Do Facts Matter To Conservative Republicans? Global Warming.

[Teallaura]

It shows that the majority of conservative Republicans have views out of line with the scientific evidence on global warming. If you don't think that's significant, then that's your problem.

I'll leave you with the following quote:

"Causes of the Global Warming Observed since the 19th Century"
http://file.scirp.org/Html/24283.html

"In contrast, the level of skepticism regarding global warming among the general public, at least in the United States, remains much higher. In the annual Gallup envi- ronment poll, the percentage of Americans who cited “pollution from human activities” as the major cause of the observed temperature increase was 50 percent in 2010 and 52 percent in 2011, while the percentage of those citing “natural changes in the environment” as the major cause was 46 percent in 2010 and 43 percent in 2011. But, as recently as 2008 the percentage of the pub- lic responding “pollution from human activities” was twenty percentage points higher than those choosing “natural changes in the environment”. Yet the number of Americans who say they understand the issue “very well” or “fairly well” has increased from 69 percent in 2001 to 80 percent in the 2011 survey [5]. While the recognition of humanity’s role in climate change has become stronger within the scientific community in the past decade, the opposite has happened among the American public. In turn, the weak public acceptance of humanity’s role in climate change has made policy choices in favor of emissions reductions a political im- possibility so far (401-402)."

No, it tells us that: One side's position is in line with the science, and the other side's isn't.

I suggest you come to grips with that fact.

So you ARE arguing causation - that it isn't happenstance. The source still can't support the argument. It's just correlation - you are making a serious analytical error, just exactly like I said.

I suggest you come to grips with it.

[Jichard]

So you ARE arguing causation - that it isn't happenstance.

Nope. I repeatedly told you what I was arguing. For example:

"Again, read what I actually wrote:

"One side's position is in line with the science, and the other side's isn't."

Nothing you've said rebuts what I wrote.

Which addresses none of what I wrote, but instead attacks a strawman you erected.

My actual point was that a majority of conservative Republicans have a position out of line with what the scientific evidence shows on global warming, while that is not the case for most Democrats, especially liberal Democrats. Please address that point, as opposed to attacking the strawman you erected. If I wanted to make a causal claim, then I would have appealed to a separate set of evidence that I know of, not what I quoted in the OP."

So you're either mistaken when you claim otherwise, or you're lying. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the former, but that's sort of hard to do when you willfully say I'm arguing something I'm not arguing, even after I tell you things like ths:

"If I wanted to make a causal claim, then I would have appealed to a separate set of evidence that I know of, not what I quoted in the OP."

The source still can't support the argument. It's just correlation - you are making a serious analytical error, just exactly like I said.

I suggest you come to grips with it.

Again, please stop making up claims I did not make, and then pretending I made. For the umpttenth time, here is what I said:

"One side's position is in line with the science, and the other side's isn't."

Please stop trying to strawman that into something else.

[Mountain Man]

Speaking of facts about global warming...

Source: The Register

A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.

The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.

In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.

[...]

Global models at the moment assume total emissions of isoprene from all sources - trees, plants, plankton, the lot - of around 1.9 megatons per year. But, according to the new research, the newly discovered "abiotic" process releases as much as 3.5 megatons on its own - which "could explain the recent disagreements" between models and reality.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09...climate_talks/

© Copyright Original Source

Tell me again how global warming is "settled science".

[Sam]

Speaking of facts about global warming...

Source: The Register

A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.

The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.

In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.

[...]

Global models at the moment assume total emissions of isoprene from all sources - trees, plants, plankton, the lot - of around 1.9 megatons per year. But, according to the new research, the newly discovered "abiotic" process releases as much as 3.5 megatons on its own - which "could explain the recent disagreements" between models and reality.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09...climate_talks/

© Copyright Original Source

Tell me again how global warming is "settled science".

The source article (will have to link later, as I'm on a tablet) doesn't mention anything about resolving a temperature discrepancy between models and records. That appears to be an interpolation of reporters. And since, as the source article notes, isoprene's main effect on cooling is the formation of clouds and precipitation, it's likely that current models already account for the real effect of isoprene, even if the number is slightly off. And, on that note, the study projects an extra 0.2 to 3.5 megatons of isoprene production, out of more than 500 megatons s produced globally. That's not going to radically change existing models, I'm guessing.

[Mountain Man]

Never mind that every model predicting runaway global warming has not only been wrong but has been drastically wrong, so you're right, global warming alarmists probably aren't going to adjust their models to account for new information because the point of the models is not to be accurate but to be politically useful.

spencers-graph-models-vs-reality.jpg
http://higherrevolution.com/2014/01/...lobal-warming/

This graph makes the discrepency between models and reality even more clear:

model_vs_reality_simple.jpg
http://objectivescience.net/warming-...-flat-earther/

[Jichard]

Never mind that every model predicting runaway global warming has not only been wrong but has been drastically wrong, so you're right, global warming alarmists probably aren't going to adjust their models to account for new information because the point of the models is not to be accurate but to be politically useful.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]10253[/ATTACH]
http://higherrevolution.com/2014/01/...lobal-warming/

This graph makes the discrepency between models and reality even more clear:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]10254[/ATTACH]
http://objectivescience.net/warming-...-flat-earther/

That's just the usual crackpot nonsense from denialist sources. You might as well cite AIDS denialist websites, when discussing immunology. Please cite credible sources.

Anyway, you seem to be repeating the usual denialist falsehood about how a pause in global warming refutes climate models. This is ridiculous, and has already been rebutted in the scientific literature. For example:

"Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...14GL060478/pdf

"Climate change deniers have been able to dismiss all the model results and attribute the warming to natural causes.

Whereas scientific theories can never be proven true “beyond reasonable doubt”, they can be falsified by single decisive experiments. This was the approach taken in Lovejoy [2014] where a GCM-free methodology was proposed to determine the amount of the warming, the effective climate sensitivity, and—most importantly—the probability of the warming being due to natural causes. For the first two, the results were close to those of the AR5: for global temperature changes, compare 0.87 ± 0.11 K (1880–2004) with 0.85 ± 0.20 K (1880–2012), and for CO2 doubling, 3.08 ± 0.58 with 3 ± 0.75 K (one standard deviation). However, the probability of a centennial scale giant fluctuation was estimated as ≤0.1%, a new result that allows a confident rejection of the natural variability hypothesis. At the moment, the necessary preindustrial centennial scale probabilities can only be reliably determined from multiproxy reconstructions (and for the extremes, with the help of some nonlinear geophysics theory). While the falsity of the natural variability hypothesis does not prove the veracity of the anthropogenic one, it certainly raises its credibility. The two most cogent remaining skeptic arguments—that the models are wrong and the variability is natural—are thus either irrelevant or are disproved by the new approach [emphasis added].

The key innovations were the use of the CO2 radiative forcing as a linear surrogate for all the anthropogenic effects and the use of scaling fluctuation analysis on multiproxy temperatures to deduce bounds on the extreme probability tails of centennial scale fluctuation probability distributions. The first was justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity, emissions (both warming and cooling: greenhouse gases and aerosols) and other anthropogenic effects and confirmed by statistical analysis of the residuals. The second was justified by an empirical determination of probability distributions of fluctuations and the well documented scaling of preindustrial temperatures in the macroweather regime [...] (4704-4705)

[...]

As data and models have improved, the thesis of anthropogenic warming has become increasingly convincing, and today we appear to be reaching a state of small incremental improvements. Unless other approaches are explored, the AR6 may simply reiterate the AR5's “extremely likely” assessment (and possibly even the range 1.5–4.5 K). We may still be battling the climate skeptic arguments that the models are untrustworthy and that the variability is mostly natural in origin. To be fully convincing, GCM-free approaches are needed: we must quantify the natural variability and reject the hypothesis that the warming is no more than a giant century scale fluctuation. With the help of nonlinear geophysics ideas on fluctuations and scaling, this has been done [emphasis added]. By lumping all sources of natural variability together (i.e., internal and external) and by using the CO2 forcing as a surrogate for all anthropogenic effects, it is possible to avoid assumptions about the radiative effects of aerosols, cloud radiation feedbacks, and other difficult issues.

Since 1998, the warming has noticeably slowed down—and due to a lack of a convincing model based explanation—the IPCC AR5 resorted to the vague: “Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends” (see Hawkins et al. [2014]). In this paper, we have shown that the pause has a short return time and that it follows an equal magnitude pre-pause warming event: the pause thus has a convincing statistical explanation [emphasis added] (4708-9)."

And since you like graphs so much, here's a graph from an actually reputable scientific source:

"Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations and Northern Hemisphere temperatures"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6225/988.full.pdf

F1.large.jpg

Anyway have fun continuing to evade the evidence that shows you're wrong:

Ok, since you seem to think that you're so well-informed on this subject that you can accuse scientists of untoward data manipulation, please go ahead and tell me how the scientists manipulated the data, with references to the contents relevant scientific paper. I already know you won't be able to do this, since you likely didn't read the scientific research, and are instead going off falsehoods fed to you by the conservative press (ex: breitbert.com). You acept those falsehoods because it's what you want to hear.

