Home > Uncategorized > Global warming: an update

Global warming: an update

astonishingIn an article in today’s Mail on Sunday, David Rose makes the extraordinary claim that “world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data, accusing the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of manipulating the data to show more warming in a 2015 study by Tom Karl and coauthors. What he fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results.

Source

 

  1. Dave Raithel
    February 5, 2017 at 3:17 pm

    To belabor the obvious in a related context:

    where you can find this gem: ‘Garry Kasparov … tweeted: “The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.”’

    Yep.

  2. February 5, 2017 at 4:42 pm

    I have found an interesting website which monitors Earth wind, waves, temperatures, etc. on a continuous basis. Click on the “earth” button to change the display:

    https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/primary/waves/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-48.44,31.82,341/loc=-13.907,1.062

  3. antireifier
    February 5, 2017 at 5:03 pm

    So what if they had lied and I believe they did not. There is no downside to accepting the scientific data and taking appropriate action which I believe they are not doing. The argument is about spending money. Money is unlimited because it is one of a few things that we cannot run out of and, if it is being used productively, will not cause problems such as inflation. Money is like inches. Can you imagine the foreman on a construction site coming up to the men who are sitting around doing nothing. When he asks them why they are not working, they tell him that they cannot continue because they have run out of inches.

    • ralph wheelock
      February 7, 2017 at 11:31 pm

      Yes, I read Allen Watts too!
      Let’s have the guaranteed and see how creative and cool the world can become.

      • ralph wheelock
        February 7, 2017 at 11:32 pm

        guaranteed annual wage that is

  4. patrick newman
    February 5, 2017 at 7:50 pm

    Lies, damned lies, statistics and Daily Mail climate change articles.What do they hope to achieve by trying to hoodwink the population. The climate will do what the climate will do and no modern King Canute whether Bannon or the Daily Mail has any long term interest in liying about the climate.

  5. February 7, 2017 at 4:30 am

    I read the 2015 NOAA report cover to cover. And reviewed the data upon which it’s based. The conclusions are fairly straight forward. And as noted have been verified by several independent sources. The so called “whistle blower” cited by the paper is Dr. John Bates. Bates was not a co-author on the report. Nor did he supervise its preparation. While his disagreements with the report authors may be real, the consensus of the authors (and science operates by consensus; why else have peer review) did not agree with Bates. Now Republicans in Congress are substituting Bates’ single view for the consensus of the report authors. This is the worst kind of junk science.

    • February 7, 2017 at 5:22 am

      “science operates by consensus; why else have peer review”

      Science, in relation to the truth-value of scientific conclusions, operates by preponderance of evidence, procedural rigour, and idependent verification of results by reproduction of the relevant procedure; not by mere consensus about conclusions. Consensus of course applies to theoretic conventions, but consensus about empirical data is nonsensical as it would preclude observation of exceptions (and thus fail the refutability test). A positive recommendation in peer review does not imply endorsement of validity of the conclusions or a verification of the results, but only that the relevant argument and procedure is adequately grounded in the existing body of knowledge. It is a general position of government regulators that peer-reviewing is ‘not a sufficient condition for the research to be of regulatory standard’.

      • February 7, 2017 at 11:52 am

        Michael, unless you’re saying evidence,etc. just jumps out and shows itself clearly and precisely to scientists then all scientists’ observations must be interpreted. And they must be interpreted by each scientist. The interpretations are published, discussed (privately and at meetings), peer reviewed, discussed some more, and, if enough scientists agree the assessment of these interpretations is important enough then debated to determine if a consensus interpretation can be created. Early European scientists didn’t have much of a local network for this work. They relied a lot on Islamic and Chinese science and the few local discussants available. Now there are hundreds, sometimes thousands of scientists working on such concerns as climate change, communications, pollution, etc. You can find a wonderful and detailed description of this process in Naomi Oreskes’ “Merchants of Doubt” discussion of how scientists arrived at the consensus conclusions about the origins and impacts of acid rain. Reaching that consensus took 19 years.

        Your assertion that “consensus about empirical data is nonsensical” is nonsensical. There are an infinite number of consensus positions on any set of observations. If one fails because of new data or new interpretations of data then the process to find a replacement consensus moves forward. Sometimes that involves just tweaks of the former consensus. Sometimes it involves an an entirely new consensus.

        I was a regulator for 30 years, so I understand how scientific conclusions are treated by regulators. They seek to weigh these against other factors such as cost, justice, public convenience, and regulatory efficiency. I agree with this philosophy. But if the scientific conclusions are supported by a broad group of scientists (like climate change) and forecast severe impacts on human life and property (like climate change) then it is imperative regulators act as quickly as possible to find ways to address such concerns. Even if costly, involving complex questions of justice, adding to public inconvenience, and over burdening regulatory analysts and hearing staffs.

      • February 7, 2017 at 12:21 pm

        Ken, you misunderstood my statement that “consensus about empirical data is nonsensical”, and I also could have been more clear. I meant that consensus does not of itself establish an empirical fact but always follows a fact, nor can it override the first-person authority of observation. I am not saying that consensus is impossible or meaningless, but both incomplete and unnecessary for putting the most effcient or plausible theory into practice. The kind of consensus you are talking about is philosphical rather than empirical-scientific, which is of course not inconsistent with science in general but only with strong convictions about facts.

