Simple climate change refutation challenge

[David Rodale]

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 think you are reading that right...

Appeal to Authority noted again.

"Hey. I am ok with the data as it is." In other words you don’t want your world to be confused with facts?

You are presented with peer reviewed articles, observational evidence and empirical data, yet go running back to quotes from societies part of the herd mentality parroting the same mantra. Is that your security blanket?


The list is very long for the “consensus” being wrong. I’m still waiting for the answer to this question: do water droplets freeze from the inside out or the outside in?

One problem is Alric, you are looking at graphs scaled to scare the bejeebus out of the gullible who don’t know what they are looking at.

Alric, the oceans comprise ~70% of the earth’s surface. What part of this don’t you understand? There cannot be “global” warming if the oceans are not warming. Even Dr. James Hansen has agreed with this.

You seem to be completely oblivious to satellite data. Megaladon is obsessed with making pretty graphs but hasn’t the foggiest idea what the data really says.



An analysis of RSS satellite data by a statistician. Attention Megaladon!! He also includes the correct use of scatter plots in this context. Understand now?
Link



Raw RSS data with simple linear regression trendline





Analyzed data

 

[mhaze]

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?

Yes, there are. Can we just take that as obviously true and move on from there?

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

Ok, you add up the right hand end of the four lines, divide by four, and tell me what you get.

 

[Alric]

Raw RSS data with simple linear regression trendline

Looks to me like the lines are above the transect more often the further you progress in time. Except in the antartic where it stays about the same. That artic line looks pretty scary to me...

 

[Alric]

Yes, there are. Can we just take that as obviously true and move on from there?

Ok, you add up the right hand end of the four lines, divide by four, and tell me what you get.

No. You are showing titles and abstracts that don't mean what you say they do. Can you take a minute and discuss one like I have done multiple times?

You read the graph by assessing the trend over time. That is the solid black line. An increase in temperature.

 

[jsfisher]

You've got it exactly.

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

Absolutely fascinating, indeed. So TrueSceptic and David Wong endorse plausible as a standard for sufficient proof for their global warming agenda.

 

[Alric]

Absolutely fascinating, indeed. So TrueSceptic and David Wong endorse plausible as a standard for sufficient proof for their global warming agenda.

I know you get hung up on linguistic issues but before you revisit this; can you read the sentences above where you get that word?

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documen- tation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005b, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press) and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press)."

 

[TrueSceptic]

Absolutely fascinating, indeed. So TrueSceptic and David Wong endorse plausible as a standard for sufficient proof for their global warming agenda.

Fascinating indeed. I agree with DW's assessment of how the denialist mind works and you come back with this.

You ignore what I said and claim that I said something else.

You accuse us of an "agenda". (As if you don't have one!)

What is this alleged agenda? Please tell.

 

[jsfisher]

Fascinating indeed. I agree with DW's assessment of how the denialist mind works and you come back with this.

You ignore what I said and claim that I said something else.

I didn't ignore your statement. I did look past the petty insults and obligatory snide comments, however, and all that was really left was opposition by DW and your concurrence with DW to my remark that finding something plausible and agreeing with it aren't the same.

I can only conclude, then, that you must believe finding something plausibility is the same as agreeing with it.

 

[jsfisher]

I know you get hung up on linguistic issues but before you revisit this; can you read the sentences above where you get that word?

I get hung up on bogus logic and sloppy reasoning. You made a claim, then you provided evidence that supported a significantly lesser claim. Words have meaning and should be used accordingly. Is that just some minor "linguistic issue"?

 

[Alric]

I get hung up on bogus logic and sloppy reasoning. You made a claim, then you provided evidence that supported a significantly lesser claim. Words have meaning and should be used accordingly. Is that just some minor "linguistic issue"?

Yes. Because you are not reading the whole paragraph. To paraphrase; the conclusion of the paper is correct. The interpretation of the data by itself is pausible.

None of these equal global warming. The conclusion that there is anthropogenic global warming is based on:

many independent lines of research on global climate change.

And even discounting all historical temp records:

It should also be noted that the scientific consensus regarding human-induced global warming would not be substantively altered if, for example, the global mean surface temperature 1,000 years ago was found to be as warm as it is today.

This on an NRC report appointed by a republican administration.

Now, if in your mind you want to keep the "Mann's data = global warming" be my guest.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I didn't ignore your statement. I did look past the petty insults and obligatory snide comments, however, and all that was really left was opposition by DW and your concurrence with DW to my remark that finding something plausible and agreeing with it aren't the same.

I can only conclude, then, that you must believe finding something plausibility is the same as agreeing with it.

Not at all. I simply agreed with DW's assessment. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Now, what is my agenda again?

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

None of them for long, though. Plate tectonics as the mechanism of continental drift was embraced in no time. Opposition to the Heliobacter theory was more apparent than substantial, and disappeared entirely when the Zantac patent ran out. I'm unclear as to the "catastrophe theory" you refer to. General Relatively was warmly embraced within months. (More rapidly than plate tectonics, for obvious reasons.)

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

By your understanding, for how long has this warming bias been manifest? Ten years, twenty, thirty? Whatever, it must have clocked-up a significant cumulative error by now. Is the bias showing any signs of levelling-off?

 

[jsfisher]

Now, if in your mind you want to keep the "Mann's data = global warming" be my guest.

Why the straw man?

 

[jsfisher]

Not at all. I simply agreed with DW's assessment. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

...and his assessment was of a statement. He rejected a statement; you agreed with him. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

 

[Geckko]

None of them for long, though. Plate tectonics as the mechanism of continental drift was embraced in no time. Opposition to the Heliobacter theory was more apparent than substantial, and disappeared entirely when the Zantac patent ran out. I'm unclear as to the "catastrophe theory" you refer to. General Relatively was warmly embraced within months. (More rapidly than plate tectonics, for obvious reasons.)

Really? SOme of them for a significantly long time.

The true cause of stomach ulcers was proposed in 1979 and did not gain a "consensus" support until he 1990s, until which time it was outsude mainstream thinking. That is quite amazing for something that is relatively to test via controlled experimentation.
Continental drift was proposed by Wegener in a 1915 book. He tried to gain support for the theory for the rest of his life, but died in 1930, still considered well outside the "consensus". The theory took popular hold in the 1960s. This is more analagous to climate theories where we can only work through observation of natural phenomena.

So we are talking long periods of time here nothing "relatively quick".

 

[CapelDodger]

No its not. When and where has there been a demonstration of carbon dioxide rise preceding temperature rise?

When before has CO2-load increased without climate change causing it in the first place?

500,000 years of ice core records don't show a single instance. So where is it?

How many fossil-fuelled industrial societies have we seen in that time? I can only think of one. The one we're part of. No previous examples are available.

There's no refuge to be found in "it hasn't happened before". The world we've made hasn't happened before. We're in new territory.

 

[jsfisher]

Yes. Because you are not reading the whole paragraph. To paraphrase; the conclusion of the paper is correct. The interpretation of the data by itself is pausible.

I did read the whole paragraph, not just the truncated version you provided. What you offer now as a paraphrase is flatly wrong. To show this, let's go back to the full paragraph.

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005b, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press) and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, 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.​

It beings with: The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. So, there we have a recap of the conclusion from the Mann, et al., papers.

It ends with: ...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. Everything after the word, "that", is substantially the same as the opening sentence.

So, the logical conclusion is that the committee finds the Mann, et al., conclusion plausible. It does not say the Mann, et al., conclusion was correct, as you now allege, nor does it say the data was plausible, as you now allege. It simply says the conclusion of the papers is considered to be plausible.

 

[CapelDodger]

The true cause of stomach ulcers was proposed in 1979 and did not gain a "consensus" support until he 1990s, until which time it was outsude mainstream thinking. That is quite amazing for something that is relatively to test via controlled experimentation.

It was not outside mainstream thinking, it was presented that way until Zantac was outside patent. At which point the argument faded away. Did you not notice that?

Continental drift was proposed by Wegener in a 1915 book. He tried to gain support for the theory for the rest of his life, but died in 1930, still considered well outside the "consensus". The theory took popular hold in the 1960s.

Wegener proposed continental drift, and made a compelling case for it. Look at a map of the Atlantic and you can make one for yourself. What was lacking was a mechanism. There wasn't much doubt that there was a mechanism. Plate tectonics provided that. And it was plate tectonics that you raised, not Wegener.

This is more analagous to climate theories where we can only work through observation of natural phenomena.

So we are talking long periods of time here nothing "relatively quick".

Relative to what? Climate change is a damn' sight quicker than plate tectonics, and a damn' sight slower than the realm of General Relativity.

Relative to a human lifespan, climate change is happening quickly.

 

[CapelDodger]

So, the logical conclusion is that the committee finds the Mann, et al., conclusion plausible. It does not say the Mann, et al., conclusion was correct, as you now allege, nor does it say the data was plausible, as you now allege. It simply says the conclusion of the papers is considered to be plausible.

And therefore not demonstrably implausible. Which does rather give the lie to those that claim Mann et al hs been definitively debunked.

The position you've taken up astride the fence is a sensible one. Who can say what the future might bring?