On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
I'm an out and proud skeptic when it comes to global warming alarmism. This horrifies some of my more liberal friends who are convinced that each of these 882 (frequently contradictory) items on the hilarious Warm List are caused by global warming.
But check out this Associated Press story that admits no science was used for an entire story about how the recent heat wave, while not actually due to global warming, could have been caused by global warming:
If you want a glimpse of some of the worst of global warming, scientists suggest taking a look at U.S. weather in recent weeks.
Horrendous wildfires. Oppressive heat waves. Devastating droughts. Flooding from giant deluges. And a powerful freak wind storm called a derecho.
These are the kinds of extremes climate scientists have predicted will come with climate change, although it's far too early to say that is the cause. Nor will they say global warming is the reason 3,215 daily high temperature records were set in the month of June.
And it goes on and on and on to describe all the things that could happen from global warming. As someone on Twitter put it: "Shorter AP: No evidence that global warming is the cause of recent heat wave. That said, global warming is the cause."
- Comment (125)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Jun '12
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
"I don't have time to read that whole article, but it did point out that estimates of warming were 300% higher than actual warming."
Yea, you should have read the rest of the article. That was one scenario. The other two were right in line with observed data.
"And ice core samples show CO2 increases following temperature increases, not the other way around."
That is explained here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html
Jun '12
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
"Most people agree temperature and sea level are rising."
@drlorentz: I respectfully disagree. I wholeheartedly agree with your points vis-a-vis facts, attribution and alarmism. I'm right there with you. But many of the posts on this thread seem (to me at least) to reject the very notion that warming is taking place or that man could possibly have any marginal input to that process. That thinking is flawed, at best.
Re the RC article. It is what it is. If there are better facts, let's see them.
Jul '12
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
Re: Easy debunks (and Mai Tais at the South Pole)
I don't think it detracts from the point, but how do you answer the brilliant child/subtle serpent who asks: was New Mexico here then?
I say this sitting in a spot that will be where Anchorage is now in a mere 50K years, leaving some poor student wondering why I wasn't wearing more clothes when my meter expired.
Sep '10
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
FloppyDisk90:...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/.
I have one more comment about this link. The temperatures since 2000 have most closely followed Scenario C: no further increases in CO2 after the year 2000. Yet there have been significant CO2 increases since 2000. The prediction of Scenario B (business as usual) strongly diverges from reality.
On the face of it, I'd say the model's forecast skill is rather poor, even for one decade out. In short, the trouble with the validation of these models is that they are built upon the data they purport to predict. Once they are actually called upon to make a prediction of a time series of temperatures that was not used to create the model, they don't do so well. The graph in Gavin's post unwittingly illustrates that beautifully.
For a more comprehensive discussion of this complex issue, read this article by Henk Tennekes (renowned fluid dynamicist and former research director of the Dutch Met Office). A less technical review of his ideas is posted here.
Sep '10
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
FloppyDisk90:
Re the RC article. It is what it is. If there are better facts, let's see them. · 17 minutes ago
I'm not sure which facts you are looking for. As I noted in my previous post, the facts are mostly not in dispute, though there are some questions around the edges. The reliability of the models is in dispute. The facts on that score are not so kind to the Warmists, as I mentioned before.
I've done a bit of numerical modeling myself (not on climate) and I'm a firm believer in GIGO. Models have their place, but turning the world upside down because of a model prediction strikes me as irresponsible. Make no mistake, without the models, the anthropogenic climate change case is weak. Dick Lindzen (mentioned in Gavin's piece as an arch-denier or some such) has done a decent job of checking the models against reality. It's not pretty.
There are lots of resources available at varying degrees of technical sophistication. It's a contentious topic. Just be aware that RealClimate is hardly a disinterested source. Gavin Schmidt is as skilled at the selective use of facts as Michael Crichton.
Jul '11
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
~Paules
EstoniaKat
There was an article I read recently that said that Antarctica actually wasn't all that bad a fewmillionyears ago.
Emphasis added. · 4 hours ago
I thought the article was interesting, because it was only about 2 million. We're not talking the Cretaceous Period, here.
Apr '12
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
The bottom line here is that the media has been prepetuating alarmism and the Left has entirely politicized the issue.
James Lovelock (Mr. Gaia himself) has abandoned alarmism because the claims have been proven false. Freeman Dyson, a pioneer in climate science, doesn't buy it. Over 30,000 scientists from all disciplines stating the science is flawed.
Sure, there may be warming, but it's nothing like Thomas Friedman's hysterical fears of nearing a tipping point. The death of the krill and loss of baleen whales, the extinction of polar bears, people drowning from coastline flooding, the fear mongering just doesn't stop.
Periodite rock can be supercharged to absorb millions of times its weight in CO2. Yet the pols insist on hobbling industrial activity while transferring wealth to the poor as the only solutions. Is there a conspiracy? Of course there is. Are scientists involved? Undoubtedly. Has this become a religion that will persist despite the evidence? Most likely.
Jun '12
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
drlorentz
Thank you for your thoughtful posts. I read the links you supplied. They are of course quite damning from a theoretical standpoint of the current crop of climate models. Point taken.
But what else do we have? Clearly man is releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Again, I'm not an alarmist and I don't think we have the skill or capacity to "manage" the climate, but physics (the little I think I understand) seems to be clear that the partial derivative of temperature WRT quantity CO2 in a closed system is positive. Probably said that wrong but I trust you catch my drift. I'm not so inclined to throw up my hands and say "it's too complicated" when we essentially know that regardless of whatever other factors, non-linear dynamics or infinite regressions are driving the problem, our contribution to temperature change is positive.
Nov '11
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
FloppyDisk90: drlorentz
...Again, I'm not an alarmist and I don't think we have the skill or capacity to "manage" the climate, but physics (the little I think I understand) seems to be clear that the partial derivative of temperature WRT quantity CO2 in a closed system is positive...
Be that as it may, the Earth's climate is not a closed system.
My skepticism wrt anthropogenic climate change started with a deep-seated doubt about the following chain:
Knowing a bit about math (second major in college), physics (a bit of a hobby) and computer software (college major and profession), my b.s. detector pinged off the chart. Just a small error in any of the above could produce wildly inaccurate results. And I can virtually guarantee numerous errors exist, many likely large.
Nov '11
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
But the first question has to be (as someone upthread mentioned): What is the optimum average global temperature, and why? This question needs to be answered (please show your work) before any of the doomsday scenarios even make sense.
If that optimum temperature is less than today's, maybe there's something to worry about (maybe not, but let's skip over that). But if it's greater than today's, then bring on the CO2!
If the question can't be answered satisfactorily (my contention), then all this is just sound and fury, signifying nothing except a quest for political power.
I can't even see how we could get a consensus on the criteria for judging an optimum average temperature, much less be able to accurately calculate such a thing. How do you weigh a longer, warmer growing season in Canada and Southern Chile against a rising ocean level disrupting coastal living in California? What if a warmer climate means more rain in arid parts of Africa, curing famine for millions?
But now we're back to needing models that accurately predict the behavior of an inherently chaotic system.
Jun '12
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
Terry Mott
My skepticism wrt anthropogenic climate change started with a deep-seated doubt about the following chain:
· 20 minutes ago
I have an excellent test for that. So far no one's even been willing to subject their models to it, much less pass it.
Simply put, can any existing model put in the weather data from 365 days ago and -- with zero massaging -- produce accurate weather forecasts for any day during that year?
Of course, it's obvious they can't. As I said earlier, they can't even reliably predict the weather a few weeks out, much less months or years in advance. In my experience, modern weather forecasts are good for about 48 hours max, beyond that they tend to be very inaccurate.
Jun '12
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
Terry,
To quote the great Dr. Box, "All models are wrong, some are useful." Too many of us are inclined to chuck the baby out with the bathwater simply because this is a hard problem. I'm not currently aware of any climate modeling that suggests a *negative* relationship between man-made CO2 and temperature. You all seem to believe (and belief is the right word) that man's influence on the climate must be overwhelmed by natural factors. Yet in the same post you will claim it's all too complicated to figure out anyway. I submit the second position is inconsistent with the first. At best you should simply say, "I don't know."
Re temp optimum(s). That's essentially beside the point. The problem is if these changes occur in a short period of time and are relatively large (a point of debate, yes) then there will be potentially huge transition costs. Are we prepared for these costs?
Jun '12
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
"Simply put, can any existing model put in the weather data from 365 days ago and -- with zero massaging -- produce accurate weather forecasts for any day during that year?"
The models aren't trying to predict local weather. They're attempting to predict global temperature averages, which believe it or not, is actually easier to do (but still difficult) then trying to predict local weather. Please don't equate weather with climate. Two different things.
Jun '12
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
ConservativeWanderer
Highlama
And while it seems that scientists have rules out solar causality, I still have to wonder why temperatures on nearby planets have been recorded as increasing. · 1 minute ago
Simple. They ruled it out in error. The only possible explanation for temperatures on other planets increasing is the sun.
But "the sun" doesn't get researchers fat government grants, so that answer is ruled out of order to keep the tax dollars flowing into their pockets. · 3 hours ago
It's only the hottest thing in 4.5 lightyears so obviously it couldn't have anything to do with how hot or cold our climate is.
Jun '12
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
Perfect Chicken Little Climate Change True Believer quote.
You need to understand the weather to predict the climate. There are many things that cause cooling of areas, including the amount of cloud cover, and any precipitation (rain has a cooling effect). You need to predict that to predict how warm an area will be. You need to predict each area correctly to predict the global temperature, because the globe is never the same temperature everywhere.
If you cannot predict the weather, you cannot predict the climate.
Jul '11
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
Arguments about global warming remind me of my graduate assistant work for a professor working on second-hand smoke. Do you think that any study found that second-hand smoke wasn't a killer? No, because that would be the moment when your grant money would dry up.
That was the time I flipped rightwards, and learned to keep a hand on my wallet.
Aug '10
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
ConservativeWanderer said:
"You need to understand the weather to predict the climate".
This is just not true. I hate taking the side of the global warming alarmists even slightly, but we have to get our arguments right and not give them easy pickings.
Consider an analogy: The movement of a particle in a gas is random. It is impossible to predict where it will be at any given time. But given enough particles, I can make a pretty good prediction of what the temperature or pressure of the gas will be.
Weather is chaotic and subject to rapid change. Climate is not. You don't need to be able to predict weather to predict climate.
Now, that said, there are lots of reasons why current climate models are suspect. They are 'tuned' models, which have a very poor reputation for predictive accuracy in the first place. They rely on a dataset that itself has been highly massaged and corrected, with the magnitude of the corrections often being bigger than the original measurement. They are being applied by scientists operating with a significant bias, and they are very obviously incomplete, as we are learning new things about the climate every day.
Nov '11
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
FloppyDisk90: Terry,
To quote the great Dr. Box, "All models are wrong, some are useful." ... You all seem to believe ... that man's influence on the climate must be overwhelmed by natural factors. Yet in the same post you will claim it's all too complicated to figure out anyway. I submit the second position is inconsistent with the first. At best you should simply say, "I don't know."
I don't believe that man's influence on the climate must be overwhelmed by natural factors. I am saying, "I don't know." I'm just not simply saying it. I'm also saying you don't know. And neither do the modelers, as your great Dr. Box admits.
Sure, some models are "useful," if for nothing else than to increase the prestige and funding for the modeler. They're useful for politicians seeking to increase their power, for the media, seeking to increase their profits and influence, and probably even for academics to discuss various theories and play what-if games.
But as long as they're statistically wrong, they're not useful for predicting climate change in the coming decades. By definition. Ask Dr. Box.
Nov '11
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
FloppyDisk90: Terry,
Re temp optimum(s). That's essentially beside the point. The problem is if these changes occur in a short period of time and are relatively large (a point of debate, yes) then there will be potentially huge transition costs. Are we prepared for these costs? · 1 hour ago
Probably not, but I submit that we'd be less prepared for these costs if we undermine our economy by placing too much faith in admittedly-wrong computer models, no matter how "useful" some folks find them.
Sep '10
Re: On The Lies The Media Tell, Global Warming Edition
FloppyDisk90: ...
But what else do we have? Clearly man is releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
...seems to be clear that the partial derivative of temperature WRT quantity CO2 in a closed system is positive.
CO2 by itself is not much of a problem. The real greenhouse gas is water. The climate models (simplifying here) show that added CO2 causes there to be more water vapor. This is the 'positive feedback' you may have heard about. Absent that, there's little cause for concern. I agree CO2 has some warming effect, but it may be quite small and manageable. The question always returns to the skill of the models. The derivative is positive, but we don't know what it is. In this case, size does matter.
As for what else, why do we need anything else. Where's the clear and present danger? As others have noted, who says we are at the optimum now?
I do agree with your larger point that throwing out specious arguments ("It's not getting warmer!") just makes skeptics look dumb, ripe for the ridicule of straw men you find at RealClimate. Best to stick to well-founded arguments.