Deniers, explained.

[longview]

WOW!! This is just completely wrong.

Neither the OHCTD nor EEI says anything is cooling. They both are, in fact, saying that the oceans and the Earth are both still warming. What is declining is the rate of warming. And at the rate of decline that we are seeing now, it will be decades before anything actually starts cooling. And there is nothing here that says that these declines in warming will continue long enough for cooling to even happen.

That is why I posted the graphic from the 2019 peer reviewed publication.

"Figure 15. Purple curve: running yearly mean EEI. Green line: linear fit to running yearly mean EEI. Blue curve: 10 year running mean OHCTD. Orange curve: piecewise linear fit to OHCTD.
Due to the high ocean heat content, it is expected that the EEI and the OHCTD are nearly equal. From Figure 15, we can discriminate three phases in the OHCTD from 1967 to 2010:

• Prior to 1982, the mean value of the OHCTD is 0.071 ± 0.05 (1 σ

) W/m2, the trend is −0.07 ± 0.1 (1 σ

• ) W/m2dec.
• From 1982 to 2000, the OHCTD is increasing with a trend of 0.32 ± 0.05 (1 σ
• ) W/m2dec.
• After 2000, the OHCTD is decreasing with a trend of −0.26 ± 0.06 (1 σ

• ) W/m2dec.

Within their uncertainties, the trends after 2000 of the EEI (−0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec) and of the OHCTD (−0.26 ± 0.06 (1 σ
) W/m2dec), agree. This again adds extra confidence to our results. "

You would have to disagree with physics, to say the declining energy in a system, will not eventually
result in a lowering of temperature!

 

[Tim the plumber]

That is why I posted the graphic from the 2019 peer reviewed publication.

"Figure 15. Purple curve: running yearly mean EEI. Green line: linear fit to running yearly mean EEI. Blue curve: 10 year running mean OHCTD. Orange curve: piecewise linear fit to OHCTD.
Due to the high ocean heat content, it is expected that the EEI and the OHCTD are nearly equal. From Figure 15, we can discriminate three phases in the OHCTD from 1967 to 2010:

• Prior to 1982, the mean value of the OHCTD is 0.071 ± 0.05 (1 σ

) W/m2, the trend is −0.07 ± 0.1 (1 σ

• ) W/m2dec.
• From 1982 to 2000, the OHCTD is increasing with a trend of 0.32 ± 0.05 (1 σ
• ) W/m2dec.
• After 2000, the OHCTD is decreasing with a trend of −0.26 ± 0.06 (1 σ
• ) W/m2dec.

Within their uncertainties, the trends after 2000 of the EEI (−0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec) and of the OHCTD (−0.26 ± 0.06 (1 σ
) W/m2dec), agree. This again adds extra confidence to our results. "

You would have to disagree with physics, to say the declining energy in a system, will not eventually
result in a lowering of temperature!

Well, the inbalance is still positive but if the trend in this reducing continues it will become a cooling.

The fact that it is a reducing inbalance means that all those preditions at the top half of the IPCC's predictions are out of the window.

 

[vegas giants]

Well, the inbalance is still positive but if the trend in this reducing continues it will become a cooling.

The fact that it is a reducing inbalance means that all those preditions at the top half of the IPCC's predictions are out of the window.

Uh.....nope

 

[longview]

Well, the inbalance is still positive but if the trend in this reducing continues it will become a cooling.

The fact that it is a reducing inbalance means that all those preditions at the top half of the IPCC's predictions are out of the window.

Exactly, the trends are moving in the wrong direction, for CO2 to be the primary driver.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Uh.....nope

The upper half of the projections require an exponentially increasing energy inbalance. Constant increas of heat energy.

 

[vegas giants]

The upper half of the projections require an exponentially increasing energy inbalance. Constant increas of heat energy.

Let's see your evidence

 

[Jack Hays]

Penguins, Rowan Dean and Selling Books
October 13, 2020 By jennifer 2 Comments


Saturday night, I was eating chocolates at Catherine’s (remember my friend who tutors kids in maths), when Rowan phoned. Not any Rowan. The Rowan Dean from Sky Television. He was working late. We had just been talking about him at dinner, because … [Read more...]

 

[vegas giants]

Making the rounds

'Glaciers have always grown and receded'--A few glaciers melting does not mean global warming

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: A few glaciers receding today is not proof of global warming. Glaciers have grown and receded differently in many times and places.

grist.org

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Right wing media have turned climate change into a partisan issue.

"A former Republican congressman has blamed Rupert Murdoch’s media outlets for fuelling “climate rejectionism” among conservatives, suggesting they could be part of the reason why the United States is failing to lead the world to tackle global heating.

Bob Inglis, a former South Carolina congressman who has renounced his previous climate denialism and now leads a group seeking to rally conservatives to act, questioned the role of News Corp and Fox Corporation during an event hosted by the Australia Institute.

Inglis told the progressive thinktank that Australia and the US shared a form of “climate rejectionism that comes in conservative clothing”.

He said both countries also shared “a particular news organisation that has a great deal to do with that” – and pointed the finger at Murdoch’s Fox News and the Wall Street Journal in particular.

“If you look at Fox viewers in America – that’s where you find the climate disputation,” Inglis said."

Former Republican congressman says Murdoch's media outlets fuelling 'climate rejectionism'

Bob Inglis tells Australian thinktank that Fox News and Wall Street Journal are holding back progress on climate

www.theguardian.com

That at the same time climate change could and should be a bipartisan issue. That for example Germany and UK that have right wing governments sees the great potential and need for transition away from fossil fuels.

German renewables surge to 55.8% of net generation for first half 2020

Renewables in Germany surge past 55 per cent market share for first half of 2020, including a new monthly record set in February of 61.8 per cent.

reneweconomy.com.au

Boris Johnson: Wind farms could power every home by 2030

Boris Johnson is promising to "build back greener in his leader's speech to the Conservative conference.

www.bbc.com

There even red Texas sees the great opportunities with renewable energy.

As climate threat looms, Texas Republicans have a solution: giant wind farm everywhere

If Texas were a country, it would be the fifth-largest wind energy producer in the world. Wind turbines produce 20% of the state's power.

eu.usatoday.com

 

[longview]

Right wing media have turned climate change into a partisan issue.

"A former Republican congressman has blamed Rupert Murdoch’s media outlets for fuelling “climate rejectionism” among conservatives, suggesting they could be part of the reason why the United States is failing to lead the world to tackle global heating.

Bob Inglis, a former South Carolina congressman who has renounced his previous climate denialism and now leads a group seeking to rally conservatives to act, questioned the role of News Corp and Fox Corporation during an event hosted by the Australia Institute.

Inglis told the progressive thinktank that Australia and the US shared a form of “climate rejectionism that comes in conservative clothing”.

He said both countries also shared “a particular news organisation that has a great deal to do with that” – and pointed the finger at Murdoch’s Fox News and the Wall Street Journal in particular.

“If you look at Fox viewers in America – that’s where you find the climate disputation,” Inglis said."

Former Republican congressman says Murdoch's media outlets fuelling 'climate rejectionism'

Bob Inglis tells Australian thinktank that Fox News and Wall Street Journal are holding back progress on climate

www.theguardian.com

That at the same time climate change could and should be a bipartisan issue. That for example Germany and UK that have right wing governments sees the great potential and need for transition away from fossil fuels.

German renewables surge to 55.8% of net generation for first half 2020

Renewables in Germany surge past 55 per cent market share for first half of 2020, including a new monthly record set in February of 61.8 per cent.

reneweconomy.com.au

Boris Johnson: Wind farms could power every home by 2030

Boris Johnson is promising to "build back greener in his leader's speech to the Conservative conference.

www.bbc.com

There even red Texas sees the great opportunities with renewable energy.

As climate threat looms, Texas Republicans have a solution: giant wind farm everywhere

If Texas were a country, it would be the fifth-largest wind energy producer in the world. Wind turbines produce 20% of the state's power.

eu.usatoday.com

Climate change is a bipartisan issue, Anthropogenic climate change is a partisan issue.
The political left would have us believe that by placing limits on the Human experience, we can save the planet
from a future that likely will not happen because of Human activity.
We have an energy problem, not a CO2 problem!

 

[vegas giants]

Climate change is a bipartisan issue, Anthropogenic climate change is a partisan issue.
The political left would have us believe that by placing limits on the Human experience, we can save the planet
from a future that likely will not happen because of Human activity.
We have an energy problem, not a CO2 problem!

The scientific community disagrees with you

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Climate change is a bipartisan issue, Anthropogenic climate change is a partisan issue.
The political left would have us believe that by placing limits on the Human experience, we can save the planet
from a future that likely will not happen because of Human activity.
We have an energy problem, not a CO2 problem!

The urgent need for action on climate change and the great benefits of a transition away from fossil fuels should and could be a bipartisan issue.

That even federal agencies under the scrutiny and control of Trump and Republican climate deniers have to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Effects

Takeaways Earth Will Continue to Warm and the Effects Will Be Profound Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets...

climate.nasa.gov

Also Republicans states like Utah are staring to acknowledge the need for action.

Red-state Utah embraces plan to tackle climate crisis in surprising shift

State aims to reduce emissions over air quality concerns as other red states are also starting to tackle global heating

www.theguardian.com

There younger Republicans that have not been exposed to decades of climate denier propaganda are also acknowledging the need for action.

Young conservatives who want to tackle the climate crisis

Young Republicans believe in climate change and believe they have the solutions to persuade their party to drive solutions.

edition.cnn.com

While in Europe both left wing and right wing governments agree on that EU should be carbon neutral by 2050.

EU carbon neutrality: Leaders agree 2050 target without Poland

The bloc sets a target for carbon neutrality but Poland, which relies heavily on coal, is exempted.

www.bbc.com

You also have Norway with a right wing government there 60 percent of new car sales are pure electric.

60% of cars sold in Norway in September were electric | World Economic Forum

www.weforum.org

 

[longview]

The urgent need for action on climate change and the great benefits of a transition away from fossil fuels should and could be a bipartisan issue.

That even federal agencies under the scrutiny and control of Trump and Republican climate deniers have to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Effects

Takeaways Earth Will Continue to Warm and the Effects Will Be Profound Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets...

climate.nasa.gov

Also Republicans states like Utah are staring to acknowledge the need for action.

Red-state Utah embraces plan to tackle climate crisis in surprising shift

State aims to reduce emissions over air quality concerns as other red states are also starting to tackle global heating

www.theguardian.com

There younger Republicans that have not been exposed to decades of climate denier propaganda are also acknowledging the need for action.

Young conservatives who want to tackle the climate crisis

Young Republicans believe in climate change and believe they have the solutions to persuade their party to drive solutions.

edition.cnn.com

While in Europe both left wing and right wing governments agree on that EU should be carbon neutral by 2050.

EU carbon neutrality: Leaders agree 2050 target without Poland

The bloc sets a target for carbon neutrality but Poland, which relies heavily on coal, is exempted.

www.bbc.com

You also have Norway with a right wing government there 60 percent of new car sales are pure electric.

60% of cars sold in Norway in September were electric | World Economic Forum

www.weforum.org

You do not drift far from your dogma, you seem to be unable to understand that climate change
and man cause climate change, may not be the same thing!

 

[Buzz]

If there is a reduction in the rate of warming that on its' own will mean that there is no possibility of anything like the top half of the IPCC's predictions happening.

That's ridiculous. Just because there is a decline now doesn't mean there will always be a decline.

 

[Buzz]

You would have to disagree with physics, to say the declining energy in a system, will not eventually result in a lowering of temperature!

I didn't say that declines in energy won't eventually result in lower temps. I am just saying that at the rate the warming is declining it will be decades before it turns into cooling. And there is nothing saying that these declines could reverse and start increasing at any time.

