How to really see climate change – some articles of interest, open thread

Stopped-456x590

Apologies all, but my professional life is very demanding at present. Sadly this leaves little for writing, the blog and much else. Some material to feed the conversation:

Marine life spawns sooner as our oceans warm – “Although there is a perception in the general public that impacts of climate change are an issue for the future, the pervasive and already observable changes in our oceans are stunning. Climate change has already had a coherent and significant fingerprint across all ecosystems (coastal to open ocean), latitudes (polar to tropical) and trophic levels (plankton to sharks). These fingerprints show that warming is causing marine species to shift where they live and alter the timing of nature’s calendar. In total, 81% of all changes were consistent with the expected impacts of climate change.”

Poison ivy, out of control! Poison ivy: everyone’s favorite Batman villain and nature’s worst toilet paper. And now it’s getting a whole lot more sinister, thanks to our carbon emissions. In a sick karmic twist, the massive CO2 our buildings and cars belch is catnip for poison ivy, making the plants grow faster and bigger

 

41 thoughts on “How to really see climate change – some articles of interest, open thread

  1. uknowispeaksense says:

    As you know, when I first started my blog (excuse the self-promotion), the aim was to provide a resource along those lines. It’s not just the oceans, but all biomes, and it’s not just animals and plants but the other kingdoms too, nor just geographical movements but phenological changes as well. http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/links-to-papers/

  2. I no longer speak of ‘climate change deniers’ but rather of ‘extreme weather deniers’ .

    Climate change talk always has a strong element of ‘the future’ in it and it is always legitimate to say we can’t be *certain* how the future will turn out, only to speak of a high probability of how the future will look.

    This gives the deniers a thin cloak of intellectual credibility.

    But weather is ‘now’ and to deny extreme weather events —- even as the trees crash down on your home — makes any skeptic look a complete fool – even to Liberal voters.

    I work in a Canadian hotel and meet many Aussie tourists – mostly Liberal voters I’d say – and they all are freely worried about all the extreme weather the world is having – now .

    Just a suggestion for debate….

    • uknowispeaksense says:

      I have started referring to them as climate science cynics because to maintain their denial of the evidence for AGW they ahve to assume the climate scientists have an some sort of motive. In the end that makes them conspiracy theorists and poster children for lewandowsky.

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Of course the people that believe skeptics like Watts and McIntyre and everyone else are funded by Big Oil are also conspiracy theorists. But you don’t hear AGW believers talking about that. Either scientists are corrupt or they aren’t (and I don’t believe they are). So if scientists aren’t corrupt then the source of funding isn’t important. Yet places like exxonsecrets.org (funded by Greenpeace) and desmogblog (which claims “a well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign is poisoning the climate change debate” which certainly sounds like a conspiracy to me!) always try to tie skeptics to Big Oil, the Koch Brothers, etc.

        So who is more likely to believe in conspiracy theories???

        • john byatt says:

          bill seems to believe in the exxonsecrets conspiracy theory

          bill fails to see the difference between big oil funding a highly organized public relations campaign and the actual funding of science, big oil should fund science,

          bill must believe that these contrarian public relation campaigns are carried out unfunded at the expense of the scientists involved.

          I have no problem with scientists carrying out public relations campaigns, but not when the rhetoric is not backed by science and peer review

          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation-from-lindzen/

          lindzen’s campaign is pure rhetoric and has no scientific credibility

          but if lindzen wishes to travel the world giving such talks apparently at his own expense then good luck to him, if we find out that he is being funded by interests though who wish to spread misinformation, then expose him as a paid industry hack

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Big Oil DOES fund science jb. Maybe you’re unaware that Exxon funds research all over the world including research on climate?

          You did prove my point though. Apparently you believe there’s a big conspiracy with Big Oil funding corrupt scientists as fed to you by sites like exxonsecrets.org.

        • john byatt says:

          of course lindzens house of commons talk contained a misrepresentation of NASA data ,,, a claim still used today to claim that NASA is corrupting the data,

          of course after being caught out lindzen apologised but never correct his disinformation.

          so who funded this disinformation campaign

          Lindzen: “I wish to thank the Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act for the opportunity to present my views…”

          What does “the opportunity” entail, when one has been invited to cross the ocean by The Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act?

          Let’s hazard a guess, based on the peculiar emphasis of CRCCA’s energy plan:

          1. Cancel the Renewable Obligations, and all subsidies to wind turbines and solar energy.

          2. Dash for shale gas. The UK must exploit these new resources. It has been estimated that the UK has 20 trillion cubic feet of recoverable shale gas. Build gas-fired capacity and more gas storage facilities for the medium term.

          3. Tell the EU that we are unable to implement the Large Combustion Plant Directive, and that we will not close down our coal-fired power stations. Add that we will not entertain any fine or penalty for being in breach of the directive.

          Amusing to look at CRCCA’s “About” page. Guess who’s there, as “Patron?” Why, it’s Heartland’s own Bob Carter yet again! He really gets around. In fact, he’s a bit shopworn, “burnt” as the saying goes when somebody becomes too recognizable to be any longer useful.

          so bill seems to fully support the known disinformation campaigns

          .

        • john byatt says:

          of course lindzens house of commons talk contained a misrepresentation of NASA data ,,, a claim still used today to claim that NASA is corrupting the data,

          of course after being caught out lindzen apologised at RC but never corrected his disinformation.

          so who funded this disinformation campaign

          Lindzen: “I wish to thank the Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act for the opportunity to present my views…”

          What does “the opportunity” entail, when one has been invited to cross the ocean by The Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act?

          Let’s hazard a guess, based on the peculiar emphasis of CRCCA’s energy plan:

          1. Cancel the Renewable Obligations, and all subsidies to wind turbines and solar energy.

          2. Dash for shale gas. The UK must exploit these new resources. It has been estimated that the UK has 20 trillion cubic feet of recoverable shale gas. Build gas-fired capacity and more gas storage facilities for the medium term.

          3. Tell the EU that we are unable to implement the Large Combustion Plant Directive, and that we will not close down our coal-fired power stations. Add that we will not entertain any fine or penalty for being in breach of the directive.

          Amusing to look at CRCCA’s “About” page. Guess who’s there, as “Patron?” Why, it’s Heartland’s own Bob Carter yet again! He really gets around. In fact, he’s a bit shopworn, “burnt” as the saying goes when somebody becomes too recognizable to be any longer useful.

          so bill seems to fully support the known disinformation campaigns paid for by the donations of the fossil fuel industry,

          .

  3. Gregory T says:

    ukiss. I have stated in another blog, that the old adage,”Money talks and Bullshit walks”,is out of date. Bullshit is the new money and it can talk and talk and talk. Just reading the comments from the deniers,cynics or what ever the preferred title is, makes one realise that even the most basic parasites, do not kill their host, instead they maintain an equilibrium. But these people, think that the planet will maintaing the equilibrium for them, while they suck out and spew the shit, compromising that which brings life but in the end, is uncompromising. Sad.

    • uknowispeaksense says:

      Indeed. At my blog I have started blocking deniers’ comments. As far as I’m concerned, giving their idiotic unsubstantiated opinions a run keeps breath in their campaign of disinformationand garbage. Of course, I’ve already been accused of censorship and whatnot but I’ve given up caring what deniers think.

  4. john byatt says:

    The debate is heating up

    desdemona despair.net/2013/08/seven-facts-you-need-to-know-about.html

  5. john byatt says:

    Viv Forbes The Climate sceptics party blogspot

    “Each human produces over 300 kg of CO2 per year just by breathing out. There are seven billion of us. Surely everyone should be equipped with gas absorbent masks to catch all this dangerous man-made gas?

    And brewers must be forced to produce flat beer to prevent all those dangerous bubbles of carbon dioxide from reaching the atmosphere. Same goes for champagne and all those fizzy drinks.

    Bakers will have to stop using yeast and baking soda to create carbon dioxide to put all those holes in bread – nothing but unleavened dampers in future.”

    Q, is Viv an idiot, dishonest or both?

  6. john byatt says:

    Daily telegraph does a godwin

    • john byatt says:

      Jess_Rudd @Jess_RuddThanks to the Daily Tele, my long held belief has been confirmed: Dad would rock a monocle.ReplyRetweetFavorite

  7. john byatt says:

    when will the surface warming slowdown become surface warming acceleration?

    not long by the sound of it

    http://climatestate.com/magazine/2013/06/a-looming-climate-shift-will-ocean-heat-come-back-to-haunt-us/

  8. john byatt says:

    bill’s reply is typical denier, ignores the Lindzen misrepresentation link and finds something else to comment on

    Bill Jamison says:
    August 8, 2013 at 5:14 am
    Big Oil DOES fund science jb. Maybe you’re unaware that Exxon funds research all over the world including research on climate?

    You did prove my point though. Apparently you believe there’s a big conspiracy with Big Oil funding corrupt scientists as fed to you by sites like exxonsecrets.org.

    so bill the next time a denier comes here and claims that NASA has manipulated the data you now know the source for that, heartland…. bob carter…… CRCCA…… Lindzen

    you will of course then back us up we we tell him he is a retard who believes whatever the denier blogs tell him

    deal?

    I was saying that big oil should fund science not asking if they do, eg BEST

    • Bill Jamison says:

      jb this discussion was about believing in conspiracy theories. Not sure why you brought up Lindzen but whatever. He is “an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.” (wikipedia) You don’t get to be a professor at MIT without solid credentials. Yet you believe he’s in the pocket of Big Oil? You believe he tours the world (or whatever) speaking on his beliefs because he’s paid to do it? If he was a member of The Team would you believe the same thing? Or are you making him out to be a special case simply because he doesn’t say things you agree with???

      Is he the only scientist paid by Big Oil in your mind? Who else is in on this conspiracy? Is Freeman Dyson (one of the world’s leading physicists)?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_dyson

      He is very skeptical of AGW projections and is quoted as saying current climate models “do not begin to describe the real world we live in…”. Is he part of the conspiracy?

      • Dr No says:

        BJ makes an interesting point (for once). I would like to see a list of the most prominent deniers along with their credentials.For example:

        Lindzen
        Dyson
        Pielke
        Curry
        Spencer
        Salby
        Carter
        Plimer
        etc.

        (please supply more names)
        (n.b. Andrew Bolt goes at the bottom of the list)

        I, for one, would love to hear/read good rational counter arguments from their side simply because it helps scientists on their toes. Also, I enjoy a good quality debate – irrespective of who is right or wrong.

        Unfortunately, the deniers (maybe with the exception of Lindzen) always disappoint.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          jb NASA *does* manipulate the data. There’s no question of whether they change it or not. The only question is whether their changes are justified or not. Even skeptical science talks about the difference between raw and adjusted data.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=255

          In some cases the adjusted DID introduce obvious errors such as the case that Steve McIntyre discovered:

          http://www.livescience.com/1812-nasa-data-goof-fuels-global-warming-skepticism.html

          I’m glad you admit that you’re a conspiracy theorist that believes that some scientists like Lindzen are actually paid (by Big Oil right?) to spread misinformation. Is it really that easy to buy a professor at MIT? If so then how can we trust ANY climate scientist when one with such a high profile position at one of the leading universities in the world.

        • john byatt says:

          Bill ” adjustment equals manipulation”

          SKS

          What The Science Says:
          Independent studies using different software, different methods, and different data sets yield very similar results. The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions. This increase cannot be explained as an artifact of the adjustment process, the decrease in station numbers, or other non-climatological factors. Natural temperature measurements also confirm the general accuracy of the instrumental temperature record.

        • Rational Wiki on Steve McIntyre, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre. The McIntyre factor rings all too true.

