Global warming

[Schneibster]

Here is July....

Recent temperature history and conclusions thereof
We know that temperature has risen - check.
We know that carbon dioxide has risen - check.
Since carbon dioxide should cause warming therefore carbon dioxide rise caused the temperature rise - no its doesn't.

The fallacy of correlation implying causation is used hundreds of times on this Forum, and not exclusively to Global Warming, but AGW is certainly mainlining it like its going out of fashion.

No change. Correlation and logical fallacies by AGW believers are rampant, in spite of numerous peer reviewed articles that have introduced, linked to and which suggest the contrary.​

Unchanged indeed; recent denier arguments include:
1. Use of a graph that clearly shows warming with no apparent recognition of the fact that it is going up;
2. Denial of the obvious spectral and resulting thermodynamic implications of increased CO2, after the effects have been extensively discussed and not successfully rebutted;
3. Rampant misrepresentation of data (specifically, data was used to create a graph that turned out to be not merely incorrect, but deliberately manipulated to make it so, and this was made obvious by the response that included all the data and showed the expected results);
4. Misrepresentation of the argument in favor of GW as correlation without discussion of causation (see point 2 above regarding causation, an issue this poster would obviously prefer to avoid, and equally obviously has avoided discussing in this post for that reason). This, by the way, is a straw-man argument, because it involves a misrepresentation of the opposing argument.

Overall, an unsullied record of misrepresentation, data manipulation, and ignoring opposing points that one has no answer for.

IPCC forecasts have no scientific merit

Armstrong et al. We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. The forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

Does anyone care to discuss the theory and practice of his approach to the IPCC Chapter 8 findings?

No takers. Extensive attempts to discredit Armstrong failed resulting in this challenge (unanswered).
​

First, an analysis by a scientist is not necessarily a scientific analysis. Second, it appears there are significant problems with their analysis, not the least of which are misapplication of principles of data collection analysis to model output analysis, misunderstanding (to be charitable) of what the interior application of the model is as opposed to what data it is being checked against, and misunderstanding (to be charitable) of the data that is the output of the model as opposed to data that have been collected from the real world. The supposedly peer-reviewed article was published in Energy and Environment. They talked to only one climatologist, and they reviewed only one chapter of the IPCC report and never looked at any of the source papers, much less analyzed any of them.

To top it all off, it appears that they are attempting to generate a controversy to improve sales of their book. Details are available here.

Unpredictability of climate sensitivity
Is it a 0.5 C rise over 50 years (does not matter at all) a 6 C rise over 50 years (not good) or a completely unknown rise because we ain't that smart to figure it out?

No takers. (Currently possibly under discussion with Roe Baker 2006 and Schwartz 2007.​

Given that this is in progress, I'll not second-guess it.

IPCC projections have gone done repeatedly, with each new report.

Extensive attempts to deny this by AGW believers were refuted, (it is simply a factual statement)
​

First, "extensive statements" is a lie. Second, the size of the range has decreased; I could equally state that the projections have gone up, because the minimum projection has gone up. Of course, the center projection remains unchanged. So this is a misrepresentation of the data. Again. The modus operandi appears to be, make a statement, ignore refutations and don't respond, and then claim that no one refuted it later. This pattern is repeated again and again by this poster.

Insults and name calling.
Calling someone a name, and apparently a name that has some sort of insulting meaning, (I never heard the word denialist until I read these forums), is not civil or intelligent. It is dumb.....And insulting. If all you got is calling someone a made up word, you got nothing.

Basically unchanged.
​

He was mean to me, so he must be wrong. Non sequitur. If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying.

 

[fsol]

Which AGW blog talking points did you get that from? That is not Christy's quote. Very disingenuous of you. It would be akin to saying because Steve McIntyre was an expert reviewer for IPCC that he agreed with the Mann hockey stick.

Can't you folks be objective and honest in anything you post?

A history and assessment by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. who was a lead author of CCSP and resigned due to the same chicanery as IPCC; both corrupt and politically charged bodies.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/NR-143.pdf
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/index.php?s=Temperature+Trends+in+the+Lower&submit=Search

Christy was a lead author on that report. I would guess that he would have at least read the executive summary of it, you know, being a lead author and all. Unless of course he is quite happy to attach his name to any old nonsense that comes along.

 

[David Rodale]

Christy was a lead author on that report. I would guess that he would have at least read the executive summary of it, you know, being a lead author and all. Unless of course he is quite happy to attach his name to any old nonsense that comes along.

You "guess"......

http://www.atmos.uah.edu/atmos/christy/ChristyJR_07EC_subEAQ_written.pdf

The key statement regarding GLOBAL trends in the report claimed, “This significant discrepancy no longer exists.” It would have been more accurate in my view to have said, “The magnitude of these global discrepancies is not significant.” This is a subtle but important difference because it not only acknowledges that discrepancies still exist but that the differences between the global surface and atmospheric trends are within the
uncertainty bounds of our various measurements at this time. In other words, rather than being a statement claiming certainty of the measurements (and models) it should have been a statement claiming the uncertainty of our knowledge. I had proposed the second rendition, but was unsuccessful in seeing it implemented.

It is done by consensus, a vote, just like IPCC. Regardless of what you or I think of Christy, is it appropriate for him or anyone else to evaluate their own work?

IPCC work groups are loaded with authors evaluating their own work, including the latest hockey stick resurrection, as it was when Mann was lead author.

 

[David Rodale]

Unchanged indeed; recent denier arguments include:
1. Use of a graph that clearly shows warming with no apparent recognition of the fact that it is going up;
2. Denial of the obvious spectral and resulting thermodynamic implications of increased CO2, after the effects have been extensively discussed and not successfully rebutted;
3. Rampant misrepresentation of data (specifically, data was used to create a graph that turned out to be not merely incorrect, but deliberately manipulated to make it so, and this was made obvious by the response that included all the data and showed the expected results);
4. Misrepresentation of the argument in favor of GW as correlation without discussion of causation (see point 2 above regarding causation, an issue this poster would obviously prefer to avoid, and equally obviously has avoided discussing in this post for that reason). This, by the way, is a straw-man argument, because it involves a misrepresentation of the opposing argument.

Overall, an unsullied record of misrepresentation, data manipulation, and ignoring opposing points that one has no answer for.

First, an analysis by a scientist is not necessarily a scientific analysis. Second, it appears there are significant problems with their analysis, not the least of which are misapplication of principles of data collection analysis to model output analysis, misunderstanding (to be charitable) of what the interior application of the model is as opposed to what data it is being checked against, and misunderstanding (to be charitable) of the data that is the output of the model as opposed to data that have been collected from the real world. The supposedly peer-reviewed article was published in Energy and Environment. They talked to only one climatologist, and they reviewed only one chapter of the IPCC report and never looked at any of the source papers, much less analyzed any of them.

To top it all off, it appears that they are attempting to generate a controversy to improve sales of their book. Details are available here.

Given that this is in progress, I'll not second-guess it.

First, "extensive statements" is a lie. Second, the size of the range has decreased; I could equally state that the projections have gone up, because the minimum projection has gone up. Of course, the center projection remains unchanged. So this is a misrepresentation of the data. Again. The modus operandi appears to be, make a statement, ignore refutations and don't respond, and then claim that no one refuted it later. This pattern is repeated again and again by this poster.

He was mean to me, so he must be wrong. Non sequitur. If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying.

1. Use of a graph that clearly shows warming with no apparent recognition of the fact that it is going up;

It's not going up. Find one scientist who thinks it is. Met O doesn't, why do you?

2. Denial of the obvious spectral and resulting thermodynamic implications of increased CO2, after the effects have been extensively discussed and not successfully rebutted;

You have not successfully shown what the implications are, and still can't provide the peer reviewed article supporting it after repeated requests. When Schwartz published his, what did you do to refute it? Link to RC?

3. Rampant misrepresentation of data (specifically, data was used to create a graph that turned out to be not merely incorrect, but deliberately manipulated to make it so, and this was made obvious by the response that included all the data and showed the expected results);

Considering you don't know how to construct graphs or interpret data, that's a fairly bold statement.
It's not warming, period. The oceans are not warming, period. No ocean warming, no global warming, end of story until oceans warm again.

4. Misrepresentation of the argument in favor of GW as correlation without discussion of causation (see point 2 above regarding causation, an issue this poster would obviously prefer to avoid, and equally obviously has avoided discussing in this post for that reason). This, by the way, is a straw-man argument, because it involves a misrepresentation of the opposing argument.

Never, whatever you do, try to refute the findings. That would imply you actually have an argument.

First, "extensive statements" is a lie. Second, the size of the range has decreased; I could equally state that the projections have gone up, because the minimum projection has gone up. Of course, the center projection remains unchanged. So this is a misrepresentation of the data. Again. The modus operandi appears to be, make a statement, ignore refutations and don't respond, and then claim that no one refuted it later. This pattern is repeated again and again by this poster.

Lies, lies, lies. Everyone lies except Schneibster. Don't you think something can be wrong without being a lie? This appears to be a psychological issue with AGW proponents. Is it supposed to bolster your view? It does make you appear a bit insecure since you rarely address specifics, only generalize.

He was mean to me, so he must be wrong. Non sequitur. If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying.

The forum has rules. You routinely violate them. If someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make them a liar, but it does say something about your character.

 

[David Rodale]

That is an interesting paper, isn't it? Peer reviewed, and in Science, no less. Pretty much at the top of my personal scale of credible sources.

Do you have a commentary from, shall we say, 'your side', on this paper? I'd like to be able to get an overview of opinion from both sides. Or even add your own, if you wish.

As for creating an 'irrefutable hypothesis', how do you get that? To which particular hypothesis are you referring?

Pipirr,
First I would challenge you on your statement that peer review is kryptonite to anti-AGW. I think if it were tallied up, Mhaze and myself have submitted more peer reviewed material than all of your side combined. The typical response we get from the AGW supporters here is usually link to RealClimate, AGW blog scripts, attack us and the authors or simply call it faked or lies. Fine, but your standard is "peer review". RealClimate contains much opinion and ad hom with cheers from the choir. They also censor posts quite efficiently.

An example of a typical RC response is given by AUP on the Roe_baker paper.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3119112&postcount=2253
Hardly a refutation. And as you say, I'm sure they will publish a peer reviewed article refuting it, correct? They did the same thing with Schwarz's paper:
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf Have you read it?

I don't share the same sentiment about peer review as you do, but understand your point.

Now to the substance of your post. My only comments are, without claiming any expertise on climate models other than toying with various available programs for those who enjoy that sort of thing, in my business we routinely use models in engineering design. A model is a model however. The difference is the application and degree of complexity. The same basic core concepts still apply.

For those who have even an entry level understanding of models don't need to look far before realizing how unskillful and unreliable climate models are at predicting. Some folks here seem to think if a model can predict the past, they are qualified to predict the future. As you may know, that is not validation. Climate models are heavily parameterized and tuned (forced) to match observations. They also use many assumptions and in a word are numerical expressions of the views of the programmer. One assumption is climate sensitivity, which the Roe/Baker paper is addressing.

We get bombarded with "read the IPCC", and the IPCC this, that and the other thing. Climate models are the pillar, the 'Holy Writ' of the AGW hypothesis. That may seem sarcastic, but is the truth.

I don't know anyone who has actually read the entire IPCC. It is a convoluted mess and hard to follow. However, I decided to give it a go concerning climate models. Buried deep within Chapter 8 pg 601, is an interesting statement wrapped in accolades of praise about climate models:

Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although
these are generally greater at smaller scales, important largescale
problems also remain.

That alone should give one cause to step back. In essence, climate models "agree with observations", but they have significant errors? Huh?
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf

If climate models are skillful, why did Met O find the need to create yet another 'new and improved' one?

On the question of IPCC addressing problems with clouds, below are two articles on the subject. The first link is to Spencer's web page with a description of the article, with a link to the abstract. It supports the much maligned Lindzen 'iris effect'. No doubt RC has more negative opinion if you value their input.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
and here:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JCli...18..237S
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS_spring2006/Stephens2005.pdf
There are many more out there.

If you desire more opinions from "my side" on Roe/Baker, I haven't looked for any.

 

[a_unique_person]

We get bombarded with "read the IPCC", and the IPCC this, that and the other thing. Climate models are the pillar, the 'Holy Writ' of the AGW hypothesis. That may seem sarcastic, but is the truth.

Utter rubbish. Read the IPCC report and get back to me on that one.

 

[fsol]

You "guess"......

Well that's what I said. Well done for digesting that little tid bit of information.

“The magnitude of these global discrepancies is not significant.” vs.

"This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

I guess it depends whether you are a glass half full or empty type of person which one you prefer.

 

[Megalodon]

Round and round it goes...
The atmosphere is cooling!
No it's not, here's the proof...
But the oceans are important, and the SST shows oceans are cooling!
No they don't, here's the proof...
But that's the surface, the importante is the deep-ocean and Lyman said the deep-ocean is cooling!
No, he said the superficial ocean was cooling from 2003-05, and it's been corrected...
But look, the SSTs show that it's not warming!
Round and round it goes...

 

[Schneibster]

I note before beginning that this poster shows three graphs, every one of which is higher on the right than on the left, that it is claimed don't show warming. Judge first of all based on the quality of that evidence.

It's not going up. Find one scientist who thinks it is. Met O doesn't, why do you?

Nonsense. It's lower on the left and higher on the right. It's YOUR GRAPH. And you can't read it, and that's obvious to anyone with an IQ north of a watermelon.

You have not successfully shown what the implications are, and still can't provide the peer reviewed article supporting it after repeated requests. When Schwartz published his, what did you do to refute it? Link to RC?

I provided a detailed analysis of precisely how it works. The best mind among your crowd at that time couldn't shake it. As always, you ignored that which you could not refute, and attempted to cover it up. I'll post a link to it if you like. You're welcome to attempt to refute it. It's quite convincing, I think, for lurkers to see how you twist in the wind trying to respond to that which you do not understand.

Considering you don't know how to construct graphs or interpret data, that's a fairly bold statement.

Considering you haven't seen me construct a graph, I'd have to say that the bold statements are pretty much all on your side. As far as interpreting data, I seem to have less trouble than you do figuring out what it means when the Arctic Ocean melts.

It's not warming, period. The oceans are not warming, period. No ocean warming, no global warming, end of story until oceans warm again.

And doubtless that's why the Arctic Ocean melted. Pull the other one.

Never, whatever you do, try to refute the findings. That would imply you actually have an argument.

Whether you recognize refutation is immaterial. On the other hand, I'm sure there are lurkers who are capable of evaluating it, and who do so, and who will vote. Nobody else has any trouble interpreting the significance of the Arctic Ocean melting. That seems to be a problem that is yours alone.

Lies, lies, lies. Everyone lies except Schneibster. Don't you think something can be wrong without being a lie? This appears to be a psychological issue with AGW proponents. Is it supposed to bolster your view? It does make you appear a bit insecure since you rarely address specifics, only generalize.

Yes, I generalize about the Arctic Ocean melting. It's really pretty general, isn't it?

The forum has rules. You routinely violate them. If someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make them a liar, but it does say something about your character.

I am content to let those who will judge my character based on my posts; I am surprised that you are. But not astonished.

 

[Megalodon]

I note before beginning that this poster shows three graphs, every one of which is higher on the right than on the left, that it is claimed don't show warming. Judge first of all based on the quality of that evidence.

It should be noticed that, when I made an equivalent graph a few posts ago, it was dismissed because it was not "deep-ocean", and the data was therefore meaningless to the debate.

Or maybe the datapoints become meaningless if they don't have lines connecting them...

Considering you haven't seen me construct a graph, I'd have to say that the bold statements are pretty much all on your side. As far as interpreting data, I seem to have less trouble than you do figuring out what it means when the Arctic Ocean melts.

I think that DR is confusing the two of us... since he can't keep track of his own argument, I don't find it surprising that he can't keep track of the people he's debating.

 

[Megalodon]

Since the uahncdc database is game again, maybe somebody can explain how a shift of the mean temperature anomaly from 0 to 0.3 in both the global and ocean temperatures is not a sign of warming.

To explain the figure to those who are less used to graphical representation of data, it represents the distribution of the percentage of months exhibiting a temperature anomaly for the periods of Sep1978-Aug2001 (gray) and Sep2001-Sep2007 (black), for both the Global (above) and Ocean (below) data.

 

[mhaze]

Round and round it goes...
the importante is the deep-ocean and Lyman said the deep-ocean is cooling!

Since no one on this forum said that, why would you assert that someone on this forum said it?

 

[mhaze]

Well that's what I said. Well done for digesting that little tid bit of information.

“The magnitude of these global discrepancies is not significant.” vs.

"This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

I guess it depends whether you are a glass half full or empty type of person which one you prefer.

Christi's opinions on the report you mention are a matter of record. They are highly dissenting.

(A) we can go look at what Christi has to say about the report
(B) we can read the report and note that Christi's name is on it and claim that he agrees with it

Isn't (B) a bit ridiculous?

 

[Schneibster]

So, are you claiming that Christy has repudiated the report? That he says it's wrong? Is that what you're claiming? You DO realize that having your name on a report you claim is incorrect has a slight tendency to impeach your credibility, don't you?

I would say you have a big problem here: either he lied when he put his name on it or permitted it to be put on it, or he's lying now. Which do you prefer?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by David Rodale
Never, whatever you do, try to refute the findings. That would imply you actually have an argument.
​

Whether you recognize refutation is immaterial. On the other hand, I'm sure there are lurkers who are capable of evaluating it, and who do so, and who will vote.

Who will vote? What vote would that be?

 

[Schneibster]

Who will vote? What vote would that be?

I'm trying to decide if you're disingenuous, that is, lying, or actually this stupid.

 

[Megalodon]

Since no one on this forum said that, why would you assert that someone on this forum said it?

So, from all the comments on science, graphs and analysis of databases and many unanswered questions, that post is what you choose to address?

And you claim that you want to discuss science?

And since you are impervious to the humouristic nature of the post you quoted, let me issue a public apology. Cooling was never mentioned. The preferred expression is "not warming", normally followed by the rethorical 'which way do you think it will go?', that apparently doesn't imply cooling. Also the rethorical questions related to changes in trends if the 98 El Niño wasn't there, or if the temperature was plotted from a different year, apparently don't imply any cooling. The trends were supposed to change from positive to blue, I guess... And of course, the graphs of yearly averages started in 98 is not supposed to imply a cooling... It's just a stylistic quirk.

Now that were done with this, are you going to address any of the questions you've been avoiding?

 

[mhaze]

So, from all the comments on science, graphs and analysis of databases and many unanswered questions, that post is what you choose to address?

And you claim that you want to discuss science?

And since you are impervious to the humouristic nature of the post you quoted, let me issue a public apology. Cooling was never mentioned. The preferred expression is "not warming", normally followed by the rethorical 'which way do you think it will go?', that apparently doesn't imply cooling. Also the rethorical questions related to changes in trends if the 98 El Niño wasn't there, or if the temperature was plotted from a different year, apparently don't imply any cooling. The trends were supposed to change from positive to blue, I guess... And of course, the graphs of yearly averages started in 98 is not supposed to imply a cooling... It's just a stylistic quirk.

Now that were done with this, are you going to address any of the questions you've been avoiding?

Perhaps I'm just a stickler for details, but if I say you said something, I'll quote it, and it's exactly what you said. In your case, you assert someone said something, and my handy dandy fast lookup.... Well, let's just say, everything on this forum is there for anyone to audit.

Yes I do intend to get to some of the things you've said.

By the way, you were correct about Roe & Baker - for some reason I thought Roe was a first name.

 

[mhaze]

DR:
Never, whatever you do, try to refute the findings. That would imply you actually have an argument.
​

Schneib:
Whether you recognize refutation is immaterial. On the other hand, I'm sure there are lurkers who are capable of evaluating it, and who do so, and who will vote.
​

MHAZE:
Who will vote? What vote would that be?
​

Schneib:
I'm trying to decide if you're disingenuous, that is, lying, or actually this stupid.

I'd like some help in understanding this. You've repeatedly mentioned that the appearance of things here to the lurkers was very important.

Apparently there are lurkers who are capable of evaluating the immateriality of refutations of scientific findings and the lack of actual arguments to certain scientific issues.

Based on that, these lurkers will vote.

That must be some pretty important vote and this must be some really important place here.

These lurkers are diligently searching and poring over the veracity of JREF posts on global warming to assist in their important decision on this vote.

What vote would that be?

 

[mhaze]

So, from all the comments on science, graphs and analysis of databases and many unanswered questions, that post is what you choose to address?

And you claim that you want to discuss science?

And since you are impervious to the humouristic nature of the post you quoted, let me issue a public apology. Cooling was never mentioned. The preferred expression is "not warming", normally followed by the rethorical 'which way do you think it will go?', that apparently doesn't imply cooling. Also the rethorical questions related to changes in trends if the 98 El Niño wasn't there, or if the temperature was plotted from a different year, apparently don't imply any cooling. The trends were supposed to change from positive to blue, I guess... And of course, the graphs of yearly averages started in 98 is not supposed to imply a cooling... It's just a stylistic quirk.

Now that were done with this, are you going to address any of the questions you've been avoiding?

For starters, let's try to take a look at the big picture. It seems to be the case - it's being talked about by scientists, meterologists and the like - that the PDO is reversing phase. That has obvious implications, such as less of the El Nino effect.

Is this certainly happening? I don't think so. But it does look like it could be happening, based on the periodicity of the PDO and the recent "non warming" (however we phrase that).

Does this sound reasonable? If so, we can go from there to something of what exactly this may mean. Note AGW skeptics are not the ones saying PDO is reversing phase, that's mainstream science.

And again, I haven't seen anyone say that the facts were in on the matter.