Greenies and some Democrats often cite a “97 percent” consensus among climate scientists about global warming. But they never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong.
I’m seeing a lot of wrangling over the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc.
These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.
I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):
Spoiler:
Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.
And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.
I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming”, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good.
Yet, that is the direction we are heading.
And even if the extra energy is being stored in the deep ocean (if you have faith in long-term measured warming trends of thousandths or hundredths of a degree), I say “great!”. Because that extra heat is in the form of a tiny temperature change spread throughout an unimaginably large heat sink, which can never have an appreciable effect on future surface climate.
If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.
Doesn't believe in evolution over intelligent design -> Me disregarding his work
I know that isn't particularly tolerant, but meh.
From his wiki Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".
If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.
Sorry whembly but your source basically destroys his own argument right here. A change in temperature in that amount is a fairly significant thing not to be take lightly.
And maybe all the efforts we have put into reducing our global emissions slowed global warming, thus proving it?
The guy also doesn't source very well, but then again he also made the argument that the fact ocean temperatures rising isn't a big deal so he may as well have written Shakespeare but a statement of such puzzling insanity puts his whole thesis on that "Global warming totally isn't a big deal!" into question.
If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.
Sorry whembly but your source basically destroys his own argument right here. A change in temperature in that amount is a fairly significant thing not to be take lightly.
And maybe all the efforts we have put into reducing our global emissions slowed global warming, thus proving it?
The guy also doesn't source very well, but then again he also made the argument that the fact ocean temperatures rising isn't a big deal so he may as well have written Shakespeare but a statement of such puzzling insanity puts his whole thesis on that "Global warming totally isn't a big deal!" into question.
What efforts? Notice how China has more then doubled in a ten year span?
whembly wrote: Then why is it so fething cold here in St. Louis.
Besides...
All I ever wanted is more nuke plants.
I cannot believe a man like you who prides himself on "looking deeper into things" (bengazibengazibengazibengazi) would look outside his window, say "its cold" and that moves the climate is fine.
Global Warming is a greater part of what is called "Climate Change"
Look at it like this, part of the reason it's so cold down south is that the jet stream is literally starting to shut down, theirs nothing to stop arctic cold fronts from just flying across the United States from the north.
Fall and Spring are also getting shorter, so eventually one day you will wake up and it will be 94 degrees outside with 2 feet of snow because the transition from winter to summer is gone (or significantly shortened).
I would explain how Australia is literally on fire but I think out Aussie friends can speak for there very very hot selves.
If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.
Sorry whembly but your source basically destroys his own argument right here. A change in temperature in that amount is a fairly significant thing not to be take lightly.
And maybe all the efforts we have put into reducing our global emissions slowed global warming, thus proving it?
The guy also doesn't source very well, but then again he also made the argument that the fact ocean temperatures rising isn't a big deal so he may as well have written Shakespeare but a statement of such puzzling insanity puts his whole thesis on that "Global warming totally isn't a big deal!" into question.
What efforts? Notice how China has more then doubled in a ten year span?
One countries lack of progress in preventing pollution does not prove everyone its polluting. Parts of China can't even work now the air is getting so bad, so yes China's pollution is causing problems which is part of a greater human impact on our climate over the years.
Global warming and climate change are more complicated than raw numbers of CO2 dumped in the air.
If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.
Sorry whembly but your source basically destroys his own argument right here. A change in temperature in that amount is a fairly significant thing not to be take lightly.
And maybe all the efforts we have put into reducing our global emissions slowed global warming, thus proving it?
The guy also doesn't source very well, but then again he also made the argument that the fact ocean temperatures rising isn't a big deal so he may as well have written Shakespeare but a statement of such puzzling insanity puts his whole thesis on that "Global warming totally isn't a big deal!" into question.
What efforts? Notice how China has more then doubled in a ten year span?
Spoiler:
One countries lack of progress in preventing pollution does not prove everyone its polluting. Parts of China can't even work now the air is getting so bad, so yes China's pollution is causing problems which is part of a greater human impact on our climate over the years.
Global warming and climate change are more complicated than raw numbers of CO2 dumped in the air.
One country? Only the EU-27 block has "lowered" it's emissions between 2000-2010. Every other part of the world has seen an increase. Most of the world in the 25-50% range, China notably much higher. There has been NO LOWERING OF EMISSIONS.
The School of Al Gore global warming is one based is stats and scientific theories with numerous evidence . So uh, sorry to say I don't really know what to say.
Your article is by a creationist who thinks sea temperatures rising is totally okay, hard to argue with crazy.
If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.
Sorry whembly but your source basically destroys his own argument right here. A change in temperature in that amount is a fairly significant thing not to be take lightly.
And maybe all the efforts we have put into reducing our global emissions slowed global warming, thus proving it?
The guy also doesn't source very well, but then again he also made the argument that the fact ocean temperatures rising isn't a big deal so he may as well have written Shakespeare but a statement of such puzzling insanity puts his whole thesis on that "Global warming totally isn't a big deal!" into question.
What efforts? Notice how China has more then doubled in a ten year span?
Spoiler:
One countries lack of progress in preventing pollution does not prove everyone its polluting. Parts of China can't even work now the air is getting so bad, so yes China's pollution is causing problems which is part of a greater human impact on our climate over the years.
Global warming and climate change are more complicated than raw numbers of CO2 dumped in the air.
One country? Only the EU-27 block has "lowered" it's emissions between 2000-2010. Every other part of the world has seen an increase. Most of the world in the 25-50% range, China notably much higher. There has been NO LOWERING OF EMISSIONS.
What is there to argue about that?
See my previous post, I apologize, it's let and I typed with out thinking.
I actually just read an argument that claimed that global warming is less than predicted, therefore we should disregard it entirely.
Like if you were sitting at the beach and the tide coming in, and your friend said 'we should move in the next half hour or the water will be over our heads'... and then half an hour later its only at your toes, so you figure your friend can be ignored enitrely and you should keep sitting there.
It's also just completely weird to claim we should start doing less, when we're doing a fraction of what's needed even if we accept Spencer's reduced rate of heating.
sebster wrote: I actually just read an argument that claimed that global warming is less than predicted, therefore we should disregard it entirely.
Like if you were sitting at the beach and the tide coming in, and your friend said 'we should move in the next half hour or the water will be over our heads'... and then half an hour later its only at your toes, so you figure your friend can be ignored enitrely and you should keep sitting there.
It's also just completely weird to claim we should start doing less, when we're doing a fraction of what's needed even if we accept Spencer's reduced rate of heating.
Or maybe, since all of the forecasts have basically been wrong, maybe we should thank our lucky stars that we had sane heads in place when folks where screaming that we should throw trillions of dollars at this non-existent problem.
Ouze wrote: What is the problem with polar vortexes... vortexs.... anyway, what's the problem with them?
The phrase, I mean. Not the phenomenon.
It's a made up pop-phrase. It is not a real term. And if I ever had the chance to meet the guy who starting slinging it on TWC, I'd slap him so hard his teeth will land in Kenya.
Then I'd go to the guy who started naming frontal boundaries in the winter time...
Edit to clarify: Yes, Polar Vortexes are real things, they also go by many other names. Their recent use in the mainstream forecasting though are as I mentioned, meant as a "pop-phrase". In the meteorological world, we pretty much refer to them as semi-permanent lows.
Ouze wrote: What is the problem with polar vortexes... vortexs.... anyway, what's the problem with them?
The phrase, I mean. Not the phenomenon.
edit: Vortices! Right?
I liked those phrases too!
I think it stems from that fact that these winter storms are *named* now, like hurricanes. Somehow, naming them makes them more "ominous" except that, its something that always existed.
This exemplifies the science of climatology, in my mind. No matter how you look at it, if you’re honest then you’ll see that this “pause” isn’t real. At best you can say that the models predict we should be getting hotter faster, though it’s a small effect. But even then, real climatologists have pounced on this, prying the idea apart, poking it, prodding it, and seeing what they can find. And they did in fact see that we need better Arctic coverage and a better understanding of wind patterns over the ocean.
Real science doesn’t deny an effect. It investigates it honestly and tries to pry out the root causes. And that’s precisely what’s happening.
The problem is quite different for people who want to communicate the reality of climate change. For one, these changes are subtle and slow, making it hard to convey urgency. The other is that the changes can be somewhat complex, making it easy to muddy the waters, which is what deniers do.
This exemplifies the science of climatology, in my mind. No matter how you look at it, if you’re honest then you’ll see that this “pause” isn’t real. At best you can say that the models predict we should be getting hotter faster, though it’s a small effect. But even then, real climatologists have pounced on this, prying the idea apart, poking it, prodding it, and seeing what they can find. And they did in fact see that we need better Arctic coverage and a better understanding of wind patterns over the ocean.
Real science doesn’t deny an effect. It investigates it honestly and tries to pry out the root causes. And that’s precisely what’s happening.
The problem is quite different for people who want to communicate the reality of climate change. For one, these changes are subtle and slow, making it hard to convey urgency. The other is that the changes can be somewhat complex, making it easy to muddy the waters, which is what deniers do.
See this is the meat of what I've been saying for years of the topic. We just do not understand enough of it yet. We don't know what is behind it all, how it is occuring. Yet despite the lack of knowledge, we've got all these half-cocked idea's being throw around on how to stop the apocalypse, when we don't even really know anything.
This exemplifies the science of climatology, in my mind. No matter how you look at it, if you’re honest then you’ll see that this “pause” isn’t real. At best you can say that the models predict we should be getting hotter faster, though it’s a small effect. But even then, real climatologists have pounced on this, prying the idea apart, poking it, prodding it, and seeing what they can find. And they did in fact see that we need better Arctic coverage and a better understanding of wind patterns over the ocean.
Real science doesn’t deny an effect. It investigates it honestly and tries to pry out the root causes. And that’s precisely what’s happening.
The problem is quite different for people who want to communicate the reality of climate change. For one, these changes are subtle and slow, making it hard to convey urgency. The other is that the changes can be somewhat complex, making it easy to muddy the waters, which is what deniers do.
See this is the meat of what I've been saying for years of the topic. We just do not understand enough of it yet. We don't know what is behind it all, how it is occuring. Yet despite the lack of knowledge, we've got all these half-cocked idea's being throw around on how to stop the apocalypse, when we don't even really know anything.
Exactamudo dude.
I actually don't really mind spending all this money/grants to research "Climate Change". What I object, is knee-jerk reactions to things like Carbon-Tax and anti-coal polices.
djones520 wrote: Or maybe, since all of the forecasts have basically been wrong, maybe we should thank our lucky stars that we had sane heads in place when folks where screaming that we should throw trillions of dollars at this non-existent problem.
Having a prediction that temperature should have increased by 0.6', and having seen it increase by 0.3' does not mean reject the models entirely, chuck them out, admit we don't know anything. That's fething bonkers.
djones520 wrote: Or maybe, since all of the forecasts have basically been wrong, maybe we should thank our lucky stars that we had sane heads in place when folks where screaming that we should throw trillions of dollars at this non-existent problem.
Having a prediction that temperature should have increased by 0.6', and having seen it increase by 0.3' does not mean reject the models entirely, chuck them out, admit we don't know anything. That's fething bonkers.
...
You didn't bother reading my post did you? It means we did not have all of the info we needed, and still do not, so it is a good thing that we did not act on all of doom-sayers predictions because we would have destroyed ourselves over something that never would have happened.
djones520 wrote: It's a made up pop-phrase. It is not a real term.
It's a popular comic strip. One that talks about science a bit, but still one that is mostly read by layman, most of whom couldn't give two gaks about the proper name for a weather event. The comic is just using the most recognised term to establish the set up to get on to making its actual point, that short term memory often leads us to reject long term trends in favour of our perception of recent weather trends.
You're like that guy who says Saving Private Ryan is a bad movie because the shoe laces in the movie were threaded in a fashion that didn't happen until three months after the Normandy landing.
djones520 wrote: It's a made up pop-phrase. It is not a real term.
It's a popular comic strip. One that talks about science a bit, but still one that is mostly read by layman, most of whom couldn't give two gaks about the proper name for a weather event. The comic is just using the most recognised term to establish the set up to get on to making its actual point, that short term memory often leads us to reject long term trends in favour of our perception of recent weather trends.
You're like that guy who says Saving Private Ryan is a bad movie because the shoe laces in the movie were threaded in a fashion that didn't happen until three months after the Normandy landing.
djones520 wrote: See this is the meat of what I've been saying for years of the topic. We just do not understand enough of it yet. We don't know what is behind it all, how it is occuring.
That is not what the article says.
"One is that 1998 was an unusually warm year, so by starting there you’re bound to see temperatures slowing their rise a bit. That’s called cherry-picking and is a favorite technique among those who deny global warming is occurring. It’s a no-no."
"The lion’s share of the extra heat from warming is being stored in deeper ocean water. We can measure that, and it’s seen."
"Another is that we see fluctuations over a period of a few years in the historical temperature record all the time."
"Far northern latitudes are much more affected by global warming than midlatitudes, and if you leave those temperatures out, then you don’t see as fast a rise as you should. That study shows that when you account for this, warming rates in the surface temperatures go up, closer to what the models predict."
"Either way, no matter how you slice it, this “pause” is nothing of the sort. At best, the warming is continuing apace, but just not affecting surface temperatures as much. Once things return to normal—whatever that is these days— we can expect surface temperatures to start rising at the same rate once again."
The only point made by the article is that the so-called pause is a myth, and that if you look beyond surface temperature, or even just include arctic measures, then this becomes clear. The only way you could think it resulted in your conclusion is if you never bothered to read the article.
That's not what the article said at all. Don't fall for this bs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: You didn't bother reading my post did you? It means we did not have all of the info we needed, and still do not, so it is a good thing that we did not act on all of doom-sayers predictions because we would have destroyed ourselves over something that never would have happened.
I read your post. Every word of it. And then I just read it again, just to make sure. Still says the same stuff it did when I read it the first time.
It still claims global warming is a non-existant problem. And it is still thinking that the OP's article supports that, because for some reason you think 'an increase of about half the estimates of the models' is the same thing as no increase. Which is fething bonkers.
sebster wrote: I actually just read an argument that claimed that global warming is less than predicted, therefore we should disregard it entirely.
Like if you were sitting at the beach and the tide coming in, and your friend said 'we should move in the next half hour or the water will be over our heads'... and then half an hour later its only at your toes, so you figure your friend can be ignored enitrely and you should keep sitting there.
It's also just completely weird to claim we should start doing less, when we're doing a fraction of what's needed even if we accept Spencer's reduced rate of heating.
If my friend was drawing that conclusion from his own homemade tide chart, I would absolutely conclude he could be ignored entirely, because it's clearly not accurate. Just as I wouldn't trust someone who gave me an altimeter reading of half its real value. Clearly not accurate enough to make important decisions on.
Seaward wrote: If my friend was drawing that conclusion from his own homemade tide chart, I would absolutely conclude he could be ignored entirely, because it's clearly not accurate. Just as I wouldn't trust someone who gave me an altimeter reading of half its real value. Clearly not accurate enough to make important decisions on.
And if the altimeter said 'we have increased from 1,000.0 to 1,000.6 metres', and then on examining his readings corrects that to 'actually we only increased to 1,000.3 metres'... then you would conclude it's clearly not accurate and you should reject that altimeter and entirely reject the notion that you rose in height at all?
sebster wrote: And if the altimeter said 'we have increased from 1,000.0 to 1,000.6 metres', and then on examining his readings corrects that to 'actually we only increased to 1,000.3 metres'... then you would conclude it's clearly not accurate and you should reject that altimeter and entirely reject the notion that you rose in height at all?
You wouldn't.
Well, first of all, nobody who's worth anything in the air uses meters.
And no, I would not conclude that, largely because that degree of specificity is pretty useless for flying. It's also so incredibly minor a difference as to make absolutely no odds either way, which surely is not the argument you're making about the difference between .3 degrees and .6 degrees. If it's not a big deal, then who cares, and we can all ignore this climate change stuff anyway, right?
This boils down to the model being wrong. Which suggests that the people who claim they've got the whole thing figured out actually don't.
Seaward wrote: Well, first of all, nobody who's worth anything in the air uses meters.
Feet is it? That's interesting, a legacy of the US being so dominant in the industry?
And no, I would not conclude that, largely because that degree of specificity is pretty useless for flying. It's also so incredibly minor a difference as to make absolutely no odds either way, which surely is not the argument you're making about the difference between .3 degrees and .6 degrees. If it's not a big deal, then who cares, and we can all ignore this climate change stuff anyway, right?
No, this is not about 0.3 or 0.6 being small, because in climate that 0.3 and 0.6 are significant movements. It is about putting the argument in the context of the overall numbers, we are not measuring purely 0.3 or 0.6 of something, but a move from about 288 from absolute zero, to 288.6. That it 'only' increased to 288.3 is not a reason to ignore it entirely. That a model predicted a movement, but overstated it by double does not make the model useless.
And that's before we even start debating the issues with the measure used in the OP, as it relies entirely on surface temperature (looking at deep sea temperature and the models are very close, for instance), and doesn't include sufficient measures for parts of the planet where the warming is believed to be at its greatest.
This boils down to the model being wrong. Which suggests that the people who claim they've got the whole thing figured out actually don't.
Climate scientists aren't running around claiming they've got the whole thing figured out. That's just nonsense. They are saying there's still a hell of a lot of work to be done, but several key facts are increasingly clear - there is warming, it is at a rate far greater than observed in history, and it is caused by man. Exactly how the global climate system is absorbing the extra heat is still being studied and debated heavily, and exactly what the total long term trend is is still being debated (as you can see in the divergent models given in the OP).
But to conclude that means 'do nothing' is ridiculous. To return to your altimeter example, when you know the plane is dropping, but the altimeter is reporting a drop of about twice what you think it is, you don't sit there debating and waiting for a better altimeter reading. You pull up, level the plane off, bring in some measure of control, and while doing that continue to develop more refined measures so you know how much control you need.
sebster wrote: No, this is not about 0.3 or 0.6 being small, because in climate that 0.3 and 0.6 are significant movements. It is about putting the argument in the context of the overall numbers, we are not measuring purely 0.3 or 0.6 of something, but a move from about 288 from absolute zero, to 288.6. That it 'only' increased to 288.3 is not a reason to ignore it entirely. That a model predicted a movement, but overstated it by double does not make the model useless.
And that's before we even start debating the issues with the measure used in the OP, as it relies entirely on surface temperature (looking at deep sea temperature and the models are very close, for instance), and doesn't include sufficient measures for parts of the planet where the warming is believed to be at its greatest.
The point is that if an increase of .6 - which I think we can all agree is a pretty small number - is such a catastrophe, being off by half that number is a pretty significant variance. If .6 is significant, then .3 is significant. Thus I dislike the 1000.3 vs. 1000.6 altimeter analogy, as that is not a significant difference in anything you'd be using the numbers for.
Climate scientists aren't running around claiming they've got the whole thing figured out. That's just nonsense. They are saying there's still a hell of a lot of work to be done, but several key facts are increasingly clear - there is warming, it is at a rate far greater than observed in history, and it is caused by man. Exactly how the global climate system is absorbing the extra heat is still being studied and debated heavily, and exactly what the total long term trend is is still being debated (as you can see in the divergent models given in the OP).
See, I'd buy that if green types hadn't been screaming for years now that we need to completely gut our economy in order to prevent this catastrophic increase in global average temperature from happening.
But to conclude that means 'do nothing' is ridiculous. To return to your altimeter example, when you know the plane is dropping, but the altimeter is reporting a drop of about twice what you think it is, you don't sit there debating and waiting for a better altimeter reading. You pull up, level the plane off, bring in some measure of control, and while doing that continue to develop more refined measures so you know how much control you need.
I would say this analogy's stopped being useful, as there are a number of other indicators and tools you can use if you believe the altimeter's off and we, to the best of my layman's knowledge, don't really have anything other than these models to guide us in climate science. Though to go along with it, I'd say if you're shooting an approach in zero visibility with nothing but an altimeter and a compass, and the altimeter goes faulty, you're kinda fethed. But that's why you're not allowed to do it,
Seaward wrote: The point is that if an increase of .6 - which I think we can all agree is a pretty small number - is such a catastrophe, being off by half that number is a pretty significant variance. If .6 is significant, then .3 is significant. Thus I dislike the 1000.3 vs. 1000.6 altimeter analogy, as that is not a significant difference in anything you'd be using the numbers for.
Who said 0.6 is a catastrophe? Where are you getting that from. The issue with the impacts of climate change have always been how that 0.6 was likely to become 1.6, then 2.6 and then 3.6... with increasing problems along that path.
And so the 0.3 becomes a question of whether 0.3 is the new rate of change (so we'd go to 0.8, then 1.3 etc...) or if this a single instance of low increase (so we'd go to 1.3, then 2.3 etc...), or whether the 0.3 is misleading, and we can still expect 1.6, 2.6 etc...
At no point does the answer become 'just ignore everything we've found in the last 15 years because the number came out 0.3, not 0.6'.
See, I'd buy that if green types hadn't been screaming for years now that we need to completely gut our economy in order to prevent this catastrophic increase in global average temperature from happening.
Yeah, as long as you look for a screaming idiot or two on the other side, you'll always find a way to dismiss the other side. But if you want to be right about this, then the best thing to do is to dismiss the screaming idiots on both sides, and then find out what the overall consensus of informed people in the middle of this debate are saying. And their conclusions about climate change are pretty clear.
I would say this analogy's stopped being useful, as there are a number of other indicators and tools you can use if you believe the altimeter's off and we, to the best of my layman's knowledge, don't really have anything other than these models to guide us in climate science. Though to go along with it, I'd say if you're shooting an approach in zero visibility with nothing but an altimeter and a compass, and the altimeter goes faulty, you're kinda fethed. But that's why you're not allowed to do it,
Now that's a good analogy response.
I'd counter by saying that, well, we are doing it, and there's really no alternative other than 'hope the science is wrong'. Meanwhile the models are continuing to improve, and that they did predict an increase, and were quite accurate in the increase in areas other than surface temperature, and therefore the case for action is still extremely strong.
sebster wrote: And if the altimeter said 'we have increased from 1,000.0 to 1,000.6 metres', and then on examining his readings corrects that to 'actually we only increased to 1,000.3 metres'... then you would conclude it's clearly not accurate and you should reject that altimeter and entirely reject the notion that you rose in height at all?
You wouldn't.
Well, first of all, nobody who's worth anything in the air uses meters.
And no, I would not conclude that, largely because that degree of specificity is pretty useless for flying. It's also so incredibly minor a difference as to make absolutely no odds either way, which surely is not the argument you're making about the difference between .3 degrees and .6 degrees. If it's not a big deal, then who cares, and we can all ignore this climate change stuff anyway, right?
This boils down to the model being wrong. Which suggests that the people who claim they've got the whole thing figured out actually don't.
Only if you're in the US Seaward... anywhere overseas all Visibility and RVR's are going to be reported in meters. Though even Britain reports there ceilings in feet.
And just for general spreading of knowledge, Altimeters are measured in Inches of Mercury. An example would be QNH30.23inHg, which is the current altimeter here at Scott. You'll more commonly see the 4 digit number just prefaced with an A instead of the QNH.
djones520 wrote: Only if you're in the US Seaward... anywhere overseas all Visibility and RVR's are going to be reported in meters. Though even Britain reports there ceilings in feet.
As I said, anyone who's worth anything in the air...
Though yeah. Although, when we flew with the Malaysians, they rocked feet. Maybe they were just being gracious.
djones520 wrote: Only if you're in the US Seaward... anywhere overseas all Visibility and RVR's are going to be reported in meters. Though even Britain reports there ceilings in feet.
As I said, anyone who's worth anything in the air...
Though yeah. Although, when we flew with the Malaysians, they rocked feet. Maybe they were just being gracious.
Or it could have been your AG's just doing the math for you. Don't want to overburden you guys in the cockpit.
djones520 wrote: Or it could have been your AG's just doing the math for you. Don't want to overburden you guys in the cockpit.
Oh, God, no. I'm sure there are some guys who work out their circuits in the stack behind the boat to arrive at the fix right on time, but you know what? Flying ridiculously short legs works just as well, and hey, no math!
Actually, now you've got me trying to remember who (military, anyway) I've ever actually heard use meters over feet or at least flight levels. Australia does feet for altitude, but then they make things extra fun by doing all the ground side stuff in meters.
djones520 wrote: Or it could have been your AG's just doing the math for you. Don't want to overburden you guys in the cockpit.
Oh, God, no. I'm sure there are some guys who work out their circuits in the stack behind the boat to arrive at the fix right on time, but you know what? Flying ridiculously short legs works just as well, and hey, no math!
Actually, now you've got me trying to remember who (military, anyway) I've ever actually heard use meters over feet or at least flight levels. Australia does feet for altitude, but then they make things extra fun by doing all the ground side stuff in meters.
Yeah, altitude is universal in feet. But ground is reported in meters everywhere but the US and Canadia. Here in N. America we report ground visibility in statute miles, and RVR in feet.
djones520 wrote: Yeah, altitude is universal in feet. But ground is reported in meters everywhere but the US and Canadia. Here in N. America we report ground visibility in statute miles, and RVR in feet.
Not universal, actually! Russia and China do meters.
And stop confusing me. I started out the analogy with ground, and sebster (quite reasonably) thought I was talking about airborne altitude, and, rather than take the time to explain what I meant, I just switched over to that. Then you come in here getting me thinking that I somehow missed the fact that everyone else uses meters for FL. I was going, "What? No, can't be." The madness must stop, I say.
In truth, that sunrise was probably on the screen for less than 10 seconds at a time, as it was part of an ad for tourism in China’s Shandong province. The ad plays every day throughout the day all year round no matter how bad the pollution is. The photographer simply snapped the photo at the moment when the sunrise appeared. Look closely, and you can even see the Shandong tourism logo in the bottom right corner. The photo was credited to ChinaFotoPress via Getty Images, so a Daily Mail reporter did not take it.
Why do people still take things from the daily mail seriously?
Correction: The original post did not mention that the large screens in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square broadcast panoramic scenes on a daily basis, regardless of atmospheric conditions, nor did it state that the sunrise was part of a tourism commercial.
Sitting here after a hurricane, with my grandsons up stairs on a camp bed( their roof having been ripped off). My father on his own in Anglesey were 100+ mph winds have been recorded. I think global weather pattens are all screwed.
loki old fart wrote: Sitting here after a hurricane, with my grandsons up stairs on a camp bed( their roof having been ripped off). My father on his own in Anglesey were 100+ mph winds have been recorded. I think global weather pattens are all screwed.
High winds in the wintertime aren't exactly rare for you guys. Deeply wound low pressure systems move across the UK quite often.
loki old fart wrote: Sitting here after a hurricane, with my grandsons up stairs on a camp bed( their roof having been ripped off). My father on his own in Anglesey were 100+ mph winds have been recorded. I think global weather pattens are all screwed.
High winds in the wintertime aren't exactly rare for you guys. Deeply wound low pressure systems move across the UK quite often.
Correction: The original post did not mention that the large screens in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square broadcast panoramic scenes on a daily basis, regardless of atmospheric conditions, nor did it state that the sunrise was part of a tourism commercial.
loki old fart wrote: Sitting here after a hurricane, with my grandsons up stairs on a camp bed( their roof having been ripped off). My father on his own in Anglesey were 100+ mph winds have been recorded. I think global weather pattens are all screwed.
High winds in the wintertime aren't exactly rare for you guys. Deeply wound low pressure systems move across the UK quite often.
Snow yes not hurricanes,
That's isn't a hurricane. It's a low pressure system. Hell it's not even as deep of a system as what passed through the UK last week.
loki old fart wrote: Sitting here after a hurricane, with my grandsons up stairs on a camp bed( their roof having been ripped off). My father on his own in Anglesey were 100+ mph winds have been recorded. I think global weather pattens are all screwed.
High winds in the wintertime aren't exactly rare for you guys. Deeply wound low pressure systems move across the UK quite often.
Snow yes not hurricanes,
That's isn't a hurricane. It's a low pressure system. Hell it's not even as deep of a system as what passed through the UK last week.
A man has died apparently trying to clear a fallen tree as hurricane-force winds batter parts of the UK.
The dead man, believed to be in his 70s, was killed after the tree brought down power cables in Wiltshire.
Gusts of over 100mph were recorded as Met Office "red warnings", the first of the winter, were issued. Sixteen severe flood warnings remain in place.
Power and transport networks have been badly hit, in what has been called an "almost unparalleled natural crisis".
Residents in many parts of the UK have been warned not to go out.
Wiltshire Police say the dead man was killed in a suspected electrocution in Bremhill, a village between Calne and Chippenham, on Wednesday afternoon.
The severe flood warnings remain for Berkshire, Surrey and Somerset, which have already been hit by severe flooding, with hundreds of homes evacuated.
Assistant chief of the defence staff Major General Patrick Sanders, who is co-ordinating the armed forces response, described the ongoing severe weather as an "almost unparalleled natural crisis".
Climate change is a true thing, even in the strictest sense of the word. We as humans have literally changed the climate of portions of the world, and usually not for the better. For example, the Chinese turning large portions of their nation into what is basically desert.
AegisGrimm wrote: Global Warming is a completely made up term, and really doesn't have anything based in fact about it.
Every term gets made up at some point or another, the days of God sending his angels from heaven down just to give us new words has long since passed.
And there is a vast amount of science behind climate change. I agree that there are lots of other environmental issues that also need to be addressed, but climate change is definitely the most important right now.
As for climate change, have a look at global average temperature estimates, such as
You should have read the thread. Issues with the temperature measures, specifically that they don't capture the areas that are most expected to have increased in temperature, and only measure surface temperature, have already been mentioned.
Minx wrote: As for climate change, have a look at global average temperature estimates, such as
And it is still showing a temperature increase!
That was my point. The graph clearly shows the increase, and it is even more pronounced with the newer estimate (C&W hybrid) using satellite data to cover more of the globe. And even though the multi-model-average overestimates the increase the measurements are all well within the 2-sigma band. I wouldn't discard all of them just yet.
Minx wrote: That was my point. The graph clearly shows the increase, and it is even more pronounced with the newer estimate (C&W hybrid) using satellite data to cover more of the globe. And even though the multi-model-average overestimates the increase the measurements are all well within the 2-sigma band. I wouldn't discard all of them just yet.
Ah fair enough. Your graph was very similar to the OP's, so I thought you were making the same point (over-estimate of surface temperature therefore discard).
Medium of Death wrote: Don't you know, all Americans are gifted with an innate and complete understanding of all weather patterns throughout history?
It's like science or something!
Or I've just been forecasting the weather over the UK for the last 5.5 years...
Meteorologists claiming to be authorities on the science of climate change and peddling the "we just don't know" spiel is akin to engineers claiming to be experts on high energy particle physics insisting that the LHC was going to cause black holes; there's some overlap between both fields, but they are not equivalent.
Met Office: Evidence 'suggests climate change link to storms'
Climate change is likely to be a factor in the extreme weather that has hit much of the UK in recent months, the Met Office's chief scientist has said.
Dame Julia Slingo said the variable UK climate meant there was "no definitive answer" to what caused the storms.
"But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change," she added.
"There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events."
More than 130 severe flood warnings - indicating a threat to life - have been issued since December. In contrast, there were only nine in the whole of 2012.
More than 5,000 properties have been flooded over this period, although the Environment Agency says investment in flood defences over the past decade has protected a further 1.3 million properties.
'Exceptional'
Speaking ahead of the launch of a Met Office report - produced by the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology - into recent climatic events, Dame Julia said the UK had seen the "most exceptional period of rainfall in 248 years".
Unsettled weather at this time of year was not unexpected - but the prolonged spell of rain, as well as the intensity and height of coastal waves, was "very unusual".
"We have records going back to 1766 and we have nothing like this," she said. "We have seen some exceptional weather. We can't say it is unprecedented but it is exceptional."
The report links the recent extreme weather in Europe and North America to "perturbations" in the North Atlantic and Pacific jet streams, partly emanating from changing weather patterns in South East Asia and "associated with higher than normal ocean temperatures in that region".
"The attribution of these changes to anthropogenic [caused by humans] global warming requires climate models of sufficient resolution to capture storms and their associated rainfall," it says.
'Makes sense'
"Such models are now becoming available and should be deployed as soon as possible to provide a solid evidence base for future investments in flood and coastal defences."
David Cameron has said the UK must be prepared for more extreme weather.
At Prime Minister's Questions last month, Mr Cameron said he "suspected" that the recent storms to batter the UK and the extreme weather in North America were connected to global temperature changes - an argument challenged by some Conservative MPs and peers.
He subsequently clarified the remarks, saying that although "you can't point to one weather event and say that is climate change", many scientists were talking of a link between the two.
"The point I was really trying to make is, whatever you think - even if you think that (climate change) is mumbo-jumbo - because these things are happening more often, it makes sense to do all you can to... prevent these floods affecting so many people and that is exactly what we are doing."
Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Guy Shrubsole said this assessment was a "warning sign that cannot be ignored".
"By appointing an environment secretary who doesn't take climate change seriously this government has turned its back on the science and cut flood defence spending when it should be cutting emissions."
Medium of Death wrote: Don't you know, all Americans are gifted with an innate and complete understanding of all weather patterns throughout history?
It's like science or something!
Or I've just been forecasting the weather over the UK for the last 5.5 years...
I'm actually kind of fascinated by your posts djones, and I don't mean that in a facetious/sarcastic way.
As someone who has worked in meteorlogy for years, firstly I assume you think that climate change/global warming is happening at a much lower rate than forcast, or do you contend that it's not happening (or not due to human input) at all?
I'm not a climatologist, or anyone with a background in science beyond reading. Like many things in life I trust established scientific opinion, that when there is consensus about a topic (and this can be about absolutely anything) that that, most likely, is our best guess at something at that time.
The prevailing scientific opinion is that human-instigated global warming is a reality. I'm genuinely interested to know why someone who works in the field might think otherwise, and how you have come to form this opinion?
I'm a meteorologist, with very limited training in climatology. I don't claim to be an expert on this. Just someone who has a better founding in the subject then most.
I also don't know for sure what is happening. I have a gut feeling (and with my experience over the last 12 years, I've learned to trust it) that humans impact is overstated.
What I do know for sure though, is that we don't know enough to be saying beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are a major player in what is going on in the atmosphere. There are still to many variables uncounted for. The simple fact that the forecasts were off on a drastic scale (yes Sebster, .3c is drastic considering the levels of change that was being discussed) shows that. That being said, I work with forecast models day in and day out. I know how to "correct" the data the provide when they are wrong. The IPCC failed to do that to the extent they probably should have when they released their latest study.
Things like that, Al Gore, the findings of potentially fudged data to scew results, and a myriad of other things have led me to believe that a large part of the "concensus" is fiscally and politically driven. AGW causes sensation, which leads to hysteria, which leads to funding. If there is nothing to worry about, then there is nothing to spend money on. Being a government employee I'm also very familiar with that school of thinking. We go through it every year around the end of the Fiscal year. How can we continue to justify our budgets? How can we get them expanded?
I see it all as a money game. And the fact that to date, very little of the doom and gloom has been right, nothing has yet swayed my view on it.
I always figured that instead of Global Warming, we need to worry more about air, water and ground quality, as those are things where we are making vast, measurably bad effects to the environment, that even normal laymen can observe with the naked eye. They are also the things that *should* be easiest to enact change upon.
It is kinda dumb. Global Warming can be argued till the cows come home, but one look at a smoggy city or garbage-choked river and you instantly go "Eww, that's not healthy for ANYONE".
I mean, my god what about that dam in China that was threatening to fail because of the weight of the garbage up against it?
Most of that is probably just wood that is caught up by the dam, and would normally never be noticed without the dam there.
Edit: Excuse my typos. Multi-tasking between the nor'easter that's gonna mess with New England tomorrow, some Severe Turbulence of the Southern States, and ferrying a bunch of jets over some oceans. Busy night...
djones520 wrote: Most of that is probably just wood that is caught up by the dam, and would normally never be noticed without the dam there.
Edit: Excuse my typos. Multi-tasking between the nor'easter that's gonna mess with New England tomorrow, some Severe Turbulence of the Southern States, and ferrying a bunch of jets over some oceans. Busy night...
Personally, I think Kaku should stick to quantum physics and let actual meteorologists handle the since of the weather.
Warner Todd Huston wrote:CBS Blames Global Warming for Bad Winter
During the February 13 broadcast of CBS This Morning, host Charlie Rose and his guest turned to the topic of this year's harsh winter, calling the extreme cold an example of global warming.
Guest Michio Kaku, a physics professor from New York City College--not a climatologist, but a physicist--claimed that the "wacky weather" could get "even wackier" and its all because of global warming. "What we're seeing is that the jet stream and the polar vortex are becoming unstable. Instability of historic proportions. We think it's because of the gradual heating up of the North Pole. The North Pole is melting," professor Kaku said.
"That excess heat generated by all this warm water is destabilizing this gigantic bucket of cold air... So that's the irony, that heating could cause gigantic storms of historic proportions," the prof explained.
This was all because of global warming, Rose insisted.
Kaku went on to say that the weather "instabilities" we are seeing are because of the "erratic nature of the jet stream" and the "polar vortex."
Kaku also said that it is too late to change any of this:
Well, the bad news is that the north polar region continues to rise in temperature, it seems to be irreversible at a certain point, so we may have to get used to a new normal. That is, a north polar region that is melting, causing more instability in this bucket, causing more things to spill out, which means more extremes. Some winters could be very mild, other winters could be horrendous.
According to The Weather Channel, the Polar Vortex is not the sort of weather system that directly affects the surface. In fact, the polar vortex is an upper atmosphere system, not one that impacts directly on the surface of the earth.
Further, the idea that the polar vortex has become "unstable" is not necessarily true.The Weather Channel notes that the upper atmosphere system sometimes shifts, helping to sweep weather systems in the lower atmosphere to drift far afield from more common patterns.
CBS Host Norah O'Donnell also took the occasion of the discussion to claim that 2014 will be the hottest summer ever.
Ouze wrote: Lily Cole has weird yet pleasing features.
I should find it sexy because I like faces with big eyes, small noses maybe her mouth is too small for her face I can't put my finger on it but there's something odd about her face.
djones520 wrote: Edit: Excuse my typos. Multi-tasking between the nor'easter that's gonna mess with New England tomorrow, some Severe Turbulence of the Southern States, and ferrying a bunch of jets over some oceans. Busy night...
I hope you lied and told them it was balmy. Nothing sucks worse than a drysuit.
I should find it sexy because I like faces with big eyes, small noses maybe her mouth is too small for her face I can't put my finger on it but there's something odd about her face.
I'm a meteorologist, with very limited training in climatology. I don't claim to be an expert on this. Just someone who has a better founding in the subject then most.
I also don't know for sure what is happening. I have a gut feeling (and with my experience over the last 12 years, I've learned to trust it) that humans impact is overstated.
What I do know for sure though, is that we don't know enough to be saying beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are a major player in what is going on in the atmosphere. There are still to many variables uncounted for. The simple fact that the forecasts were off on a drastic scale (yes Sebster, .3c is drastic considering the levels of change that was being discussed) shows that. That being said, I work with forecast models day in and day out. I know how to "correct" the data the provide when they are wrong. The IPCC failed to do that to the extent they probably should have when they released their latest study.
Things like that, Al Gore, the findings of potentially fudged data to scew results, and a myriad of other things have led me to believe that a large part of the "concensus" is fiscally and politically driven. AGW causes sensation, which leads to hysteria, which leads to funding. If there is nothing to worry about, then there is nothing to spend money on. Being a government employee I'm also very familiar with that school of thinking. We go through it every year around the end of the Fiscal year. How can we continue to justify our budgets? How can we get them expanded?
I see it all as a money game. And the fact that to date, very little of the doom and gloom has been right, nothing has yet swayed my view on it.
I agree in a sense, I'm sure there are people who have a vested interest in climate change being increased by human involvement. As an example our own Prime Minister was involved in getting massive subsidies for members of his wife's family for the setting up of wind farms on their land.
But, on the other hand do you not think that there is also a massive impetus for leaders in industry to deny man made climate change? I would say the 'industrial complex', the power of oil magnates, of car companies and massive industrial corporations would far outweigh (in terms of political and economical power) those who might benefit from government subsidy to renewable energy producers and the like. The same too with scientists being paid to give particular results. No doubt there are forces on both sides pushing, and it's become massively politicised, but from someone living in a country where it is not as politicised (and therefore as polarising on the population), then the thing is that you have to take the majority scientific consensus on these things.
Another view I've start to read about recently, and this is something that you are certainly hearing more often from the more right-wing government sources, is that they've stopped trying to deny climate change. Instead, believing that human technology and ingenuity will lead to ways to counteract it. I can see this being a more and more popular opinion in the future; let's keep on pumping out the CO2, no worries in 50 years or so we will have the technology to put a great big shield in front of the sun or something.
djones520 wrote: Edit: Excuse my typos. Multi-tasking between the nor'easter that's gonna mess with New England tomorrow, some Severe Turbulence of the Southern States, and ferrying a bunch of jets over some oceans. Busy night...
I hope you lied and told them it was balmy. Nothing sucks worse than a drysuit.
We only handle the tanker aspect, not the fighter.
djones520 wrote: What I do know for sure though, is that we don't know enough to be saying beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are a major player in what is going on in the atmosphere. There are still to many variables uncounted for. The simple fact that the forecasts were off on a drastic scale (yes Sebster, .3c is drastic considering the levels of change that was being discussed) shows that.
To the extent that 0.3'C is significant, then it is just as significant that temperature did rise 0.3'C over the measured period.
Also, the measures were only wrong if you look only at surface temperature and then only at the limited measures of surface temperature available (limited arctic measures etc). I don't know how many more times I have to say that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: Personally, I think Kaku should stick to quantum physics and let actual meteorologists handle the since of the weather.
You don't really want to start setting the standard that only experts in their specific field get to talk on issues. Debate on climate change would become very one sided.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pacific wrote: But, on the other hand do you not think that there is also a massive impetus for leaders in industry to deny man made climate change? I would say the 'industrial complex', the power of oil magnates, of car companies and massive industrial corporations would far outweigh (in terms of political and economical power) those who might benefit from government subsidy to renewable energy producers and the like. The same too with scientists being paid to give particular results. No doubt there are forces on both sides pushing, and it's become massively politicised, but from someone living in a country where it is not as politicised (and therefore as polarising on the population), then the thing is that you have to take the majority scientific consensus on these things.
It's interesting to observe as major multinationals hire two distinct groups of people, the first to refute the conclusions of climate change, and more recently climate scientists to help those multinationals begin to adapt to the future predicted by climate change.
Breotan wrote: Personally, I think Kaku should stick to quantum physics and let actual meteorologists handle the since of the weather.
You don't really want to start setting the standard that only experts in their specific field get to talk on issues. Debate on climate change would become very one sided.
Regarding the "debate" issue, it's fine and dandy that he's voicing an opinion. I just don't want him presented as an authority on the subject like these TV news shows are doing. It's disingenuous.
The problem here is, Kaku isn't just some guy voicing his opinion like we are. He's being paid as an "expert" because he's a scientist. His opinion is presented as having greater value because of this. Now if they want to bring him in as an "expert" on something happening at CERN, then that's fine because it's in his field of study.
It's funny when I heard the news today where a senator was saying that the increase in carbon in the atmosphere in parts per million was "a miniscule number"---when that "miniscule" number represents a 30% increase.
AegisGrimm wrote: It's funny when I heard the news today where a senator was saying that the increase in carbon in the atmosphere in parts per million was "a miniscule number"---when that "miniscule" number represents a 30% increase.
AegisGrimm wrote: It's funny when I heard the news today where a senator was saying that the increase in carbon in the atmosphere in parts per million was "a miniscule number"---when that "miniscule" number represents a 30% increase.
Technically both can be correct.
Its all about how you present the facts.
I can say I just doubled my salary. But it still small if my salary was just $2.50 an hour and my new salary is $5
And when you are talking about very tiny numbers any increase can have a very large % change while having a very tiny shift in actual values.
You must know what sort of context the increase should be viewed in.
Breotan wrote: Regarding the "debate" issue, it's fine and dandy that he's voicing an opinion. I just don't want him presented as an authority on the subject like these TV news shows are doing. It's disingenuous.
The problem here is, Kaku isn't just some guy voicing his opinion like we are. He's being paid as an "expert" because he's a scientist. His opinion is presented as having greater value because of this. Now if they want to bring him in as an "expert" on something happening at CERN, then that's fine because it's in his field of study.
Well, yeah, science journalism is pretty terrible most of the time. Are you as bothered when geologists and engineers get given equal deference on climate change as climatologists?
AegisGrimm wrote: It's funny when I heard the news today where a senator was saying that the increase in carbon in the atmosphere in parts per million was "a miniscule number"---when that "miniscule" number represents a 30% increase.
Technically both can be correct.
Its all about how you present the facts.
I can say I just doubled my salary. But it still small if my salary was just $2.50 an hour and my new salary is $5
And when you are talking about very tiny numbers any increase can have a very large % change while having a very tiny shift in actual values.
You must know what sort of context the increase should be viewed in.
Obviously I meant it in the way that she used it as a hand-wave comment, like "Pfft, it's just a couple more parts per million, so what."
There is colossal, staggering arrogance at work when people can deny the consensus of 95%+ of the specialists in a field based on their own anecdotal evidence and political beliefs.
It makes me chuckle, I have to say. I'm pretty sure we're at the point now where we can't do much about the oncoming changes in global climate, and should turn our thoughts to dealing with it, but I'm sure history will look kindly on you guys.
It's better to find it funny that horrendously depressing, which is my other option, I guess.
Edit: Also, honestly, all the talk of some scientific conspiracy to propagate climate change is just hilarious. The pressure in academia is generally to publish something shocking, something that breaks convention, that grabs attention, something with relevance and impact. If the guys doing decent science could disprove climate change, it would be massively beneficial to them, career wise, to do so. And yet the vast majority don't. When I was in research, I don't recall any meetings where we all decided our opinion on things- quite the opposite! Arguments and disagreements were the order of the day. And I never got any hush money either! Bloody disgraceful. I want my hush money.
I'm a meteorologist, with very limited training in climatology. I don't claim to be an expert on this. Just someone who has a better founding in the subject then most.
I also don't know for sure what is happening. I have a gut feeling (and with my experience over the last 12 years, I've learned to trust it) that humans impact is overstated.
What I do know for sure though, is that we don't know enough to be saying beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are a major player in what is going on in the atmosphere. There are still to many variables uncounted for. The simple fact that the forecasts were off on a drastic scale (yes Sebster, .3c is drastic considering the levels of change that was being discussed) shows that. That being said, I work with forecast models day in and day out. I know how to "correct" the data the provide when they are wrong. The IPCC failed to do that to the extent they probably should have when they released their latest study.
Things like that, Al Gore, the findings of potentially fudged data to scew results, and a myriad of other things have led me to believe that a large part of the "concensus" is fiscally and politically driven. AGW causes sensation, which leads to hysteria, which leads to funding. If there is nothing to worry about, then there is nothing to spend money on. Being a government employee I'm also very familiar with that school of thinking. We go through it every year around the end of the Fiscal year. How can we continue to justify our budgets? How can we get them expanded?
I see it all as a money game. And the fact that to date, very little of the doom and gloom has been right, nothing has yet swayed my view on it.
This is one of my absolute favourite arguments on this subject. There isn't actually a scientific consensus at all, instead climatologists are engaged in a massive conspiracy to manipulate thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers, in order to suckle heartily at that sweet sweet government teat, what with basic scientific research being so lucrative and all. You might use more qualified wording, but you're espousing essentially the same position as the Lord Monktons and Rush Limbaughs of the world.
What makes it my favourite argument is that it's so much the opposite of reality that it would be hilarious if we weren't discussing such a serious issue.
On one side of the issue; the vast majority of qualified scientists, vast reams of data, and conclusions drawn from that data by the scientific method.
On the other; people who believe anthropogenic climate change is impossible because God wouldn't allow it to happen, massive oil corporations, power companies, and the politicians who pander to them.
Yet it is the first group, in your estimation, who are playing a "money game". All those right-wing think tanks, oil industry-funded studies(typically conducted by....geologists), vast political campaign contributions to denialist politcians, the constant attempts to equate basic rational actions like reducing emissions with government tyranny; well, that's just sensible folk trying to provide some balance in the debate, what with the media being so in thrall to those dastardly climatologists and only presenting their side of the stor...oh wait.
You probably know way more of this than I do, I just know what I look up on my on.
containing data from a recent Cowtan & Way publication
