U.S. officials stressed that the El Niño pattern alone does not account of the year’s record warmth. “The interesting thing is that 2015 did not start with an El Niño,” Schmidt said. “It was warm right from the beginning.”
Because a strong El Niño still is in place, “2016 is expected to be an exceptionally warm year, and perhaps even another record,” Schmidt said.
The release of the 2015 temperature data prompted statements from leading Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Clinton, in a Twitter posting, said, “Climate change is real. It’s hurting our planet and our people. We can’t afford a president who ignores the science.”
There was no immediate comments from the major GOP contenders, several of whom have been openly skeptical of the mainstream scientific view that human activity is causing the planet to warm. Front-runner Donald Trump has dismissed climate change as a hoax.
According to the NOAA analaysis on Wednesday, every month in 2015 broke previous temperature records except for two: January and April. NOAA also announced Wednesday that for December, the “temperature departure from average was also the highest departure among all months in the historical record and the first time a monthly departure has reached 2°F.”
From a climate policy perspective, the warmth of 2015 is also highly significant. Global leaders in Paris agreed in December that the planet should not be allowed to warm 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures — and ideally, warming should be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius if possible.
Which presidential contenders do not believe that there is climate change?
Climate change is going to continue to cause problems for human beings on earth. I find it strange that people, (including regulars on this blog) totally deny that the earth’s climate is changing and that it even matters.
I don’t understand the motivation behind denying this happening. What do we call people who deny climate change?
Meanwhile, we have a blizzard bearing down on the nation’s capital. Winds are supposed to be upward of 60 mph. I worry about the trees in the neighborhood falling on homes. We have buried power lines. Its very rare to lose electricity but its always possible. Even though I heat with gas, I need electricity to power the furnace fan. I don’t expect I will lose water.
Fortunately, our house-mate will man the shovel. Even if we don’t need to go out, the dogs do. That can become a real problem. Getting the doors open, shoving the dogs out, and having enough space for them to do their business can be a huge problem for some families. Can trucks make their deliveries? Will the mail be delivered?
I get revved. I love to go 4 wheeling on back roads. Its getting increasingly difficult to find country roads. I also really love a snow party. A snow party is almost as good as a hurricane party. Hopefully everyone will stay safe, warm and dry. Give the notion of climate change some thought as this blizzard comes through. I have seen very few blizzards in Virginia and I have lived here all but four years of my life.
Got a bunch of man-made global warming coming Friday and through the weekend. Wait a sec… is it global warming or climate change?
Global warming says “the warmest year on record”.
Climate change says “BIG snow storm in mid-January yall!” its climate change cause that never happened before!
So yeah, rhetorical question I suppose, this is obviously climate change but the heading was misleading with all the ‘warmest year’ junk…
I think global warming creates extreme weather. Its far more complicated than hot = hot.
The south is experiencing thunderstorms. In January.
The south experienced thunderstorms in January when I was a kid also. There is absolutely no evidence of a trend of increasing extreme weather. In fact, I remember an outbreak of destructive tornados near Raleigh at the end of November 1988.
Maybe NOAA made a mistake.
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/claim-2015-was-hottest-year-ever-bogus
I am getting sick and tired of the “We gotta act NOW!” crowd. First-off, the Earth has experienced glacial (cooling) and interglacial (warming) cycles forever. Long before man existed, and since then, prior to the age of industrialization. Now the “NOW!” crowd is trying to argue that the earliest agricultural societies 7000 years ago caused climate change, by burning down trees to clear fields for grazing. They claim that both CO2 and Methane rose, and this caused further warming. The climate had been warming for about 8000 years previously, as the last glacial period ended, but “Man” caused the climate to warm further. Pure BULL CRAP intended to sell more BULL CRAP.
The Earth’s population was tiny then, and much of it was still hunter-gatherer societies. Domestication of animals caused higher methane output? The plains and stepps of every continent were thick with huge herds wild grazing animals, a result of the warmer climate and receding glaciers. Some tiny clan of stone-aged slash&burn subsistence farmers who domesticated a few wild sheep, goats, cattle and oxen wouldn’t effect anything. Methane rose from it’s biggest sources: rotting vegetation in ponds and swamps…
Is the climate changing? Of course it is. It’s always changing over long periods of time. Sea levels have risen and fallen, glaciers have advanced and retreated, species have dominated and declined. It has always been this way. Efforts to understand this have pointed to two main influences: Solar Cycles, and Volcanic activity…neither of these within the purview of man.
Each year some agency or institution makes spectacular and alarming claims of “hottest year EVAH!” only to have the claim debunked when the “science” is scrutinized…but the lie has already taken hold. These same organizations will point to some adverse weather event such as a hurricane or tornado as “evidence” of their claims…but will shout down claims by critics when snowstorms or polar air-masses dip south.
The climate may be changing…but man isn’t causing or contributing significantly to it. Those who believe we can cause or prevent a natural process that has existed since the Earth’s atmosphere developed are displaying the height of arrogance. You want to keep nitrogen fertilizers and plastic bags out of the bay to protect the crabs and rockfish? I’m with you. You want to keep PCB’s from leeching into peoples wells? Right on! You want to limit smog and particulate that can choke kids and old people, fine with me. This is practical science that links provable cause and effect.
But to those sellin man-made global-warming-er-global-cooling-er-climate-change: Forget trying to convince me. You only want to control other people, and redistribute wealth. I remember when we called this by another name: Communism.
Not sure how addressing climate change will turn us all into commies, but the science here is pretty basic and well studied, reviewed and documented. It’s not a he-said, she-said, it’s the a vast preponderance of scientists vs some industry-supported deniers. The basics:
1. The earth is warming. There may be variations in continental areas or in particular time periods due to El-Nino effects, etc., but all the data points in one direction over time. Tree rings, ice cores, ocean data, air data, flora and fauna migrations, ocean acidification, ice melt all point to warming.
2. CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat. This phenomenon has been proven and is easily demonstrable.
3. Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are higher than ever before. Again, the ice core and other records show this clearly.
4. Humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at record levels. Documented.
Unless one disputes the science and can produce peer-reviewed studies to refute the above, climate change at least partially caused by humans is a no-brainer. Should we gut our economy to try to address it? Obviously not, but should we ignore it and not do what we can? If we do, we will have betrayed our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
I am glad you are back, Middleman.
@middleman
The earth has experienced no statistically significant warming since 1998 according to satellite and balloon data.
Every study that shows X to be the hottest year on record has be the result of data “adjustments,” not observations.
CO2 is a trace gas that is not a main driver of global warming.
EVERY model has been wrong.
CO2 is plant food.
Also, a warming planet is a better planet for human life.
The Medieval warm period and the Roman warm periods were warmer than today.
Some reports on this “hottest year.”
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/12/satellites-no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-8-months/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/21/failed-math-in-1997-noaa-claimed-that-the-earth-was-5-63-degrees-warmer-than-today/
Cargo, I’ve been over this before with you and I have no expectation of convincing you, but hope springs eternal, as they say.
The earth has certainly warmed since 1998, even accounting for the strong El-Nino effect that year. The “data” indicating no warming is a result of careful data selection and has been debunked numerous times by scientists.
You say CO2 is not a main driver of warming in spite of the fact that the warming phenomena is easily reproducible in a lab and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are well documented.
Yes, CO2 is “plant food.” It’s also death to ocean life in the form of acidification and warming. The ocean is warming much faster than the air. One worry is that we may disrupt the major currents that contribute to weather patterns. And if you eliminate the smallest ocean life forms, the entire food chain collapses. We’re getting into unknown territory now and the effect is accelerating. I don’t think we want to roll the dice and experiment with millions of folks’ lives.
When you speak of various “warm periods” in the distant past, you are talking about specific areas, not necessarily the whole planet. And that information isn’t really pertinent to today’s discussion since we have so many more people living in areas that will be affected if we don’t act. The world is a lot more populated now, and mostly in the coastal areas.
As I’ve said over and over, adapting to climate change doesn’t have to be a bad thing, quite the contrary. Renewable energy jobs already outnumber coal-related jobs in this country. Solar is one-tenth the cost it was years ago, and wind power isn’t far behind. Electric cars and battery technology is getting better and better. If you commute less than 40 miles round-trip per day and drive a Chevy Volt, you’ll never use gasoline. Battery-swap technology (less than 2 minutes!) for cars is a reality.
I believe in American technology and can-do attitude. If the politicians wedded to the fossil fuel industry would get out of the way we could really move forward on this problem.
Too bad renewable energy couldn’t replace coal mining. It takes such a toll on human life.
The paper linked to below estimates the warming due to the AMO (i.e. natural variability) to be 0.83 degrees C/century, which suggests that man-made global warming is at about the same level, and is therefore quite modest. Less than a degree per century is certainly not a cause for panic.
It is one thing for the government to fund research of low-emission technologies, which I support. It is quite another for the EPA to dictate emissions controls, based on an expanded interpretation of the Clean Air Act. Doomsday climate-change scenarios are meant to provide justification for expanded regulation. But as we see from the actual climate record, these scenarios are not supported.
And yes, if you read all the way to the conclusions, you will see that the 15+ year pause is acknowledged in this short paper.
http://www.hrpub.org/download/20151130/UJG1-13905038.pdf
@middleman
Do you still drive a gas guzzling pickup truck?
Yes, I drive my truck 10 miles per day when I’m not riding my bicycle. Why do you ask? ;-}
Hi Kelly! Craig Loehle, the author of the article, works for the pulp and paper industry and isn’t a climate scientist. He claims that he has no dog in the fight, but the pulp and paper industry WILL benefit from warming, since as Cargo says, plants love CO2. Even so, he acknowledges warming and estimates that 40% is caused by man. http://www.desmogblog.com/craig-loehle
https://www.linkedin.com/company/ncasi
As to the EPA’s dictating emissions controls, the Supremes have clearly decided that CO2 is a pollutant and the EPA has the duty to regulate it. The current case involves cost considerations involved in the proposed CO2 regulations. No “expanded interpretation.”
Incidentally, the EPA is required by law to consider cost on every proposed regulation and did that in this case, just not to the conservative Supreme’s liking. Big surprise!
@middleman
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/01/hottest-shattering-year-since-the-last-one-five-reasons-it-was-not-hot-and-not-relevant/
Let’s see…. 2014 was supposed to be the hottest year…oh..wait…the reality is that NASA said it had 38% chance of being the “hottest year.” And at the end of the year…they said it was 0.02 degrees hotter….with a .01 degree variability.
“The “data” indicating no warming is a result of careful data selection and has been debunked numerous times by scientists.”
Complete claptrap.
The data is the SATELLITE record with no “adjustments.” That data is confirmed by balloon data.
No cherry picking. They go from the current measurement back to the highest recorded temperature.
Did you notice that it was NOAA that claimed it was hottest now…but ignored its own data.
This claim is politics, not science. I provided the link that shows it.
As for the acidification, the original outcry was that the coral reefs were being harmed…until they found out that the reefs are not being harmed.
The ocean is NOT warming “much faster” than the air. That is ludicrous. In fact, even the pro warming scientists complain about the “missing heat.”
And the previous warm periods were global.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617
“The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.”
AGW is a hoax. Get back to us when they finally develop a falsifiable theory like real scientists do.
We aren’t talking about the word that put you in moderation.
Who are you to declare an entire school of scientific thought to be a hoax? Credentials please.
Cargo, you are cherry-picking things you have read to throw out as proof because your school of political beliefs tells you to say this, even though 90% of the scientific community believes that certain behaviors involving human beings contribute to climate change that isn’t in our best interests.
@middleman
It would seem to me that someone that harangues us about saving the planet for the children and grandchildren would set a good example for the rest of us.
The Pope sets a good example.
and what have we done with our rain forests over the past 20 years….
and what about the amount of CO2 being released due to the permafrost melting….
and the northwest passage being open for most of the year…..
