How to Explain Climate Change to Neanderthals

[woz75]

it's not the Koch brothers spending billions to keep their sheep uninformed - it's NASA - NASA is lying to us so....they can continue the status quo of big coal/oil - I'm convinced it's NASA who are lying and not the Koch's said no intelligent human being ever Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

 

[jc456]

How To Explain Climate Change To A Neanderthal


There...a severely DUMBED down explanation for the slower folks who just can't seem to grasp the concept

A lack of intelligence and knowledge is only part of the problem, the primary problem is far too many on the right are hostile to addressing GCC for purely partisan reasons, having nothing to do with the facts and merits of the issue.

facts a word you have no idea the meaning. You should really learn about it though, it helps out in a debate.

You could have just said you can't understand multisyllabic words .

I could, but I'd be lying

 

[jc456]

Much of the difference, at least in the Lower troposphere global average decadal trend between UAH and RSS, has been removed with the release of RSS version 3.3 in January 2011. RSS and UAH TLT are now within 0.003 K/decade of one another.

I'd like to emphasize that the RSS satellite crew is very honest. They are aware of the limitations of their product, and they flat out say the RSS results are not suitable for use in climate science, and that surface temperatures should be used instead. Naturally, deniers ignore that.

The UAH crew -- Spencer and Christy -- lack that honesty.

Hahahaha prove it. Prove that satellite data is unreliable. Who are you?

Proving is not the problem .

Sure it is

 

[westwall]

Mr. Westwall, you are such a liar. They grow wheat right up to the bases of the wind turbines in Eastern Oregon. And in other places I have seen deer, cattle, and many other small animals and birds living under the turbines. No way that is going to happen where they are mining the tar sands. And the water running off and downstream from the tar sand operations is poisonous, again, not the case with the wind farms or solar farms. Not only that, I bet there are all kinds of small mammals and birds living under those solar panels.

What are you? 12? Yes, they grow wheat around windfarms. That doesn't negate the fact that they are fucking eyesores does it? Solar farms on the other hand cover everything and nothing can grow in those ares very well. You posted a picture of a strip mine as if it was a bad thing. And it is. However the physical footprint for mines is smaller than for solar and windfarms. That is a fact. Thus there is no lie in anything I posted you pathetic little twerp.

 

[westwall]

Egad. How do you equate a few million people that lived a nomadic life to over seven billion? Our civilization is very vulnerable to anything that affects agriculture.

What will affect agriculture? Exactly?

 

[Votto]

How To Explain Climate Change To A Neanderthal


There...a severely DUMBED down explanation for the slower folks who just can't seem to grasp the concept

It works something like this, government increases the cost of energy via taxes and ushers in a world wide utopia.

 

[Wyatt earp]

it's not the Koch brothers spending billions to keep their sheep uninformed - it's NASA - NASA is lying to us so....they can continue the status quo of big coal/oil - I'm convinced it's NASA who are lying and not the Koch's said no intelligent human being ever Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

Well now I found out where old rocks got his list from..


What the fuck? So the AMA is now climatologist?




American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.

 

[Andylusion]

it's not the Koch brothers spending billions to keep their sheep uninformed - it's NASA - NASA is lying to us so....they can continue the status quo of big coal/oil - I'm convinced it's NASA who are lying and not the Koch's said no intelligent human being ever Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

Everyone is lying except our private enclave of Eco-Nut freaks.

You people are a joke. I highly doubt you understand any scientific aspect of the discussion.

 

[skookerasbil]

As a public service, let me help explain to the dimwit denier cult dimwits what "the science is settled" means.

Think of science as putting together a jigsaw puzzle from the middle outwards.

You build on the puzzle by adding pieces to the periphery.

Gradually, piece by piece, the center grows. That's the settled science.

Sometimes you think a new piece on the periphery might fit. Then you find it doesn't. That in know way changes that the pieces in the middle are locked together. Again, that's the settled science.

LOL...........if the science is so settled, why do you spend hours in here falling all over yourself attempting to defend AGW?


[URL=http://s146.photobucket.com/user/azzawii_1992/media/Emoticons/gay-1.gif.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

PS to the OP..........the "Neanderthals" are winning!!! Not one single AGW climate crusader in here can post up a single link showing us where the "settled science" is mattering in the real world?

Its a hobby!!!

 

[Crick]

Are you really that stupid? The Maldives think it matters. The polar bears, the walrus, the harbor seals and the sea lions all think it matters. The people of California suffering their drought think it matters. The predator/prey relationships failing from changes in seasonal timing think it matters. The people losing their property and getting killed by the increased incidence of intense storms think it matters. The people of the Philippines and other Pacific islands being smacked by Cat 5 storm after Cat 5 storm after Cat 5 storm think it matters.

The person who doesn't think it matters is you that reason you don't might be because you're really that thoughtless and inconsiderate, but I think it's actually because you just don't have the balls to admit you've been wrong all this time.

 

[Andylusion]

When someone says "the science is settled", it's simply them admitting it isn't settled, and they are too ignorant to articulate anything different.

I've read a number of these reports that supposedly prove the science is settled, and it's amazing how often it says "we don't know...."

The only reports that even attempt to really claim the science is settled, are reports by government, which are designed to justify the position of those in power. Those reports are routinely proven fabricated and error ridden. The most infamous was the hockey stick graph of the IPCC in 1998. The graph was so clearly fabricated, they used different sources of information that contradicted each other, and eliminate information that didn't fit with the claims. Moreover, some names placed on the report, as being climatologists, were in fact government staffers, who had no degrees.

As if that wasn't enough, some climatologists who were there, and disagreed with the conclusions made in the IPCC report, had to file lawsuits against the IPCC, to have their names removed.

If this is your idea of "settled science" when scientists have to sue the government to get their name of a report they do not believe.... you are a nut job.

 

[Crick]

When someone says "the science is settled", it's simply them admitting it isn't settled, and they are too ignorant to articulate anything different.

That is incorrect. It is another way of stating there is no longer any debate on the fundamentals of anthropogenic global warming. The conclusion of the IPCC, that human activities (GHG emissions and deforestation) are the primary or dominant cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years and particularly the last 50.

I've read a number of these reports that supposedly prove the science is settled, and it's amazing how often it says "we don't know...."

That conclusions are given as likelihoods is a common and necessary aspect of natural science. It has no bearing on whether or not the science is considered settled. You would find the same sort of statements in papers on a dozen subjects you'd consider settled long ago.

The only reports that even attempt to really claim the science is settled, are reports by government, which are designed to justify the position of those in power.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Scientific studies - peer reviewed publications - don't waste their time making the claim that AGW is settled. As Cook et al's study clearly showed, the vast majority simply DO accept it and move on.

Those reports are routinely proven fabricated and error ridden.

That would be what we call an unsubstantiated assertion, more widely known as anally-derived bullshit.

The most infamous was the hockey stick graph of the IPCC in 1998. The graph was so clearly fabricated, they used different sources of information that contradicted each other, and eliminate information that didn't fit with the claims.

I'm sorry. Did you not realize that people here have been debating global warming for several years? You've walked into a community college classroom with a pocketful of grade school arguments. Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1998 is infamous only with the deniers it showed blatantly wrong. The data were not fabricated and no one has ever made such a charge. Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKittrick charged that MBH's primary component analysis was flawed but correcting for the errors they found made absolutely no difference to the conclusions of MBH 98

Moreover, some names placed on the report, as being climatologists, were in fact government staffers, who had no degrees.

Michael E. Mann (born 1965) is an American climatologist and geophysicist,[1] currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, who has contributed to the scientific understanding of historic climate change based on thetemperature record of the past thousand years. He has pioneered techniques to find patterns in past climate change, and to isolate climate signals from "noisy data".[3]

Raymond S. "Ray" Bradley is a climatologist and University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where he is also research director of the Climate System Research Center. Bradley's work indicates that the warming of Earth's climate system in the twentieth century is inexplicable via natural mechanisms.

Malcolm K. Hughes is a meso-climatologist and Regents' Professor of Dendrochronology in the Laboratory for Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona. He was born in Matlock, Derbyshire, England, and earned a Ph.D in ecology from the University of Durham. Since 1998, he is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union. His research is on the nature of climate variability, specifically focusing on the timescales of years to centuries. He uses natural recorded records such as tree rings.[1]

So, again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

As if that wasn't enough, some climatologists who were there, and disagreed with the conclusions made in the IPCC report, had to file lawsuits against the IPCC, to have their names removed.

You've made a leap here from Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1999 to the IPCC's assessment reports. As seems to be common among deniers, you don't even know what it is that the IPCC DOES. MBH 99 was not produced FOR the IPCC. Like ALL the science the IPCC uses in its assessment reports, it was simply a published, peer-reviewed study from a scientific journal. The IPCC does NOT conduct climatological research.

If this is your idea of "settled science" when scientists have to sue the government to get their name of a report they do not believe.... you are a nut job.

Hundreds of scientists have put their names quite happily and proudly on the IPCC's assessment reports. The IPCC, in order to defuse criticism from the likes of you, has opened the review process of those reports to a wide variety of people (in re qualifications and fundamental positions on this issues). When you do that, you get people who think the opportunity is given them to make a show of it for their ego's sake rather than to accomplish some good for mankind. I think you will find that those who've asked to remove their names (none have yet succeeded in breaching the contracts they signed in that manner) are, with very few exceptions, people whose presence and participation in the process was utterly irrelevant in any case.

Global warming is quite real and the primary or dominant cause for the warming observed over the last 150 years has been human GHG emissions and deforestation. That point is settled science accepted by virtually every single climate scientist on the planet.

 

[jc456]

When someone says "the science is settled", it's simply them admitting it isn't settled, and they are too ignorant to articulate anything different.

That is incorrect. It is another way of stating there is no longer any debate on the fundamentals of anthropogenic global warming. The conclusion of the IPCC, that human activities (GHG emissions and deforestation) are the primary or dominant cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years and particularly the last 50.

I've read a number of these reports that supposedly prove the science is settled, and it's amazing how often it says "we don't know...."

That conclusions are given as likelihoods is a common and necessary aspect of natural science. It has no bearing on whether or not the science is considered settled. You would find the same sort of statements in papers on a dozen subjects you'd consider settled long ago.

The only reports that even attempt to really claim the science is settled, are reports by government, which are designed to justify the position of those in power.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Scientific studies - peer reviewed publications - don't waste their time making the claim that AGW is settled. As Cook et al's study clearly showed, the vast majority simply DO accept it and move on.

Those reports are routinely proven fabricated and error ridden.

That would be what we call an unsubstantiated assertion, more widely known as anally-derived bullshit.

The most infamous was the hockey stick graph of the IPCC in 1998. The graph was so clearly fabricated, they used different sources of information that contradicted each other, and eliminate information that didn't fit with the claims.

I'm sorry. Did you not realize that people here have been debating global warming for several years? You've walked into a community college classroom with a pocketful of grade school arguments. Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1998 is infamous only with the deniers it showed blatantly wrong. The data were not fabricated and no one has ever made such a charge. Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKittrick charged that MBH's primary component analysis was flawed but correcting for the errors they found made absolutely no difference to the conclusions of MBH 98

Moreover, some names placed on the report, as being climatologists, were in fact government staffers, who had no degrees.

Michael E. Mann (born 1965) is an American climatologist and geophysicist,[1] currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, who has contributed to the scientific understanding of historic climate change based on thetemperature record of the past thousand years. He has pioneered techniques to find patterns in past climate change, and to isolate climate signals from "noisy data".[3]

Raymond S. "Ray" Bradley is a climatologist and University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where he is also research director of the Climate System Research Center. Bradley's work indicates that the warming of Earth's climate system in the twentieth century is inexplicable via natural mechanisms.

Malcolm K. Hughes is a meso-climatologist and Regents' Professor of Dendrochronology in the Laboratory for Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona. He was born in Matlock, Derbyshire, England, and earned a Ph.D in ecology from the University of Durham. Since 1998, he is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union. His research is on the nature of climate variability, specifically focusing on the timescales of years to centuries. He uses natural recorded records such as tree rings.[1]

So, again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

As if that wasn't enough, some climatologists who were there, and disagreed with the conclusions made in the IPCC report, had to file lawsuits against the IPCC, to have their names removed.

You've made a leap here from Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1999 to the IPCC's assessment reports. As seems to be common among deniers, you don't even know what it is that the IPCC DOES. MBH 99 was not produced FOR the IPCC. Like ALL the science the IPCC uses in its assessment reports, it was simply a published, peer-reviewed study from a scientific journal. The IPCC does NOT conduct climatological research.

If this is your idea of "settled science" when scientists have to sue the government to get their name of a report they do not believe.... you are a nut job.

Hundreds of scientists have put their names quite happily and proudly on the IPCC's assessment reports. The IPCC, in order to defuse criticism from the likes of you, has opened the review process of those reports to a wide variety of people (in re qualifications and fundamental positions on this issues). When you do that, you get people who think the opportunity is given them to make a show of it for their ego's sake rather than to accomplish some good for mankind. I think you will find that those who've asked to remove their names (none have yet succeeded in breaching the contracts they signed in that manner) are, with very few exceptions, people whose presence and participation in the process was utterly irrelevant in any case.

Global warming is quite real and the primary or dominant cause for the warming observed over the last 150 years has been human GHG emissions and deforestation. That point is settled science accepted by virtually every single climate scientist on the planet.

Judith Curry, know who she is?

