Global warming

[mhaze]

As pedantic as the blog entry is, I suggest the criticisms to be evaluated on its own merits, instead of the attitude of the blogger. I have seem too much of this from the AGW'rs to begin doing the same to them.

Why not wait until he publishes his criticisms in a peer reviewed journal?

Or is it because he is pro-AGW that his mere blog entries have credence?

 

[CapelDodger]

Ah yes, that troubling seemingly insignificant word "uncertainty" in science. If only it didn't exist.

Science wouldn't work without it. People can do without it, as can religion ideologies and other cults. No theory is proven, at best it's not yet been disproved or improved. Just as I'm immortal.

Uncertainty is almost everywhere in real life, but when certainty gets above 90% it takes some tenacity to grip onto the shrinking hope that maybe the horrible truth ain't so. Maybe it'll all go away - and maybe it will. The thing is, that position was represented twenty years ago and that maybe has been operating all the time. Yet events have unfolded just as predicted by AGW. Coincidence for one decade maybe, but two?

In the meantime, your side has yet to offer one specific paper explaining the AGW claim, using the scientific method, that CO2 is the responsible mechanism for driving temperature.

This refuge of yours is perfectly secure since the scientific method has nothing to do with explaining things to people who don't understand them. The scientific method does apply to research, which is what papers are produced from, but papers are not teaching aids.

There are many textbooks which can explain greenhouse warming. Given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, varying its atmospheric concentration will alter the climate. Ergo, AGW if A bumps up the CO2.

There are many papers involved with measurement of CO2's greenhouse properties, including the work done in Angstrom's lab back in the 20's. The pace has picked up more recently, for obvious reasons - what was once an intellectual exercise has taken on practical significance.

All you've really got is climate models, appeal to Authority and unsubstantiated assumptions, isn't that what it boils down to?

No. There's well-established science, in inter-locking fields. If AGW is wrong the whole structure of science (and technology) is thrown into turmoil. If you take out the quantum physics in AGW, for instance, you take out quantum physics. You can't adjust that specific aspect while leaving everything else intact. Even as a hypothetical possibility the idea's laughable.

 

[mhaze]

In the meantime, your side has yet to offer one specific paper explaining the AGW claim, using the scientific method, that CO2 is the responsible mechanism for driving temperature.
​

This refuge of yours is perfectly secure since the scientific method has nothing to do with explaining things to people who don't understand them. The scientific method does apply to research, which is what papers are produced from, but papers are not teaching aids.

There are many textbooks which can explain greenhouse warming. Given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, varying its atmospheric concentration will alter the climate. Ergo, AGW if A bumps up the CO2.

There are many papers involved with measurement of CO2's greenhouse properties, including the work done in Angstrom's lab back in the 20's. The pace has picked up more recently, for obvious reasons - what was once an intellectual exercise has taken on practical significance.

No refuge, it is a simple request for the scientific papers.

Those that support the view that you support.

No teaching aids are required.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Because that's exactly what AGWrs do with blogs like climateaudit. Looking at the blog, I see one claim, wich can be true or not, and this conclusion:
Changing Schwartz' 5y time scale into a more representative 15y would put his results slap bang in the middle of the IPCC range, and confirm the well-known fact that the 20th century warming does not by itself provide a very tight constraint on climate sensitivity wich is quite a confession.

Why not wait until he publishes his criticisms in a peer reviewed journal?

Or is it because he is pro-AGW that his mere blog entries have credence?

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

No. There's well-established science, in inter-locking fields. If AGW is wrong the whole structure of science (and technology) is thrown into turmoil. If you take out the quantum physics in AGW, for instance, you take out quantum physics. You can't adjust that specific aspect while leaving everything else intact. Even as a hypothetical possibility the idea's laughable.

Wow! That's quite a Claim. Left aside errors in datasets, errors in models, varianles not considered in models and so on, the idea that If AGW is wrong the whole structure of science (and technology) is thrown into turmoil is certainly laughable.

 

[CapelDodger]

Post 402 in this thread. It's a pretty good article, he describes why he feels being an alarmist is a valid position. And laments that not many others seem to share his views.

He rhetorically laments (borderline redundancy there) that few others voice his views, not that they don't share them. As you say, an interesting article. Nowhere in it does he describe himself as an alarmist. The one occurrence of "alarm" is in

I suspect it is because of what I call the "John Mercer effect". In 1978, when global warming was beginning to get attention from government agencies, Mercer suggested that global warming could lead to disastrous disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Although it was not obvious who was right on the science, I noticed that researchers who suggested that his paper was alarmist were regarded as more authoritative.

Hansen also says

Caveats are essential to science. They are born in scepticism, and scepticism is at the heart of the scientific method and discovery. However, in a case such as ice sheet instability and sea level rise, excessive caution also holds dangers. "Scientific reticence" can hinder communication with the public about the dangers of global warming. We may rue reticence if it means no action is taken until it is too late to prevent future disasters.

Is that what you're referring to? Is anybody that raises the alarm in any siuation an alarmist? If you only apply it to false alarms, Hansen's alarm has not yet proved unfounded. Your relaxed attitude has similarly not yet proved unfounded. Let's wait and see, shall we?

Remember, if you can keep your head when all around are losing theirs, it could be that you haven't grasped the seriousness of the situation.

I'm not saying it alarmism is not a valid belief, mind you; neither do I argue with my fundamentalist religious co-workers about religion.

Surely alarmism is a behaviour, not a belief?

But it is improper for the head of NASA climate science to be bend that far in a single direction; we pay him to get things right. So he should quit NASA and just be a full time climate alarmist, obviously.

Hansen and the team he heads up have been getting things right, and there's no reason to think they won't continue to do so. Science isn't about beliefs. Hansen isn't intercepting the incoming data or stalking around looking over people's shoulders and telling them to change this and that. Consider what happened when political appointees tried to influence NASA research and spin the results, there was quite a furore. Hansen would fare no better.

Hansen's convinced and says so, as a human being. Perhaps he has children and grandchildren, perhaps to him a century is a palpable timeframe. The outcome over the next century is going to be strongly influenced by what happens in the next decade, actions taken or not taken. Which is what Hansen's saying. As for myself, I agree with him.

Imagine yourself as an old man saying "Yes, he was right, but he didn't know he was right!" and the bitch-slapping you'd get for it. That exercise explains why I'm so seldom unequivocal. On AGW I'm prepared to be.

 

[CapelDodger]

Wow! That's quite a Claim. Left aside errors in datasets, errors in models, varianles not considered in models and so on, the idea that If AGW is wrong the whole structure of science (and technology) is thrown into turmoil is certainly laughable.

Quantum physics was developed to explain observed data that were entirely unconnected with climate, and has proven not only to be robust but to be applicable in many other fields. Nuclear physics, astrophysics, electronics, and so on. Also the greenhouse effect on climate, which had previously been detected but not adequately explained. Quantum physics helped round off the explanation.

How, then, can quantum physics be extracted from its greenhouse significance without being completely reassessed? The theory will have to be modified to cope with that "observed fact" while leaving every other field of application unaffected, which ain't gonna happen, let's face it. Or the whole of quantum theory is called into question, resulting in turmoil.

None of this depends on the measurements and models you bring up. The biggest and best analogue model does not raise any challenges to quantum physics, or to AGW as a whole.

 

[CapelDodger]

No refuge, it is a simple request for the scientific papers.

No it isn't, look at the words :

In the meantime, your side has yet to offer one specific paper explaining the AGW claim, using the scientific method, that CO2 is the responsible mechanism for driving temperature.

He demands a specific paper that explains AGW using the scientific method. As I tried to explain, papers do not explain, they report and sometimes hypothesise. The scientific method does not apply to explanation. I often try to explain things and not by scientific method. So this guy's asking for a purple unicorn before he'll stir from his fortress.

Those that support the view that you support.

I do not believe in purple unicorns, but it's just a gut-feeling, I've no cites to back it up.

No teaching aids are required.

I'm prepared to dispute that if you're keen.

 

[CapelDodger]

Because that's exactly what AGWrs do with blogs like climateaudit. Looking at the blog, I see one claim, wich can be true or not, and this conclusion:
Changing Schwartz' 5y time scale into a more representative 15y would put his results slap bang in the middle of the IPCC range, and confirm the well-known fact that the 20th century warming does not by itself provide a very tight constraint on climate sensitivity wich is quite a confession.

The introverted nature of the anti-AGW arena is surely reaching a tipping-point.

The 20thCE warming is disregarded as a constraint on climate sensitivity because so much was going on. CO2 this, sulphate emissions that, brown clouds there, it's a bad data point.

Climate sensitivity is best estimated from simpler times, and centres around 2C for a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels.

 

[a_unique_person]

Post 402 in this thread. It's a pretty good article, he describes why he feels being an alarmist is a valid position. And laments that not many others seem to share his views.

I'm not saying it alarmism is not a valid belief, mind you; neither do I argue with my fundamentalist religious co-workers about religion.

But it is improper for the head of NASA climate science to be bend that far in a single direction; we pay him to get things right. So he should quit NASA and just be a full time climate alarmist, obviously.

As far as he's concerned, he's right.

 

[a_unique_person]

Wow! That's quite a Claim. Left aside errors in datasets, errors in models, varianles not considered in models and so on, the idea that If AGW is wrong the whole structure of science (and technology) is thrown into turmoil is certainly laughable.

The history of science is about getting things wrong, then getting them more right. Einstein was wrong, Galileo was wrong, Newton was wrong. Science marches on and get's it that bit more right with each increment.

 

[mhaze]

Quantum physics was developed to explain observed data that were entirely unconnected with climate, and has proven not only to be robust but to be applicable in many other fields. Nuclear physics, astrophysics, electronics, and so on. Also the greenhouse effect on climate, which had previously been detected but not adequately explained. Quantum physics helped round off the explanation.

How, then, can quantum physics be extracted from its greenhouse significance without being completely reassessed? The theory will have to be modified to cope with that "observed fact" while leaving every other field of application unaffected, which ain't gonna happen, let's face it. Or the whole of quantum theory is called into question, resulting in turmoil.

Muon production from the interaction of cosmic rays and the solar wind, how this may cause clouds to form is also quantum physics.

 

[mhaze]

As far as he's concerned, he's right.

No question. Good article.

 

[mhaze]

The introverted nature of the anti-AGW arena is surely reaching a tipping-point.

The 20thCE warming is disregarded as a constraint on climate sensitivity because so much was going on. CO2 this, sulphate emissions that, brown clouds there, it's a bad data point.

Climate sensitivity is best estimated from simpler times, and centres around 2C for a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels.

I guess 0.5-1.0c, you're got 2c.

Not too far apart there are we?

 

[a_unique_person]

Let's suppose what you say is true (but I didn't know that MIT - Where Linzend works- was a Right wing propaganda think tank) . How does it change the way "consensus" is made?

I guess you missed some examples:

Skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html
(February 8, 2007)
Excerpt: “[State Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change…So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.

Skeptical State Climatologist in Delaware silenced by Governor
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/02/gb.01.html
(May 2, 2007)
Excerpt: Legates is a state climatologist in Delaware, and he teaches at the university. He`s not part of the mythical climate consensus. In fact, Legates believes that we oversimplify climate by just blaming greenhouse gases. One day he received a letter from the governor, saying his views do not concur with those of the administration, so if he wants to speak out, it must be as an individual, not as a state climatologist. So essentially, you can have the title of state climatologist unless he`s talking about his views on climate?


Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=32ABC0B0-802A-23AD-440A-88824BB8E528
(January 17, 2007)
Excerpt: The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.


Have you read Lindzen's article?
In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

Apparently, those "right wing think tanks" are everywhere......

"State Climatologist" was a great scam, while it lasted. The organisation was moribund, many seats were not occupied. Along they came and *hey presto* instant credibility. Looks like the party is over.

 

[mhaze]

Looks like the party is over.

And political correctness is science is again safe?

 

[mhaze]

Hansen and the team he heads up have been getting things right, and there's no reason to think they won't continue to do so. Science isn't about beliefs. Hansen isn't intercepting the incoming data or stalking around looking over people's shoulders and telling them to change this and that. Consider what happened when political appointees tried to influence NASA research and spin the results, there was quite a furore.

Yes, Hansen should be advised that science isn't about beliefs.

Basically that's ask politely for resignation time.

You could say Hansen has reached a tipping point in positive feedbacks.

But not a forcing.

 

[a_unique_person]

And political correctness is science is again safe?

A small group of deniers attempt a tacky flanking manoeuvre to give themselves an air of authority they otherwise lacked. I don't know where the 'political correctness' bitching comes into it?

 

[mhaze]

GW = Global Political Correctness?

 

[mhaze]

Not a normal day, but a weather 'event'. The prediction is that such events will become more frequent. The proof will be in the record of statistics.

In our local case, believe me it is normal.

Jumping to conclusions that GW is the cause of a weather event is normal today, instead of the reverse. Here is a good example of the proof being in the record of statistics.

Bruce Sterling, a writer and futurist whom I generally have had a high degree of respect for, recently wrote this in Wired.

Sterling asserts the cause of the recent tragedy in which 180 Chinese miners drowned to ...

You guessed it...Global Warming. Quoting the final sentence -

There's not a coal mine in the world that could avert nine inches of sudden Greenhouse rain. Those miners were digging their own graves.
​

Facts don't matter. For example, the fact that no one turned the pumps on. Or the fact that the dike broke. Or the fact that there is such a thing as a rainy season.

In this article, Sterling brings up a good point regarding the "Wexelblat disaster syndrome" and this is quite intriguing.

However he extends it without any scientific rationale to attribute the cause to global warming.

Facts.

Checking the China news story.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3497515

"The miners have been trapped since Friday afternoon when a dike on the Wen river burst, sending water rushing into the Huayuan Mining Co. mine, stranding 172 miners. Nine more miners were trapped in a nearby mine shaft. Both are about 370 miles southeast of Beijing."
​

A comment from a local villager.

"Li and others gathered under a billboard explaining Huayuan's "safety ideals". She said every year during the rainy season there is flooding in the mine, and officials did not seem to be prepared this year."
​

After writing a letter to the Wired editor complaining about this and receiving no response, I'm posting it here. It's quite disingenous and intellectually dishonest to assert that the known problems with the death rates in Chinese mines are attributable, not to Chinese flagrant disrespect for human rights and safety, but to a problem caused by the western world, increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

According to Sterling, to put it bluntly, you and I are responsible for the Chinese miners deaths.

The comment blog on this article at Wired was closed right away.

I think I know why.

Background.

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

http://blog.wired.com/sterling/2007/08/climate-crisis-.html

Beijing is a couple hundred miles from Xintai, and here is rainfall and temperatures by month - obviously, July and August have a lot of rain.

http://www.world66.com/asia/northeastasia/china/beijing/lib/climate