In the Press: Joe Bastardi: Obama Prostituting Climate Science

[HailMan06]

Nope, SOC, that's another swing and a miss for you. I didn't ask it took for the Younger Dryas stadial to end, nor did I ask for research on rapid climate change. I asked the pretty simple question of where you got your value of "about 15 years" for the end of the last Ice Age. You still have not answered that question.

In plain English, "about 15 years" means more than 10 years and fewer than 20 years. Agree? A value that specific far exceeds the resolution of most proxies so my question is a fair one. Is that a published value from peer-reviewed research for the end of the last Ice Age - or is it just your opinion masquerading as research? There is nothing wrong with offering your opinion of topics (most of us on this forum have done so), but when you claim your opinion as fact then you're being dishonest.

So please provide us the link to the "about 15 year" value - or fess up to your actions.

SOC was banned so I wouldn't bother responding to him.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Nope, SOC, that's another swing and a miss for you. I didn't ask it took for the Younger Dryas stadial to end, nor did I ask for research on rapid climate change. I asked the pretty simple question of where you got your value of "about 15 years" for the end of the last Ice Age. You still have not answered that question.

In plain English, "about 15 years" means more than 10 years and fewer than 20 years. Agree? A value that specific far exceeds the resolution of most proxies so my question is a fair one. Is that a published value from peer-reviewed research for the end of the last Ice Age - or is it just your opinion masquerading as research? There is nothing wrong with offering your opinion of topics (most of us on this forum have done so), but when you claim your opinion as fact then you're being dishonest.

So please provide us the link to the "about 15 year" value - or fess up to your actions.

The end of the Younger Dryas was the end of the last ice age. That's what the paper in question was investigating.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Younger_Dryas.html

Measurements of oxygen isotopes from the GISP2 ice core suggest the ending of the Younger Dryas took place over just 40–50 years in three discrete steps, each lasting five years. Other proxy data, such as dust concentration, and snow accumulation, suggest an even more rapid transition, requiring about a 7 °C (13 °F) warming in just a few years.[6][7][28][29] Total warming in Greenland was 10 ± 4 °C (18 ± 7 °F).[30]

[GaWx]

Ooops, lol! Welcome back, SoC! How was your vacation?

[HailMan06]

I typed too soon.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Ooops, lol! Welcome back, SoC! How was your vacation?

Haha, thanks man. I missed you guys.

[PhillipS]

The end of the Younger Dryas was the end of the last ice age. That's what the paper in question was investigating.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Younger_Dryas.html

 

 

Another swing, another miss, . . . and you're out!  Nice attempt at dodging my question instead of answering it but the Younger Dryas wasn't the end of the last ice age.  As I'm sure you well know, the last ice age, properly known as the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), ended long before the Younger Dryas which was just the most recent of three stadial (cooler) periods that followed the end of the LGM.  The Younger Dryas was preceded by the Older Dryas and the Oldest Dryas stadials.  All of which were separated by relatively warm interstadial periods.  The end of the LGM and the end of the Younger Dryas took place thousands of years apart so the time it took for the Younger Dryas to end has no relevance to my question about your claim about the end of the last ice age, i.e. the LGM.

 

So your claim that  "The last ice age ended in about 15 years." is simply not true.  And your repeated attempts to dodge and obfuscate the issue indicates it wasn't an honest mistake.  The logical conclusion from your actions is that you are being deliberately dishonest in your posts, something others have pointed out on other threads.  I don't know why you choose to lie but as far as I'm concerned, your credibility is a statistically insignificant value above zero, and I encourage others on this forum to keep grains of salt handy when reading your posts.

