Global warming discussion III

[greybeard]

He has also publicly stated he has taken a devils advocate position on purpose, that actually he isn't that well versed in climate science. Worked with it a few years, got bored, went on to other things.

Basically he says things to stir the pot. Open up new ways of looking at the issue. But I wouldn't say that he in any way disproves AGW. Contrarywise, Dyson himself, devils advocate on the issue though he may be, is still not a denier. He knows damn well manmade climate change is real. But you can't just automatically assume change equals bad in every case. I am fairly convinced it won't be good for me here in OK. Hot enough as it is. But you just can't assume it. Need to dig deeper.

He admitted in the interview I read that he wasn't an expert. Which makes you wonder why he is often one of those mentioned as disproving the scientific consensus. Anyway I just mentioned him because I remembered him saying that he had witnessed warming and it's a good thing. I doubt Australians agree with him and we are only really just starting to see serious consequences. People who say AGW isn't so bad remind me of the joke about a man plummeting to his death saying "OK so far". Although of course the consequences wont be so sudden as that.

 

[bit_pattern]

Contrarywise, Dyson himself, devils advocate on the issue though he may be, is still not a denier. He knows damn well manmade climate change is real. But you can't just automatically assume change equals bad in every case.

No. He is a denier. Take this interview for example:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment/2151/

When challenged on observations matching predictions he moves seamlessly from saying the models can't possibly predict anything because they are fudged to saying it doesn't matter anyway because warming is positive - that's the point where he brings up Greenland.

He also claims that warming is not global - which is completely fantastical. As Greybeard says, ask an Australian whether they think AGW is an Arctic phenomenon (or an American for that matter, just look at the Californian drought, or a European with the heatwaves, or a UKian with the massive flods etctetcetc)

That's classic denial, whatever the motivation.

Sounds to me like he had his nose put out of joint thirty years ago when working at Oak Ridge and is determined to take the professional grudge to the grave

 

[CapelDodger]

Originating with DC (still having problems with Quote )

my problem with the 2°C is that it ignores the largest heat uptakes, the oceans.
i would also like to keep a single number, but that single number should include lower tropospheric temperature and ocean temperatures. or heat content of both. amd , maybe also include ice mass.

You know that and I know that, but try it on the average politician and you'll just get a blank look followed by "Yeah, but this goes up to 11 ..." or equivalent.

but only looking at the atmosphere leads to the confusion like we have with the hiatus, where many people believe its not as bad as we thaught it would. but actually in that time period of the hiatus, we still had alot of energy accumulating in the climate system. and that is all ignored with only looking at the atmosphere.

On the plus side, every Pause is followed by a Surge, and this Pause has about had its day. When the Surge comes keep quiet .

 

[hgus]

It is easy to define, and I have posted multiple links to both the definition, as well as explanations of the theory.

Of course it should be easy to find. And explained.

I'm not the one resorting to semantic games. When Cohen et al 2014 states "global warming theory does not", they mean exactly what they say.

And any climate researcher knows exactly what theory they are talking about.

And yet when I google it I can not find any official recognized Theory. Therefore I must conclude that there is none. I assume there is a lot of theories of global warming, anyone can invent one after all. But that is not the same thing.

 

[DC]

Originating with DC (still having problems with Quote )


You know that and I know that, but try it on the average politician and you'll just get a blank look followed by "Yeah, but this goes up to 11 ..." or equivalent.


On the plus side, every Pause is followed by a Surge, and this Pause has about had its day. When the Surge comes keep quiet .

but when you create something like a WHI (World heat index) and take the heat content of the atmosphere and the oceans together, you also have only one number.

 

[greybeard]

I bet you he hasn't
http://www.grida.no/publications/et/ep2/page/2501.aspx

Yes it's a pity he didn't visit the people interviewed in that article.

“Plans are well under way to relocate certain communities if need be. Climate change is not just a theory to us in the Arctic, it is a stark and dangerous reality. Human-induced climate change is undermining the ecosystem upon which Inuit depend for their cultural survival. The Arctic is not wilderness or a frontier, it is our home,” says Watt-Cloutier.

 

[bit_pattern]

Yes it's a pity he didn't visit the people interviewed in that article.

One has to assume though that even if he did visit them it wouldn't do much to change his contrary opinion because it was never based in factual evidence to begin with.

 

[DC]

One has to assume though that even if he did visit them it wouldn't do much to change his contrary opinion because it was never based in factual evidence to begin with.

who knows. Reminds me of Years of Living Dangerously. An old Pastor did of course not believe in AGW. Katharine Hayhoe and Richard Muller were not able to convince him.
Then they visit a fisherman , they went on the boat and one fischerman tells him how they took out huge amounts of clams at this place for so many years. and now there are almost no clams.

no indication if the disapearance of the clams had anything to do with AGW, nor did they present any evidence, just told him the story. and that pretty much convinced him.....
i was just speachless.

 

[bit_pattern]

who knows. Reminds me of Years of Living Dangerously. An old Pastor did of course not believe in AGW. Katharine Hayhoe and Richard Muller were not able to convince him.
Then they visit a fisherman , they went on the boat and one fischerman tells him how they took out huge amounts of clams at this place for so many years. and now there are almost no clams.

no indication if the disapearance of the clams had anything to do with AGW, nor did they present any evidence, just told him the story. and that pretty much convinced him.....
i was just speachless.

Yeah that's quite interesting.

I only watched a few episodes of that series and missed the scenario you describe.

Can't remember if it was the same series or not but recall seeing a piece where an evangelist Christian climate scientist was going back home to a small town in somewhere like Texas to speak with congregation members and managed to convince a bunch of them that the science was sound when it was couched int he religious language and values that they held dear.

It's an interesting case study into the psychology of denial. Both your account and the episode I describe above.

Steve Lewandowsky here in Australia has done some interesting work into this form of psychology and the fact that people will believe facts that are presented in a manner that fit with their pre-exiting values. You might be familiar with it already, Skeptical Science published the Debunking Handbook a few years ago that summarised his review of the literature and offered advice on how to communicate effectively.

I tend to think that the same dynamics are at play in the anecdote you describe above. Maybe the person in question has a "show me" psychological bias where he/she thinks that fisherman/farmers are "salt of the earth" and needed to see a real world example.

But when it comes to Freeman, he is already so steeped in evidence that I would be surprised if even real world experience would shift his mind-set. i tend to think that something happened thirty years ago in Oak Ridge (maybe an attractive young fluid-dynamics researcher wouldn't blow him or something - because let's face it, as humans the sexual impetus can be a huge factor in how we process our internal biases - it's crude speculation, I know but serves as a kind of literary device to the point I am making) that has completely ingrained his attitudes and opinions and no amount of real world evidence is ever going to shift them.

 

[DC]

Yeah that's quite interesting.

I only watched a few episodes of that series and missed the scenario you describe.

Can't remember if it was the same series or not but recall seeing a piece where an evangelist Christian climate scientist was going back home to a small town in somewhere like Texas to speak with congregation members and managed to convince a bunch of them that the science was sound.

It's an interesting case study into the psychology of denial. Both your account and the episode I describe above.

Steve Lewandowsky here in Australia has done some interesting work into this form of psychology and the fact that people will believe facts that are presented in a manner that fit with their pre-exiting values. You might be familiar with it already, Skeptical Science published the Debunking Handbook a few years ago that summarised his review of the literature and offered advice on how to communicate effectively.

I tend to think that the same dynamics are at play in the anecdote you describe above. Maybe the person in question has a "show me" psychological bias where he/she thinks that fisherman/farmers are "salt of the earth" and needed to see a real world example.

But when it comes to Freeman, he is already so steeped in evidence that I would be surprised if even real world experience would shift his mind-set. i tend to think that something happened thirty years ago in Oak Ridge (maybe an attractive young fluid-dynamics researcher wouldn't blow him or something - because let's face it, as humans the sexual impetus can be a huge factor in how we process our internal biases - it's crude speculation, I know but serves as a kind of literary device to the point I am making) that has completely ingrained his attitudes and opinions and no amount of real world evidence is ever going to shift them.

yeah saw that episode, that was Katharine Hayhoe. As an Atheist i was noding my head in agreement about her cliamtology statements and rolling my eyes about here god stuff
but liked her effort.

in the other story, the old Pastor let his daughter, that accepted AGW speak to the sheeple in the church to explain it to them, after they visited that fischerman

 

[r-j]

And yet when I google it I can not find any official recognized Theory.

What does that even mean? "Officially recognized?"

If you put "global warming theory" into Google, the second link is an actual climate scientist explaining the theory, which I linked to in this thread before. The first link is to a pseudo-science source, which is why it doesn't contain the definition or explain the theory. Of course it used to have a simple explanation, but because t anyone can remove information, the theory was removed. Science deniers, they ruin everything.

Therefore I must conclude that there is none..

You exemplify the scientific expertise of the world.

I assume there is a lot of theories of global warming, anyone can invent one after all.

You have said it, so it must be true.

But that is not the same thing.

Again, your reasoning can not be refuted.

 

[r-j]

Oh my, the revisionism begins.

half of the posters knew what he meant with global warming theory, and explained AGW to him, .

Of course it should be easy to quote and link to these posts. Cite please.





(it will never happen, because he made that up)

 

[DC]

funny, here in Switzerland, when you google "global warming theory" . the second link is a pseudo science source from a creatard.

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

he explains AGW and mixes in his nonsense of an alleged Insensitive climate system.
would like to see him explain deglaciations.

 

[r-j]

If whe can not agree on the basics. The odds that we will agree on anything is slim.

Quite possibly true. When somebody talks about AGW, pretty much everybody knows what they mean, even if they can't describe the theory.

Sometimes people ask "what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?". Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on. This fundamental physics has been scrutinized through scientific experiments for decades to centuries

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

This denial of the theory started when I pointed out, using Cohen et asl 2012, that the cooling boreal winters is not predicted by the theory. AGW does not predict the boreal cold season getting colder. In fact, it predicts the opposite.

This also led to the claims that the boreal winters are not getting worse. Colder.

Of course when I say that, I mean colder as described in Cohen et al 2012, and Cohen et al 2014. Not that all winters in the NH are colder everywhere. That certainly isn't happening.

 

[Kestrel]

it is the term i read most in the scientific literature and i think everyone with the exception of deniers and trolls will understand perfectly well what is meant and i expecially pointed out that during that time there still was warming.

When a new hottest year on record is set every few years (1998, 2005, 2010), does it make any sense to talk about when it was still warming?

 

[Kestrel]

funny, here in Switzerland, when you google "global warming theory" . the second link is a pseudo science source from a creatard.

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

he explains AGW and mixes in his nonsense of an alleged Insensitive climate system.
would like to see him explain deglaciations.

Google alters your search results based on the type of links you have clicked on before. If like many sceptics you have a history of examinining pseudo science sites, it will move similar sites up in your search results.

 

[bit_pattern]

This denial of the theory started when I pointed out, using Cohen et asl 2012, that the cooling boreal winters is not predicted by the theory. AGW does not predict the boreal cold season getting colder. In fact, it predicts the opposite.

Semantics aside, the conclusions you're trying to draw from Cohen et al. are a gross misrepresentation. The authors don't seek to argue that the modelling (not the theory) is wrong, rather that they are incomplete at seasonal timescales- something that no climate modeller would reject. The theory can be perfectly sound even if there are uncertainties at regional and seasonal scales. Work like that conducted by Cohen et al. simply serve to improve the higher resolution understanding of the theory.

 

[DC]

Google alters your search results based on the type of links you have clicked on before. If like many sceptics you have a history of examinining pseudo science sites, it will move similar sites up in your search results.

Ths might be the case. I do resd his blog about once a month and alwayd go there via google

 

[bit_pattern]

Google alters your search results based on the type of links you have clicked on before. If like many sceptics you have a history of examinining pseudo science sites, it will move similar sites up in your search results.

Hmm, not sure about that. I get the same results whether I search in a normal or anonymous window of my browser - Spencer still comes up as the second hit.

 

[DC]

When a new hottest year on record is set every few years (1998, 2005, 2010), does it make any sense to talk about when it was still warming?

You have to take that up with climatologists.
Yeah i also find it a bit misleading. But i know what they mean with it.