New NOAA Research Puts Global Warming 'Hiatus' in Doubt

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Interestingly, it lowers the total amount of warming measured over the past 150 years or so.  I am curious what some climate change skeptics would respond about this. 

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

I'd love to see Snowguy debate a climate scientist.  He seems better informed than Marc Morano, who is paid millions for his work.

I do believe the general consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and responsible for a good chunk of global warming in the past 50 years.  I am very skeptical about statistical manipulations in general and I'd love for there to be a great debate on the statistical modifications and datasets.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

I'd love to see Snowguy debate a climate scientist.  He seems better informed than Marc Morano, who is paid millions for his work.

I do believe the general consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and responsible for a good chunk of global warming in the past 50 years.  I am very skeptical about statistical manipulations in general and I'd love for there to be a great debate on the statistical modifications and datasets.

There seems to be a considerable lack of understanding about the collection, collation, analysis and presentation of stats.

Indeed.  I'm just saying, I'd like to see a debate on the validity of the adjustments and see what the opposing side is saying.  Certainly there is a time and a place for adjusting stats, but the real question is how appropriate the modifications were this time.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

So the crazies are out in force.

https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-myth-global-warming-consensus

If we're talking about what the "consensus" is, then we should at least be talking about the relevant consensus to the discussions at hand.  It's not whether or not CO2 has a warming effect or whether the average temperature of the globe increased.......it's far more about how severe climate change is, what proportion is anthropogenic, and most importantly, the cost-benefit analysis of emission reductions and the reliability of climate models in forecasting future events.

Here's some good info:
"In striking contrast to these studies, which try but fail to find a consensus in support of the claim that global warming is man-made and dangerous, many authors and surveys have found disagreement and even a majority of scientists oppose the alleged consensus. Surveys by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have found that most scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models and do not believe key climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are adequately understood to predict future climate changes.

Surveys of meteorologists, including one by the American Meteorological Society of its members conducted in 2012, find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Of the various petitions circulated for signatures by scientists on the global warming issue, the one that has garnered by far the most signatures – more than 31,000 names – says “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

So before we bankrupt the coal industry and put West Virginians out of work, I think it's time to step back and assess whether wrecking Appalachia is worth the marginal temperature benefits.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-myth-global-warming-consensus

...

So before we bankrupt the coal industry and put West Virginians out of work, I think it's time to step back and assess whether wrecking Appalachia is worth the marginal temperature benefits.

You do know who funds Heartland, no?  I normally hate to have to point this out, but they're so obviously and transparently industry shills that there's really no choice.

And as for bankrupting the coal industry, natural gas would be doing a bang-up job of that even in the absence of (necessary, life-saving) regulation.  Coal (especially dirty, hard-to-mine Appalachian coal) is going the way of the whaling industry, and while we should of course be sympathetic to the people left behind, and give them a hand up, artificially propping up a dirty, destructive, dangerous, increasingly unnecessary harvest such as that does nobody any good in the long run.

While I don't favor artificially pumping up coal, I don't want to tear them down more than what they're facing right now through additional CO2 regulations at this juncture.  Yes, Heartland is biased, but so are Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, etc.  The question is the facts that the source presents, because nearly any source on climate change will have a position/bias. 

My point is, there are many meteorologists (who, while not climate scientists, do have a lot of experience with weather patterns and climate data) and climate scientists who are at least somewhat skeptical of parts of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, namely the catastrophic part.  My position is that draconian emissions restrictions, blocking of coal plant construction, etc. do more harm to the economy than whatever marginal temperature benefit that might be accrued by not constructing them. 

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

If someone actually did debunk climate change, they should be getting tons of awards.

No one's talking about debunking "climate change," whatever that means.

The central thesis of "skeptics" is that in the present situation, we shouldn't enact draconian climate policies curbing CO2 emissions.  It's not about "debunking" the idea that CO2 can have a greenhouse effect or that temperatures have gone up, but rather about why we shouldn't bankrupt coal, curbe fossil fuels, and prevent developing countries from enjoying the lifestyle we do because of a central planners' alarmist fear about global warming. 

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

When did I talk about central planning? Who are these central planners?

Well, for starters, the UN is very explicitly trying to stop Africa from using fossil fuel energy and pretty much wants to prohibit it from ever enjoying the energy prosperity we have here.  This, along with things like the Kyoto Protocol  can really damage the developing world.....my position is that we should allow countries to use all energy resources they have available to them so they can have the opportunity to prosper just as we have.  If the temperature increases really start to spike, then we can revisit the issue.  Frankly, I'd much rather explore geoengineering solutions like SO2 pumping into the atmosphere at that point though.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Just wondering, are you the sort of person who refuses to go the doctor until their limbs are literally turning black and falling off?

I support adaptation to climate change as well as geoengineering research.  I simply don't like the idea of CO2 emission reductions at this juncture and oppose a lot of the UN's actions on this issue. 

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

I think that's where we disagree train is the extent of the problem.  Given how the vast majority climate models have systematically overestimated warming by a very large margin over the past 20-30 years, I think that basing the future on those predictions isn't the best idea.  I don't think we'll have to abandon all our coasts if we continue to warm at the rate we have in the past 10 years, especially with adaptation and technological innovation........engineering really can solve a lot of problems.  Virtually every environmental catastrophe predicted by scientists, like the overpopulation scare, have been offset by massive human innovations.   We can adapt to new climate patterns, and I'm sure engineers can find a way to make coastal living more than bearable in the future. 

Anyways, I didn't mean to cause so much discord with this.  Let's be honest; none of us have any control over what's going to happen.  None of us are politicians, nor meteorologists, nor geoengineers, nor climate scientists.  I think we'll call it a night on this one.