withdrawn

Why is this data from the NOAA unscientific?

New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are continuing to rise but global temperatures are not following suit. The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... wing-suit/

From the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, global temperatures endured a 30-year decline even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose nearly 10 percent. From 1900 through 1945, by contrast, global temperatures rose rapidly despite a lack of coal power plants, SUV’s, and substantial carbon dioxide emissions.

Why did the above phenomena I underlined happen?

Among opponents of the mainstream scientific assessment, some say that while there is agreement that humans do have an effect on climate, there is no universal agreement about the quantitative magnitude of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) relative to natural forcings and its harm to benefit ratio.[50] Other opponents assert that some kind of ill-defined "consensus argument" is being used, and then dismiss this by arguing that science is based on facts rather than consensus.[51] Some highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls or consensus

Wiki (Emphasis mine)

ant wrote:

. The only controversy is whipped up by denialists with unscientific motives.

What evidence do you have to support the accusation that scientists who disagree with global warming alarmists have "unscientific motives"?

The specific controversy in question was about temperatures in medieval times, but the principle applies more broadly. Alarmism covers a lot of ground, ranging from the broad and overwhelming global scientific consensus reflected in the massive reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change through to a range of unsupported opinions such as in the ‘back to nature’ movement.

Writers who reject the scientific consensus on climate consistently fail to have their opinions supported by evidence, fail to get published in reputable scientific journals, and tend to link their views to rather cranky right wing politics. Assessing their motives for promoting such dubious views does come down to politics to a large extent.

The IPCC itself cannot be viewed as a conspiracy, given its overwhelming scientific support. The only reputable scientific criticism of the IPCC is that it is too cautious, for example on Arctic melting, and on geoengineering. The IPCC process shows that if writers have scientific motives, they can engage with the rest of the scientific community. At present, denialists find their only outlets in right wing mass media corporations such as Fox and the Daily Mail who have a clear propaganda motive to denigrate the evidentiary basis for anthropogenic climate change.

For example, Lord Monckton is really just an attack dog for conservative politics. The Australian geologist Bob Carter seems to get a buzz from being published by newspapers who want to pretend he gives denialism some scientific cover. These people have no intellectual status.

What I think gives denial its impetus is a backlash against the green alarmist argument geo raised, that there are too many people on the earth. Part of the alarmist movement includes a hostility to economic growth, a desire to return to a more simple society, and a view that we should just use less energy. The corporate world sees this green agenda as dangerous, with potential to cause economic damage, and so has recruited its denialist lap dogs as part of the political class war.

I find it fascinating how the political economy of climate change maps onto traditional left-right divides. Science is neither left nor right, but climate science has been pushed into alliance with the political left, whose main objective is to increase the size of government. I see this socialist alliance as a complete dead end for climate politics, since increasing the size of government through carbon taxes is actually not a practical method to stabilise the global climate, and is not politically feasible or good anyway.

The only real solution, in my view, is for climate science to ally with the corporate world, through support for R&D into profitable industrial methods such as large scale ocean based algae production for fuel, food, fertilizer and fabric. But the left wing momentum behind climate politics is so strong that this right wing approach is seen as anathema, especially by greens who see companies as morally evil.

ant wrote:

There is an unholy alliance between reductionistas and denialists

What is the evidence to support this conspiracy theory?

It is not a conspiracy theory, but an accident of interests. Those I term reductionistas, who support the UN view that emission reduction is the only way to stabilise the climate, actively oppose mobilising capitalist ingenuity. The Haida Salmon ocean iron experiment was a classic example, with the greens mobilising leading UN agencies to condemn and stop this simple practical activity.

Denialists have mixed views on innovation, with some, such as Newt Gingrich, supporting geoengineering, but most viewing any proposed support for technological solutions as part of the whole warming plot.

When people agree on policy, they do not need to conspire. In this case, the reductionist movement and the denial movement agree in opposing technological research, but for different motives. That amounts to an unholy alliance, if you accept Lomborg’s argument at fixtheclimate.com that technological research is the key to practical progress towards climate stability.

ant wrote:Why is this data from the NOAA unscientific?

New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are continuing to rise but global temperatures are not following suit. The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... wing-suit/

Thanks ant, I can well see why people get taken in by the malicious distortion here by Forbes Business Magazine. The data from NOAA in the first sentence is correct. But the commentary from Forbes in the second sentence is denialist propaganda. An innocent reader could well imagine that Forbes is quoting NOAA in the statement that “data undercuts assertions”. But no, that is not from NOAA, it is pure Forbes editorial, aimed to shore up stock prices of fossil fuel companies.

The data from NOAA does not undercut assertions about global warming, as Forbes falsely alleges. The fact is that early models of climate change underestimated the extent to which warming occurs in the sea rather than on land. Recent models have shown how waves drag the surface heat down to the ocean depths. We are still heating up the planet at the rate of four Hiroshima bombs per second, but most of this extra heat goes into the sea, not the air. This does not in the slightest undercut the reality of crisis, which is seen in poleward migrations, acidity killing coral, an extinction crisis, and the very real risk of a sudden global climate flip, for example a melting of the Antarctic ice shelf on massive scale.

ant wrote:

From the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, global temperatures endured a 30-year decline even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose nearly 10 percent. From 1900 through 1945, by contrast, global temperatures rose rapidly despite a lack of coal power plants, SUV’s, and substantial carbon dioxide emissions.

Why did the above phenomena I underlined happen?

Have a look at the chart of temperature from NASA.

You can see the big pimple at the start of the second world war. But the overall trend since 1910 is a rise of one degree. See the zigs and zags from year to year? They are replicated in bigger trends, for example a temperature spike in the early 1940s.

The trick by denialists is to use spike years to distort the data. You can see the spike years on this chart, for example 1943, 1964, 1998, where the annual figure is way off the five year trend. Did you know, for example, as shown on this graph, that temperature fell from 1943 to 1976 by 0.28 degrees, but over about the same timeframe, from 1950 to 1973, temperature rose by 0.36 degrees, 29% more than the supposed fall over the similar period?

Look at those numbers and look at the graph and look at how denialists cherry pick to maliciously mislead the public and politicians.

Climate is chaotic. There are lags between the cause and the effect, the CO2 addition and the temperature rise. There are many factors at work so the change will not be at a constant rate. But the trend is inexorably up. This is caused by anthropogenic carbon, which reached around a billion tonnes per year in about 1910, and is now accelerating up from 8 billion tonnes per year, as seen here.

Among [denialists], there is no universal agreement about the quantitative magnitude of anthropogenic global warming relative to natural forcings

(My edit)
Denialists would say that. So what?

geo wrote:How dismissive and smug and certain you are, Robert.

Of course I dismiss your comparison of me with a Nazi, just because I maintain that climate science is certain. That is not smug. It is like if you called me smug for maintaining the earth is certainly not flat. I am just explaining the mainstream scientific views, that you reject, God only knows why.

geo wrote:I simply cannot respond to your broad strokes and grandiose strawmen.

I have not presented any straw man arguments. Again, that is a complete misrepresentation on your part.

geo wrote:I I acknowledge my own confusion over climate change and maintain that it is difficult to find clarity with all the conflicting information.

It is easy to find clarity about the actual climate trajectory if you have the ability to distinguish between science and propaganda. It is hard to find clarity on policy responses, since that is an area which is by its nature unclear. But all these efforts to muddy the waters about the science illustrate why people find it so hard to move on from the science to a constructive debate about policy.

geo wrote:I It's easy for you apparently because you simply dismiss all contrary perspectives as belonging to "reductionistas and denialists."

Those are two separate issues. My debate with those who see emissions reduction as the basis for climate stability is about policy. My debate with those who deny climate change is about science. I do not dismiss the reductionist view, but consider it is should be a starting point for dialogue. I do dismiss denialism, as like a kind of creationist religion, grounded in an alienated ideology.

geo wrote:I I think I'm done here.

