Global warming

[CapelDodger]

Risk management, which is the business all governments are in ...

Agreed, but risk of what to whom? Ideally "whom" would be society in general - humanity in general, given an extensive enough government - but in practice not so much. The "risk" is always the same - that the good times go away.

... doesn't normally only deal with the most likely scenario.

Agreed again : the "Round them all up and shoot them" principle of government resonates through history.

If that was all they did, they would be derelict in their duty.

I'm way more cynical than you, aren't I ?

 

[a_unique_person]

Not just the scientific world, but humanity in general. I've studied a lot of psychology and have had enough experience in academic settings to understand that facts are not always checked throughly.

It's hard for me to trust a viewpoint that keeps on changing the goalposts. First the Mann Hockey stick... shoot, disproven... um? How about that correlation to CO2 historically through Ice cores? The 800 year gap? Darn... um, how about these Hansen graphs?

The hockey stick has been re-investigated, and validated by independent researchers. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf Chapter 6.6

It's a big drum the deniers always beat, but it doesn't even make the case for AGW. The rate of change that is measured is enough to make the case for concern.

800 year gap. It's a concept that seem to be hard for people to understand for some reason. CO2 can be a feedback, like water vapour, and that's what it usually is. At present, we are pumping it out of the ground and into the atmosphere via fossil fuels. That's not going to be in the geological record, but it's being measured now. Hansen? He's put up with vitriol worthy of the anti christ. Hansen is 1/1000 th of the scientific case. Ignore him if you want, the case still stands.

Not only that, but the AGW side rarely seems to admit these defeats and say they were wrong, instead they choose to hide the fact that they even existed in most cases, or change the circumstances around it to make it viable again.

I don't see why the Anti-AGW position should cause you such concern because it's simply a skeptical viewpoint. Admittedly it doesn't offer any other solutions, but it shouldn't hurt to question things in some cases right? Especially when people have been wrong before? That's science... if the science doesn't stand up to questioning, throw it out and try again. Many in the AGW camp act like it's a huge offense to even question things, which is scary in itself.



Indeed ^_^

I read that New Scientist has said we need sceptics for the AGW case, like all science does. But why do the deniers grasp at every straw, no matter how thin and feeble? If they would stick to the science, they would be much better value. Instead we have

• Self contradicting claims
• A parade of obvious nutters like Piers Corbyn offered up as experts
• Papers published by Lyndon Larouche
• Patently laughable papers such as Beck and his CO2 record.
• TGGWS as evidence
• Lunatic conspiracy theories.
• An obsession with Al Gore
• 16 year old children as authorities
• Nitpicking at details
• Accusations that there is a gravy train that demands more and more money for research
• Demands for more research because the case isn't proven yet

Where is the science? It's pretty damn thin on the ground. And people such as Christy, who went on for years about his impeccable satellite record disproving warming, never actually let on to his fans that the satellites don't measure the temperature directly, but that it is done via mathematically inferring the temperature because the satellites aren't capable of reading the temperature directly, and he got it wrong. Christy comes up with an 'iris' effect, but no actual science on how it works or evidence that it exists.

 

[CapelDodger]

Not just the scientific world, but humanity in general. I've studied a lot of psychology and have had enough experience in academic settings to understand that facts are not always checked throughly.

I haven't studied psychology, but I've experienced and observed humans for fifty years. Only quite recently at this distance, as opposed to up the pub or across a dinner-table face-to-face interactions, but in the end it's not really that different.

It's hard for me to trust a viewpoint that keeps on changing the goalposts.

That's where I see unease creeping in, the old "it's not about that, it's about this" gambit. I learnt long ago to pin protaganists down to the original "that". As in : if it's not about that, why did you bring it up in the first palce?

First the Mann Hockey stick... shoot, disproven... um? How about that correlation to CO2 historically through Ice cores? The 800 year gap? Darn... um, how about these Hansen graphs?

The Mann et al reconstruction has been disproven? What about the independent reconstructions that support it, have they gone the same way? What's the relevance of the 800-ish year CO2 response-lag to the present situation? What Hansen graphs?

Not only that, but the AGW side rarely seems to admit these defeats and say they were wrong, instead they choose to hide the fact that they even existed in most cases, or change the circumstances around it to make it viable again.

There's been a thing going on recently about getting mhaze to admit that Pat Michaels blatantly lied to Congress back in 1998. Getting blood out of a stone is a doddle in comparison. Michaels's lying is there for all too see, courtesy of the Cato Institute, but mhaze won't have it.

Where has the AGW side had to admit defeat? We've been at it for twenty years or more, and it just keeps getting warmer. The big bad analogue model just keeps confirming our position.

I don't see why the Anti-AGW position should cause you such concern because it's simply a skeptical viewpoint.

It's not sceptical, it's agressive and destructive. Turn your scepticism on the anti-AGW camp. What have they got?

Admittedly it doesn't offer any other solutions, but it shouldn't hurt to question things in some cases right?

You spotted that absence of alternatives, but you still seem to have taken on the attitude. The shifting of goalposts by the anti-AGW camp is obvious - egregious, even - so what questions are left to be asked?

Especially when people have been wrong before?

The anti-AGW argument twenty years ago was that there wouldn't be any warming, and has only more recently shifted into explaining it away. Singer's Saviour Cycle, stuff like that. "It's the Sun" (Nope, damn that direct observation.)

That's science... if the science doesn't stand up to questioning, throw it out and try again. Many in the AGW camp act like it's a huge offense to even question things, which is scary in itself.

The science of AGW stands up very well. The science of anti-AGW ... well, there isn't any.

I won't be offended if you present some.

 

[mhaze]

As the Arctic ice anomoly this year shows...
http://www.theage.com.au/news/clima...ier-reef-acidic/2007/10/17/1192300858496.html

From another Australian, quoting from ClimateAudit -

paul says: October 10th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
From an Australian blog site:

I was born in Feb 1955 in the middle of the worst flood in 150 years in our region. The previous worst flood in 150 years was in 1948. By the time I turned 12 we were in the middle of the worst drought in 150 years in our region since 1934. By the time I turned 18 we had snow falling in our coastal city, unheard-of in history since 1959.

When I was 19 we suffered the first cyclone in history since 1938, which sent a large ship aground and trashed half the city (previous unheard-of cyclones wrecked about 112 ships over 100 years according to maritime records). In 1989 we had a deadly earthquake, the first in history since 1926, and 1886 before that.

Climate does weird things all the time. People need to get used to it, especially if they live past the age of 20.
​

Some people just have the sense to blame natural events on natural variations in climate. Others blame people.

 

[a_unique_person]

From another Australian, quoting from ClimateAudit -

paul says: October 10th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
From an Australian blog site:

I was born in Feb 1955 in the middle of the worst flood in 150 years in our region. The previous worst flood in 150 years was in 1948. By the time I turned 12 we were in the middle of the worst drought in 150 years in our region since 1934. By the time I turned 18 we had snow falling in our coastal city, unheard-of in history since 1959.

When I was 19 we suffered the first cyclone in history since 1938, which sent a large ship aground and trashed half the city (previous unheard-of cyclones wrecked about 112 ships over 100 years according to maritime records). In 1989 we had a deadly earthquake, the first in history since 1926, and 1886 before that.

Climate does weird things all the time. People need to get used to it, especially if they live past the age of 20.
​

Some people just have the sense to blame natural events on natural variations in climate. Others blame people.

Which is why you need the science to analyse the data objectively. The food growing parts of Australia are undergoing the worst drought period on record. There have been worse single years, but never a sustained period of low rainfall like this one. There is an average rainfall that is quite healthy, but it's now falling on desert areas where no-one lives.

 

[mhaze]

Which is why you need the science to analyse the data objectively. The food growing parts of Australia are undergoing the worst drought period on record. There have been worse single years, but never a sustained period of low rainfall like this one. There is an average rainfall that is quite healthy, but it's now falling on desert areas where no-one lives.

'

And your guys build rabbit fences, to keep the rabbits out of the crops, and then find that all the rain falls on the side the rabbits are on, not on the crops.

And no one really understands why, or does anything to fix it.

Right? And it ain't got nothing to do with any AGW, but it is definitely an effect of man's actions.

 

[David Rodale]

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

My apologies, I didn't see those in your earlier post since I do have other activities other than JREF.

First, I didn't say you alter data; there was no animus intended or implied. I said the only way you can show there is currently a warming trend for the last several years is to alter the data, and believe I specifically pointed out since 1998. If I used 1998 as the baseline, that would make it appear the trend is drastically negative; now that would be disingenuous.

Secondly, I never said there is no warming trend. It surely has since 1979. However, being a scientist, you should know how to spot when a trend is changing. Currently, that is happening. The slope and trend are included. Statistically there is no warming. Sorry to break the news, but it is what it is.

Adjusting for El Ninos, which I didn't do not being a "climatologist" (the adjustments are out there), the trend tightens further. No matter.

Below are step series beginning with Sep99. It's so easy, even a scientist can do it. Notice something? Note that UAH has not yet adjusted for diurnal correction, but it shouldn't be much.





Below are simple column charts that even a child can do:
Again, UAH has not adjusted yet, but is still pretty close to RSS.


Is RSS your flavor?


I didn't label the cell, but at the lower right corner of the data is the slope. UAH=+.006 and RSS=-.002. What does that mean? There is no warming in the current decade

Now, what do you think is going to happen between now and say, March 2008? Are temps going to rise or fall? What will happen to the trend? By what logic is used here, even if a .14/dec downward trend occurs, you could still claim the "earth is warming" for the next 20 years.

No offense, but how in the blazes can you expect to analyze anything using a scatter?

Now, if the US was used as an example, you really wouldn't like that.

 

[a_unique_person]

'

And your guys build rabbit fences, to keep the rabbits out of the crops, and then find that all the rain falls on the side the rabbits are on, not on the crops.

And no one really understands why, or does anything to fix it.

Right? And it ain't got nothing to do with any AGW, but it is definitely an effect of man's actions.

There are two reasons rainfall patterns are changing.

Asian pollution is drifting down to the more or less uninhabited NW, bring rainfall. The South Westerly cold fronts are drifting South, meaning areas that relied on their rainfall are experiencing more drought.

 

[a_unique_person]

Now, if the US was used as an example, you really wouldn't like that.

You like making up what people think.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You like making up what people think.

That was the best comment you could come up with from that data filled post?

 

[mhaze]

My apologies, I didn't see those in your earlier post since I do have other activities other than JREF.

First, I didn't say you alter data; there was no animus intended or implied. I said the only way you can show there is currently a warming trend for the last several years is to alter the data, and believe I specifically pointed out since 1998. If I used 1998 as the baseline, that would make it appear the trend is drastically negative; now that would be disingenuous.

Secondly, I never said there is no warming trend. It surely has since 1979. However, being a scientist, you should know how to spot when a trend is changing. Currently, that is happening. The slope and trend are included. Statistically there is no warming. Sorry to break the news, but it is what it is.

Adjusting for El Ninos, which I didn't do not being a "climatologist" (the adjustments are out there), the trend tightens further. No matter.

Below are step series beginning with Sep99. It's so easy, even a scientist can do it. Notice something? Note that UAH has not yet adjusted for diurnal correction, but it shouldn't be much.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_103234716be0c414dd.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_103234716bfaacc782.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_103234716bfd375ab8.jpg

Below are simple column charts that even a child can do:
Again, UAH has not adjusted yet, but is still pretty close to RSS.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_103234716c0ce30d7c.jpg

Is RSS your flavor?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_103234716c0ed51458.jpg

I didn't label the cell, but at the lower right corner of the data is the slope. UAH=+.006 and RSS=-.002. What does that mean? There is no warming in the current decade

Now, what do you think is going to happen between now and say, March 2008? Are temps going to rise or fall? What will happen to the trend? By what logic is used here, even if a .14/dec downward trend occurs, you could still claim the "earth is warming" for the next 20 years.

No offense, but how in the blazes can you expect to analyze anything using a scatter?

Now, if the US was used as an example, you really wouldn't like that.

Is this not just a numerical confirmation of the high correlation of the ascending sine wave fit to the data on this graph? (NOT sure the MSU data was used for this chart, can check but probably does not matter).

Side note: Consider all the pop AGW-science that talks about "current century warming". Look at the graph below.

The low point, right at 1900, maximizes "current century warming".

 

[Schneibster]

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

Yes, I saw those laughable graphs in it, too. The data stop fitting on the right half. Which is precisely what Lockwood and Frolich said.

See here, as well. A few important quotes:

There is still no long-term trend in the GCR, not even in the Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s response (see also figure below). This seems to be acknowledged now.

The LF2007 paper and the response focus on just the last 2-3 decades for which there were direct measurements of the total solar irradiance (TSI= solar energy summed over all wavelength), but if they had read my paper on this issue in GRL 2005, they would have seen that there has not been any trend in solar activity or GCR since 1952 (also seen in the figure below).

In addition, there is no evidence of any long-term trend in the low cloud cover (IPCC AR4), and the GCR-hypothesis has a problem with explaining the trend in the diurnal cycle, enhanced warming in the Arctic and a cooling in the stratosphere. The only explanation we can offer is an enhanced greenhouse effect.

And you didn't respond to why you think measurements of TSI from the ground are better than ones from a satellite above the atmosphere.

 

[Megalodon]

My apologies, I didn't see those in your earlier post since I do have other activities other than JREF.

Since you quoted from the same post that had the graphs, I find that hard to believe.

First, I didn't say you alter data; there was no animus intended or implied. I said the only way you can show there is currently a warming trend for the last several years is to alter the data, and believe I specifically pointed out since 1998. If I used 1998 as the baseline, that would make it appear the trend is drastically negative; now that would be disingenuous.

Yes, you did, and I showed that you were wrong... again. I plotedd the data for you, and it is never drastically negative. Or negative, to begin with.

Secondly, I never said there is no warming trend. It surely has since 1979. However, being a scientist, you should know how to spot when a trend is changing. Currently, that is happening. The slope and trend are included. Statistically there is no warming. Sorry to break the news, but it is what it is.

You didn't "say" anything, but you implied a lot. You implied that without the 98 El Niño the trend would change drastically. It doesn't.

Being a scientist, I know how to integrate the knowledge of and around a subject. Since we are in a solar minimum, it would be expected for the trend to be negative from September 2000. It's not. And unfortunately, it's because of AGW.

Below are step series beginning with Sep99. It's so easy, even a scientist can do it. Notice something? Note that UAH has not yet adjusted for diurnal correction, but it shouldn't be much.

I call to attention that you are now using another database. I really don't care why, though... I'm getting used to your flopping around. Anyway, There is nothing in your graphs that doesn't appear in mine. I realize you have a problem with scatter plots, but they have the advantage that you can actually see the monthly data, and not the averages. But that might hinder whatever point you think you are making.

There is no warming in the current decade

Only if your idea of decade is fom 2001 to 2007. And even then, we would expect a decrease of temperature due to the decrease in solar activity. But we don't see it.

What will happen to the trend? By what logic is used here, even if a .14/dec downward trend occurs, you could still claim the "earth is warming" for the next 20 years.

You don't get it, do you? Your whole problem is that you keep asking what will happen with the trend, assume an answer, and are shown to be wrong! Stop it. The trends don't behave as you said they would, even when I stacked the deck in your favor. Now, of course, you are making "rethorical" questions about the future, again implying an answer. Given your track record when you actually have the data, I will not put any money on your forecasts.

No offense, but how in the blazes can you expect to analyze anything using a scatter?

Why would your shortcomings offend me?

Now, if the US was used as an example, you really wouldn't like that.

Why would you use local temperatures to estimate a global process? Wait, I know... has something to do with your dishonesty?

 

[David Rodale]

Since you quoted from the same post that had the graphs, I find that hard to believe.



Yes, you did, and I showed that you were wrong... again. I plotedd the data for you, and it is never drastically negative. Or negative, to begin with.



You didn't "say" anything, but you implied a lot. You implied that without the 98 El Niño the trend would change drastically. It doesn't.

Being a scientist, I know how to integrate the knowledge of and around a subject. Since we are in a solar minimum, it would be expected for the trend to be negative from September 2000. It's not. And unfortunately, it's because of AGW.



I call to attention that you are now using another database. I really don't care why, though... I'm getting used to your flopping around. Anyway, There is nothing in your graphs that doesn't appear in mine. I realize you have a problem with scatter plots, but they have the advantage that you can actually see the monthly data, and not the averages. But that might hinder whatever point you think you are making.



Only if your idea of decade is fom 2001 to 2007. And even then, we would expect a decrease of temperature due to the decrease in solar activity. But we don't see it.



You don't get it, do you? Your whole problem is that you keep asking what will happen with the trend, assume an answer, and are shown to be wrong! Stop it. The trends don't behave as you said they would, even when I stacked the deck in your favor. Now, of course, you are making "rethorical" questions about the future, again implying an answer. Given your track record when you actually have the data, I will not put any money on your forecasts.


Why would your shortcomings offend me?


Why would you use local temperatures to estimate a global process? Wait, I know... has something to do with your dishonesty?

It's not warming.

Why would you use local temperatures to estimate a global process? Wait, I know... has something to do with your dishonesty?

Only a tree ring can do that

 

[mhaze]

Only if your idea of decade is fom 2001 to 2007. And even then, we would expect a decrease of temperature due to the decrease in solar activity. But we don't see it.

It certainly should be possible for people to agree on what a simple group of data points says. Meg, you seem to not want to do that, for whatever reason - the simple fact that "it's not warming", what is complicated about that?

Then you say "we should expect a decrease of temperature due to the decrease in solar activity" - this related to the question that Schneib just responded to, about Lockwood 2007 and the response to it.

Is your opinion that solar influences should be immediate and commesurate to a change in solar activity? It has been argued that solar and temperature diverged around 1970, thus the difference must be due to AGW "since there could be nothing else".

A lot of people would say that's an obvious logical fallacy. What do you think about it?

 

[mhaze]

There are two reasons rainfall patterns are changing.

Asian pollution is drifting down to the more or less uninhabited NW, bring rainfall. The South Westerly cold fronts are drifting South, meaning areas that relied on their rainfall are experiencing more drought.

Agreed. But neither of which rationing CO2 on a global basis will have any effect on.

 

[Schneibster]

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.

As far as background data, I'll go with Megalodon's scatter plots, and the fact that we're at the bottom of the solar cycle (technically headed back up, just past it).

It certainly should be possible for people to agree on what a simple group of data points says. Meg, you seem to not want to do that, for whatever reason - the simple fact that "it's not warming", what is complicated about that?

I'd say DR's response above pretty much says it all. Not much there, is there? You did notice I never got an answer to how to quantify the smoothness of a graph, didn't you? I would say that it's basically a marked lack of ability to read a graph, and I'm not surprised by a concomitant lack of ability to read a scatter plot.

And I note you don't seem to have an answer to either LF2007, or to why ground insolation data from two years ago should be better than satellite irradiance from this year.

Then you say "we should expect a decrease of temperature due to the decrease in solar activity" - this related to the question that Schneib just responded to, about Lockwood 2007 and the response to it.

Actually, Megalodon was following hir own line of reasoning, and came to the same conclusion. Interesting how science all actually fits together, isn't it? See, that's a hallmark of a successful theory. It makes predictions in areas other than the initial confirming predictions. You'd know that if you knew any science.

 

[David Rodale]

As far as background data, I'll go with Megalodon's scatter plots, and the fact that we're at the bottom of the solar cycle (technically headed back up, just past it).

I'd say DR's response above pretty much says it all. Not much there, is there? You did notice I never got an answer to how to quantify the smoothness of a graph, didn't you? I would say that it's basically a marked lack of ability to read a graph, and I'm not surprised by a concomitant lack of ability to read a scatter plot.

And I note you don't seem to have an answer to either LF2007, or to why ground insolation data from two years ago should be better than satellite irradiance from this year.

Actually, Megalodon was following hir own line of reasoning, and came to the same conclusion. Interesting how science all actually fits together, isn't it? See, that's a hallmark of a successful theory. It makes predictions in areas other than the initial confirming predictions. You'd know that if you knew any science.

It's interesting how L&F cherry picked data to support their hypothesis and ignored data and other research contradicting it. Isn't that true?

Can IPCC now claim it now has a high level of scientific understanding of solar?

BTW, it's not warming.

 

[rcronk]

I'm about to gather up arguments from the GW poll here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96152

I noticed that there are a few in the heated debate over here who have not voted. The vote is currently 15 to 14 - a lot more even than I had originally thought it would be. If you haven't voted yet, I'd like to have you counted and your strongest argument documented so we can have a good list of arguments for and against to work with. Thanks for your help.

ETA: I have gathered up the current arguments and though the vote is roughly 1:1, the number of arguments are roughly 2:1 opposed to AGW.

 

[David Rodale]

As far as background data, I'll go with Megalodon's scatter plots, and the fact that we're at the bottom of the solar cycle (technically headed back up, just past it).

I'll go with Megalodon's scatter plots

Below are two charts, one scatter, the other line. Both are using the same data.
Both result in the same trend. What is so difficult to understand? You can't analyze much using a scatter diagram in this example; it looks like a messy desk.

No Schneibster, we have not yet reached solar minimum of SC23. It's not expected until Spring 2008 or later. They are not limited to 11 years either.