        But I don’t want to debate peripheral philosophical issues too much if we can both can agree on a common criterion of scientific fact in the present context. Going back to the graph presented above I would like to see how this matches up with anthropogenic contribution to the atmospheric CO2. I think this is THE critical correlation for the argument of anthropogenic climate change being more significant than any natural cause of climate change.

      • February 7, 2017 at 8:10 pm

        Michael. the relationships you mention between CO2 emissions and global temperature are all found on NOAA’s (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/) and NASA’s (http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/) websites. Thought with the new Administration for how much longer I don’t know. As statistical relationships go they’re strong. Not perfect, of course.

        Think of science as just pumped up ordinary human imagination and thinking. Best example of the difference I know of relates to Senator Inhofe and climate change. The Senator picks up a snow ball from outside his office in DC. Brings it into the Senate Chamber to prove that climate change is a hoax. He took one observation, interpreted it and then gave that interpretation to the Senate. Scientists are just ordinary humans. No different than Inhofe. What they do as scientists is continually observe, taking dozens or hundreds of observations, and they take these from as many perspectives, with as many tools, and from as many locations as possible. That allows them a “scientific” view of climate change. From that they create scientific facts. These “facts” are “theoretical constructs,” because humans can’t achieve anything else. No scientist would call them “reality.” They are scientists’ consensus. But the longer they work as predicted the stronger scientists believe in them. But they remain always theoretical constructs, and thus changeable. This is how the NOAA and NASA data sets on CO2 and climate change are created. And this is the best and more certain knowledge of that relationship we have.

  6. antireifier
    February 8, 2017 at 3:05 am

    Guys! We don’t need scientific consensus or proof to take action. There is no downside to taking action. If there is climate change as described and we DON’T take action there is a significant downside. Debating whether or not it exists is a waste of time and energy.

    • February 8, 2017 at 3:16 am

      The downside is immense for fossil-fuel rich countries. There are several countries for which fossil fuels are all they have to export, and therefore an existential necessity. Some countries are better placed than others for developing renewable energy technologies, but until the cost of those technologies will be as low as that of fossil fuels the downside exists. We certainly should keep working in that direction.

    • February 8, 2017 at 4:40 am

      According to Brietbart.com that’s not the case.

      The global climate change industry is worth an annual $1.5 trillion, according to Climate Change Business Journal. That’s the equivalent of $4 billion a day spent on vital stuff like carbon trading, biofuels, and wind turbines. Or — as Jo Nova notes — it’s the same amount the world spends every year on online shopping. (Posted August 2015)

      And the climate change hoaxsters are stealing that money right out of your pocket and mine. Without our permission. Funding things that help no one.

      • antireifier
        February 8, 2017 at 5:00 am

        HAHAHA Breitbart. My comment is “So what? If it is coming out of our pockets maybe it is time to look at the political economics BS that justifies that approach but suggesting that climate change is a hoax doesn’t cut it. A market approach to a problem (allegedly if you want) caused by market forces and marketeers. Are these things having any kind of an impact? Evidence? Personally, I would have preferred to deal with it with legislation and regulation. We know that the money being spent is like inches. Builders don’t run out of inches when they are constructing a building.”

      • February 8, 2017 at 6:08 am

        Money is not like inches, because the unit of account gets “shorter” the more you create of them (money supply) or the more you use them (velocity). For a more in depth analysis of money see my article in this journal issue 70.

      • February 8, 2017 at 6:13 am

        antireifier, the veracity of Breitbart aside your view on inches would sound nonsensical to most members of Congress and certainly to most of their constituents. For most constituents, who see money as a finite object, spending $1.5 billion per year on dealing with climate change that’s a hoax is taking food out of their and their children’s mouths, jeopardizing their homes and autos, and their savings for retirement. In their view money should be spent on important things, things that solve problems people face. Many of them don’t see climate change as such a thing.

      • antireifier
        February 8, 2017 at 7:09 am

        So what. Just proves the ignorance of the Amerian voters about money. Does not mean we accept that climate change is a hoax. Americans are also the most likely to refuse regulation which is my preferred option. I figure we are f—ed as a species on this planet. But the ants will be OK. Wish I never had had kids and now have to think about the misery my grandkids will have to live with. Very sad. I know they don’t see it but they don’t care about the 1%ers taking all the money that they can get their hands on. But there are economists who would not understand my comment about inches. And if you do why are you putting that concept down? It gets some people asking about money creation when you make a statement like that. They ask what I am talking about. It starts a conversation.

      • February 8, 2017 at 7:47 am

        You’ve got the wording correct. The voters are ignorant. For that reason I think we begin the conversation at a point where the voters are comfortable and then move gradually into explaining that money is not a zero-sum game. Fixing climate change, even if it’s not exactly what we think it is will not starve their children or lead to their homes being foreclosed. So long as the richest among us are stopped from grabbing every dollar that surfaces. If that isn’t stopped we’ll not be fixing climate change, infrastructure, health care, food safety, or anything else. We’ll be that dystopian state depicted in 1984 and the Mockingbird movies.

  7. February 9, 2017 at 7:36 pm

    The Guardian just published this story on the 2015 NOAA climate change report and the intent of NOAA whistleblower John Bates in his pubic comments on that report. Per Bates, “I knew people would misuse this.” And, per the story they did, to attack climate science. In fact, to attack all science.

    Link to story: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/09/whistleblower-i-knew-people-would-misuse-this-they-did-to-attack-climate-science?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017&utm_term=212523&subid=21037142&CMP=GT_US_collection

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s