What Climate Wars Did To Science

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, Gunther said:

There is no credible data that supports this statement.

You must have a very strange definition of "credible." Seems like your definition is "agrees with me."

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I'll quote the first sentence that appears there:

Quote

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

[boogielicious]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I'll quote the first sentence that appears there:

Even deniers don't deny the Earth is warming, just the cause.

[saevel25]

24 minutes ago, Gunther said:

There is no credible data that supports this statement.  The earth is not warming, indeed, recent studies have shown it may be cooling which would be far more devastating to the planet.  

There is no way to tell we are in a cooling trend. The recent temperatures might show a plateau. It wont be for years to come that we can actually look back and say there was a cooling effect.

There is plenty of data, you just decide to disregard it with out any evidence as to why you should.

 

26 minutes ago, Gunther said:

 You know where I stand, I've posted 2 or 3 articles in this thread and others (there are hundreds of others out there) that shine a spotlight on the data falsification that NASA and NOAA have engaged in.  There's the East Anglia fraud scheme, and the 97% of scientists believe in AGW hoax (not even close to that).  As I have said, if AGW were in fact legit, there would be no need for the data manipulation and fraud that is legion around this field of study.

Guess what, there was an investigation to that East Anglia thing. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Quote

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.^[15]

Basically you deny facts for your own stubborn stances. 

[Lihu]

6 minutes ago, mdl said:

Welcome to post-truth America.  The depth of the self-deception is...  I'm not mad, I'm impressed.

Giving you a rep point for humor.

However, I don't think that everything that @Gunther is defending is completely untrue. Much of it is simply over-reactionary to the over-reactionary stance that environmentalists have taken in halting energy transfer and consumption.

Things like not drilling in the Western Hemisphere and reducing electrical power production and being able to conserve here in the west is simply an artifact of manufacturing and labor going to the Eastern Hemisphere where energy transport and consumption is at an all time high. This consumption will continue to grow as the East begins to prosper more, and it will dwarf any policy changes we make towards "conservation" here.

Yes, we need to make things more efficient, but not by stifling our industries.

This is a Global issue, and by trying to reverse the process is most likely not even possible. Whether it is primarily caused by humans or by natural occurrences is not relevant to the fix.

My feeling is that we should be working on a fix for the future rather than blaming each other and bickering over minute details.

So in that sense, both sides of the argument are part of the "Post-Truth America".

[Elmer]

51 minutes ago, Gunther said:

There is no credible data that supports this statement.  The earth is not warming, indeed, recent studies have shown it may be cooling which would be far more devastating to the planet.  You know where I stand, I've posted 2 or 3 articles in this thread and others (there are hundreds of others out there) that shine a spotlight on the data falsification that NASA and NOAA have engaged in.  There's the East Anglia fraud scheme, and the 97% of scientists believe in AGW hoax (not even close to that).  As I have said, if AGW were in fact legit, there would be no need for the data manipulation and fraud that is legion around this field of study.

There are other deleterious effects man creates for the planet so we must be judicious but global warming isn't among them.

Did Nasa really falsify info, or did some internet troll just post something on the internet that said it is false?
I understand these days that we dont like to "trust" the experts, but when we want golf advice we still ask a pro, not the hacker at the range?
Why is this any different with science?

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

[Buckeyebowman]

On 12/6/2016 at 9:39 AM, newtogolf said:

If you've read my posts here I'm not a "denier" but I'm not a "believer" either.  I'm 51 years old and I can tell you first hand, over the course of my life I've learned science isn't always right. What science claims is "fact" is really "best theory at the time".  There was a time when science said it was "fact" that the earth was cooling.  Then science said it was a fact it was "warming up"  now they've hedged their bets and say it's "changing".  

The science that predicts our weather is barely 50% accurate, the science that tells us in one study caffeine/wine/meat is good for us tells us it's not in another.  Science can't get it wrong so often then tell us on this one issue it's fact.   

I have read enough "science" to accept that excessive amounts of CO2 is not good for our planet that is having it's forest land reduced and water bodies compromised.  I don't believe science has it right but I do believe that there are and will be adverse effects to the future of life (not the planet) if we don't as individuals make some changes to how we spend our time on the planet. 

I've stated in previous posts that I believe as individuals we have a responsibility to not be reckless with our planet, to not pollute, to conserve when feasible, basic win/win initiatives.  Before I go making some really hard or costly sacrifices the world needs to "buy in" to the "science".  China and India need to not just stop building coal burning power plants but shut some down, governments need to push to create nuclear plants because they produce the cleanest power.  The UN needs to step in and establish policies the world must abide by if this as is serious a problem as science claims.

I'm not a kid, telling me to do as they say and not as they do doesn't work for me anymore but as a responsible adult I'll do what makes sense anyway.

 

On 12/6/2016 at 11:14 AM, jsgolfer said:

I've largely stayed out of this topic, even though I'm the one who started it, because it is a zero sum game.  Does man add to climate change, hell yes!  From the minor greenhouse gas, CO2 (water vapor is much more), land use, etc.  Has the earth warmed over the last 100 years, again hell yes.  About .7 degrees C over the last century, we can quibble on the exact number but that is largely what is reported.  And then we can disagree on whether there is anything wrong with that.  Not sure the little ice age was a pleasant time to be alive.

I'll state this is best I can, what I deny is that man's contribution will lead to catastrophic warming.   

In order to get climate catastrophic warming, two things have to occur.  First you have to say that the contribution of warming from doubling of CO2 (greenhouse gas theory) will lead to about a degree or so of warming over the next 100 years.  We can agree or disagree again if this is bad or not. I believe it won't be bad, human's are great at adapting to long range disasters.  

The only way to get catastrophic warming is through positive feedback's that multiple the greenhouse gas theory warming by several factors.  This is where the global warming modelers lose it in my opinion and it is not settled.   Positive feedback is solely based on models (and if you really believe models are 100% accurate, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you) and according to these models it is totally attributed to man.  However, the accelerated warming that should have occurred is not supported by anything we have observed.  And so it is supposedly hiding somewhere, but we can't find it, but it will be really bad when it is found.   Color me skeptical.

And to top it off, there are around 1.3 billion that lack access to cheap power or any power and another 2 billion that still cook and heat using biomass and dung.  So it is hubris that we (developed countries) have the luxury to tell them to not do what we did in order to save the planet, when in fact we should be doing all we can to assist them with getting cheap energy so that they can rise out of poverty and then they can help saving the planet.  But that unfortunately that will be rarely discussed.

And lastly a good post by Scott Adam's (Dilbert cartoonist).  

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science

 

 

 

These are two very well thought out posts! It consistently amazes me how the "blame America first" crowd seeks to portray the rest of the planet as a pristine wilderness, and the U.S. as a despoiled wasteland! I can tell you, it just ain't so!

I have no doubt that the climate is "changing". Tell me a time when it didn't! The connection that hasn't been completely established is that man made causes are entirely responsible for it. Have we had some effect? I suppose so. A butterfly fart will have some effect! Wasn't it that long ago that the "warmers" were telling us to watch out for cow farts?

I have an editorial cartoon from 2014 that I saved primarily because it tickled me. It also provides a nice capsule summary of some climatologist's "pronouncements" from from 1970 to 2014.

1970: "We'll be in an ice age by 2000!

1976: "Global cooling will cause a world war by 2000!"

1989: Global warming and rising sea levels will wipe entire nations off the map by 2000!"

1990: We have five to ten years to save the rainforests!"

1999: The Himalayan glaciers will be gone in ten years!"

2000: Snow will soon be a thing of the past!"

2007: Global warming will cause fewer hurricanes!"

2008: The Arctic will be ice-free by 2013!"

2012: Global warming will cause more hurricanes!"

2014: "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!"

 

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

I have no doubt that the climate is "changing". Tell me a time when it didn't! The connection that hasn't been completely established is that man made causes are entirely responsible for it. Have we had some effect? I suppose so. A butterfly fart will have some effect! Wasn't it that long ago that the "warmers" were telling us to watch out for cow farts?

:sigh:

[boogielicious]

7 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

 

These are two very well thought out posts! It consistently amazes me how the "blame America first" crowd seeks to portray the rest of the planet as a pristine wilderness, and the U.S. as a despoiled wasteland! I can tell you, it just ain't so!

 

 

No one has ever said that. That is a total fabrication on your part. Many of us have been around the world and pollution is a global problem. Please stop and think about what you post.

We have a global pollution problem. Denying it or saying, "Oh it really has not affect", is just a head-in-the-sand approach. The US has led efforts over the last few decades and it shows. But there is a long way to go.

Not sure how old you are, but the USA is far cleaner than it was when I was a kid in the 1960s. Other countries joined in and some, because of their size and resources have made great improvements. But others, because of their size and lack of resources, demographics, economy, will struggle. But to say, "well India and China aren't doing anything, so why should we?" is a fatalist mentality.

[jsgolfer]

7 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Wasn't it that long ago that the "warmers" were telling us to watch out for cow farts?

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/09/19/cow-fart-regulation-passed-into-california-law/

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/30/californias-new-cow-fart-regulations-tot

California is going to regulate that!    Methane actually, but I hope everyone in California likes to have imported milk once the dairy farmers that don't get access to the $50 million dollars to build digesters; decide to move to states that don't have these type of economy killing regulations.  

"Dairy farms will be required to reduce methane emissions to 40 percent below their 2013 levels by 2030. The state will spend $50 million help offset the cost of so-called "dairy digesters," which are intended to capture methane spewed from cows and convert it into electricity. After that, the state's Air Resources Board will have the authority to set whatever regulations they deem necessary to reach the stated goal."

" "If we can reduce emissions of methane, we can really help to slow global warming," said Ryan McCarthy, a science adviser for the California Air Resources Board, which is drawing up rules to implement the new law." 

Co-owner Arlin Van Groningen, a third-generation farmer, says he couldn't afford one if he had to buy and run it himself.

"The bottom line is it's going to negatively impact the economics of the California dairy industry," Van Groningen said of the new law. "In the dairy business, the margins are so slim that something like this will force us out of state."

[phillyk]

Yeah, no one is saying it is just the USA that should adjust a bit.  But, to say that well China is making all these coal plants that means we shouldn't care either, is not right.

I'll make an analogy, I remember at Chambers Bay for the US Open, there were dunes that were blocked off so people would stay off.  But slowly one by one, people would break the rules and go under the ropes to get a better view.  Soon everyone said, well oh well, since they can do it, so can we.  Well one could say that now everyone has a better view.  But, if you look on what they are standing on, that grass on the dunes is now destroyed and will take a long time to grow back with proper care.

I understand, some people just don't give a crap and want the cheap, easy way out, and don't want to try and find a better solution because they won't live long enough.  I hope we can eventually get to the point when we can provide a cheap, clean, easy way out, but it'll take us working together with everyone in the world to accomplish it.  And then maybe those dunes won't have to be destroyed to get what we want.

[14ledo81]

1 hour ago, phillyk said:

Yeah, no one is saying it is just the USA that should adjust a bit.  But, to say that well China is making all these coal plants that means we shouldn't care either, is not right.

I'll make an analogy, I remember at Chambers Bay for the US Open, there were dunes that were blocked off so people would stay off.  But slowly one by one, people would break the rules and go under the ropes to get a better view.  Soon everyone said, well oh well, since they can do it, so can we.  Well one could say that now everyone has a better view.  But, if you look on what they are standing on, that grass on the dunes is now destroyed and will take a long time to grow back with proper care.

I understand, some people just don't give a crap and want the cheap, easy way out, and don't want to try and find a better solution because they won't live long enough.  I hope we can eventually get to the point when we can provide a cheap, clean, easy way out, but it'll take us working together with everyone in the world to accomplish it.  And then maybe those dunes won't have to be destroyed to get what we want.

 

I think this is an excellent analogy.  

Pretty hard for the person in the back to stay there (can't see at all now because of everyone in front), and say "well at least I am doing the right thing".....

[jamo]

1 hour ago, phillyk said:

Yeah, no one is saying it is just the USA that should adjust a bit.  But, to say that well China is making all these coal plants that means we shouldn't care either, is not right.

