John Stossel: Myths about global warm...

John Stossel: Myths about global warming prove costly

There are 23 comments on the UnionLeader.com story from Aug 10, 2013, titled John Stossel: Myths about global warming prove costly. In it, UnionLeader.com reports that:

Global average temperature has been flat for a decade. But frightening myths about global warming continue.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at UnionLeader.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#1 Aug 11, 2013
John Stossel. Lies and videotape..

He tries to leverage a 'pause' in air temperature readings (not a change in AGW) into a denial. Then states that the Hurricane center claims that there is no change in hurricanes. Fact is that they claim that the likely scenario is fewer but stronger hurricanes.

http://tinyurl.com/lqenffm

While true that costs are increasing because of more development along ocean fronts, this doesn't really address the issue. It is more 'smoke screen' to confuse the issue.

You want 'myths' about climate change? John Stossel is ready, able and willing to make them up.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#2 Aug 11, 2013
John Stossel is right. Hurricanes are not more frequent and are not more powerful.

They do cause more economic damage, but that's because everything costs more.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#3 Aug 11, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
John Stossel is right. Hurricanes are not more frequent and are not more powerful.
They do cause more economic damage, but that's because everything costs more.
One fan of John Stossel. But the fans of the TRUTH are innumerable. He can only find a few as clueless as FF.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#4 Aug 11, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
One fan of John Stossel. But the fans of the TRUTH are innumerable. He can only find a few as clueless as FF.
\

" But the fans of the TRUTH..." yep it's a religion!
litesong

Everett, WA

#5 Aug 11, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
" But the fans of the TRUTH..." yep it's a religion!
Fans of burning fossil fuels........ yep, it's a religion!
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#6 Aug 11, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>\
" But the fans of the TRUTH..."
Aka objective reality as illustrated by the scientific method and the realization that we are NOT playthings of the gods, but are capable of understanding the world around us.
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>\
yep it's a religion!
In your view or opinion. And you repeat it dogmatically...

The reader is left to assess which is the 'religious' viewpoint.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#7 Aug 11, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>

In your view or opinion. And you repeat it dogmatically...
The reader is left to assess which is the 'religious' viewpoint.
The "TRUTH" as you stated.

Science is not about "truth". It's a process of discovery. Each time something is discovered or some aspect is discovered it has the impact of potentially destroying what was "truth".

Since: Aug 13

Hilo, HI

#8 Aug 11, 2013
Stossel's statements are the usual pack of lies put together by the deniers. None of them hold up.

The following articles put to bed any claim that Global Warming has paused.

Revisiting the Earth’s sea&#8208;level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/20...

Global temperature evolution 1979–2010
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/20...

The following article presents the same information in layman's terms.

A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture-g...

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#9 Aug 11, 2013
The Integral wrote:
Stossel's statements are the usual pack of lies put together by the deniers. None of them hold up.
The following articles put to bed any claim that Global Warming has paused.
Revisiting the Earth’s sea&#8208;level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/20...
You never did explain why you thought this supported anthropogenic global warming. Surely you've read it and can explain why you feel it supports your opinion.

Since: Aug 13

Hilo, HI

#10 Aug 11, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
You never did explain why you thought this supported anthropogenic global warming. Surely you've read it and can explain why you feel it supports your opinion.
For the second time:

"Ocean warming (90% of the total of the
Earth’s energy increase) continues through to the end of the
record, in agreement with continued greenhouse gas forcing."

What more does it take?
litesong

Everett, WA

#11 Aug 11, 2013
[QUOTE who=" ff aka fossil&fuds"]
Science is not about "truth". It's a process of discovery.[/QUOTE]

" ff aka fossil&fuds" never discovered a science or mathematics degree or passing science or mathematics grades for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#12 Aug 12, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
For the second time:
"Ocean warming (90% of the total of the
Earth’s energy increase) continues through to the end of the
record, in agreement with continued greenhouse gas forcing."
What more does it take?
A lot more than that. Correlation is not causation. Both went up is about all you've got with this study. Even the study doesn't make a solid statement.

"The budget calculations IMPLY that the rapidly
increasing surface temperatures from the mid 1970s to the
mid 1990s are consistent with the increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations"

And it only implies that for the 1970s to 1990s and that increases are CONSISTENT WITH not caused by.