@middleman
Did you find anything in his paper that would indicate poor research? I didn’t. It seems like a pretty good paper in that it provides a simple statistical methodology to separate man-made effects from natural variability. The biggest criticism would be that he implicitly assumed linearity, but he describes his method in detail and discusses its limitations.
But the point is that his estimate shows that natural variability accounts for about 50% of the warming, which implies that human-induced warming is about 50% also. The conclusion from his analysis is that man-made warming in the last 50 years has accounted for less than 1 degree/century.
Regardless of the Supreme Court decision, global warming of this small magnitude does not warrant regulation. Government action always produces the equivalent force of a jackhammer when a small hammer will do.
I get so tired of seeing people attacked for their affiliations. Academics are every bit as biased as anyone else, because they need greenhouse gas warming to be a threat in order to keep their government funding. Until you can show some bias in his methods, I reject your attack of Loehle.
@Moon-howler
I am not cherry picking.
Scientific method shows that if an element disproves the claims of a theory, that theory is false.
Man made global warming has been disproven repeatedly. The proponents continue to move the goal posts, hide their methodologies, hide their raw data, and make adjustments to historical temperature records.
@Moon-howler
The Pope probably does not set a good example in terms of his carbon footprint. I bet the Vatican is a large emitter.
Man, Cargo- really? No acidification? http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17442.short
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17442.short http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/1737.short There’s many more.
No greater sea warming? http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011372 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5989/322.short Again, just a couple- there’s much more.
But I have a feeling all the science in the world will change your mind.
Harangues, Kelly? I’m wounded- I thought I was being positive and hopeful. Oh, well, I guess haranguing is in the eye of the claimed recipient.
And I thought I WAS setting a good example, what with riding my bike and arranging my work so I’m within 5 miles to keep my overall carbon footprint low. There’s just no pleasing some people…
Kelly, fyi the publisher of your article in on Beall’s List of possible predatory scholarly open access publishers: https://web.archive.org/web/20151230022313/http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/
I’d like to see the peer review of it…
Kelly, you’re tired of seeing people attacked because of their affiliations, yet you reject all the science from the vast majority of climate scientists based on the reality that the government funds some of it? Is it more likely that a few scientists funded by the oil and gas industries or in this case the pulp and paper industries who will benefit from the status quo are right, or all the other scientists, some funded by the government?
Do you also reject medical research because it’s government funded? The cigarette companies provided “experts” and “research” for years that contradicted the preponderance of research. Should they have been believed over the government scientists, since according to you they “needed” smoking to cause cancer in order to keep their funding?
This is a no-brainer. Science is science and the vast majority of peer reviewed studies confirm warming and the effects we’re seeing from it.
@middleman
No wounding intended. I just think you should be doing everything possible to save the world before you sic the government on the rest of us.
You are unlikely to ever see the reviews for this paper since the review process is almost always anonymous.
I don’t know why you hit moderation. Its a mystery. Wasn’t my doings.
I did not say that I reject government-funded research. My point is that just about everyone is biased in some way. The only way to get the complete picture is to read both sides of the issue, pro and con. There has to be healthy skepticism regarding any new finding.
I do not think that the consensus is as strong as a very vocal minority would have us believe. If you pay attention, there is plenty of research that takes issue with some aspect of the climate “consensus.”
In fact, I contend that it is anti-science to silence critics based on “consensus.” If all that exists is consensus, then science is not really advanced. It is only by publishing new results that conflict with or extend previous findings that our understanding of a complicated, non-linear system can be improved. It is my opinion that the scientific process is much more about conflict and vigorous debate than consensus.
@middleman
BBC
“”There are three main sources for the coral decline, one is storms, however 42% is attributed to Crown of Thorns Starfish – and just 10% due to bleaching.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3497744/
I didn’t say that there was no acidification. I said that it wasn’t as harmful as certain people asserted.
And what was that you linked to about corals in the Red Sea. Look here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/20/oops-it-may-not-be-ocean-acidification-killing-coral-after-all-common-chemical-found-in-sunscreen-is-poisonous-to-coral-reefs/
The point is that the idea of MAN-MADE warming to any extent as described by the alarmists is becoming obviously ludicrous, based on the the failed predictions, fail in temperatures to rise, failure of any of the models to accurately model the existing temperatures, the pause, etc.
There may be warming, but it is becoming more obvious that natural elements are probably the cause.
The arctic ice is increasing from its low in 2012. Antarctic sea ice is growing and the continent has now been found to be gaining mass. Predictions of all sorts, such as the “end of snow,” more frequent and worse hurricanes, multi year droughts which are followed the very next year by rain…and then the rain is said to be caused by manmade global warming. The adjustments made to historical records to make the current temperatures seem higher. Etc.
Even the “consensus” has been proven false, especially the fake 97% which has been found to consist of about 75 out of thousands of papers. Even then, the inventor of that “consensus” lied
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
The very idea that there is consensus is ludicrous.
Scientists can’t even decide on the effect of cloud cover or the sensitivity of certain greenhouse gases.
The consensus is in that man is affecting climate in various ways. You are quoting at least one known climate change denier. That would be like me citing Donald Trump. 🙄
Coral reefs are dying from sunscreen chemicals? That’s a lot of people wearing sunscreen. Sorta disputes the whole notion of dilution. Who wears sunscreen? Who makes sunscreen? Hmmmm…man.
I don’t know why it is so important to you all politically to say (and that is all that it is) that man made climate change is bunk. I prefer my science not quite that much of a political ideology. Too bad science is so subject to religion and political ideology.
By the way…this is how you document science.
There was a question of whether the Medieval Warm Period was local or global.
Well, here’s your answer. Medieval Warm Period mapping
Click on the tabs to see the results.
Red shows warming during MWP.
Green: wet
Yellow:dry
Gray: low resolution of data
Blue: cooling
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=zvwgQ0tAjx_k.keO5eR4ueHXE
@Moon-howler
“The consensus is in that man is affecting climate in various ways”
That is untrue. That is a false media narrative that originated with a false report by a pro warming “scientist” that lied about his findings.
Even the ones that he said supported his theory have stated that Cook misconstrued their findings and statements.
It is important because those saying that it IS manmade warming, have been found to be dishonest about their methodologies, findings, and peer review. Their agenda is the transformation of the economy because of their belief. It is important because reality is showing that their statements are untrue.
I’m not “quoting” a denier. His site is the one sharing the actual scientific report.
Remember, Galileo was a “denier.”
Ok. You have convinced me. 90% of all the scientists who agree that is some way that man’s behavior is affecting our long range climate are simply full of crap. They are wrong. They have invented a whole bunch of data to pad their own pockets.
I’m sorry, Cargo. you simply sound like a nut case.I have to classify your beliefs on this matter in the same pigeon-hole as those who say the United States staged 9-11 and that NBC staged the moon landing.
Galileo said that the earth was heliocentric. Please don’t say he was a denier. The church was the denier.
I don’t know why you go to such heroics to spew bullshit. What difference could it possibly make to you in the long run?
Some theories about dinosaur extinction state that dinosaur flatulence was the cause of their extinction. ….. could be. Or it could be a meteor…Funniest thing about those chair reactions and the balance of nature.
@Moon-howler
Please point out where you get “90%”?
The Church was the standard, mainstream model, supported by the government, like climate change.
Galileo said that they were wrong.
I’m not spouting bullshit. And everything I said, I linked back to an actual study or article.
Why is it important to me? Because idiotic government officials like Obama want to make policy on a belief. Obama is more worried about the climate than terrorism. He’s using the EPA to destroy American industry.
So….. what difference could it make? Oh…I don’t know…ask the coal industry. Ask Californians about their fuel prices. Ask the people that allow us to have cheap and plentiful natural gas.
Drought, famine, food wars all can lead to terrorism. I don’t know why you think the president isn’t concerned about terrorism. I certainly think it is at the top of his priority list.
I don’t buy your Galileo connection at all. You left out the inquisition for starters.
I have read 90% many times. Prove me wrong.
I think this all just illustrates the larger issue that we form our belief systems first and then find information to reinforce them. This is true for conservatives and progressives. And there are plenty of folks ready to supply “data” to reinforce any belief. There is even a large internet population that believes that a cure for cancer is being suppressed, which follows logic similar to the climate denier movement- funding depends on research, so the problem must be kept alive to maintain funding. http://www.noguff.com
Cargo’s claim on polar ice is a perfect example. There are “studies” out there claiming increasing ice that sound good to the layperson when they read them, but they’re junk. Here’s one such study:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/27/climate-skeptics-think-you-shouldnt-worry-about-melting-polar-ice-heres-why-theyre-wrong/
I don’t think anyone on this blog is an expert in climate science, so we read what we can and hopefully try to keep our biases at bay. One way for a non-scientist to separate the truth from the propaganda is the peer-review process and the funding stream. It appears to me that the peer-reviewed science is clear. I certainly understand how folks could be worried that dealing with climate change will negatively affect them, and it could if done wrong. But there are many things we can and are doing that are good for addressing climate change AND the general health of the planet. Burning coal is a disaster for numerous reasons beyond climate change- economic devastation in the area, stream and habitat destruction, ash pond issues (as we’re facing now with Possum Point) and on and on. The same is true with cars- better fuel economy reduces CO2 AND saves people money, reduces our reliance on foreign oil, improves the health of our cities, etc.
We all fear change, but change CAN be good. We can’t move forward with technology to improve our planet if we cling to the way we did things in the last century. Those profiting from those old technologies are fighting hard to keep us in the past.
Mining coal also kills those who do it for a living.
And here I thought I WAS saving the world by spreading truth, justice and the American Way! ;-}
If promoting clean technology and a better environment is “siccing the government” on you, I plead guilty!!
@middleman
You are not the only one that reviews peer reviewed papers–my view is that the recent peer-reviewed papers have recently added quite a bit evidence that the human impact is smaller than initially feared.
I do not fear change and technology — my concern is whether these changes are dictated by the government. The whole ethanol as fuel initiative is a perfect example. It turns out that ethanol production results in more CO2 than traditional fuels, plus it removes food that could feed the world’s hungry population.
@middleman
According to your link:
“you realize that the Arctic sea ice decline in particular is very stark;”
Yet the arctic sea ice is within the standard deviations.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Your link goes to other Washington Post links which spout nonsense like this.
“In other words, it appears that the warming of the Antarctic Peninsula — where a possible new record high temperature for the entire Antarctic continent of 63.5 degrees Fahrenheit was just set — may be contributing to ice melt at the surface of Larsen C.”
The ENTIRE CONTINENT. That’s like taking the temperature in Miami and attributing it to central Canada.
Or better yet…. the “record temps” are: “Tuesday’s 63.5F reading bests the previous record mark of 63.3F set just the day before [March 23] at Argentina’s Marambio Base (a small islet off the Antarctic Peninsula) and a prior reading of 62.8F (also from Esperanza Base) from April 24, 1961.
Tuesday’s new record is not yet official. Argentina’s Esperanza Base, the site of the record, may not be considered part of Antarctica for the purposes of weather records according to Weather Underground historian Christopher Burt.”
So..an entire .8 degrees higher on an island NORTH of Antarctica after 54 years. That’s called weather.
Then it goes on to say that the area has warmed by by 5 degrees…… in the last 50 years….yet, that “record” shows 0.8 degrees increase within that 50 years.
Then..it goes on to say that Western Antarctica is losing ice…without mentioning the discovery of a chain of both under ice volcanoes and under water volcanoes in the area.
Sea level is not rising “faster.” Ice shelves are already floating ice. They can melt without adding to sea level.
As to why the shelves might be unstable…..not “global warming” but geology.
To understand the problem here, it’s important to visualize what scientists call the ice shelf’s “grounding line” – the area where the ice mass simultaneously intersects with the bedrock below it and also the ocean in front of it. “The geometry of the bedrock … it’s below sea level and it dips inland” in this region, explains Bamber. “That geometry means that the grounding line is potentially unstable.”
So…is the Antarctic gaining or losing ice?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/world/antarctica-ice-gain/
Apparently there is no consensus.
I am going to say something very gently. We do have one person on this blog who has the academic credentials to weigh in on this topic with some authority. I can’t identify the person publicly for several reasons, confidentiality being the main one, but I have been aware of this situation for about 6 months to a year.
This person and I do not share a similar political opinion and I have clearly stated I don’t have the credentials to argue it from a scientific point of view. I can only argue from a personal point of view.
That’s all I can say but I felt it needed to be said.
@Moon-howler
That’s fine.
I’m still going to disagree if they say that manmade global warming is a fact and that consensus is all that is needed. That the theory doesn’t need to be tested or be falsifiable. They may have credentials. So do the scientists that disagree. I argue with credentialed people all of the time.
My point is that the theory is not proven. My point is that there is no consensus. My point is that any consensus on a scientific theory is worthless if the theory is not proven or is not falsifiable.
As for consensus:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/
There is consensus with a majority of scientists about certain things…1–that there is climate change going on.
You are stating ideas as fact rather than your opinion. What scientific theories HAVE been proven to your satisfaction?
Interesting that you picked ethanol as a misguided government mandate. You may may be surprised to find that I totally agree with you, but my agreement supports my overall argument, not that it really has to.
The methanol mandate is a prime example of corporate lobbying resulting in distorted markets and poor public policy. It’s also an example of a program that made some sense when first enacted, but has long since outlived its usefulness and been kept alive by corporate greed.
I’m pretty familiar with the subject since I’ve been involved with automotive emissions technology and testing for almost 40 years. The ethanol mandate was first passed to act as an oxygenizer in auto fuels to replace MTBE, which was found to leach into water sources from underground tanks and contaminate at water at very small quantities. It morphed into a partial replacement for gasoline to extend oil reserves. There were even efforts to increase the gas/ethanol mix to 20-30% over the loud objections of the auto manufacturers who showed studies that those levels would deteriorate fuel system components and cause other problems. And as far as emissions, ethanol as an oxygenizer does very little on computer controlled vehicles (post-1996) because the computer constantly adjusts air-fuel ratio to around 14.7, so no matter how much ethanol is in there, the ratio remains the same. Ethanol reduced emissions on some carburetor equipped vehicles, but that was long ago.
In spite of all the above, Archer-Daniels Midland and other huge agribusiness interests have kept this program alive with the help of politicians in DC. It’s not the technology or the environmental goals that are the problem, it’s the monetary influence and the bought politicians.
@Moon-howler
That’s the point.
Global warming is still a theory.
I’m pointing out the holes in the theory.
I am not giving my opinion.
I am presenting the facts found by other, just as credentialed, scientists.
Most science, if it is a theory, is still …just a theory. Can we prove the big bang theory? how about plate tectonics?
I think maybe you ought to preface your discussions with those disclaimers. Most scientists in the field believe that climate change exists and that some of it is man-made. There are some who want to deny it all…perhaps just to be difficult.
Science is just like any other field, maybe more so. Everyone has their own version.
Did you grow up being told Pluto was a planet? I know I did. That went a little beyond theory. However, now we are told it is not. No absolutes,it seems.
@Moon-howler
But the difference is that if you argue against the other theories, they don’t call you a denier and attempt to shut you down. The other theories are falsifiable. In the “climate change” theory, EVERYTHING is attributable to “climate change,” including contradictory events.
Perhaps these credentialed scientists need to stop making silly ass predictions and failed models and report on observed reality. Sea level rise has NOT accelerated. The North Pole is not ice free. There has been no statistically significant warming, per the satellite record, since 1998. Volcanic activity is responsible for much of the glacier melt and activity in Western Antarctic.
Warming has not matched a single model. CO2 is not that sensitive for feedback, apparently.
In other words, the global warming theory has massive holes in it…..primarily because their side keeps attributing everything to it and its just not so.
Plate tectonics has been proven.
There are many theories about the origin of the universe.
Pluto is a planet. Period. That is the hill I will fight on. Apparently, bored scientists can’t leave well enough alone.
There are lots of different positions out there. Surely you don’t think the entire scientific community is in lockstep?
@Moon-howler
I’m not the one claiming that there is a 90% lockstep consensus.