…to skeptic:
At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.
Follow the real money.
There is a place in the early twentieth century where such an approach to science was common.
Google “Lysenko”.
A commenter referenced this recent paper. Not saying I agree with it – I really haven’t had time to look it over – but it looks interesting. The authors appear to be credentialed. At least, I made sure to check that there really is a Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig.
And now there’s retrenchment on claims of species extinctions.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/18/18greenwire-scientists-clash-on-claims-over-extinction-ove-96307.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110518-species-extinctions-habitats-science-animals/
http://www.livescience.com/14216-overestimation-extinction-rate-habitat-loss.html
from @2 abstract
“…the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsi ed.”
Falsied. Great. [INSERT RIBALD COMMENT HERE.]
Note: The actual abstract says “falsified” so at least the spelling is correct. But this is a long-debunked paper. See:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/14/on-having-a-laugh-by-gerlich-and-tscheuschner-2009/
“But this is a long-debunked paper.”
thanks this how science should work.
Well, no, and in any case a simplistic argument that should set off BS detectors — if it were that easy to debunk, it would have happened a long time ago. But here’s the really bad news: AGW can simultaneously be both a real phenomenon and an opportunity for con artists. The readership here is probably more aware than most people that the rapidity of technological advance will make geoengineering trivial well before mid-century, but the great bulk of the electorate is not, and could fall for Prohibitionist schemes.
“if it were that easy to debunk, it would have happened a long time ago.”
well yea let’s attack co2 for the simplicity of it.
my actual experience out weighs the agw modeled experience.
Global warming is the cause of everything even giant snakes.
What continues to surprise me are the people who can’t see the stakes involved with whether AGW turns out to be a dire threat or not. Every once in a while I get someone who claims government acts only in the public good here and has no interest in fudging climate research, even though they often change their tune when I discuss militaries or corporatism. Somehow that’s a completely different government doing those things.
Well, Karl, seeing those connections would require the integration of concepts, a process once known in the vernacular as, “thinking.” As we know, a great many people no longer think – they regurgitate.
Yeah… reading over the paper, I’m not taken very much with the arguments. Except for this: I do calculate that the effect of increasing reflection of radiating energy can actually result in a net decrease in stored energy, but it depends on the parameters of the system.
My personal belief that AGW is not real is founded on arguments which should be accessible to many denizens of this blog:
1) The overall water vapor system, including clouds, induces net negative feedback on temperature. My conclusion is based on the phase plane charts of Spencer, et al. which indicate phase relationships commensurate with negative, not positive, feedback. As the article Rand has cited relates, the GCMs all arrive at the conclusion that major warming is in the offing by assuming positive feedback of water vapor, and essentially ignoring the dynamic feedback of clouds (they use a static fudge factor instead). Without the assumed positive feedback, there is no significant warming
2) The recent warming trend is not unusual in slope compared to the historical record, and it lasted about the same length as others, suggesting a natural, recurring process. The recent ~10 year hiatus in the warming trend confirms that there are more powerful processes involved which we do not understand very well.
That is enough to convince me that, even if we were responsible for the rise in CO2 concentration, it would not be a problem. As to that rise, it is almost entirely based on assumptions regarding the fidelity of the historical measurements of CO2 based on ice core samples. But, we have no way of actually performing a closed loop experiment over the timeline to verify that the storage mechanism actually behaves as is conjectured. The only reliable measurements we have are the 60 odd year direct measurements from Keeling et al., and we do not really know what the concentrations looked like before that.
3) The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration over the last 60 odd years only superficially matches the known accumulated emissions. Both sequences look like a slightly quadratic upward trend. It is always possible to make two such series look affinely related – just perform a linear least squares regression on the one versus the other, and you will find the affine parameters which best do so. Moreover, the spectra of the two series do not overlap – there are harmonics in the latter which do not appear in the former. This is impossible if the one is significantly driving the other unless the system being driven has significant gain at very low frequency, and rolls off very rapidly for increasing frequencies. But, if that is the case, you very nearly have a pure integrator in the dynamics, and such a system would exhibit significant random walk-like behavior, which we simply do not see.
“This is impossible if the one is significantly driving the other unless the system being driven has significant gain at very low frequency, and rolls off very rapidly for increasing frequencies.”
In addition, because such a system is very low bandwidth, there would necessarily be an exceedingly long lag time between input and observable output.
I should have made it clear on #3, my conclusion is that the Earth’s carbon cycle is a robust negative feedback system which readily attenuates our negligible input. The rise we are observing is due to some other, much more powerful, natural phenomenon.
“The rise we are observing is due to some other, much more powerful, natural phenomenon.”
Name it.
Andrew W Says:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
“Name it.”
I do not have to. I have already given reasons that it cannot be due to humans.
You are playing the role of the ancient Shaman, who says to the doubter, “either you tell me what causes the volcano to erupt, or we have to conclude the Gods are angry as I say, and ritual human sacrifice is the only answer.”
“I do not have to.” Now who’s relying on faith?
Andrew W Says:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
“Now who’s relying on faith?”
Clearly, you are. If you do not understand, I do not think I can help you.
Come on Bart, give us a clue to this mysterious “much more powerful, natural phenomenon.” Does it have 3 letters and start with a “G”?
Andrew, despite your pathetic attempts at god-baiting, you apparently understand neither logic, or the scientific method.
Here is the structure of the argument:
Debater 1) I believe that X is causing Y.
Debater 2) X is not causing Y, for logical reasons Z. There must be some other cause.
Debater 1) Name the other cause!
Debater 2) There is no logical requirement for me to postulate any other cause to demonstrate that yours is clearly false.
Debater 1) Is the other cause GOD?!111Eleven!!!
Do you really not see the fallacy here?
Science is not about proving things. It is about disproving them. The Warm Mongers have put forth a theory. Others have pointed out flaws in it. Those others are behaving like scientists. Those promoting the theory (including you) seem to be behaving otherwise.
I would add that the three-letter word starting with “G” is not a natural phenomenon, though it is certainly powerful, at least in theory. So this is another logical fail.
Or did you have some other three-letter-word starting with “G” in mind?
If so, NAME IT!
See, two can play at your illogical game. 😉
Not that it makes any more sense when I do it, of course… 🙂
Actually, on reflecting, it does make a little more sense, since you actually hinted that you had something in mind…
I didn’t realize he was talking about God, as God, whatever that is, presumably is not a natural phenomenon. I still have no idea of what he is talking about, but coherence is not exactly Andrew’s strong suit.
Oops… cross post.
Well if Bart would demonstrate that X is not causing Y.
My understanding is that Spencers work on feedbacks was only pertinent to tropical cloud feedbacks.
“The recent warming trend is not unusual in slope compared to the historical record”
Evidence?
“The recent ~10 year hiatus in the warming trend confirms that there are more powerful processes involved which we do not understand very well.”
Simply untrue, the trend over the last ten years is up, and a ten year period is too short to be statistically significant anyway.
“As to that rise, it is almost entirely based on assumptions regarding the fidelity of the historical measurements of CO2 based on ice core samples.”
We’ve been though this, the CO2 measurement and other measurements, across the ice domes match, they also match other geological evidence, that’s across at least 5 glacial-interglacial cycles.
“The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration over the last 60 odd years only superficially matches the known accumulated emissions.”
Yeah, and when I pour water into a cup, we can argue that it’s just a coincidence that the water level in the cup rises, after all, it could also be explained by condensation from the air.
“Evidence?”
The data. Take a hard look at it sometime.
“…the trend over the last ten years is up”
No, it isn’t.
“…and a ten year period is too short to be statistically significant anyway.
Then, how do you know the trend is “up”?
“We’ve been though this…”
Ah, that was you? Well, then, apparently you still do not get it.
“…after all, it could also be explained by condensation from the air.”
When the cup has a hole in it bigger than the spout from which you are pouring, you might want to check and see if you are standing under a waterfall.
“The data. Take a hard look at it sometime.”
Just did, you’re wrong, provide evidence.
“No, it isn’t”
Published data disagrees with you.
“Then, how do you know the trend is “up”?”
Data will still show a trend, even if that trend isn’t statistically significant.
“apparently you still do not get it.”
Ditto.
“you might want to check and see if you are standing under a waterfall.”
Just another personal insult.
That’s just bizarre…
You just keep making these claims; “10 year hiatus”, “recent warming trend is not unusual”, but repeatedly decline to provide evidence, I’m looking at graphs from the recognized sources, what sources are you using?
I’m looking at the same data you are, though I’m less likely to “recognize” the authors in the same light as you. If you cannot or will not see with your own eyes, how can I overcome that?
I definitely see no point in arguing with someone who would write such a self-refuting and paranoid post as your previous one. Honestly, I think if they locked you in a room by yourself, you’d end up knocking your own teeth out.
You are boring me now. I think we are done.
Here they are then:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
All going up, even over just the last decade, if you can’t see that, maybe you’re just too set in your ways.
I see that Andrew continues to respond in other threads, and even in this one, but not to me. Perhaps he is stymied…?
Well, OK, there is this pathetic attempt, that completely misses the metapoint:
Well if Bart would demonstrate that X is not causing Y.
My rebuttal is in no way dependent on whether or not Bart’s argument about X causing Y is valid.
Again, have you never taken a course in logic?
Rand, : “The rise we are observing is due to some other, much more powerful, natural phenomenon.” is an assertion that there is such a “powerful, natural phenomenon.” If Bart had simply said he wasn’t convinced that AGW was correct, and argued against that science I would have stuck to how strong the evidence supporting AGW was.
His link suggests the PDO, maybe that’s the sort of thing he was referring to, but then bailed.
I know I wouldn’t say “The [whatever] we are observing is due to some other, much more powerful, natural phenomenon.” without having something specific in mind.
“If Bart had simply said he wasn’t convinced that AGW was correct, and argued against that science I would have stuck to how strong the evidence supporting AGW was.”
I.e., you would have launched a strawman attack using all your well rehearsed talking points, e.g., like you have stored up against anyone arguing the PDO. You got so desperate, you even launched a pathetic attempt to pigeonhole me as some kind of religious nutjob whose words you could peremptorily dismiss.
Unfortunately, you encountered an argument you couldn’t refute, that you can’t find instruction on how to refute, so you play dumb as though you never heard me make it in the hope that I will get exasperated and leave you the field to claim victory.
No doubt, you will continue to feign ignorance of what I am talking about. Either that, or you really are stupid beyond words. So, just stow whatever lame response you are thinking of, and read and reread the thread until you get it.
I know I wouldn’t say “The [whatever] we are observing is due to some other, much more powerful, natural phenomenon.” without having something specific in mind.
What does what you would or would not say have to do with what Bart said?
Let me repeat the question(s), that you haven’t yet answered.
Have you ever had a class in logic? Do you understand how science works? Because, so far, all of the empirical evidence is to the negative.
“I.e., you would have launched a strawman attack using all your well rehearsed talking points, e.g., like you have stored up against anyone arguing the PDO.”
How about you stop being so petulant?
“attempt to pigeonhole me as some kind of religious nutjob”.
Given your past accusation of AGW advocates being religious nuts spare me the hypocrisy, can’t handle what you dish out?
“Unfortunately, you encountered an argument you couldn’t refute…”
Is that a reference to the water vapor/clouds feedback argument again?
That’s best refuted by the evidence, and that seems to be something you don’t even look at:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
climate sensitivity can be assessed though several approaches, these different methods appear to be in fairly good agreement.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html
Rand: “Have you ever had a class in logic?”
Didn’t they teach you that arguments should be judged on the merits of those arguments, not on the background of the person presenting them?
If you find fault with my logic, fine, refute the argument and I’ll try to better present my case, no need to go fishing irrelevant information.
Rand Simberg Says:
“I see that Andrew continues to respond in other threads, and even in this one, but not to me. Perhaps he is stymied…?”
More like covering his ears, closing his eyes and chanting, “But it is AGW! It is AGW!”
He also flings the word “faith” around like a Colt .45 thinking he plugs people with it. He has also refused to address the fact that all – ALL – of his science and his vaunted logic is utterly based upon faith (of a non-religious kind).
So he ignores quite a bit.
Andrew W Says:
” “I do not have to.” Now who’s relying on faith? ”
Why, you, of course. Not on people, not on data, not on religion.
But utter pure faith nevertheless.
Do you know how and why? I doubt it. If you did you wouldn’t be using the term as an argument.
Andrew W Says:
“Didn’t they teach you that arguments should be judged on the merits of those arguments, not on the background of the person presenting them?”
Ok so if a person has a reputation of ignoring data that doesn’t support their conclusion; has repeatedly drawn a conclusion from bad and/or incomplete data; refuses to consider ANY other possibility other than the one he/she espouses….
We are supposed to spend our valuable time listening to that person? Background doesn’t count AT ALL?
“If you find fault with my logic, fine, refute the argument and I’ll try to better present my case, no need to go fishing irrelevant information.”
You’ve been shown countless faults, and some of your arguments have been refuted and other interpretations from the ones you make have been shown to you. You simply ignore them and counterattack with ad hominum attacks.
I prefer a larger view of the situation.
Andrew W Says:
May 20th, 2011 at 12:57 am
“How about you stop being so petulant?”
How about you stop casting about for some irrelevant ad hominem means of impugning my arguments?
“Given your past accusation of AGW advocates being religious nuts spare me the hypocrisy, can’t handle what you dish out?”
You started it.
“That’s best refuted by the evidence…”
What evidence? These graphs have been purposefully presented in a way to “hide the decline”. The last ~10 years of temperature have been flat. The last ten years of ocean heat content have been flat.
“…climate sensitivity can be assessed though several approaches, these different methods appear to be in fairly good agreement.”
You can rationalize anything, and man, does this guy rationalize. FTA:
“These include not just climate models, but also empirical observational data…”
The lines of “evidence” are not independent, and include many biased appraisals. Averaging them does not make the bias go away, nor reduce the uncertainty in the normal inverse square root fashion. Thus, a false sense of certainty is being promoted by combining them.
“For example, Dessler et al. (2008)…”
The Dessler analysis is garbage. He does not take account of the phase relationships. You cannot diagnose feedback that way.
“By arguing the ‘hot spot’ doesn’t exist, Evans is contradicting his previous claims about negative feedbacks and low climate sensitivity.”
‘My theory is wrong, but his is, too‘ is not very effective argumentation, to begin with. Saying “you get this “hotspot” with all types of forcings [in our theories]” but we don’t observe it is equivalent to saying “all our theories are wrong.”
“However, his claim that the climate system would be “unstable” otherwise is simply untrue.”
That depends on what is meant by “unstable”. Instability can manifest in two ways: runaway, or limit cycle, or bounded and unbounded. It can also have a more colloquial connotation of meaning unsettled or unsteady.
“…the IPCC reports. In both cases, the projections have proven remarkably accurate.”
Yeah. Of Hansen’s three scenarios, one of them came out right. That was the one where he assumed zero increase in CO2. This ex post facto CYA only has traction with the lemmings.
“Rural stations show the same trend as urban stations, “good” stations the same trend as “bad” stations, and satellites the same trend as surface stations.”
But, the average isn’t an average of trends! What a pant load.
“…2010 was statistically tied with 1998 as the hottest year on record”
Yeah. Temperatures haven’t change. We know that.
“Further, although the timeframes are too short to be statistically meaningful…”
But, he just said 2010 was statistically tied. Do the statistics work, or don’t they? This is akin to Andrews farcical insistence that the trend is up, but statistically insignificant. If it is statistically insignificant, then you cannot say it is up. Sheesh.
“”…official science” pays very close attention to satellite temperatures.”
Then, why does he not agree that “The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off,” as Evans states?
“…almost all of the warming since 1680 has occurred over the past 100 years.”
And, it occurred at a nearly constant slope, plus a cyclic term, starting at a time before atmospheric concentrations of CO2 became significant.
“The physical evidence clearly shows that carbon dioxide is causing the current warming trend.”
It shows nothing of the kind. See previous comment.
Andrew W Says:
May 20th, 2011 at 1:04 am
He’s saying your argument is illogical, so he is doing exactly what you suggest. Though, it is wryly humorous, coming after your attempt at god-baiting previous.
Titus, interesting stuff aye? Just a couple of points, you’ll notice from the 40,000 year Greenland sample graph that the temperature difference between the colder glacial periods at (-50C) and Holocene at (-30C) with a difference of 20C is a much larger change in temperature than actually happens across the globe between these periods, because of their location the ice cores exaggerate the “global” temperature change (by a factor of about two) this is called polar amplification, and surface measurements are recording this now with polar stations recording temperature increases of ~2C over the last century.
So if you insert 2C as the current temperature rise on top of the Greenland ice cap, and a global temperature rise of 3C means a temperature rise of 6C at the top of the Greenland ice cap, you get temperatures at that location well above those seen in the ice core records, you also get rates of change that are higher than those seen in the record.
Having said that, I’m not a CAGW advocate, I’m just supporting the science of the enhanced greenhouse(gas) theory, though I don’t dismiss the possibility of increased extreme weather events being a serious problem.
Another point is that the rapid rates of change in temperature at one ice core site are probably not an accurate reflection of the rates of change globally, temperatures at any one measuring site will vary greatly around the mean.