It is disappointing Geo that you come across as a sensible and rational person, but then have this massive blind spot about climate science. It just illustrates to me how successfully the black propaganda of the denialist movement has worked, when it can even influence an intelligent person like you to fail to see basic science.

Further on the graph above - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

Average global temperature declines can be observed in 1942-50, 53-6, 63-4, 73-6, 81-5, 91-3, and most recently 98-08.

This means the five year trend line repeatedly goes up rapidly then down gently, for an overall total heat increase. The cause is CO2. Why anyone would think that climate change has ended, given the repeated same shape of the graph and the accelerating CO2 emissions, can only represent an extreme triumph of idiocy over evidence.

But then, the idea that we can stabilise global climate by reducing emissions is like the idea that we can fix sanitation by issuing everyone with an anus cork. What is required is a better way to manage the emitted carbon, not a reduction of emissions.

What is required is a better way to manage the emitted carbon, not a reduction of emissions.

Emission reduction should be part of the plan. It would be silly not to pursue both paths.

Interbane wrote:

What is required is a better way to manage the emitted carbon, not a reduction of emissions.

Emission reduction should be part of the plan. It would be silly not to pursue both paths.

Your comment is the broad orthodoxy, but it makes no sense.

Humans add about 40 gigatonnes of CO2 to the air every year. This is part of a vast global carbon cycle that is increasing CO2 by about two parts per million per year, oscillating annually by about eight ppm, as shown here.


If, entirely separate from human emissions, we could find a way to mine 100 gigatonnes of CO2 from the air in a profitable way, for example as a market competitive biofuel and food source, then the fact that humans continue to emit 40 or 50 gigatonnes would become irrelevant. It would be outbalanced by the mining of carbon, and the overall CO2 concentration would decrease.

As I said, a focus on human carbon emissions is like trying to fix sanitation by making people shit less. Emission reduction is a stupid and pointless distraction that fails to consider the system as a whole, makes some people feel good by imaginary sacrifice, and enables the creation of a state control apparatus that diminishes human freedom. No wonder the United Nations Organisation loves the emission bandwagon.

As I said, a focus on human carbon emissions is like trying to fix sanitation by making people shit less. Emission reduction is a stupid and pointless distraction that fails to consider the system as a whole, makes some people feel good by imaginary sacrifice, and enables the creation of a state control apparatus that diminishes human freedom. No wonder the United Nations Organisation loves the emission bandwagon.[/quote

Reduction is precisely where the developed world is at and it makes sense to move forward from there. You yourself have pointed out the need for capitol investment for more aggressive capture systems such as the one you present on your website, but reduction puts the consumer public in line with one another to a minimum CO2 output level which makes sense if you consider the idea that once these minimum output levels are achieved across a broad spectrum of the consuming public, continuity of use in other words, or put another way the people can not produce less CO2 without loss of quality of life, once this equalization is at hand then it may become economically appealing to that same public to consider purchasing products along the lines of what you demonstrate on your web page. It just makes sense to me that to push to hard to fast is a program for resistance which is what we see here with your quote, your language is pushy, your ideas great, but marketing is/must be part of a strategy also. Please don't be offended but when I read your algae plan I can't help but think of the Chuck Heston flick Soylent Green. You prove that science fiction can become reality.

If, entirely separate from human emissions, we could find a way to mine 100 gigatonnes of CO2 from the air in a profitable way, for example as a market competitive biofuel and food source, then the fact that humans continue to emit 40 or 50 gigatonnes would become irrelevant.

You are entirely invested in the IF. And you have been for years. Meanwhile, we continue polluting and the problem grows worse.

But then, the idea that we can stabilise global climate by reducing emissions is like the idea that we can fix sanitation by issuing everyone with an anus cork.

That’s a false comparison. Humans are required to defecate to survive. Meanwhile emitting carbon is not required to survive. In face, if we do it correctly, it would create jobs and spur innovation, as well as transfer our energy use to sustainable sources.