Australian Politics Forum

Must be upsetting for the AGW croud, that all that scaremongering over a local weather event in the US has all been a waste.

Harsh weather doesn't prove global warming, Republican lawmakers say

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/242239-harsh-weather-doesnt-prove-global-warming-republican-lawmakers-say

Guess it is the skeptics turn to start using extreme cold as the definitive answer that there is no glabal warming. Lets see what non-scaremongering will do.

Politicians out of step with their own electorates. This comes from the same article.

Quote:

Although scientists caution climate change can’t be blamed for individual events, this summer may be linked to a trend toward hotter, drier weather in much of the country. Public opinion has been affected by seasonal conditions. Last month, 70 percent of respondents to a University of Texas at Austin poll said they believed the climate was changing, up from 65 percent in March. The jump in belief was largest among people in the drought-hit South.

MOTR wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 7:12am:

Their master's voice.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005582

Dont see anything unusual. Do you know how much oil and gas give to catastrophic climate change groups?

Even Republicans.

Is It Hot Enough for Ya?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/is-it-hot-enough-for-ya.html?pagewanted=all

For now, though, Americans, long cynical about global warming, are confronting the facts. According to a survey conducted in July by the University of Texas, 70 percent of Americans believe the climate is changing, compared to 65 percent in March, and only 15 percent say it isn’t. Party affiliation continues to divide public opinion, but today most Republicans, 53 percent, believe in climate change, as do 72 percent of independents and 87 percent of Democrats.

Perhaps that’s because this year’s extreme weather has afflicted residents of red and blue states equally. The United States Drought Monitor, based at the University of Nebraska, reports that moderate to severe drought conditions this summer are affecting 64 percent of the lower 48 states, leading to domestic food inflation and record high prices for grain.

You're in a diminishing minority, progs. Get used to it.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 12:39am:

Pity you won't have as many events to point to. Though I'm sure you'll try it on.

MOTR wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 7:27am:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 12:39am:

Pity you won't have as many events to point to. Though I'm sure you'll try it on.

So why have you left out the 1930's again. Cherry picking a quiet period vs today, will give you exactly what you want. Pathetic.

progressiveslol got 0wned ;D

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 10:13am:

progressiveslol got 0wned ;D

Yeh sure lol by cherry picking a period of quiet and leaving out a period of much lower co2 and not that long ago, 1930's. Compare the 2, then you can come back and say owned.

Can't argue with a graph, can you?

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 11:26am:

This just in:

You've been missing the discussion on Watts on another thread. In a nut shell, he made a great many incorrect assumptions and failed to grasp the basic principles. Of course, that's not entirely unexpected for a layman.

Did you miss this part, where the maximum possible effect of adjustments was discussed?

Quote:

Adjustments Make Little Difference Globally
While Watts et al. identify possible issues concerning the adjustments applied to station temperature records, it wisely makes no attempt to assess the global impact of the adjustments, which are beyond the scope of the work. Nonetheless, this is a significant question from a public interest perspective.

In order to answer this question, we willl try and estimate the maximum possible impact of station adjustments on the instrumental temperature record. To minimise the warming signal, we will use the simplest method for calculating a global temperature average - the CRU method, which is known to yield poor coverage at high latitudes and hence underestimate recent warming. Further, we'll assume that entirety of the data adjustments are wrong (ignoring proven bias corrections such as TOB). If we calculate land temperature averages from both the raw and adjusted data, we can see how much difference the adjustments make. The result is shown in the figure below (red and green lines).

In fact the adjustments make very little difference anyway.

muso wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 1:48pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 11:26am:

This just in:

In fact the adjustments make very little difference anyway.

I wouldnt say a doubling of temp in US is insignificant. He is looking at just the US. Apparently the best temp data in the world where records are concerned.

This is significant and the data so poor, it needs this type of going over.

The convergence of airport temps from non-airport temps shows there is still a UHI in place.

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 12:34pm:

Can't argue with a graph, can you?

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/

Hahaha lol

But now that you mention it.....

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 10:17am:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 10:13am:

progressiveslol got 0wned ;D

Yeh sure lol by cherry picking a period of quiet and leaving out a period of much lower co2 and not that long ago, 1930's. Compare the 2, then you can come back and say owned.

This coming from someone who regularly tries to claim it hasn't warmed since 1998 ;D

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 12:34pm:

Can't argue with a graph, can you?

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/

Good to see that sense of humour Soren, you've given me a few chuckles, recently!

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 6:13pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 10:17am:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 10:13am:

progressiveslol got 0wned ;D

Yeh sure lol by cherry picking a period of quiet and leaving out a period of much lower co2 and not that long ago, 1930's. Compare the 2, then you can come back and say owned.

This coming from someone who regularly tries to claim it hasn't warmed since 1998 ;D

I dont try, it just is. Going from the middle of the peak in 98 to now, would be a downward trend.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:43pm:

This is significant

No. It's a blog post. From a radio news weatherman. It's meaningless.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 6:55pm:

I dont try, it just is. Going from the middle of the peak in 98 to now, would be a downward trend.

Which part of "cherry picking a period" don't you understand? Why are you incapable of applying your own standards of logic and evidence to your own beliefs?

MOTR wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 8:08pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 11:26am:

This just in:

Have a look at this chart. It tells you pretty much all you need to know about the much-anticipated scoop by Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That?What it means, in a nutshell, is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – the US government body in charge of America's temperature record, has systematically exaggerated the extent of late 20th century global warming. In fact, it has doubled it.

Perhaps Soren can tell us where this paper has been published.

Perhaps I could.
Or you could just move your cursor over the text accompanying the graph. The text between the graph and the 'this just in' headline. The text in blue.

And all will be revealed.

(neat, innit?)

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:59pm:

I you could catch up with debate and learn that it HASN'T been published, it was rushed out and released on a blog. It's highly doubtful it ever WILL get published. It is a non event, despite what the internet may have led you to believe ::)

muso wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 1:48pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 11:26am:

This just in:

In fact the adjustments make very little difference anyway.

So how did the denialists triumph? Manne in this month's The Monthly:

A NEW breed of denialists. . . had been . . . searching for methodological or empirical mistakes in (the work of climate scientists) and demanding from them . . . the raw data from which their conclusions had been drawn and even the computer codes they had devised.

As a result, a small number of minor errors were unearthed . . . in . . . statistical work . . . or in . . . weather station data . . . This strategy was highly effective.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 10:04pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:59pm:

I you could catch up with debate and learn that it HASN'T been published, it was released on a blog.

Did I say any different?

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 10:11pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 10:04pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:59pm:

I you could catch up with debate and learn that it HASN'T been published, it was released on a blog.

Did I say any different?

Don't be obtuse, Soren.

But thanks for the link. Long after Watts' unpublishable paper has sunk without trace in the scientific literature, Delingpole's readers will know Watts what.

Perhaps the interpreter of interpretations is not the best go to man when you are looking for an appeal to scientific authority.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0&sns=em

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0

Quote:

The full BBC Horizon programme is on iplayer. This is the section of the programme featuring UK sceptic James Delingpole, who complained on his blog that this interview amounted to 'intellectual rape'.

Here is something for you to ponder. Dont expect any science from mr hansom, unless ignoring the past and cherry picking data is your thing.

Jonathan Overpeck, Professor, Department of Geosciences and the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Co-director of the Institute of the Environment at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The droughts that are occurring this year on the Great Plains are a true calamity, but to blame them on a “greenhouse gas” mediated “greenhouse effect” is improper from a scientific point of view, since the “greenhouse effect” is hypothetical warming said to be caused primarily by water vapor and droughts are caused by a lack of water vapor. Therefore, droughts and the “greenhouse effect” cannot occupy the same space at the same time—one requires the presence of water vapor and the other requires its absence

http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/the-greenhouse-effect-and-droughts-are-mutually-exclusive/

The subject of this article is whether or not such droughts can be caused by a water vapor mediated “greenhouse effect.” According to the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis itself the “greenhouse effect” requires the presence of water vapor to operate. That is, water vapor not only accounts for the majority of the primary “greenhouse warming” in the atmosphere (60-90% depending upon the author) but it also, via “positive water vapor feedback,” is responsible for the much of the hypothetical warming caused by secondary “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide. So, where there is little or no water vapor there can be little or no greenhouse effect. Take, for example the precipitous nighttime cooling seen in a desert mentioned by John Tyndall:
“Whenever the air is dry we are liable to daily extremes of temperature. By day in such places, the sun’s heat reaches the earth unimpeded and renders the maximum high; by night on the other hand the earth’s heat escapes unhindered into space and renders the minimum low. Hence the difference between the maximum and minimum is greatest where the air is driest.
“In the plains of India, on the heights of the Himalaya, in Central Asia, in Australia—wherever drought reigns, we have the heat of day forcibly contrasted with the chill of night. In the Sahara itself, when the sun’s rays cease to impinge on the burning soil the temperature runs rapidly down to freezing, because there is no vapour overhead to check the calorific drain.”

Tyndall, John, On radiation: The “Rede” lecture, delivered in the Senate-house before the University of Cambridge, England, on Tuesday, May 16, 1865
a) Little or no water vapor = little or no greenhouse effect
b) Little or no water vapor = drought

Ergo: droughts cannot possibly be caused by the “greenhouse effect” since the “greenhouse effect” is a hypothetical effect caused primarily by water vapor. Where there is enough water vapor in the air to cause said hypothetical “greenhouse effect” then there will be no drought, because it will be cloudy and rainy instead. Ergo, droughts and the “greenhouse effect” are mutually exclusive. Droughts are, in fact, caused by a “greenhouse gas” deficit, i.e., not enough water vapor in the air!

MOTR wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 2:45am:

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 10:11pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 10:04pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:59pm:

I you could catch up with debate and learn that it HASN'T been published, it was released on a blog.

Did I say any different?

I've seen this clip before and I still think JD is correct: it is not sufficient that scientists agree on something. That would be sufficient if this was only a scientific issue. But it isn't. It is a political issue grounded in scientific interpretation of data and models.

What makes this issue interesting and the subject of years of disputation is the political and social action that flows from the interpretation of data and models. Statistics in itself is too boring to argue over.

The cancer analogy is very appealing to AGW partisans but it is a fundamentally flawed analogy, calculated to play 'gotcha'. Why? Because a cancer diagnosis is not based on models and stats. Climate science is. A closer - but still flawed - analogy would be if astrological predictions, based on millenia of data about what a Libra or Scorpio personality is. Astrology is stats. A cancer diagnosis isn't.

This is why JD was squirming, not because the analogy was spot on. It was as if he was suddenly questioned by SOB with a completely wacky curve ball - on camera. He was surprised by the silliness of the analogy and the arrogance of it, perhaps, wondering how, if not out of malice, a scientifically trained man could come up with such a flawed analogy.

This is the kind of thing that is sinking the AGW argument: the political, social arrogance and bullying. It's ot the graphs and the stats. It's the interpretations AND the political and social interpretations of those interpretations.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 10:04am:

Here is something for you to ponder. Dont expect any science from mr hansom, unless ignoring the past and cherry picking data is your thing.

It made me ponder alright. I pondered why an apparent authority would come to the conclusion as you quoted it. Upon further investigation, I discovered that the quote is actually written by someone else altogether and is actually just an interpretation of what the good Professor supposedly said. Being somewhat of a sceptic myself, I decided to follow the evidence trail and see where it led. My first instinct was to go to the original source and read what he actually said for myself but, sadly, I soon learned that the 'source' was a supposed interview on Coast to Coast, a fringe conspiracy radio station syndicated across the US, famous for promoting 'alternative' theories subjects ranging from 'fluoride is a freemason plot' to 'the aliens are controlling my brain' and even if I was so inclined I'd be unable to review the interview for myself because I'm using a 3G connection with very limited bandwidth. So I did the next best thing, I decided to research other statements on the topic of climate change and drought in the US. Because, clearly, this man has completely credible credentials and if he holds an opinion even close to what the blogger repeating what he heard on a fringe radio show then it must be a Big Deal, right? Here's what the sum total of my sceptical research uncovered. Tell me if you can't spot the odd discrepancy between the Professor's actual views and the quote from a blog you gave us. Should be an interesting and enlightening exercise for everyone involved:

Quote:

Soaring temperatures and scant rain have besieged the country in recent months, prompting 26 U.S. states, including New Mexico and Arizona, to declare a drought emergency. In the Midwest, the lethal combination of high temperatures and dry conditions has wreaked havoc on a once-promising corn harvest. For New Mexico, two consecutive years of scarce winter snows in the Rio Grande headwaters have caused paltry irrigation allotments from the Elephant Butte Reservoir, which supports more than 90,000 acres of farmland. This year, the allocation is only 10 inches per acre, down from 36 inches when lake levels are higher. Many farmers in New Mexico also face reduced crop yields and increased production costs.

This article was adapted from a filmed interview with Jonathan Overpeck, professor of geosciences at the University of Arizona and co-director of the UA’s Institute of the Environment. Overpeck is an IPCC author and an expert on past climate variability and its causes. Dr. Overpeck’s opinions are his own; they are not official views of either the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or climate.gov.

Dry conditions are common in the Southwest: records pieced together from tree rings reveal a past peppered with intense and protracted dry spells. Even so, the current dry conditions stand out from the historical record because temperatures are warmer than they were during past droughts, according to Jonathan Overpeck, professor of geosciences at the University of Arizona, co-director of the UA’s Institute of the Environment, and an expert on past climate variability and causes.The added heat amplifies the dry conditions, Overpeck explained during a June 15 question and answer session. As bad as the current drought seems, future dry spells may be even worse. But it is not all bad news. Climate change will also bring economic opportunity to the Southwest, Overpeck says.

Why and how is the Southwest a hotspot for climate change?

The Southwest is a hotspot for climate change because the warming in the Southwest is larger than just about anywhere in the United States outside of Alaska. It’s more than the global average. So the whole Southwest is heating up. Heating up is causing snowpack to accumulate later and melt earlier and that also is affecting water resources. We are, for example, getting a drier Colorado River. All of these things have been linked to climate change.What is unique about the recent drought in comparison to those of the past?

This drought isn’t unusually long compared to the droughts that have occurred, say in the tree-ring or paleoclimate record. But it looks like it’s anomalously hot and that’s what makes this a global-change style drought or a global-warming style drought. And [the drought] has much bigger impacts because it’s such a hot drought.

What can past droughts tell us about the future?

The scary thing about the current drought is that as bad as it is, we can go back in the paleoclimatic record, for example from tree rings, but also from caves and lake sediments and other sources, and find clear evidence of droughts that were longer, some cases as long as 50 years, with only one year of normal precipitation. But we can also find evidence that show some of the paleo-droughts or megadroughts, the really bad ones, were much more severe, so they were drier, but not necessarily hotter. There is no evidence that they were hotter than the drought today. So what we really worry about, what I worry about, is that we could get one of these really long, severe precipitation deficit droughts coupled with the warming temperatures of the Southwest. And that would really be a very devastating climate emergency.

How would a megadrought impact the Southwest?

If we got one of these really hot megadroughts, and I think our recent research suggests that there’s certainly better than one chance in 10 we will before 2100, maybe as high as one chance in three, it will affect water resources dramatically. We will probably have major shortages on the Colorado River, the Rio Grande, and other rivers upon which we depend for water supply. But we will also see devastating impacts in our landscape. We’ve already seen with this current drought—one that’s not that long, not that hot [in relation to what could occur in the future]—widespread tree mortality, meaning trees are dying; desert plants are drying. We are also seeing all this unprecedented wildfire. All that’s related to drought, but it’s all related to a drought that’s just not that bad compared to what we could get.

Is there a silver lining to climate change?

The silver lining in all of this is that we understand that it’s happening. We understand in many cases why it’s happening. We certainly understand that temperature increases are making the situation a lot worse and will make it even worse in the future. And because we know the cause in advance of it getting really bad, we are in a position to do two things. One is to discuss possible ways to reduce anthropogenic climate change, to reduce the potential disaster risk here in the Southwest. And the second thing we can start doing is figuring out how to adapt to these hotter, drier conditions. And everyone knows that we are not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero overnight. That means we have quite a bit of climate change no matter what. So I think we really have to take time to debate how to adapt to these changes, put into place adaptation plans, and at the same time debate whether and how to reduce the greenhouse gases. The other thing that is a positive side of [climate change] is that we’re blessed with a lot of sunlight and windy conditions up in the mountains around here in the Southwest. And that means that the solutions to reducing greenhouse gases would be a big economic win for our region because we would be the ones who would be exporting solar and wind energy to the rest of the United States and Mexico. So we could go from a position where we’re a net importer of energy—coal for example—to one where we’re a net exporter of energy. So, solving the problem could end up in the end, ironically, producing a much more viable, economic engine for the Southwest.

Zack Guido is a staff scientist with the Climate Assessment for the Southwest. He is a regular contributor to climate.gov. Reviewed by Jonathan Overpeck, University of Arizona.

Now, I'll leave you to "ponder" the difference between what you read hear and the third hand account you provided us from your quaint little blog, but before i leave you to your thoughts I'd direct you to the final line in the article from above:

Zack Guido is a staff scientist with the Climate Assessment for the Southwest. He is a regular contributor to climate.gov. Reviewed by Jonathan Overpeck, University of Arizona.

Do you think your third hand account was reviewed by the good Professor too?

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 10:04am:

Progs, are you sure you want to go with this?

Are you going to explain why you posted this rubbish, progs. Or are you just jumping on anything you can find that reaches te same conclusion as you.

MOTR wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 12:54am:

Are you going to explain why you posted this rubbish, progs. Or are you just jumping on anything you can find that reaches te same conclusion as you.

I might have taken some lessons from hansen, I might not have. I am not in the position to give out such information.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:03am:

MOTR wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 12:54am:

Are you going to explain why you posted this rubbish, progs. Or are you just jumping on anything you can find that reaches te same conclusion as you.

I might have taken some lessons from hansen, I might not have. I am not in the position to give out such information.

OK, progs. Can you just clear your post up to make it clear that this foolishness has nothing to do with Jonathan Overpeck.

Quote:

Horrendous wildfires. Oppressive heat waves. Devastating droughts. Flooding from giant deluges. And a powerful freak wind storm called a derecho. These are the kinds of extremes climate scientists have predicted will come with climate change, although it's far too early to say that is the cause. Nor will they say global warming is the reason 3,215 daily high temperature records were set in the month of June.

Scientifically linking individual weather events to climate change takes intensive study, complicated mathematics, computer models and lots of time. Sometimes it isn't caused by global warming. Weather is always variable; freak things happen. And this weather has been local. Europe, Asia and Africa aren't having similar disasters now, although they've had their own extreme events in recent years.

But since at least 1988, climate scientists have warned that climate change would bring, in general, increased heat waves, more droughts, more sudden downpours, more widespread wildfires and worsening storms.

In the United States, those extremes are happening here and now. So far this year, more than 2.1 million acres (850,000 hectares) have burned in wildfires, more than 113 million people in the U.S. were in areas under extreme heat advisories last Friday, two-thirds of the country is experiencing drought, and earlier in June, deluges flooded Minnesota and Florida.

"This is what global warming looks like at the regional or personal level," said Jonathan Overpeck, professor of geosciences and atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona. "The extra heat increases the odds of worse heat waves, droughts, storms and wildfire. This is certainly what I and many other climate scientists have been warning about."

MOTR wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:30am:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:03am:

MOTR wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 12:54am:

Are you going to explain why you posted this rubbish, progs. Or are you just jumping on anything you can find that reaches te same conclusion as you.

I might have taken some lessons from hansen, I might not have. I am not in the position to give out such information.

OK, progs. Can you just clear your post up to make it clear that this foolishness has nothing to do with Jonathan Overpeck.

Quote:

I just cherry picked a nice stable range of the article and attributed that range to be somewhat of a representation of a different part of the article. (hansen taught).

It would be up to someone else to figure out that the range used, is not actually representitive of anything except itself if the whole of the article was taken into consideration.

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl Member Run Boards >> Environment >> Climate change scaremongering goes to waste http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344177570 Message started by progressiveslol on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 12:39am