Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Haig]

No sale. Not when you appeal to (mind-numbingly) false authority.
Something to consider. Just asking questions. Whatever.
Here then is a little tip: As you flail about on google for juicy tidbits to support your whimsical, anti-science biases, take a moment to consider the source. Really, this is a joke.

It's no joke, just look at the evidence from NASA alone, then ALL the others, phew!

Do I detect, by your ad homs, your a little upset by my approach?

 

[Haig]

Well I understand the group think idea. BUT it is sooooooo often dragged out as an excuse by people who are crackpots, it is used by the anti psychiatry crowd, the anti vax crowd, the anti relativity crowd, the electric universe crowd, the plasma cosmology crowd, the creationism crowd.

Not even to mention the role of its use in Politics.

But you haven't defined the criteria nor have you shown that it is pervasive at all in AGW. Warning there is an epic fail extant of the board already.

Glad you understand it. I think "groupthink" is particularly relevant to the relatively, small group of AGW climate scientists who appear to have adopted an embattled position to repel all opposition.

I haven't checked the board but I have read the climategate emails and as Prof Jones admits "I have written some awful emails" and the final outcome of the inquiries into this may show, among other things, that groupthink has been going on?

I think that the first thing you need to show is that valid scientific data is being ignored on a wide scale basis and that there is not a dismissal on valid scientific grounds.

I take your point but as devils advocate that's not MY role, I'm just presenting opposing evidence, others have to judge it!

 

[lomiller]

Nope, a DA has no problem with Gregory Fegel but remember attack the man's arguments not the man.

When you hold someone up as an expert it’s perfectly acceptable to attack that persons credentials.

 

[lomiller]

“Among some global warming skeptics, there is speculation that the Sun may be on the verge of falling into an extended slumber similar to the so-called Maunder Minimum, several sunspot-scarce decades during the 17th and 18th centuries that coincided with an extended chilly period.

The Maunder minimum caused several tenth’s of a degree of cooling over a century. At present greenhouse gasses are causing ~0.2 deg of warming *per decade*. Even an new Maunder Minimum would only cause a slight slowdown of warming, not cooling, greenhouse forcings are simply that much solar forcings.

 

[Dancing David]

Glad you understand it. I think "groupthink" is particularly relevant to the relatively, small group of AGW climate scientists who appear to have adopted an embattled position to repel all opposition.

From what I can tell that is just an assertion, you have shown any of your premises or any evidence, so your conclusion is speculative.

 

[Haig]

When you hold someone up as an expert it’s perfectly acceptable to attack that persons credentials.

I like to apply this JREF rule not just to members but to those we cite.
“Address the argument, not the arguer." Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer.”

You clearly do not! And so this applies IMO:
“There’s an old legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. When proponents of a scientific consensus lead with an attack on the witness, rather than on the arguments and evidence, be suspicious.”

The Maunder minimum caused several tenth’s of a degree of cooling over a century. At present greenhouse gasses are causing ~0.2 deg of warming *per decade*. Even an new Maunder Minimum would only cause a slight slowdown of warming, not cooling, greenhouse forcings are simply that much solar forcings.

“As Professor Ian Clark, Department of Sciences, University of Ottawa tells it: "If you haven't understood the climate system, if you haven't understood all the components -- the cosmic rays, the solar, the CO2, the water vapor, the clouds, and put it all together -- if you haven't got all that, then your model isn't worth anything." As in most computer models, the adage of "junk in -- junk out" remains true for climate models.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/its_the_climate_warming_models.html

From what I can tell that is just an assertion, you have shown any of your premises or any evidence, so your conclusion is speculative.

Agreed, but that is the point of this thread, I’m looking for answers.

Hoping for reasoned argument and evidence to get me off this fence. I suspect, a little more time, is needed before we can tell who is right.

 

[Haig]

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

"The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count."
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Maybe, we need to take more seriously,the possibility, the Russians are right and prepare for a long period of global cooling?

 

[bobdroege7]

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

"The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count."
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Maybe, we need to take more seriously,the possibility, the Russians are right and prepare for a long period of global cooling?

Pick any one paper from that list and we will discuss its merits.

If you dare

 

[varwoche]

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

Poptech's inane list has already been shown for what it is.

I look forward to your reply to bobdroege7.

 

[Poptech]

Pick any one paper from that list and we will discuss its merits.

Any proper discussion of these papers would take place in the peer-reviewed literature. Which is why people like bob are eager to link to sites like Fenton Communication's RealClimate for a censored discussion of the paper that does not allow the author or other scientists to respond.

Poptech's inane list has already been shown for what it is.

I look forward to your reply to bobdroege7.

It hasn't been show for anything but what it is - a list of peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. BTW I replied to everything in that post but many of my comments never appeared.

 

[Reality Check]

That’s a matter of opinion but also some fact as this paper clearly shows http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1l56241734kq743/
Scientists are shown to “herd” together to defend the status quo, their “beliefs” and careers against new or different views that threaten them.

That is not what the abstract states.
Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System

...
In addition to showing poor interrater agreement, reviewers were strongly biased against manuscripts which reported results contrary to their theoretical perspective. The implications of these findings for epistemology and the peer review system are briefly addressed.

There are no "beliefs" mentioned.
There are no careers mentioned.
There is no mention of different views that threaten them (but that could be "theoretical perspective").
The only thing you got right is "status quo" - assuming that none of the 75 reviewers was a maverick whose theoretical perspective was anti-status quo.

Everybody knows that there is some confirmation bias in the peer-review system. Scientists hope that the indoctrination that they undergo in post graduate school to question everything minimizes this bias.

NASA think exactly what climate scientists think - the TSI has a effect on global temperatures . Climate scientists know what this effect is, i.e. much less than that of GHGs. This is from the sceintific evidence.

Seems like “groupthink” to me

Seems like “science” to me !

Let see

• The majority of scientists think that there is strong evidence for special relativity - is this “groupthink”?
• The majority of scientists think that there is strong evidence for general relativity - is this “groupthink”?
• The majority of scientists think that there is strong evidence for evolution - is this “groupthink”?
• The majority of scientists think that there is strong evidence for the Standard Model - is this “groupthink”?
• The majority of scientists think that there is strong evidence for quantum mechanics - is this “groupthink”?

The evidence that global warming exists, is mostly due to GHG's and we caused the increase in GHG's is not as strong as the evidence for the above theories but is strong enough to convince the majority of climate sceintists.

This approach hasn’t taken into account GCR and their affect on our climate or even acknowledge it’s possible impact that CLOUD math show it’s equivalent to any GHG’s effect. The Greenland ice cores confirm the 15% to 20% (approx) reduction in GCR’s during the last 100 years of warming.

This approach fits the existing temperature data without GCR. This is evidence that the effect of GCR is small.

Interestingly, you are still obsessed with the ad-homs on this astrophysicist with expertise in climate science. Can you explain why the, peer-reviewed, climate scientist at the Met Office, who use the latest computer climate models, based on AGW, can’t get their long range forecasts right! but PC can?

Interestingly, you are still obsessed with this astrophysicist with no known expertise in climate science and his advertising. Piers Corbyn has no proven track record of predicting weather.

Consensus has no place in science. Science is not democratic. The small number have often been shown to be right against the majority, time and evidence will decide.

Since you did not unbderstand what I said here it is again in terms you might understand

• Consensus has no place in science
• Science is not democratic
• The small number have sometimes been shown to be right against the majority, time and evidence will decide.
• The majority have often been shown to be right against the minority, time and evidence will decide.
• So how are we as layman to judge the results of current climate research?

The real answer is to become climate scientists!
The more practical answer is to learn science and apply that knowledge to the evidence. This means at least a university education. This is the situation that I am in.
The most practical answer is to to combine applying what knowledge you have to evaluating the evidence (and realize that you will make mistakes) and trust the majority of experts, i.e. the scientific consensus. This means of course that sometimes you (and these experts) will be wrong.

The worst answer is to just trust the minority of experts.
This means that you (and these experts) will be wrong most of the time.

As a layman I can see the demarcation in Science can lead to “turf wars” but do you really think the CERN CLOUD Astrophysists don’t know all about GHG’s?

