Climate change wankers

One thing I never liked about the way climate science was presented to the public was how it was marketed/presented as the bringer of doom through rising sea levels, hotter summers, more droughts, more floods and more intense storms. The way this was presented over the last 10 years made it seem a tad sensationalistic - but believable to most people as an immediate threat within the foreseeable future.

I'm not really sure what the basis of these claims were- that more extreme events will occur through a general rise in atmospheric temperature - but I'm almost certain the media blew it out of proportion on both a timescale (i.e. saying it will happen sooner and more sudden) and on a disaster scale (i.e. Australia's coastal cities will be underwater by 2020 or whatever). To me, this is one of the single biggest reasons why such a large percentage of the population dismiss climate change as a serious issue - it's a shocking embarrassment for humankind, that's for sure.

film or book, Merchants of Doubt.

why do you think the media sensationalise CC? its to create a debatable position. why create a debate? because without a debate there is no uncertainty. and theres your answer....delay.

Don't speak too soon Spok.

I just watched a mudflat go from totally dry and exposed to submerged under 2 feet of water in just under 6 hours.

nice try shockjocks (and tonybarber) you tried to whip up anti renewables sentiment opportunisticly using an extreme weather event, but it seems the public are behind renewables even with the most expensive power in the country, good job public!! and dare I say ,I told you so tonybarber

and while we're at it, still rattling on about nuclear? seriously tony?

what was clearly a pro nuclear royal commission found nuclear power unsuitable and too expensive
for Australia. you spruiked the royal commission tonybarber and now you reject it's results, please explain your obsession with nuclear, or are you just a barnaby joyce/abbott style ideological hater of wind farms?

https
://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/
2016/oct/19/
sorry-shock-jocks-but-the-public-isnt-buying-into-a-renewable-energy-panic

HappyaSS I don't believe the media is smart enough to have orchestrated a scheme to discredit CC, by claiming the events will be more extreme than they actually are...so that when they don't happen, scientists who originally were modelling CC will be discredited. It would be too risky.

I more so believe it was just a product of action/danger/disaster sells news...

Agree Stok, media are about 'news' - action, danger, disaster, drama, crime, etc. the Trump event is a typical issue. The media will use people to sprout the word. Flannery, Greens will be more than happy to put their hands up despite what the scientist say.
Sypkan, looking at how many countries use nuclear plus as Dr Hansen states - 'if we are serious about CC then nuclear needs to be on the agenda'. There is no group, no country pushing the 100% renewable idea, hence where to we get the needed energy. But as you say, it is unlikely here in Aus. Paradoxically, there is a move to use our stable geography as a dumping ground for waste- go figure. Expensive power, not sure about that. No power, as in SA, I would say not.

Mmmmedia concentrated in whose hands exactly?

Wow a thread still active after 3 years.
Nick3 , too bad you didn't have this information back then in the dim, dark past.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-brea...
s'pose it's too late to put a bet on that
the graph from 1880 to now pretty much sums it up

All it sums up is that you have no idea : http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/21450-july-warmest-o...

Same old same old. You must be the brother of BumBoy.

Is it getting drier? Where?

The answer, my disco - dancing friend, is BLOWIN' in the wind...

If you think that's me , then you're mistaken Turkey.

"It ain't me, Turk, no, no, no..."

Just trying to save you some time.

It took me a while to realise you may not be Uplift.

nick. you might be onto something. give NASA a call. better let them know. I bet they hadn't thought of any of that.

Chook, temperature measurements especially prior to 1950s is a good question. What do you reckon would be the answer. Its not an easy answer and lets face it, not well explained to the public. Even those that are in the scientific field of sorts, can understand the issues.

The Mercury thermometer was invented in 1714 and provided the same degree of accuracy then as now.

looks like its been an afternoon out for the resident yokels

A couple of further points. First, for those with no background in science, in any experiment a scientist starts from the null hypothesis, that is that there is no relationship between the two variables involved. In the case of the global climate record, the null hypothesis is that climate has not changed. Scientists then need to prove that this is not the case, which they have repeatedly and over-whelmingly. Dissent on this point is limited to the wilfully ignorant, paid employees of the various agencies funded to the tune of billions by fossil fuel interests and the cognitively challenged who, sadly, lack the intellectual horsepower to properly assess the evidence.
I am not sure to which of these groups nick3 belongs but am tempted to suggest the latter since he relys on the tactic of selectively quoting the Bureau of meteorology, thereby referring anyone with an interest in the topic to a trove of evidence that climate change is real, is happening now and will probably continue for hundreds of years.

Any revision to the modelling that stated the global population would peak mid this century BB ?

Just thinking back a couple of years when you said that population growth wasn't an issue because models had stated that the population would peak mid century then go into decline.

Then this ....https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/18/world-population-new....

Modelling incorrect, consensus overturned ?

Looks like we're fucked one way or another.

At least it'll be warmer whilst we are ripping each other's eyes out in completion for a cup of clean drinking water.

I'm waiting for the 9m sea rise in the next 90yrs bb...

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO have released their fourth biennial State of the Climate report, which provides an update on the changes and long-term trends in Australia's climate.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-27/leading-scientists-on-state-of-cli...

barley the current consensus is for a sea level rise of 1m by the end of the century. Some recent models predict it will be closer to 2m. The kind of catastrophic rise you mention is dependent on events which, to the best of our understanding, are unlikely. Risk assessments however need to consider the possibility of such events as their consequences would be so disastrous.

BB, your statement re mercury thermometers was in jest, no ? It is a fair question to ask - how is the global temperatures obtained, even more so in the late 19th and early 20th century. Quite different to the last 30 odd years. It is not an easy answer. A positive point is that we are learning more each day with more questions than answers each day.

If you have information, rather than unsubstantiated opinion, about the reliability of mercury thermometers over that period I suggest you provide it. Fahrenheit developed the mercury thermometer in 1714.

checkmate

BB, how to you think the global temp is measured ? especially early 20th to late 1900s.
Not having a go here but the process is little more than just reading a thermo.
Does not really matter. The debate has moved on. It seems clear that the process that SA are going about this is interesting. Just hope it does not get too political but more of an engineering challenge.

How is it measured? With standard equipment, procedures and great reliability.

BB, you may wish to review the process of determining global temp. The question was raised earlier and let's be fair its a good question. The point I was making was that the answer has not really been well explained to the public - hence the skepticism. Regardless, the debate has moved on.

.......the answer is available to any member of the public with the most basic Internet search skills who is willing to spend some time on it.

Climate change scam;

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/10/25/university-raked-in-millions-of-...

hey sheepy, how come you quoting neo-con media rags?

Great work sheepy! At a time the fossil fuel industry thrives on trillions of dollars in government subsidies, causes gross pollution of terrestrial and aquatic environments and has triggered on going climate change which will last for hundreds of years.....your main concern is a possible rort in research funding! Where would the world be without thinking like that? A much better place I expect.

Nice strawman there, Blind boy.....

BB, it's not a "well they get subsidies v rort" thing!! That's like saying "well Labor claimed expenses too" argument.
Yeah, i cant stand the handouts not only to big oil, but to all multi nationals!! I'm sure I've covered that. So drink a glass of cement and harden up bro..... My point is that where there is free money, there are carpet baggers, EVEN IN THE CLIMATE CHANGE fraternity. If anything , you should be bagging the guy..

TB, read back several pages. to SD, i posted information about the reliabilty, accuracy of ye'olde thermometers.

in short, they were accurate.

Happyas, my query was not about accuracy of thermometers, despite the error of measurement. The process of global temp measurement is complex and is more than just reading thermos located around the globe. The question earlier is a good one and truly, this process is poorly explained or even understood. You can understand for example, that effective or even reliable coverage of temperature measurement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is questionable. The process of measurement changes again as new technologies come into play, eg weather balloons, satellites, etc. anyway, the debate really goes to solutions. If you go thru the Paris agreement, there is plenty of variability of responsibility. For example, should per capita stats be used, or countries GDP, etc, etc - complex.

Happy, it's not just a question of old thermometers, but how, and who read and documented.. I could picture 1898, old Humphrey Windsock 111 after several pilseners and a delicicious pipe of Amphora staggering down to the rain guage and thermometer, quill in hand...... lol

The Barbs says .... "You can understand for example, that effective or even reliable coverage of temperature measurement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is questionable."

Ok, by whom exactly?

Do you think the world wide scientific community would ignore this question ..... if you want a conspiracy theory look at what the head of the FBI dropped on Clinton.

tonybarber, you said "BB, you may wish to review the process of determining global temp. The question was raised earlier and let's be fair its a good question. The point I was making was that the answer has not really been well explained to the public - hence the skepticism."

I don't get it. There has never been, in the history of science (and I mean this very sincerely) a greater effort to explain the concepts behind, the methods underpinning and the basis for, a given set of scientific conclusions, than there has for climate science. And part of that that effort includes very explicitly, the basis for establishing the global temperature record.

I know it's fashionable to poke fun at the IPCC, but they exist to do exactly what you're describing and they have done so (five times now). The answer to your question has been thoroughly explained to the public, but not very many people have bothered to read it. That's their choice, but as I've pointed out countless times in this discussion, any skepticism based on ignorance on the part of the public is due to said folks not reading the source material, not the absence of it.

So...here's an explanation from the 4th Assessment Report (a little old but it'll do for now):
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-3-2.html

It begins: "Shortly after the invention of the thermometer in the early 1600s, efforts began to quantify and record the weather. The first meteorological network was formed in northern Italy in 1653...."

It goes on to explain how they integrate multiple sources of instrumental records into one useful time series.

Here's an explanation of the development of the longer term records using direct observations and proxy records:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html

When discussing uncertainties in the longer term records they say things like, "These arise primarily from the incomplete spatial coverage of instrumentation through time..."

Other interesting quotes include: "The instrumental temperature data that exist before 1850, although increasingly biased towards Europe in earlier periods, show that the warming observed after 1980 is unprecedented compared to the levels measured in the previous 280 years, even allowing for the greater variance expected in an average of so few early data compared to the much greater number in the 20th century. "

And getting to the meaty bit here:

"If the behaviour of recent temperature change is to be understood, and the mechanisms and causes correctly attributed, parallel efforts are needed to reconstruct the longer and more widespread pre-instrumental history of climate variability, as well as the detailed changes in various factors that might influence climate (Bradley et al., 2003b; Jones and Mann, 2004)."

Now...it's complicated, don't get me wrong. But that's because, it's genuinely complicated...

"Various statistical methods are used to convert the various sets of original palaeoclimatic proxies into the different estimates of mean NH temperatures shown in Figure 6.10 (see discussions in Jones and Mann, 2004; Rutherford et al., 2005). These range from simple averaging of regional data and scaling of the resulting series so that its mean and standard deviation match those of the observed record over some period of overlap (Jones et al., 1998; Crowley and Lowery, 2000), to complex climate field reconstruction, where large-scale modes of spatial climate variability are linked to patterns of variability in the proxy network via a multivariate transfer function that explicitly provides estimates of the spatio-temporal changes in past temperatures, and from which large-scale average temperature changes are derived by averaging the climate estimates across the required region (Mann et al., 1998; Rutherford et al., 2003, 2005). "

That might sound like statisitcal trickery to you but unless you're willing to sit down for a lengthy lesson on integrating datasets from different sources, at some point you're going to have to trust the scientific community that they are capable of doing the work you pay them for. If you can't or don't trust them, that's fine but that's a different issue from, they haven't explained it so we can't accept it.

If you want further explanations, read those links. If you want simpler explanations, well that's tricky because you're asking a technical question. But if you or nick3 are genuinely interested in how the scientists involved re-create the long term temperature record....the information is there. The scientists involved are doing their absolute best to explain it to you. Best of luck.

"The whole thing was full of unknowns and blatant manipulation of data."

Well, yes. That's the point.

Benski, a solid response but do you really think that anyone with say, just a HSC pass, could correlate and interpret the IPCC report. 'Trusting the scientific community' is certainly not what I am suggesting. You know yourself the damage done by Prof Flannery or former senator Milne (Greens) did to 'explain' the science - embarrassing. Go back to your lab days at uni and recall experiments you may done where temperature measurement is required. Now try to speculate the quality of devices and the measuring processing in the late 1800s and early to mid 1900s. Confidence in accuracy to the second decimal point, is, for me, well very thin. Regardless, then if we are to trust and believe our scientists then let's follow Prof Finkel and get nuclear in to mitigate the change. Hmmm...

Hehehehe so unable to refute the facts. As Nick says, its just pathetic. That stuff between your ears is to be used for thinking!

Andwhat? Subsidies for oil? Name them and their cost then name and cost the subsidies for wind and solar. I will give you a hint, google the cost of a single wind turbine. And, don't tell me, you drive a car, ride a surfboard, use air con and blah blah. What a crusader you are!

But lets look at what nonsense you spruik. The BIGGEST subsidies are for wind and Solar power. No comment? Increased cost of electricity not an issue in your book? Deary me.

Google those and post the results. Ya, its going to hurt.

nick3, knock yourself out.

Tonybarber, I didn't think "they combine different time series of temperature collected from different instruments and calibrate them statistically to produce a useful representation of the climate record with associated uncertainty" would suffice for you. But that's what they do
And it's done for the long term instrument record to combine measurements from different thermometers in different places, for the paleo reconstructions with proxies and to accommodate issues when modern cities grow around previously rural weather monitoring stations.

But what are you asking for? Your position seems to be that it's reasonable to suggest something is rubbish just because you don't understand it. No one explained it so it's bogus. For starters that's lazy because they have explained it and there are many sources less technical than I linked above but many people don't seem to have looked. And secondly, that's a nonsense position for any subject. I don't know how that works so it's obviously crap. How is that a sensible approach to anything? I think I'll leave you to it you know. If you've got a question about this, if you're thinking well I can't imagine how they do that, it's probably bogus, then look around. Give the people doing the work some credit of their own brains and try to inform yourself rather than sitting back and declaring them wrong because you can't imagine how they do it.

benski, why do you bother? nick and barley aka the swellnet yokels and the barber have been pushing their snide comments here for years. You are seriously wasting your time.

Benski, as much as there has been several concerted efforts to gather climate data, then to process this in order to remove the uncertainty of accuracy, is a very debatable exercise. There are many elements of this process which are a challenge, as the WMO states.
But that is not the point. You cannot expect the general public to fully understand the methodology and process used to gather the data and further to understand and comprehend it. And then further to mention degree changes to the third decimal point. The science may not be rubbish but certainly the manner in how it is presented to the public and espoused by the likes of Prof Flannery is 'rubbish'.
It is absolutely fair and reasonable for anyone to question The supposedly factual hypothesis and its hypothetical impact. To suggest the public is 'lazy', is a flippant and poorly selected phrase. With respect to scientists or those performing research, well truthfully, it has changed over the last 20 odd years. I am sure you have come across 'scientists' who will rather promote their opinion, political feelings or religious view way before any scientific fact. This must and should be challenged in the name of science.

"Benski, as much as there has been several concerted efforts to gather climate data, then to process this in order to remove the uncertainty of accuracy, is a very debatable exercise."

Is it? You've said you no one has explained the science to you but you think it's a debatable exercise. On what basis do you think that if you don't understand it? What seems clear to me is that you're saying, I don't understand it, ergo it's debatable. And as I've tried to point out, there is not an attempt to "remove the uncertainty". The very point is to quantify the uncertainty and state it very explicitly.

"There are many elements of this process which are a challenge, as the WMO states."

Indeed, my very point.

"But that is not the point."

Oh.

"You cannot expect the general public to fully understand the methodology and process used to gather the data and further to understand and comprehend it."

I don't expect the general public to fully understand the methodology. I'm forever saying that. But I don't accept the argument that it's somehow reasonable to say, I don't understand this therefore it's probably bollocks, which you are attempting to justify. Remember you said, it's fair for people to be skeptical because the method hadn't been explained? That's saying it's fair for people to think something is rubbish because they don't understand it. Ludicrous.

"And then further to mention degree changes to the third decimal point."

Where have you seen that regarding climate change? No wonder I'm over this, you're just making things up.

The science may not be rubbish but certainly the manner in how it is presented to the public and espoused by the likes of Prof Flannery is 'rubbish'.

How is it presented to the public? Point to me your efforts to understand the science by reading the lay summaries that you think are rubbish. Because otherwise it seems you're getting your understanding of climate science from quotes in a newspaper to dismiss the communication of science to the public, rather than actually reading the efforts to explain things to you. Dare I say it, but that's a rubbish attempt to understand science.

"It is absolutely fair and reasonable for anyone to question The supposedly factual hypothesis and its hypothetical impact."

Sure. But if they are doing so on the basis of not understanding the hypothesis, what then?

"To suggest the public is 'lazy', is a flippant and poorly selected phrase."

Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm suggesting that people who question the science as bogus, and then complain that they don't understand it and no one is explaining it to them when it very plainly is explained to them if they looked beyond page 1 of the newspaper...those people are lazy. If you read an article about something Flannery said and conclude there is a problem with climate science without doing any further reading about the actual source material, yes that's lazy. That's not reading about the basis of the science (of which there are plenty of lay explanations), that's making a lazy conclusion based on quotes the journalist chose for you. Flippant and poorly phrased? I'd say it's spot on.

"With respect to scientists or those performing research, well truthfully, it has changed over the last 20 odd years."

With respect, I've got very little confidence you've read any actual science that would inform that opinion.

"I am sure you have come across 'scientists' who will rather promote their opinion, political feelings or religious view way before any scientific fact. This must and should be challenged in the name of science."

I can categorically state that I have not come across any scientist who will "promote their opinion, political feelings or religious view way before any scientific fact" in the field they work in. But if I did, I agree it should be challenged. And I have every confidence that it would be.

floyd, I don't know. But I think I've hit my limit of interest and probably patience with it.

TB...who is suggesting 3rd or 2nd decimal place accuracy?