          Looks like he’s given up now after throwing his toys out of his pram. Despite his best (worst) efforts, the hockey stick is being replicated again and again and again. Now he’s outing his professional jealousy.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          McIntyre’s little rant, replicated at WTFIWWAW was an own goal of monumental proportions. In equating climate scientists to high school science teachers he also admitted he’s not at the same level. Where does that put him?

      • john byatt says:

        In his talk he claimed that NASA had manipulated the data, that is not consistent with a person who is only seeking the scientific reality.It is the method of a criminal.

        furthermore, as he has also stated that 2 X CO2 will only produce a global temperature of .9DegC he then claimed that we were already at 2 X CO2e
        and thus he was correct,

        This is misinformation The Radiative forcing from 2 X CO2 is about 3.7Wm2 the current forcing is 1.7Wm2

        there is little differnce between forcing for CO2 and CO2e.

        Lindzen has purposely ignored negative forcings and OHC, he is paid to spread misinformation using his own previous well deserved credibility,

        suggest for once reading the RC and SKS link.

        Make your own case for why you believe his tripe, but do not expect us to remain unskeptical of his motives.

        .

  9. john byatt says:

    This is what the Koch brothers’ business model is producing. The Koch PAC is the largest oil and gas contributor—donating more than even ExxonMobil. Koch Industries sends 90 percent of these contributions to Republicans.
    It’s the fourth largest lobbyist in the oil and gas industry, funding $67,042,064 to groups denying climate change science since 1997. And emits over 300 million tons of greenhouse gases a year.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/08/1229728/-The-photo-the-Koch-brothers-really-don-t-want-you-to-see#

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Wow well now it’s obvious that Greenpeace also believes in a major conspiracy – not just about climate change but to “take over democracy”! Wow.

      “See our 2012 update Koch Brothers Exposed: Fueling Climate Denial and Privatizing Democracy, demonstrating how the Kochs are part of a 40-year old blueprint to dominate democracy.”

      That’s from the link which dailykos uses as their source for the claim that Koch is funding climate denial.

      I guess now we know who really believes in conspiracy theories!

      • john byatt says:

        Bill denies that Koch brothers fund climate change denier groups,

        “it is just a conspiracy theory”

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

        • john byatt says:

          And bill still is unable to justify Lindzens misinformation, ignores the criminal intent

          again he is in denial

      • Bill Jamison says:

        jb does that quote I provided sound like a conspiracy theory to you? Saying the Koch Brothers have “a 40-year old blueprint to dominate democracy.”??? Really? You believe that crap? And yet that’s the same source of the claim that the Koch Brothers spent $67 million on climate denial.

        Your excuse seems to be “it’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a fact”. I think the “birthers” and “9/11 truthers” would also make the same claim. People that believe in a conspiracy theory always believe it’s true.

        Have you ever thought that maybe Lindzen really believes the things he says?

  10. john byatt says:

    The Arctic sea ice extent is holding up, but what about the condition of the ice,?

    have not seen it this bad before,

    http://iceweb1.cis.ec.gc.ca/Prod20/page3.xhtml

  11. john byatt says:

    ABC Radio @amworldtodaypmWhat’s behind the shock resignation of Kim Williams from News Corpse? Details on The World Today at 12:10ReplyRetweetFavorite

  12. john byatt says:

    Top 16 issues for australian voters compass results

    1 economy
    2 asylum seekers
    3 health
    4 climate change

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-09/vote-compass-data-results-important-issues/4872896

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Well yeah they think climate change is important after being erroneously told by their government that thousands of people are going to die every year from heat related causes! That’s the danger of such alarmist misinformation – people are lead to believe things that aren’t true.

      • john byatt says:

        well i would say that as Australians have suffered from extreme weather events over the past few years some are now starting to wake up to the reality.

        in any case these issues do not necessarily equate to concern

        eg asylum seekers, half may think we are too tough the other half not tough enough,

        that info will take a bit longer. they are important issues to australians, that is all we can say

  13. john byatt says:

    I thought that Morner was just an idiot, this would indicate that he is being funded to spread rubbish

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/a-mournful-application-of-care-and-skill/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: