Simple climate change refutation challenge

[TrueSceptic]

The lack of a control makes it take longer; it doesn't make it impossible.

I'd like to know more. What could we do that's not already being done?

 

[jsfisher]

I think it's dangerous to pressure policy makers into making laws and signing international agreements when you're not sure of your models. The Kyoto Protocol was in full swing when this guy was saying that he "believed" the oceans were sucking up the CO2. That has never stopped bothering me.

I agree with that. And if this science guy was offering his beliefs as scientific conclusion, I'd fault him, too. If, on the other hand, he presented it as a revised hypothesis, I have no problem.

I wasn't there so I cannot judge what he actually said and what he implied. I will trust your judgment on that.

 

[Diamond]

No comments on the fact that the graph you used is out of scale all of human evolution on earth?

No comment on the fact that for nearly all of the time for multi-cellular life, carbon dioxide concentration was many times the current value and life on Earth thrived?

NO?

Why not? However did life on Earth manage to thrive in acidified oceans and terrible climate change induced by much larger concentrations of carbon dioxide?

You have no clue about what science and what constitutes scientific evidence.

 

[mhaze]

I'd like to know more. What could we do that's not already being done?

Lots. Back calculate effective real world AGW warming rates from equatorial mid level troposphere "hotspot"" as predicted IPCC chapter 9, compare measurements to model predictions and publish results.

Just one example.

 

[Diamond]

I was able to find it after all.

http://www.atypon-link.com/WDG/doi/abs/10.1515/JNETDY.2007.001

Now that I re-read it what I wrote is incorrect. In press does mean accepted for publication of course. But one theoretical paper or any one isolated result obviously does not prove that an entire field is wrong.

Actually in science, yes it does. Unless that result is shown to be wrong, then those other results are wrong.

Science has nothing to do with number of papers in favour of a proposition. Just the one refutation will do.

Obviously other points of view have prevailed since a mass retraction of all papers describing global temperature did not happen. But they are from blog posts that I don't consider worth discussing within the goals of this thread.

Then that would eliminate "realclimate.org" on the grounds that a) its a blog and b) it was founded to defend the indefensible Hockey Stick.

 

[mhaze]

I was able to find it after all.

http://www.atypon-link.com/WDG/doi/abs/10.1515/JNETDY.2007.001

Now that I re-read it what I wrote is incorrect. In press does mean accepted for publication of course. But one theoretical paper or any one isolated result obviously does not prove that an entire field is wrong.

You are not the arbitrator of scientific "correctness"although you were, it would not be done as you have suggested. You are being asked to think things out a bit. It isn't that hard.

Obviously other points of view have prevailed since a mass retraction of all papers describing global temperature did not happen. But they are from blog posts that I don't consider worth discussing within the goals of this thread.

Now note and please respond to this prior comment.

And by the way, this concept doesn't require a peer reviewed paper to grasp. Does the atmosphere heat the ocean, or the ocean heat the atmosphere? If you had heated a closed chamber on a stove, and that chamber was half full of water and half of air, how would you measure the "global average temperature" in that chamber? For discussion assume the liquid has 500x as many atoms as the gas.

 

[Diamond]

I drew a huge red circle around where the unprecedented modern warming is. Its red and its huge. Here I'll post it again:

[qimg]http://homepage.mac.com/alric/HStick.png[/qimg]

Also you still have to come up with any rationale for your analysis of correlation. Both for its applicability and the meaning of the result.

The Hockey Stick you can see, the two highest points are a) The wholly fraudulent Mann Hockey Stick (in 2007 it was coyly referred to as W USA - a tribute to the Colorado bristlecone pines which dominate it) and b) The Yang Series which is a corrupted version of a data series where no-one (apart from one person) knows what the original data looks like. TheYang Series is mentioned at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2686

Neither of those series passes statistical tests for significance. They are the clear results of spurious correlation.

You keep finding Hockey Sticks. You think that squinting at graphs is a statistical test.

Is there no beginning to your scientific abilities?

 

[Diamond]

That is not a valid analogy. Creationists, not unlike you and mhaze, ignore the body of scientific evidence, use poor evidence, ignore arguments and are irrationally tied to an idea. In this case climatologists that have detected climate change and have come to a consensus are analogous with us biologists.

On the second point: show it!

"Climatologists that have detected climate change"? You mean there wasn't any climate change before but there is now?

Creationism - a belief that in the past there was a paradise that was lost when man sinned, leading to chaos. That would be you.

Since when in the real world has climate ever not changed on any timescale?

 

[mhaze]

I think it's dangerous to pressure policy makers into making laws and signing international agreements when you're not sure of your models. The Kyoto Protocol was in full swing when this guy was saying that he "believed" the oceans were sucking up the CO2. That has never stopped bothering me.

Was he referring to the elusive "missing carbon sink?"

That is quite interesting.

 

[Diamond]

This is funny because I think I've hardly mentioned the Hockey Stick.

BTW I would take you more seriously if you stopped referencing McIntyre all the time. Why this obsession?

Because inadvertently, you keep making reference to scientific studies that turn out to be either a) the Hockey Stick or b) studies that use Hockey Stick data or methods or both. Steve McIntyre would fairly be described as an expert in multiproxy studies and the Hockey Stick in particular.

Alric keeps finding the Hockey Stick and keeps making statements based on the Hockey Stick, such as "climatologists have discovered climate change" which is a reference to the Hockey Stick's claims about the change in the twentieth century being "unprecedented in a thousand years"

 

[David Rodale]

Argument from the authority of the data.

Consensus is what you use to act upon.

You do realize the ozone hole theory is being turned upside down? What do you suppose the consensus was on that? 90%?

Since you refuse to address the issues in my previous post, let's move on to something else.

What data? All you've done is posted a few temperature graphs with a CO2 scaled to make it appear there's a perfect correlation. Note how when a graph is scaled differently it doesn't look quite the same as what is typically shown in AGW promotions. Puzzling isn't it? Why don't temperatures move in lock step with CO2? What is the cause and effect? The temps in the following chart do not include Jan 08. Does consensus trump observations? Why doesn't the following show such a pronounced trend? Could it be your graphs are scaled to make it appear there is much warming when in reality there isn't?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt








You stated you place peer review and consensus high on your list. We provide peer review, it is ignored. This has been the case since I joined JREF.

 

[Diamond]

Argument from authority is not a fallacy if that authority is a valid one. Otherwise we would never be able to build on the work of others, and everyone would always have to prove things themselves from first principles. (And I mean first, we would have to go back and re-invent basic mathematics and physics to do anything).

After 100 years, CO2 is still a GHG. That's a pretty robust finding.

After 500,000 years rising CO2 has yet to cause any climate warming. That's also a pretty robust finding.

 

[David Rodale]

The models are basically correct in that it is getting warmer, as predicted. In trying to predict the future climate of the planet, they are all we have got, and they are much more sophisticated now than they were twenty years ago. The absorption of CO2 by the oceans apparently is reducing now, to be less than was expected. The absorption is only delaying the inevitable.

You are basing such statements on the assumption CO2 has both a long life cycle and the oceans are losing the ability to absorb CO2, neither of which it is noted you can prove. IPCC arbitrarily used Houghton's calculations (sounds like another Mann scheme) in contrast to well over 30 other research results showing a 4-5 year (even less) life cycle.
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef5.htm

Please AUP, it is not getting warmer. We've already been through this countless times. The trend has flattened and is even the opposite sign depending on which data set is used.

Must I again catalog the failed predictions and Met O's admission of "natural variation" temporarily stalling AGW?

In order for AGW CO2 hypothesis to hold true, the oceans must continue to absorb heat, and the lower troposphere must be retaining more heat than the surface and at a higher rate. Neither are occurring. This is not good for AGW Warmology (to borrow from Mhaze).

But at least we now know it's official: global warming causes global cooling! The butt of jokes has actually come to pass. Another "scientists say"

Global warming blamed for unusual cold spell

As the months wear on, how long do you think it will be before this malarkey makes it to the mainstream media?

 

[Diamond]

Oh dear. We'll have to break this turd into bits to analyze it.

The models are basically correct in that it is getting warmer, as predicted.

Wow! They can predict the past? Madame Zaza's tea leaves are also 100% accurate on that point. And she's also improved her methods over the last 20 years to incorporate new data.

In trying to predict the future climate of the planet, they are all we have got, and they are much more sophisticated now than they were twenty years ago.

They still can't predict a drought, a flood or an El Nino. But miraculously they can predict the climate in 2100!

The absorption of CO2 by the oceans apparently is reducing now, to be less than was expected. The absorption is only delaying the inevitable.

The inevitable what? Warming? Cooling? Climate change? New England Patriots reaching the SuperBowl? Cheating scandal in baseball? Australians falling from their surfboards?

Its a gotcha of enormous proportions. If the climate cools (and this is what the Russians are talking about) then all that will proceed from your keyboard will be that its only delaying the inevitable warming.

 

[varwoche]

You are basing such statements on the assumption CO2 has both a long life cycle and the oceans are losing the ability to absorb CO2, neither of which it is noted you can prove.

Here are two studies that indicate that in fact, the oceans ability to absorb CO2 is diminishing:

For every ton of CO2 emitted [into] the atmosphere, the natural sinks are removing less carbon than before ... This trend will continue into the future. link

an increase in winds over the Southern Ocean, caused by greenhouse gases and ozone depletion, has led to a release of stored CO2 into the atmosphere and is preventing further absorption of the greenhouse gas link

 

[Alric]

e it appear there is much warming when in reality there isn't?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032347b8e8b616a9b.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032347b8e6979bee1.jpg[/qimg]


You stated you place peer review and consensus high on your list. We provide peer review, it is ignored. This has been the case since I joined JREF.

A couple of questions about this graph. Your link is contained within this adress:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

There you will find graphs constructed from the data with clear hockey sticks that start from the 1980. On your graph the x axis starts on 1996. Can you tell us why is that?

Also do you have a reference or can expand on where the numbers for the table came from?

 

[David Rodale]

Here are two studies that indicate that in fact, the oceans ability to absorb CO2 is diminishing:

Hmm

All climate models predict that this kind of ‘feedback’ will continue and intensify during this century.

And I always believed Henry's Law........

 

[biostudent]

Was he referring to the elusive "missing carbon sink?"

Yes.

 

[a_unique_person]

They still can't predict a drought, a flood or an El Nino. But miraculously they can predict the climate in 2100!

Good, at least you understand that much. It's not a miracle, though.

 

[a_unique_person]

After 500,000 years rising CO2 has yet to cause any climate warming. That's also a pretty robust finding.

You've already had it explained to you. No point doing so again.