Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 26781 - 26800 of total 27324 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
RFLMAO here on the Taco
Feb 5, 2015 - 10:09pm PT
Let's see you refute his numbers KMAN.

But of course you can't so instead out comes the sly personal attacks and ongoing degradation.

Right on cue. So predictable and consistent.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Feb 5, 2015 - 10:47pm PT
>>>>There is plenty of info on denier funding and alot that is hidden

>Edwardt did up thread earlier today.

"The US government spends over 21 billion dollars each year on climate change expenditures.
EdwardT"

Did you know that half of that "funding" is just tax deductions? Which is better for the future: $10 billion in climate research or $50 billion for Sandy flooding to rebuild near the shore or $3 trillion dumped on wars in the Mideast? Or the cumulative $300 billion in tax breaks given to fossil fuel diggers? Or the yearly $100-200 billion subsidy of external costs of burning fossil fuels?
How can you possibly compare basic research to pure lobbyist payoffs to
Congress? One is science, one is anti-science.

"Today, I pointed out failed predictions."

That is as amusing as any of the blustering BS normally chuffed out by the chef denier. Are you his alter ego? Have you not heard in your "faux and imbalanced" sourcing any of the numerous predictions that are quite accurate?
Wake up and smell the fumes of combustion. Many former deniers have already admitted they were wrong, at least the ones with some brainpower. Are you no smarter than the chief permanent 5 year old?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Feb 5, 2015 - 11:25pm PT
Of course Phule, Chiloe's publications are readily available for all to see. I was rather keen for him to present it and his funding sources on his own. It seems he's a veritable one man army of AGW and environmental issues publications. Takes quite a bit of coin to finance such industry. Hell, I think it would be fair to surmise that his grant machine has seen over a generation of his grad students minted with Masters and PHD's, as well plenty of loose coin left over. Would be interesting to see the list of donors he is doing totally independent fact based science reporting for.

Chiloe???

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lawrence_Hamilton/publications
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Feb 5, 2015 - 11:57pm PT
97 percent
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Feb 6, 2015 - 04:29am PT
Credit: wilbeer


http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf


21 billion MA.


Good post Splater.
The Chief

climber
RFLMAO here on the Taco
Feb 6, 2015 - 06:20am PT
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,

Feb 5, 2015 - 06:46pm PT
Billions?

BS,post up proof.

Yeah "Billions".




Edwardt was in fact correct wasn't he Wilbeer?





EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired

Feb 5, 2015 - 01:01pm PT
But there is a MASSIVE amount of money spent lobbying by Deniers.

The US government spends over 21 billion dollars each year on climate change expenditures. 2.6 billion dollars goes to the US Global Change Research Program. These figures are just federal government expenditures.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Feb 6, 2015 - 06:26am PT
Who is this newcomer to the thread

Sketch.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Feb 6, 2015 - 06:41am PT
Chiloe???

Pretty much all of rick's rant against me is a fantasy, but that's how he rolls.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Feb 6, 2015 - 06:42am PT
This new comer to our thread is polite. Let's see who casts the first personal insult, because you know its coming....

DMT
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Feb 6, 2015 - 06:44am PT
Sketch.

Coy as ever.

Let's see who casts the first personal insult, because you know its coming....

Does that count?
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Feb 6, 2015 - 06:50am PT
Casts?

Coming?

There have already been plenty.

Have you met my newest bestest buddy, Mr. K-man?

I'm still interested in seeing if/when someone will answer my question about funding specifically for denier efforts. Since asking the question, a bunch of links and rhetoric and stuff has been posted. But the subject of my query has not been addressed. Today's a new day. Hope springs eternal.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Feb 6, 2015 - 06:55am PT
Expenditures,.....Look at that closely.
Research ,less than 3b.
The Chief

climber
RFLMAO here on the Taco
Feb 6, 2015 - 06:55am PT
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan

Feb 6, 2015 - 06:42am PT
This new comer to our thread is polite. Let's see who casts the first personal insult, because you know its coming....

DMT

Stand by Dingus. You just made yourself into a...





Hey Wilbeer, what about this post last night?

wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,

Feb 5, 2015 - 06:46pm PT
Billions?

BS


Now you are posting this....

wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,

Feb 6, 2015 - 06:55am PT
Expenditures,.....Look at that closely.
Research ,less than 3b.

At least you're consistent. BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT....




k-man

Gym climber
SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Feb 5, 2015 - 09:50pm PT
The US government spends over 21 billion dollars each year on climate change expenditures.
EdwardT

EdwardT looks smart!

Looks?




Pretty much all of rick's rant against me is a fantasy, but that's how he rolls.

Really Chiloe?

According to RickS's link, you got "88 publications". Of course all the work, travel expenses etc all came out of your pocket. But what gets me is the carbon footprint you left behind in doing much of that research in the Arctic region. You know, all the flying, boating and driving it entailed.

Pretty similar to all them thousands of IPCC folks continuously flying around the world in their PVT JETS to all these get together's at exotic locations. Good examples they are setting.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Feb 6, 2015 - 07:48am PT
Still doesn't come close to the gov't funding of billions to prove the science.

English ,is hard .
The Chief

climber
RFLMAO here on the Taco
Feb 6, 2015 - 08:16am PT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT... what happened to your false claim that Edwardt's billions was BS, Wilbeer?


Reality is even harder.


Typical.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 6, 2015 - 09:28am PT
I'm still interested in seeing if/when someone will answer my question about funding specifically for denier efforts.

The actual dollar amount is not possible to determine because, as has been mentioned, much of the money put into the effort to discredit the findings of climate scientists is dark money, it is not attached to a budget that you can simply look up (like the amount that the US spends on different line items).

That said, the Heartland Institute, from which many denier talking points come, gets plenty of dough to press forward the denier message. Here's an excerpt from SourceWatch (note the section under which the excerpt falls):

Leaked documents

An anonymous donor called "Heartland Insider" released documents in February 2012 of the Heartland Institute's budget, fundraising plan, and Climate Strategy for 2012.

The 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy states that the Institute got $200,000 in 2011 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation, and nearly a million from an anonymous donor. Goals of the organization included:

     working with David E. Wojick on "providing [K-12 school] curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science";
"sponsor[ing] the NIPCC [Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change] to undermine the official United Nation's IPCC [International Panel on Climate Change] reports" including paying "a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered"; and
     funding climate change deniers Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 a month), James Taylor who has written a lot about Climategate through his Forbes blog, and Anthony Watts ($90,000 for 2012) to challenge "warmist science essays that counter our own," including funding "external networks (such as WUWT [Watts Up With That?] and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts)."[25]



Then there is this on Heartland from Wikipedia:

Funding

The Heartland Institute does not disclose its funding sources. According to its brochures, Heartland receives money from approximately 5,000 individuals and organizations, and no single corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget,[62] although the figure for individual donors can be much higher, with a single anonymous donor providing $4.6 million in 2008, and $979,000 in 2011, accounting for 20% of Heartland's overall budget, according to reports of a leaked fundraising plan.[63] Heartland states that it does not accept government funds and does not conduct contract research for special-interest groups.[64]



While the actual dollar amount does not come close to the billions spent on actual climate research, comparing these two figures is like comparing what it takes to develop and produce a car to the amount it takes to advertise that same car. Essentially, promoting a false message is much easier than researching and proving something as difficult to understand as the climate.
The Chief

climber
RFLMAO here on the Taco
Feb 6, 2015 - 09:37am PT
That said, the Heartland Institute, from which many denier talking points come, gets plenty of dough...

Talking Points? That's all you got... Talking points.

Show us on any news media website where you see any daily inputs from any of those talking point perpetuater's. Just one.

What ever happened to sticks and stones/words will never hurt me?

Amazing Kman.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 6, 2015 - 09:38am PT
Coming?

There have already been plenty.


Yes, I said that it "looks like they hooked you pretty good, EdwardT." That is quite the personal insult, now isn't it.


Have you met my newest bestest buddy, Mr. K-man?

I certainly hope that is not a threat, but I can't figure out what else it could mean.



EDIT:

This new comer to our thread is polite.

EdwardT has a funny posting history. A couple of posts in early 2010, then nothing until recently. Mostly on poly-tard threads, nothing on climbing. While he is "polite," he has a very subtle passive aggressive approach, reminiscent of someone who recently got banned. Perhaps they are from the same organization?
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Feb 6, 2015 - 10:10am PT
Have you met my newest bestest buddy, Mr. K-man?

I certainly hope that is not a threat, but I can't figure out what else it could mean.

I'm not even sure how you might consider it a threat.

EDIT:

This new comer to our thread is polite.

EdwardT has a funny posting history. A couple of posts in early 2010, then nothing until recently. Mostly on poly-tard threads, nothing on climbing. While he is "polite," he has a very subtle passive aggressive approach, reminiscent of someone who recently got banned. Perhaps they are from the same organization?

Now, you're researching my posts.

I'm a little verklempt.

I'm feeling good about my newest and bestest BFF.

Edit:

Thanks for your effort on funding specifically for denier efforts. It looks like those deniers may receive a couple of million each year.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Feb 6, 2015 - 10:54am PT
In science prediction is important because when it is done quantitatively, it tests the assumptions of the prediction. The point is to find which assumptions are incorrect if the predictions fail. So contrary to the noise around here, failed predictions are not an indication of poor science (how this is used in policy debates is an important issue, however).

The paper that EdwardT references is readily available online without having to refer to any blog links:

http://www.agci.org/events/2008/DecadalPrediction/PDFs/smith_etal_2007.pdf
Science 317 796 (2007)

Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model


Doug M. Smith, Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, James M. Murphy

Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.

It is very likely that the climate will warm over the coming century in response to changes in radiative forcing arising from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols (1). There is, however, particular interest in the coming decade, which represents a key planning horizon for infrastructure upgrades, insurance, energy policy, and business development. On this time scale, climate could be dominated by internal variability (2) arising from unforced natural changes in the climate system such as El Nio, fluctuations in the thermohaline circulation, and anomalies of ocean heat content. This could lead to short-term changes, especially regionally, that are quite different from the mean warming (35) expected over the next century in response to anthropogenic forcing. Idealized studies (612) show that some aspects of internal variability could be predictable several years in advance, but actual predictive skill assessed against real observations has not previously been reported beyond a few seasons (13).



The abstract presents the strongest "predictions" of the paper and the first paragraph is introductory to the science issues addressed in the paper. From the abstract:

1) "Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years."
2) "...climate will continue to warm..."
3) "at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record"

the most quantitative statement there is 3), which we can assess from the "warmest year" debate that was engaged in previously. There a probabilistic analysis of what a "warmest year" means has already been discussed. Now that the 2014 ranking is in we find:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2014/2014-global-temperature



it seems that only 3 out of the 10 years from 2004 to 2014 exceeded the 1998 temperature. The difference in the 2004 to 2014 temperatures if you just take the difference, is slightly more than 0.1C (which is warming) and the observations of the past decade indicate that the internal variability has offset the anthropogenic global warming signal. The actual prediction statement was:
"...predict further warming during the coming decade, with the year 2014 predicted to be 0.30 0.21C [5 to 95% confidence interval (CI)] warmer than the observed value for 2004."

which includes the observed 0.1C difference (note that the confidence interval is generally used as exactly that, and 2014 is within the interval, constituting a successful prediction).

The paper uses a then new model,
"Decadal Climate Prediction System (DePreSys), based on the Hadley Centre Coupled Model, version 3 (HadCM3) (17), a dynamical global climate model (GCM). DePreSys (18) takes into account the observed state of the atmosphere and ocean in order to predict internal variability, together with plausible changes in anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases and aerosol concentrations (19) and projected changes in solar irradiance and volcanic aerosol (20)."


The point being that the precision of the model, and its accuracy, were demonstrated to be sufficiently good to test it against the various observables, here the surface temperature time series.

Looking at the statement of the "DePreSys" it is attempting to predict the internal variability, and using "plausible changes" in: anthropogenic sources of GHGs and aerosols, solar irradiance and volcanic aerosols.

These "plausible changes" are important to decadal prediction, and the plausible scenarios can be checked against the "actual" changes later. Papers such as this one are short, but Science provides a place for "supplemental material" relevant to the papers to be presented... for this one you can find it at:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2007/08/07/317.5839.796.DC1/Smith.SOM.pdf

They point out the difficulty in volcanic aerosol scenarios, and that has been identified as a component in the observed recent surface temperature anomaly. Another interesting point found in the supplemental material hints at the current science investigations:
"In future we would ideally use the same climatological period for the atmosphere and ocean, since any inconsistencies in observed atmosphere and ocean anomalies are likely to degrade the DePreSys forecasts. However, we expect this to have a minor impact, since the component of predictability on interannual to decadal timescales associated with internal variability is likely to be dominated by initial conditions in the ocean."


The decadal variability of the ocean is where most of the scrutiny is being focused. It should be noted that we're talking about model predictions that are short term (10 years) and smaller than the expected interannual variability of 0.2C, so that the predictions can be challenged by the observations. THAT"S THE WHOLE POINT of making accurate predictions.

What we learn from this "failure to predict" has to do about the initial scientific assumptions, and the ability to make predictions accurate and precise enough to be subject to observational test.

Step away from the "failure" and you see that the models are very accurate. As the models are understood through the observational testing, they are made better. This is in part by making the approximations used in the models better, but also in identifying phenomena that are important at the level of the model/observation accuracy which may not have been included previously. This failure to include phenomena is a result of the phenomena not previously being a small part of the model accuracy.

This is also a common methodology, especially in complicated systems, where their are a hierarchy of effects, the hierarchy established by how large an effect each has on the model prediction and its variability. As the big effects are understood (and the accuracy of the prediction improves) the uncertainty of the smaller effects become more and more important. They then become the subject of improved understanding, and subsequent improvement of model accuracy.



So if you are scoring... lets look at the predictions:

1) "Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years."

this was true, the time period was not correctly predicted

2) "predict further warming during the coming decade, with the year 2014 predicted to be 0.30 0.21C [5 to 95% confidence interval (CI)] warmer than the observed value for 2004"

this was true


3) "at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record"

this was not true, only 2 of the 6 years exceeded 1998 (the then warmest year on record, we still have four more years to see how this plays out, anyone betting?).

[EDIT] changed per monolith's comment below.




the article has 464 citations according to Google Scholar (type in the title there), which are an interesting read in terms of assessing the predictions.

see, for instance: DECADAL CLIMATE PREDICTION
Messages 26781 - 26800 of total 27324 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews