Global warming discussion III

[bit_pattern]

What part of this don't you understand ?

"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and, as the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world’s top six learned journals of science"

Do you think the prestigious Science Bulletin peer reviews DON'T count ?

https://www.google.com/cloudprint#jobs?q=user:all printerid:86313277-ac1d-0234-b913-d7e057f00045

Misdiagnosis of Earth climate sensitivity based on energy balance model results
Mark Richardson, Zeke Hausfather, Dana A. Nuccitelli, Ken Rice, John P. Abraham

Abstract
Monckton of Brenchley et al. (Sci Bull 60:122–135, 2015) (hereafter called M15) use a simple energy balance model to estimate climate response. They select parameters for this model based on semantic arguments, leading to different results from those obtained in physics-based studies. M15 did not validate their model against observations, but instead created synthetic test data based on subjective assumptions. We show that M15 systematically underestimate warming: since 1990, most years were warmer than their modelled upper limit. During 2000–2010, RMS error and bias are approximately 150 % and 350 % larger than for the CMIP5 median, using either the Berkeley Earth or Cowtan and Way surface temperature data. We show that this poor performance can be explained by a logical flaw in the parameter selection and that selected parameters contradict observational estimates. M15 also conclude that climate has a near-instantaneous response to forcing, implying no net energy imbalance for the Earth. This contributes to their low estimates of future warming and is falsified by Argo float measurements that show continued ocean heating and therefore a sustained energy imbalance. M15’s estimates of climate response and future global warming are not consistent with measurements and so cannot be considered credible.

 

[uk_dave]

What good do you think this thread will do? Has it changed a single denier's mind yet?

Thought not.

Valid points, but it's not just the Deniers who are posting here who have minds which can be changed.

The majority of people would like AGW to go away. It's easy to see why some are prepared to embrace pseudo science if it can make AGW disappear from our lives.

In the UK we live with taxation on vehicles and fuel as an incentive to use cars less and to move to more fuel efficient cars.

In construction we have multiple hoops to jump through in order to achieve compliance with current regulations. We have SAP Assessments and BREEAM ratings.

I was talking to a developer a few weeks ago who said that the market for expensive houses hasn't fully recovered (outside of London), but the market is there for small, affordable housing except it is damned difficult to build these and make a profit.

So, if all these regulations and requirements would go away because AGW was false, we'd all be happier.

But when someone like Haig comes along and starts posting the counter argument, people are going to go: "Hmmmm that's interesting" and their inclination may be to actually believe his side because they can see us then going back to a time when fuel bills were affordable and a 2.0 litre engine didn't attract a road fund tax of ten times the amount of a 1.0 litre engine.

So the posters on this thread who are well versed in the arguments countering Haig and Wattsupwiththat are not going to convince Haig because he's got to the point where the future looks bright without mitigating climate change, but they will get through to those who are going "hmmmm" and that, in itself, is worth the bandwidth.

What I do find interesting about the denier position is that in the mid-noughties there was still denial that climate change was happening, and we had arguments about the locations of instruments and we had the brouhaha about 'climategate', but now it's 'natural climate change' or all due to the sun, so now, apparently, the climate scientists are correct that climate change is happening but it's not because of CO2, its for other reasons which are out of our hands and so we just have to sit back and let it all happen while we happily burn more fossil fuels.

 

[The Atheist]

"We" includes me, my wife, a few neighboring family farms who have joined together in a co-op, and our employees. This is not a "state" operation but a small farm and resort which I own and operate and a group of neighboring farmers, here in west central Oregon.

Outstanding! That makes two of you so far.

I don't know how many people have posted in the thread, but two is better than I would have bet.

Must be a few more.

....when you knows full well it doesn't make a jot of difference what individuals do.

Thanks mate! That is the funniest thing I'll read all day, I absolutely guarantee!

That is science alright.

Atheist

Because you haven't read it..there are several including a IPCC author....

Really? Someone who has authored publications by the IPCC is posting in the thread?

If I were him or her I'd be pissed off at having my posts hidden among 10,000 posts of repetitive nonsense.

And read 20000 posts? Do you think anyone has read all 20000 of them? If you want to have a pure science thread on the subject, then do so, remove the deniers and have a sticky thread that contains only scientific fact, because all I've seen is posting the same thing over and over and over again.

I haven't seen your personal contribution to carbon reduction yet, though.

You are all about politics - not climate science...

Oh please. In what way do they differ? Climate science and theIPCC especially only exist because politicians fund them.

... but I also engage in behaviours that I know are contradictory to my beliefs.

Is that at all hypocritical?

I'm certainly not going to discuss them in the context of a diversionary 'gotchya' fishing expedition conducted by someone who I do not believe is acting in good faith.

Well, you know what they say about beliefs...

There is nothing incongruous about living within a societal structure that essentially forces certain types of behaviour, while at the same time wanting to see that structure reformed to limit the consequences of said behaviour.

That is breathtaking - excusing bad behaviour because everyone else does it.

That's pretty much what I say, so thanks for the confirmation. I can see why you want pure science in the thread.

While I agree that personal behavioural changes are important, the attempt to put the onus on the individual is insidious and unhelpful.

I'm sensing a pattern of posting where you have a major problem with people taking responsibility for themselves.

Anyway, your point isn't just wrong, it's scientifically illiterate as well, because if you break the science down, you might notice that the end product of every single carbon emission is a consumer.

If we, as environmentalists,...

You clearly have a different meaning for that word to me.Mine says: someone who acts responsibly regarding the environment.

I can only presume yours is: someone who quotes Google-located scientific data.

...think that we are going to persuade people - who are otherwise sympathetic to the notion that we shouldn't be *********** with the climate system - by blaming their individual choices, then we're on a fools errand.

I think it's exactly the opposite, but that's just me.

This point is especially pertinent if we consider our interlocutor was only recently lambasting the thread as a failed attempt to persuade the unpersuadable (which I categorically reject, the purpose of swatting denier memes isn't to persuade the deniers, it's to make sure anyone who stumbles across the discussion and who is persuadable is not persuaded by the wrong arguments), if the concern here really is an honest attempt (it's not, but let's assume it is) to persuade an audience, then boiling the whole thing down to an issue of personal responsibility is a monumentally counterproductive exercise.

I guess that is closer to the point I was trying to get to.

Still fails, sorry.

If you aren't here to swat deniers, why do you keep posting data to try to refute them?

Just as Dawkins won't debate creationists because it legitimises their views, you're allowing deniers a perfect platform to spread their garbage.

This is why Reddit and others removed the deniers' platform - the occasional posts with genuine scientific fact is destroyed by being buried under mountains of dross.

As I said, if you want a scientific resource,this method will never do it.

This. It’s becoming pretty obvious The Atheist wants to debate political ideology not science, technology or even policy.

As above, in what way are they disconnected? The average Joe will never understand the science, even as he accepts the facts behind climate change.

You also seem to have missed the obvious thread title, in which the word "science" does not even appear. Yes, it's in the science section, but it's discussion about the science and therefore implications of it, and that is absolutely what I'm doing.

Valid points, but it's not just the Deniers who are posting here who have minds which can be changed.

The majority of people would like AGW to go away. It's easy to see why some are prepared to embrace pseudo science if it can make AGW disappear from our lives.

And I'm betting you're not going to make that go away by endless repeats of charts.

But when someone like Haig comes along and starts posting the counter argument, people are going to go: "Hmmmm that's interesting" and their inclination may be to actually believe his side ...

Bingo!

This is why it's important to disallow deniers entirely if you really want to do that, because a casual observer coming into this thread would see two opposing sides behaving in exactly the same way and will still pick the one that suits their personal view. From the outside, there isn't a lot of difference between the two positions, which I can sum up as follows:

Post chart & links.

Repeat.

How would someone entirely new to the science ever tell them apart?

... but they will get through to those who are going "hmmmm" and that, in itself, is worth the bandwidth.

See above regarding Dawkins & platforms. I think the opposite is true.

Posting somewhere like this with a decent search ranking is giving deniers a much better platform than they can find elsewhere and is helping them a lot more than any science or scientific position.

 

[uk_dave]

See above regarding Dawkins & platforms. I think the opposite is true.

Posting somewhere like this with a decent search ranking is giving deniers a much better platform than they can find elsewhere and is helping them a lot more than any science or scientific position.

But we're not playing the odds. The calculation that a website such as this is going to encourage deniers so therefore we should ignore the deniers isn't going to win over the spectators. They will see some crap from whatsupwiththat totally unchallenged here and think "Hmmm hmmmmm damn yeah"

You would have agw denial unchallenged here?

 

[Reality Check]

We obviously work to different time scales. ...more incomprehension snipped.

No, The Atheist: We obviously have different levels of reading and arithmetic comprehension.
To me: "The costs over the next several decades" means from today until the end of the next several decades. You seem to think it means after the next several decades. Or maybe your think that it means starting at the next decade, i.e. 2020 or 5 years. In climate that is weather (not even short-term climate) since the WMO official period for climate is 30 years. Even a decade is weather! There is some scientific evidence that climate can be statistically differentiated from weather after ~17 years.

To me: Models that extend from 2012 to 2050 include 2015. You seem to think that 2015 is before 2012 or after 2050!

You seem to be ignorant about a scientific prediction is, The Atheist.

In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what will happen under specific conditions; for example, if an apple falls from a tree it will be attracted towards the center of the earth by gravity with a specified and constant acceleration. The scientific method is built on testing statements that are logical consequences of scientific theories. This is done through repeatable experiments or observational studies.

Really, The Atheist - irrelevant replies and political insults do not stop
* over 3 million people being members of the German Green Party !
* Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand being the third largest political party in NZ.
* the Democratic Party having about half of the USA vote.
* Barack Obama making a very not ignored speech about climate change and national security.

It would be very ignorant to state that the president of the USA would be ignored ! Or that millions of people are a "vanishing number" that are ignored. Or that the third most sizable party in a country is ignored.

 

[Reality Check]

[Re] Nationalising privately-held assets
That one alone should suffice, because it is a 100% Communist ideal, but here are a couple of local (to me) examples.

That is not right, The Atheist.
The Green Party statement makes it clear that this has the capitalist motive of money: Bring railways back into public hands to save a billion a year, urges Caroline Lucas

Taxing high incomes is capitalism (that is where some money is!) or socialism, not specific to communism.
Political parties choose leaders by dogma and capability. No one would be idiotic enough to think that a staunch Labor policy supporter would become leader of the Conservative Party regardless of their capability . And what did you link to:
Candidates for male Co-leader of the Green Party

At every Annual General Meeting (AGM) the Green Party elects, or re-elects, its leadership. This includes the Party's Co-leaders, Co-convenors and Policy Co-convenors. Earlier this year male Co-leader Russel Norman announced he would not seek re-election in 2015.

The Party is proud of our internal democracy and consensus-based decision-making. This is demonstrated in our co-leadership model, our annual election of all leadership roles by the party at large, and the consensus process we use to conduct that election.

Surprisingly all of the candidates support Green Party policies : !

 

[Haig]

Nice to see the you guys worrying so much about skeptic opinions

But reality can also get in the way of your useless computer models.

El Niño strengthens: the Pause lengthens

For 222 months, since December 1996, there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS temperature – still unaffected by a slowly strengthening el Niño, which will eventually cause temporary warming – passes another six-month milestone, and establishes a new record length for the Pause: 18 years 6 months.

What is more, the IPCC’s centrally-predicted warming rate since its First Assessment Report in 1990 is now more than two and a half times the measured rate. On any view, the predictions on which the entire climate scare was based were extreme exaggerations.

 

[Reality Check]

But reality can also get in the way of your useless computer models.

Repeating a lie when you know that it is a lie obviously will not get in the way of your reality, Haig !
That is a deluded WUWT blogger repeating the lie about "global warming at all" in the last X months. This is Christopher Monckton so very obviously deluded and lying . He is ignorant enough to be involved in the publishing of a really dumb paper - see Bad Climate Science Debunked. Any paper which states that climate reacts immediately to drivers is ignoring basic physics. It takes time to heat or cool an object - just ask any cook! That is juts one of the idiocies revealed in making a model so simple that it no longer describes the real world.

ETA: That WUWT post contains
11th May 2015 Haig: 2. A lie by cherry picking the source and start date about "No global warming for 18 years and 3 months" as easily seen by anyone who looks at the data.
and
11th May 2015 Haig: 3. The stupidity of thinking that climate projections are straight lines.

 

[Trakar]

Nice to see the you guys worrying so much about skeptic opinions

The mainstream science perspective is the only legitimately skeptical position I am aware of, what are you talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

Scientific skepticism (also spelled scepticism) is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological norm pursuing "the extension of certified knowledge".[1] For example, Robert K. Merton asserts that all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny (see Mertonian norms).[

http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto/

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are false. Other claims, such as hypnosis and chaos theory, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion. The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity

 

[Haig]

The mainstream science perspective is the only legitimately skeptical position I am aware of, what are you talking about?

This kind of thing

Tune in here tomorrow at 2PM EDT (11AM PDT) and you’ll see why this is the most mendacious attempt yet to save their climate science from the terrible ravages of an uncooperative planet.

 

[The Atheist]

No, The Atheist: We obviously have different levels of reading and arithmetic comprehension.

Nah, I think it's more talking through a closed window. We're on so far different wavelengths I might as well be writing Martian.

Also, you might want to unlock the CtrlB for a while. Your posts are about as entertaining as an 80 yo on ALL CAPS.

But you've made your position clear, so thanks for that.

Or that the third most sizable party in a country is ignored.

Except for it being inconveniently 100% correct.

The only use they've ever had was propping up Helen Clark. Even then, their affect on policy was negligible.

Anyway, that would be a new thread and I'd be happy to participate if you want to kick it off.

Something along the lines of "Why Greens are the worst political answer" would be good. I love those guys!

 

[The Atheist]

This kind of thing

Tune in here tomorrow at 2PM EDT (11AM PDT) and you’ll see why this is the most mendacious attempt yet to save their climate science from the terrible ravages of an uncooperative planet.

Well, that pretty well QED's it!

Excellent timing, Haig.

Or should I call you Haig?

 

[Reality Check]

This kind of thing

You mean the irrational trust you have in the blog entries in a climate change denier site that allows the lies of Christopher Monckton to be published, Haig?
This is a bit of paranoia by Anthony Watts where he essentially accuses climate scientists of faking data in a yet to be released paper .

 

[Reality Check]

Nah, I think it's more talking through a closed window. ...snipped irrelevant stuff...

Which only leaves you ignoring the real world - 4 June 2015 The Atheist: Can you not understand that 2015 is between 2012 and 2050, etc.

ETA 4 June 2015 The Atheist: Have you never read WUWT and seen that it is a climate change denial web site and that post looks like a veiled insult to climate scientists (essentially accuses them of faking data which is the worst insult you can target a scientist with).

My total guess: NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center has confirmation of an explanation of the lesser warming trend in the global surface temperature record in the last decade and a half.
Anthony Watts title suggests that it is an actual fraudulent changing of the record.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Is the “Ecomodernist Manifesto” the Future of Environmentalism?
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/eleme...-future-of-environmentalism?intcid=mod-latest



I haven't yet waded through the actual manifesto, but from the general overview provided in this article, I'm more aligned with it than opposed to it (it rather plays off my sigline link to David Brin's quote) It isn't that I don't wish to preserve what we can, its that I'm more concerned about preserving a livable and diverse future by whatever means that we have at our disposal, and technology is one of the most powerful tools in our species kit.

Sounds good, but I would ask what they mean by "intensified agriculture". If they mean the current industrial system, then their manifesto will most certainly fail. If they mean the most modern forms of ecoagriculture, then maybe it has a chance of working.

Lets face it a CAFO is a form of "intensive agriculture", but so is Managed Intensive Rotational Grazing. Yet these two forms of intensive agriculture bare nearly no resemblance to each other at all except being animal husbandry methods.

 

[Trakar]

This kind of thing

Tune in here tomorrow at 2PM EDT (11AM PDT) and you’ll see why this is the most mendacious attempt yet to save their climate science from the terrible ravages of an uncooperative planet.

So all you have is unsupported nonsense?

 

[Haig]

So all you have is unsupported nonsense?

Feel free to make your own mind up Trakar but this reads to me like a cool common sense look at how the global climate may work. I'd be interested to hear your constructive criticism of it

An Inherently Stable System

In the tropical daytime system, once a certain temperature threshold is reached the cumulus clouds start to form. But often, the reduction in incoming sunlight is not enough to stop the daily warming. If the surface continues to warm, at some higher temperature threshold thunderstorms form. And if the surface warms even more and a third temperature threshold is surpassed, yet another phenomena will emerge—the thunderstorms will line up shoulder to shoulder in long serried rows, with canyons of clear descending air between them.

Thunderstorms are natural refrigeration cycle air-conditioning machines. They use the same familiar evaporation/condensation cycle used in your air conditioner. But they do something your air conditioner can’t do. They only form exactly when and where you need them. When there is a hot spot in the afternoon on a tropical ocean, a thunderstorm soon forms right above it and starts cooling the surface back down. Not only that, but the thunderstorm cools the surface down below the starting temperature. This can not only slow but actually reverse a warming trend.

And if there are two hot spots you get two thunderstorms, and so on … do you see why I argue against the entire concept of “climate sensitivity”? When you add additional forcing to such a system, you don’t just get additional hot spots.

You also get additional thunderstorms working their marvels of refrigerational physics, so there is little surface temperature change.

Wonder if there is any external forcing on thunderstorms and lightning ?