[WeatherRusty]

Another swing, another miss, . . . and you're out!  Nice attempt at dodging my question instead of answering it but the Younger Dryas wasn't the end of the last ice age.  As I'm sure you well know, the last ice age, properly known as the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), ended long before the Younger Dryas which was just the most recent of three stadial (cooler) periods that followed the end of the LGM.  The Younger Dryas was preceded by the Older Dryas and the Oldest Dryas stadials.  All of which were separated by relatively warm interstadial periods.  The end of the LGM and the end of the Younger Dryas took place thousands of years apart so the time it took for the Younger Dryas to end has no relevance to my question about your claim about the end of the last ice age, i.e. the LGM.

 

So your claim that  "The last ice age ended in about 15 years." is simply not true.  And your repeated attempts to dodge and obfuscate the issue indicates it wasn't an honest mistake.  The logical conclusion from your actions is that you are being deliberately dishonest in your posts, something others have pointed out on other threads.  I don't know why you choose to lie but as far as I'm concerned, your credibility is a statistically insignificant value above zero, and I encourage others on this forum to keep grains of salt handy when reading your posts.

 

It is difficult to deliniate and define a continuum process such as the end of the last ice age. I think it is fair to say that the Younger Dryas constitued the last remaining vestige of ice age related variability before the Holocene interglacial was established for good.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Another swing, another miss, . . . and you're out! Nice attempt at dodging my question instead of answering it but the Younger Dryas wasn't the end of the last ice age. As I'm sure you well know, the last ice age, properly known as the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), ended long before the Younger Dryas

The end of the younger dryas was the end of the last "ice age", as defined by sedimentary deposits and isotope ratios in the ice core data. If you're hinging your entire argunent on a loose definition of what constitutes an "ice age", then I don't think we're going to make any progress here.

[StudentOfClimatology]

It is difficult to deliniate and define a continuum process such as the end of the last ice age. I think it is fair to say that the Younger Dryas constitued the last remaining vestige of ice age related variability before the Holocene interglacial was established for good.

Agree 100% with this. The climate at the time was much more reminiscent of an ice age than an interstadial, which are almost always stable.

[PhillipS]

It is difficult to deliniate and define a continuum process such as the end of the last ice age. I think it is fair to say that the Younger Dryas constitued the last remaining vestige of ice age related variability before the Holocene interglacial was established for good.

 

I agree with you that it is difficult to define the end of the LGM, but I disagree that the Younger Dryas is the best choice.  When you examine the scientific literature you'll find a plethora of termination dates, all based on different criteria.  But the one defining characteristic of any glacial period is the presence of widespread glacial ice.  Agree?  And the termination of a glacial period is marked by the melting of much of that glacial ice and is evidenced by the resulting sea level rise.  I believe we've all seen this plot of the reconstructed sea level changes during the latter stages of the LGM:

 

 

The deglaciation started roughly 18K years ago and largely finished around 8K years ago.  This roughly 10K year period includes all three Dryas stadials but none of those cold periods reversed the deglaciation.  They were cold, possibly very cold, periods but none of them restored the glacial ice sheets which were the defining characteristic of the LGM.  They weren't a return to the glacial conditions present during the LGM any more than our winters today are.  So how can any of the Dryas stadials be the critical criterion for determining the end of the LGM?

 

My whole point in bringing up this issue ( which I should have explained more clearly) was to point out how disingenuous or ignorant SOC's claim that during this 10K year continuum of deglaciation there is a period of "about 15 years" that marks the end of the LGM.  I have offered him several opportunities to educate me if I'm wrong, or educate himself if he's wrong, but all he's chosen to do is stick by his claim and try to obfuscate the issue.  I see no honesty or integrity in his actions.   

[StudentOfClimatology]

I agree with you that it is difficult to define the end of the LGM, but I disagree that the Younger Dryas is the best choice. When you examine the scientific literature you'll find a plethora of termination dates, all based on different criteria. But the one defining characteristic of any glacial period is the presence of widespread glacial ice. Agree? And the termination of a glacial period is marked by the melting of much of that glacial ice and is evidenced by the resulting sea level rise. I believe we've all seen this plot of the reconstructed sea level changes during the latter stages of the LGM:

So your "criteria" is global ice sheet coverage? That's fine, but I'm not using that as my "criteria" because it does not reflect global temperatures on a high enough resolution. I prefer to look at isotope ratios in the GISP2 ice core set, as they actually reflect temperatures, directly. It's either a 1-1 or 2-1 interpolation, so fairly high resolution, up to 5yrs in some cases.

The isotope data suggests that the global circulations shifted abruptly, over a decade or so, into the interglacial state. Global temperatures tracked this shift, in relative synchronization.

[Wannabehippie]

What about John Coleman saying that climate change is hogwash and that he has "3000+ scientists" willing to back him up. He also claims that he is a scientist and knows that it is hogwash.

But John Coleman, despite being the founder of the Weather Channel, is not a scientist. He holds no science degrees. He was a journalism major in college. 

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/10/27/weather-channel-co-founder-john-coleman-climate-change-myth

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/nov/03/weather-channel-founder-not-credible-on-global-warming

 

The man has zero credibility on climate change and should be ignored IMHO.

[LithiaWx]

JB is treated like god when it comes to climate change in the SE forum. It is really pathetic and embarrassing for my region. Pretty much a Forum of climate change deniers and tea party wing nuts.

[JBG]

JB is treated like god when it comes to climate change in the SE forum. It is really pathetic and embarrassing for my region. Pretty much a Forum of climate change deniers and tea party wing nuts.

I don't believein climate change. But I am a liberal Democrat, and a left-winger. Go figure.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I don't believein climate change. But I am a liberal Democrat, and a left-winger. Go figure.

How can you not believe in "climate change"? I guess the ice sheets just decided to build and retreat on their own?

Wow..

[HailMan06]

I don't believein climate change. But I am a liberal Democrat, and a left-winger. Go figure.

No you're not.

[JBG]

How can you not believe in "climate change"? I guess the ice sheets just decided to build and retreat on their own?

Wow..

It makes all the sense in the world that an interglacial would take some time in melting away massive accumulations of ice. Do you remember that back in the 1970's the talk was of global cooling?

 

I am tired of the political left trying to guilt-trip us into a massive redistribution scheme for the benefit of the thugs leading the (nor really) developing world, in the guise of fighting climate change. Do you really think that even if Kyoto or its progeny were fully implemented it would change a single temperature by a single degree in a single place?

You've got to be kidding.

No you're not.

I'm not what?

I should know my party affiliation.

[HailMan06]

I'm not what?

I should know my party affiliation.

You're not liberal. You may be a registered Democrat (I have no way of telling) but you really haven't posted anything progressive here.

[JBG]

You're not liberal. You may be a registered Democrat (I have no way of telling) but you really haven't posted anything progressive here.

If Kyoto and/or Copenhagen were implemented the amount of progress the world and its economy would make would be very limited.

[Hambone]

You're not liberal. You may be a registered Democrat (I have no way of telling) but you really haven't posted anything progressive here.

Liberalism and Progressivism aren't the same.

[JBG]

Liberalism and Progressivism aren't the same.

If anything "liberalism" means being in favor of liberty and reduced government. Think Adam Smith. But I am both liberal and progressive.

[StudentOfClimatology]

If anything "liberalism" means being in favor of liberty and reduced government. Think Adam Smith. But I am both liberal and progressive.

Why do you doubt the scientific evidence for AGW, though? I'm asking this because I myself was a raging denier for an extended period time, and thought I had good reasons to be. However, none of those reasons were political, as yours seem to be.

In my case, I was misinterpreting the relationship between energy flow, emissivity, and capacity. Amazing how far a good education can go.

[JBG]

Why do you doubt the scientific evidence for AGW, though? I'm asking this because I myself was a raging denier for an extended period time, and thought I had good reasons to be. However, none of those reasons were political, as yours seem to be.

