.

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Have your say - open thread

Sou | 11:22 AM Go to the first of 17 comments. Add a comment

Feel free to discuss whatever topic you like relating to climate science or policies to address climate change (mitigation and adaptation).

I won't be able to spend as much time here as usual this week, for family reasons, so play nice.

PS Because I am short of time, I may delete comments at my discretion with no explanation.  If anyone wants to query same, send me an email and I'll respond as soon as possible, but not before next week (ie a week from now).  Apologies for being so abrupt about this.

Sou.

17 comments:

  1. I am now beginning to doubt the CO2 theory, does anybody feel that they have been duped?
    Can anybody also see that climate science is beaten to death by mother nature?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahh! The denier pretence that they *ever* accepted the science. You can't pull that one here and expect to get away with it, Anonymous. We've seen it all before countless times.

      Here's a classic example:

      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/self-portrait-of-typical-science-denier.html

      With more here.

      It takes some gut-thinking instead of brain-thinking to disregard the findings of all the world's experts!

      Delete
    2. "Can anybody also see that climate science is beaten to death by mother nature?"

      No.

      And I'm looking much more carefully than you.

      Delete
    3. Sou & Bernard, you surely must be happy that carbon dioxide isn't warming the planet as we were led to believe it would?
      Recently there was a ship stuck in unexpectedly thick ice in the Antarctic summer, in the same place that was ice free 100 yrs ago.
      It looks as though an El Nino is just around the corner, sun spot counts are set plummet to LIA counts, ocean heat leveling off, massive snow and ice cover in the NH?
      I'm sorry that I am now having these doubts, but hey, you really must look at the big picture.
      Mother nature has overwhelmed climate science, we were told that CO2 was to tip us into an ever warmer world and any natural variation would be inconsequential, sorry, the PDO and the SAM are also turning against
      statis quo.
      How can a green house gas signal be found now?
      Sou, a sceptic thank you, you really need have good look at what is going,
      trying to defend a dying dogma will not give science the respect it deserves.

      Delete
    4. That, dear reader, is the classic climate denier. You'll often see deniers intrude in a discussion and, pretending to be sincere but dripping malice, claim: "I used to *believe* the science but now I don't believe the science because:-

      it snowed last winter
      there is sea ice off Antarctica / in the Arctic
      it's the sun
      climate always changes
      it's undersea volcanoes
      it's not happening
      it's always happening
      I looked out my window and saw...
      I remember the old days when...

      etc etc.

      Typical of a dumb denier, the comment includes a nice little straw man - "we were told any natural variation would be inconsequential..." except *we* weren't told any such thing. The 1997-98 El Nino for example made a huge mark on global surface temperatures. Pinatubo made a mark on temperature, La Nina poured so much rain on land that the sea level dropped a lot, temporarily.

      As for *respecting* science, the climate denier isn't the least bit interested in science or they wouldn't write the BS they have. They'd discuss science instead of wailing that snow in winter or an icebound ship means the end of global warming.

      This Anonymous just want to yell at the world and get some attention. and unfortunately this one is yelling from HotWhopper.

      No more.

      And if you want me to set the record straight - try this:

      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/whats-that-about-16-years-since-1996.html

      Delete
    5. What part of "No" did you not understand?

      Delete
    6. @Anonymous
      You wrote

      "Recently there was a ship stuck in unexpectedly thick ice in the Antarctic summer, in the same place that was ice free 100 yrs ago."

      "you really must look at the big picture."

      You really should listen to your own advice. You really need to look at the big picture.

      You somehow equate that thick ice in a spot that was ice free 100 years ago somehow disproves something?

      You are so wrong.

      You need to do some real research instead of getting your opinions told to you from the likes of WUWT and co.

