Global warming

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by David Rodale

Met O stated recently natural variation has overcome global warming, but that it will return sometime between ~2009-2014. Logically then, one would assume that means it is currently not warming, yes?

​

So it just suddenly stopped, huh? Suuuuuure. That's why the ice all melted, right?


By the way, have you heard of the solar cycle? You know, the 11-year one? Any idea where we are in that cycle? Yep, that's right- at the bottom. That means that it's about .18C cooler than it will be in a couple years- and it's gonna get about .36C warmer by about 5 or 6 years from now.

Really? Care to elaborate on your prediction?

Perhaps provide something of a 95 or 99% confidence level, and the background data for it. That would indeed be interesting.

 

[Schneibster]

Not really. You've opened the box on how mean I'm being on the other thread. Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to accuse people who oppose you of wanting a disaster to happen? That's what I want to discuss.

 

[CapelDodger]

do not hope that skeptics are correct and that there is no warming.[/b] Some of them are on this forum.

Names? Come on, you've falsely accused named individuals of being "self-confessed alarmists", so why stop there? Give us the benefit of your Psych 101 analysis of people's motivations.

Show me yours, I'll show you mine.

Sad isn't it?

What is particularly sad is the dependence of such as you and David Rodale on ClimateAudit because you don't get out much.

That "debunking" of the satellite observations of the Sun's output - any more detail on that? You surely you didn't just get it from ClimateAudit commentary. (OK, not that surely, but for all I know there's a limit to your gullibility. Not yet demonstrated, but still a possibility.)

That there would be people who were not happy unless the planet was perceived to be in a crisis.

On that, I agree. It's hard to explain the War On Terror otherwise.

 

[CapelDodger]

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?

Just give me a link to a debunking. That won't bore anybody.

Alternatively you could just provide the highlights of the "debunking" that you claimed on this thread. What was it that persuaded you? I don't ask for detail from you, since the best I could expect is cut-and-paste. You're a simple chap, so what simple points persuaded you of Lockwood et al's untruthiness? Where did the solar scientists and their satellites go wrong?

Failing that, a link would do. Even if it's to ClimateAudit.

 

[CapelDodger]

Really? Care to elaborate on your prediction?

Perhaps provide something of a 95 or 99% confidence level, and the background data for it. That would indeed be interesting.

We could just wait for three-to-eight years and know for certain.

The 60-80 year Arctic Ice cycle you're wedded to : do you have 90% confidence-level data for that? 80%? Anything at all beyond Dr Dick's explicitly uncertain (scientists do not lose respect by association with such as you) 60-80 year cycle?

I'm sure you find it 100% comfort-level, but that's not the same thing.

 

[CapelDodger]

Not really. You've opened the box on how mean I'm being on the other thread.

Lets not get into a turf-war, m'kay? mhaze has justified my being mean to him on this thread, and I have it in hand. There's a lot to be said for division of labour.

Now that I hear you're being mean to mhaze over there, I'll look in as soon as I get time. Not to contribute, just to watch.

Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to accuse people who oppose you of wanting a disaster to happen? That's what I want to discuss.

I'm not at all sure "hypocritical" is the right term. "Mean-minded" seems to me more appropriate, where "mean" means paltry (as in "mean rations") and/or ungentlemanly.

 

[Schneibster]

Lets not get into a turf-war, m'kay? mhaze has justified my being mean to him on this thread, and I have it in hand. There's a lot to be said for division of labour.

Cool, all yours. I'll chime in if I've got anything technical to contribute.

Now that I hear you're being mean to mhaze over there, I'll look in as soon as I get time. Not to contribute, just to watch.

I don't mind; feel free. You occasionally see past something I was looking at and have a good contribution to make.

I'm not at all sure "hypocritical" is the right term. "Mean-minded" seems to me more appropriate, where "mean" means paltry (as in "mean rations") and/or ungentlemanly.

My thinking was more that it's being used as a debating tactic rather than an honest criticism of someone else's behavior. I suppose it amounts to the same thing.

 

[CapelDodger]

How about this:


(I can't post links quite yet, but I'm pretty sure this is my 15th post, so I'll put a link to the article in a separate reply.)

And it worked ! Hi from me.

I'd peg myself as "AGW Agnostic leaning towards anti-AGW"

That I find interesting. Unless there's an unpersuaded audience looking in, we regulars here are just indulging ourselves. mhaze et al are coming from their convictions, and nothing will change that. Responding to them is an intellectual exercise (nothing wrong with that) but won't change anything. I'm convinced of AGW by what I see as good reasons.

As an agnostic, in the middle ground, what is it in the arguments that leans you towards anti-AGW and away from AGW? A rough-cut of your impressions - and I promise I won't leap at your throat . Or even try to convert you.

The conviction stuff is old hat, and at the other end is Joe Prole, just as predictable. It's the middle ground that's interesting.

 

[CapelDodger]

Cool, all yours. I'll chime in if I've got anything technical to contribute.

I don't mind; feel free. You occasionally see past something I was looking at and have a good contribution to make.

Absolutely; by "contribution" I intended to refer specifically to being mean to mhaze. As to anything else, synergy is the thing. In principle I'm opposed to the multiplication of AGW threads, but if in practice it means two arenas to be mean to mhaze in, in our different styles, I'm well good with that.

My thinking was more that it's being used as a debating tactic rather than an honest criticism of someone else's behavior. I suppose it amounts to the same thing.

