PR companies: no working with climate deniers

[Ichihara]

Rashore,

Models project a temperature increase of over 2 degrees in this century. And these same models overestimated warming over the past 15 years by 400%.

http://www.see.ed.ac...er estimate.pdf

So deniers is strong word. Sceptics fits better.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Ichihara

[Guest]

Im thankfull on that. But point is no one has answer on my question. Even IPCC which has many young unexpirienced people on board. Did you see my graph? Answer is on none level. Do you know that polars bears reached their historic highs numbers. That sea level is rising 7 inches per century? That NASA and NOAA altered the temperature record to make recent years warmer? That there is no consensus of scientists. IPCC stated that 97% scientists agree on AGW. BTW 97% of 77 scientists in an unscientific online poll. Hurricanes are not increasing at all. They are least active in 30 years...then we have climategate scandal....etc. Im mean who wouldnt be sceptical?

Not true statements.

The raw temperature record is constantly adjusted to account for known errors in measurement - that is no conspiracy to obscure - all data is treated to standardize it so that data from today can be compared to data from a 100 years ago and any point between.

Polar bears are ac omplete red herring since the main driver of their population over the last century was hunting with rifles.

Hurricanes are actually a poor indicator of climate change since the mechanism that creates them is reduced when the poles increase in temperature (as they have) and the temperature differential between the tropics and the pole is reduced. However other forms of extreme weather have shown statistically significant upward trend in the last 50 years in almost all regions of the globe - picking hurricanes is more cherry picking.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Rashore,

Models project a temperature increase of over 2 degrees in this century. And these same models overestimated warming over the past 15 years by 400%.

http://www.see.ed.ac...er estimate.pdf

So deniers is strong word. Sceptics fits better.

the temperature increase over the last 15 years is within the range of statistical uncertainty of the predictive models. Models do not tell us what the temperature will be at any given instant they tell us the trend to expect over a period of climate, ie at least 30 years. The predictions are accurate in the scale of climate.

Br Cornelius

[Ichihara]

Not true statements.

The raw temperature record is constantly adjusted to account for known errors in measurement - that is no conspiracy to obscure - all data is treated to standardize it so that data from today can be compared to data from a 100 years ago and any point between.

Polar bears are ac omplete red herring since the main driver of their population over the last century was hunting with rifles.

Hurricanes are actually a poor indicator of climate change since the mechanism that creates them is reduced when the poles increase in temperature (as they have) and the temperature differential between the tropics and the pole is reduced. However other forms of extreme weather have shown statistically significant upward trend in the last 50 years in almost all regions of the globe - picking hurricanes is more cherry picking.

Br Cornelius

http://stevengoddard...ficial-at-noaa/

http://wattsupwithth...ists-consensus/

http://wattsupwithth...es-per-century/

Hurricanes:

http://www.washingto...ve-in-30-years/

http://blogs.nature...._broke_l_1.html

and at last polar bears

http://www.ibtimes.c...on-fears-821075

http://alaska.usgs.g...2/section8.html

the temperature increase over the last 15 years is within the range of statistical uncertainty of the predictive models. Models do not tell us what the temperature will be at any given instant they tell us the trend to expect over a period of climate, ie at least 30 years. The predictions are accurate in the scale of climate.

Br Cornelius

What scale?

Edited August 4, 2014 by Ichihara

[Guest]

Icharihara, if you want to be taken seriously on this subject please stop extracting your opinions solely from websites which are avowedly in denial of climate change. When you have read broadly on the subject, taking in the scientific sources from actual climate scientists (accredited and carrying out current research), you will readily see that there is little doubt among the scientific community that AGW is real.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

http://stevengoddard...ficial-at-noaa/

http://wattsupwithth...ists-consensus/

http://wattsupwithth...es-per-century/

http://www.washingto...ve-in-30-years/

http://blogs.nature...._broke_l_1.html

and at last polar bears

http://www.ibtimes.c...on-fears-821075

http://alaska.usgs.g...2/section8.html

What scale?

I refer you to my last statement - not one of your sources could be considered a scientific source.

Br Cornelius

[Ichihara]

Icharihara, if you want to be taken seriously on this subject please stop extracting your opinions solely from websites which are avowedly in denial of climate change. When you have read broadly on the subject, taking in the scientific sources from actual climate scientists (accredited and carrying out current research), you will readily see that there is little doubt among the scientific community that AGW is real.

Br Cornelius

Oh, I should use links from IPCC site. Please. My links are perfect. Anyone could find answers in them. (Hyperlinks)

Edited August 4, 2014 by Ichihara

[Ichihara]

I refer you to my last statement - not one of your sources could be considered a scientific source.

Br Cornelius

Cornelius what is your argument for AGW?

You are sweet little boy.

[Guest]

Oh, I should use links from IPCC site. Please. My links are perfect. Anyone could find answers in them.

The IPCC is certainly a better source since it references actual peer reviewed scientific papers - but it would be better to pick an aspect of AGW theory and research it in depth through peer reviewed literature and the writings of real people working in the field of climate science.

For that your sources fail. Not a shred of honest contextualized science in them.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

You are sweet little boy.

I supplied you with a very clear statement of what I know to be AGW, CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and we have released millions of years of sequestered carbon dioxide into the atmosphere upsetting the radiative balance of the planet. I really can't make it any simpler than that.

The sarcasm you can leave at home

Br Cornelius

[Ichihara]

The IPCC is certainly a better source since it references actual peer reviewed scientific papers - but it would be better to pick an aspect of AGW theory and research it in depth through peer reviewed literature and the writings of real people working in the field of climate science.

For that your sources fail. Not a shred of honest contextualized science in them.

I saw that you research it in depth through peer reviewed literature and the writings of real people working in the field of climate science so now you have answers which somehow you failed to provide in this thread.

My work here is done.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Ichihara

[Guest]

I saw that you research it in depth through peer reviewed literature and the writings of real people working in the field of climate science so now you have answers which somehow you failed to provide in this thread.

Gave it twice, are you blind per chance.

But honestly - do you really think that me doing your research for you will make a blind bit of difference to you. I did my research from a position of denial a long time ago and only the pathway can teach us real wisdom. You can take a mule to water but you cannot make him drink.

PS - I picked up a degree in environmental science along the way to show that I at least tried.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 4, 2014 by Guest

[spartan max2]

Well welcome to UM , I see you'v meet Cornelius.

He might make a good point sometimes but I can never tell due to his over condescending manner covering his post

[spartan max2]

.

i think the point you're both missing here folks is the terms "PR" and "company"

.

these people are, by their very definition, leeches.

.

trust their "opinon" at your peril.....

.

Heyyy there buddy thats my future career you are bashing.

Anytime there is a demand in the market it is met. The public's opinion of companies effects the companies so a demand is made. PR companies only meet that demand.

Just like lawyers its not inherently evil but sometimes they can cover up something sketchy

[Ichihara]

Well welcome to UM , I see you'v meet Cornelius.

He might make a good point sometimes but I can never tell due to his over condescending manner covering his post

Thanks on welcome!

[Guest]

Well welcome to UM , I see you'v meet Cornelius.

He might make a good point sometimes but I can never tell due to his over condescending manner covering his post

Am I to rise to the bait of climate is just weather - how do you start, how do you avoid condescension in the face of ignorance of such a basic foundational concept ?

Br Cornelius

[Ichihara]

The predictions are accurate in the scale of climate.

models overestimated warming over the past 20 years by 400%.

http://www.see.ed.ac...er estimate.pdf

Talking about ignorance.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Ichihara

[Doug1029]

On what time scale temperature is rising?

The words "as viewed from central Greenland" appear on this graph. It is a point sample, applicable to one small area in central Greenland. It does not show GLOBAL temperatures. You need a graph that shows GLOBALLY averaged temperature anomalies if you're going to argue that global warming isn't happening.

Also, this graph shows several events that happened once, never to be repeated; thus, it is not applicable to the global warming debate. For example, that cold spike in 8200 BP resulted from the collapse of the Lake Agassiz-Ojibway Ice Dam that spilled that lake, then the world's largest freshwater lake, into Hudson Bay, producing a huge freshwater lens on the surface of the Atlantic, shutting down the Gulf Stream and bringing near-glacial conditions to the Northern Hemisphere for several years. There are no lakes like that anywhere on earth now, so that event can never happen again.

Also, this graph is of sufficiently long duration that you are seeing some effects of orbital mechanics. That's the broad curve you're looking at. Remove that broad curve and a truer picture of what is happening emerges.

Throughout most of this time period, atmospheric carbon dioxide remained between 280 ppmbv and 305 ppmbv. Only in the 20th century did it start to rise above the base level. And only since about 1960 has it sky-rocketed until now it exceeds 400 ppmbv. That matches the red line at the right end of the graph. With that amount of CO2 in the air, the temps in central Greenland can never reach the -24 degree F. shown by your graph. BTW: even if you can't read the graph, those temperatures along the right edge should have clued you that this isn't a GLOBAL representation. The earth's mean temp is about 56 degrees F, not 24 below zero.

I took the liberty of tracking down the site you got it from. They have an article claiming that natural gas is a clean energy - only if you lie. Natural gas is as dirty as coal. What they aren't counting includes the CO2 that occurs in natural gas and is released into the air before the gas goes into the pipe. Neither are they including the methane that leaks into the air from bad connections. About 4 to 5% of methane is lost before it gets out of the gas field and never makes it to your stove or furnace.

In other words, what's on that site are deliberate distortions and outright lies. That's why we don't use sites like that. Stick strictly to the research and avoid them until you know enough about the subject to see what's wrong with what they're saying. They are catering to the uninformed.

Doug

[Doug1029]

models overestimated warming over the past 20 years by 400%.

http://www.see.ed.ac...er estimate.pdf

Talking about ignorance.

Let's get specific here. Which of the 300 or so climate simulation models are you talking about? The accuracy levels vary considerably. And - some of them are intended for use only in restricted conditions; if you try to use them in other circumstances, they produce poor results. But that's not the fault of the models; it's the fault of those who misuse them.

I use regression models in my work. Whenever a regression model is used to predict climate variables, it becomes a "climate model" by definition. I use data from one weather station to fill in missing data at nearby stations. I achieve over 90% correlation in estimating monthly averaged daily temps that way. For precip, it is about 70% due to the variability of our summer thunder showers. My ice storm model predicts the occurrence of ice storms in tree ring data with 97% accuracy.

Your generalization is applicable only to a few outdated and cherry-picked models. If I were you, I wouldn't talk about ignorance.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Am I to rise to the bait of climate is just weather - how do you start, how do you avoid condescension in the face of ignorance of such a basic foundational concept ?

Br Cornelius

You won't, but I will.

For Ichihara: Climate is a 30-year average. Weather is what happens day-to-day. That's not even Climate Science 101 - it's junior high level.

As long as short-term temps, precip, etc. are statistically the same as the 30-year average (95% confidence), there is no climate change. It's when the 30-year average differs from that of the previous 30 years that we have climate change.

[Ichihara]

Let's get specific here. Which of the 300 or so climate simulation models are you talking about? The accuracy levels vary considerably. And - some of them are intended for use only in restricted conditions; if you try to use them in other circumstances, they produce poor results. But that's not the fault of the models; it's the fault of those who misuse them.

I use regression models in my work. Whenever a regression model is used to predict climate variables, it becomes a "climate model" by definition. I use data from one weather station to fill in missing data at nearby stations. I achieve over 90% correlation in estimating monthly averaged daily temps that way. For precip, it is about 70% due to the variability of our summer thunder showers. My ice storm model predicts the occurrence of ice storms in tree ring data with 97% accuracy.

Your generalization is applicable only to a few outdated and cherry-picked models. If I were you, I wouldn't talk about ignorance.

Doug

Did you read link?

[Ichihara]

The words "as viewed from central Greenland" appear on this graph. It is a point sample, applicable to one small area in central Greenland. It does not show GLOBAL temperatures. You need a graph that shows GLOBALLY averaged temperature anomalies if you're going to argue that global warming isn't happening.

Wait but isnt temperature rising globally? Not just in specific places where IPCC take messures?

Also, this graph shows several events that happened once, never to be repeated; thus, it is not applicable to the global warming debate. For example, that cold spike in 8200 BP resulted from the collapse of the Lake Agassiz-Ojibway Ice Dam that spilled that lake, then the world's largest freshwater lake, into Hudson Bay, producing a huge freshwater lens on the surface of the Atlantic, shutting down the Gulf Stream and bringing near-glacial conditions to the Northern Hemisphere for several years. There are no lakes like that anywhere on earth now, so that event can never happen again.

Were humans also responsible for melting and spilling in period BC?

Also, this graph is of sufficiently long duration that you are seeing some effects of orbital mechanics. That's the broad curve you're looking at. Remove that broad curve and a truer picture of what is happening emerges.

Wait,,,when I remove it temperature is droping. And why to remove it in the first place?

Throughout most of this time period, atmospheric carbon dioxide remained between 280 ppmbv and 305 ppmbv. Only in the 20th century did it start to rise above the base level. And only since about 1960 has it sky-rocketed until now it exceeds 400 ppmbv.

How accurate is this and from where is this data come from?

Edited August 5, 2014 by Ichihara

[Ichihara]

Doug,

1-On what time scale temperature is rising?

2-Whats your view on many young unexpirienced people in IPCC?

3-What do you say that hurricanes are not increasing at all?

4-How come that polars bears reached their historic highs numbers?

5-Isnt sea level rising 7 inches per century?

6-What do you say on thing that NASA and NOAA altered the temperature record to make recent years warmer?

7-IPCC stated that 97% scientists agree on AGW. BTW 97% of 77 scientists in an unscientific online poll. What does tell us about nature of IPCC?

8-Whats your stance on climategate scandal?

Edited August 5, 2014 by Ichihara

[Guest]

If you are going to just repeat a list of untrue propaganda statements and never acknowledge where others have pointed out your fundamental errors - you are not here to debate - simply to preach your denial creed.

Its a waste of time to engage so bye.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

Why do I have the suspicion that we have a new shill around here?

I wish they would at least read through what has already been established as BS here on past discussions and try something new... at least that would be intellectually challenging...