Global warming discussion III

[CapelDodger]

Re DC's question (the Quote function is misbehaving for me), I think that when talking to politicians it's necessary to "keep it simple, stupid". A single number, preferably integer, is something they can grasp. A raft of "critical indicators" or whatever is something they can exploit for purposes of obfuscation and FUD, for both personal and public comfort.

Stick with the single number. Unachievable it may be (in practical terms; it could be done but ain't gonna be) but at least it's something that can be clearly unachieved.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Re DC's question (the Quote function is misbehaving for me), I think that when talking to politicians it's necessary to "keep it simple, stupid". A single number, preferably integer, is something they can grasp. A raft of "critical indicators" or whatever is something they can exploit for purposes of obfuscation and FUD, for both personal and public comfort.

Stick with the single number. Unachievable it may be (in practical terms; it could be done but ain't gonna be) but at least it's something that can be clearly unachieved.

You are probably right. I wouldn't be so sure about the "unachieved" part though. Change has a way of being incredibly slow for long periods, then overnight a burst of activity. Actually, come to think of it, evolution works that way too, punctuated equilibrium. And if there is one thing humans are good at, that's our evolutionary ability to adapt rapidly, either to environmental factors, or by changing environments to suit us.

 

[CapelDodger]

Originating with RealityCheck:

The first thing to do is look at the scientific literature and find:
Seasonal Climate Variability and Change in the Pacific Northwest of the United States (March 2014)
whose authors looked at that paper and note some issues on their blog.
Comments on “Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change, 1900–2012” by Johnstone and Mantua

Thanks for that; being lazy I was waiting for SkS or RealClimate to address it .

From those Comments :

"The authors’ rationale for choosing the NCAR SLP dataset is that prior to 1940, it most closely maintains the correlation apparent between SLP and SST seen post-1940. Other SLP datasets, on the other hand, show a divergence between SLP and SST pre-1940. As the authors point out, this may be a useful indicator of problems with the non-NCAR datasets pre-1940, but it means that they’ve chosen the dataset with the tightest link between SLP and SST, and it is this link that forms the basis of their conclusions."

"As J&M themselves note, their results are strongly influenced by what happened before 1940. Since most of the anthropogenic warming occurred after 1960, repeating the analysis for, say, 1940-2012 would test whether their result was a product of the decision to use the NCAR dataset or is a robust physical feature of the climate system. Unfortunately, their paper does not give an indication that they conducted such analysis. Multiple compilations of surface air temperature covering the Northwestern US document the observed warming over the past century, and that most of the warming has occurred over the last half-century, rather than prior to 1940."

Indications of circular reasoning, cherry-picking and failure to test for robustness. It's looking more and more like a trip down the yellow-brick road to me.

 

[CapelDodger]

And if there is one thing humans are good at, that's our evolutionary ability to adapt rapidly, either to environmental factors, or by changing environments to suit us.

There's far too little data to reach conclusions on that, but looking at some that we do have reveals a history of changing environments that suit us to ones that don't. And that rapid adjustment to changing environments has been imposed, not planned. War, famine, pestilence and death can act very rapidly, especially in concert.

 

[Reality Check]

On the one hand, we have scientific publications, papers, the IPCC, James Hansen, GISS and a wealth of historic documents describing a theory of global warming, or as NASA says, basic global warming theory, and on the other hand, anonymous internet people claiming there is no such thing as global warming theory.

Doubly wrong, r-j:
None of the results of the searches for the words theory, global and warming that you have done have described a theory of global warming. They have contained the phrase "theory of global warming" or something similar. Everyone in thus thread except you understands that theory has multiple meanings and that "theory of global warming" by itself means "idea of global warming". It becomes a scientific theory when the theory is actually described .

Everyone else in this thread (I assume) knows that your assertion that a scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming" exists is wrong. There is only the English phrase "theory of global warming" as in all of your results. Every result that you have come with up so far states that you are wrong.

r-j: (8th September 2014) theory + global + warming in a search still does not = "Theory of Global Warming"!

 

[r-j]

Everyone else in this thread (I assume) knows that your assertion that a scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming" exists is wrong.

The carbon dioxide theory of Gilbert Plass
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-carbon-dioxide-theory-of-gilbert-plass/

While it is called various names, scientist understand that they are all the same basic global warming theory, which is simple to describe.

Global Warming – Theory which states that an increase in carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere results in an additive effect on average global temperatures.

http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/docs/PFRR_EIS/FINAL - Volume I Individual Files/Ch 8 Glossary.pdf

Global Warming Theory Affirmed

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=21241

The link between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures underlies the theory of global warming, explained the authors.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449
aug 20

Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (“IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.

Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.

Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

Call it the CO2 theory (Hansen) or the greenhouse warming theory, or just call it global warming, it's all the same theory. Any educated person knows this.

The mystery, is why anyone would deny it?

 

[ehcks]

Why do you care so much about whether or not it's called a theory?

Remember, in science, a theory is better than a fact.

 

[r-j]

Why do you care so much about whether or not it's called a theory?

The really good question might be, "Why would anyone deny there is a theory?".

I mean, it NASA actually defines global warming as a theory, why would anyone want to try and muddy the waters and say there is no theory?

 

[Reality Check]

...The mystery, is why anyone would deny it?

The mystery is more like why anyone cannot understand that
r-j: (8th September 2014) theory + global + warming in a search still does not = "Theory of Global Warming"!
especially when the quoted results include irrelevant results, e.g. "carbon dioxide theory".
An additional mystery is why anyone would move the goalposts to searching for the phrases "carbon dioxide theory", 'CO2 theory", "the greenhouse warming theory" and think that every result is a description of a so far imaginary scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming".

 

[ehcks]

The really good question might be, "Why would anyone deny there is a theory?".

I mean, it NASA actually defines global warming as a theory, why would anyone want to try and muddy the waters and say there is no theory?

No one's denying that there are theories related to global warming. There is just no Unified "Theory of Global Warming." Why do you want there to be one? Why do you seem to care so much about it?

 

[r-j]

When Hansens say "Nominal confidence in the CO2 theory", he is talking about the global warming theory.

Or as Plass says, The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change

It's also called the Greenhouse theory

We know Hansen uses both terms interchangeably.

Most people just call it global warming theory, or global warming.

 

[r-j]

There is just no Unified "Theory of Global Warming."

When NOAA or NASA or GISS or Hansen says "basic global warming theory", they mean the CO2 theory of climate change, or the greenhouse theory of global warming.

This is no great mystery. Why anybody would not know it, or worse, claim it doesn't exist, that is the real comedy of errors.

 

[ehcks]

When NOAA or NASA or GISS or Hansen says "basic global warming theory", they mean the CO2 theory of climate change, or the greenhouse theory of global warming.

This is no great mystery. Why anybody would not know it, or worse, claim it doesn't exist, that is the real comedy of errors.

1. No.
2. So what if they were?
3. How many times do I have to ask that?

 

[r-j]

The issue arose when Cohen et al 2012 was being discussed. By claiming there was no theory, the entire discussion was sidetracked/red herring

The problem with that, is the dog always returns to the scent, after he eats the herring.

 

[Belz...]

The really good question might be, "Why would anyone deny there is a theory?".

In other words, "I'm not going to answer that."

 

[CapelDodger]

When Hansens say "Nominal confidence in the CO2 theory", he is talking about the global warming theory.

No, he isn't, he's talking about the CO₂ Theory of Climate Change.

That theory could as well be proved by falling CO₂ leading to falling temperatures, but it isn't falling. It's rising.

Your insistence that climate science is all about global warming is very revealing. Of course there's no Theory of Global Warming any more than there's a Theory of Global Cooling. There are theories pertaining to climate and to climate change.

For you, though, climate science has to be about warming - first predicting it, then detecting it - because it's a weapon scientists have built to use against industrialised society or fossil-fuel companies or the free market or whatever it is you believe they're bent on destroying. It can't possibly be true that it's just science - much of which was developed to explain why glaciations start and end.

 

[r-j]

You couldn't be more wrong if you were trying to create a Poe.

 

[r-j]

Quantitative detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect using
objective means is a vital research area, because it is closely
linked to the reduction of uncertainties in the magnitude of the
effect and will lead to increased confidence in model projections
The fact that we are unable to reliably detect the predicted signals
today does not mean that the greenhouse theory is wrong or that
it will not be a serious problem for mankind in the decades ahead

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

If you claim Hansen (or the IPCC) is talking about something besides the greenhouse theory, then what are you calling that?

I mean, at this point you are claiming there are at least two different theories. What's the other one?

 

[Reality Check]

The issue arose when Cohen et al 2012 was being discussed.

You are wrong, r-j: Your question is unrelated to Cohen et al 2012. It came out of the blue on 18th August 2013:

What is "the theory of global warming"? Serious question.
...
You see why I am asking about The Theory Of Global Warming? TTOGW
...
No no no!!! Where is TTOGW?

This starts with your assumption that The Theory Of Global Warming exists and then your amazement that you cannot find this theory that you made up


Since then it has been over a year of r-j: (8th September 2014) theory + global + warming in a search still does not = "Theory of Global Warming"!

 

[hgus]

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

If you claim Hansen (or the IPCC) is talking about something besides the greenhouse theory, then what are you calling that?

I mean, at this point you are claiming there are at least two different theories. What's the other one?

In my impression you are discussing semantics. As far as I know there is no scientifically accepted theory of global warming et al. But that does not hinder people, even scientists, from using the words in the more ordinary way. That is as a more or less educated assumption, in these cases more.

But I can not understand why it is relevant to the thread. I can not see what difference it would make if it is a theory or if it is not. So please educate me.

(Edit) It just struck me that a scientific Theory should be clearly defined and easily accessed. Or am I wrong? (/Edit)