Global Warming Thread #683

[_Ceeboo]

Hey friends!

An in real life friend of mine sent this to me. While I take no stance (at least not any firm stance) on the Global Warming debates that run rampant (Many of which are based on politics in my opinion), I thought this was at least interesting enough to post here and see what my MDB friends think about it.

White House Climate Advisor (Christine Goldfuss) tells Congressman (Tom McClintock) "it's a crisis we're trying to address."

But there seems to be a slight problem - watch the 4 minute video (below) to find out what the problem is.

https://youtu.be/ilD6aYvMPZw

Thoughts?

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Res Ipsa]

Cheap political stunt, akin to Inhoffe's famous snowball. The article was based on reports from a single area, which can have significant fluctuations. Looking at global data, it is clear there was no global spike in temperatures in 1922. https://web.archive.org/web/20100707124 ... MING.1.pdf

ETA: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/ ... -telephone

[_DoubtingThomas]

Thoughts?

Yes, Tom McClintock is an imbecile!

1. Of course the climate always changes! Everyone knows that. However,rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows

Jourdan, Fred, et al. "High-precision dating of the Kalkarindji large igneous province, Australia, and synchrony with the Early–Middle Cambrian (Stage 4–5) extinction." Geology 42.6 (2014): 543-546.

2. As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... /page3.php

3. Roman and Medieval Warm periods were regional! not a global!

4. Why listen to politicians? Why not read the scientific literature instead?

[_The CCC]

Just depends on if you want to be able to eat.
SEE http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 9/20160368

[_subgenius]

Cheap political stunt, akin to Inhoffe's famous snowball. The article was based on reports from a single area, which can have significant fluctuations. Looking at global data, it is clear there was no global spike in temperatures in 1922. https://web.archive.org/web/20100707124 ... MING.1.pdf

ETA: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/ ... -telephone

actually "that report" was based on "a few locations"... - according to your link (not the new yorker link, the new yorker is a blatantly bias source and unreliable as a source for "good science:). So, while the location area was limited, and this was the cause for dismissal, there was no explanation given for the occurrence....all of that being irrelevant to the point being made by the video. The point was not to inject "other science" but rather the point was to highlight the bias and assumptive nature of those who promote climate change from a political position (a.k.a. White House Climate Advisor).

So, how many areas are necessary to qualify for a "trend" ?

[_Kevin Graham]

What an obnoxious clown that guy was. He's reading prepared talking points, probably from Brietbart. Get the Climate scientists on and try that crap with them moron.

[_Res Ipsa]

What an obnoxious clown that guy was. He's reading prepared talking points, probably from Brietbart. Get the Climate scientists on and try that **** with them moron.

Climate scientists would likely have recognized the article. Deniers have been waving it around since 2007 with their usual cries of HERP DERRRRP.

[_Ceeboo]

Thanks for the replies, amigos!


Muchas gracias!


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Res Ipsa]

One more thing: the last sentence the congressman reads is does not appear in the article. There is nothing in the article about sea level rise. That was added by a denier and then repeated by a denier. So the congressman is actually reading some denier piece rather than the actual article that appeared in the AP story.

[_Res Ipsa]

Cheap political stunt, akin to Inhoffe's famous snowball. The article was based on reports from a single area, which can have significant fluctuations. Looking at global data, it is clear there was no global spike in temperatures in 1922. https://web.archive.org/web/20100707124 ... MING.1.pdf

ETA: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/ ... -telephone

actually "that report" was based on "a few locations"... - according to your link (not the new yorker link, the new yorker is a blatantly bias source and unreliable as a source for "good science:). So, while the location area was limited, and this was the cause for dismissal, there was no explanation given for the occurrence....all of that being irrelevant to the point being made by the video. The point was not to inject "other science" but rather the point was to highlight the bias and assumptive nature of those who promote climate change from a political position (a.k.a. White House Climate Advisor).

So, how many areas are necessary to qualify for a "trend" ?

For a global trend? Enough to show a statistically significant trend. You have the global data -- show me that a trend started in 1922.

There was no point to the political stunt other than the usual HERPPP DERPPP. The only "bias" that the science adviser has is the bias of the science. She was at a hearing on climate change and was given a description of warming in the arctic and predictions of sea level rise. Those are, in fact, the current problems that exist and the current problems we are attempting to address. The questioner intentionally left out material information in the question to try and pull a stupid "gotcha"

The New Yorker article includes information for actual climate scientists, so I'm not surprised you refuse to read it.

The 1922 article has been quoted repeatedly by Rucker’s comrades-in-arms since its 2007 rebirth in the Washington Times. For nearly that long, scientists have been objecting. Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller and the deputy director of the nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, points out that what was an anomaly in 1922 is now the norm: the waters near Spitsbergen are clear of ice at the end of every summer. More important, long-term temperature and sea-ice records indicate that the dramatic sea-ice retreat in the early nineteen-twenties was short-lived. It also occurred locally around Svalbard—the unusual conditions didn’t even encompass the whole Norwegian Sea, let alone the rest of the Arctic.

The New Yorker article also shows that the congressman shown in the clip included claims about projected sea level rise that weren't in the original article -- they were added by some denier somewhere along the way and repeated by others deniers. So the congressman wasn't telling the truth -- he wasn't reading from the AP article -- he was reading from some denier article. Neither he nor his staff even bothered to consult the article he was allegedly reading from. How's that for "political motivation?"