Here crick:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Judith A. Curry

Nationality American
Education B.S. (1974) in geography, Ph.D. in geophysical sciences (1982)
Alma mater Northern Illinois University, University of Chicago
Thesis The formation of continental polar air (1982)
Website
Curry's home page – Curry's Blog
Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.[1]

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

Regarding climate change, she thinks that the IPCC reports typically neglect what she calls the "Uncertainty Monster"[2] in projecting future climate trends, which she calls a "wicked problem."[3] Curry also hosts a popular science blog in which she writes on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface.[4]

 

[Crick]

I do know who Judith Curry is. What would be your point?

 

[Manonthestreet]

Six decades of fail is all that is needed

 

[Crick]

Abstract from Curry's latest paper Global Temperature Trends Adjusted for Unforced Variability http://www.hrpub.org/download/20151130/UJG1-13905038.pdf

Abstract Multidecadal climate variability has proven difficult to deal with when estimating temperature trends. This possible unforced internal oscillation of the climate system provides an opportunity to correct temperature trends. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is proposed as a potential index for this unforced variability. The AMO pattern does not appear to correspond to forcing histories used by the IPCC. Subtracting a scaled version of the AMO from the Hadley global temperature data produced damped decadal-scale fluctuations in the temperature data. The adjusted dataset is highly correlated with the anthropogenic forcing history from IPCC AR5. The linear post-1970 temperature trend is 0.83°C/century vs. 1.63°C/century for the raw data. Thus almost exactly half of the post-1970 warming is possibly natural. The use of the AMO as an index of unforced variability is supported by the fact that subtracting it simplifies the temperature response by damping the peaks and troughs consistently.

Guess what Curry believes responsible for the other half.

Her conclusion:

5. Conclusions The pause in warming over the past 15+ years has opened the question of natural variability in the climate system. If this natural variability can be characterized, then temperature trends might be more reliably determined. It is shown here that by subtracting the AMO, temperature variability at the decadal scale is reduced and a close match achieved with the pattern of anthropogenic forcing data. It is not claimed here that the AMO is unique in capturing internal variability. Rather, this initial effort seeks to open this line of enquiry to reducing the uncertainty due to internal variability. Climate sensitivity estimated by this method is consistent with other data-based estimates, and much less than from model-based estimates. Acknowledgements No outside funding was obtained for this work. Thanks to Nicholas Lewis for advice and references and to William Happer for a helpful review.

This paper and links to its site were at the top of Curry's blog. There she describes it as "my new paper". Yet the only name listed on it is Graig Loehle. ???

 

[jc456]

I do know who Judith Curry is. What would be your point?

If you do, then you know she doesn't believe in Michael Mann and the IPCC data, right?

 

[jc456]

Abstract from Curry's latest paper Global Temperature Trends Adjusted for Unforced Variability http://www.hrpub.org/download/20151130/UJG1-13905038.pdf

Abstract Multidecadal climate variability has proven difficult to deal with when estimating temperature trends. This possible unforced internal oscillation of the climate system provides an opportunity to correct temperature trends. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is proposed as a potential index for this unforced variability. The AMO pattern does not appear to correspond to forcing histories used by the IPCC. Subtracting a scaled version of the AMO from the Hadley global temperature data produced damped decadal-scale fluctuations in the temperature data. The adjusted dataset is highly correlated with the anthropogenic forcing history from IPCC AR5. The linear post-1970 temperature trend is 0.83°C/century vs. 1.63°C/century for the raw data. Thus almost exactly half of the post-1970 warming is possibly natural. The use of the AMO as an index of unforced variability is supported by the fact that subtracting it simplifies the temperature response by damping the peaks and troughs consistently.

Guess what Curry believes responsible for the other half.

Her conclusion:

5. Conclusions The pause in warming over the past 15+ years has opened the question of natural variability in the climate system. If this natural variability can be characterized, then temperature trends might be more reliably determined. It is shown here that by subtracting the AMO, temperature variability at the decadal scale is reduced and a close match achieved with the pattern of anthropogenic forcing data. It is not claimed here that the AMO is unique in capturing internal variability. Rather, this initial effort seeks to open this line of enquiry to reducing the uncertainty due to internal variability. Climate sensitivity estimated by this method is consistent with other data-based estimates, and much less than from model-based estimates. Acknowledgements No outside funding was obtained for this work. Thanks to Nicholas Lewis for advice and references and to William Happer for a helpful review.

This paper and links to its site were at the top of Curry's blog. There she describes it as "my new paper". Yet the only name listed on it is Graig Loehle. ???

you should really learn what that all means. That's all I can say.

 

[Crick]

Why? So I can explain it to you? I think you know exactly what it means. Judith Curry believes the world is warming and that human GHG emissions and deforestation are a major cause. Her only fundamental disagreement is in the magnitude of climate sensitivity. And considering her latest conclusions, that disagreement is quite small.