In fact, I'll make it super-easy for you and link you to the paper:

"Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/34.../1469.full.pdf

"Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature."

*cue your rationalizations for why you are unable to discuss the contents of the scientific research in question*

[Jichard]

Speaking of facts about global warming...

Source: The Register

A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.

The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.

In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.

[...]

Global models at the moment assume total emissions of isoprene from all sources - trees, plants, plankton, the lot - of around 1.9 megatons per year. But, according to the new research, the newly discovered "abiotic" process releases as much as 3.5 megatons on its own - which "could explain the recent disagreements" between models and reality.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09...climate_talks/

© Copyright Original Source

Here's the actual scientific paper, as opposed to the nonsense posted on the crackpot conservative websites you frequent:

"Unravelling new processes at interfaces: 2 photochemical isoprene production at the sea surface"
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388

Where does the paper rebut the claim that global warming happens and humans have causes most of the recent global warming? The answer is: nowhere. But you probably didn't know that since you probably didn't read the paper. Instead, you just accepted what the conservative press tells you, even when the conservative press is misrepresenting the scientific research.

Tell me again how global warming is "settled science".

Global warming is settled science. We know global warming happens because scientists have measured it, and we know most of the recent global warming is anthropogenic. Nothing you've claimed shows otherwise. You're engaged in a thoroughy dishonest tactic, common to denialists ranging from AGW denialists to AIDS denialists and Young Earth creationists: you point out new information scientists learn, and then pretend this new information shows out that all the previous science isn't settled. For example, AIDS denialists often point out new discoveries about HIV, and pretend this shows that HIV causes AIDS is not settled science. Similarly, many Young Earth creationists pretend that new discoveries in how evolution occurs, show that evolution didn't occur and that evolution happens is not settled science. And in your case, you're pretending recent research rebuts AGW, so you can pretend that global warming is not settled science.


Really, it's ridiculous the length to which denialists like you will go, in your attempt to misrepresent scientific research for your political goals:

"How the growth of denialism undermines public health"
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6950.extract

"Espousing unproved myths and legends is widespread during the festive season, but some groups hold views contrary to the available evidence throughout the year. This phenomenon, known as denialism, is becoming more elaborate and widespread, and poses a danger to public health

[...]

Yet other people hold views that are equally untrue and do so with an unshakeable faith, never admitting they are wrong however much contradictory evidence they are presented with.

Some of these views are harmless, but others cost lives. It is easy to think of contemporary examples. “HIV is not the cause of AIDS.”2 “The measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine cannot be considered safe.”3 “Second hand smoke is simply an irritant and there is no conclusive evidence that it is dangerous.”4 And, with potentially the greatest consequences for our species, “the evidence that the world is warming is inconclusive, and, if not, the evidence that global warming is caused by anthropogenic carbon emissions is unproven.”5

[...]

The term “denialism” has been coined to describe this phenomenon. First popularised by the American Hoofnagle brothers, one a lawyer and the other a physiologist, it involves the use of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate and unresolved debate about matters generally considered to be settled. The term can be traced to people who deny the existence of the Holocaust, but it has subsequently been applied much more widely. Denialism can be recognised by the presence of six key features (box). It is, however, important not to confuse denialism with genuine scepticism, which is essential for scientific progress. Sceptics are willing to change their minds when confronted with new evidence; deniers are not.

[...]

Characteristics of denialism

[...]

Manufacture of doubt: Denialists highlight any scientific disagreement (whether real or imagined) as evidence that the entire topic is contested, and argue that it is thus premature to take action."

[Jichard]

Speaking of facts about global warming...

Source: The Register

A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.

The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.

In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.

[...]

Global models at the moment assume total emissions of isoprene from all sources - trees, plants, plankton, the lot - of around 1.9 megatons per year. But, according to the new research, the newly discovered "abiotic" process releases as much as 3.5 megatons on its own - which "could explain the recent disagreements" between models and reality.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09...climate_talks/

© Copyright Original Source

Tell me again how global warming is "settled science".

By the way, why do you trust nonsense written by Lewis Page at The Register? You do realize that he misrepresents scientific research he hasn't read, contradicts scientists regarding research those same scientists did, etc. (ex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3vIWD4tAHc)? Why do you rely on people like this for your information on science? Why don't you just read the scientific papers that present the scientific research, as opposed to relying on uninformed crackpots like Page?