Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

SCIENCE DISCUSSION ONLY

Geology, Geophysics, Oceanography, Meteorology etc.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#581  Postby Macdoc » Nov 30, 2015 11:51 pm

A scientist whose research has been used by prominent climate science denialists Lord Matt Ridley and Rupert Murdoch to claim carbon dioxide is good for the planet has hit back at the “selective presentation” of his work.

Professor Ranga Myneni, of Boston University, has been researching satellite data showing how the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is contributing to increased plant growth across the planet.

In an article published in the Murdoch-owned The Times and reproduced in Murdoch’s The Australian, Ridley said 30 years of satellite data showed plant growth had risen by 14 per cent across the world.

I asked Lord Ridley on Twitter about the source for his satellite data and he pointed me to a 2013 presentation by Professor Myneni.

Myneni told DeSmog the presentation Lord Ridley had cited had not been peer reviewed and was “work in progress” but hoped it would appear as two scientific articles, one of which was in review at the journal Nature Climate Change.

He said his analysis of satellite data covering the last 30 years did show a 13 to 14 per cent increase in vegetation growth. He said some of this could be attributed to increased levels of carbon dioxide, but changes in the way land was management was also a factor.

Myneni, in Norway for a meeting of ecologists to discuss vegetation changes in remote regions, said “in the context of being good versus bad” he was “worried about how this work is being interpreted”.

He said Ridley’s story “suffers from selective presentation of facts” and would “not survive peer-review”.

If one were to interpret the greening of the Earth as a good or a positive development then one must also accept that the accompanying climate changes (global warming, for example) and its physical (sea level rise) and biotic impacts (polar bears) as bad or negative developments.

Again, in my opinion, this benefit of greening is not worth price of all the negative changes.

Humans are one amongst many species on Earth and we have no right conducting such experiments that affect all forms of life - it is simply indecent, deeply vulgar and inhuman (you can choose any adjective).

This is not the first time that Ridley has cited Myneni’s work. He first did so in a January 2013 column in the Wall Street Journal, prompting Murdoch himself to tell his Twitter followers that the satellite data showed the planet was “growing greener with increased carbon.”


http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/11699

and

Matt Ridley
Matt Ridley Lobbied Government on Costs of Climate Change Policies, Documents Reveal
By Brendan Montague • Monday, November 2, 2015 - 08:37

The climate denier and Tory peer whose coal mine was targeted by protesters has been quietly lobbying government, documents newly released under Freedom of Information rules confirm.

Matt Ridley, author of Rational Optimist, benefits financially from millions of tonnes of coal extracted from open-cast mines on his Blagdon Estate, just north of Newcastle.

But he does not mention this vested interest in any of the letters sent to Baroness (Sandy) Verma attacking government subsidies to renewable energy, a commercial rival to coal.


As mentioned - anyone involved in the climate wars just dismisses any nonsense from Ridley et al.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17714
Age: 76
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#582  Postby ElDiablo » Nov 30, 2015 11:58 pm

mcgruff wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
mcgruff wrote:Do you know nothing about climate science or are you trolling?

Steady on there mg. He only said 'intetesting', which it's appearance in SciAm certainly is.


You're using a different meaning of interesting. Apparently ElDiablo thinks it's interesting without any irony.

You agree the post should be deleted?

So does a rush to decarbonization pose an unintended threat to underdeveloped communities?
This may not be a strict science question but I've clarified what I found interesting and that it's not intended to subvert the topic.
Why not contribute a reply instead of just bitching.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3128

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#583  Postby mcgruff » Dec 01, 2015 12:08 am

Read the topic title. It says "strictly moderated". It's like that precisely so we don't have to waste time having to deal with anti-scientific nonsense from people like Matt Ridley - which I note you are still determined to pursue.
User avatar
mcgruff
 
Posts: 3614
Male

Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#584  Postby OlivierK » Dec 01, 2015 12:39 am

Macdoc wrote:I can't help you if you don't understand enough climate science that increased intensity and length of season is an indicator of climate change.

No single event can be attributed, extreme events show the influence of a warmer world.....deal with it.

I understand that well enough, but your post contained no science to that end: no evidence of increased intensity beyond one anecdotal comparison (to - of all years - 2014!) and no evidence of extended length of hail season, being as it was a report of a hailstorm well within the normal season for such storms.