It's a diversion, just like stevea's politicisation of Science by association (just another "academic pursuit"). Debating tactics is pretty much what we're up against - and on that I can contribute. In technical terms I'm an informed amateur. Debating tactics, on the other hand, I've got down cold. There's nothing new under the Sun where that's concerned. All there is is detail.

I spent many of my formative years in an Old School that was designed to produce lawyers, politicians, and Oxford theologians. Sophistry wasn't an accusation, it was a compliment. I learnt about debating tactics, and how to counter them, from a defensive position.

Which is where we both stand, shoulder-to-shoulder with others in the shield-wall. The denialist camp is always on the attack, always responding to events, always rubbishing other people's work - and, of course, the people that did it.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger
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?

Apparently so, if you just check the literature. From David Rodale's msg that you were notably silent on. No comment?

Willie W.-H. Soon
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL023429.shtml
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.​

 

[mhaze]

We could just wait for three-to-eight years and know for certain.

The 60-80 year Arctic Ice cycle you're wedded to : do you have 90% confidence-level data for that? 80%? Anything at all beyond Dr Dick's explicitly uncertain (scientists do not lose respect by association with such as you) 60-80 year cycle?

I'm sure you find it 100% comfort-level, but that's not the same thing.

Yes, I believe you were in the thread when we went over the correlation.

Have you forgotten?

 

[mhaze]

Of course there's natural variation, and natural cycles.
​

When a natural cycle keeps re-starting from a higher base - as is the case with the solar cycle - something else is in play. In this case, of course, it's increasing CO2-load. Just as predicted from the underlying science.
​

Would Hansen agree with you?

 

[Schneibster]

Apparently so, if you just check the literature. From David Rodale's msg that you were notably silent on. No comment?

Willie W.-H. Soon
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL023429.shtml
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.​

Just a couple quick questions: why are surface air temperature readings better than satellite readings for determining solar variation? And why is a letter (not a paper) from two years ago more authoritative on solar variation than a peer-reviewed paper from this year?

 

[Megalodon]

Shall I insert a trend from when it peaked in 1998?

The entire satellite record is there in the open. No tricks, no cherry picking. There is nothing Megalodon can do other than to alter the data. Clearly, there is no additional warming occurring since 1998. The trend is flat. It is no warmer in Sept. 2007 than it was in Sept. 1988.

Altering the data?

You sir, are a dishonorable waste of oxygen. I presented the graphs based on the data of your link, showing that your claim was a bluff from a blundering nitwit who didn’t have the skill to actually make a pair of charts to verify his own obtuse claim.

I am a scientist, and I will let no one - even an anonymous buffoon – challenge my honesty in handling data. The only change made to the data (the arbitrary removal of 1998) was requested by you! I know that you weren’t expecting someone to actually make the plots, but then, you’re not exactly a master-mind.

As parting remarks:

I give you your pet claim of the warmth of Septembers, plotted properly, with a trend to help you. It won’t, but I had the free time, and it’s fun helping you in your quest to look like a fool.




I give you also the temperatures as plotted from September 1996, 97, 98 and 99. See, it’s not worth bluffing. Your little tricks are childish.



I am done with you

 

[Megalodon]

Really?

I lost count of the times I explained this:

An ad hom is not an insult. If I dismiss a claim because the guy is an idiot, it’s an ad hom. If I refute his claim with my own argument, and in the process call him an idiot, it’s an insult. To be a logical fallacy it has to be the core of the argument at hand.
BTW, if I say that only morons go around waving accusations of logical fallacies they don’t understand, it’s poisoning the well.

 

[mhaze]

Just a couple quick questions: why are surface air temperature readings better than satellite readings for determining solar variation? And why is a letter (not a paper) from two years ago more authoritative on solar variation than a peer-reviewed paper from this year?

Referring to what paper from this year?

 

[Schneibster]

Referring to what paper from this year?

Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007.

 

[mhaze]

Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007.

Ahh...

The one you said this about...

Originally Posted by mhaze
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?
​

But the link to the rebuttal was already provided by David Rodale. Did you not see it?

 

[Locri]

I lost count of the times I explained this:

An ad hom is not an insult. If I dismiss a claim because the guy is an idiot, it’s an ad hom. If I refute his claim with my own argument, and in the process call him an idiot, it’s an insult. To be a logical fallacy it has to be the core of the argument at hand.
BTW, if I say that only morons go around waving accusations of logical fallacies they don’t understand, it’s poisoning the well.

Hopefully I'm not putting any words in mhaze's mouth, but I'd imagine he, like many others, was probably using the colloquial version of ad hom in which any personal attack regardless of if it dismisses a claim or not is considered to be an ad hom.

Either way, I don't think insulting someone is really conducive to a reasoned discussion.

 

[Megalodon]

Hopefully I'm not putting any words in mhaze's mouth, but I'd imagine he, like many others, was probably using the colloquial version of ad hom in which any personal attack regardless of if it dismisses a claim or not is considered to be an ad hom.

Then he would be wrong, as it so often happens. The fact that many others are wrong too doesn't help. Words exist to communicate meaning. A logical fallacy is much more serious in a debate than an insult. Accusing others of this logical fallacy implies that those accused didn't bother argue the point. This is false, since all his points have been argued.

[/QUOTE]Either way, I don't think insulting someone is really conducive to a reasoned discussion.[/QUOTE]

I agree completely. But sometimes it's the only way to go. Please see my last post to DR, above, for an example.