‘Alarming’ Study Claiming Global Warming Heating Up Oceans Based on Math Error

[HMS_Beagle]

Clearly arguing that AGW is true because 97% of scientists believe it.

Cleary still misrepresenting the argument actually made.

[Tassman]

You said:





Clearly arguing that AGW is true because 97% of scientists believe it. The only evidence you supplied was not for climate change but for the fact that 97% of scientists agree.

I'm still waiting for you to justify your indifference to the highly probable facts of global warming when, if true, the consequences will be catastrophic for the planet. Why is this?

[Sparko]

I'm still waiting for you to justify your indifference to the highly probable facts of global warming when, if true, the consequences will be catastrophic for the planet. Why is this?

So now it is only "highly probably" instead of a "fact" and "settled science?"

And my dispute is with AGW, not climate change. While I believe civilization has probably affected the climate a bit, I don't believe it is to the extent that is being claimed. I believe much of it is a natural cycle.

[JimL]

So now it is only "highly probably" instead of a "fact" and "settled science?"

And my dispute is with AGW, not climate change. While I believe civilization has probably affected the climate a bit, I don't believe it is to the extent that is being claimed. I believe much of it is a natural cycle.

And why do you believe that when 90 some odd % of scientists have examined the evidence and have concluded you to be wrong? Just a hunch of yours , is it?

[TheLurch]

And my dispute is with AGW, not climate change. While I believe civilization has probably affected the climate a bit, I don't believe it is to the extent that is being claimed. I believe much of it is a natural cycle.

What do you base that belief on, and what do you think is cycling?

[Sparko]

What do you base that belief on, and what do you think is cycling?

Based on history. The earth's climate seems to have undergone some pretty severe climate cycles in the past, when mankind has not been around.

[TheLurch]

Based on history. The earth's climate seems to have undergone some pretty severe climate cycles in the past, when mankind has not been around.

Well, the earth had plenty of forest fires before humans weren't around; doesn't mean we can't cause them now that we are.

So, you've not got anything in particular you think might be cycling, but whatever it is you're certain scientists are not aware of it?

[Sparko]

Well, the earth had plenty of forest fires before humans weren't around; doesn't mean we can't cause them now that we are.

So, you've not got anything in particular you think might be cycling, but whatever it is you're certain scientists are not aware of it?

Sunspot cycles, slight variations in earth's axis tilt and/or orbit, natural disasters like volcanoes spewing millions of tons of dust and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Outgassing of biodegrading organic matter in forests and the oceans.

[TheLurch]

Sunspot cycles, slight variations in earth's axis tilt and/or orbit, natural disasters like volcanoes spewing millions of tons of dust and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Outgassing of biodegrading organic matter in forests and the oceans.

Well, we're measuring the sun, and we know it's not that. We've also got a good grip on the Earth's tilt's effect (which should be driving cooling at the moment) and volcanoes. The oceans are currently absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. So really the one thing i'd have to look into is forests.

But these are all things scientists have tracked in detail. Is it that you've not looked into these things, or that you don't trust the evidence we have?

[Sparko]

Well, we're measuring the sun, and we know it's not that. We've also got a good grip on the Earth's tilt's effect (which should be driving cooling at the moment) and volcanoes. The oceans are currently absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. So really the one thing i'd have to look into is forests.

But these are all things scientists have tracked in detail. Is it that you've not looked into these things, or that you don't trust the evidence we have?

Partly it is that I really don't see that much climate change as the proponents are suggesting. I see them manipulating data to increase the numbers in the charts, to "correct" them I mean - I see a lot of money to be had in believing in global warming and getting government grants. I see a lot of political clout to be had in controlling the narrative that we have to do something and the sky is falling. But when I look at the actual climate, I don't see that much difference. And when people do bring up things like the Antartic ice is growing or that the ice caps are not shrinking as predicted, it seems there are always excuses to handwave away any evidence that doesn't fit the models.

[TheLurch]

Partly it is that I really don't see that much climate change as the proponents are suggesting. I see them manipulating data to increase the numbers in the charts, to "correct" them I mean - I see a lot of money to be had in believing in global warming and getting government grants. I see a lot of political clout to be had in controlling the narrative that we have to do something and the sky is falling. But when I look at the actual climate, I don't see that much difference. And when people do bring up things like the Antartic ice is growing or that the ice caps are not shrinking as predicted, it seems there are always excuses to handwave away any evidence that doesn't fit the models.

There's a lot there that i could take on, but it's easier to take it one issue at a time. I'd like to start with this:
"I see a lot of money to be had in believing in global warming and getting government grants."

Which i have several thoughts on. One is that, obviously, the government paid money for climate research before it was obvious that CO2 is a problem, otherwise (duh) it would have been hard for us to discover that CO2 is a problem. The second is that you don't give out grants based on conclusions; they're evaluated based on the questions they ask, and any decent climate research is equally capable of finding out that CO2 isn't a problem, or is less a problem than we think. So, there's really no money being handed out based on what a scientist has concluded based on past research.

The final thing is that accepting climate science doesn't mean more money, as the GAO makes clear:
670757.jpg
(source: https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/clima.../issue_summary)

And that's basically because doing something about climate change doesn't require a climatologist. It requires engineers, materials scientists, etc., because those are the people who are going to be designing wind turbines, figuring out how to possibly make nuclear affordable, and so on. So, climatologists don't get any more money if we accept the scientific evidence.

[Sparko]

There's a lot there that i could take on, but it's easier to take it one issue at a time. I'd like to start with this:
"I see a lot of money to be had in believing in global warming and getting government grants."

Which i have several thoughts on. One is that, obviously, the government paid money for climate research before it was obvious that CO2 is a problem, otherwise (duh) it would have been hard for us to discover that CO2 is a problem. The second is that you don't give out grants based on conclusions; they're evaluated based on the questions they ask, and any decent climate research is equally capable of finding out that CO2 isn't a problem, or is less a problem than we think. So, there's really no money being handed out based on what a scientist has concluded based on past research.

The final thing is that accepting climate science doesn't mean more money, as the GAO makes clear:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]34510[/ATTACH]
(source: https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/clima.../issue_summary)

And that's basically because doing something about climate change doesn't require a climatologist. It requires engineers, materials scientists, etc., because those are the people who are going to be designing wind turbines, figuring out how to possibly make nuclear affordable, and so on. So, climatologists don't get any more money if we accept the scientific evidence.

Except anyone who questions AGW doesn't get grant money and is ostracized by the scientists that do. And the studies that support AGW help fund the programs like you mention that require engineering, etc. There is a an entire industry built around accepting AGW as true and nobody wants to rock the boat. If the scientists were to reverse and say there is no appreciable AGW, the bottom would fall out of all of those projects.

[TheLurch]

Except anyone who questions AGW doesn't get grant money and is ostracized by the scientists that do. And the studies that support AGW help fund the programs like you mention that require engineering, etc. There is a an entire industry built around accepting AGW as true and nobody wants to rock the boat. If the scientists were to reverse and say there is no appreciable AGW, the bottom would fall out of all of those projects.

But they're not the same people. They're not even in the same academic departments. Why should the scientists care whether or not engineers get more or less money?

Also, how do you know that "anyone who questions AGW doesn't get grant money"?

[Sparko]

But they're not the same people. They're not even in the same academic departments. Why should the scientists care whether or not engineers get more or less money?

Also, how do you know that "anyone who questions AGW doesn't get grant money"?

Each group cares about themselves. Politicians supply grant money to scientists to study AGW, then use those results to pander for more money to "save the world" and start various programs that require more funding, etc. Like I said, it seems to be an industry.

And I have seen reports of scientists who don't go along with AGW lose tenure at universities, not get grant money, called lunatics, climate deniers, etc. Heck you guys do that to anyone here whether they are a scientist or not.

[TheLurch]

Each group cares about themselves. Politicians supply grant money to scientists to study AGW, then use those results to pander for more money to "save the world" and start various programs that require more funding, etc. Like I said, it seems to be an industry.

In the US, 2 of the last 3 administrations have been opposed to the conclusions of climate science; frequent majorities of either or both houses of congress have been too. Yet scientists haven't changed their conclusions during those periods. And scientists within oil companies have reached identical conclusions to those at universities.

It doesn't make for a convincing cases.

And I have seen reports of scientists who don't go along with AGW lose tenure at universities, not get grant money, called lunatics, climate deniers, etc.

Could you share some of the losing tenure or not getting grant money details?

I've heard stories about the same things happening to people who don't believe in evolution, but they mostly come from Jorge :P