How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by CoolSceptic
Nobody makes "predictions" about AGW, not today, not 100 years ago. Not even the IPCC, who are careful to point out their projections are not predictions.
​

so how is a projection any different from a prediction conditioned on a particular forcing scenario?

Here is one of countless assertions (alternate phrase, blatant lies) that IPCC predictions exist, and imply Urgent Action Now is required. US Senators in committee are being told this tripe.

The IPCC does not ever, then after, refute such public assertions of its projections, and would therefore appear complicit, and complicit, yes, is engaged in making predictions, yet cannot directly say such.


Testimony of David G. Hawkins Director, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense Council
Hearing on “Examining Global Warming Issues in the Power Plant Sector”
Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate - June 28, 2007

...IPCC’s key findings:

• The earth will warm by an additional 4-11 degrees Fahrenheit during the 21st Century if energy production is fossil fuel intensive (best estimate 7 degrees).
• The earth will warm by an addition 3-8 degrees Fahrenheit during the 21st Century if emissions follow a mid-range business-as-usual forecast (best estimate 5 degrees).
• The Arctic Ocean could largely be devoid of sea ice during summer later in the century.
• The ocean will continue to become more acidic due to carbon dioxide emissions. Ocean pH has already decreased by 0.1 units and will decline by an additional 0.14 to 0.35 units if emissions are not curtailed.
• The IPCC projects that sea levels will rise by 7 to 23 inches during the 21st Century, but this estimate assumes no acceleration of ice flow in Greenland or Antarctica and does not fully account for some positive feedback processes, such as the release of additional CO2 from tundra soils as the planet warms.

 

[CapelDodger]

Their joint statement was one of the best attempts at beating up a strawman I have seen to date.

I'm waiting for the face-off between the Heartland Institute and ClimateAudit for leadership of the GWSceptic movement. It'll have to come sometime.

What a jerk.

It's sad. That Knut thing, well, I mean . I'm surprised he didn't bring up Robin Hood ('Murricans have heard of him too).

The IPCC has never said we control climate, what is happening is just an unintended consequnence of releasing carbon that has been stored in the earth for god knows how long. You will never convince them of that, though, they are much happier attacking their own idea of what the IPCC says.

The ony thing Munchkin knows about science is that the IPCC is the Dark Overlord of its Climate Division. A belief almost every GWSceptic adheres to (it makes life so much simpler).

The whole of Munchkin's presentation is verbal tummy-rubbing, which (apart from self-promotion) is all he ever does.

That's the sort of champion the Heartlanders are reduced to, while the Auditors have Steve McIntyre, the steroidal statistician. On the other hand the Heartlanders have the establishment behind them. I'm not gonna call it yet. And all bets are off if the Heritage Foundation throw their hat into the ring.

 

[CapelDodger]

Here is one of countless assertions ...

Give us another when you find a moment.

... (alternate phrase, blatant lies) that IPCC predictions exist, and imply Urgent Action Now is required.

Such an accusation needs backing up.

US Senators in committee are being told this tripe.

Testifying before Congress seems to have lost its shine since Steve McIntyre and that airport novelist had their day in the sun. Perhaps the last mid-terms have something to do with that.

The IPCC does not ever, then after, refute such public assertions of its projections, and would therefore appear complicit, and complicit, yes, is engaged in making predictions, yet cannot directly say such.

It is not within the IPCC's remit to do any such thing. It's within the IPCC's remit to collate the current science on AGW and produce regular reports for the benefit of the governments that created it for that very specific purpose.

Testimony of David G. Hawkins Director, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense Council
Hearing on “Examining Global Warming Issues in the Power Plant Sector”
Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate - June 28, 2007

...IPCC’s key findings:

• The earth will warm by an additional 4-11 degrees Fahrenheit during the 21st Century if energy production is fossil fuel intensive (best estimate 7 degrees).
• The earth will warm by an addition 3-8 degrees Fahrenheit during the 21st Century if emissions follow a mid-range business-as-usual forecast (best estimate 5 degrees).
• The Arctic Ocean could largely be devoid of sea ice during summer later in the century.
• The ocean will continue to become more acidic due to carbon dioxide emissions. Ocean pH has already decreased by 0.1 units and will decline by an additional 0.14 to 0.35 units if emissions are not curtailed.
• The IPCC projects that sea levels will rise by 7 to 23 inches during the 21st Century, but this estimate assumes no acceleration of ice flow in Greenland or Antarctica and does not fully account for some positive feedback processes, such as the release of additional CO2 from tundra soils as the planet warms.

Those are indeed the findings of the IPCC, from its review of the current science. Except in Fahrenheit, for the benefit of Senators. They can easily look it up to check. Everything about the IPCC is completely transparent.

Glad you've brought up ocean acidification, though, because that's likely to have a more immediate impact than climate change, IMO. Are your guys (mostly getting on a bit, let's face it) up to denying the physics behind that? Yet another losing campaign, after so many? I doubt they're up for it.

 

[David Rodale]

Give us another when you find a moment.



Such an accusation needs backing up.



Testifying before Congress seems to have lost its shine since Steve McIntyre and that airport novelist had their day in the sun. Perhaps the last mid-terms have something to do with that.



It is not within the IPCC's remit to do any such thing. It's within the IPCC's remit to collate the current science on AGW and produce regular reports for the benefit of the governments that created it for that very specific purpose.




Those are indeed the findings of the IPCC, from its review of the current science. Except in Fahrenheit, for the benefit of Senators. They can easily look it up to check. Everything about the IPCC is completely transparent.

Glad you've brought up ocean acidification, though, because that's likely to have a more immediate impact than climate change, IMO. Are your guys (mostly getting on a bit, let's face it) up to denying the physics behind that? Yet another losing campaign, after so many? I doubt they're up for it.

Everything about the IPCC is completely transparent.

That's a good one Capeldodger And I'll bet you didn't have to look it up to come to that conclusion.
Ah, look, Steve McIntyre is discussing this very subject!
Fortress CRU #2: Confidential Agent Ammann
Fortress CRU
Fortress Met Office

Glad you've brought up ocean acidification, though, because that's likely to have a more immediate impact than climate change, IMO. Are your guys (mostly getting on a bit, let's face it) up to denying the physics behind that? Yet another losing campaign, after so many? I doubt they're up for it.

The next "science is settled" bogeyman we'll be treated to now that AGW has no legs to stand on.

What happened to the heat in the pipeline? You know, Hansen's smoking gun and the physics behind that?

Scientists Confirm Earth's Energy Is Out Of Balance

The lag in the ocean's response has practical consequences. For one thing, it means that there is an additional global warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit that is already "in the pipeline," and has not yet manifested in overall ambient temperatures. Even if there were no further increase of human-induced gases in the air, climate would continue to warm about that much over the next century.

In the pipeline? So it's waiting 90 years before AGW incurs it's wrath even though OHC declines? Climate "science" sure is amazing.

The current imbalance is 0.85 watts per meter squared (W/m2) and will cause an additional warming of 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) by the end of this century.

It must be hiding where it can't be measured. Of course, that must be it.

With all that CO2 heat trapping going on, how can the oceans ever cool? Shouldn't they retain more heat year after year? Indulge us. Please, don't keep us hanging.

The Earth's energy imbalance is an expected consequence of increasing atmospheric pollution, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), and black carbon particles (soot). These pollutants block the Earth's radiant heat from escaping into space, increasing absorption of sunlight and trapping heat within the atmosphere.

"Where is the missing heat"? Escaping into space.

Capeldodger, how can the earth experience another .6 deg increase in surface temperature when the oceans are actually losing heat content? Further, what is the physics that support the AGW claim that CO2 can cause the oceans to gain heat content? How does LW IR penetrate water?


Now it is a "temporary natural cycle" masking AGW? Do us all a big favor and point out the warmers (IPCC included) after April 2005 (the smoking gun discovery) who allowed any possibility for cooling to take place for a specified period of time. Where in IPCC AR4 does it allow for several years of no warming? We're waiting.

The Big Non-Warming.
http://www.atmos.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

 

[a_unique_person]

That's a good one Capeldodger And I'll bet you didn't have to look it up to come to that conclusion.
Ah, look, Steve McIntyre is discussing this very subject!
Fortress CRU #2: Confidential Agent Ammann
Fortress CRU
Fortress Met Office

If I was being hounded by a bunch of abusive bullies, I'd just ignore them too. The simple fact is, people such as yourself will never be convinced that AGW is valid science. No point wasting your time on trying to do otherwise. Any time spent on meeting their needs is dead time.

The next "science is settled" bogeyman we'll be treated to now that AGW has no legs to stand on.

Denial, a simple yet effective way of dealing with any problem you don't want to face up to.

What happened to the heat in the pipeline? You know, Hansen's smoking gun and the physics behind that?

It's so simple, even I can understand it. The feedback effects will take many years to fully play themselves out.

Scientists Confirm Earth's Energy Is Out Of Balance
In the pipeline? So it's waiting 90 years before AGW incurs it's wrath even though OHC declines? Climate "science" sure is amazing.

Maybe you should try to actually understand what they are saying.

It must be hiding where it can't be measured. Of course, that must be it.

Like I said, if I was a scientist doing such research, I'd completely ignore anyone with that attitude.

With all that CO2 heat trapping going on, how can the oceans ever cool? Shouldn't they retain more heat year after year? Indulge us. Please, don't keep us hanging.


"Where is the missing heat"? Escaping into space.

Capeldodger, how can the earth experience another .6 deg increase in surface temperature when the oceans are actually losing heat content? Further, what is the physics that support the AGW claim that CO2 can cause the oceans to gain heat content? How does LW IR penetrate water?

It doesn't. That is done by convection.

Now it is a "temporary natural cycle" masking AGW? Do us all a big favor and point out the warmers (IPCC included) after April 2005 (the smoking gun discovery) who allowed any possibility for cooling to take place for a specified period of time. Where in IPCC AR4 does it allow for several years of no warming? We're waiting.

Point out where they claimed it would be a regularly increasing function?

The Big Non-Warming.
http://www.atmos.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12279http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_103234833931fd0af3.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12281http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_103234833936b255ee.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12282http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_103234833944e8ccdc.jpg

 

[CapelDodger]

That's a good one Capeldodger And I'll bet you didn't have to look it up to come to that conclusion.
Ah, look, Steve McIntyre is discussing this very subject!
Fortress CRU #2: Confidential Agent Ammann
Fortress CRU
Fortress Met Office

The Met Office and CRU are not the IPCC. So not vaguely the same subject.

Everything about the IPCC is transparent.

The next "science is settled" bogeyman we'll be treated to now that AGW has no legs to stand on.

If by "bogeyman" you mean a subject that's of serious concern to scientists, then ocean acidification is one that's already been with us for a while. You may just not have noticed.

This one is really going to test Fred "Smokin'" Singer. He already knows it's not a problem, of course, but why is it not a problem? Is the chemistry wrong, the physics, the biology, or all three? What's the Dark Lord equivalent of the IPCC? Who plays Hansen, and who plays Mann? There's a lot of work right there.

What happened to the heat in the pipeline?

Ummm ... nothing. It's still in the pipeline. Hasn't got here yet. In fact, we're stuffing more into the pipeline every day.

What happened to the Arctic summer sea-ice?

 

[CoolSceptic]

Arrhenius for the hundred year

Right... he was the one that got it wrong, right? And, perhaps not the only one to get it wrong...

, Callendar for the fifty year, lots of folk for the thirty year, and here we are in the right now. Trying to work out how much more of it will happen, and what impact it will have.

Yep, still trying to work it out. And not there yet.

Are you going to argue the difference between "say" and "predict"?

As lenny notes, I'm being picky about the difference between "projections" and "predictions". But the projections have so many degrees of freedom that there will always be one degree in disagreement with reality, and always a get out clause...

"Statistically insignificant" and "self-serving hydrological cycles". That's some defence against the real world.

Well, statistical significance is important to scientists - maybe not so much to you. And you don't think there is any water in the real world? You do live on earth, right?

I doubt it.

There you go

Gibberish.

Answer the damn' question.

OK, I re-read your original post and realised I did misinterpret your question. I thought you were asking when scientists discovered it (i.e. in comparison with your list above for the greenhouse effect), but what you actually mean is how long has it had an effect.

I didn't think anyone would ask such a daft question.

Obviously, earth has had a hydrological cycle since there has been water on it.

I can't see the relevance to that question, unless you are about to put your foot in your mouth and illustrate exactly how little you understand about the scientific term "self-similarity".

 

[CoolSceptic]

could you expand on that: what exactly ("warming") are you saying is not statistically significant? (which obs, i am not asking what significance means)

Global mean temperature as measured by Hadley Climate Research Unit. The paper was written in 2005 so I think it only included data up to 2004.

so how is a projection any different from a prediction conditioned on a particular forcing scenario?

I was being pedantic here, but the projection has so many details and degrees of freedom with it to render it almost impossible to relate to any real outcome exactly. So there is always a get-out clause...

I wish I was allowed to make "predictions" like that. Beyond my retirement age with endless get-out clauses. Maybe I did pick the wrong career!

 

[CoolSceptic]

Comparing the Vatican to the results of scientific research and a theory based on sound scientific evidence?

No, comparing the quality of debate to that of the creationists. A subtle, but important distinction.

The recent conference in New York was quite happy to have any loopy idiot along.

Ah, smear-by-association. Thanks for that contribution.

 

[CapelDodger]

Right... he was the one that got it wrong, right?

That's yet to be demonstrated, and even then only in degree, not in principle.

[quoteAnd, perhaps not the only one to get it wrong...[/quote]

Perhaps Prince Harry is Lord Munchkin's love child.

Yep, still trying to work it out. And not there yet.

Meanwhile the big bad analaogue model keeps getting it right second by second.

As lenny notes, I'm being picky about the difference between "projections" and "predictions". But the projections have so many degrees of freedom that there will always be one degree in disagreement with reality, and always a get out clause...

There is one degree of freedom - global temperature. Up, down, no sideways, no diagonals. One variable, one degree of freedom.

Well, statistical significance is important to scientists - maybe not so much to you. And you don't think there is any water in the real world? You do live on earth, right?

Living it large after the Snowball.

OK, I re-read your original post and realised I did misinterpret your question.

Quelle surprise.

I thought you were asking when scientists discovered it (i.e. in comparison with your list above for the greenhouse effect), but what you actually mean is how long has it had an effect.

I didn't think anyone would ask such a daft question.

What you're claiming is that it's a climate forcing that wasn't noticed before the greenhouse effect had policy implications. That I regard as daft.

I can't see the relevance to that question, unless you are about to put your foot in your mouth and illustrate exactly how little you understand about the scientific term "self-similarity".

"Self-similarity" means a system appears the same on any scale. The hydrological cycle clearly does not qualify, unless you can explain how ice-ages are represented on the daily scale. Go on, have a try, make a name for yourself.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's so simple, even I can understand it. The feedback effects will take many years to fully play themselves out.

WTF is this thing about "the warming in the pipeline"? Have these guys had word from someone up-the-line that the cheque isn't in the post? That seems ... unlikely. More likely is that they've convinced themselves (with no great effort) that it isn't.

Summer's coming in these parts; expect their attention to be drawn away from my hemisphere to yours (and to the tropical mid-troposphere; anywhere but the Arctic).

 

[a_unique_person]

No, comparing the quality of debate to that of the creationists. A subtle, but important distinction.

No, you miss the point. The quality of debate is pretty well mostly interested amateurs, including your humble servant. We are debating science that most of us don't understand to the depth the experts do. I am taking the rational approach, accepting my limitations, and deferring to the experts. I can be reasonably confident that they are as correct as we can be by reading their reports, and observing that they are following the standard scientific method. Rome, on the other hand, doesn't appear to be doing that. I'll just ignore anything Rome has to say.

Ah, smear-by-association. Thanks for that contribution.

I'll say. Anything is taken as evidence, no matter how much what one person is saying in one room completely contradicts what someone is saying in the next room. No matter how poor their authority as scientists or their methods used to make their claims.

 

[CapelDodger]

No, comparing the quality of debate to that of the creationists. A subtle, but important distinction.

That's a pathetic cop-out.

"The Vatican has been quite consistent on many topics for the last two thousand years or so. So what? It doesn't make them right."

Subtlety my arse.

Ah, smear-by-association. Thanks for that contribution.

You smear science by association with the Vatican, and then come out with that. Not waving, but drowning.

 

[CapelDodger]

No, you miss the point. The quality of debate is pretty well mostly interested amateurs, including your humble servant. We are debating science that most of us don't understand to the depth the experts do. I am taking the rational approach, accepting my limitations, and deferring to the experts. I can be reasonably confident that they are as correct as we can be by reading their reports, and observing that they are following the standard scientific method. Rome, on the other hand, doesn't appear to be doing that. I'll just ignore anything Rome has to say.

That's easy for you to say; you're in a different frickin' hemisphere .

I'll say. Anything is taken as evidence, no matter how much what one person is saying in one room completely contradicts what someone is saying in the next room. No matter how poor their authority as scientists or their methods used to make their claims.

And they'll lap up "self-similar hydrological cycles" like it's mother's milk. Those are all easy rooms to work . No hecklers, no critics, just star-struck enthusiasts that'll lap up "self-similar hydrological cycles" like it's mother's milk, and laugh even though they don't understand the joke.

Whereas we do .

 

[CoolSceptic]

(Lots of unscientific nonsense deleted)

"Self-similarity" means a system appears the same on any scale. The hydrological cycle clearly does not qualify, unless you can explain how ice-ages are represented on the daily scale.

Fundamentally wrong. It means it scales consistently, i.e. the Y-axis scales with the X-axis, i.e. large scale fluctuations happen at large time scales and small scale fluctuations at small time scales.

If ice ages were of the same magnitude as daily swings, the result would be spectrally white, not self-similar (although technically this is a form of self-similarity, a special case where the Y axis scales at zero times the X axis scales, conventionally this is not considered to be self-similar).

 

[CoolSceptic]

You smear science by association with the Vatican, and then come out with that. Not waving, but drowning.

You clearly don't understand the difference between reductio ad absurdum and the ad hominem attack produced by a unique person. Quite obviously different.

 

[a_unique_person]

You clearly don't understand the difference between reductio ad absurdum and the ad hominem attack produced by a unique person. Quite obviously different.

David Archibald
Scientist
The Solar Cycle Length – Temperature Relationship in US Climate Records and the Implications of Solar Cycle 24

Look him up. Absurdity personified.

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/proceedings.cfm

Were you hoping a little latin would get you out of the ridiculous argument you made?

 

[mhaze]

Look him up. Absurdity personified.

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/proceedings.cfm

Were you hoping a little latin would get you out of the ridiculous argument you made?

Absurdity?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange

James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature...
​

Absurdity, indeed.

http://icecap.us/

 

[CapelDodger]

Fundamentally wrong. It means it scales consistently, i.e. the Y-axis scales with the X-axis, i.e. large scale fluctuations happen at large time scales and small scale fluctuations at small time scales.

If ice ages were of the same magnitude as daily swings, the result would be spectrally white, not self-similar (although technically this is a form of self-similarity, a special case where the Y axis scales at zero times the X axis scales, conventionally this is not considered to be self-similar).[/quote]

It's not the absolute magnitude that matters, it's the shape of the graph. On the ice-age scale (110,000 years or so) there's a long-term stable glaciation with a short-term stable inter-glacial. On the daily (or hourly) scale the hydrological cycle is all over the place. No self-similarity.

 

[CapelDodger]

Absurdity?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange

James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature...
​

Absurdity, indeed.

http://icecap.us/

History will be your judge.

In a different place and period you'd have been right behind Neville Chamberlain and "Peace In Our Time". Hansen, on the other hand, has the Churchill air about him.

http://icecap.us, Jeebus, is this Forum the furthest you ever get from your comfort zone?