U.S. Dept. of Ag report: Climate change is damaging America . . . now

[jshore]

@intention

Please read what I said. I did not say I believe or disbelieve Keenlyside, I just was commenting about his excuse for the climate models not working (natural variability). It’s beyond me why you want to keep twisting my words, but I’d sure appreciate it if you’d quit doing so.

Your original words were:

Plus, it seems like the authors didn’t get the Keenlyside memo that the ugly spectre of natural variability (in this case the PDO) is likely to cool the planet for the next ten or fifteen years … funny how, when the climate models can’t explain the warming, the cause has to be CO2, but when they can’t explain the cooling, it’s “natural variability” that’s the cause.

So, let’s analyze these actual words. I suppose you can now claim by “is likely to cool the planet” you didn’t mean that it was actually likely but rather that only Keenlyside et al. thought it was likely…although that is somewhat of a stretch from your original words and then, why even bother to bring it up? Furthermore, your statement about climate models not being able to explain the cooling is non-sensical since the climate model that Keenlyside ran not only explains the cooling (really, pause in the warming), it actually predicts the pause. I.e., the pause doesn’t actually exist in the real world (as it is still in the future), only in the model world. And, it is clearly some sort of “nature variability” in the model world in the sense that they show that their model predicts warming over the longer term. (Whether it corresponds to actual natural variability in the real world or just a poor way to initialize the model, and the model having an unphysical transient as it attempts to re-equilibrate, is what is being debated right now amongst many scientists.)

I stopped interacting with you on another thread because of your puerile attempt to convince people that our asking you for citations was somehow wrong, and accusing me and brazil84 of not “doing the legwork” to look up your citations for you …

Well, you have some excuses for stopping interacting with me in that thread but given that your change of heart occurred around the time that you were cornered with two scientific statements that you had made with great confidence and have so far been unable to defend (because, I would argue, they are manifestly incorrect), I prefer to think of that as a convenient pretext to avoid having to try to defend them.

PPS - Keenlyside says the current cooling (or “pause in warming” if you prefer) may last for another 15 years, and that it is due to “natural variability” … that would put the total length of the pause to about a quarter century, since the peak was in 1998. I was wondering why “natural variability” is an acceptable reason for a projected quarter century of “pausing”, but not an acceptable reason for the preceding quarter century of warming … but you didn’t answer that question, did you?

First of all, I don’t see where they claim it may last for another 15 years. At best, they seem to talk about it lasting over the next decade, and even then, they seem to define the decade as starting in 2005. In fact, their comparison seems to be for the decade from 2005-2015 as compared to 1994-2004 (or something like that), which even if you take the far ends on either side would only be 20 years…and by any reasonable measure (i.e., using the central year they average over) would be 11 years. Admittedly, their paper is pretty unclear on this point. But at any rate, I don’t see how you get a 25 year period of no warming out of that.

Second of all, by most temperature records, the period from 1998 to 2007 (or nearby years…1998 is a nice starting point to cherrypick to start for best effect if you want to show as little warming as possible) has seen some warming. Yes, it may not be statistically-significantly different from 0 but it is also not statistically-significantly different from the IPCC predicted warming trends. That is the problem with short periods: the statistics aren’t good enough to conclude much.

Third of all, if Keenlyside’s prediction proves to be correct then we might have something to talk about. However, it seems sort of silly to be basing our discussion on a hypothetical future based on a paper that you admit to having no scientific opinion on and (based on other scientific opinions that I personally find pretty compelling), there is good reason to suspect is out-to-lunch.

PPPS - Me, I find it curious that many scientists, who do very good work in their fields, even many Nobel Prize winners, believe in an invisible, omnipotent being watching everything that they do. Not only that, but they simultaneously believe that

a) if they do not do exactly what this being wants, he (it?) will put them in a secret, hidden, undiscovered, never-seen lake of everlasting fire, to be tormented eternally, and

b) this being loves them, and cares deeply about their well-being.

I think you are exaggerating the number of scientists who would subscribe to such fundamentalist religious views. All because many scientists claim to be religious does not mean they are this literal and fundamentalist in their religious beliefs.

Furthermore, that is besides the point. Roy Spencer was not defending intelligent design as a personal religious belief. He was defending it as a scientific hypothesis…Or, at least, as a hypothesis that had just as much scientific validity as evolution (in particular, just as much validity for being taught in schools), if not moreso. In my opinion, this shows quite poor scientific judgement.

[brazil84]

@tagos

Asserts you.

Sheesh. Can’t you be bothered to read my post?

[Ludovic]

@brazil84

What exactly is the subject of the “denial” mentioned in the OP? What exactly is being denied?

In your case, implying that a conservative report about practical climate change is nothing but some CAGW advocate extremist.

[tagos]

@brazil84

Sheesh. Can’t you be bothered to read my post?

Same old, same old discredited nonsense as you well know.

[brazil84]

@tagos

Same old, same old discredited nonsense as you well know.

I guess that means “no.” For what it’s worth, you have completely missed the point.

[brazil84]

@Ludovic

In your case, implying that a conservative report about practical climate change is nothing but some CAGW advocate extremist.

Let’s see if I have this straight.

The OP asks “1. How much longer is denial on this issue going to persist?!”

And according to you, this question is asking how long people will continue to deny that the report in question is nothing but some CAGW advocate extremist?

That makes no sense at all to me.

[jshore]

@jshore

And, as you probably know, one of the small handful of climate scientists on the skeptical side who really does have decent credentials is Roy Spencer who has, strangely enough, also strongly endorsed intelligent design

By the way, the link in that Deltoid blog piece to Spencer’s original piece seems to be stale, so here is a direct link to Spencer’s piece so people can read exactly what he said.

[Ludovic]

@brazil84

Let’s see if I have this straight.

The OP asks “1. How much longer is denial on this issue going to persist?!”

And according to you, this question is asking how long people will continue to deny that the report in question is nothing but some CAGW advocate extremist?

That makes no sense at all to me.

Sweet, I can play this game too. The only person I saw asking about denial is BG. Are you asking him, himself, to make “interesting and testable predictions” too ? Why assume he a scientist? And what the heck does that have to do with the import of a practical observation of localized climate change on the previously predicted process of global climate change?

[brazil84]

@Ludovic

The only person I saw asking about denial is BG. Are you asking him, himself, to make “interesting and testable predictions” too ?

If he is pushing CAGW theory, then yes. I have no idea what this has to do with anything that’s been said.

Why assume he a scientist?

Who’s assuming anyone is a scientist? And again, I have no idea what this has to do with anything we’ve been discussing.

This is the third time in this thread you’ve made posts which are, as far as I can tell, full of non-sequiturs. Not only that, but you refuse to explain the relevance of your points.

From now on, I’m not going to respond to your non-sequiturs.

[Ludovic]

Ditto.

[intention]

jshore, you say:

@jshore

I think you are exaggerating the number of scientists who would subscribe to such fundamentalist religious views. All because many scientists claim to be religious does not mean they are this literal and fundamentalist in their religious beliefs.

What on earth does the number of them matter? Do you truly think the point is the number of them?

Nor am I saying that all of them are fundamentalists … but a proportion of them are.

@jshore

Furthermore, that is besides the point. Roy Spencer was not defending intelligent design as a personal religious belief. He was defending it as a scientific hypothesis…Or, at least, as a hypothesis that had just as much scientific validity as evolution (in particular, just as much validity for being taught in schools), if not moreso. In my opinion, this shows quite poor scientific judgement.

Oh, I see. It’s ok to believe in invisible beings, as long as you just believe in them, but you don’t believe in them scientifically.

Do I have it straight now?

Spencer’s belief in an invisible being that created the universe and continued to mess with the evolution is absolutely no different from some other scientists belief in an invisible being who created the universe but who didn’t mess with the evolution. Both of them think it’s true. Your distinction is meaningless – both beliefs are irrational.

My point, which you insist on twisting, is that a man’s pathological belief in invisible beings (whether or not it is accompanied by other pathological beliefs such as a belief in a hidden lake of fire or a belief that the being messes with evolution) does not disqualify his scientific views in other fields. In fact, it is as irrelevant to the truth of his his scientific views as the color of his skin.

Why do you guys always want to make it an ad hominem attack? Don’t you see how weak that makes your position look? It doesn’t make your position weak, it doesn’t change the truth or falsity of your climate views … but it makes y’all look like you’d rather argue the man’s shoe size than his ideas.

w.

[gonzomax]

Most of us are not tuned into the subtities of nature. I saw a program on gardening a while ago. A Minnesota Club was talking about how they can plant earlier and grow longer than a few years earlier. That was not a show on warming . Just a show on growing by people who live it.

[Ludovic]

@gonzomax

Most of us are not tuned into the subtities of nature. I saw a program on gardening a while ago. A Minnesota Club was talking about how they can plant earlier and grow longer than a few years earlier. That was not a show on warming . Just a show on growing by people who live it.

I CANT STAND TEH CAGW FREAKOS.

[brazil84]

@gonzomax

Most of us are not tuned into the subtities of nature.

I agree. Many people can’t seem to wrap their minds around the fact that things like this:

A Minnesota Club was talking about how they can plant earlier and grow longer than a few years earlier.

are not unprecedented and don’t necessarily mean that mankind is having a significant impact on the environment.

[Ludovic]

Indeed.

One of the primary reasons given for the update was that, “We have been losing from our landscapes plants that apparently survived the 1940’s to the 1960’s. Many of the hardiness zone classifications of plants are no longer considered valid. In North America, the ranges of temperature and moisture for the past decade were wider than those recorded for the 1940’s through the 1960’s.” This is an intriguing statement, since it presages the current debate over the proposed update to the 1990 USDA map and the implication that the hardiness zones need to reflect recent global warming.

So it appears that the localized weather variability increased from the 1950’s through the 1990’s, according to the practical experience of plant growers.

[jshore]

@intention

My point, which you insist on twisting, is that a man’s pathological belief in invisible beings (whether or not it is accompanied by other pathological beliefs such as a belief in a hidden lake of fire or a belief that the being messes with evolution) does not disqualify his scientific views in other fields. In fact, it is as irrelevant to the truth of his his scientific views as the color of his skin.

I disagree and I find that comparison rather silly…almost offensive. Let’s look at what Spencer himself says in the first paragraph of that piece:

Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as “fact,” I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

So, he seems to be specifically implying that his qualifications as a PhD scientist gives him the ability to analyze this question. And, given this, I think that the conclusion that he reached on this issue shows really poor scientific judgement. No wonder that such a scientist might also conclude that AGW is also essentially a religious belief! He thinks evolution is also essentially a religious belief!

@intention

Why do you guys always want to make it an ad hominem attack? Don’t you see how weak that makes your position look?

This is rather amusing coming from the same person who regular launches vicious ad hominem attacks himself on very reputable scientists. For example, you blast Stephen Schneider for saying something even though he has subsequently said in no uncertain terms that he didn’t mean what you have interpretted him as saying. You simply refuse to believe that he meant anything but what you have interpretted him as meaning. At least I would be willing to listen to what Spencer had to say if he wanted to argue that I am completely misinterpretting him…although to my knowledge he has not tried to disavow what he has been interpretted as saying in that piece and I don’t see how he could since he states it in pretty uncertain terms multiple times over the several paragraphs of that piece.

It doesn’t make your position weak, it doesn’t change the truth or falsity of your climate views … but it makes y’all look like you’d rather argue the man’s shoe size than his ideas.

No, a person’s views on the scientific merit of evolution and intelligent design are not akin to his shoe size. It is, in fact, one of his scientific views.

And the point is that you are trying to claim that there are lots of reputable climate scientists who still dispute AGW. So, if this is the claim, it seems reasonable to look and see how trustworthy some of them are. I decided to choose one of the most reputable ones, i.e., one of the small minority of those listed in the Wikipedia article that you linked to who actually has a significant and reputable publication record in the climate science literature on issues related to AGW. And, my claim is that, although he seems to be a reasonably competent scientist, he also seems to have rather poor scientific judgement, at least in one case that we know of where the prevailing scientific theory runs up against what are presumably his strongly-held religious beliefs.

[gonzomax]

@brazil84

I agree. Many people can’t seem to wrap their minds around the fact that things like this:

are not unprecedented and don’t necessarily mean that mankind is having a significant impact on the environment.

It means many of use do not see what is obvious to others. A change in growing season that is significant enough for them to see shows we are having a big impact on the climate.

[MrDibble]

So no dozen cites, intention?

[brazil84]

@gonzomax

It means many of use do not see what is obvious to others.

It’s all a matter of perspective. See below.

A change in growing season that is significant enough for them to see shows we are having a big impact on the climate.

It doesn’t show that at all. And the proof is very simple: People have been observing climate changes for a looooooong time.

Is Our Climate Changing? Ever since everybody can remember the remark has been current that the seasons are different from what they used to be. The mildness of our winters is a fruitful subject of remark, and the increase of floods causces an avalanche of reminiscences from the oldest inhabitants.

From the Atlanta Constitution, January 10, 1891.

PRAGUE SCIENTISTS SEE CLIMATE CHANGING; Cold Winter, They Say, Means Shift From Maritime to Continental Conditions.

From the New York Times, March 3, 1929

WEATHER men attached to the Soviet Northern Sea Route Administration–the outfit that has put campers on a North Pole ice cake, sent airplanes across the Arctic and turned the world’s most forbidding ocean into an artery of commerce–have just minimized the arduousness of their own achievement by reporting that the top of the world is no longer as frigid as it used to be

From the New York Times, January 22, 1939

Our Changing Climate

(Hartford Daily Courant, March 11, 1854)

ARE WE LOSING OUR CLIMATE?
Scientists see signs of changing weather

From the Los Angeles Times, March 13, 1932

If our climate continues changing as rapidly for ten years to come as it has done for the ten years last past, we should not be surprised to find skating in June and green peas in January

from the New York Mirror, December 19, 1829

[brazil84]

Oh, and here’s a quote that I really love (from the same editorial that produced the Mirror quote:

I have heard it cited in recent years that the great amount of electricity in the air might be responsible for the atmospheric changes in our climate; but there was no electricity in the air eight-four years ago.

Letter to the Editor from William Seymour, New York Times, March 17, 1913.