I bet if we tried we'd find that the stock market increases were consistent with....and we'd eliminate any pesky sector that didn't comply. Kind of like the study does.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#13 Aug 12, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot more than that. Correlation is not causation.
But science has already determined the greenhouse effect of enhanced CO2 levels are necessary and sufficient to explain the warming of the oceans. So it is hardly 'just correlation'. There is a LARGE and growing theory of WHY the oceans are warming.
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
"The budget calculations IMPLY that the rapidly
increasing surface temperatures from the mid 1970s to the
mid 1990s are consistent with the increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations"
Playing games I see. Well, two can play. There is no such thing as 'implication'. You INFER from the facts, and call this an implication. The CONCLUSIONS here are that the AGW theory is UPHELD by the facts. i.e. That conclusion is implied by the facts.
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
And it only implies that for the 1970s to 1990s and that increases are CONSISTENT WITH not caused by.
And what is 'experiment' except that the results of the experiment are CONSISTENT WITH the theoretical mechanism (i.e AGW). That is as close as science gets to 'proof'.
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet if we tried we'd find that the stock market increases were consistent with....and we'd eliminate any pesky sector that didn't comply. Kind of like the study does.
Nah. Without a theoretical mechanisms to link stock markets and ocean warming you have NOTHING BUT CORRELATION.

You really are dense, MR Fun Farts.

Since: Aug 13

Hilo, HI

#14 Aug 12, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot more than that. Correlation is not causation. Both went up is about all you've got with this study. Even the study doesn't make a solid statement.
"The budget calculations IMPLY that the rapidly
increasing surface temperatures from the mid 1970s to the
mid 1990s are consistent with the increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations"
And it only implies that for the 1970s to 1990s and that increases are CONSISTENT WITH not caused by.
I bet if we tried we'd find that the stock market increases were consistent with....and we'd eliminate any pesky sector that didn't comply. Kind of like the study does.
No reputable scientific organization dismisses the contention that solar irradiance is a factor in Global Warming, albeit as small factor. If you take out GHG and solar irradiance, what is left to drive Global Warming?

The intensity of solar radiation reaching Earth has been relatively constant through the last 2000 years, with variations estimated at around 0.1–0.2%.[8][9][10] Solar variation, together with volcanic activity are hypothesized to have contributed to climate change, for example during the Maunder Minimum. However, changes in solar brightness are too weak to explain recent climate change.[11]

8.^ Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies.(2006). "Climate Forcings and Climate Models". In North, Gerald R.; Biondi, Franco; Bloomfield, Peter et al. Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-10225-1. Retrieved 1 February 2012.
9.^ Lean, Judith (2000). "Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum". Geophysical Research Letters 27 (16): 2425–8. Bibcode:2000GeoRL..27.2425L. doi:10.1029/2000GL000043.
10.^ a b Scafetta, N.; West, B. J.(2006). "Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record". Geophys. Res. Lett. 33 (17): L17718. Bibcode:2006GeoRL..3317718S. doi:10.1029/2006GL027142.
11.^ a b c "Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming" (Press release). UCAR. 13 September 2006. Retrieved 18 April 2007.
Jim

Phoenix, AZ

#15 Aug 12, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Fans of burning fossil fuels........ yep, it's a religion!
What an ignorant comment. Reality shows that with increased abundance of cheap fossil fuels, lifespan and quality of life have increased commensurately. Religion is based upon faith in the unseen - AGW etc.- while it is patently observable that life has improved with the increased use of fossil fuels. Well except to total idiots.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#16 Aug 13, 2013
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
What an ignorant comment. Reality shows that with increased abundance of cheap fossil fuels, lifespan and quality of life have increased commensurately.
One can feel better with drugs and yet know that they are a foolish game. Nor is your statement correct in principle. The correct statement is..

"Study shows that with increased abundance of cheap energy, lifespan and quality of life have increased commensurately."

This notes that we don't care where the energy comes from. Nuclear power, windmills, solar, it is all good. But some sources such as coal have costs that are not seen in their price and those have higher overall costs. A false bargain, just like the drug high.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#17 Aug 13, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
No reputable scientific organization dismisses the contention that solar irradiance is a factor in Global Warming, albeit as small factor. If you take out GHG and solar irradiance, what is left to drive Global Warming?
The intensity of solar radiation reaching Earth has been relatively constant through the last 2000 years, with variations estimated at around 0.1–0.2%.[8][9][10] Solar variation, together with volcanic activity are hypothesized to have contributed to climate change, for example during the Maunder Minimum. However, changes in solar brightness are too weak to explain recent climate change.[11]
8.^ Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies.(2006). "Climate Forcings and Climate Models". In North, Gerald R.; Biondi, Franco; Bloomfield, Peter et al. Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-10225-1. Retrieved 1 February 2012.
9.^ Lean, Judith (2000). "Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum". Geophysical Research Letters 27 (16): 2425–8. Bibcode:2000GeoRL..27.2425L. doi:10.1029/2000GL000043.
10.^ a b Scafetta, N.; West, B. J.(2006). "Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record". Geophys. Res. Lett. 33 (17): L17718. Bibcode:2006GeoRL..3317718S. doi:10.1029/2006GL027142.
11.^ a b c "Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming" (Press release). UCAR. 13 September 2006. Retrieved 18 April 2007.
I like the work of Scafetta and West. Here's an excerpt from the above cited paper.

"[18] In any case, as some authors have already noted
[Douglass and Clader, 2002; Scafetta and West, 2005,
2006], solar change effects are greater than what can be
explained by several climate models [Stevens and North,
1996; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001;
Hansen et al., 2002; Foukal et al., 2004]. For example,
Douglass and Clader [2002] and Scafetta and West [2005]
found that the amplitude of the 11-year solar signature on
the temperature record seems to be 3 times larger than the
theoretical predictions, and similar or larger factors are
likely to persist at lower frequencies as well.
[19] In conclusion, a solar change might significantly
alter climate. It might trigger several climate feedbacks
and alter the GHG (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration,
as 420,000 years of Antarctic ice core data would also
suggest [Petit et al., 1999]. Most of the sun-climate coupling
mechanisms are probably still unknown. However,
they should be incorporated into the climate models to
better understand the real impact of the sun on climate
because they might strongly amplify the effects of small
solar activity increases."

We have been mechanically measuring TSI since 1979. Evan then we have had several different satellites doing the measuring and have had to adjust each and every data base to come into some agreement. We have also been in very high activity since 1979. What will be interesting is to determine just how the values we have seen will relate to our 'cooler' sun.

But the sun is more than spots. It is the impact of the solar energy that we are not able to measure. How much did the high solar activity impact the ESNO? We know it did, but have no measurement for it. How much did it impact the Arctic Oscillation? We know it did, but are unable to measure it.

If a shrinking heliosphere has an impact on climate, then by how much?

Also as an aside, I've been doing this enough years to have watched the changes in the temperature records used by the major agencies. If we could go back to the temp records as recorded in 2000 alone we would not see the level of warming that is published today.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#18 Aug 13, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
No reputable scientific organization dismisses the contention that solar irradiance is a factor in Global Warming, albeit as small factor. If you take out GHG and solar irradiance, what is left to drive Global Warming?
The intensity of solar radiation reaching Earth has been relatively constant through the last 2000 years, with variations estimated at around 0.1–0.2%.[8][9][10] Solar variation, together with volcanic activity are hypothesized to have contributed to climate change, for example during the Maunder Minimum. However, changes in solar brightness are too weak to explain recent climate change.[11]
8.^ Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies.(2006). "Climate Forcings and Climate Models". In North, Gerald R.; Biondi, Franco; Bloomfield, Peter et al. Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-10225-1. Retrieved 1 February 2012.
9.^ Lean, Judith (2000). "Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum". Geophysical Research Letters 27 (16): 2425–8. Bibcode:2000GeoRL..27.2425L. doi:10.1029/2000GL000043.
10.^ a b Scafetta, N.; West, B. J.(2006). "Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record". Geophys. Res. Lett. 33 (17): L17718. Bibcode:2006GeoRL..3317718S. doi:10.1029/2006GL027142.
11.^ a b c "Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming" (Press release). UCAR. 13 September 2006. Retrieved 18 April 2007.
Don't think my first attempt posted.

I like Scafetta and West. They do research and present finding like scientists, not advocates.

"[18] In any case, as some authors have already noted
[Douglass and Clader, 2002; Scafetta and West, 2005,
2006], solar change effects are greater than what can be
explained by several climate models [Stevens and North,
1996; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001;
Hansen et al., 2002; Foukal et al., 2004]. For example,
Douglass and Clader [2002] and Scafetta and West [2005]
found that the amplitude of the 11-year solar signature on
the temperature record seems to be 3 times larger than the
theoretical predictions, and similar or larger factors are
likely to persist at lower frequencies as well.
[19] In conclusion, a solar change might significantly
alter climate. It might trigger several climate feedbacks
and alter the GHG (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration,
as 420,000 years of Antarctic ice core data would also
suggest [Petit et al., 1999]. Most of the sun-climate coupling
mechanisms are probably still unknown. However,
they should be incorporated into the climate models to
better understand the real impact of the sun on climate
because they might strongly amplify the effects of small
solar activity increases."

We have been mechanically measuring TSI since 1979. Altho many different measurements were taken by different methods and have had to be adjusted to come to some agreement. Nonetheless, all measurements were taken during a time period of high solar activity.

What will be interesting is to see if we can maintain a single source measurement long enough to watch the current low activity and compare it to the recorded values we have.

Since: Aug 13

Hilo, HI

#19 Aug 13, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't think my first attempt posted.
I like Scafetta and West. They do research and present finding like scientists, not advocates.
"[18] In any case, as some authors have already noted
[Douglass and Clader, 2002; Scafetta and West, 2005,
2006], solar change effects are greater than what can be
explained by several climate models [Stevens and North,
1996; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001;
Hansen et al., 2002; Foukal et al., 2004]. For example,
Douglass and Clader [2002] and Scafetta and West [2005]
found that the amplitude of the 11-year solar signature on
the temperature record seems to be 3 times larger than the
theoretical predictions, and similar or larger factors are
likely to persist at lower frequencies as well.
[19] In conclusion, a solar change might significantly
alter climate. It might trigger several climate feedbacks
and alter the GHG (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration,
as 420,000 years of Antarctic ice core data would also
suggest [Petit et al., 1999]. Most of the sun-climate coupling
mechanisms are probably still unknown. However,
they should be incorporated into the climate models to
better understand the real impact of the sun on climate
because they might strongly amplify the effects of small
solar activity increases."
We have been mechanically measuring TSI since 1979. Altho many different measurements were taken by different methods and have had to be adjusted to come to some agreement. Nonetheless, all measurements were taken during a time period of high solar activity.
What will be interesting is to see if we can maintain a single source measurement long enough to watch the current low activity and compare it to the recorded values we have.
Here is a quote from Scafetta and West:

"Note the good correspondence (in Figure 2)of the patterns in particular during the pre-industrial era (1600–1900) and the significant discrepancy occurring in the 20th century with a clear surplus warming."

This is a critical statement. In the 20th century the irradiance is going up at a very low rate and the temperature is going up rapidly.

Figure 2 is the "main enchilada". It shows that the climate tracked irradiance until the large scale generation of man made CO2.

No one is denying that irradiance plays a role in Global Warming. The bottom line is that the change in irradiance is not enough to account for the temperature increase.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#20 Aug 13, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
I like Scafetta and West. They do research and present finding like scientists, not advocates.
Indeed:

Since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone.

Scafetta and West, 2006.

http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Sun%20...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hurricane Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Home sales climb 2% in October (Nov '12) Jun 22 hamada 54
News A shipwreck, tornadoes, and a cold summer Jun 22 used and abused 1
News Deleting the Real Story Behind the Great Canada... Jun 17 Rural 2
News Post-tropical storm Colin headed for Nova Scoti... Jun 8 Elise Gingerich 1
News Bachmann flip-flops on remark hurricane was sig... (Sep '11) Jun 1 Big Bad John Roberts 2
News Severe thunderstorm watch issued for Dallas, Ta... May 28 dodo 1
News Federal funding to replenish Grand Strand beach... May 28 Three Rounds 1
More from around the web