Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[Pipirr]

By which he conceded the principle. Now we get down to the bargaining.

(Rich old Duke finds himself seated at dinner next to attractive young deb. Rich Duke to said hottie : "My dear, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?". Attractive young deb (eagerly) : "Yes!". Rich Duke : "Having established the principle, let's get down to the bargaining.")

Nicely put...

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm asking you to explain : how can a "per century" projection be falsified in less than a century? You presumably came away from Lucia with the impression that she'd done it, unless you were deliberately lying, which heaven forfend. So how did she persuade you?

I had been wondering who this marvel Lucia was. When I saw here 'per century' piece of work, I couldn't believe she was so stupid. Here was sheer, bone headed, ignorant, incompetence on display at it's finest. It's something I would expect of a not too smart junior high school student.

 

[David Rodale]

I had been wondering who this marvel Lucia was. When I saw here 'per century' piece of work, I couldn't believe she was so stupid. Here was sheer, bone headed, ignorant, incompetence on display at it's finest. It's something I would expect of a not too smart junior high school student.

Oh you'll win debates with that argument, and wow your dissection of her errors is so thorough.

Look in the mirror.

 

[a_unique_person]

Oh you'll win debates with that argument, and wow your dissection of her errors is so thorough.

Look in the mirror.

I see an interested amateur who is not an authority, who can look back on many errors made in the quest to understand a highly complex area of science.

Lucia should be telling her admirers the same, and not giving them comfort that ignorance is science.

 

[Spud1k]

Good, we agree your prior argument from strawmanicopia, and now you have a non daft argument presented.

Ermmm.... seeing as I'm not even sure what point my 'strawman' argument was against, I'll just have to respond with a 'whatever'.

But the argument that GISS is good science is pretty much insupportable. Much easier to just use sat data . You won't win any debating points defending either GISS or the IPCC view, or trying to use the few papers that obstensibly shore it(them) up. Too much contrary data.

So you were saying what about strawmen now? Would any of this 'contrary data' indicate it's all a load of rubbish and GW isn't happening? There are differences in the specific data but not in the trends.

Kind of a waste of time, isn't it? But the right question is what error bounds may be established in those data sets or why they cannot be stated. Can a Warmer even get to that point?

Yet again, if you'd actually bothered checking the relevant section of the IPCC report, you would have found this (figure 3.6):

Those definitely look like error bars to me. The paper that this is adapted from is Brohan et al. (2006) (bolding mine).

Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: A new data set from 1850

The historical surface temperature data set HadCRUT provides a record of surface temperature trends and variability since 1850. A new version of this data set, HadCRUT3, has been produced, benefiting from recent improvements to the sea surface temperature data set which forms its marine component, and from improvements to the station records which provide the land data. A comprehensive set of uncertainty estimates has been derived to accompany the data: Estimates of measurement and sampling error, temperature bias effects, and the effect of limited observational coverage on large-scale averages have all been made. Since the mid twentieth century the uncertainties in global and hemispheric mean temperatures are small, and the temperature increase greatly exceeds its uncertainty. In earlier periods the uncertainties are larger, but the temperature increase over the twentieth century is still significantly larger than its uncertainty.

So there are others who are already miles ahead of you.

If not, there may not even be a scientific argument that can be made.

Back at you.

 

[Spud1k]

Just thought I'd drop my two cents in about this whole 'falsifiable' mumbo jumbo. Personally, I think the term 'AGW' (which I hate using) is waaay too broad to apply falsifiability logic to it. In order to falsify a hypothesis, you have to make a specific statement where a negative outcome would render the basis unsound. If you make the statement 'anthropogenic influences are very likely to cause global temperatures to rise over the coming decades', I would agree with it, but it's not a falsifiable hypothesis. Specifically, the prediction doesn't explicitly validate the statement. For instance, earth could get hit by an asteroid and all the world's volcanoes erupt at once, but the ensuing climate chaos wouldn't render current AGW theories untrue.

A far safer statement to test would be something like 'CO2 and other GHGs cause atmospheric warming', which is backed up by some pretty basic physics. 'GHG concentrations have been increasing over the last 150 years' is also a done deal, based on in situ measurements, ice core data and other things. 'The earth is undergoing long-term warming' is another statement that few dispute nowadays. The tricky one is 'it is impossible to account for the current warming without taking account of the increases in GHG concentrations'. The prevailing wind in the scientific community (certainly in the last 10 or so years) has been that this statement has been tested and shown to be true. There have been many people that have claimed otherwise, but no-one has really planted a killer blow. So to sum up, if you were to frame the AGW question in that way, I'd say it is falsifiable but no-one has done it yet.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Nobody ever got on board that boat, so "abandoning" it is Mad Hatter talk. You have previously held to the view that AGW is not falsifiable, a position which you've abandoned. And why not, since it's always been untenable.



AGW certainly hasn't been falsified yet, and won't be by 2010. You might have a chance for 2020, though. AGW would be falsified if global temperatures have fallen by then. No need to wait until you'll almost certainly be dead.

A question for you : if global temperatures have risen by >0.2C in 2020, will you accept AGW as being confirmed? More generally, in what circumstances would you give up hope that AGW might yet be falsified?

Didn't Tamino already cover this in You bet!?

What will happen, of course, is that *if* the warming continues, GWSceptics will attribute it to something other than the GHG effect, just as they have to date.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I had been wondering who this marvel Lucia was. When I saw here 'per century' piece of work, I couldn't believe she was so stupid. Here was sheer, bone headed, ignorant, incompetence on display at it's finest. It's something I would expect of a not too smart junior high school student.

This is typical GWSceptic behaviour. Lucia herself openly says that she is a novice learning statistics and yet every flawed analysis she makes is cheered to the rafters by the deniosphere.

 

[easycruise]

It's about 1C over the last hundred years.

No it's not. It's 1 degree F. If you can't get such a basic fact like that straight, that's quite embarrassing for you on this forum.

Page 5 of the report..."Earth warmed by roughly 0.6 degrees Centigrade (°C; 1 degree Fahrenheit during the 20th century, "

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf

That's from the big NRC/NAS study. Christy and Spencer have said it is probably even less than that...

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

What do you know about the physical impact of 2C warming down here where we live? 1C has already happened, and it's melting the Arctic as we speak. And it's melting glaciers and snowpack across the world.

And the disasterous damage so far is, exactly what? It's so hard to tell, because EVERYTHING is blamed on global warming. Here's a list.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Sorry, I just looked out the window and I'm not seeing Armageddon out there. Plain vanilla overreactionary alarmism is all I see. That, along with supposedly smart people making the classic error of extrapolating short term trends into long term trends, which, in many areas, especially the financial markets, will make you go broke.

 

[Spud1k]

And the disasterous damage so far is, exactly what? It's so hard to tell, because EVERYTHING is blamed on global warming. Here's a list.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Sorry, I just looked out the window and I'm not seeing Armageddon out there. Plain vanilla overreactionary alarmism is all I see.

Then you're paying way too much attention to the alarmists. Whatever the topic, you'll always find busloads of people from both the press and the general public who will take everything that little bit too far. Doesn't make the underlying science wrong.

It isn't so much what's happening now but what we (or our kids and grandkids) have got to look forward to. And the extra problem is that by the time it happens, it'll be way too late to change it.

 

[mhaze]

Then you're paying way too much attention to the alarmists. Whatever the topic, you'll always find busloads of people from both the press and the general public who will take everything that little bit too far. ...

If your concept of alarmist's distance from reality is "a little bit" you are pretty far from reality...

 

[CapelDodger]

No it's not. It's 1 degree F. If you can't get such a basic fact like that straight, that's quite embarrassing for you on this forum.

Page 5 of the report..."Earth warmed by roughly 0.6 degrees Centigrade (°C; 1 degree Fahrenheit during the 20th century, "

Look at the graph Spud provided and you'll see that the temperature increase since 1908 (the last hundred years) has been about 1C. The 20th is so last century, don't you think?

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf

That's from the big NRC/NAS study. Christy and Spencer have said it is probably even less than that...

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

Of course they did. What else would you expect from Christy and Spencer? They don't like AGW, never have, never will.

And the disasterous damage so far is, exactly what? It's so hard to tell, because EVERYTHING is blamed on global warming. Here's a list.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

If you want to hang with loonies please do it on your own time.

Sorry, I just looked out the window and I'm not seeing Armageddon out there. Plain vanilla overreactionary alarmism is all I see. That, along with supposedly smart people making the classic error of extrapolating short term trends into long term trends, which, in many areas, especially the financial markets, will make you go broke.

You stick with those thoughts. It leaves more room on the hill for us guys. And I've got a line on Florida shorefront property that you can pick up for a song at the moment. Guaranteed to turn a handsome profit when all this AGW stuff turns out to be a dud.

 

[CapelDodger]

Didn't Tamino already cover this in You bet!?

Indeed he did, and I'm on record as standing with Tamino on it. To quote :

"If the “continued warming” hypothesis is correct, future values should fall between the dashed red lines. If the “no more warming” hypothesis is correct, future values should fall between the dashed blue lines. If the earth has actually started cooling, future values will eventually dip below the blue lines.

So here’s the bet based on annual averages: the still-warming side wins if temperature goes above the top dashed blue line; the not-warming side wins if temperature goes below the bottom dashed red line."

The "not warming" side could win as early 2015 if they have anything at all going for them.

What will happen, of course, is that *if* the warming continues, GWSceptics will attribute it to something other than the GHG effect, just as they have to date.

Failing that they'll demand proof that it is the GHG effect, not something else that nobody's thought of yet.

We're into the upswing of the solar cycle, so that will probably come up again. Apart from that their ammo locker seems to be bare. The solar thing hasn't worked out, nor have cosmic rays, Lindzen's Laughable Iris, "it won't happen" (it has), soot, volcanoes, UHI ... I've no doubt missed some there have been so many. All of them embraced, at one time or another and often simultaneously, by Diamond. Anything as long as it isn't AGW.

 

[CapelDodger]

If your concept of alarmist's distance from reality is "a little bit" you are pretty far from reality...

It's also a long way from here, so why easycruise feels driven to bring it up is a bit of a mystery. As are the shadowy forces he seems to think are manipulating the mass media.

 

[CapelDodger]

It isn't so much what's happening now but what we (or our kids and grandkids) have got to look forward to. And the extra problem is that by the time it happens, it'll be way too late to change it.

It's already too late to prevent it; the trick is to predict and prepare. I'm child-free, but I have six nepots (four nephews, two nieces) who are well-prepared to ride whatever's coming. They've not been brought up to live in denial or have a sense of entitlement, and their very aware that climate change is happening.

Of course the first thing they want when they're old enough is their own car, but waddya gonna do?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Indeed he did, and I'm on record as standing with Tamino on it. To quote :

The "not warming" side could win as early 2015 if they have anything at all going for them.

Seems simple enough to me.

Failing that they'll demand proof that it is the GHG effect, not something else that nobody's thought of yet.

That is what I meant. The "something else" includes invisible space pixies, of course.

We're into the upswing of the solar cycle, so that will probably come up again. Apart from that their ammo locker seems to be bare. The solar thing hasn't worked out, nor have cosmic rays, Lindzen's Laughable Iris, "it won't happen" (it has), soot, volcanoes, UHI ... I've no doubt missed some there have been so many. All of them embraced, at one time or another and often simultaneously, by Diamond. Anything as long as it isn't AGW.

Oh, anything but that. BTW did you notice that some "sceptics" have tried to pretend that the extra CO2 isn't ours anyway, so that even if CO2 is driving warming, it's still not AGW!.

The denialism can be beyond belief sometimes.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes, at which point it will be effectively useless.

So it will, but at least it will simplify the modelling.

I’ve already apologised for being unclear.

I’m not going to get into this other than to say there was no intent to deceive and I strongly doubt anybody was.

I'll go into it no further than to say clarity does matter. Not just in communicating but in getting your own thoughts straight in your mind.

Of course I did, that’s how I was trained. It’s called science. Without fear or favour.

But with some application of judgement. Science is about identifying promising hypotheses to explain what has been observed and working on them. It's not about outlier observations that might occur. Leave aside what might happen in the next four years and consider what has happened in the last five.

I have to. I don’t know enough to do otherwise. You’re not a scientist and I understand and commend your passion. Science by its very nature is passionless.

If I've appeared passionate I apologise. I approach this subject in my science aspect.

Scientists don't just observe and wait to see what happens next. The whole point of science is to make sense of observations, to fit them into a system.

Very much so. IMHO 07 was an outlier. If it weren’t for the unusual event I think 06, 07 and 08 would have been extremely close indeed. I also think 09 will not change much either (purely based on ENSO).

Stripping 20% off the previous record (only two years before) simply shrieks that it's not an outlier. 2005 was itself a bit of a shock, after several years of sustained loss of ice-extent. The Arctic Ocean is telling us something, and as a scientist you should be trying to work out what that is. You don't have to be an expert in the subject to make a judgement.

It's in the nature of ice to change imperceptibly and then make a sudden lurch. The term "tipping-point" could have been invented to describe ice-behaviour, and a tipping-point in the Arctic Ocean has been passed, just as tipping-points in iced-up rivers occur every spring. The timescale for an ocean is much longer, but there's still a tipping-point.

 

[CapelDodger]

That is what I meant. The "something else" includes invisible space pixies, of course.

Until proven otherwise, yes.

Oh, anything but that. BTW did you notice that some "sceptics" have tried to pretend that the extra CO2 isn't ours anyway, so that even if CO2 is driving warming, it's still not AGW!.

Isn't that what the "CO₂-lag" theme is all about? It's not our CO₂ emissions (which vanish mysteriously, pixies might be involved) but a previously unnoticed warming event around the start of the Little Ice Age has created it from nothing.

The denialism can be beyond belief sometimes.

My belief was beggared long ago. It takes a lot to surprise me these days.

I'm not surprised that denialism has held out for so long, and I'm sure it will for decades to come, whatever happens. It's a belief thing, and the belief will only die with its last adherents.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh you'll win debates with that argument, and wow your dissection of her errors is so thorough.

Look in the mirror.

So what do you think Lucia has to say that's of interest? The onus is on you and the other guy, not on us. I've looked at Lucia's efforts and am far from impressed. What makes you think I might be wrong? Does Lucia impress you, and if so, why? Be specific.

 

[CapelDodger]

I see an interested amateur who is not an authority, who can look back on many errors made in the quest to understand a highly complex area of science.

Lucia should be telling her admirers the same, and not giving them comfort that ignorance is science.

Lucia's just an ordinary person who's been suddenly thrust into the limelight, and that's not easy for anybody to cope with. There's an understandable desire to cling onto fame, and to believe the hype.

The real message of Lucia is how little denialists have to call on. A world in which Lucia is regarded as a force to be reckoned with is a very small world indeed.