Mine are not political. The theory seems to be more of a religion than a science, where non-believers are treated the way "non-conformists" were treated during the Inquisition.

I am against making policy decisions on what feels good. Again, I challenge anyone to prove that any contemplated actions would have any effect on the problem.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Mine are not political. The theory seems to be more of a religion than a science, where non-believers are treated the way "non-conformists" were treated during the Inquisition.

I am against making policy decisions on what feels good. Again, I challenge anyone to prove that any contemplated actions would have any effect on the problem.

 

 

That is not even close to reality.

 

No one is making policy on it.  It's been an issue with the EPA for 20-30 years and it is still irrelevant outside of talking.

 

Are you gonna say evolution is a religion?

 

 

The green house effect is as proven as gravity.

[valkhorn]

If anything "liberalism" means being in favor of liberty and reduced government. Think Adam Smith. But I am both liberal and progressive.

 

I don't think you know what those terms really mean.

 

By the way, socialism isn't the boogy man you and other conservative libertarians (that's what you are, not a progressive liberal) make it out to be. You can still be a non-Marxist socialist, still have private property with modern socialism, and still have regulated capitalism. But I guess countries in Scandinavia, or countries like Switzerland and Germany are just so terrible, right?

 

I know I probably blew your mind with that.

 

 

Mine are not political. The theory seems to be more of a religion than a science, where non-believers are treated the way "non-conformists" were treated during the Inquisition.

I am against making policy decisions on what feels good. Again, I challenge anyone to prove that any contemplated actions would have any effect on the problem.

 

The reason why is because you have to ignore a ton of evidence and believe in crazy conspiracy theories to be a denialist. You'd have to argue that there's some vast 'liberal' conspiracy among scientists to get grant money while ignoring the millions of dollars that are spent by oil companies on lobbying in the US alone. You'd also have to completely ignore what's going on on the planet Venus, the fact that greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect was known since the 1850s, and think that it's some huge political scheme to make everyone poorer.

 

And look at how crazy people like you, JB, and McConnell and Inhofe look.

 

The people who accept AGW aren't the ones who are putting politics before science. It's the denialists, because they honestly think politics trumps evidence, and that they can make up whatever reality that they want. Why do you think the same talking points have been refuted yet repeated 100 times on Fox News and talk radio? Because they don't research them, and they know neither will conservative listeners like you. How many times have we heard there's been no global warming since 1998? Yet it's wrong. We hear that CO2 isn't a problem, yet it is, and we EVEN hear that the greenhouse effect 'violates' the first law of thermodynamics - which is such a lie that I don't even know where to begin with it.

 

If you start with the evidence, it's pretty simple:

• Climate change can and does occur if the content of the atmosphere changes
• Man is changing the content of the atmosphere significantly
• Therefore climate is and will be changing due to man

To argue that man cannot change climate is to argue that man couldn't re-route the Mississippi river, or couldn't create Lake Mead or the Salton Sea. Our changes to the planet's surface are visible from space, yet denialists think that the thin atmosphere is just untouchable by man.

 

I used to be a denialist, too. But, I started researching the evidence and had to change my mind. If you actually study the evidence, and leave politics aside, you will probably change your mind, too.

[Isotherm]

I don't think you know what those terms really mean.

 

By the way, socialism isn't the boogy man you and other conservative libertarians (that's what you are, not a progressive liberal) make it out to be. You can still be a non-Marxist socialist, still have private property with modern socialism, and still have regulated capitalism. But I guess countries in Scandinavia, or countries like Switzerland and Germany are just so terrible, right?

 

I know I probably blew your mind with that.

 

 

 

The reason why is because you have to ignore a ton of evidence and believe in crazy conspiracy theories to be a denialist. You'd have to argue that there's some vast 'liberal' conspiracy among scientists to get grant money while ignoring the millions of dollars that are spent by oil companies on lobbying in the US alone. You'd also have to completely ignore what's going on on the planet Venus, the fact that greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect was known since the 1850s, and think that it's some huge political scheme to make everyone poorer.

 

And look at how crazy people like you, JB, and McConnell and Inhofe look.

 

The people who accept AGW aren't the ones who are putting politics before science. It's the denialists, because they honestly think politics trumps evidence, and that they can make up whatever reality that they want. Why do you think the same talking points have been refuted yet repeated 100 times on Fox News and talk radio? Because they don't research them, and they know neither will conservative listeners like you. How many times have we heard there's been no global warming since 1998? Yet it's wrong. We hear that CO2 isn't a problem, yet it is, and we EVEN hear that the greenhouse effect 'violates' the first law of thermodynamics - which is such a lie that I don't even know where to begin with it.

 

If you start with the evidence, it's pretty simple:

• Climate change can and does occur if the content of the atmosphere changes
• Man is changing the content of the atmosphere significantly
• Therefore climate is and will be changing due to man

To argue that man cannot change climate is to argue that man couldn't re-route the Mississippi river, or couldn't create Lake Mead or the Salton Sea. Our changes to the planet's surface are visible from space, yet denialists think that the thin atmosphere is just untouchable by man.

 

I used to be a denialist, too. But, I started researching the evidence and had to change my mind. If you actually study the evidence, and leave politics aside, you will probably change your mind, too.

 

 

 

 

You're misinterpreting the physics of Venus's climate. Their excessive heat is primarily due to the thick atmosphere, the fact that they're eternally shrouded in clouds, and possibly most importantly, the atmospheric pressure is 92 times greater than Earth. The greenhouse effect involves incoming short wave radiation warming the surface, and less longwave radiation escaping into space due to GHG's. On Venus, there's very little in the way of incoming short wave radiation due to the constant cloud cover (resultant albedo of 0.80 or so). This is evidenced by the fact that the diurnal temperature range is extremely small, namely, it's just as warm throughout the night as it is during the daylight hours on Venus. It's a pressure cooker climate with very little water vapor, sunshine, or temperature variation. The idea of Venus as a runaway greenhouse effect is massive fallacy given there's arguably no real greenhouse effect to begin with, given the paltry insolation.

[WeatherRusty]

Mine are not political. The theory seems to be more of a religion than a science, where non-believers are treated the way "non-conformists" were treated during the Inquisition.

I am against making policy decisions on what feels good. Again, I challenge anyone to prove that any contemplated actions would have any effect on the problem.

 

Can you separate the reality of AGW from the need for mitigation? It doesn't sound like you can. The science is extremely robust. The will to do something about is not.

[WeatherRusty]

You're misinterpreting the physics of Venus's climate. Their excessive heat is primarily due to the thick atmosphere, the fact that they're eternally shrouded in clouds, and possibly most importantly, the atmospheric pressure is 92 times greater than Earth. The greenhouse effect involves incoming short wave radiation warming the surface, and less longwave radiation escaping into space due to GHG's. On Venus, there's very little in the way of incoming short wave radiation due to the constant cloud cover (resultant albedo of 0.80 or so). This is evidenced by the fact that the diurnal temperature range is extremely small, namely, it's just as warm throughout the night as it is during the daylight hours on Venus. It's a pressure cooker climate with very little water vapor, sunshine, or temperature variation. The idea of Venus as a runaway greenhouse effect is massive fallacy given there's arguably no real greenhouse effect to begin with, given the paltry insolation.

 

You are not correct that there is no significant greenhouse effect on Venus. Dispite Venus being 1/3 closer to the Sun than is Earth, the upper atmosphere at Venus is much colder than Earth's upper atmosphere. As on Earth energy flow has reached near equilibrium in and out. As on Earth it is the surface which warms the atmosphere and not the other way around. What little insolation does reach the surface has a very difficult time reaching the upper atmosphere where it can be radiated to space in the infrared. That's the greenhouse effect.

 

Did you realize that a day on Venus is longer than it's year? Venus rotates very slowly retrograde on it's axis. No coreolis effect, little turbulence. A dry adiabat, little mixing. The atmospheric pressure at the surface does increase the temperature somewhat due to compression but not nearly enough to account for 860 degrees F.

[valkhorn]

You are not correct that there is no significant greenhouse effect on Venus. Dispite Venus being 1/3 closer to the Sun than is Earth, the upper atmosphere at Venus is much colder than Earth's upper atmosphere. As on Earth energy flow has reached near equilibrium in and out. As on Earth it is the surface which warms the atmosphere and not the other way around. What little insolation does reach the surface has a very difficult time reaching the upper atmosphere where it can be radiated to space in the infrared. That's the greenhouse effect.

 

Did you realize that a day on Venus is longer than it's year? Venus rotates very slowly retrograde on it's axis. No coreolis effect, little turbulence. A dry adiabat, little mixing. The atmospheric pressure at the surface does increase the temperature somewhat due to compression but not nearly enough to account for 860 degrees F.

 

Thank you for pointing this out.

 

Other links to show the actual science of why Venus is hot (and yes greenhouse gases played a critical role):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Venus-runaway-greenhouse-effect.htm

http://www.universetoday.com/22577/venus-greenhouse-effect/

 

Note that Venus is the result of a runaway greenhouse effect. Something a long time ago tipped the scales causing more heat to build up than was lost, and this is now why Venus is as hot as it is.

 

Runaway (or dramatic) greenhouse effects have played a role in pretty much every single mass extinction on Earth as far as I'm aware. While they may not have been the initial cause, they sure played a role in making things hotter.

 

Oh, and it's not really being 'alarmist' to point out the consequences of anthropogenic global warming. It's accepting reality. If the climate changes too rapidly for nature to adapt, you get a lot of problems. For nature to be causing the rapid warming we're seeing right now we'd have to have something very significant and out of the ordinary to cause it. I'm talking something like a massive methane bubble from the oceans, or large areas of high volcanic activity. We don't have that right now. The only thing in the atmosphere that has really changed in the last 150 years is CO2 levels. Solar activity has been pretty constant. There hasn't been any other dramatic change in the content of our atmosphere to account for the rapid increase in temperatures.

 

And yes, temps are still rising pretty rapidly if you include ocean heat content - and that's pretty significant.

[Msalgado]

You're misinterpreting the physics of Venus's climate. Their excessive heat is primarily due to the thick atmosphere, the fact that they're eternally shrouded in clouds, and possibly most importantly, the atmospheric pressure is 92 times greater than Earth. The greenhouse effect involves incoming short wave radiation warming the surface, and less longwave radiation escaping into space due to GHG's. On Venus, there's very little in the way of incoming short wave radiation due to the constant cloud cover (resultant albedo of 0.80 or so). This is evidenced by the fact that the diurnal temperature range is extremely small, namely, it's just as warm throughout the night as it is during the daylight hours on Venus. It's a pressure cooker climate with very little water vapor, sunshine, or temperature variation. The idea of Venus as a runaway greenhouse effect is massive fallacy given there's arguably no real greenhouse effect to begin with, given the paltry insolation.

 

Actually, you're very wrong here.

 

There is a high albedo on Venus, which should show you even more how the GHG are responsible for the higher temperatures.  You compare it to a pressure cooker but I'm not sure you know how a pressure cooker works.  It works by fundamentally raising the boiling point of water in a closed vessel.  If you can tell me how that is raising the temperature on venus then I would be very interested as the atmosphere of Venus is neither a closed volume nor does it have any water present.

 

Furthermore, Venus has an energy budget just like the Earth or any other planet.  The only energy coming in must come from the sun.  All temperature dependence on the surface ultimately comes down to the incoming solar radiation.  If the heat was somehow the function some sort of atmospheric conditions, temperature would not rise as the heat would just radiate out into space.