It is funny how you have completely deflected from having to admit you were completely wrong about saying that OHCTD and EEI were showing cooling by mischaracterizing something else I said. And this isn't the first time I have pointed out to you that this EEI doesn't show that we are currently cooling.

 

[longview]

I didn't say that declines in energy won't eventually result in lower temps. I am just saying that at the rate the warming is declining it will be decades before it turns into cooling. And there is nothing saying that these declines could reverse and start increasing at any time.

It is funny how you have completely deflected from having to admit you were completely wrong about saying that OHCTD and EEI were showing cooling by mischaracterizing something else I said. And this isn't the first time I have pointed out to you that this EEI doesn't show that we are currently cooling.

No deflection Earth's energy imbalance is indeed decreasing, and has been since ~ 2000.
The total period of this warming phase is about 40 years, but it looks like the period of the imbalance increasing,
was only about 20 years (~1978 to 2000). If the trend of decreasing EEI continues, cooling will not be an if, but a when?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Right wing media have turned climate change into a partisan issue.

"A former Republican congressman has blamed Rupert Murdoch’s media outlets for fuelling “climate rejectionism” among conservatives, suggesting they could be part of the reason why the United States is failing to lead the world to tackle global heating.

Bob Inglis, a former South Carolina congressman who has renounced his previous climate denialism and now leads a group seeking to rally conservatives to act, questioned the role of News Corp and Fox Corporation during an event hosted by the Australia Institute.

Inglis told the progressive thinktank that Australia and the US shared a form of “climate rejectionism that comes in conservative clothing”.

Not the lack of discussion being allowed in the left wing, well sort of more soft Facist really, media then?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Not the lack of discussion being allowed in the left wing, well sort of more soft Facist really, media then?

Do you also think the media is "soft Fascist" for not giving air time to Anti Waxxers and people that believe that the moon landing if fake?

That the evidence for the urgent need for action is so overwhelming that even federal agencies under Donald Trump and fossil fuel companies can refute it.

Effects

Takeaways Earth Will Continue to Warm and the Effects Will Be Profound Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets...

climate.nasa.gov

ExxonMobil misled the public about the climate crisis. Now they're trying to silence critics | Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes

Newly leaked documents reported by Bloomberg News show that ExxonMobil’s climate dishonesty is even worse than we thought

www.theguardian.com

 

[Tim the plumber]

Do you also think the media is "soft Fascist" for not giving air time to Anti Waxxers and people that believe that the moon landing if fake?

The best way to show that vaccinens are generally agood idea is to discuss them, plus as well s minus, in public.

That the anti-vaccines lobby has caused the 1910 tec of the vaccine methodology to change and has resulted in a major improvement in the way vaccines are made and used is an example of this. More speech is the answer to bad speech.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The best way to show that vaccinens are generally agood idea is to discuss them, plus as well s minus, in public.

That the anti-vaccines lobby has caused the 1910 tec of the vaccine methodology to change and has resulted in a major improvement in the way vaccines are made and used is an example of this. More speech is the answer to bad speech.

So you don't care about science or the truth? That for example every story about the moon landing should according to you also include the opinions of those who deny the moon landing? That in democracy everyone have the right to voice their opinion but news media have also a right and duty to not spread lies and propaganda. Like for example climate change and anti waxxer disinformation. Also if you for some reason would like a debate about climate change it should be like this.

 

[Tim the plumber]

So you don't care about science or the truth? That for example every story about the moon landing should according to you also include the opinions of those who deny the moon landing? That in democracy everyone have the right to voice their opinion but news media have also a right and duty to not spread lies and propaganda. Like for example climate change and anti waxxer disinformation. Also if you for some reason would like a debate about climate change it should be like this.

Those who call the moon landing a hoax are allowed to sya it and the best way to know that they were not is via open discussion and experimentation. To look at the moon with telescopes which are increasingly within reach of a few thousand dollars for a short time to see if there are the tracks and stuff there.

That would do it far better than looking like it is North Korea idea surporession time.

That would be a scientific method of doing it.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Those who call the moon landing a hoax are allowed to sya it and the best way to know that they were not is via open discussion and experimentation. To look at the moon with telescopes which are increasingly within reach of a few thousand dollars for a short time to see if there are the tracks and stuff there.

That would do it far better than looking like it is North Korea idea surporession time.

That would be a scientific method of doing it.

You can't compare North Korea murdering of dissident with news media not giving air time to lies, disinformation and crazy ideas. That in a democracy people have the right to voice their opinion without repercussion but the media shouldn't be forced to interview and publish article about that earth is flat, that the moon landing is fake or that mandmade global warming is fake.

Also the evidences for the urgent need for action on climate change have been tested and scrutinized for a very long time. Think for example that both Bush and Trump and denied the urgent need for action. There you also have Republican climate deniers like James Inhofe in Congress.

"Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. According to Oil Change International, Inhofe has received over $2 million in political contributions from the fossil fuel industry. He once compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo, and brought a snowball onto the Senate floor to ‘disprove’ global warming. Sen. Inhofe, author of the 2012 book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, once claimed on the Senate floor that “man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”"

Top 11 Climate Deniers: Key Players Revealed - Before The Flood

Unmask the top climate change deniers who are influencing public opinion and policy. This article sheds light on the individuals and organizations that have played significant roles in climate disinformation.

www.beforetheflood.com

There the result is that federal agencies continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action because the evidence are so overwhelmng.

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

 

[Jack Hays]

Science and politics
Posted on October 26, 2020 by curryja | Leave a comment
by Judith Curry

". . . In political debates, ‘I believe in science’ is a statement generally made by people who don’t understand much about it. They use such statements about science as a way of declaring belief in scientific proposition that is outside their knowledge and understanding. The belief of such individuals in climate change is often more akin to believing in Santa Claus than relating to actual understanding of science.

In the context of the climate change, ‘I believe in science’ uses the overall reputation of science to give authority to the climate change ‘consensus’, shielding it from questioning and skepticism. ‘I believe in science’ is a signifier of social group identity that supports massive government legislation to limit or ban fossil fuels. ‘Belief in science’ makes it appear that disagreement on this solution is equivalent to a rejection of the scientific method and worldview. When exposed to science that challenges their political biases, these same ‘believers’ are quick to claim ‘pseudo-science,’ without considering (or even understanding) the actual evidence or arguments. . . ."

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Science and politics
Posted on October 26, 2020 by curryja | Leave a comment
by Judith Curry

". . . In political debates, ‘I believe in science’ is a statement generally made by people who don’t understand much about it. They use such statements about science as a way of declaring belief in scientific proposition that is outside their knowledge and understanding. The belief of such individuals in climate change is often more akin to believing in Santa Claus than relating to actual understanding of science.

In the context of the climate change, ‘I believe in science’ uses the overall reputation of science to give authority to the climate change ‘consensus’, shielding it from questioning and skepticism. ‘I believe in science’ is a signifier of social group identity that supports massive government legislation to limit or ban fossil fuels. ‘Belief in science’ makes it appear that disagreement on this solution is equivalent to a rejection of the scientific method and worldview. When exposed to science that challenges their political biases, these same ‘believers’ are quick to claim ‘pseudo-science,’ without considering (or even understanding) the actual evidence or arguments. . . ."

All the world's leading scientific societies acknowledge the urgent need for action like these 31 American acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change – The Ecological Society of America

www.esa.org

While the few studies that reach contrary conclusions are not only filled with errors but also contradict each other.

"In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”"

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

Scientists who deny climate change are not modern-day Galileos.

qz.com

 

[Jack Hays]

All the world's leading scientific societies acknowledge the urgent need for action like these 31 American acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change – The Ecological Society of America

www.esa.org

While the few studies that reach contrary conclusions are not only filled with errors but also contradict each other.

"In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”"

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

Scientists who deny climate change are not modern-day Galileos.

qz.com

Your first claim merits the response: So what?
Your second claim is false.