 |
| Click to Enlarge |
In his climate change denial letter in last week’s edition, Aaron Reesman said “Anyone who has studied the geologic history of Wisconsin would tell you that if it wasn’t for climate change, we would be sitting on the bottom of an ancient inland sea.” Well I’m geologist so I guess that means me. And like the rest of his letter Mr. Reesman has misinterpreted the facts, leading to erroneous conclusions.
Yes Wisconsin was once under a warm shallow sea, but what altered that was hundreds of millions of years of plate tectonics, which lifted Wisconsin up and moved it north, thereby slowly changing the climate, not the other way around. This is the problem I have observed repeatedly with the anti-science folks. They cobble together and misinterpret a series of facts in a vain attempt to stick their finger in the dike holding back reality.
Briefly, here a few simple facts. Carbon dioxide measurably absorbs more heat from our sun than our natural mix of atmospheric gases, fact. Since the industrial revolution we humans have measurably increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere 30% by extracting over 400 billion of tons of fossil fuels from our ground and putting them into our air, fact. You cannot change the composition of a dynamic system, as we have, without changing the properties of that system and how it behaves, fact. Just because it’s been cold recently in North America, does not mean that's true for the rest of our planet or that the laws of physics have been suspended. Our climate is changing fast, we are responsible for that and we are beginning to pay the price, which for some of us will be very high indeed depending on where we live.
Furthermore, Mr. Reeseman is simply wrong about increasing global temperatures.
From the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: The year 2013 tied with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average and marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the annual temperature was above the long-term average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. To date, including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occured during the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013. The global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970.
As someone who has formally studied geological history and paleo-climates, I too was once a climate change skeptic. But that is no longer possible with an honest examination of the mountains of evidence from the scientific community supporting the fact that we are changing our climate, and much faster than it has ever changed before on its own. Individual action is a good thing, but we cannot solve this problem individually, only collectively. We’re all in this together, even the deniers. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like we’re up to that challenge collectively as a species.
15 comments:
Holding back reality? Have you been outside this year? (sorry, I couldn't resist. We all know that weather does not equal climate unless it confirms the religion of Mann)
Second, you censored someone else? I thought what we had was something special. I'd write something pithy and you would respond in the only way you could given your limited abilities. And now I catch you censoring someone else? It really hurts sean, it really hurts. Heh.
And speaking of reality, did ya see that the APS (American Physical Society) is jumping ship on Mann made warming? No? Look here. But what would "a leading voice for physics and an authoritative source of physics information for the advancement of physics and the benefit of humanity" know about reality, eah? Heh.
Well Nemo, I didn't realize that eastern North America constituted the entire globe. Have you looked what the winter has been like in the American West? How about Alaska? Siberia?
Oh and quick click on your link got me: "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist."
So I did your homework for you, AGAIN. And look what I found, More Nemo-tistical Non-sense, AGAIN!
The APS is NOT jumping ship on anthropogenic climate change. They are in the routine process of reviewing their statement, which they do for ALL their statements every 5 years!
This is yet another example of why you are either STUPID or DISHONEST and such an incredible waste of time! IDIOT!
This is exactly the kind of bullshit I was referring to when I said: "This is the problem I have observed repeatedly with the anti-science folks. They cobble together and misinterpret a series of facts in a vain attempt to stick their finger in the dike holding back reality."
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate-review.cfm
From The APS Website:
The American Physical Society formally reviews its statements every five years. In accordance with that process, the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) formed a Subcommittee to review its Climate Change Statement. The members of the Subcommittee are: Steven Koonin (chair), Phillip Coyle, Scott Kemp, Tim Meyer, Robert Rosner and Susan Seestrom. The Charge to the Subcommittee was approved by POPA and the APS Executive Board and is included in the Supporting Documents links.
As part of the POPA-approved process, on January 8, 2014 the Subcommittee convened a workshop with six climate experts. The Subcommittee used that meeting to delve more deeply into aspects of the IPCC consensus view of the physical basis of climate science. In doing so, it hoped to illuminate for itself, for the APS membership, and for the broader public both the certainties and boundaries of current climate science understanding. The framing document, expert bios, and the complete transcript for the workshop are included in the Supporting Documents links.
The workshop was the first step in a deliberative process. As a membership organization of over 50,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous scientific standards in developing all its statements. If the Subcommittee recommends updating the existing APS Climate Change Statement, then, consistent with APS by-laws, all APS members will be given an opportunity to review the statement and provide input during a comment period.
Oh and by the way, the APS has not issued a new statement yet either as part of this process.
You're an idiot, but you're a useful idiot in a way, because I'm going to use your mindless and error filled posting on this as an example, which I'm going to spread all over facebook to underscore my point about the "mentality" of people like you who insist on falling into this state of denial and fight to hold back reality with earplugs made of dung firmly inserted. Thank you.
Wow, you go tree tapping for a few days (135 Maples tapped, about 225 to go!) and sean Cris 'Havoc!', and lets slip the dogs of rhetorical war. Cool!
You seem to think that I said that weather equals climate when in fact I stated the opposite. We really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
I'll continue the verbal pasting of your rather weak replies later, those 255 trees aren't going to spile themselves.
Later tater! And thanks for not censoring me this time.
Way to skip right over the complete inaccuracy of your American Physical Society statement, but then getting it wrong and following up with intellectual dishonesty is your strong suit.
I'm probably going to go back to deletion and stop wasting time further embarrassing you by pointing out what an idiot you are.
At the risk of deletion, here is the link about the APS reconsideration...
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/aps-reconsiders-its-position-on-climate-scientific-storm-on-the-way/
Interesting on the new appointments to the committee, eah? If the APS revisit options to restore their reputation rather than some members grant money, will you recant on the whole Mann-Made Global warming cult or are you in to deep?
Once again, Nemo goes to some blog, this time in Australia to support his misinformation about the routine APS review process (more on that to follow). Below is the information on the blogger that is available on her blog. Note the complete absence of any reference to her educational background or experience on researching climate change. This is the kind of junk one seeks out when trying to support ones predetermined conclusion on a subject.
Jo Nova is the stage name of Joanne Codling. She took up the name in 1998 for privacy reasons when she started work with Channel Nine as the host of a childrens TV series. Professionally, everything since then was done as Joanne Nova — the book, the TV series, her speaking and radio programs, and the joannenova.com.au website, which was registered way back around the year 2000.
Joanne spent five years touring Australia with Shell Questacon Science Circus. For her first full time job, she managed the half million dollar exhibition with a team of twelve. As an associate lecturer at ANU Joanne helped to develop the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication in its earliest years. Her favourite hands-on science experiments were published as a book in 2003.
Since 2008 Joanne has focused on the science of monetary systems, financial history, the gold market, and has also become heavily involved in communicating the science of carbon’s role in “Climate Change”. Joanne attended the UNFCCC in Bali Dec 07, has spoken in New York at the International Climate Change Conference, and to Senate staffers in Washington DC, as well as to Australian leaders of business and banking at Consilium, for the Centre for Independent Studies.
Joanne has delivered keynote speeches at conferences on the latest advances in science. Her favourite topics include discussing the medical revolution and how we may all outlive our superannuation.
Joanne has also managed programs bringing hands-on science to street kids in Melbourne and remote Aboriginal communities as well as earning money as a cartoonist, graphic designer and illustrator. She is into liberty, health, money, history, and climate science, as well as anthropology, and Austrian economics.
I must provide the link again to the APS Site (go to the credible source) on their Climate Change Statement Formal Review Process to demonstrate the LIE being promulgated by JoNova Blogger and Nemo's other sources on this topic:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate-review.cfm
EXCERPT: The American Physical Society formally reviews its statements every five years. In accordance with that process, the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) formed a Subcommittee to review its Climate Change Statement. The members of the Subcommittee are: Steven Koonin (chair), Phillip Coyle, Scott Kemp, Tim Meyer, Robert Rosner and Susan Seestrom. The Charge to the Subcommittee was approved by POPA and the APS Executive Board and is included in the Supporting Documents links.
But here is what JoNova says:
EXCERPT: But nearly four and a half years after 160 members bitterly complained about the American Physical Society (APS) statement on climate change, they are finally revisiting it, and there are very promising signs.
Notice the attempt to deceive by stating that they're "finally revisiting it". An honest commentator would not need to obfuscate the fact that this is a routine review conducted every 5 years.
Furthermore: here are the bios of the people involved: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-bios.pdf
I would also note the none of the three scientists that the climate changer deniers are placing their faith in, Richard Lindzen, John Christie, and Judith Curry, dispute the science of climate change or that humans are contributing to the change by increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere.
They do however, have diverging opinions on the projected potential severity of this change, which of course the denial blogs ignore.
Fair enough, diverging opinions are a good thing on any panel so long as they're honest and informed. I see no further reason to hash out bloggy bantering put forth ANemonous. It's time to wait for them to conduct their deliberations and put forth their Statement.
Agreed (about the "bloggy bantering") but I would like to get you on record. Since you seem to respect the APS when they seem to support your cult , will you continue to respect them when they tear it down or will you cling to Mann-Made Warming like a creationist clutching his bible?
I will read what they say with an open mind and take it in context.
You?
I'm always open minded. Reading your ramblings have changed the way I view capital gain taxes, bringing my view more in line with reality. If I can find a few nuggets of truth panning your words, most would agree that my open mindness is beyond question.
Post a Comment