Global Warming

[strathmeyer]

"Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC."
http://dieoff.org/page82.htm

It's obvious to everyone here what this means and implies. But instead of attaching the messenger, why not provide us proof that humans are causing global warming?

I'm still waiting.

 

[Jimbo07]

It's obvious to everyone here what this means and implies. But instead of attaching the messenger, why not provide us proof that humans are causing global warming?

strath...

I am not going to get involved with you in a war of link posting. Some of that has already been done. I had not read Lindzen before, so when I read the posted article, I got curious. I Googled him. I haven't done some sort of serious study into his life and career.

Understand (as I've already stated) that I am not an activist. I have nothing to prove as far as my 'belief' (if you like) in climate change (and human implications thereof) goes. Lindzen and Diamond have both suggested/advocated adaptation. I agree!

What I am sharing, what is fact, is that in the workaday world of 'environment,' all of the alternative solutions to Kyoto are being brought into that fold. The only "technological" solutions I haven't seen specifically addressed are the sci-fi ones (fusion, matter/antimatter, etc.). Solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, hybrid cars, clean diesel, forests as carbon sinks, biodiesel, ethanol, electrification of rails... it's all being considered as part of the Kyoto solution... and it's a terrible solution anyway! Not every option is going to be explored by every government or company. For a good jumping off point (at least from transportation in Canada):

http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/climatechange/english/climatechange/ttable/menu.htm

the paper itself (warning: it's 128 pages, neglecting appendices):

http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/climatechange/subgroups1/Options_Paper/English/default.htm

So, forgetting climate change, what solutions do you propose for regional environmental issues such as urban pollution (very real), or energy consumption?

 

[a_unique_person]

The IPCC TAR featured the "Mann Hockey Stick" which was acclaimed as final proof of the reality of man-made warming, but even AUP now admits has been debunked. The Hockey Stick featured five times in the Summary for Policy Makers and was the sole reconstruction for the last 1000 years mentioned in the entire assessment.

No, I said that the hockey stick is not the final proof, that it does not constitute the case for AGW, and that even if it was wrong, the rest of the sceince behind AGW apparently still stands, the deniers have found nothing else to beat up.

 

[Diamond]

No, I said that the hockey stick is not the final proof, that it does not constitute the case for AGW, and that even if it was wrong, the rest of the sceince behind AGW apparently still stands, the deniers have found nothing else to beat up.

What you actually said was (my emphasis):

The Hockey Stick is nothing like the whole case, and is nothing like "The crowning glory", you are just making it up. If the only paper that the deniers can claim to have debunked is this single one out of the thousands published, then the AGW science is pretty convincing

In any case, the weight of the argument does not rest upon the number of articles published, but upon testable predictions which can experimentally reproduced.

In any case, lets see how far your denialism actually goes:

Here's Sir John Houghton in 2001 on global warming. He reproduces the Hockey Stick twice to support his argument that the warming of the 20th Century is unprecedented.

I think it is fair to say that the Hockey Stick was featured very prominently since it was pictured several times in the Summary for Policy Makers, and its claim about "1998 being the warmest year of the millennium" rested solely upon it. There are no other studies of temperature change in the last 1000 years mentioned in the entire review.

The rest of the case in the TAR rests upon the validity of climate models. You are quite right about there being thousands of papers publishing the results of these models, but that's not the same thing as demonstrating anything, as Richard Lindzen points out, they are an exercise in curve-fitting and not science.

Editted to add:

You also make a clanger here:

This is a part of the problem, it only takes a small increase in temperature to increase the amount of water vapour, which will increase global temperatures. Hence, a postive feedback, which will accellerate warming. He derides the scientists for not being able to say exactly how much by, but he knows that the effect is going to be large.

Non sequitur. The water vapour in the atmosphere has a very large NEGATIVE feedback by condensing to form clouds, which reflect back more energy from the sun as well as giving up heat back out into space as the water vapour changes state from liquid to vapor and back again. That's why clouds can been seen glowing in infrared by satellites at night. If postive feedbacks existed in the way you suppose, life would not exist on planet Earth, its a simple as that.

 

[a_unique_person]

What you actually said was (my emphasis):

that's right, it appears that deniers have this and only this as an argument, it is only a small piece of the case for agw

In any case, the weight of the argument does not rest upon the number of articles published, but upon testable predictions which can experimentally reproduced.

Given that the earth is not going to be replicated, etc, for repeated experiments inside a laboratory, scientists have to go with what they have. They also have models they can test against reality, the models using well known and understood physical reactions.

One example, the models predicted the appearance unheard of South Atlantic tropical cylcone, that has happened, for example.

There is also the fact that a lot of science is based on models.

In any case, lets see how far your denialism actually goes:

Here's Sir John Houghton in 2001 on global warming. He reproduces the Hockey Stick twice to support his argument that the warming of the 20th Century is unprecedented.

I think it is fair to say that the Hockey Stick was featured very prominently since it was pictured several times in the Summary for Policy Makers, and its claim about "1998 being the warmest year of the millennium" rested solely upon it. There are no other studies of temperature change in the last 1000 years mentioned in the entire review.

There are other studies that follow similar methods to arrive at similar temperature histories. Yet I hear nothing about them.

The rest of the case in the TAR rests upon the validity of climate models. You are quite right about there being thousands of papers publishing the results of these models, but that's not the same thing as demonstrating anything, as Richard Lindzen points out, they are an exercise in curve-fitting and not science.

Says you and him. They have also made predictions, such as South Atlantic hurricanes, and the multi decadal ossilation of the Atlantic that have turned out to be true.

Also since the models started their predictions, they have been borne out as true. Nothing has happened to invalidate them in a significant way. The earth has kept warming.

Editted to add:

You also make a clanger here:



Non sequitur. The water vapour in the atmosphere has a very large NEGATIVE feedback by condensing to form clouds, which reflect back more energy from the sun as well as giving up heat back out into space as the water vapour changes state from liquid to vapor and back again. That's why clouds can been seen glowing in infrared by satellites at night. If postive feedbacks existed in the way you suppose, life would not exist on planet Earth, its a simple as that.

Low, thick clouds warm the planet, high clouds cool it. The contrails of aircraft create particles that cool the planet, as explained previously, but CO2 creates low clouds that have a significant heating effect. Try out the monsoonal climates for an example. Plenty of cloud, and stinking hot.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

I firmly believe that global warming, like the global cooling scare of the 1970s, is a religious and political belief masquerading as science. Climate has always varied on all timescales on the Earth and our response to climate change should be adaptation, a policy that has stood us in good stead since we learned to stand up millions of years ago.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I don't know whether there is a man made component to a theoretical global warming and I suspect no-one else knows for sure.

I do know however, that any solution which posits wholesale behavioral change of the entire planetary population is a chimera. And doomed to failure.

So what to do?

Adapt.

 

[varwoche]

9. Scripps/DOE Jan 2006 agw

This was a PRESS RELEASE for a study that had yet to be written, let alone peer-reviewed, let alone published.

This turns out to be another falsehood. Here is an abstract of the article at Nature Magazine. (subscription req'd for full article)

 

[a_unique_person]

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I don't know whether there is a man made component to a theoretical global warming and I suspect no-one else knows for sure.

I do know however, that any solution which posits wholesale behavioral change of the entire planetary population is a chimera. And doomed to failure.

So what to do?

Adapt.

We should just stick to the evidence, not the 'religious' aspect, that, while it may exist, is not what the scientists are using as evidence.

An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

Any evidence that the solution is doomed to fail?

Why adapt if there is no problem?

 

[varwoche]

The written record is a false statement.

Here's what Steve Mcintyre himself says about his business: [snip]

I sort of get why you are flogging this derail given the litany of falsehoods you have posted to this thread, including one of the lamest possible things a skeptic can do on a discussion board (imo) -- willfully falsifying quotes.

you never read them anyway

And a remote viewer to boot. Who woulda thunk.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

We should just stick to the evidence, not the 'religious' aspect, that, while it may exist, is not what the scientists are using as evidence.

An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

Any evidence that the solution is doomed to fail?

Why adapt if there is no problem?

Evidence that the solution is doomed to fail? How about any evidence that it has a chance to succeed.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Not best guesses.

As for failure to change the behavor of a planet - take your pick in social experiments from Marxism to Christianity.

 

[a_unique_person]

Evidence that the solution is doomed to fail? How about any evidence that it has a chance to succeed.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Not best guesses.

As for failure to change the behavor of a planet - take your pick in social experiments from Marxism to Christianity.

There is plenty of evidence of global warming, most people now seem to accept it is happening, the only real debate is if there is a human component. Plenty of good science says there is.

Extraordinary problems require extraordinary solutions.

Try CFCs as a change of global behaviour, land mine treaty, UN, etc. There are numerous examples of global co-operation.

You still say that we have to adapt, what makes you think that is a better solution?

 

[Jimbo07]

Extraordinary problems require extraordinary solutions.

20 years, or 2000 years, we're going to run out...

How do we limit our dependence on fossil fuels?

 

[a_unique_person]

20 years more like it.

I was working at the CSIRO for a short time about 20 years ago. They had an ordinary looking suburban home there, for some reason. I enquired about it, and was told it was a model home of how some simple, but informed, design decisions could drastically cut the heating and cooling requirements of a home. Face it the right direction, have the eaves designed to shade it at the right time of the year, etc, and the energy consumption was drastically cut.

Simple acts such as requiring homes to meet environmental standards goes a long way to reducing our enegy demands. Victoria now has mandatory energy consumption standards that each new home must meet. It's a little late to start, but it's happening.

 

[Diamond]

I sort of get why you are flogging this derail given the litany of falsehoods you have posted to this thread, including one of the lamest possible things a skeptic can do on a discussion board (imo) -- willfully falsifying quotes

You're wilfilly falsfying historical evidence and you're not going to apologize to anyone for doing so. After all, the Earth is in trouble and you've gotta save it.

I haven't posted a "litany of falsehoods" but you have demonstrated that you're not going to let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of your religious beliefs.

 

[Diamond]

There is plenty of evidence of global warming, most people now seem to accept it is happening, the only real debate is if there is a human component. Plenty of good science says there is.

Name a piece of this "good science" that stands up to any scrutiny. Just one. And by "good science" I don't mean unfalsifiable and unreproducible climate models, and I don't mean multiproxy studies which mine for hockey stick shapes in chaotic data.

Name one. One is all it takes.

Extraordinary problems require extraordinary solutions.

Actually that's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

First demonstrate the "Extraordinary problem" with references to facts. What are the "extraordinary problems"?

 

[Rolfe]

Jordan has just lit the blue touchpaper. I now intend to retire to a safe distance and observe developments.

Calling Diamond and the other usual suspects....

What are you talking about?

Jordan, do you understand now what I was talking about?

Rolfe.

 

[Diamond]

And in turn M&M were refuted here and here.

And Ammann and Wahl's reply was rejected by Geophysical Research Letters (this was the second time of asking). You'll find that here. Reality sucks doesn't it?

Steve McIntyre has written to Schneider's Climatic Change asking Schneider how he can afford to publish an article by Ammann and Wahl that depends on the validity of arguments rejected by GRL. The letter reproduced here

You might ask why Amman and Wahl still have that webpage up to a reply that was rejected (twice), and if you ever get an answer, do let us know.

 

[Geckko]

I would just like to throw this into the mix and see what people think about it:

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming

Here are a few excerpts - it is pretty strong stuff:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.

Now I am just as concerned as the next person, but living in Ireland at present where there is now going to substantial amount of tax-payers money going on buying carbon credits I don't want to see resources simply thrown at a problem without genuine cause. While it is a cost worth bearing if needed, I want to have comfort in the scientific foundation, as desribed in that letter.

 

[Diamond]

I would just like to throw this into the mix and see what people think about it:

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming

Now I am just as concerned as the next person, but living in Ireland at present where there is now going to substantial amount of tax-payers money going on buying carbon credits I don't want to see resources simply thrown at a problem without genuine cause. While it is a cost worth bearing if needed, I want to have comfort in the scientific foundation, as desribed in that letter.

Ireland's carbon emissions have risen by 130% since 1990 so there's no chance that the Irish will meet their Kyoto targets. Similarly there's some world class climbdowns being executed by the New Zealand goverment which thought it would be a big recipient of carbon credits but it turns out will have to be a bigger buyer of them.

As far as I can recall only the UK and Germany have kept their emissions below that of 1990. Italy has also said it will not sign up to any "son of Kyoto" type constraints after 2012.

I'm not saying this as saying that climate change is unimportant, but that in the real world away from climate models and environmental groups, the Kyoto protocol is absolutely the worst of all worlds: ineffective, expensive and unreasonable.

 

[a_unique_person]

Name a piece of this "good science" that stands up to any scrutiny. Just one. And by "good science" I don't mean unfalsifiable and unreproducible climate models, and I don't mean multiproxy studies which mine for hockey stick shapes in chaotic data.

Name one. One is all it takes.



Actually that's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

First demonstrate the "Extraordinary problem" with references to facts. What are the "extraordinary problems"?

Science uses mathematics and modelling, as does engineering. The recent tour of the solar system by a space craft was entirelly planned and modelled before it even left the earth, and it was known exactly where it would land, five years later. The models are using well known physics, and have made predictions that can be tested. Eg, South Atlantic hurricanes, the Atlantic Ocean multi decadal ossilation.