the Heartland Institute (obtained through leaks), why do you ignore those?


There have also been various posts detailing why it's difficult to obtain actual numbers on the dark money spent to counter the scientific findings. But again, you are ignoring those posts.
Craig Fry

Trad climber
So Cal.
Mar 1, 2015 - 11:19am PT
If you claim your group is a "non-profit", you don't have to disclose your donors

So you can funnel all the dark money you want through any of the 100s of right wing non-profit groups with zero accountablity
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Mar 1, 2015 - 11:53am PT
I posted hard numbers on the Heartland Institute (obtained through leaks), why do you ignore those?

My questions (back a few weeks) was about how much money is spent funding denier efforts?

Not total budgets for groups that support skeptics!

Funding specifically for denier efforts?

Total annual dollars spent denying global warming.

There have also been various posts detailing why it's difficult to obtain actual numbers on the dark money spent to counter the scientific findings. But again, you are ignoring those posts.

Lame excuses.

I'm not asking about the sources. I'm asking about dollars spent "denying AGW".
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Mar 1, 2015 - 12:22pm PT
Upthread, Ed summarized a new paper in Science, which got instantly brushed away with a declaration that "some of the authors are discredited." Some of the authors, Michael Mann in particular, have certainly been vilified by political writers, but that's not the same thing as discrediting their science. This all started with the pioneering Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions published in Nature (1998)
"Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries"
and Geophysical Research Letters (1999):
"Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations"

The MBH hemisphere-scale reconstruction (links above go to the actual papers) has been superceded by newer hemispheric, global and regional work from many different teams (and also newer work by these authors). Here, from Wikipedia, is a spaghetti graph putting some of them together:



The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:

(dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471. doi:10.1191/095968398667194956

(blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762.

(light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277. doi:10.1126/science.289.5477.270

(lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941.

(light turquoise 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253. doi:10.1126/science.1066208.

(green 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.

(yellow 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143

(orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781

(red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". nature 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265

(dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046

(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the w:Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] was used.

BTW one glaring clue that the scientists aren't discredited, obvious to anyone but a conspiracist, is that they are publishing new work in Science, the leading interdisciplinary journal and flagship of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (~110,000 members). There are many other clues but I'll leave it at that.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Mar 1, 2015 - 01:02pm PT
I think that another point to make is all the energy some people have put into discrediting Mann and the scientific evidence of the great anomaly of the 20th century surface temperature compared to the recent past.

The scientific response is to reproduce the results, independently, which is indicated in the plot Chiloe posted. Those skeptical of the results should feel free to cite any other scientific studies, we can look at the arguments and compare them to the body of literature on the topic (it's not just Mann's 1998 work).

However, rick offered up a rather vague objection, without any citations (because he has none) challenging the "credibility" of Mann. Mann's credibility, in science circles, has to do with the fact that other scientists have found the same things he has.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Mar 1, 2015 - 01:06pm PT
For another view of current paleoclimate reconstructions this graph from the PAGES 2k synthesis highlights continental-scale variation.



Thirty-year mean temperatures for the seven PAGES 2k continental-scale regions arranged vertically from north to south. Colors indicate the relative temperature. The most prominent feature of nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is the long-term cooling, which ended late in the19th century. North America includes a shorter tree-ring-based and a longer pollen-based reconstruction. Modified from: PAGES 2k Consortium, 2013, Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia, Nature Geoscience, DOI:10.1038/NGEO1797.

Primary conclusions:

(1) The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the 19th century.

 The regional rate of cooling varied between about 0.1 and 0.3°C per 1000 years.

 A preliminary analysis using a climate model indicates that the overall cooling was caused by a combination of decreased solar irradiance and increased volcanic activity, as well as changes in land cover and slow changes in the Earth’s orbit. The simulations show that the relative importance of each factor differs between regions.

(2) Temperatures did not fluctuate uniformly among all regions at multi-decadal to centennial scales. For example, there were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.

 The period from around 830 to 1100 CE generally encompassed a sustained warm interval in all four Northern Hemisphere regions. In contrast, in South America and Australasia, a sustained warm period occurred later, from around 1160 to 1370 CE.

 The transition to colder regional climates between 1200 and 1500 CE is evident earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere.

 By around 1580 CE all regions except Antarctica entered a protracted, multi-centennial cold period, which prevailed until late in the 19th century.