I know that the CERN scientists know about GHG's. Their research has nothing to do with GHG's.

You make no comment on the political nature of the paper reading like one from the IPCC, why not? They don’t even mention GCR’s as a possible cause of climate change, why not?

Beacuse is it not a paper! It is a NASA statement on Global Warming.

James Lovelock doesn’t agree with that view: “They have kept us from regarding the science of climate change as a religion. It had gone too far that way” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle7061020.ece

Your link is broken:
Grandaddy of green, James Lovelock, warms to eco-sceptics

“I think you have to accept that the sceptics have kept us sane — some of them, anyway,” he said. “They have been a breath of fresh air. They have kept us from regarding the science of climate change as a religion. It had gone too far that way. There is a role for sceptics in science. They shouldn’t be brushed aside. It is clear that the angel side wasn’t without sin.”

Nothin to do with what I said: "There is no failth. “believe” = the scientific evidence has convinced them.", i.e. there is no religious kind of faith (blind trust in a dogma without evidence) involved which you implied.

Of course what James Lovelock is stating that that skeptics have prevented the science of climate change from becoming a religion.

By their evidence and results. Also, is the climate doing what they predicted it would do? If not, why not? Can it explain past climate change? Like the LIA, MWP and the regular Ice Ages.

Climate is doing what they predicted.

• Climate models are tested against existing data. If they do not fit that then they are thrown away.
• Climate models are tested agains future predictions. The global warmiing that has been measured over the past decades fits what the models predicted.
  Read the IPCC reports for the full picture.

I do not know about the fits to the LIA, MWP and the regular Ice Ages.

Mmmm by that strategy we would still have the Sun circling the Earth.

Mmmm by that strategy we would have the Earth circling the Sun as the evidence for the consensus did not hold up and the evidence for the dissenting views did.

Why not look at evidence and theories that can explain our climate past, present and predicted future? AGW doesn’t do that in my DA view.

AGW is about what is happening to the climate since basically the Industrial Revolution. It does do it in my view based on simple science:

• GHG's increase the temperature of the Earth according to basic physics.
• There are lots of other factors that drive climate. These should include cosmic rays but there are doubts, e.g. the expected correlation between low clouds and cosmic rays broke down in 1991 (Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?).
• Scientists have measured that GHG's are a major driver of climate.
• GHG's have increased.
• We caused this increase.
• The temperature of the Earth has increased.
• Thus AGW.

Your wrong, I stated my actual position (DA off) in my post #222 I don’t “ignore” or “blindly believe” anything! (DA on) Piers Corbyn makes more sense than the IPCC, the Climategate sientists and most of the AGW alarmist views I’ve heard to date, put together.

That is a really bad reason: "makes more sense" just means that Piers Corbyn has a better brand of snake oil!
Science is based on the ability to produce actual evidence and convince your peers that the evidence is correct. Piers Corbyn has produced none. He has convinced few (if any) peers.

Don’t agree, http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/Symp_223.pdf and http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/KPhCB22_3_141.pdf are just a couple of the peer-reviewed papers they cite

You need to learn more about the scientific community and how it works - a presentation at a symposium is not peer reviewed.
I do not know "Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies" but I guess it is peer reviewed. However you obviously never read the paper - it says nothing about climate.

I don’t lie, that’s my interpretation of what it says in the 2000 paper as can be judged in these few quotes:

One more time:.

• It is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It is not a paper of any kind. It is an interal document for use within CERN. It is not even the complete document set (see CLOUD Proposal Documents).
• As an internal proposal document to CERN by scientists who want to do the experiment you would expect them to put possible results in the best light.
  Your quotes from the document merely confirms this.
• The link between cosmic rays and global warming mentioned in the document have been overtaken by later results as detailed in Could cosmic rays be causing global warming? which cites scientific papers published in 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2007.

Maybe, maybe not! They seems to suggest that GCR’s modulated by the Sun can explain most, maybe all, of the climate change.

They only do this in your mind: compariable does not mean "most, maybe all".
Compariable means of the same order of magnitude. It means that the authors have no actual numbers but are estimating from their experience (and hopefully from consulting actual climate scientists) to impress the budget managers in order to get funding for the experiment.

I had my doubts about you but glad to hear you’re ….. a “believer”? Wonder why NASA or the IPCC don’t acknowledge the CERN CLOUD experiment?

Why should they "acknowledge" an experiment that has not even started yet (just a pilot study so far)?

Can you give a source for that claim? And explain in what way you think it has broken down?

Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?

Something’s to consider:
...

Something’s to to completely derail this thread into yet anbother AGW thread

Guess what - there are plenty of papers out there that state that AGW is not happening. They are outnumbered by the ones that say AGW exists. I assume you do not want me to start citing those since you will lose a "citation war".

But...
I have no idea why you cited:
Oceanic influences on recent continental warming

Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.

(my emphasis added)
Evidence that oceans warm land and a mention of every possible cause of ocean's warming (natural and anthropogenic pretty well covers everything).

Climate scientists are quite well aware of ENSO and it effects on global termperatures.

Global Cooling in 2009 is a really bad blog entry. Everyone knows that if you cherry pick your start and end dates you can impose any trend you like on global temeratures because they vary. The Earth did cool down from 1998 to 2009. But 1998 was an unusually hot year.
The Earth has heated up over the longer periods usually considered for climate research. These periods have to be long enough so that trends are statistically significantly different from natural variations. This is multiple decades - see Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995.

As for the web page by By Gregory F. Fegel, CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

 

[Reality Check]

“As Professor Ian Clark, Department of Sciences, University of Ottawa tells it: "If you haven't understood the climate system, if you haven't understood all the components -- the cosmic rays, the solar, the CO2, the water vapor, the clouds, and put it all together -- if you haven't got all that, then your model isn't worth anything." As in most computer models, the adage of "junk in -- junk out" remains true for climate models.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/its_the_climate_warming_models.html

Professor Ian Clark, Department of Sciences, University of Ottawa is right.
If you do not have all of the factors that influence climate in your computer model then the model results are suspect to say the least. Climate scientists of course know this. So they test the models against existing data ! If they fit the existing data then the neglected factors either cancel each other out or have effects too small to be seen.

 

[Poptech]

If you do not have all of the factors that influence climate in your computer model then the model results are suspect to say the least. Climate scientists of course know this. So they test the models against existing data ! If they fit the existing data then the neglected factors either cancel each other out or have effects too small to be seen.

Can a computer model be programmed to get the results that you want?

 

[Reality Check]

Can a computer model be programmed to get the results that you want?

Yes, e.g. I can have a computer model that is the number 1 and the number 1 and the operation + and get 2 out of it.

Let us hope that you are not starting on on a paranoid rant about all of the climate scientists who ever programmed a computer model, constructing them to get the results that they wanted.

 

[lomiller]

I like to apply this JREF rule not just to members but to those we cite.
“Address the argument, not the arguer." Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer.”

What you like isn’t my concern if you are going to cite an expert they have to really be an expert and if they are not you will be called on it. This is a skeptic site, citing random peoples opinions isn’t going to cut it.

 

[Poptech]

Yes, e.g. I can have a computer model that is the number 1 and the number 1 and the operation + and get 2 out of it.

Let us hope that you are not starting on on a paranoid rant about all of the climate scientists who ever programmed a computer model, constructing them to get the results that they wanted.

The point is you cannot prove that they did not and thus computer model results are meaningless. You fail to grasp the basics of this, it does not require "paranoia" to understand that a scientist making subjective determinations about inclusion and omission of mathematical calculations is "fixing" a model to his preconceived results.

 

[varwoche]

I like to apply this JREF rule not just to members but to those we cite. “Address the argument, not the arguer."

How convenient. It doesn't change the fact however that you are the arguer, and Gregory Fegel, non-scientist and 911 truther, is your ridiculous argument.

 

[Haig]

Pick any one paper from that list and we will discuss its merits.

If you dare

No problem, but do you mind if I read them first?
You, it seems have made a judgement on them already, so how many have YOU read or don’t you need to do that before you dismiss them? If you have read them give me the top ten that are most damaging to your AGW cause and I will give you my top ten when I’m finished.

Poptech's inane list has already been shown for what it is.

I look forward to your reply to bobdroege7.

I could be misjudging you and bob but it seems to me, these two pieces apply to you both: I wonder if you can see the lessons for you?

Climate emails review panellist quits after his impartiality questioned

“Nature editor Philip Campbell forced out of independent panel after saying there was nothing to suggest a cover up by scientists at the University of East Anglia.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/12/climate-change-climategate-nature-global-warming

So Campbell has to resign because, publicly, his impartiality is in doubt. As editor in chief of Nature and in the privacy of his office, are climate skeptics papers likely to be given any chance at all of publication? I don’t think so! IMO.

Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system

“Confirmatory bias is the tendency to emphasize and believe experiences which support one's views and to ignore or discredit those which do not”

”Confirmatory experiences are selectively welcomed and granted easy credibility. Disconfirmatory experiences, on the other hand, are often ignored, discredited, or treated with obvious defensiveness... the most costly expression of this tendency may well be among scientists themselves”…

So, it seems clear to me, Peer Review is being use by scientists, in general, and the small group of AGW scientists, in particular, to defend their “beliefs” and block new idea’s and theories.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1l56241734kq743/

Any proper discussion of these papers would take place in the peer-reviewed literature. Which is why people like bob are eager to link to sites like Fenton Communication's RealClimate for a censored discussion of the paper that does not allow the author or other scientists to respond.

It hasn't been show for anything but what it is - a list of peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. BTW I replied to everything in that post but many of my comments never appeared.

Welcome to the thread PT you make excellent points here.

That is not what the abstract states.]

Professor Ian Clark, Department of Sciences, University of Ottawa is right..

RC I’ll need more time, than I have just now, to answer your posts properly, I’ll get back to you as soon as I can, doing a lot of reading just now.

What you like isn’t my concern if you are going to cite an expert they have to really be an expert and if they are not you will be called on it. This is a skeptic site, citing random peoples opinions isn’t going to cut it.

Pity you aren’t a bit more skeptic about AGW then! So, in your view of “the cosmic rays, the solar, the CO2, the water vapor, the clouds” the only one that actually matters is C02, when it comes to climate change?

How convenient. It doesn't change the fact however that you are the arguer, and Gregory Fegel, non-scientist and 911 truther, is your ridiculous argument.

Yes, I am the DA and you are entitled to your opinion. My view is by looking at the arguments we may make progress but ad homs are just mudding the waters.

 

[bobdroege7]

Any proper discussion of these papers would take place in the peer-reviewed literature. Which is why people like bob are eager to link to sites like Fenton Communication's RealClimate for a censored discussion of the paper that does not allow the author or other scientists to respond.


It hasn't been show for anything but what it is - a list of peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. BTW I replied to everything in that post but many of my comments never appeared.

Well, how about an improper and amatuer discussion then?

It's not like I think my analysis will carry any weight with those who matter.

At least with the fenton site you can get links to peer reviewed literature as well.

I can argue my position without linking to that site anyway.

 

[bobdroege7]

No problem, but do you mind if I read them first?

You, it seems have made a judgement on them already, so how many have YOU read or don’t you need to do that before you dismiss them? If you have read them give me the top ten that are most damaging to your AGW cause and I will give you my top ten when I’m finished.

I could be misjudging you and bob but it seems to me, these two pieces apply to you both: I wonder if you can see the lessons for you?


Pity you aren’t a bit more skeptic about AGW then! So, in your view of “the cosmic rays, the solar, the CO2, the water vapor, the clouds” the only one that actually matters is C02, when it comes to climate change?

I have read three of them completely and read the abstracts of at least 10.

The Oliver K Manuel papers on the list have nothing to do with AGW, they are just way wacky papers on the Sun. The two papers are contrary to every paper on stellar evolution I have ever read.

I try to be objective and recognize any bias that may creep into my arguments.

Let's just pick one and discuss it, you pick.

You assume that posters such as myself, varwoche, RC and others haven't looked at the other possibilities in any depth before concluding that CO2 is the most important.

Do I have to say it again, "water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas"