The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Another one you missed, mean wealth per capa.
It was almost unchanged for 7,000 years until about the early 1800s.
Then by about 1900, zoom! Straight up.

The only chance our future generations have to not all end up as peasants is to go nuclear uranium, thorium and recycled mixed oxide fuel.
We have to stop this use it one time and bury it garbage.

But some people think nuclear and fossil fuel energy is the devil. I guess they want future generations to be in danger of starving to death every single year because of a bad harvest or dieing from exposure, every single year if it gets unusually cold.

The Mann hockey stick graph is at the very least a gross wildly embellished pile of steaming assumptions.
Or as I like to say the lie that birthed the religion.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I have such little time each week on the computer,it would be a big favor if you would either re-post the data,or give a link.Otherwise,I just slip further behind.

I'm only going to say this once, here. I had a hard drive failure. I'm posting this from the city library.

I'll be following aerohead's example.

[redpoint5]

freebeard- Was it a laptop drive that failed (2.5" SATA)? I've got extras if you want to rebuild that puter.

If you post only 1 day per week and develop a 1 quote per post habit, I'll impose sanctions on you.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I had never heard of the criticism of the hockey stick before, or of Michael Mann. Turns out there is some controversy out there, and both Canadian and US courts dropped Mann's defamation of character lawsuits when he failed to supply his source climate data during the discovery phase of the lawsuit. There was a claim that it was proprietary information, though that is disputed because Mann obtained the data while working with government money, meaning all of the research should be public information.

I've not dived very deep into this yet, but I'm wondering if this has already been discussed in the past 3,500 posts? It seems strange that 1. The lawsuits were dropped due to failing to produce data during discovery, which implies something unflattering to the case might exist, and 2. that Mr. Mann retains his reputation as an unbiased climate change scientist. It seems both outcomes are incompatible.

I was very disappointed in a lecture by Dr. Mann that I attended exactly two weeks ago. It was very light on data, and contained no citations. Here's the write up I submitted for extra credit in one of my science classes:

"I wasn’t sure what to expect going in to this lecture. I was already familiar with Dr. Mann from his 2012 book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, and knew that he is a frequent guest on television news programs; however, since he was speaking today to a specialized audience as part of a conference geared toward scientists and students, I think I was hoping his remarks would be heavy on the science of global climate change. Dr. Mann did touch on some of that, but most of his remarks were about general trends in the climate and human activities. For example, he claimed that if you remove human contributions, the atmosphere should have cooled over the last half-century left to natural factors alone—but provided no source or citation in his slides. The few charts he displayed had no attribution, like the graph of projected Arctic sea ice area from 1960-2100 overlaid with actual sea ice area 1960-2015. I was disappointed in this aspect of his lecture; most of his slides displayed newspaper headlines, very few had actual data, and those that did had no citation.

Dr. Mann did mention the recently-published IPCC Special Report, saying that it skews conservative in its projections. “Uncertainty is not our friend,” he said, “In many cases observed trends are happening faster or are of greater magnitude than models predicted.” He also said that geoengineering proposals—to sequester carbon dioxide, reflect sunlight, or create more arable land—are an attempt to cover up one problem with another, a “crutch and misguided.” I agree with that assessment, as human interference in environmental processes can have far-reaching implications that are not immediately apparent and are subject to delayed feedback loops.

What I did not agree with is Dr. Mann’s assessment, “While we have not made the progress we may have hoped for, there is reason for cautious optimism.” He made it clear that this optimism rests on a rapid increase in renewable energy sources. But, as I learned two weeks ago at Dr. Ruzic’s lecture [I attended a lecture at the beginning of October by the Director of the Plasma and Molecular Engineering Department at UI on hydraulic fracturing], renewable sources in the US currently make up just 2.7% of our energy supply, despite their exponential growth over the last three decades. I just don’t see any reason for optimism there, especially in light of the IPCC SR that predicts warming of over 1.5C unless carbon dioxide emissions are reduced worldwide by 45% or more by 2030.

“In a vacuum [no climate deniers or climate-denying media such as the Wall Street Journal] we would have solved this problem already.” This statement left me flabbergasted. I looked around the room—effectively, our world in microcosm—and saw more than a hundred people, all of whom are wearing clothes made in Asia, who traveled by car and/or airplane to get here, sitting in a climate-controlled and lighted facility that took untold amounts of energy in its construction, who will go home and eat out-of-season foods, some of which are shipped halfway around the world to reach us, and all of it powered by fossil fuel energy; and these are people who all accept the reality of global climate change and its anthropogenic origins! The problem is us, or more accurately the conglomeration of billions of daily individual actions. I see no reason to share Dr. Mann’s “cautious optimism,” and after the lecture, I find myself thinking that perhaps it is time for the cautious optimists to sit down and let the total pessimists have a turn."

[redneck]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

I think there is no scientific controversy about Mann's graph - it is accurate and all the data is in the public domain.

Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report

‘The *science has, quite simply, gone awry’



https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...1-fc38ed4f85e3

Washington, DC: Fifty-nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007.

https://ecomodder.com/forum/images/editor/quote.gif

The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.

Prominent Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, said in March 2009 that “there was widespread skepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century ‘is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Maruyama noted that when this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, ‘the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”

“Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best,” Austin told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 2, 2009.

The rise in skeptical scientists are responding not only to an increase in dire “predictions” of climate change, but also a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data, and inconvenient developments have further cast doubts on the claims of man-made global warming fear activists. The latest peer-reviewed study in Geophysical Research Letters is being touted as a development that “could turn the climate change world upside down.” The study finds that the “Earth is undergoing natural climate shift.” The March 15, 2009 article in WISN.com details the research of Dr. Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. “We realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said. “I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing,” he added.

UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions, challenged the IPCC’s climate claims.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!” Japar told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 7, 2009.

Mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler, professor at Tulane University who has authored 58 peer-reviewed publications and five books, ridiculed man-made climate claims. “Whether the ice caps melt, or expand --- whatever happens --- the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology," Tipler wrote on December 22, 2008.

These and many more.


Doesn’t sound like a “consensus” or “settled” to me.



>

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Vman455

“In a vacuum [no climate deniers or climate-denying media such as the Wall Street Journal] we would have solved this problem already.”

Over half of Americans believe global warming will have little to no impact on their lives. Mann is talking an alternate universe where over half of everyone keeps silent. It's like saying if no Donald voters turned up, Hillary would already be president.

The sad fact is that we mostly are only concerned with ourselves. There are people in other countries whose lives can be saved with meager amounts of money, but most of us don't do anything about it. Since that's the case, why would we bother keeping global warming from harming them, as long as we're ok?

[sendler]

Originally Posted by Vman455

I looked around the room—effectively, our world in microcosm—and saw more than a hundred people, all of whom are wearing clothes made in Asia, who traveled by car and/or airplane to get here, sitting in a climate-controlled and lighted facility that took untold amounts of energy in its construction, who will go home and eat out-of-season foods, some of which are shipped halfway around the world to reach us, and all of it powered by fossil fuel energy; and these are people who all accept the reality of global climate change and its anthropogenic origins! The problem is us, or more accurately the conglomeration of billions of daily individual actions. I see no reason to share Dr. Mann’s “cautious optimism,” and after the lecture, I find myself thinking that perhaps it is time for the cautious optimists to sit down and let the total pessimists have a turn."

So I see that you have a rare grasp of the concept of embodied energy. And hopefully also some appreciation of the scale of our total primary energy consumption. Despite the massive rollout of solar and wind in many markets, they still constitute less than 3% of total world energy.
.
Watch the Hagens lecture to glimps a synthesis view of energy, economy, and evolutionary psychology.
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.

[oil pan 4]

What if we "solved the problem" and it kept on getting warmer?

Not that there is any way current technology can "fix the problem" with out going all khymer rouge.

[Xist]

What if I asked out the nurse practitioner and she said "Yes please!"?

These "What if"s sound like excuses. What if I go to the party and nobody talks to me? What if people talk to me, but they do not like me? What if they like me, but are crazy? Yeah, I should stay home."

My landlord back in the valley put us on a time-of-use plan, where we were not supposed to use any major appliances during business hours, although of course, my roommates did whatever they wanted, left all of the lights on, etc.

This would be complicated, but if you had periods each day with surplus electricity, why not set up a system where you estimate from when to when you will have a surplus each day, and discount your rates during that time? It would seem complicated to have factory managers keeping track of those times and scheduling workloads accordingly?

Yes, it would be complicated, but not as complicated as purchasing battery arrays and replacing them every ten years.

[oil pan 4]

"What if" is one of the basic foundations of science.
"Do as I say, not as I do" is the one of the principles of politics and religion.