      For a start, check out these links.
      http://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/how-unusual-were-antarctic-sea-ice-conditions-trapped-research-ship

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertz_Glacier

      But I doubt that the facts will sway you or make any difference. People like you come to these blogs only to hurl insults and sledge. But in fact the only thing you really show is your ignorance and stupidity. To even suggest that a bit of cold weather in winter somehow changes the laws of thermodynamics, or the fact that CO2 is thermally resistant, is just totally ridiculous. The rest of your post also doesn't make any sense.

      Delete
    7. Dave your knowledge about climate science would grow immensely if you worked on your ability to study with both eye's open.

      Here is a new paper for you, from the abstract. "Aerosols counteract part of the warming effects of greenhouse gases, mostly by increasing the amount of sunlight reflected back to space. However, the ways in which aerosols affect climate through their interaction with clouds are complex and incompletely captured by climate models.

      As a result, the radiative forcing (that is, the perturbation to Earth's energy budget) caused by human activities is highly uncertain, making it difficult to predict the extent of global warming (1, 2)."

      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6169/379.short

      The settled science is not so settled Dave.

      Delete
    8. Don't you just hate it when clueless (and anonymous) climate cranks trawl the abstracts of climate science papers that they have not read and do not understand for words like "uncertain" and then claim that the science is not settled.

      This paper is behind a paywall but co-author Steve Sherwood, Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at University of New South Wales has done plenty of outreach at The Conversation so we can get a good idea of his understanding of aerosols and clouds.

      How about his most recent article titled "How clouds can make climate change worse than we thought".
      http://theconversation.com/how-clouds-can-make-climate-change-worse-than-we-thought-21617



      Delete
    9. Also look at the text Anony quoted: "making it difficult to predict the extent of global warming." So the quote clearly indicates that there is global warming...just the extent is the issue. Also, for those of us that actually read the papers, we know CO2 warming dominates aerosol cooling. We can see that anony isn't really trying to learn the science. He/she has overwhelming confirmation bias.

      Delete
  2. Arguing with deniers is like arguing with two year olds.

    My sister had this exchange with her two year old daughter many years ago.

    M. Did you spill that milk?
    D. Me did it mummy.
    M. No, you must say I did it mummy.
    D. No me did it mummy!
    M. It is still I did it mummy.
    D. All right you did it mummy!

    Bert from Eltham

    ReplyDelete
  3. On another note, did Curry ever respond to Tamino's "NONSENSE"? She promised on Friday in the Tweet, but I didn't see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not yet. She's promised an article soonish.

      She's sulking because "dubious blogs" disputed her testimony to the US Senate Committee and Michael Mann retweeted links to a lot of the "dubious blogs". Also because Michael Mann referred to her as a "serial misinformer" and "anti-science" - according to her.

      She reckons it's defamation. I say she'd have her work cut out to prove it wasn't accurate. Even if she got rid of her blog, there's always her written testimony that she wouldn't be able to wriggle out of.

      Delete
    2. But it's so easy to dispute her testimony. It was "right enough" to sound like she wasn't lying, but misleading enough to be dishonest (especially for a US Senate audience). That's the best way I can put it in one sentence with a parenthetical addition.

      So you're ludicrous and Tamino posts NONSENSE...Curry has a word for everyone that posts direct and honest challenges.

      Delete
  4. It sure does look like the belief is waning.

    "First, Australia cut global-warming spending and now the U.K. has followed. The British government has cut programs to fight global warming by 41 percent, fueling allegations that the country’s environment minister is a global warming “skeptic.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/27/uk-govt-slashes-global-warming-spending-by-41-percent/#ixzz2rg57OthL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except among the 8 percenters (science deniers), the word "belief" is more commonly used to refer to God, UFOs, Father Christmas and lizard men. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Anonymous "believes in" all those things.

      Delete
    2. "It sure does look like the belief is waning. [denialist Conservative governments cut funding for climate change blah blah quelle surprise]"

      woah, i never realised physics is like fairies. all we need to do is ignore the problem, and it magically goes away!

      Delete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.