You misunderstand me, deliberately or accidentally, if you think I'm arguing against climate systems producing more intense weather more often when energy is added to the system. Of course they do. I was merely pointing out that in a strictly moderated "science only" thread, that your post, while expressing a view I agree with, contained exactly NO science.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9873
Age: 57
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#585  Postby ElDiablo » Dec 01, 2015 12:45 am

mcgruff wrote:Read the topic title. It says "strictly moderated". It's like that precisely so we don't have to waste time having to deal with anti-scientific nonsense from people like Matt Ridley - which I note you are still determined to pursue.

Your knee-jerk reaction was to call my post trolling. Your inaccurate assessment is what's generated responses. At worst my post in the wrong thread.

I provided clarity as to what I found interesting, if that's too nonsensical than point out why or stop your whining posts. If no one is interested or if the moderator thinks it should be moved than it will die or be moved or both.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3128

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#586  Postby THWOTH » Dec 01, 2015 1:07 am

mcgruff wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
mcgruff wrote:Do you know nothing about climate science or are you trolling?

Steady on there mg. He only said 'intetesting', which it's appearance in SciAm certainly is.


You're using a different meaning of interesting. Apparently ElDiablo thinks it's interesting without any irony.

You agree the post should be deleted?

Nah. I think it should stand as it is, being given context by the comments here and the fact that it appeared in a popular science publication. I think ElD also has a point about it straddling this thread and the denialist thread too.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Posts: 38753
Age: 59

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#587  Postby mcgruff » Dec 01, 2015 2:16 am

Matt Ridley is on a mission to distort and misrepresent climate science and El Diablo is determined to insert Ridley's bullshit into a strictly moderated climate science topic even after being challenged (it seems I wasn't being too harsh after all..). The thread is strictly moderated specifically so that we don't have to waste page after page dealing with anti-scientific denier nonsense like this.

Scientific American is a magazine not a scientific journal. They should have known better than to publish the piece by Matt Ridley. Just because they made a mistake doesn't mean we should.

It's a simple question of intellectual integrity.
User avatar
mcgruff
 
Posts: 3614
Male

Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#588  Postby THWOTH » Dec 01, 2015 3:52 am

Yes, Ridley is a bullshitter of astounding breath and diversity, and Scientific American should be ashamed of itself. Now let's move on.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Posts: 38753
Age: 59

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#589  Postby mcgruff » Dec 01, 2015 4:45 am

We can move on when the bullshit which doesn't belong in a science thread gets cleared out. Like it's supposed to. There's no wiggle room here. You accept that Ridley is not an honest party. So what's the problem?
User avatar
mcgruff
 
Posts: 3614
Male

Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#590  Postby ElDiablo » Dec 01, 2015 5:46 am

mcgruff wrote:We can move on when the bullshit which doesn't belong in a science thread gets cleared out. Like it's supposed to. There's no wiggle room here. You accept that Ridley is not an honest party. So what's the problem?

You could have easily posted something that would shed light on the specific subject matter I point out in the post. Saying Ridley is a liar doesn't address the point, after all even a liar can make a valid point.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3128

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#591  Postby mcgruff » Dec 01, 2015 6:12 am

There is no point to address. Take that crap elsewhere and stop trolling a science topic.
User avatar
mcgruff
 
Posts: 3614
Male

Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#592  Postby Fallible » Dec 01, 2015 8:41 am

UK has finally started naming storms and have just simply been deluged with high wind intense rainfall and snow fall this year


Yet again, Macdoc, you don't seem to understand what it's like here. We've been seeing such events for literally decades. There is absolutely nothing special about the weather we've been experiencing this year, except that storms are now being named. We often have high winds, torrential rainfall etc. I am not a denier on any way, shape or form. I accept AGW. I am simply extremely puzzled by the sort of language you're using and the amount of interest you're having in the UK's weather just this year, as though you think this is something out of the ordinary. It just isn't now.

Edit: incidentally I was caught up in this in 1990, occurring just a few years after the Great Storm (1987), and not quite as bad. Anecdotally - a power cable whipped off the ground in the school yard as I ran past, my bus home was cancelled and I found myself walking 3 miles home amid 80mph+ winds. The next day I went back past a wooded hillside I had passed the day before - every single tree had been flattened. Data wise - there are some nice gust speeds for you in the link.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 51
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#593  Postby ElDiablo » Dec 01, 2015 12:18 pm

mcgruff wrote:There is no point to address. Take that crap elsewhere and stop trolling a science topic.

The last word.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3128

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#594  Postby Sendraks » Dec 01, 2015 1:58 pm

Fallible wrote:
Yet again, Macdoc, you don't seem to understand what it's like here. We've been seeing such events for literally decades. There is absolutely nothing special about the weather we've been experiencing this year, except that storms are now being named. We often have high winds, torrential rainfall etc.


In the past few years, I've noticed that at this time of year parts of the UK (specifically the parts in which I live) have experienced storms with winds stronger than I'm used to. But, looking back across the history of storms in the UK, they aren't actually anything unusual.

The torrential rainfall is the default for UK weather. The UK rainy season started in 1406....
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15260
Age: 107
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#595  Postby Fallible » Dec 01, 2015 2:09 pm

:lol:
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 51
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#596  Postby mcgruff » Dec 01, 2015 7:28 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Fallible wrote:
Yet again, Macdoc, you don't seem to understand what it's like here. We've been seeing such events for literally decades. There is absolutely nothing special about the weather we've been experiencing this year, except that storms are now being named. We often have high winds, torrential rainfall etc.


In the past few years, I've noticed that at this time of year parts of the UK (specifically the parts in which I live) have experienced storms with winds stronger than I'm used to. But, looking back across the history of storms in the UK, they aren't actually anything unusual.

The torrential rainfall is the default for UK weather. The UK rainy season started in 1406....


Five of the wettest years in the UK, and seven of the warmest, have all occurred since 2000. Warming increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere and can create heavier rainfall. According to this study 1 in 5 extreme rainfall events across the globe are due to the warming we have experienced to date (with much worse to come, obviously).

You guys should wind your neck in, lay off MacDoc, and read some books.
User avatar
mcgruff
 
Posts: 3614
Male

Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#597  Postby Fallible » Dec 01, 2015 8:36 pm

You say 'I'm not a denier' and they read 'I deny global warming'. Wind your own damn neck in and stop throwing your weight around.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 51
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#598  Postby Sendraks » Dec 01, 2015 8:45 pm

I've no idea what the fuck mcgruff is talking about either.

In the last five years, we've also experienced one of the worst droughts the UK has experienced as well. If 2012's piss-fest hadn't happened, the water situation for the SE would've been pretty dire.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15260
Age: 107
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#599  Postby mcgruff » Dec 01, 2015 9:03 pm

Fallible wrote:You say 'I'm not a denier' and they read 'I deny global warming'. Wind your own damn neck in and stop throwing your weight around.


You have both been ridiculing MacDoc and have both claimed there's nothing special about the weather. Unfortunately this is a science topic and climate science says that there is. Global warming to date has already begun to change the climate. Nothing is "normal" any more. It will be more than a hundred thousand years before the climate could return to normal.

So no you don't get to complain when you're promoting bad science in a science thread. You can be a dick about it (often the favourite choice) or you can say "OK fair enough I was wrong about the weather" and then nobody will think you're being a dick at all.
User avatar
mcgruff
 
Posts: 3614
Male

Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#600  Postby OlivierK » Dec 01, 2015 9:16 pm

mcgruff wrote:Five of the wettest years in the UK, and seven of the warmest, have all occurred since 2000. Warming increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere and can create heavier rainfall. According to this study 1 in 5 extreme rainfall events across the globe are due to the warming we have experienced to date (with much worse to come, obviously).

You guys should wind your neck in, lay off MacDoc, and read some books.

You see, that study is science. I'd like to see more of that, and less of the crap that you posted it in defense of.

mcgruff wrote:
Fallible wrote:You say 'I'm not a denier' and they read 'I deny global warming'. Wind your own damn neck in and stop throwing your weight around.


You have both been ridiculing MacDoc and have both claimed there's nothing special about the weather. Unfortunately this is a science topic and climate science says that there is. Global warming to date has already begun to change the climate. Nothing is "normal" any more. It will be more than a hundred thousand years before the climate could return to normal.

So no you don't get to complain when you're promoting bad science in a science thread. You can be a dick about it (often the favourite choice) or you can say "OK fair enough I was wrong about the weather" and then nobody will think you're being a dick at all.

But they weren't wrong about the weather, and there isn't anything particularly unusual about the weather Macdoc has reported in the UK or Australia. A single weather event is not climate, and you and Macdoc seem to be having the same elementary confusion between the two that is common to so many on the denialist side.

Saying "Oh, look, it's a big storm, so global warming." is no more science than saying "Global warming is crap because it's cold today." is.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9873
Age: 57
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Earth Sciences

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest