Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[mhaze]

Having heard all the various arguments from the anti-(A)GW mob over the years and how they've evolved (or haven't in some cases - I was genuinely surprised to find some people are still flogging UHI), it seems now all they're interested in doing is proving the 'warmers' wrong. Exactly what we're being proved wrong on clearly isn't important, so when one argument doesn't hold up, everyone moves onto something else. Like you say, the tropical hotspots was supposed to be this killer blow to AGW but now it's been addressed, in a year or so's time everyone will have forgotten about it.

An analogy is when the 'truthers' make a big argument about how the government understated the air quality risks on 9/11. All they're concerned about is proving the government lied about something to do with the events of that day, just so they can turn around and say "We were right! The government can't be trusted!"

I'm glad you decided to come out of the closet - from rational skeptic to just simple Warmer?

Lindzen goes into depth on the curiosity of these times - Warmers (also fondly called "climatozoa").

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

Abstract
For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective. The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.

 

[Spud1k]

All you need to do is provide evidence supporting your POV. Very simple. If observational evidence is contrary to your hypothesis, what other conclusion is there other than the hypothesis fails?

That someone is using strawman arguments and false dichotomies.

the tropical hotspots was supposed to be this killer blow to AGW but now it's been addressed
More psychobabble. There are multiple examples in the literature stating the tropical troposphere should be warming at a faster rate than the surface. This is common knowledge. None of you have yet to cite your sources for claiming otherwise. Forgetting about it doesn't change these inconvenient facts.

Yes I did. If you're still unconvinced, have a look at this and this, so don't claim that people are simply forgetting about it.

You still have not come to grips with global warming's missing heat. Explain it, that's all you need to do.

I think the article you link to does a reasonable job of explaining it myself. There are various subtleties to how heat is distributed around the oceans, so it's a moot point as to whether it has left the earth system or gone deeper. This is why there is so much research going into it at the moment (example). But you've yet to explain how this falsifies global warming beyond simply pointing fingers and saying 'here's something the climate scientists can't explain'.

On UHI, the evidence is overwhelming. Two of the latest:
Detecting urbanization effects on surface and subsurface thermal environment — A case study of Osaka

Heat Waves in Southern California:
Are They Becoming More Frequent and Longer Lasting?

There are many, many more.

I'm sure there are. While no-one is disputing UHI can in principle be an artefact in specific cases, someone has yet to prove that it has caused the apparent increases in temperature. Given people have known about it since the early nineties and immediately started making attempts to eliminate it from the measurements, why didn't that result in a downward trend during that decade?

They support Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic
surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data which warmers in this forum ridiculed.

That's probably because it's yet another self-fulfilling statistics paper. Papers like that can point to something interesting but they don't on their own prove anything. Explain to me why warming has been measured in really remote locations such as Svalbard?

Capeldodger referring to accomplished scientists as "whores" does not take away from their scientific work; it only illustrates his shallowness and inability provide evidence supporting his ludicrous assertions.

As the earth continues to cool and IPCC "projections" are further falsified, what excuses will you come up with? How many years can AGW be masked by natural interference, a recent invention to divert attention from climate model failures.

Since when was that a recent invention? Natural variabilities such as the ocean currents have always been a fact of life. Climate models have never claimed to be able to get the short-term variability right in forecast mode. The current generation of post-AR4 models should do a better job, but thanks to the inherent uncertainty in future emissions inventories, they'll never get it spot on.

I see it as something to the models' credit that having been proved right on what they were designed to study (the long term trends), the critics are being forced to focus on things they weren't designed to do.

 

[Spud1k]

I'm glad you decided to come out of the closet - from rational skeptic to just simple Warmer?

You've always considered me a 'warmer', which is the detail I was referring to. You can call me what you want, but it doesn't change the argument.

Lindzen goes into depth on the curiosity of these times - Warmers (also fondly called "climatozoa").

(snip)

I'm aware of what Lindzen's opinion is, but that kind of stuff is verging on conspiracy theory material. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The governments paid for a balanced assessment of the state of the science and overall sentiment within the scene is that that's what they got. If it was as incorrect as you say it is, there would have been a backlash in the journals a very long time ago.

 

[mhaze]

.....probably because it's yet another self-fulfilling statistics paper. Papers like that can point to something interesting but they don't on their own prove anything. Explain to me why warming has been measured in really remote locations such as Svalbard?

An unsigned blog article rife with guesswork, punctuated by the likes of...

I have not examined the economic data, but it appears...
​

With conclusious based on this (not ) examination.

We do better than that around here.

Next.

 

[Spud1k]

An unsigned blog article rife with guesswork, punctuated by the likes of...

I have not examined the economic data, but it appears...
​

With conclusious based on this (not ) examination.

We do better than that around here.

Next.

So wait a sec... unsigned blogs cause warming in the Svalbard?

Stats are one of the easiest things to manipulate out there. This is why epidemiology papers always have to be taken with a pinch of salt. It still doesn't answer why we haven't experienced apparent cooling during the period when people got better at removing the UHI artefact.

 

[mhaze]

So wait a sec... unsigned blogs cause warming in the Svalbard?

Stats are one of the easiest things to manipulate out there. This is why epidemiology papers always have to be taken with a pinch of salt. It still doesn't answer why we haven't experienced apparent cooling during the period when people got better at removing the UHI artefact.

You miss my point , a pinch of salt is fine.

This not the critical examination implied in "a pinch of salt" but the opposite - no examination.

I have not examined the economic data, but it appears...

 

[lomiller]

An unsigned blog a

It looks signed to me, and the author seems to have a reasonable number of recent + cited papers on climate so he has credibility.

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=G&oi=qs&q=author:r-benestad

I have not examined the economic data, but it appears...

The full quote is as follows. It seems to be you truncated it in a deliberate attempt to change its meaning.

I have not examined the economic data, but it appears that M&M2007 maybe cannot win - either (i) the spatial distribution of the economic indices are equally smooth and M&M2007's attempt to account for dependencies within each country fails to resolve the problem of dependency between the countries, or (ii) the economic indices vary abruptly from country to country and thus have very different spatial scales and structures to those seen in the warming trends. Either option suggest that their analysis may lead to spurious results, over-fit, or suffer from inter-dependencies.

Clearly he is discussing scenarios, one of which must be reflected in the data and showing how none of them back the authors claims.

 

[CapelDodger]

Still no direct evidence that rising CO2 levels result in a net increase in global temperature or ocean heat content? Rather, you go off on tangents and give meaningless lectures.

You don't even have an argument.

I don't need an argument, because the world is providing it.

I don't need an argument for my description of your behaviour, because you keep providing it.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think the article you link to does a reasonable job of explaining it myself.

Not so much, I think. It claims that the ARGO system was fully deployed in 2003, but in fact it was only fully deployed in 2007. It says that heat has been flowing out of the oceans in recent years becaue of El Nino, but in fact there's been a La Nina, which takes heat from the atmosphere and stores it in the Western Pacific. It doesn't mention that instrumental problems have already been identified. And it doesn't mention that ARGO has little or no coverage of the Arctic Ocean (where much has been going on).

David Rodale is pinning his hopes on a newly deployed observational grid with no consistency of design across it, whose primary objective is to measure salinity, not temperature. Imagine what he'd make of that if it reported that the oceans were warming. You don't have to imagine, really, just project his views on long-established weather-stations (which are woefully inconsistent in the US, from what I keep hearing).

The parallels with early satellite returns is striking. Seek ye the truth in an untried system before the wrinkles are ironed out, as long as it tells you what you want to hear. irony

A lot of the ice that been lost in the Arctic Ocean hasn't melted in situ, it's been carried away to melt in waters where ARGO coverage is much better. I don't have any figures, but that must have had some impact, however slight. La Nina warms a much smaller area of ocean than it cools. ARGO is not yet dependable.

Long story short : we've no good reason to think that there is any missing heat. The Arctic Ocean is certainly getting warmer (evidenced by release of methane from continental shelves, which is new) and we won't know how much heat has been stored in the Western Pacific until the next El Nino lets it out again.

 

[CapelDodger]

I have not examined the economic data, but it appears...

As lomiller points out, you don't have to examine the data to see that an argument is fundamentally flawed. If you'd read on further than the above, instead of running away waving it with glee, you might have spotted that.

(I'm more charitable than lomiller; I don't think you truncated it deliberately, I think you just didn't read on. RealClimate is about as far from your comfort-zone as anywhere can be, and I'm sure you were eager to be out of there.)

 

[CapelDodger]

So wait a sec... unsigned blogs cause warming in the Svalbard?

No, it's all that economic development that's to blame. Did you not see the picture?

Stats are one of the easiest things to manipulate out there.

There are lies, damn' lies, and self-deluding statisticians exploited by frauds.

This is why epidemiology papers always have to be taken with a pinch of salt. It still doesn't answer why we haven't experienced apparent cooling during the period when people got better at removing the UHI artefact.

In defence of said people, they recognised the UHI before it became a contentious issue and have long been good at accounting for it.

Heck, the starlings of Leicester Square recognised the UHI way back. In cold weather 250,000 of them commute to the outskirts of London and back every day.

 

[a_unique_person]

For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs.

Says Lindzen, the man who invented the Iris but never quite got around to publishing anything to prove it.

 

[Spud1k]

Not so much, I think. It claims that the ARGO system was fully deployed in 2003, but in fact it was only fully deployed in 2007.

Cool. I have to admit oceanography is stretching my expertise, but my point was that even taken at face value, that article didn't say anything to challenge the accepted wisdom.

In defence of said people, they recognised the UHI before it became a contentious issue and have long been good at accounting for it.

My point exactly. I don't mean to slight the efforts of those who have worked to eradicate UHI from the data, but using it as an alternative explanation for the recorded increase in surface temperatures was always a dud in my opinion.

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Their-Product-Industrys-Assault/dp/019530067X
You haven't shpwn asbestos is dangerous, you haven't shown that cigarettes cause cancer, animals studies can't show that plastics cause cancer.

"Still no direct evidence that rising CO2 levels result in a net increase in global temperature or ocean heat content?"

 

[CapelDodger]

Cool. I have to admit oceanography is stretching my expertise, but my point was that even taken at face value, that article didn't say anything to challenge the accepted wisdom.

It isn't awful, it just displays some all-too-common journalistic sloppiness. And of course the subject is hardly paradigm-shifting.

ARGO is going to be very important to oceanography, and by extension to climate science (air-ocean interactions, boy, wouldn't we like to know more about them?) but not yet. They're still getting the wrinkles out, after all. In a few years we'll see some serious papers coming out.

The upside of climate change and the "more research is necessary" policy is that a lot of research is being funded that wouldn't have been before. The only well known (if not fully understood) ocean region is the northern North Atlantic and the Arctic, since research there has been defence-related since the 50's. Nothing attracts funding like being defence-related.

My point exactly. I don't mean to slight the efforts of those who have worked to eradicate UHI from the data, but using it as an alternative explanation for the recorded increase in surface temperatures was always a dud in my opinion.

(No offence taken .)

It's a non-starter for sooooo many reasons. It can only make sense to people with very limited horizons. There has been enormous urban sprawl in the US over the last fifty years or so, but to project that onto a global scale (where oceans predominate, apart from anything else) is daft. And even in the States there are still vast tracts of wilderness.

We had a weather-station at school, not "official" but built to spec and situated on the far-side of the playing-field from the school buildings. We were taught (and understood) why it was built that way and was situated where it was. To hear some people (Watts is an obvious example) you'd think the UHI was a recent discovery by some of the few honest scientists left out there .

 

[CapelDodger]

[/i]Says Lindzen, the man who invented the Iris but never quite got around to publishing anything to prove it.

Ironically, Lindzen's Iris Model was dependent on assumptions of various parameter-values to make it produce the desired result (strong negative feedbacks, no significant warming, no need to interfere with the economic status quo). Which is exactly what David Rodale and others accuse genuine climate modellers of doing.

Observations have since shown Lindzen's assumptions to be wildly inaccurate, but apart from that the Lindzen model actually made interglacials impossible. The negative feedback would be too strong.

Something else we've been able to observe is that Lindzen's Iris has not operated as he predicted it would. Yet it was all the rage back in the day, remember? A slam-dunk. It didn't even need such exotica as cosmic rays.

Today "all the indicators point to a cooling period" stuff seems to be the preferred prediction. Which is also doomed to disappoint.

 

[CapelDodger]

http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Their-Product-Industrys-Assault/dp/019530067X
You haven't shpwn asbestos is dangerous, you haven't shown that cigarettes cause cancer, animals studies can't show that plastics cause cancer.

"Still no direct evidence that rising CO2 levels result in a net increase in global temperature or ocean heat content?"

"Which cigarette directly caused this cancer?"

"The first one he smoked."

"Umm ... prove it."

"Nicotine is addictive."

"Prove that".

"WTF ?"


I can remember when the ad industry used to boost scientists as truth-tellers, for its own nefarious purposes. Their dark arts were first turned against science in '57 when US Surgeon General Burney said things that important people did not want to hear. The Age of Enlightenment hit a small bump in the road.

Since then scientists have said many things that important (and wealthy) people do not want to hear, and the Age of Enlightenment has run off the road. Temporarily, I've no doubt.

 

[TrueSceptic]

It's a non-starter for sooooo many reasons. It can only make sense to people with very limited horizons. There has been enormous urban sprawl in the US over the last fifty years or so, but to project that onto a global scale (where oceans predominate, apart from anything else) is daft. And even in the States there are still vast tracts of wilderness.

Which reminds me of something I keep meaning to mention...

Look at any temp graphs of the continental USA. Compare with NH and global. Is it such a surprise that Americans are more likely to be GW sceptics than the rest of us, even ignoring the general anti-science culture (Creationism is a big deal in the USA, for instance)?

 

[TrueSceptic]

"Which cigarette directly caused this cancer?"

"The first one he smoked."

"Umm ... prove it."

"Nicotine is addictive."

"Prove that".

"WTF ?"


I can remember when the ad industry used to boost scientists as truth-tellers, for its own nefarious purposes. Their dark arts were first turned against science in '57 when US Surgeon General Burney said things that important people did not want to hear. The Age of Enlightenment hit a small bump in the road.

Since then scientists have said many things that important (and wealthy) people do not want to hear, and the Age of Enlightenment has run off the road. Temporarily, I've no doubt.

It is worth pointing out, once again, that Fred Singer, for instance, sold out his (genuine and well earned) reputation to support the tobacco companies in the smoking v. lung cancer battle. He's been using much the same tactics in the GW debate.

 

[mhaze]

.....My point exactly. I don't mean to slight the efforts of those who have worked to eradicate UHI from the data, but using it as an alternative explanation for the recorded increase in surface temperatures was always a dud in my opinion.

Really?

Always?

That'd take about 10 seconds and four words to knock apart.

Hint: Jones