Simple climate change refutation challenge

[Alric]

With the premise that there is warming that corresponds to the end of the 1800s? Yes. See a few posts above this one for a study based on several different glaciers.

You did get the point that there are multiple lines of evidence for climate change and that you probably shouldn't be so obsessed with Mcytire and the hockey stick?

 

[mhaze]

Fascinating to see how the denier mind works. If we can find even the slightest hint of a crack in the wall, the wall therefore does not exist.

You could seriously use their method of thinking to deny absolutely any scientific finding about anything.

the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemi-sphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

Fascinating to see how the Warmologist mind works.

Translating -

Lets start our time sequence right past the last warm period, the MWP. You know, that Medieval Warm Period. Hey, we could say it was hotter now than anytime in the last millenium! Might be able to get it for global by saying these tree rings tele, umm, telethermometer with places thousands of miles away.
​

The Warmologist mind.

 

[Geckko]

When was the last time in modern times that a few dissenters upturned a whole field of knowledge. And if they did, they did by publishing their work based on new data. Not by nitpicking the consensus.

Wow.

Surely it doesn't matter what side of the climate change question you are on, that is an anti science statement.

Without even using Google the following spring to mind. And these we BIG.

Plate techtonics
Viral theory of stomach ulsers
The catstrophe theory of evolutionary biogology
The General theory of relativity

All were viewed as "non-consensus" quackery at some point in their existance.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Fascinating to see how the denier mind works. If we can find even the slightest hint of a crack in the wall, the wall therefore does not exist.

You could seriously use their method of thinking to deny absolutely any scientific finding about anything.

You've got it exactly.

Now, the question is: do they actually believe what they claim?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Again, false. No global hockey stick in IPCC 2007 due to Mcintyre.

I notice you were careful to specify global. Some GWS claim that there are no "hockey sticks" in the latest IPCC report. Your claim that the "hockey sticks" are not global due to McIntyre is pure supposition.

Untrue, published in top journals.

Examples please.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Wow.

Surely it doesn't matter what side of the climate change question you are on, that is an anti science statement.

Without even using Google the following spring to mind. And these we BIG.

Plate techtonics
Viral theory of stomach ulsers
The catstrophe theory of evolutionary biogology
The General theory of relativity

All were viewed as "non-consensus" quackery at some point in their existance.

These were radical insights, not mere nitpicking the consensus. Show us anything from GWS that is other than nitpicking (and often dishonestly too).

 

[TrueSceptic]

Originally Posted by mhaze
1. Not a relevant answer. The question is for you to show an "actual atmospheric study". These would be peer reviewed studies. The point of this question is to show up the absence of actual atmospheric research verifying the "CO2 greenhouse hypothesis".

mhaze, I'm curious: some time ago you said this.

We've put more CO2 in the air and the air should warm up a bit because of that. Relatively affluent, say Western, lifestyles, cause 10-20 tons of CO2 per person to be released. Western lifestyles are a form of behavior, so yes, global warming is real and is at least partially driven by human behavior.

From that one must ask, well, what are we talking about here? 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?

I've got nothing against people changing their minds (of course!), but why the change?

Still curious...

 

[mhaze]

Examples please.

Originally Posted by Alric
When was the last time in modern times that a few dissenters upturned a whole field of knowledge. And if they did, they did by publishing their work based on new data. Not by nitpicking the consensus.

Originally Posted by Alric
The contrarians are not published or their few papers and in low caliber journals.
Originally Posted by Trueseptic

Plate techtonics
Viral theory of stomach ulsers
The catstrophe theory of evolutionary biogology
The General theory of relativity
​

All were viewed as "non-consensus" quackery at some point in their existance. These were radical insights, not mere nitpicking the consensus. Show us anything from GWS that is other than nitpicking (and often dishonestly too).

500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares

The following list includes more than 500 qualified researchers, their home institutions, and the peer-reviewed studies they have published in professional journals providing historic and/or physical proxy evidence that:
1) Most of the recent global warming has been caused by a long, moderate, natural cycle rather than by the burning of fossil fuels;
2) The sun’s varying radiance impacts the earth’s climate as more or fewer cosmic rays create more of fewer of the low, wet clouds that act as the earth’s thermostats, deflecting more or less solar heat out into space.
3) Sea levels are not rising rapidly nor are they likely to;
4) Wild species are not being driven to extinction but rather are increasing the biodiversity of our wildlands;
5) Fewer humans death are likely rather than more as the current warming continues, since cold is far more dangerous and the earth is always warming or cooling;
6) Food production is likely to thrive during the decades ahead, rather than collapsing due to climate overheating;
7) Our storms are likely to be fewer and milder as the declining temperature differential between the equator and the poles reduces their power.

abstract.
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21977

full pdf.
http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/21977.pdf

 

[David Rodale]

I notice you were careful to specify global. Some GWS claim that there are no "hockey sticks" in the latest IPCC report. Your claim that the "hockey sticks" are not global due to McIntyre is pure supposition.


Examples please.

There are many examples, but let's address something that is not a proxy.

You are assuming the reported current period surface temperatures are correct in the first place. I have always questioned this assumption based on my work background experience with measurement systems. The evidence in the last several years has been mounting that GISS, HadCRU etc. “global” temperatures are erroneous and warm biased.

A recent peer reviewed article on this very subject, including the methodology for calculating a “global temperature” is here:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf

Eli Rabbet, another anonymous antagonist thought he knew better. http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-functions-belong-to-firm-of-mclaren.html


Alas, Eli is once again forced to eat his own droppings.
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/18/sp...dr-pielke-sr-guest-weblog-by-lucia-liljegren/



http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-functions-belong-to-firm-of-mclaren.html
Dr. Pielke summarizes the problem in simple terms:

Thanks John for the follow up. You are correct that T (and thus T^4) are going up using the global average surface temperature trends analyzed by GISS and others. However, as we show in our JGR paper, there are quite a few issues with the quantitative assessment of the trend including a warm bias.

Moreover, since neither lower tropospheric temperature trends or upper ocean heat content have been increasing in the last several years, it raises questions on the accuracy of using T' (the global average surface temperature) to diagnose global warming (or cooling).

The question of whether the more accurate T^4, weighted spatially, should be used is one of the issues that needs to be included in the discussion. You were the key person who wrote and edited the text with me in our JGR paper on this topic.

Regardless of our views on policy implications regarding the role of humans in the climate system, we need objective assessments of the data. This did not occurr in the 2007 IPCC assessment as I have documented on Climate Science, with the evaluation of the spatial distribution of [T+T']^4 being one example.

and

I will be weblogging in a few days on the subject of this thread on Climate Science. It is remarkable that several of you have missed such an obvious error and continue to perpetuate it, with Raymond Pierrehumbert being insulting rather than discussing the science.

Ray Pierrehumbert is a RealClimate contributor; typical.

How many more peer reviewed articles and empirical data do the warmers require on this subject? Five? Ten? Or will you continue to ignore the issue to keep from being put in an uncomfortable position?

Reported surface temperatures showing a sharp upward trend compared to the first half of the 20th century are exaggerated and warm biased; that is my contention. More evidence available upon request.

 

[Alric]

I guess you guys don't get the point:

Even without any proxy temperature readings, or any temperature data anthropogenic global warming would still be the scientific concensus:

"The reconstruction produced by Dr. Mann and his colleagues was just
one step in a long process of research, and it is not (as sometimes presented) a clinching argument for anthropogenic global warming, but rather one of many independent lines of research on global climate change."

Faulty instrumentation or their analysis will not make the CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere (which will eventually increase temperature, just by simple physics) glaciers retreat, or affect the growth rates of corals.

Having said that, all the nitpicking of one set of data does not result in an overturn of the whole field. For example the paper David just posted does not address satellite measurements, proxy data or meteorological station data other than those land based. And of course others disagree that the effects described in that paper are relevant at all.

 

[Alric]

Plate techtonics
Viral theory of stomach ulsers
The catstrophe theory of evolutionary biogology
The General theory of relativity

All were viewed as "non-consensus" quackery at some point in their existance.

Not so. General relativity was welcomed as soon as it was published. Special relativity before that was too. The remaining concepts were published by their respective discoverers by gathering data and publishing papers. None of these are the result of nitpicking other's people data.

I really can not identify with Mcyntire's and Pilke's approach. If I thought other people's data were wrong I would go and get my own data rather than nitpick theirs. Then my argument would probably have more strength.

 

[mhaze]

Not so. General relativity was welcomed as soon as it was published. Special relativity before that was too. The remaining concepts were published by their respective discoverers by gathering data and publishing papers. None of these are the result of nitpicking other's people data.

I really can not identify with Mcyntire's and Pilke's approach. If I thought other people's data were wrong I would go and get my own data rather than nitpick theirs. Then my argument would probably have more strength.

How would you get your own land, sea, or satellite temperature data?

 

[Alric]

How would you get your own land, sea, or satellite temperature data?

Hey. I am ok with the data as it is.

 

[mhaze]

I really can not identify with Mcyntire's and Pilke's approach. If I thought other people's data were wrong I would go and get my own data rather than nitpick theirs. Then my argument would probably have more strength.​

Originally Posted by mhaze
How would you get your own land, sea, or satellite temperature data?

Hey. I am ok with the data as it is.

So you -

• ignore peer reviewed research that indicates problems with data
• skirt the fact that "getting their own data" is an impossibility
• ignore the list of 500 scientists posted

Your arguments shown false-

• skeptics of climate science are few in number
• they are unpublished or publish in low quality journals
• Loehel's paper is the only that argues that its possible that it may be just short of being a little higher at one point in the past.
• correlation is only brought up by the contrarians.
• the medieval warm period is cooler than modern times. Specially more recent measurements not included in Loehle's.
• What the IPCC report and science is about, is seeing through the complexity of climate and answer the simple question(atmospheric temperature change can be shown to be dependent on CO2 concentration based on first principles of physics).
• "In Press" in 2006 means NOT accepted for publication
• Consensus is what you use to act upon.
• People like Diamond and David Rodale are harming the effort to effect change.

Alric, when do you get your info? I am curious because although you are obviously well intentioned, some large part your information is incorrect. Teachers, media, government sources??

 

[Alric]

So you -

• ignore peer reviewed research that indicates problems with data

• 
  
  I just keep it in perspective. For example in the list of papers from 500 scientists you say "doubt man made global warming". Do they actually say that? Can you point to one with that conclusion? Not even Lohele's arrives at that conclusion.
  
  The reality is this:
  
  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
  
  AAAS Board Statement
  on Climate Change
  
  "There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)."
  
  Joint science academies’ statement:
  Global response to climate change
  
  And others posted previously.
  
  My motivation, if you must know, is that I saw what creationists/IDs were trying to do by creating non-existing controversy. I see exactly the same tactics used by contrarians when arguing about climate change. But in reality it is the inability of people not to become alarmed when they see a graph like this:
  
  
  

 

[BenHad]

Hmmm. Starts during the big chill, little ice age when temps were lower than during the 1200-1300s.

PS: posted so I can return to this thread later!

 

[Alric]

Hmmm. Starts during the big chill, little ice age when temps were lower than during the 1200-1300s.

Hmm..starts going up acutely with the use of fossil fuels and increased atmospheric greenhouse gases.. The point is that it agrees with everything else.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Hey. I am ok with the data as it is.

This is not good enough for some GWS. One recently restricted his data to just a few stations in the USA and claimed that these were more representative of the real trend than using world-wide stations. I'll see if I can find the link.

 

[mhaze]

I just keep it in perspective. For example in the list of papers from 500 scientists you say "doubt man made global warming". Do they actually say that? Can you point to one with that conclusion? Not even Lohele's arrives at that conclusion.

Alric, are you now trying to sow doubt and confusion?

The reality is this:
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
AAAS Board Statement
on Climate Change
Joint science academies’ statement:
Global response to climate change
And others posted previously.

My motivation, if you must know, is that I saw what creationists/IDs were trying to do by creating non-existing controversy. I see exactly the same tactics used by contrarians when arguing about climate change.

You apply this argument against hundreds of peer reviewed articles? Unscientific.

But in reality it is the inability of people not to become alarmed when they see a graph like this:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/oerlemans2005/fig3a.jpg

I don't know where that graph came from but the mean of the right hand lines looks about 0.0.

Nothing alarming. Not at all!

Hmm..starts going up acutely with the use of fossil fuels and increased atmospheric greenhouse gases.. The point is that it agrees with everything else.

Go down the "everything else list." Shall we start with polar bears?

 

[Alric]

Alric, are you now trying to sow doubt and confusion?
You apply this argument against hundreds of peer reviewed articles? Unscientific.

Against your argument that there is no consensus. There are not hundreds of peer reviewed articles that show either that there is no global warming and/or is not anthropogenic. Care to show one from your list?

I don't know where that graph came from but the mean of the right hand lines looks about 0.0.

I don't think you are reading that right...