 Cooler 30-year periods between the years 830 and 1910 CE were particularly pronounced during times of weak solar activity and strong tropical volcanic eruptions. Both phenomena often occurred simultaneously. This demonstrates how temperature changes over large regions are related to changes in climate-forcing mechanisms. Future climate can be expected to respond to such forcings in similar ways.

(3) The 20th century ranked as the warmest or nearly the warmest century in all regions except Antarctica. During the last 30-year period in the reconstructions (1971-2000 CE), the average reconstructed temperature among all of the regions was likely higher than anytime in nearly 1400 years. However, some regions experienced 30-year intervals that were warmer than 1971-2000. In Europe, for example, the average temperature between 21 and 80 CE was warmer than during 1971-2000.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 1, 2015 - 05:20pm PT
Lame excuses.

It's lame to say something is lame without explaining why it's lame, don't you think?

EdwardT, how do you expect anybody to give a hard number on money spent contradicting AGW, considering a lot of the money spend on denying climate science is dark money. Please elaborate how you would go about researching this amount.
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Mar 1, 2015 - 05:34pm PT
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/27/surprise-co2-directly-linked-to-global-warming/
TLP

climber
Mar 1, 2015 - 06:29pm PT
Forbes, isn't that one of those radically left wing socialist one world mouthpiece sources? Naturally they'd accept the CO2-contributes-to-warming hypothesis.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Mar 1, 2015 - 06:33pm PT
they were referring to this paper:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010


D. R. Feldman, W. D. Collins, P. J. Gero, M. S. Torn, E. J. Mlawer & T. R. Shippert

The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing1, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m^−2 (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m^−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m^−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m^−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m^−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5, 6, 7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Mar 1, 2015 - 08:44pm PT
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming

It makes no difference how much more CO2 is added because the tiny sliver
of spectrum that it blocks -energy escaping to space- is already
blocked. Always has been. $urprised?



Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Mar 1, 2015 - 09:58pm PT
dave729... not surprised that you are willing to repeat something that is scientifically wrong (which you just did)... after all, you are anonymous and are not personally accountable for acting the fool
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 1, 2015 - 10:41pm PT
I see one big problem with that study Eddie is highligting. Where did that .2 wm2 increase go in Alaska? It didn't translate into heat at the surface since 19 out of 20 first order weather stations showed an average decrease of temps during that very same period of 2.8f. Was it all sequestered in ice or was it radiated to space ?
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Mar 2, 2015 - 11:29am PT
I see one big problem with that study Eddie is highligting. Where did that .2 wm2 increase go in Alaska? It didn't translate into heat at the surface since 19 out of 20 first order weather stations showed an average decrease of temps during that very same period of 2.8f. Was it all sequestered in ice or was it radiated to space ?

That is a puzzle, since the air, water and snow over each square meter of ground in Alaska never move from that spot.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Mar 2, 2015 - 11:35am PT
Some pages back I cited an interesting new study about "An extreme event of sea-level rise along the Northeast coast of North America in 2009–2010," amounting to 128mm in a 2-year period -- unprecedented in the history of tide gauge records.

The global pace of change is much slower, of course. University of Colorado's Sea Level Research Group recently updated their index through the end of 2014, so it now looks like this:

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 2, 2015 - 11:49am PT
No Chiloe, it's no puzzle. Either the temp data or the studies conclusion of a .2wm2 increase is in error. Since the entire field of AGW is infested with incompetents busily slopping from the funding trough it's easy to determine where the error lies. Until such time as the crew gets busy altering the temp data the study is falsified by direct observation.

Now where have you, Chiloe, gotten your funding over the years? I think its a relevant question given your position on this contentious subject.
son of stan

Boulder climber
San Jose CA
Mar 2, 2015 - 12:19pm PT
I'll risk embarrassing some with more facts. The last interglacial
was warmer than our present one. Forests grew much further north.
Hippopotamus frolicked in the rivers Rhine and Thames.
Sea level at peak was 4 to 6m (13 to 20 feet) higher than today.
Only 120,000 yrs ago.
Those were good old days for sure.



Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Mar 2, 2015 - 12:26pm PT
Melting Away: A Decade of Arctic and Antarctic Photography by Camille Seaman

http://www.amazon.com/Melting-Away-Ten-Year-Journey-Endangered/dp/1616892609
http://petapixel.com/2014/11/12/melting-away-decade-arctic-antarctic-photography-camille-seaman/
http://www.camilleseaman.com/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/polar-ice-loss-painful-to-see-for-photographer-camille-seaman-1.2975974

Messages 19821 - 19840 of total 20264 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews