There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[brenthutch 383]

3 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

 

"Based on preliminary data, January through March of 1998 ranked as the sixth warmest such year-to-date in the 104-year national record, with an area-averaged temperature of 39.00 degrees F. This is a departure of 3.46 degrees F from the long-"term mean.

You can't even cherry pick data to support your representations. The first quarter(1998) was 3.46 degrees warmer in your cherry picked term. Further more last month was 1.17°F above the long term average.

Did you bother to look at the title of the thread?

[ryoder 1,381]

14 minutes ago, billvon said:

For the next 25 years or so, deniers will see a cold year and state "SEE?  Climate change STOPPED this year!"  And they will be just as wrong as the person who posted the first post in this thread - 15 years ago.

This was the view from my bedroom window on Monday. So climate change must have stopped. Amiright? ;-)

 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

This was the view from my bedroom window on Monday. So climate change must have stopped. Amiright? ;-)

 

???? No beach?

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

I think Brent's claims are especially funny given that he is posting them in a thread entitled "there is a problem with global warming - it stopped in 1998!"

For the next 25 years or so, deniers will see a cold year and state "SEE?  Climate change STOPPED this year!"  And they will be just as wrong as the person who posted the first post in this thread - 15 years ago.

One of the requirements of being a climate change denier is that you have to be unable to learn from experience.

 

Since I started living half the year in the Caribbean I can tell you for a fact that in my world the cumulative average annual temperature has more than doubled. So there!

[SkyDekker 1,121]

17 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I have long been a critic of models because they can be tuned to produce what ever outcome the modelers want.

Under that logic you should be opposed to guns too.

Models are essential. The fact they can be manipulated to show different things isn't a fault of models. Criticize the scientists shaping the model, but that does require a decent level of understanding. This idea you seem to espouse that all scientists are "on the take" is insane.

[ryoder 1,381]

47 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

???? No beach?

This is a view across my backyard. Everything beyond the fence is a 100-year flood plain. Remember the 2013 Colorado Floods? That plain was filled with water right up to the fence, and the concrete bike path was submerged. So for a couple days, I had waterfront property. :P

Edited March 17, 2021 by ryoder

[brenthutch 383]

17 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Under that logic you should be opposed to guns too.

Non sequitur much?
 

BTW are you suggesting no scientist may have an agenda (even a noble one) or are immune from confirmation bias or groupthink?  Scientists are people and are subject to same motivations and influences as all of us.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

BTW are you suggesting no scientist may have an agenda (even a noble one) or are immune from confirmation bias or groupthink?

Not at all, just look at the "scientists" who continue to deny climate change, or that smoking is bad for you.

[brenthutch 383]

5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Not at all, just look at the "scientists" who continue to deny climate change, or that smoking is bad for you.

I love how you guys conflate CO2 with cigarette smoke.  It makes you look very smart.

[olofscience 420]

29 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

BTW are you suggesting no scientist may have an agenda (even a noble one) or are immune from confirmation bias or groupthink?  Scientists are people and are subject to same motivations and influences as all of us.

Sure, but you think you're qualified to criticise their work when you can't even read it.

[billvon 2,380]

34 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I love how you guys conflate CO2 with cigarette smoke.  It makes you look very smart.

Fun fact - not only do climate change deniers use the exact same tactics that smoking-risk deniers used, many of those tactics were spearheaded by the same person - Fred Seitz!  From Wikipedia:

"According to David Biello and John Pavlus in Scientific American, Singer was best known for his denial of the health risks of passive smoking.  He was involved in 1994 as writer and reviewer of a report on the issue by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, where he was a senior fellow. The report criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking, calling it "junk science". Singer told CBC's The Fifth Estate in 2006 that he stood by the position that the EPA had "cooked the data" to show that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer. CBC said that tobacco money had paid for Singer's research and for his promotion of it, and that it was organized by APCO. Singer told CBC it made no difference where the money came from. "They don't carry a note on a dollar bill saying 'This comes from the tobacco industry,'" he said. "In any case I was not aware of it, and I didn't ask APCO where they get their money. That's not my business." "

And later:

"In a 2003 letter to the Financial Times, Singer wrote that "there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming." In 2006, the CBC's Fifth Estate named Singer as one of a small group of scientists who have created what the documentary called a stand-off that is undermining the political response to global warming.  The following year he appeared on the British Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.  Singer argues there is no evidence that the increases in carbon dioxide produced by humans cause global warming, and that if temperatures do rise it will be good for humankind.  . . .

Singers's opinions conflict with the scientific consensus on climate change, where there is overwhelming consensus for anthropogenic global warming, and a decisive link between carbon dioxide concentration and global average temperatures, as well as consensus that such a change to the climate will have dangerous consequences. In 2005 Mother Jones magazine described Singer as a "godfather of global warming denial." "

But deny there's any link; deny there is any connection between those two.  Deny that Singer exists.  It will make you look very smart.

 

[olofscience 420]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

It will make you look very smart.

brenthutch? I don't think there's any risk of that happening at all.

[billvon 2,380]

Another guy who championed both smoking-risk denial and climate change denial - Fred Seitz.  Again from Wiki:

Shortly before his 1979 retirement from Rockefeller University, Seitz began working as a permanent consultant for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, advising their medical research program until 1988. Reynolds had previously provided "very generous" support for biomedical work at Rockefeller. Seitz later wrote that "The money was all spent on basic science, medical science," and pointed to Reynolds-funded research on mad cow disease and tuberculosis. Nonetheless, later academic studies of tobacco industry influence concluded that Seitz, who helped allocate $45m of Reynolds' research funding, "played a key role... in helping the tobacco industry produce uncertainty concerning the health impacts of smoking."

And later:

"Seitz was a central figure amongst skeptics of global warming. He was the highest-ranking scientist among a band of doubters who, beginning in the early 1990s, resolutely disputed suggestions that global warming was serious threat.  Seitz argued that the science behind global warming was inconclusive and "certainly didn't warrant imposing mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions". In 2001 Seitz and Jastrow questioned whether global warming is anthropogenic. . . . 

Seitz signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration and, in an open letter inviting scientists to sign the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's global warming petition, called for the United States to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The letter was accompanied by a 12-page article on climate change which followed a style and format nearly identical to that of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a scientific journal, even including a date of publication ("October 26") and volume number ("Vol. 13: 149–164 1999"), but was not actually a publication of the National Academy of Science (NAS). In response the United States National Academy of Sciences took what the New York Times called "the extraordinary step of refuting the position of one [of] its former presidents." The NAS also made it clear that "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

[olofscience 420]

4 minutes ago, billvon said:

climate change deniers use the exact same tactics

yes and brent uses the same tactics as Zoe - reams of highly technical language to impress and intimidate, but when you actually look into it they have no clue at all.

brent actually does one better - he'll quote reams of highly technical language and it'll turn out that the quote is actually completely opposite to his point, because he had no idea what it was saying in the first place.

Then he will try to run away from it by saying "I meant to show that it was contradictory" or some other lame excuse.

[billvon 2,380]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

yes and brent uses the same tactics as Zoe - reams of highly technical language to impress and intimidate, but when you actually look into it they have no clue at all.

Yep.  A while back Brent Googled the term "Shockley–Queisser limit" and reposted it because he thought it meant that solar PV would never be effective.  (Which is like googling "opening shock" and posting it as a reason that old people can never skydive.)  Funny.

This is a common approach; by using big words people believe that they will get more credibility and seem smarter.  The creationist group called the Discovery Institute described this approach explicitly in a document they called their "Wedge Approach."  An excerpt from the author:

================

So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. . . . Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools. 

This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy.

================

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

yes and brent uses the same tactics as Zoe - reams of highly technical language to impress and intimidate, but when you actually look into it they have no clue at all.

brent actually does one better - he'll quote reams of highly technical language and it'll turn out that the quote is actually completely opposite to his point, because he had no idea what it was saying in the first place.

Then he will try to run away from it by saying "I meant to show that it was contradictory" or some other lame excuse.

Wasn’t it you who said it was not unusual for scientists to get contradictory results when running models?  
I just shared NOAA’s statement that February 2021 was colder than February 1998 and the natives got restless.

If one considers February 2021 CO2 level was 414.46 ppm and February 1998 level was 365.89, and yet it is colder now than it was 23 years ago, a thinking person might say hmmmm....

[brenthutch 383]

13 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yep.  A while back Brent Googled the term "Shockley–Queisser limit" and reposted it because he thought it meant that solar PV would never be effective.  (Which is like googling "opening shock" and posting it as a reason that old people can never skydive.)  Funny.

This is a common approach; by using big words people believe that they will get more credibility and seem smarter.  

No Bill, I shared the article “The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking”.  The article brought up the Shockley-Queisser limit not me.

[wmw999 2,116]

You subsequently called out the Shockley-Queisser limit in a post. That, to me, constitutes using it. It might be copied from the article, but unless you then claim that you just picked the big words and repeated them mindlessly, I'd have to say you were the one to introduce it, via that article.

Since you appear to have absolutely zero respect for anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% on this issue, I'm not sure why you continue to post here. It must be degrading to have to talk to all these people, when instead you could be lecturing in a university or something.

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Wasn’t it you who said it was not unusual for scientists to get contradictory results when running models?  
I just shared NOAA’s statement that February 2021 was colder than February 1998 and the natives got restless.

If one considers February 2021 CO2 level was 414.46 ppm and February 1998 level was 365.89, and yet it is colder now than it was 23 years ago, a thinking person might say hmmmm....

Oh, this old world

keeps spinning 'round

It's a wonder tall trees

ain't layin' down

There comes a time

[olofscience 420]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

yet it is colder now than it was 23 years ago in North America

Fixed it for you. I'm not even there.

Here in the UK, February 2021 was actually slightly warmer than average. You think you have a point, you actually don't.

Edited March 17, 2021 by olofscience

[billvon 2,380]

48 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

You subsequently called out the Shockley-Queisser limit in a post.

To paraphrase Philip Johnson, the creationist author of the Wedge Document, Brent's posts aren't really (and never have been) a debate about the science.  For him, it's a political (and religious) debate.  The position that climate scientists are wrong is a position one has to take on faith, because the science supports the scientists.  It's a form of magical thinking - a hope that if one believes in climate change denial strongly enough, and posts enough about it, and suffers enough for it, it will somehow become more true.

Of course, more recently, it's not even about that for him.  It is merely about pissing other people off, as he's stated repeatedly. 

[billvon 2,380]

31 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Oh, this old world

keeps spinning 'round

It's a wonder tall trees

ain't layin' down

There comes a time

Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw

[olofscience 420]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

A while back Brent Googled the term "Shockley–Queisser limit" and reposted it because he thought it meant that solar PV would never be effective.

I actually completely missed this one, but not surprising.

It sounds like one of those fake skydivers trying to impress a girl telling them they skydive in the special forces and saying they wingsuit from a SR-71 from 70k at Mach 3 but in reality they've only done a tandem and photoshopped the instructor out. Just imagine that for a second - that's how you sound to us, brent.

If a fake skydiver gets caught out I'll actually ask them - "come join us and actually learn skydiving for real. It's awesome and you'll love it." So same here - come join us, properly learn science. It's awesome and you'll love it.

[brenthutch 383]

31 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Fixed it for you. I'm not even there.

Here in the UK, February 2021 was actually slightly warmer than average. You think you have a point, you actually don't.

No it was global temperatures, not just the US and I never said February was below average, I just shared that it was colder than 23 years ago.

BTW from your MET: “Despite the difference in extreme temperatures, the winter as a whole has not been far from its average mean temperature. Wales was the warmest, recording a mean temperature of 0.06°C above average for the season as a whole, and Scotland the lowest at -0.57°C below average.”

See, just about average, nothing to wet the bed over. (But don’t let that stop you)

Edited March 17, 2021 by brenthutch

[olofscience 420]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No it was global temperatures, not just the US and I never said February was below average, I just shared that it was colder than 23 years ago.

No, if you're talking about global temperatures, then it's been the coldest since 2014. It's right there in the title of the NOAA article you were quoting!

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

See, just about average, nothing to wet the bed over.

I literally just said it was just about average.

Edited March 17, 2021 by olofscience