I'll make an analogy, I remember at Chambers Bay for the US Open, there were dunes that were blocked off so people would stay off.  But slowly one by one, people would break the rules and go under the ropes to get a better view.  Soon everyone said, well oh well, since they can do it, so can we.  Well one could say that now everyone has a better view.  But, if you look on what they are standing on, that grass on the dunes is now destroyed and will take a long time to grow back with proper care.

I understand, some people just don't give a crap and want the cheap, easy way out, and don't want to try and find a better solution because they won't live long enough.  I hope we can eventually get to the point when we can provide a cheap, clean, easy way out, but it'll take us working together with everyone in the world to accomplish it.  And then maybe those dunes won't have to be destroyed to get what we want.

Put even simpler: we can't claim to be leaders if we can't clean ourselves up.

[Lihu]

3 hours ago, jsgolfer said:

" "If we can reduce emissions of methane, we can really help to slow global warming," said Ryan McCarthy, a science adviser for the California Air Resources Board, which is drawing up rules to implement the new law."

Yet another example of "Post-Truth America". More correctly, he should have stated that "Our current hypothesis is that it might slow down global warming, if the process is reversible."

[14ledo81]

30 minutes ago, jamo said:

Put even simpler: we can't claim to be leaders if we can't clean ourselves up.

At the same time, (to use @phillyk's analogy) it is tough to be the leader if we are in the back (by ourselves) and can't see the game.

[phillyk]

2 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

At the same time, (to use @phillyk's analogy) it is tough to be the leader if we are in the back (by ourselves) and can't see the game.

The point of the analogy is to point out the choice we have (you could still see from the back, but it wasn't good enough for some I guess).  Just live the easy way without caring about the environment or destruction of habitats or be the one of the countries trying to do something, even if a little.  Not just regarding climate change, every little bit helps to preserve what's left.  Is that new ProV1 in the habitat sanctuary with a sign saying do not enter, worth it?

[jsgolfer]

On 12/7/2016 at 0:45 PM, iacas said:

You must have a very strange definition of "credible." Seems like your definition is "agrees with me."

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I'll quote the first sentence that appears there:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

 

On 12/7/2016 at 0:48 PM, boogielicious said:

Even deniers don't deny the Earth is warming, just the cause.

This is why I don't comment much anymore on this topic, it's a no-win.  The 97% number is based on climate-scientists and climate-scientists only.  There are plenty on very smart people who have opinions and knowledge of various earth science processes, without having to be a climate scientist to either agree or disagree with the consensus.  As with most things, that both sides of the argument do, is they cherry pick data.   Again the consensus is that all warming in the modern era is due to man and it will cause runaway warming due to positive feedbacks (only found in climate models).  You can choose to believe the models, but I've worked with far too many models that have far too many parameters which can be tuned so that the model comes out with the correct answer.  And I work with a model right now which we use to predict pressures and flow through a distribution system (closed system), which is way more understood than any climate model. And yet climate models are used to convey much more accuracy than they really are.  Climate models are a terrible way to predict the future, best they can do is project.  Look up Ensemble modeling sometime.  

I will say again, the earth is warming and lots of things we do effect the environment (not a denier, I hate that term). Including building and maintaining golf courses. Unless you want to go back to the caveman days (see cartoon below), there will always be progress. From what I've seen and the best of what I've read, I just don't see the runaway warming coming to fruition.  Our climate is stochiastic " randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely." But what do I know, I'm not a climate scientist, so I must be a denier. "sigh"

This is the sad state of most topics.  Everything gets into emotion and no one will look at the other side objectively, you can agree with me or not,

Found this on another blog and is so correct.  I would only add to the end to change it to say "Even if you think it's still wrong.... 

It’s easy to trade blows on blogs. It’s harder to understand a new point of view. Or to consider that a different point of view might be right. And yet, more constructive for everyone if we take a moment, a day even, and try and really understand that other point of view. Even if it’s still wrong, we are better off for making the effort.  

A post by a disenchanted Engineer.

Time for a Beer! Salud!

 

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, jsgolfer said:

 

This is why I don't comment much anymore on this topic, it's a no-win.  The 97% number is based on climate-scientists and climate-scientists only.  There are plenty on very smart people who have opinions and knowledge of various earth science processes, without having to be a climate scientist to either agree or disagree with the consensus.  As with most things, that both sides of the argument do, is they cherry pick data.   Again the consensus is that all warming in the modern era is due to man and it will cause runaway warming due to positive feedbacks (only found in climate models).  You can choose to believe the models, but I've worked with far too many models that have far too many parameters which can be tuned so that the model comes out with the correct answer.  And I work with a model right now which we use to predict pressures and flow through a distribution system (closed system), which is way more understood than any climate model. And yet climate models are used to convey much more accuracy than they really are.  Climate models are a terrible way to predict the future, best they can do is project.  Look up Ensemble modeling sometime.  

I will say again, the earth is warming and lots of things we do effect the environment (not a denier, I hate that term). Including building and maintaining golf courses. Unless you want to go back to the caveman days (see cartoon below), there will always be progress. From what I've seen and the best of what I've read, I just don't see the runaway warming coming to fruition.  Our climate is stochiastic " randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely." But what do I know, I'm not a climate scientist, so I must be a denier. "sigh"

This is the sad state of most topics.  Everything gets into emotion and no one will look at the other side objectively, you can agree with me or not,

Found this on another blog and is so correct.  I would only add to the end to change it to say "Even if you think it's still wrong.... 

It’s easy to trade blows on blogs. It’s harder to understand a new point of view. Or to consider that a different point of view might be right. And yet, more constructive for everyone if we take a moment, a day even, and try and really understand that other point of view. Even if it’s still wrong, we are better off for making the effort.  

A post by a disenchanted Engineer.

Time for a Beer! Salud!

 

 

I'm almost in the same boat as you. I run a lot of smaller simulations, and have done lots of outdoor measurements and remote sensing at quite a few companies. Not very complicated models, but very small scale ones with the minimal parameters needed to get a good idea of what will happen to the real objects. None of them were nor are very accurate, and they are the best and most accurate systems in the world.

It really behooves me that people can put so much faith in climate models to change other peoples lives for unfounded theories. The assumption that the earth is like a spring that will return back to it's more "natural" state when we "reverse" what we've already done doesn't sit well with me nor many other concerned engineers. That's the scary part of this entire Kyoto treaty business.

One thing we do know, is that the temperature is rising with the usual bumps up and down. We just need to press forward and build up our cities and civilization to withstand the potential changes.

Everyone is talking about Dinosaurs, Asteroids and giant meteorites when we've seen large civilizations go under within a decade or so like the Maya, Aztecs and many more all over the world. Those that do not adapt will fade away into the dust or in this case under some water.

Cheers for making this thread, I just wish we could discuss how to plan for the future rather than who's to blame.

[jsgolfer]

4 hours ago, Lihu said:

 

I'm almost in the same boat as you. I run a lot of smaller simulations, and have done lots of outdoor measurements and remote sensing at quite a few companies. Not very complicated models, but very small scale ones with the minimal parameters needed to get a good idea of what will happen to the real objects. None of them were nor are very accurate, and they are the best and most accurate systems in the world.

It really behooves me that people can put so much faith in climate models to change other peoples lives for unfounded theories. The assumption that the earth is like a spring that will return back to it's more "natural" state when we "reverse" what we've already done doesn't sit well with me nor many other concerned engineers. That's the scary part of this entire Kyoto treaty business.

One thing we do know, is that the temperature is rising with the usual bumps up and down. We just need to press forward and build up our cities and civilization to withstand the potential changes.

Everyone is talking about Dinosaurs, Asteroids and giant meteorites when we've seen large civilizations go under within a decade or so like the Maya, Aztecs and many more all over the world. Those that do not adapt will fade away into the dust or in this case under some water.

Cheers for making this thread, I just wish we could discuss how to plan for the future rather than who's to blame.

I didn't have a beer just a couple bottles of Nickel and Nickel Cabernet.  

Instead of natural, my question to all is; what is a normal Climate, is it temperature based only, is that the only metric? Is it the same everywhere?  

When I was doing my graduate degree, i used to think this problem was such a simple mass balance equation, but once I started to look at it, It's just not that simple. And then on top of that, most or the error I noticed in models was as much or more than the supposed warming, which means GIGO.