New World: Climate Change

[Tyger]

I have posted a couple videos that explains your crap spewing

Your history with videos - as mentioned - is not good. I have watched an hour or so more in the past watching your videos. They were not intellectually substantial and basically betrayed you. They were pretty much bogus, riddled with faulty reasoning, so I am not inclined to spend any more time on your video offerings.

but I didn't realize it was material you are unable to comprehend and are apparently too intimidated to even try.

What videos I have watched that you have posted I have pretty much grasped. What they tell me is you have a very faulty grasp of scientific matters if those videos were to be any judge.

Again, the ad hominems are pointless. They do nothing to further the discussion. Following me over to this thread to do more of the same badgering is a clear indication of what you are about. Anyone reading this thread now has a clear view, if there was any doubt.

Climate change is accepted by scientists I am familiar with.

Good for them and for you. The hand-writing is on the wall - as we all know. So what's the issue with discussing the new world coming?

The claim that humans are causing it is in dispute.

But it's not in dispute - not in the way you seem to be meaning it. If we are causing it, then we must change: that means powerful economic behemoths must pry their death grip off our governments and our money (we do subsidize them). That's the politics - and in the end that's what you are arguing - a political stance, not a scientific one.

Fact is, we got the ball rolling - now feedback loops have kicked in. Causation almost ceases to be relevant - we have to deal with what is now afoot and unavoidable. We have to prepare, we have to shift, we have to cease being part of the problem. Wringing one's hands and crying 'but it's not our fault' is not productive. CO2 needs to be controlled.

I think we are looking at a rather remarkable future unfolding, albeit the birth pangs are horrendous, mainly because - historically - any shift in an economic base has always been painful. But that's the politics, not the science - and what you have failed to understand with several of my links (if you watched them) was that what was being argued was not the science so much as when does (and should) science determine public policy. When does that tipping point happen. Not that the science is 100% right - because science is always tentative with varying levels of certainty - but when is a tipping point reached in science that then legitimately drives public policy. It's a serious question - because science is not always right, science can - and does - get it wrong.

 

[Tyger]

Yes he goes to great length's some would say any lengths, to explain the obvious, what he doesnt explain is the co2 causal links to climate change, the sun's influence on climate is known, and explains both the warming and the hiatus, but oh no its co2, its polution man, its bad shit..

Sorry, your posting is too simplistic: 'oh no its co2, its polution man, its bad shit' Get a grip. Either you're able to understand the science or you are not. If you can't follow the reasoning, give it up.

What is obvious is you don't actually read the science, never mind not understand it. For sure you are not reading the links and the posted text because all your questions would be answered if you just did a bit of intellectual leg-work. Figure it out, Manxman. You keep repeating the same objections when they have been refuted/explained several times already. The 'obvious' gives you the answers - take the time to figure it all out for yourself. You don't need to be led by the hand. You're a big man now, right? (I assume - though you might be a precocious 14 year old having some fun - that's always a possibility.)

The lads a visionary Pixel.

Not quite. This thread's purpose is to discuss the future. Did you get that message?

Well why didnt he just say, we kneel before thee prophet. I believe brother, hallaluja i believe.

That would be funny if it weren't for the fact that, at this point, you're the joke, manxman. This thread is about discussing what the future will look like - as Gernsback said - 'if this goes on...what?' The implications of science theory on societal decisions - not a minor topic. The implications of science fact on societal decisions when the facts are not accepted, also not a minor topic.

In fact, in another context I would agree that science can be very much like a 'religion' of which scientists become the 'high priests'. I know a lot about that - especially when new theories come to the fore and do battle with the entrenched way of thinking. Consider Dr William Harvey, in the 1500/1600's , postulating the circulation of the blood - going up against the over thousand year tradition of the ancient physician Galen. Harvey was banned, shunned - almost lost his status position as the King's physician over the dispute until he was able to prove his ideas beyond doubt to Charles II.

 

[Tyger]

In the end, @manxman (and @pixelsmith) neither of you ever argue your points. You simply make pronouncements. You clearly passionately believe your views but you give no science as support. You never argue the science. Pronouncements are not debate.

In my near last post on the Denial Silly thread I gave a list of questions to your pronouncements, Pixel. I was basically asking you to convince me. Never a word from you. In fact, you never answer anyone's questions. Neither of you have - be it Burnt, Tony B (recently) or anyone, really. It leads me to the conclusion that your pronouncements are beliefs, not conclusions based on an understanding of the facts. This may upset you, but it's the only conclusion one can come to based on your posting.

 

[Tyger]

I believe what your issue actually is can be defined by the question I framed earlier: when is a tipping point reached in science that then legitimately drives public policy?

Your point of debate seems to hinge there, not on the science itself. Therefore your debate is political. That needs to be clear - and I think its a distinction worthy of its own thread. Otherwise the politics keeps rearing its hydra head in every thread on climate - creating cross purposes in the conversation.

 

[Tyger]

The Alarming Research Behind New York's Fracking Ban
By Nicholas St. Fleur, The Atlantic 21 December 14
LINK: The Alarming Research Behind New York's Fracking Ban

TEXT: "The battle over untapped natural gas in New York State appears to have reached its end. Following an extensive public health review of hydraulic fracturing, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a complete ban on the oil and natural gas harvesting practice in the state on Wednesday.

"The 184-page report, conducted by the New York State Department of Health, cites potential environmental impacts and health hazards as reasons for the ban. The research incorporates findings from multiple studies conducted across the country and highlights the following seven concerns:

• Respiratory health: The report cites the dangers of methane emissions from natural gas drilling in Texas and Pennsylvania, which have been linked to asthma and other breathing issues. Another study found that 39 percent of residents in southern Pennsylvania who lived within one kilometer of a fracking site developed upper-respiratory problems compared with 18 percent of those who lived more than two kilometers away.
• Drinking water: Shallow methane-migration underground could seep into drinking water,one study found, contaminating wells. Another found brine from deep shale formations in groundwater aquifers. The report also refers to a study of fracking communities in the Appalachian Plateau where they found methane in 82 percent of drinking water samples, and that concentrations of the chemical were six times higher in homes close to natural gas wells. Ethane was 23 times higher in homes close to fracking sites as well.
• Seismic activity: The report cites studies from Ohio and Oklahoma that explain howfracking can trigger earthquakes. Another found that fracking near Preese Hall in the United Kingdom resulted in a 2.3 magnitude earthquake as well as 1.5 magnitude earthquake.
• Climate change: Excess methane can be released into the atmosphere, which contributes to global warming. One study predicts that fracking in New York State would contribute between 7 percent and 28 percent of the volatile organic compound emissions, and between 6 percent and 18 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions in the region by 2020.
• Soil contamination: One analysis of a natural gas site found elevated levels of radioactive waste in the soil, potentially the result of surface spills.
• The community: The report refers to problems such as noise and odor pollution, citing a case in Pennsylvania where gas harvesting was linked to huge increases in automobile accidents and heavy truck crashes.
• Health complaints: Residents near active fracking sites reported having symptoms such as nausea, abdominal pain, nosebleeds, and headaches according to studies. A study in rural Colorado which examined 124,842 births between 1996 and 2009 found that those who lived closest to natural gas development sites had a 30 percent increase in congenital heart conditions. The group of births closest to development sites also had a 100-percent increased chance of developing neural tube defects.

"In 2008, New York State suspended its fracking activities pending further research into the health, environmental, and economic effects. Since the moratorium six years ago, many different scientific groups have conducted hydraulic fracturing research, as the state’s report reflects.

" "I asked myself, ‘would I let my family live in a community with fracking? The answer is no." Howard Zucker, the acting state health commissioner who helped spearhead the report, addressed the ban with Gov. Cuomo in Albany. “I cannot support high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the great state of New York,” said Zucker, according to The Wall Street Journal. He added, “I asked myself, ‘would I let my family live in a community with fracking? The answer is no,” The Los Angeles Times reported.

"But Cuomo and Zucker’s critics were quick to blast the ban, which they say will cost the state millions in jobs and energy. Dean Skelos, the Republican co-leader of the New York State Senate, said the move was shaped by politics, not science. “The decision implies that at least 30 other states, Senator Schumer and the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency are wrong about the health impacts and do not care about the well-being of millions of American citizens,” he said in a statement. Others have lashed against Zucker’s comments about not letting his family live in a fracking community despite not having children.

"Zucker also voiced concern over how little is known about the long-term effects of injecting water and chemicals into the Marcellus shale, the disputed natural gas reserve that has been the subject of debate in New York and elsewhere. The new report, he said, highlights gaps in the current scientific understanding of fracking’s impact on groundwater resources, air quality, radon exposure, noise exposure, traffic, psychosocial stress, and injuries.

" “The bottom line is we lack the comprehensive longitudinal studies, and these are either not yet complete or are yet to be initiated," Zucker said according to The Syracuse Post-Standard. "We don't have the evidence to prove or disprove the health effects. But the cumulative concerns of what I've read gives me reason to pause." "

 

[manxman]

In the end, @manxman (and @pixelsmith) neither of you ever argue your points. You simply make pronouncements. You clearly passionately believe your views but you give no science as support. You never argue the science. Pronouncements are not debate.

In my near last post on the Denial Silly thread I gave a list of questions to your pronouncements, Pixel. I was basically asking you to convince me. Never a word from you. In fact, you never answer anyone's questions. Neither of you have - be it Burnt, Tony B (recently) or anyone, really. It leads me to the conclusion that your pronouncements are beliefs, not conclusions based on an understanding of the facts. This may upset you, but it's the only conclusion one can come to based on your posting.

Again another strawman argument, you must have an army of them, theres no climate change denial, never has been from either of us.

You have to frame it like that, otherwise your are just blitzing the forum with agw propaganda and pretending its science, no counter science will ever be enough, people give up.

But you carry on as if you are in a debate about climate change, your not, you are arguing with no-one.

You need to frame this as though there has been, denial [because denial is anti science woooooooooooo].
Theres been dispute about the cause, and the crystal ball future dire forcasts, both you and your fellow visionaries skeptical science have been trying to force feed us.

Most of us are just ordinary people, doing abit here abit there, we need convinced of this hellish future vision, being unconvinced isnt really offensive, or in denial, its just unconvinced of the real cause, and the real consequence.

The skeptical science's utter bias and deception should shine thru brightly to all concerned here, we all look behind the curtain on most other subjects here, but no, paranormal truth seekers have mainly hippy leanings, save mother earth man, so they simply dont give a rats, as long as some pollution gets cleaned up somewhere, and big business takes one in the azz..

 

[Tyger]

Again another strawman argument, you must have an army of them, theres no climate change denial, never has been from either of us.

Good to know - though for Pixel that's a change of stance - which is fine. You don't like that CO2 from humans being the instigating factor for the current warming is what I understand.

You have to frame it like that

Sadly, you still think I have been in conversation with you - I haven't been really. Just occasionally - and most recently directly since it is clear you are going to dive-bomb this thread at will. So be it.

otherwise your are just blitzing the forum with age propaganda

Is my posting informative reportage on the Global Warming front somehow offensive to you? Calling news articles 'propaganda' is a bit dismissive.

Let's be fair, it appears from the evidence of your posting that no matter what, you will attack the source and dispute the facts, if the article/person does not jive with your views of anti-AGW, not so? As proved by your next statement -

and pretending its science

I don't pretend anything. It is science - maybe in a given instance it's not the best science in your opinion, or is weak science for the same reason, or is science that will be disproved in time (is this 'tentative' nature of science scary for you?) - but what I link to is science, which makes me me wonder what it is you think is science. Could you define the criteria for what makes 'science'? Might be helpful. However, you've made a broad claim - you have to supply evidence as to why what I present is not science in your estimation. Proclamations to that effect are not enough - you have to back-up what you are claiming.

no counter science will ever be enough

You've never presented 'counter science' - or if you have, genuinely so, that is good, but I haven't seen it. But if you do, then you leave it all for someone to make their own assessment. 'Counter science' coming from scientists who are on the pay-roll of Exxon is questionable science and you have to understand that most 'counter science' is not actually original research - rather it's taking current data and skewing it in another way, often cherry picking. That's the experience I have around this.

For instance, you seem to believe that the sun is part of this warming. I've posted arguments that say that the sun cannot be the source of the current spike. So there we are - an opinion is voiced (without back-up btw), another view addresses it - and so it stands. What else are you expecting? Resolution? Good luck with that if that's what your goal is.

people give up.

What people? Not you or Pixel. You two are the energizer bunnies. So much so that you will follow me over here to post your objections. Should I feel honored?

You also need to do a little more self-reflection: people aren't posting because of the truly abusive and bullying nature of your's and Pixel's posting. Please check-out Tony B's recent bowing out on the other thread. People have pretty much had enough of Pixel (and you). I refuse to be bullied into silence - that's the difference. (Not that anyone else has stopped posting because of the bullying - they are just more wise regarding the use of their time. I've had posters ask me to just let it go because they find the Pixel dynamic that unpleasant - that's why I'm over here. I still want to post articles but I don't want anyone to get the feed unless they want it - and I don't want to be dealing with you and Pixel - but seems that you are a gift that keeps on giving).

But you carry on as if you are in a debate about climate change

No, that's where you are being obtuse. One more time: I'm not in a debate about climate change. I never have been. I'm just posting what interests me. That's it. If someone posts and something in their post interests me I might say something or post a link in response - but I'm not in a dialog really - you got that right at least. Bravo! Small victories in understanding.

you're not

Correct. Thumbs-up! We're making headway.

you are arguing with no-one.

Correct again, and I have no interest in arguing with anyone. I haven't the time. I'm not being dismissive, I just don't have the time to devote to an actual back-and-forth. The moment an internet conversation becomes a responsibility - I'm out. I have a RL that has enough of that - I don't need the internet to eat into my RL commitments. (as I look across at my beloved and he growls....)

You've just done a flip btw - a bit ago you were accusing me of creating a 'congregation' via (suspicious) pm conversations. Can't be both ways. But anyway - I've done this kind of detailed response to you once before and it's just way too time consuming, manxamn.

You need to frame this as though there has been denial

What you fail to 'get' is that I am not talking to you. Something you say in a post might be a springboard for something I say, but that's the extent of it. Just because you've decided to post on this thread doesn't mean you drive the posting style of anyone. I hope I am being helpful.

[because denial is anti science woooooooooooo].

A good portion of the denial seems to be, yes. That's what I see.

There's been dispute about the cause

Correct.

and the crystal ball future dire forecasts

I agree here, too.

both you and your fellow visionaries skeptical science have been trying to force feed us.

Please pardon, but you can be such a jerk. How can anyone take you seriously? I can't.

Here's where you get things wrong. Presenting views is not acceptance. I am interested in what people deep in the matter are saying - and that includes the extreme views. I've read the science and I understand the line of reasoning. Will it all happen? I dunno. Same as you. There's a lot we don't know - it's why the speed of the changes has taken the scientists unawares.

I do know, however, that a good percentage of what the scientists have been warning about (for the past 40 years and more) is coming to pass (I say this from memory).

I also know that one of the scientists who is making the dire prognostication picked up on the feed-back loops before anyone else. He saw it coming - he read the signs. He's deep into it and that's what sometimes happens. Is he right? Maybe. Is he right enough to impact policy decisions? I'd say so.

Most of us are just ordinary people, doing abit here abit there

Yep, same here.

we need convinced of this hellish future vision

I assume you are saying you need convincing of this 'hellish vision'. Hey, so do I. It's extreme in the extreme. But some of the scientists that think the extreme is a done deal have responded in their personal lives by going off-the-grid. For them what they are seeing is that persuasive - that gives one pause. But this 'hellish vision' is not new. It's been percolating for decades.

You want to be convinced? Read the science. Plenty of books out there across a wide range of scientific disciplines giving evidence as to the changes afoot. Make your own decision. I'm not the one to convince you.

being unconvinced isn't really offensive, or in denial, its just unconvinced of the real cause, and the real consequence.

Being unconvinced is not offensive - no. Denial is not offensive - no. It's when such folks - as yourself and others - badger and hector and ridicule and you-name-it those who are dealing with the AGW issue. That is offensive.

You bring up an excellent over-arching point, though: unconvinced of real cause and real consequence - what does one do? Fact is, the real cause is not in dispute. That you think so is evidence of the effectiveness of the disinformation campaign being waged, according to a prevalent view. There may be outliers, there may be questions about an interpretation here, a factoid there, but the general view is that humans have kickstarted this whole process.

The skeptical science's utter bias and deception should shine thru brightly to all concerned here

You have made an accusation - you must back it up with facts. I find no deception present. It is a rigorous site imo. If you choose to post comments on their blog, you will be held to a high standard: all statements must be backed up, and no ad hominem is allowed. This is not censorship, it is following the protocols of legitimate scientific debate.

I notice your (and Pixel's) focus on Skeptical Science. It's occurred to me that the focus is because it has been so successful in countering what many feel is a campaign of disinformation by the status quo energy industry.

An aside: I find it interesting that John Cook identifies himself as an evangelical Christian and states that what he is doing is motivated by his Christian beliefs. It's unexpected. I find that fascinating. Is it possible that the push-back on Skeptical Science is because of a bias against evangelical Christians? A thought that just came to me.

Regardless, the Skeptical Science site is an excellent source of science-based arguments for those interested in getting a handle on the arguments. It is so successful it has to be attacked. It's credibility has to be undermined. It's a pattern I've been noticing: the IPCC is spurious, for example. Any person or body that argues AGW becomes a target for vilification and suspicion. Individuals get accused of the most abhorrent personal 'sins'. It's sleazy in the extreme.

LINK: Skeptical Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
TEXT: "After reading a 2007 speech by US Senator James Inhofe who claimed that global warming is a hoax, John Cook created Skeptical Science to be an internet resource that examined the scientific support of the most common arguments against mainstream scientific opinion.[1] The site currently maintains over 160 articles addressing the merit of common criticisms of the scientific consensus on global warming, such as the claim that solar activity (rather than greenhouse gases) is responsible for most 20th-century global warming. Each article, referred to as an "argument", first presents a quotation from a prominent figure who made a direct claim regarding global warming, then follows with a summary of "what the science says".

"Rather than fully qualifying each claim, the site focuses mainly on challenging it by citing counterexamples for why it is incorrect, and structuring these examples into an overall rebuttal of the original claim. The site primarily gains the content for these articles from relevant peer reviewed scientific papers.[2]Many articles have been translated into several languages, and are split into up to three levels of technical depth. Rather than active advertising or media relationships, Cook has focused on structuring the site primarily for optimization in search engine results.[1]

"The home page of the site also features blog posts by a number of regular and guest contributors, which may be new rebuttals of a certain argument or simply the blogger's view on a relevant climate news item. Like the rebuttals, the blog entries tend to hold a consistent tone that the scientific opinion on anthropogenic global warming is generally accurate."

[...]

"Skeptical Science has become a well-known resource for people seeking to understand or debate climate change, and has been praised for its straightforwardness.[20] Marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has described it as "the most prominent knowledge-based website dealing with climate change in the world",[21] and The Washington Post has praised it as the "most prominent and detailed" website to counter arguments by global warming skeptics.[22] In September 2011, the site won the 2011 Eureka Prize from the Australian Museum in the category of Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.[23]

"Cook is trained as a solar physicist and says he is motivated by his Christian beliefs.[24] He is one of a number of Christians publicly arguing for scientific findings on anthropogenic global warming, and is an evangelical Christian.[25]"

we all look behind the curtain on most other subjects here, but no, paranormal truth seekers have mainly hippy leanings, save mother earth man, so they simply dont give a rats, as long as some pollution gets cleaned up somewhere, and big business takes one in the azz..

Here you betray your biases and prejudices - as well as outright fantasies. This little bit is such tangled thinking I won't bother to try to decipher what appears to be your attempt to characterize and denigrate. I leave you to your fabulations, manxman.

 

[Tyger]

I wound up getting asked a question in a pm and have decided to give my answer here, as well -

Contrary to smear attempts, the website Skeptical Science is an outstanding source of scientific information. It links to science research papers (in the hundreds), and is blogged by scientists au-currant in the field. It is true it's 'bias' is AGW. It was mounted as a rebuttal to US Senator Inhofe and it remains solid.

As with most questions fielded on the threads, I could compose my own answer but that takes time (that I don't have). The result is that I link and quote an article that gives excellent background on the question.

Global warming vs climate change
LINK: Global warming vs climate change

TEXT: "What the science says: There have long been claims that some unspecificed "they" has "changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'". In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming 'skeptic'.

"Climate Myth says: They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'

"Global Warming vs. Climate Change
"Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature, which you can see here: [see graphic in link]

"Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc. These projections of future global precipitation changes from the 2007 IPCC report are an example of climate change: [see graphic in link]

"Thus while the physical phenomena are causally related, they are not the same thing. Human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, which in turn is causingclimate change. However, because the terms are causally related, they are often used interchangeably in normal daily communications.

"Both Terms Have Long Been Used
"The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change'was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

"In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years: [see graphic in link]

"And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature: [see graphic in link]

"No Reason to Change the Term
"Those who perpetuate the "they changed the name" myth generally suggest two reasons for the supposed terminology change. Either because (i) the planet supposedly stopped warming, and thus the term 'global warming' is no longer accurate, or (ii) the term 'climate change' is more frightening.

"The first premise is demonstrably wrong, as the first figure above shows the planet is still warming, and is still accumulating heat. Quite simply, global warming has not stopped.

"The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment: 'It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.'

"Summary
"So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change". "



The video below is relevant to the above - though it starts 'silly' and ends 'silly' - but it has the interview with Mr Luntz who started all the mash-up of these two phrases.

Global Warming? or Climate Change?

TEXT: "Uploaded on Dec 21, 2010: Switching the words "climate change", for global warming, -- is it a devious, Orwellian perversion of the language, a mind controlling neurolinguistic word play engineered by psychological manipulators of the New World Order? Climate deniers realize that only they can see through the evil plans of the global thought police. What mysterious and secretive conspiracy is behind this monstrous mind game?"

 

[Tyger]

This is old news but sometimes old news needs to be repeated for context.

Rhymes with Smokey Joe

TEXT: "Published on Nov 25, 2013: "Smokey Joe" Barton is known for apologizing to BP after the 2010 Oil spill, and harassing climate scientists. Turns out he's also been a key connection between the tobacco industry and the climate denial industry. Archival footage from ABC News on the tobacco wars of the 90s turns up sequences of Smoky Joe in action on behalf of Big Cancer."

 

[Tyger]

This video shows how 'tentative' the science can be, how the reasoning proceeds.

California Drought, and Climate Change

TEXT: "Published on Oct 30, 2014"

 

[Tyger]

The last word - says it all.

Methane: The Tipping Time Bomb

TEXT: "Published on Oct 26, 2014"

 

[pixelsmith]

Good to know - though for Pixel that's a change of stance - which is fine. You don't like that CO2 from humans being the instigating factor for the current warming is what I understand.

AGAIN...your fake science BS is riddled with the Climate "denier" catch phrase. I have had no change of stance, I have NEVER EVER denied Climate Change.

 

[Tyger]

AGAIN...your fake science BS is riddled with the Climate "denier" catch phrase. I have had no change of stance, I have NEVER EVER denied Climate Change.

I believe your stance is: Climate Change is always happening, it's a natural process that is always going on, we should not be sweating it - and for sure that natural process is not being impacted by human activity.

With the above stance - if I have stated it correctly (and you can correct me if I haven't stated it right) - you are 'denying' the current theory that is quite different: Climate Change is taking place because of an unprecedented Global Warming. All factors being even, the only change that has occurred in the last few hundred years has been human emissions of (for one) CO2, which leads to the conclusion that human-generated CO2 emissions are the cause of the warming and the ensuing shift in climate. CO2 is the (significant, atmospheric) variable that has shifted.

Climate Change, as a description of current theory, states that: Climate Change as it is currently happening is engaging about a thousand years too soon (I may be fuzzy on the number), it is engaging too fast, and the fact that it is engaging at all and at this speed can be correlated with man-made emissions. Smoking gun.

So you are mincing words. What you are objecting to is the position that humans have kickstarted the current climate change. From your posting you seem to also feel that the warming is a good thing to be happening and that we are going to have a far more pleasant world with a few extra degrees tacked onto the world's temperature. However, 'my fake science BS' - which has to have the entire world in on this fakery btw - contradicts such a cheery, optimistic view. There's plenty of evidence to indicate the rise in global temperature will have devastating consequences. Can you refute the conclusions being drawn?

 

[Tyger]

Guess not.

Now that's sorted.

 

[Tyger]

Here is the extreme view. Here you can hear the reasoning. It's a dark vision but for the scientist immersed in the data, inexorable. McPherson is the pied piper according to some.

Climate Change and Human Extinction - A Personal Perspective

TEXT: "Published on Mar 24, 2014: "Just one source, methane from the arctic...leads us [by 2030] to...a temperature beyond which humans have never existed on the planet." Guy McPherson, professor emeritus of University of Arizona in Environmental Studies, shares highlights from his compilation of recent reports on climate change effects. Their number and extent have grown exponentially since he began five years ago. In this interview, he shares his personal journey through despair and deep grief to recent acceptance. "I suspect we get to see the end of this movie... Nobody else in human history [has]... We get to see how humans act in the face of their own demise." "


The below video is a hefty 2 hours - McPherson begins speaking at 7:00 - and there is a lot he covers, especially when he starts the Q&A. At about 00:50 he starts talking about Fukishima, and then Geo-Engineering, in response to questions. He gives an excellent summation of the state-of-the-science (the papers coming out) regarding geo-engineering imo, as of February 2014.

Guy McPherson, Traditions World Cafe, February 2014, Olympia WA

TEXT: "Published on Mar 12, 2014: Unabridged, with Q&A"

 

[Tyger]

I present the following as an example that nothing is black-or-white. My experience is that we want someone to be 100% correct - and 100% amenable to our parameters regarding life and choices. It's odd. Sort of 'religious', when you think about it. What to believe? It's not about belief - it's about reading the science and sussing it out for oneself. IMO.

How Guy McPherson gets it wrong
02/17/2014 BY SJ
LINK: How Guy McPherson gets it wrong | Fractal Planet

TEXT: "Recently, a few Ars Technica commenters have been posting references to the work of Guy McPherson on climate articles. McPherson is a retired professor of ecology at the University of Arizona, and he runs a blog called Nature Bats Last. In recent years, he has turned his energies to dire warnings of impending climate catastrophe. Those warnings go far beyond what you’ll find anywhere else: McPherson believes humans will go extinct in as little as two decades.

"Now, lots of people run blogs that make wild claims, so why am I spending time on this one? McPherson claims to simply be passing along scientific data to the public— data that most scientists are unwilling to talk about and governments are trying to keep secret. As a result, his followers (I mean to use that term more in the Twitter sense than a religious one) seem confident that they have the weight of science behind them. It takes careful examination of McPherson’s references, and a familiarity with the present state of climate science, to uncover that his claims aren’t scientific at all. I also get the feeling that his internet following might not be insignificant (as noted by climate scientist Michael Tobis) and could be growing, yet I couldn’t find any direct challenges with a web search. This makes one.

"Bizarro denial
First, I want to go over general problems with McPherson’s claims and talk about what climate science is really telling us. For those wanting specifics, I’ll post a list of point-by-point corrections of McPherson’s main “Climate Change Summary and Update” post in the third section.

"In many ways, McPherson is a photo-negative of the self-proclaimed “climate skeptics” who reject the conclusions of climate science. He may be advocating the opposite conclusion, but he argues his case in the same way. The skeptics often quote snippets of science that, on full examination, doesn’t actually support their claims, and this is McPherson’s modus operandi. The skeptics dismiss science they don’t like by saying that climate researchers lie to keep the grant money coming; McPherson dismisses inconvenient science by claiming that scientists are downplaying risks because they’re too cowardly to speak the truth and flout our corporate overlords. Both malign the IPCC as “political” and therefore not objective. And both will cite nearly any claim that supports their views, regardless of source— putting evidence-free opinions on par with scientific research. (In one example I can’t help but highlight, McPherson cites a survivalist blog warning that Earth’s atmosphere is running out of oxygen.)

"McPherson bills himself as a scientist simply passing along the science (even as he dismisses climate scientists and their work), but he cites nearly as many blog posts and newspaper columns as published studies. When he does cite a study, it’s often clear that he hasn’t taken the time to actually read it, depending instead on a news story about it. He frequently gets the information from the study completely wrong, which is a difficult thing for most readers to check given that most papers are behind paywalls (not to mention that scientific papers aren’t easy to understand).

"McPherson leans heavily on claims from people associated with the “Arctic News” blog about a catastrophic, runaway release of methane that supposedly is already underway in the Arctic. Unfortunately (or, rather, fortunately), the data don’t match their assertions. The latest IPCC and NAS assessment reports, in fact, deemed such a release “very unlikely” this century. One reason for that is that the Arctic has been this warm or warmer a couple times in the last 200,000 years, yet that methane stayed in the ground. Another reason is that scientists actually bother to study and model the processes involved. One thing McPherson and others like to point to is the recent work by Natalia Shakhova’s group observing bubbling plumes of methane coming up from the seafloor on the Siberian Shelf. Since we’ve only been sampling these plumes for a few years, we have no idea whether that release of methane is increasing or if these are long-term features. Similar plumes off Svalbard, for example, appear to be thousands of years old. (More to put this methane in context here.)

"That’s exactly the kind of detail and nuance that’s absent from McPherson’s claims. Instead, he’s content to link to YouTube videos or blog posts (some ludicrously unscientific— see below) and run with the idea that catastrophic warming is guaranteed as a result. He just latches onto anything that sounds scary. McPherson is especially fast and loose with timeframes. He likes to point to the magnitude of past climate changes (which took thousands of years or more) as proof that we are about to undergo similar changes in the next couple decades. That’s quite clearly a fallacious argument, but McPherson never concerns himself with the details. All the casual reader learns it that there was a huge change in the past analogous to the present that shows just how screwed we really are.

"And that’s McPherson’s thing— despair. We’re absolutely doomed, he tells us, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Everything is lost. He derides any sort of optimism or action as “hopium”. He notes in one recent post that “With an eye to improving my ‘bedside manner’ when I deliver presentations, I’ve recently become a certified grief-recovery counselor.” With such an extraordinary view, you would expect him to make the scientific case for extinction very clearly. But he does not. His argument fundamentally reduces to “positive feedbacks exist, ergo extinction”. That is, he lists examples of positive feedbacks (things that amplify change, like the added sunlight absorption of ocean water that has lost its sea ice cover) for a while, intending to overwhelm you with the number of processes that could add to global warming. And that’s it. There are no numbers explaining how big an effect each could have, no analysis of likely warming impacts, nothing. The fact is that climate scientists know about all these processes. But instead of throwing their hands up and saying “Oh, shit”, they actually do science.

"Again, specific examples of these things are given in the last section of this post. If you take a look at some of his mistakes and demonstrably false claims, you’ll have a hard time thinking of him as a credible source of information.

"[Update 3-13-14: Michael Tobis has covered some of the points I skipped over—namely, McPherson’s discussion of feedbacks— in a new post.]

"Just the facts
"So let’s briefly lay out the central claims of McPherson’s position, and review what the science really says. I think those are 1) positive feedbacks imply runaway global warming, 2) we will experience at least 3 to 4 degrees C warming in the next couple decades, and 3) on a 4C warmer planet, humans are dead.

"Numero uno. While the concept of a positive feedback (a little change triggers an addition that makes the change bigger, triggering another addition that…) sounds like snowballing without end, that’s not actually the case here. These positive climate feedbacks (and there are negative feedbacks, by the way) amplify warming, but only to a certain extent. After all, these same processes were in play when the Earth warmed out of the last glaciation (over the last ~18,000 years), which obviously didn’t scorch the planet. Without any of these feedbacks, the glacial/interglacial differences would be much smaller, but they do not cause runaway warming.

"There is such a thing as a runaway greenhouse effect– just ask the planet Venus. However, a recent study looking at what it would take to trigger such an event on Earth ballparked the requirements at around 75 times the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere, 5.5 times the methane, and some other greenhouse gases. The “business-as-usual” scenario in the latest IPCC report, where we do nothing to curtail greenhouse gas emissions, ends the century at about 2.3 times today’s CO2 and 2 times the methane. We have a lot of things to worry about, but a runaway greenhouse isn’t one of them. (McPherson, by the way, cites this same paper as if it shows that we’re about to trigger a runaway greenhouse.)

"So what are we facing if Arctic methane releases increase? Climate scientist David Archer shows some back-of-the-envelope math here. If the release increased by a factor of 100 and lasted for a century, it would be the equivalent of increasing today’s CO2 by 25-90%. Bad? Yes. Extinction? No.

"Nummer zwei. The latest IPCC report projects roughly 0.3 to 0.7C of warming by 2035. (The exact numbers are a little complicated, but I explained it here.) Farther into the future, the different emissions scenarios diverge. The “business-as-usual” scenario results in about 2.6 to 4.8C warming by 2100. Rosier scenarios involving moderate efforts to stabilize greenhouse gases yield warming of about 1.1 to 3.1C by 2100. There are precisely zero scientific studies projecting several degrees of warming by 2035, as McPherson predicts. (In fact, he cites one blogger’s childish prediction of a whopping 20C increase by 2050.)

"Numéro trois. So what are the impacts of 4C warming? Here’s a handy summary of the many impacts described in the 2007 IPCC report (this section of the newest report isn’t out yet). They include increased droughts, more extreme rainfall, rising sea levels, serious problems for many ocean organisms, real problems for many terrestrial species, lowered agricultural yields… It’s not pretty, and we very much want to avoid it, but it’s not human extinction.

"If you think the IPCC reports are lying about the state of the science, feel free to do a Google Scholar search for “climate change projections” in published studies.

"[Note 4-7-14: A comment from Paul Beckwith has revealed that I incorrectly attributed some statements and materials to the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, either due to Guy McPherson’s attribution or misunderstandings of my own. I considered preserving these statements for transparency, but don’t want to make the post too hard to read, so I will simply make the appropriate edits. I am grateful to Paul for bringing it to my attention.]"

The article continues with 'Errata'.....

 

[Tyger]

The 'Errata' follows from the above article. My suspicions about McPherson's 'science' took place when McPerson did two things -

- made spurious claims regarding the IPCC, and -

- suggested government censorship and government misinformation on the subject (as well as 'cowardly' scientists afraid to tell the truth. Always a clangor for me. It's my bias.)

My antennae start quivering whenever I hear such out-and-out grandiose claims. After listening to McPherson's complete Oregon talk (the two hour video I linked to in post #55 - and the first more informal presentation I've heard from him rather than the formal interviews which tend to be on-topic - I do not read his blog.) - I started to actively look for a savvy critique of McPherson. (Not a denier's ad hominem diss). There were several red-flags in his more informal 2-hour talk, especially during the Q&A.

I spent a good while trying to find a sensible critique of McPherson's pov. Not easy to find until I came across Fractal Planet and Michael Tobis - giving very credible analysis of McPherson's assertions. LINK: Guy McPherson - RationalWiki
"The few science bloggers who pay McPherson any attention have challenged his evidence, including scientist and blogger Michael Tobis and Fractal Planet, who have refuted his claims of runaway climate "feedbacks" as “not fast enough”, not meeting the technical description of what a positive feedback is, or else as actually constituting negative feedbacks. A blog entry entitled "How Guy McPherson Gets It Wrong" was published on February 17, 2014. Radio host Alex Smith explored the problematic reasoning and possible motivations behind McPherson's nihilistic views and also researched dubious sources of the purported extinction date, on the weekly Ecoshock program."

As stated above (quoted in post #56 by Tobis: "In many ways, McPherson is a photo-negative of the self-proclaimed “climate skeptics” who reject the conclusions of climate science. He may be advocating the opposite conclusion, but he argues his case in the same way." [That was exactly what I was starting to sense as I listened to McPherson - something was 'off '. ] "The skeptics often quote snippets of science that, on full examination, doesn’t actually support their claims, and this is McPherson’s modus operandi. The skeptics dismiss science they don’t like by saying that climate researchers lie to keep the grant money coming; McPherson dismisses inconvenient science by claiming that scientists are downplaying risks because they’re too cowardly to speak the truth and flout our corporate overlords. Both malign the IPCC as “political” and therefore not objective. And both will cite nearly any claim that supports their views, regardless of source— putting evidence-free opinions on par with scientific research. (In one example I can’t help but highlight, McPherson cites a survivalist blog warning that Earth’s atmosphere is running out of oxygen.)"

In the end one is always dependent - as a layman - on the integrity of our interpreters of science. The actual science is never easy to read, to follow or to understand, least of all easy to interpret on a grand scale with implications nattily lined up ducks-in-a-row fashion. We rely on those able to do all the foregoing - but in this murky area with so much disinformation and 'deniers' it's hard to find legitimate analysis of someone like McPherson. It seems I found it in Fractal Planet and Tobis.

It's well worth going into the Fractal Planet link since Scott Johnson gives excellent links throughout his article.

LINK: How Guy McPherson gets it wrong | Fractal Planet

"Errata
"Okay. These corrections and notes apply to this post on McPherson’s blog, which I took to be the most complete explication of his views available for fact-checking. The point of this tedious list is to back up the points I raised above and illustrate the untrustworthy and unscientific nature of McPherson’s claims.

"As his post appears to be updated over time, I’ll note that I accessed it on 2-13-2014. I’ll just go top to bottom.

–Guy McPherson (I’ll abbreviate as “GM”) cites the Brysse et al “side of least drama” paper to support his claim that climate scientists are simply unwilling to speak out about the imminent and existential threat of climate change. The paper absolutely does state that “scientists are biased not toward alarmism but rather the reverse: toward cautious estimates”. However, it’s more than a stretch to extend this to the idea that civilization is collapsing and we’re going extinct but climate scientists are saying everything is fine.

–GM writes, “Ever late to the party, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits global warming is irreversible without geoengineering in a report released 27 September 2013.” This can only be seen as a new “admission” if you know nothing about the carbon cycle. Warming is irreversible because CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries to millennia— this has always been known. Irreversible does not mean unstoppable, however, as GM seems to be implying. Reducing emissions stabilizes greenhouse gas concentrations, limiting warming. In order to lower temperatures, CO2 will have to be removed from the atmosphere— geoengineering. Old news.

–Now we get to “On a planet 4 C hotter than baseline, all we can prepare for is human extinction.” The reference for this pretty important statement? An opinion piece in the Guardian.

–GM references the paper I mentioned above about a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth being easier to trigger than previously thought. Of course, we saw that it requires far, far more warming than any realistic scenario of anthropogenic climate change— a point that is explicitly made in that paper.

–GM notes the discovery of a recent greenhouse gas (perfluorotributylamine) that is 7,100 more potent than CO2, molecule-for-molecule. This seems to be included only for the scary number. How much of it is in the atmosphere? At about 0.18 parts per trillion (in Toronto), it’s completely irrelevant to questions about the climate change we’re currently undergoing.

–GM cites a Geological Society of London release about climate sensitivity— the amount of warming we get from a given increase in CO2. GM describes it by saying that “Earth’s climate could be twice as sensitive to atmospheric carbon as previously believed.” But that’s not what the release says. The climate sensitivity values that are usually discussed (around 3C for a doubling of CO2) are specific measures over specific timeframes, developed to create a standardized comparison between models. The release describes an analysis of longer-term change, as the climate system comes into equilibrium over millennia. It’s that long-term change that the release says could be double the shorter-term sensitivity . If we’re discussing what we’re facing over the next few decades, that is completely irrelevant.

–Here’s where the Arctic methane stuff gets hot and heavy, as one person is quoted as saying, “The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040.” There’s simply no evidence for this. You won’t find any published studies to support it. GM goes a step further, citing an “analysis” on the “Arctic News” blog, predicting a 20C warming by 2050. What is this prediction based on? Curves drawn on a chart. If you fit the right polynomial (a dangerous activity) to the Arctic temperature data that shows roughly 2C warming from 1980 to 2010, you can get it to skyrocket to 20C by 2050. (Well, actually you can’t quite, so a steeper line is simply drawn on.) No climate model. No physics. Just a line. This isn’t science. This is the kind of thing that lazy climate “skeptics” do (the smarter ones won’t).

–GM includes a graph from the same “Arctic News” blog showing methane data. First, it claims that methane is 1,000 times more potent than CO2 (it isn’t) and thus responsible for the vast majority of global warming (it isn’t). Beyond that, it plots a single measurement of atmospheric methane from a single spot in the Arctic (>2,600 parts per billion) on a chart of global average atmospheric methane (currently about 1,800 ppb). This sudden “increase” is assumed to represent a catastrophic release. Unfortunately, this is simply ignorant. Methane concentration varies quite a bit around the world— highest in the Arctic, lowest in the Antarctic. Absolutely no effort was made to create an apples-to-apples comparison like, at the very least, calculating an average concentration for the Arctic for that week.

–GM reports that the US Navy “predicts an ice-free Arctic by summer 2016″. What does the linked post actually say? The lower bound of the predicted decline in a sea ice model run by Navy researchers was 2016. The researcher calls this “an aggressive interpretation”. What was the central date in the projection? Or the upper bound? We aren’t told. How does this sea ice model compare to others? GM isn’t interested in helping us find out. I would guess this means he hasn’t looked.

–GM quotes climate scientist Jason Box from a newspaper story, saying, “In 2012 Greenland crossed a threshold where for the first time we saw complete surface melting at the highest elevations in what we used to call the dry snow zone.” He uses this to support his contention that the climate system reached a tipping point— a threshold to runaway change— in 2007. But what Box was actually talking about was a freak event several days long in which melting conditions existed across the entire ice sheet. This was viewed as a weather event, not a significant climate event.

–In a note dismissing biofuels, GM describes them as “the nonsensical notion that industrial civilization can be used to overcome a predicament created by industrial civilization”. This is obviously an axiomatic assertion that makes you worry about GM’s objectivity.

–GM provides a timeline of climate “predictions”, ostensibly showing that they have become more and more alarming over the past few years. (We’ll leave aside, for the moment, that he doesn’t seem to understand the difference between projections— predictions contingent on scenarios of future emissions— and actual predictions.) An updated version of this list can be found here. [Update: I’ve been told that version is actually not the most recent.] The list is flat-out wrong. I dug up the actual numbers on several of them for an Ars commenter. GM claims the IPCC predict 1C of warming by 2100 in their 2007 report. It actually projected roughly 1.8 to 4C, depending on the emissions scenario. These numbers were equivalent to the projections from the previous report in 2001. Next, GM claims the Hadley Centre predicted 2C by 2100 in 2008. The document he links to provides no projections of global temperature of any kind. At the other end of the list, GM claims that the International Energy Agency predicted 3.5C warming by 2035 in 2013. The link goes to a poorly re-written press story from 2010. What did the IEA really say? Their 2010 report described a scenario in which the trajectory of growing emissions by 2035 was such that we would eventually hit 3.5C warming before greenhouse gases were stabilized. [Update: GM had already removed the IEA “prediction” from his post.] So does this list show climate projections becoming rapidly more dire? That’s a big, fat no.

–GM writes, “These assessments fail to account for significant self-reinforcing feedback loops (i.e., positive feedbacks, the term that implies the opposite of its meaning). The IPCC’s vaunted Fifth Assessment will continue the trend as it, too, ignores important feedbacks.” It’s not true that these assessments ignore positive feedbacks. It is true that not all processes are included in climate models, which continue to be developed. The link GM provides is to a story relates to the fact that the generation of models used for the latest IPCC report do not simulate thawing permafrost. For reference, one model that does simulate this process now projects that it would add an additional 0.1 to 0.7C warming by 2100 due to a release of CO2 that would raise the global concentration by 40 to 100 ppm. My guess is that those numbers aren’t scary enough for GM to want to mention them. (To be fair, that’s probably a conservative estimate, but it’s nowhere near the kind of thing GM is talking about.)

–GM cites a paper showing that Earth may have lost its moderate climate to a runaway greenhouse if it were more than 1% closer to the Sun (though it also notes that their analysis doesn’t account for clouds, which might broaden the range). He believes this supports a claim that “A minor change in Earth’s atmosphere removes human habitat. Unfortunately, we’ve invoked major changes.” How does one square this with warmer climates in Earth’s history, none of which triggered that runaway greenhouse? The Cretaceous period, notably, was far warmer than the present day. It wasn’t until an asteroid impact wreaked havoc on the climate system that a mass extinction took place. GM’s definitions of “minor change” and “major change” are fuzzy.

–GM brings up a temperature record from Concord, Massachusetts, in a very interesting parallel to climate “skeptics”. Individual records that show cooling over some period are often cited as proof that all this global warming stuff is hooey. Or the accuracy of a particular record is called into question in some way, as if climate science is a house of cards that can be brought down by the exposure of a single flaw. In this case, GM claims that while the instrumental temperature record indicates about 1C warming there since 1840, an analysis of the flowering dates from Henry David Thoreau’s journals indicates a warming of 2.4C. First off, it’s interesting to note GM implying that instrumental records are woefully inaccurate, when it’s this very information that helped climate science work out the anthropogenic nature of climate change. Second, if GM had bothered to read the paper, he would have discovered that the 2.4C number comes from the local instrumental record, not the flowering dates. The instrumental record was used to study how the flowering dates changed with temperature. I have no idea where he got the 1C number from.

–GM claims that the Next Generation Science Standards (for public schools) “buries the relationship between combustion of fossil fuels and planetary warming”. “The misadventures of the corporate government continue”, he complains. In a post about evolution and climate change in those science standards by the National Center for Science Education, they quote from the standards: “Human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature (global warming).” Why did GM make this up?

–GM cites a briefing from the UN talks in Copenhagen saying that the past shows sea level should be 23 meters higher at today’s CO2 concentration. What does this briefing, from a Jamaican reef biochemist, note about this? “IPCC projections are based on modes for a time period of 20, 50, or 100 years, when the response of the climate system to increased CO2 takes thousands of years, so models miss more than 90% of the long term response…” Again, we’re up against timeframe details. GM equates long-term equilibrium changes with short term, decadal ones. Here’s a study looking at the same thing: they estimate the long term sea level rise at today’s CO2 at 9-31 meters, noting that would take 500 to 2,500 years. The reason for this is that these studies are based on estimating past sea levels and CO2 concentrations (which is complicated). These records are necessarily at long term equilibrium, because that’s what the geologic record preserves for us that far back in time.

–I don’t think I need to comment on this claim: “In other words, near-term extinction of humans was already guaranteed, to the knowledge of Obama and his administration (i.e., the Central Intelligence Agency, which runs the United States and controls presidential power). Even before the dire feedbacks were reported by the scientific community, the administration abandoned climate change as a significant issue because it knew we were done as early as 2009. Rather than shoulder the unenviable task of truth-teller, Obama did as his imperial higher-ups demanded: He lied about collapse, and he lied about climate change. And he still does.”

–“Arctic News” returns, along with a YouTube video, to claim that “Arctic methane release and rapid global temperature rise are interlinked — including a temperature rise up to about 1 C per year over a decade,according to data from ice cores“. The “analysis” is someone looking at data from a Greenland ice core, deciding that methane looks more important than CO2 (physics need not apply), and noting the abrupt warming at the end of the Younger Dryas, an interesting period about 12,000 years ago and is thought to have been brought about by a disruption of ocean circulation. (Questions remain.) First, temperatures calculated from Greenland ice cores are local temperatures, not the global average, and the change during the remarkable event was less elsewhere. Second, the methane increase in the ice cores they point to as the cause of the warming is from about 450 to 750 ppb— a difference of 300 ppb. Remember that the global average today is about 1,800 ppb. Methane has increased about 150 ppb since 1985. Has that had a similar effect to what they’re proposing? The first link in GM’s statement contains this ludicrous extrapolation: “The atmospheric temperature increase in Australia this year (0.22C) indicates that in 10 years it will exceed 2.2C and in 30 to 40 years, 6.6C to 8.8C.” I’m not sure you can get more unscientific than that. Australia, by the way, has warmed about 1C since 1950.

–For the sake of my sanity, I’m going to skip over the list of positive feedbacks. Suffice to say, some of them are just more “Arctic News” claims and several others are mis-reported. Others are fine. [Michael Tobis took a look at this list in this post.]

–GM finally comes right out and says “the scientists writing official reports on climate change are lying”.

–GM writes “And never mind that warming in the interior of large continents in the northern hemisphere has outstripped model predictions in racing to 6-7 C already, according to a paper that tallies temperature rise in China’s interior in the 15 May 2013 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.” What does that study really say? “Here, we show central China is a region that experienced a much larger temperature change since the Last Glacial Maximum than typically simulated by climate models… We find a summertime temperature change of 6–7 °C that is reproduced by climate model simulations presented here.” The Last Glacial Maximum, remember, is the peak of the last “ice age” around 20,000 years ago. Why is GM pretending that parts of China have experienced 6-7C of anthropogenic warming, and that this shows projections of future warming to be too conservative?

–GM writes “Through late March 2013, global oceans have risen approximately ten millimeters per year during the last two years. This rate of rise is over three times the rate of sea level rise during the time of satellite-based observations from 1993 to the present.” Sounds like it’s accelerating rapidly, doesn’t it? Even his link is to a post showing why this is not a sign of acceleration. The tremendous La Nina of 2011 dumped tons of rain on Australia and the Amazon, adding so much water to continental storage that sea level fell over 5 mm. As that water drained back to the oceans, sea level rise increased. You can see the most up-to-date data here. This is cherry picking. This is what climate “skeptics” do.

–GM writes “On a particularly dire note for humanity, climate change causes early death of five million people peach year.” This links to a story about an NGO report. The summary from the actual report states, “This report estimates that climate change causes 400,000 deaths on average each year today, mainly due to hunger and communicable diseases that affect above all children in developing countries. Our present carbon-intensive energy system and related activities cause an estimated 4.5 million deaths each year linked to air pollution, hazardous occupations and cancer.”

–GM writes, “The Guardian‘s headline from 13 November 2013 announces, ‘Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows.'” Sounds like global warming is accelerating beyond scientist’s projections! The story refers to a study (which I covered here) showing that one particular global temperature dataset (there are several) was underestimating recent temperatures, primarily due to a lack of measurements in the Arctic. That bias (by which I mean measurement bias, not bias in the political sense) made the recent slowdown in atmospheric warming (related to some action in the Pacific) seem a little larger than it really was. Other datasets had less of this bias. Accounting for this still leaves the last decade of atmospheric warming slower than the previous one. (Again, this is natural variability— warming of the ocean hasn’t slowed.)

–GM writes, “Global loss of sea ice matches the trend in the Arctic. It’s down, down, and down some more, with the five lowest values on record all happening in the last seven years (through 2012).” This may seem like a nit-pick, but this is a pointless statement. The global sea ice trend depends on two places- Antarctica and the Arctic. In Antarctica, there’s been a slight increase recently, while the Arctic has seen a large decrease. Therefore, the reason that global sea ice is down is that Arctic sea ice is down.

–GM writes, “[T]he 13 September 2013 issue of Science contains another surprise for mainstream scientists : The Pine Island Glacier is melting from below as a result of warming seawater.” It’s well known (and bloody obvious) that warming seawater melts marine-terminating glaciers. Calling this “another surprise for mainstream scientists” is just a mindless pot-shot.

–GM writes, “The climate situation is much worse than I’ve led you to believe, and is accelerating far more rapidly than accounted for by models.” The link goes to a YouTube video from David Wasdell of the “Apollo-Gaia Project” telling a parable. He’s not a scientist, but his videos are used as evidence several other times, as well.

–GM cites a Peter Wadhams prediction of ice-free Arctic summers by 2015 or 2016 (more than once, I think). Apart from Wieslaw Maslowski, you won’t find other sea ice researchers making such a dire prediction. As you can see, it would take a truly incredible change in the next couple years for this prediction to come true.

–Back to the pointless pejoratives, we get “In a turn surprising only to mainstream climate scientists, Greenland ice is melting rapidly.” First, this link just refers to the freak surface melting weather from July 2012 I mentioned above. Second, the rate that Greenland ice is melting is no surprise to climate scientists, who have been the ones documenting it year in and year out. GM uses the phrase “mainstream climate scientists” like Sarah Palin says “lamestream media”.

–Here’s a hum-dinger I mentioned way up above. “As one little-discussed example, atmospheric oxygen levels are dropping to levels considered dangerous for humans, particularly in cities.” Yes, that link goes to a survivalist blog. No, we’re not going to suffocate because burning fossil fuels is using up all the oxygen in the atmosphere. It’s true that fossil fuel combustion has sightly lowered the concentration— this is one way we know humans are responsible for rising CO2— but it’s not even remotely close to a significant decrease. Between 1990 and 2005, the proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere decreased about 0.0002%.

–GM writes, “An increasing number of scientists agree that warming of 4 to 6 C causes a dead planet. And, they go on to say, we’ll be there by 2060.” The link goes to a blog post by writer David Spratt, who was used as a reference before. Spratt gets the 4-6C comment from a reference to warming in 2100. He invents the “as early as 2060″ himself. The “dead planet” part of the statement refers to this World Bank release about the dangerous impacts of 4C warming. Spratt describes this as ending “the world as we know it”, which GM flips into “a dead planet”. You won’t find any such description from World Bank.

–GM cites a video of a PhD student talking about the possibility of 6C warming in a decade and uses this graph to support it, presumably because the spike at the end looks scary. Apart from the fact that the graph doesn’t actually come from the paper he cites, but rather data from two papers (one of which he cites) combined with a business-as-usual projection for the next century (which he does not explain), the scary spike at the end is just the same ~3C warming by 2100 IPCC projection he was discounting earlier. To tidy up the math here, 3C/90yrs =/= 6C/10yrs.

–The end of the post claims that the Pentagon is surveilling us online in case finding out that we’re going extinct turns us into ecoterrorists. Just sayin’…

–Lastly a quote from another post of GM’s, which he explains why he thinks the collapse of human civilization can’t get here quickly enough. “Yet, seemingly contrary to these simple, easy-to-reach conclusions, I work toward collapse. Largely unafflicted by the arrogance of humanism, I work on behalf of non-human species. Industrial civilization is destroying every aspect of the living planet, and I know virtually nobody who wants to stop the runaway train. Yes, collapse will kill us. But our deaths are guaranteed regardless, unless I missed a memo.”

"Update: I’ve discovered some interesting comments on GM’s post. A poster named Eric took issue with some of GM’s claims, and pointed out a few of the same errors I’ve outlined above (like reports not saying what GM claims they say). To make sure his criticism came across correctly, Eric noted, “I’m not saying climate change is a non issue - In fact I happen to think that it is humanities BIGGEST issue. However hyperbole and exaggerated threats serve no purpose but too slow down the response and make people lose hope. I appreciate your time and I hope I have contributed to the discussion in a meaningful way.”

"After another poster asked if GM was going to respond, he wrote, “I will not take time to deal with Eric the denier. No amount of evidence will convince deniers of anything, so I’ll not waste my time. If you’re interested in evidence, there’s plenty in this post to support all I’ve written and said.” This appears to be a representative exchange."

 

[Tyger]

The following blog by Michael Tobis (of Planet 3.0 Beyond Sustainability) is outstanding imo. I have quoted only the beginning for the moment since my time is limited this morning, but the entire blog post is an invaluable assessment of McPherson by someone savvy about Climate Change.

McPherson’s Evidence That Doom Doom Doom
March 13, 2014
LINK: McPherson’s Evidence That Doom Doom Doom | Planet3.0

TEXT: "Who is Guy McPherson?
"A former professor of ecology, Guy McPherson has attained some fame and respect among back-to-the-land “permaculture” types. I have no idea what he may or may not know about ecology, but he doesn’t know much about climate. This hasn’t prevented him from using his professorial credentials in the “permie” subculture, and what he tells the permies is that we are absolutely, irrevocably doomed.

"Specifically, he believes that there are unstoppable feedbacks built into the climate system that have now triggered the system into instability. He thinks the climate will go bonkers in the way Jimi Hendrix’s guitar would howl when he held it up to the amp speaker. And he thinks it will go so thoroughly out of kilter as to kill every human alive by 2030. It’s hard to tell why, but some people love him for it. It seems to me he is doing a lot of damage with this schtick nonetheless.

"Fortunately, he is both completely out of his depth and wrong. It’s about time he got challenged by people with the scientific ammunition to stand up to him."


What is telling is Scott Johnson's final comments in the Fractal Planet blog about McPherson - which I saw something of in the 2-hour Oregon talk: "I’ve [Scott Johnson] discovered some interesting comments on GM’s post. A poster named Eric took issue with some of GM’s claims, and pointed out a few of the same errors I’ve outlined above (like reports not saying what GM claims they say). To make sure his criticism came across correctly, Eric noted, “I’m not saying climate change is a non issue - In fact I happen to think that it is humanities BIGGEST issue. However hyperbole and exaggerated threats serve no purpose but too slow down the response and make people lose hope. I appreciate your time and I hope I have contributed to the discussion in a meaningful way.”

"After another poster asked if GM was going to respond, he wrote, “I will not take time to deal with Eric the denier. No amount of evidence will convince deniers of anything, so I’ll not waste my time. If you’re interested in evidence, there’s plenty in this post to support all I’ve written and said.” This appears to be a representative exchange."

 

[flipper]

Today's Weather due to Climate Change and why you should look out the window

Last year it snowed everyday through November and December. By the time Christmas came we must have had four feet of snow. This year we had a very bad early snow storm and then it warmed up. The last two weeks have been foggy with the last two days being rainy. Guy R. McPherson in this podcast on December 12, 2014 explains the phenomenon when he talks about the wandering Jet Stream :
Global Research News Hour – CKUW 95.9 FM
The show on December 19, 2014 also talks about climate change.

 

[Tyger]

As Tobias says: "One can disagree about matters of substance – does the wavering northern jet stream cause Arctic warming or does Arctic warming cause the wavering jet stream? One can have fruitful disagreements about matters of substance."

This is what I hope we do on this thread. Thank you for the link, flipper.