Global warming

[mhaze]

It was no doubt debunked in the ClimateAudit environment, but not in the real world. Perhaps more to the point, not in the out-of-the-world where the satellites sit and watch the sun. Day and night. Observing and reporting, free from bias (which requires oxygen).

Go on, give us a laugh, how was it debunked? (Beware : some of us have read this particular script beforehand.)

Here's what you do, CD. Actually read the paper, then read the various responses. Don't waste my time if you just want to read your Realclimate script, take the lazy way out and not read Lockwood, then try to weasel around.

Make a post in the Science GW thread and I'll be glad to discuss it. I'm sure others will too. In this thread, I think the details would really bore people that are not technically inclined.

Fair enough?

 

[mhaze]

80% agree with MMGW from my limited time here

Might be accurate.

But Schneibee, AUP, CarpelDodger (not sure about Varoche) are by their own admission, Climate Alarmists. In other words, they go way way beyond what the IPCC projects and actually believe there is a serious possibility all the polar ice will melt, the seas may go up by 20 feet in 30 years, etc.

These views are obviously not supported by mainstream science.

Alarmists who believe in "tipping points", that would be a tiny fraction of JREF. Possibly only these several individuals.

 

[CapelDodger]

You said it's warming, it is not.

Oh yes it is.

I'm also interested in comments concerning the latest Arctic ice melt study in my previous post, but it must be invisible.

Something that drew my attention was a record low in Arctic ice-extent that was 27% below the previous record low, back in 2005.

An event like that takes some explaining away. Can solar-cycle science really take that sort of load?

 

[stevea]

When it comes to the published science there are no political motives.

Ho - what a laugh. You've naivete is remarkable. Most academic pursuits are highly political including the sciences. I've been on the receiving end of this one - you are simply wrong. Your credulity is the basis for much of the misplaced trust in the "consensus of science". IMO the bias is most evident as a lack of published opposing views rather than primary errors in the peer reviewed work. Still this flaw is a fatal to the truth.

If the IPCC has any political motives, one would presumably be its own perpetuation. Given that its patrons are governments it will tend toward telling them what they want to hear.

So your local water district and waste disposal services tell your local govt what it wants to hear ? No, bureaucracies regularly ask for more money for more projects and expansion. Of course the UN has a need for power, and one classic method for a power-grab is fear-mongering. It has worked for J.Ceasar as well as G.Bush; why not the UN ? I am NOT saying that this is the predominant motive nor am I saying the IPCC report is wrong. I am pointing out that the UN could be motivated to promote the most scary scenario for the purpose of consolidating more power in the UN.

Climate defines the bounds within which the weather can vary. Climate is to weather as a prison yard is to prisoners.

By that definition we know almost nothing about climate. Most data of past weather is based on secondary evidence, whether tree ring, plant range of gases trapping in ice - all of these wash out the temporal peaks and produce only evidence for averaged climate.

It's not proof, but it's been strong enough evidence to see the establishment of the IPCC and just about every politician making noises about their concern. Even the White House has gone hands-up to the reality of AGW. Even the Australian government has signed up to it.

So your basis for evaluating the truth of an argument involves determining a concensus ? Asking all the politicians ? If so you should not be posting to a forum dedicated to debunking fallacious beliefs. You are instead promoting methods that leads directly to fallacious beliefs.

It's good evidence that something's changed. Land-use, climate, whatever, the actuaries will be on it and the odds will drop rapidly. As one who's spent many happy hours socialising with actuaries (they're more fun than one might expect) I can assure you of that. The "century" rating is based on statistics, and when three occur in a decade the statistics have changed.

No it's not evidence of anything special at all and you should try hanging out with actuaries who have actually studies statistics. Your claims show a ridiculous misunderstanding of basic probability. Having several improbable events appear in a short period does NOT change the underlying probability. Such things are effectively guaranteed to happen over long-enough time periods. Mis-recognizing a series of improbable random events as a pattern is precisely what conspiracy theorist do, not actuaries.

You must compare the odd-seeming result against the chance that these are normal variation within the original statistic. Yes, 3 century floods in a decade is improbable but it really must occur once every 10k years or perhaps much more often if there is a clustering of non-independent events. Just because you observe this after a few millenia of historical observation does not make the statistics wrong and no competant actuary would claim so.

I don't need the AGW religion and I'm too old to be scared by ghost stories.
You'll need to produce the same sort of statistical demonstration that other sciences require.

 

[Pipirr]

You really shouldn't be attributing to McIntyre that supposed quote by him, unless you can provide a link to him saying it. Which you can't. Do you really think he talks about himself in the third person? His primary concern is checking the validity of the data. He makes no assumption as to the main cause of recent warming.

I found the quote here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=climateaudit

It's the first search result on google. The quote that I used is the site description that was displayed.

If McIntyre didn't write that, then who did? Isn't the site description written by the author of the site?

 

[Schneibster]

Lockwood? You are taking refuge in the past there. That was debunked shortly after it came out. Surely you can do better than that? Surely?

Debunked? Where? Let's see some links to peer-reviewed literature if you're going to make a claim like that. You didn't provide any when it was first brought up, also by CD. I searched on Lockwood for the last three months in SMM&T (this forum) and found nothing but Piers Corbyn, who totally screwed up his "forecasts" for August, and who (because he keeps his data secret) has nothing but claims to oppose to Lockwood & Froehlich's hard data. In addition, it appears that their data is also in line with an earlier study by Lassen and Christensen.

I see no debunking. Where is this, ClimateFraudit? WeatherInaction?

 

[Schneibster]

Here's what you do, CD. Actually read the paper, then read the various responses. Don't waste my time if you just want to read your Realclimate script, take the lazy way out and not read Lockwood, then try to weasel around.

Make a post in the Science GW thread and I'll be glad to discuss it. I'm sure others will too. In this thread, I think the details would really bore people that are not technically inclined.

Fair enough?

Hey, you made the claim, then failed to support it. Claim therefore denied. You lied, again. And yes, that's the script.

 

[mhaze]

I found the quote here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=climateaudit

It's the first search result on google. The quote that I used is the site description that was displayed.

If McIntyre didn't write that, then who did? Isn't the site description written by the author of the site?

No, there are no meta tags that use these phrases in the source of the html. There are several other ways a site description can be picked up or automatically generated.

I don't think it is possible to know how that phrase was created, but Bobk is correct, it does not look like something that Steve McIntyre would approve of.

You've found something good though, an error. I'll bring it to Steve's attention. It is definitely contrary to what he views as the intent of his work.

Thanks.

 

[CapelDodger]

Might be accurate.

But Schneibee, AUP, CarpelDodger (not sure about Varoche) are by their own admission, Climate Alarmists. In other words, they go way way beyond what the IPCC projects and actually believe there is a serious possibility all the polar ice will melt, the seas may go up by 20 feet in 30 years, etc.

These views are obviously not supported by mainstream science.

Alarmists who believe in "tipping points", that would be a tiny fraction of JREF. Possibly only these several individuals.

You condemn yourself as a liar from your own mouth. A worthy disciple of Pat Michaels.

I notice that you've resorted to Diamond's infantile practice of name-calling. If you think youself capable of taking on that mantle you are sadly mis-informed. You don't have it in you to be that whacko. You've no imagination. No technique eiher, but neither did Diamond. Nor TitanPoint before him.

Schneibster, a_unique_person, and I don't predict anything more alarming than the mainstream science does. That - to people in the real world - is alarming enough. To such as you, it's alarming and therefore not true.

You could do with getting over your severe case of Ringmaster Syndrome. You weren't just rubbing cheeks in private with jerome back there, you're outside the clubhouse now. You're not just lying about me - and Schneibster, and a_unique_person - behind my back, you're doing it to my face in public.

That's gloves-off as far as I'm concerned. Go on, tell me that doesn't scare you. Tell me you're channeling ClimateAudit so I can't win. McIntyre is your staff and rod.

TitanPoint used to channel John Daly against me, and look what happened to him.

 

[Pipirr]

No, there are no meta tags that use these phrases in the source of the html. There are several other ways a site description can be picked up or automatically generated.

I don't think it is possible to know how that phrase was created, but Bobk is correct, it does not look like something that Steve McIntyre would approve of.

You've found something good though, an error. I'll bring it to Steve's attention. It is definitely contrary to what he views as the intent of his work.

Thanks.

Welcome!

 

[Schneibster]

You must compare the odd-seeming result against the chance that these are normal variation within the original statistic. Yes, 3 century floods in a decade is improbable but it really must occur once every 10k years or perhaps much more often if there is a clustering of non-independent events. Just because you observe this after a few millenia of historical observation does not make the statistics wrong and no competant actuary would claim so.

You're probably right; I'm no statistician, but I've spent enough time around them and statistics in general to have a good grasp of the subject.

So how's this grab you: in 2005, the Larsen B Ice Shelf in Antarctica collapsed. Now, that ice has been there since the beginning of the last glaciation, and that's 100,000 years. This year, the Arctic Ocean icepack retreated to a point that it's estimated not to have reached since the Eemian Interglacial, which was before that same last glaciation. Now, I don't know about you, but when I hear people talking about global warming, and I see ice that's been there for a hundred thousand years just up and disappear, I gotta sit up and take notice, know what I mean?

And when you talk about the politics of getting something published in a peer-reviewed journal, there's something important you've forgotten. If someone could actually do credible research and prove AGW is wrong, at this late date, the journal that published it would get a LOT of publicity, and a LOT of cred. That's the thing about science; if the contrarian turns out to be right, s/he gets famous. There aren't any, despite continuing claims of it.

Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence- but if you produce that evidence, then there you have it, and everybody else goes scrambling around to figure out where they screwed it up. It's pretty rare, though.

 

[CapelDodger]

I forgot to count stevea into the anti-AGW camp earlier. That cancels out my omission of Pipirr.

 

[luddite]

I have been looking at both sides and one side uses the hockey stick graph, the other side says that that graph was based on flawed data and doesn't even show the medieval warm period or little ice age. I've seen the graph and it's looks to be true that the medieval warming period and little ice age aren't there - if they were, it would paint a very different picture. Which side do I believe?

Which side do you believe?

The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occuring. See this article entitled BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change by Naomi Oreskes, published in the Journal "Science" in December 2004.

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions... Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Or read this statement issued jointly by 13 scientific academies in the world for the G8 summit in 2007, including the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, the Royal Society of the UK, the Royal Society of Canada, and the major scientific academies of Germany, Japan, France, Italy, China, Russia, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico and India. It reads:

In 2005, the Academies issued a statement emphasising that climate change was occurring and could be attributed mostly to human activities, and calling for efforts to tackle both the causes of climate change and the inevitable consequences of past and unavoidable future emissions. Since then the IPCC has published the Working Group 1 part of the Summary for Policymakers of its fourth assessment report, and further reports are expected later this year from IPCC. Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very
likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news-1/G8_Academies Declaration.pdf

Or read the statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in
extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

Or listen to an interview with John Holdren, the president of the AAAS on the issue:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1855511.htm

Or read the transcript:

The current situation of the world in relation to the climate problem is that we're in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog, and the fog is the scientific uncertainty about the details that prevent us from knowing exactly where the cliff is. The climate change sceptics are telling us that the fog is a consolation and that we shouldn't worry because we're uncertain about the details, but of course any sane person driving a car toward a cliff in the fog and knowing that the brakes are bad, that it takes the car a long time to stop, will start putting on the brakes, trying to slow the car, without knowing exactly where the cliff is but just in the hope that by putting on the brakes we'll be in time to keep from going over the cliff. You don't have to be sure that you can still avoid going over the cliff to put on the brakes, you want to do it in any case. And that's what the world should be doing with respect to the emissions of greenhouse gases that are causing this climate problem. There's a chance we'll go over the cliff anyway but prudence requires that we try to stop the car.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1855511.htm

There are legitimate doubters out there, some of whom are scientists. They represent a tiny and shrinking minority. I hope I don't misrepresent anyone when I say that I think everyone on this forum fervently hopes this tiny minority is right.

But anyone who implies that the numbers of scientists who are GW doubters is anywhere close to the number who accept it is distorting the truth.

Furthermore, if GW is occuring, the consequences of inaction are so high that prudence would call for reducing emissions even if you're unconvinced.

 

[mhaze]

Schneibster, a_unique_person, and I don't predict anything more alarming than the mainstream science does. That - to people in the real world - is alarming enough. To such as you, it's alarming and therefore not true.

What is wrong with defining Alarmist as going well beyond the limits of prediction of the mainstream science as embodied in the IPCC Feb 2007 report?

 

[mhaze]

So how's this grab you: in 2005, the Larsen B Ice Shelf in Antarctica collapsed. Now, that ice has been there since the beginning of the last glaciation, and that's 100,000 years. This year, the Arctic Ocean icepack retreated to a point that it's estimated not to have reached since the Eemian Interglacial, which was before that same last glaciation. Now, I don't know about you, but when I hear people talking about global warming, and I see ice that's been there for a hundred thousand years just up and disappear, I gotta sit up and take notice, know what I mean?

Yep, I predicted it first.

WARMERS RUNNING FOR THE SEA ICE.

Next - the Polar Bears!

BY THE SCRIPT.

 

[BobK]

I found the quote here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=climateaudit

It's the first search result on google. The quote that I used is the site description that was displayed.

If McIntyre didn't write that, then who did? Isn't the site description written by the author of the site?

If you had bothered to click the link and actually go there you would have found one of the people commenting in the thread inserted that as a quote from yet another site. McIntyre never said anything of the sort. All it would have taken is a simple search for part of the quote in that thread to come up with the correct, but still second-hand attribution.

 

[David Rodale]

Oh yes it is.

Something that drew my attention was a record low in Arctic ice-extent that was 27% below the previous record low, back in 2005.

An event like that takes some explaining away. Can solar-cycle science really take that sort of load?

Why not read the latest Arctic ice study rather than blathering? It's beginning to look like all you folks can do is give lectures and call people liars. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence Arctic warming is caused by AGW. Put up or shut up as MHaze would say.

According to the latest information, the rapid recent ice melt was caused by atmospheric conditions causing wind patterns to move the ice starting early in the last century. The article makes no mention whatsoever of AGW causes.

Do you have a comment on the article? Schneibster has me on Iggy; maybe his psychiatrist recommended it.

Here, one more time:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031138.shtml
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
I have the full article and can post excerpts. No reference is made to "global warming", "anthropogenic", CO2 levels etc. or anything else relating to AGW, but there's quite a bit about solar absorption and oceanic oscillations.

Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said.

The new study differs significantly from other recent studies that only looked at the Arctic's total sea ice extent.

Another, by Soon 2005
Willie W.-H. Soon
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023429.shtml

Abstract
This letter offers new evidence motivating a more serious consideration of the potential Arctic temperature responses as a consequence of the decadal, multidecadal and longer-term persistent forcing by the ever-changing solar irradiance both in terms of total solar irradiance (TSI, i.e., integrated over all wavelengths) and the related UV irradiance. The support for such a solar modulator can be minimally derived from the large (>75%) explained variance for the decadally-smoothed Arctic surface air temperatures (SATs) by TSI and from the time-frequency structures of the TSI and Arctic SAT variability as examined by wavelet analyses. The reconstructed Arctic SAT time series based on the inverse wavelet transform, which includes decadal (5–15 years) and multidecadal (40–80 years) variations and a longer-term trend, contains nonstationary but persistent features that are highly correlated with the Sun's intrinsic magnetic variability especially on multidecadal time scales.

 

[Pipirr]

If you had bothered to click the link and actually go there you would have found one of the people commenting in the thread inserted that as a quote from yet another site. McIntyre never said anything of the sort.

You assume that I never read climateaudit?

Hey, I learned something today. Site descriptions on google can be picked up from somewhere other than the website itself, and are not necessarily created by the author. I never knew that. And who knows, if mhaze passes it on, maybe Steve McIntyre will add a description of his own that is more appropriate.

After all, heaven forfend someone should get the wrong idea about climateaudit.

All it would have taken is a simple search for part of the quote in that thread to come up with the correct, but still second-hand attribution.

I have no idea what you are failing to say here.

 

[BobK]

You assume that I never read climateaudit?

Hey, I learned something today. Site descriptions on google can be picked up from somewhere other than the website itself, and are not necessarily created by the author. I never knew that. And who knows, if mhaze passes it on, maybe Steve McIntyre will add a description of his own that is more appropriate.

After all, heaven forfend someone should get the wrong idea about climateaudit.





I have no idea what you are failing to say here.

We seem to have a misunderstanding. I made no assumption you have never been to climateaudit. Clicking the link would have taken you to the site. I did make the assumption you were aware they have a search box with an option to search the site.(upper right corner of main page) There you could have entered the search text and it would have given you a link to the thread where the text could be found. By then doing a search using key combination Ctl-F in the thread page you could insert the text and it would take you to the comment containing the text and you would know who actually quoted it from another site.

FYI. I guess here is where the the supposed quote originated. It appears to be another persons description of the site and not McIntyre's. Link

 

[Megalodon]

You are presenting more data that there is a range of natural variation? More data to prove my point that David Rodale is correct in saying that there is no warming?

As for Tung 2007, the subject is not his overall conclusions, but the range of natural variability. I am well aware of the overall extent of his work and find it pretty laughable. That is a separate subject. We could discuss it if you like.

I am going to be charitable and explain this to you as if I didn't know you're not interested.

The paper in question identified, through a lot of work, a natural variation in temperature due to the solar variation. This means that going from a solar minimum to a solar maximum would account for an increase of roughly 0.18º, in around 6 years. Conversely, going from a solar minimum to a solar maximum to a solar minimum would account for a decrease of roughly 0.18º.

The reason why they had so much work is that, due to global warming, the trend is not clearly perceived. That because, despite your antics, there has been a constant increase in temperature for the last 3 decades. This includes almost 3 complete solar cycles, with the corresponding 6 fluctuations of plus or minus 0.18ºC.

That's it, in a few paragraphs...