Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Reality Check]

.. which tells us nothing about the science, but a lot about the authors of Wikipedia.

You will also not find "the theory of unicorn breeding", r-j .
That tells us that making up arbitrary phrases and expecting that they be covered in the science literature or Wikipedia is fruitless.

Your "the theory of unicorn breeding" ("The theory of global warming") does not exist. Wow .

 

[uke2se]

As far as THAT goes, there probably are skeptics, who are skeptical of what skeptics say.

These clever quips of yours? They aren't all that clever. Maybe you'd like to actually contribute?

 

[macdoc]

The only skeptic is an informed one.
The only skeptic of AGW is Lintzman .... he is wrong. It's his career to be wrong with.
The rest of the denies AGW deniers are ill-informed by choice or mischance ( reading Fuax news for instance )

Now can we move on to climate science.

Rethinking Massive Iceberg Shifts in North Atlantic
Jan. 14, 2014 — Some Heinrich events -- periodic massive iceberg surges into the North Atlantic that were previously thought to have weakened the global ocean conveyor belt circulation and sent Earth's climate into the deep freeze -- may actually have been caused by changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, say a team of researchers that includes two Texas A&M University professors.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140114202659.htm

snip

Schmidt says that the study "has important implications for our understanding of the mechanisms of abrupt climate change in the past. The more we know about how climate changed in the past, the better prepared we will be for predicting future climate variability."

Invasion of the Icebergs.....catchy movie name. The Arctic certainly has the power to surprise....even the depths of an ice age.

 

[macdoc]

Quote:
US Navy planning for less Arctic Ice.
Quote:
Navy officials say the Arctic will give the U.S. its first new ocean to police since the annexation of the Pacific Northwest in 1846. As the ice surrounding the North Pole retreats, officials say, commercial shippers will be able to eventually move goods faster between Asia and Europe. More open seas will also give energy companies greater access to offshore oil and gas in regions controlled by the U.S. and estimated by military officials to be worth $1 trillion.
"The inevitable opening of the Arctic will essentially create a new coast on America's north," said Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the Navy's top officer.
from the http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...50522717106330
no less...

wsj, US Navy must be in on the scam..

 

[Trakar]

As far as THAT goes, there probably are skeptics, who are skeptical of what skeptics say.

Skepticism is following where the evidence leads, it is not about trying to find evidence to support predetermined preferences.

 

[Corsair 115]

I have to guess, here. Large, complicated theories like AGW (hence computer models instead of back-of-the-envelope calculations) are vulnerable to sabotage by critical contributors.

So it's conspiracy then? Can you cite any evidence to support your allegation against these unnamed "critical contributors"? (You can start by naming them.)

That's what Climategate involved: selective use of raw data (Siberian tree rings), adjustment of raw data, and manipulation of the peer review process.

False. SEVEN separate independent investigations—including ones done by the British Parliament, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Office of Inspector General of the National Science Foundation—all found there was NO evidence of any sort of data manipulation to produce false results. All the scientists involved were completely exonerated. (Links to each of these specific investigative reports have been posted in the forum in the past several times.)

Should I infer that you believe the British Parliament, the Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation are part of the conspiracy to produce or otherwise accept false evidence about AGW?

 

[a_unique_person]

At least you use the term theory when talking about AGW! The theory of global warming, or global warming theory, or AGW, is technically called the "enhanced greenhouse effect". You will not find that on Wikipedia of course. Just like you won't find he theory of global warming, or global warming theory, or AGW, which tells us nothing about the science, but a lot about the authors of Wikipedia.
Of course it is, and it only took a year for somebody to finally say it. Now that wasn't hard, was it?

Call it agw, gwt, togw, or just global warming, it's a theory, and it both explains as well as predicts, which a good theory must. This balky horse nonsense about there not being a theory, or worse, that is is "just a fact" is pseudoscience at best, and perhaps a fraud at worst.

I can't blame the casual student of global warming, as the Wikipedia article for global warming theory somehow doesn't even include the word "enhanced", much less discuss the theory. The greenhouse effect article does give passing mention to the theory (while avoiding the word theory). In fact, the word theory doesn't appear in the article at all.

A theory in scientific terms means something quite specific.

From Wikipedia.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The fundamental understanding of how a greenhouse gas works meets all those criteria, who much warming will actually occur, which is far wider in scope and far more complex, is not that mature. Research into climate sensitivty is onoing, and scientists can only give us an estimated range as to how much we can expect.

The models, which are used to estimate climate sensitivity, use well understood physics, but are still being developed, for example, in understanding how much heat goes into the oceans and where it goes into the oceans. All scientists can give us for now is a range of probabilities for climate sensitivity, and they can't predict how we will change our behaviour. For example, will we reduce our production of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Many of your questions are answered in the IPCC report. Have you read it yet?

 

[Pixel42]

The perversion of the peer review process means that if someone who wants to pump his/her cv has an adverse finding (say atmospheric CO₂ lags temperature, or orbital mechanics explains temperature cycles), s/he will publish in a non-climate-science journal.

Neither of the examples you give are "adverse findings". They are part of the mainstream understanding of climate science, from which the prediction of AGW is derived.

 

[r-j]

You will also not find "the theory of unicorn breeding", r-j

That's a terrible analogy. It sounds like you are comparing global warming with unicorns. Neither exists, hence no theory on Wikipedia. I'm suite sure that is not what you meant.

Skepticism is following where the evidence leads, it is not about trying to find evidence to support predetermined preferences.

Of course, which is why the AGW alarmists have so little support from skeptics. The over the top claims, the fear mongering, the constant insults, and the instant rejection of anything that even seems to go against the belief, that isn't skepticism at all. We saw this errant behavior here even in regards to possible ways to reduce CO2. If they aren't "stop using fossil fuels" they are rejected out of hand.

It's not scientific at all. Same for claiming "there is no debate" and labeling anyone and everyone that doesn't just agree with you a "denier". That's woo woo religious talk, not scientific discourse. It's a pathetic shadow of skepticism and science.

Like this stupid insistence there is no global warming theory! You expect people to just believe you, when you offer zero evidence to back up your claim. The issue came up because of the peer reviwed scientific paper, "Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling.", which says "traditional global warming theory", and discusses the predictions and why they think observations at this point, can no longer be ignored and hand waved away. So when some nobody claims there is no such thing as GHG theory, or AGW, or global warming theory, but I see in actual scientific literature the terms used freely, well, I jut don't believe you

The absence of a warming trend in winter is especially surprising given traditional global warming theory and the divergence of observed winter trends from coupled model projections.

You can keep claiming it, but nobody will buy it. Not when actuall evience proves you dead wrong.

Traditional radiative GHG theory and coupled climate models forced by increasing GHGs alone cannot account for this seasonal asymmetry

http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_ERL12.pdf
They are obviously speaking about the theoery, even whe theu use different terms.

With much attention on the effects of global warming on the climate system, the recent severe winter weather has heightened global warming scepticism among the general public.

You got that right. You don't need a science paper to know this. And of course they discuss multiple predictions of the theory, it's a key part of the paper. The [predictions from theory.

While the AO certainly exhibits intrinsic behaviour, earlier studies predicted that global warming would be associated with a positive trend in the AO

And in fact, the predictions are the really big issue, with most people. Not that more GhGs should slow down the heat leaving the planet, or increase the temperature of the planet.

But the theory (or theories if you will) that are used to create the models are real things, quite unlike your argument there is no theory.

The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter.

That is yet another way to say it. "It" is quite obviously the enhanced GhG theory, no matter what it is called.

From what I can see, what is a fact is the colder NH extratropical winters.

Our argument for how a warming trend globally can yield colder NH extratropical winters is summarized in figure 2.

The cause is of course, still under investigation. And worth discussing, rather than ignoring. Or worse, denial that it is happening.

 

[macdoc]

Meanwhile the world moves on with getting warmer and the consequences...

Increasing Threat of Intense Tropical Cyclones Hitting East Asia
Jan. 15, 2014 — The intensity of tropical cyclones hitting East Asia has significantly increased over the past 30 years, according to a new study published today.

The coastlines of China, Korea and Japan in particular have experienced increasingly stronger cyclones, which the researchers have attributed to increasing sea surface temperatures and a change in atmospheric circulation patterns over the coastal seas.
According to the study, the changes in sea surface temperature and wind flows meant that cyclones were more likely to track along coastal seas from the South China Sea upwards, meaning that by the time the cyclones hit the north-east coast of Asia they had gathered more energy than usual and were at their maximum intensity.

The study, which has been published today, 16 January, in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters, involved an analysis of five separate data sets that documented the evolution of tropical cyclones across the north-west Pacific between 1977 and 2010.

more

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140115193219.htm

 

[r-j]

Everyone knows it is just an attempt to obfuscate.

We agree that it is "just an attempt to obfuscate", except on who is doing the avoidance.

I've quoted multiple times where terms are used, in peer reviewed papers, all the while some people are claiming the terms are "made up", "don't exist", or are "just an attempt to do ...something". Meanwhile the "theory of global warming "deniers type reams and reams of text, rather than answering the basic questions.

 

[Belz...]

Of course, which is why the AGW alarmists have so little support from skeptics.

Did you just try to claim that most skeptics agree with you on this ? Or did you try to redefine skeptic to mean "someone who agrees with me on this" ?

Because most scientists don't agree with you on this. Are they all woo-woos ?

The over the top claims, the fear mongering

Discussing the negative consequences of something is not fear-mongering. FOX news talking about immigration, pot and Obama is fear-mongering.

the constant insults, and the instant rejection of anything that even seems to go against the belief, that isn't skepticism at all.

I concur.

You're talking about deniers, right ?

It's not scientific at all. Same for claiming "there is no debate" and labeling anyone and everyone that doesn't just agree with you a "denier". That's woo woo religious talk, not scientific discourse. It's a pathetic shadow of skepticism and science.

Gee, that sounds nice. Given that there's general agreement on the topic, however, where's your evidence that all those stupid, evil scientists are wrong ?

And in fact, the predictions are the really big issue, with most people.

Most people don't understand climatology. That you can't add speeds together under relativity is also a big issue for most people, I'd wager, if they cared at all to look into General Relativity. And yet that's the way it works.

The cause is of course, still under investigation.

Assuming AGW is true, how much more evidence and time do you think we should take before acting on the findings of scientists ?

 

[Mikemcc]

We agree that it is "just an attempt to obfuscate", except on who is doing the avoidance.

I've quoted multiple times where terms are used, in peer reviewed papers, all the while some people are claiming the terms are "made up", "don't exist", or are "just an attempt to do ...something". Meanwhile the "theory of global warming "deniers type reams and reams of text, rather than answering the basic questions.

You are clearly wanting an impossible definition of Global Warming, I gave a simple 4 line definition a couple of pages ago and you ignored that. The entirity of climate science is a massively complex subject. If it wasn't we wouldn't need such a range of specialists:

• Paleoclimatic experts such as Michael Mann and Richard Alley
• Tropospheric atmospheric specialists such as Christy, Spencer, and their teams at RSS and UAH
• Oceanographers (physical and biological...)
• Glaciologists
• Arctic and Antarctic specialists
• Statisticians such as Grant Foster
• Computational modellers
• Solar astronomers
• Data gatherers running all of the various met stations dotted all over the world.
• Atmospheric composition specialists such as the Keelings
• Emissions specialists such as Knorr, Myles Allen and the folks working at the EIA

I've probably missed a whole range of other specialities.

The body of scientific evidence and the theories to interpret them are robust:

• CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We understand the behaviour of GHGs from years of lab work, we know why they work like that and to what degree, we can also demonstarte those activities in labs.
  
• We know CO2 is a well mixed gas, we know how much has been emitted over time because or fairly confident record keeping by the various countries.
  
• We know how much carbon has been emitted and how much remains in the atmosphere (using Myles Allens and Prof Knorrs work). Just that shows that man is responsible for all of the excess CO2 (takes all of 2 sides of A4 to show it, it's stupidly easy).
  
• We know that the O2 concentration has decreased by the correct stoichiometric ratio to explain fossil fuel burn off.
  
• The carbon isotope ratio changes also show that the excess CO2 is from fossil fuel burning.

Each of these is robust and cannot be discounted. Each builds on the other to show that mankind is responsible for all of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere (and also that absorbed into the ocean). Given that we understand the effects CO2 has on the energy balance it is also inescapable that we are responsible for all of the additional energy entering the system. All other influences have been shown to be orders of magnitude lower that the signature from CO2.

• Solar TSI is static or slightly declining.
• The work at CERN has shown that galactic cosmic rays have little influence on climate.
• Volcanos are well understood, contribute less than 1% to CO and have temporary cooling effects due to aerosols.
• The background warming from the Earths core contributes less than a 1/10% of the energy required and is effectively constant apart from very localised areas and time periods (i.e. eruptions)

Give it a rest about formal definitive theories of AGW. It's not going to happen. Whilst each little module is well understood, the interactions between them will continue to provide avenues of study and refinement for centuries. There will probably never be a definitive definition that can explain all aspects, just as there isn't in other fields - cosmology, quantum mechanics and relating it to gravity, microbiology and pharmacology. Even fields such as civil engineering learn from incidents (the road bridge that collapsed a couple of years ago in the US, dam failures, the Tacoma Narrows bridge, the Millenium footbridge in London, etc)

You are demanding perfection and it's simple not there, nor is it ever likely to be. Your continuing whining that it's not as good as you want it to be is frankly getting very, very boring. It certainly isn't advancing the discussion.

 

[r-j]

Give it a rest about formal definitive theories of AGW. It's not going to happen.

Not only will it, it already has. When you see a peer reviewed paper not only using the terms, but describing the predictions, it's already a known thing.

It just doesn't seem to be known here.

 

[Haig]

Not great science because we now know that the "pause" does not exist. The oceans continued heating up at the same rate as before.

Really RC?

Seems the journal Nature does think the "pause" exists and it's natural

Climate change: The case of the missing heat

Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.

So WUWT have been right all along - some great comments too!
“Climate sceptics have seized on the temperature trends as evidence that global warming has ground to a halt.”
Yes, skeptics “seized” on them. A bit of psychological projection there. All skeptics have done all along is point out the truth. It is the climate “scientists” who seize and grasp at anything and everything to try to keep their fantasy alive, to the detriment of science and humanity. Fact: the warming has halted for some 17 years, despite ever-increasing CO2. Now, the warmologists grasp at straws, even trying to say that the “missing” heat is hiding in the deep oceans. It’s laughably absurd, and pathetic.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The entirity of climate science is a massively complex subject. If it wasn't we wouldn't need such a range of specialists:

• Paleoclimatic experts such as Michael Mann and Richard Alley
• Tropospheric atmospheric specialists such as Christy, Spencer, and their teams at RSS and UAH
• Oceanographers (physical and biological...)
• Glaciologists
• Arctic and Antarctic specialists
• Statisticians such as Grant Foster
• Computational modellers
• Solar astronomers
• Data gatherers running all of the various met stations dotted all over the world.
• Atmospheric composition specialists such as the Keelings
• Emissions specialists such as Knorr, Myles Allen and the folks working at the EIA

I've probably missed a whole range of other specialities.

I find it a great shame soil scientists and biologists are not listed high up on your list. If they were, I suspect a greater understanding would follow. We are all carbon life forms after all.

Biology created the atmosphere we have, and relegating those fields of science to "probably missed" ... "other specialties" is a crying shame. But it does explain several things ......... like the resistance I commonly find trying to discuss potential biological mitigation proposals.

 

[Mikemcc]

Not only will it, it already has. When you see a peer reviewed paper not only using the terms, but describing the predictions, it's already a known thing.

It just doesn't seem to be known here.

It is known here, it's just you wanting it in a nicely packed little Theory of Everything.

 

[Mikemcc]

Really RC?

Seems the journal Nature does think the "pause" exists and it's natural

Climate change: The case of the missing heat




So WUWT have been right all along - some great comments too!
“Climate sceptics have seized on the temperature trends as evidence that global warming has ground to a halt.”
Yes, skeptics “seized” on them. A bit of psychological projection there. All skeptics have done all along is point out the truth. It is the climate “scientists” who seize and grasp at anything and everything to try to keep their fantasy alive, to the detriment of science and humanity. Fact: the warming has halted for some 17 years, despite ever-increasing CO2. Now, the warmologists grasp at straws, even trying to say that the “missing” heat is hiding in the deep oceans. It’s laughably absurd, and pathetic.

WUWT is still woo woo land in terms of critical thinking. No matter how many times you link to it the standard of discussion and evidence there is woefully lacking. Your blindness to evidence and measurements (such as the observed ocean warming) is just confirmation of your confirmation bias.

 

[Mikemcc]

I find it a great shame soil scientists and biologists are not listed high up on your list. If they were, I suspect a greater understanding would follow. We are all carbon life forms after all.

Biology created the atmosphere we have, and relegating those fields of science to "probably missed" ... "other specialties" is a crying shame. But it does explain several things ......... like the resistance I commonly find trying to discuss potential biological mitigation proposals.

Mea culpa with respect to missing them from the list, also experts in pests and their migrations and die-backs. I'm more of an engineer so missed those, no deliberate malice.

Whilst not in any way an expert I doubt that biological mitigation is going to be a front runner. At preasent the biosphere and the oceans absorb about half of the CO2 emissions. The overwhelming majority of that is into the oceans, someone out there should have a figure available based on the change in pH and the total volume of the oceans (also does anyone now if the pH changes are relatively uniform with depth? Whilst CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, I don't know how well the disolved CO2 mixes in the ocean given the higher densities, the currents and thermoclines, etc)

 

[macdoc]

Actually Mike you might be surprised ....tho not a "front runner" the scale is very decent. Have a look at the other carbon thread. The numbers out of Queensland are quite robust.