Global warming

[rcronk]

Forgive the lurker interruption, but I have a few quick questions. As a currently agnostic flip-flopping human-caused global warming observer, here are some questions and ideas for you all:

1. Based on what you all have seen here at JREF, what's the ballpark estimate of the percentage of how many here at JREF support the theory that human activities are causing global warming?

2. Has anyone figured out why there is such a discrepancy in source data in the global warming debate? For example, I read an article that said that in the year 2000 they recorded the highest solar output seen in the past 1000 years but then I've also read that there's been no increase in solar output since 1978. This is just one of many many examples of source data discrepancy. Anyone else seeing this?

The global warming debate is turning out to be very weird. It almost smells like a woo debate. It seems, however, that the science and logic aren't as much of a problem as the source data discrepancies. I've heard that it's global socialism trying to control and bring down industrialized nations to force equality and I've also heard that it's just earth-friendly folks just trying to keep others from wrecking the planet.

What's the deal? Shouldn't this be at least somewhat straightforward? How can I read two completely different sets of source data about temperatures, CO2 levels, solar output levels, etc. and only the people on each side of the debate are quoting the data that support their own side of the debate. I see little objectivity and rarely see people dealing with the "other side's" data. It's like the two sides are dealing with data from two different planets.

I smell strong bias on both sides of this human-caused global warming debate. Any ideas on why this is? Has anyone found anyone who actually deals with both sides of the data and logic objectively?

 

[Schneibster]

Forgive the lurker interruption, but I have a few quick questions. As a currently agnostic flip-flopping human-caused global warming observer, here are some questions and ideas for you all:

1. Based on what you all have seen here at JREF, what's the ballpark estimate of the percentage of how many here at JREF support the theory that human activities are causing global warming?

Haven't a clue, and wouldn't care to characterize.

2. Has anyone figured out why there is such a discrepancy in source data in the global warming debate? For example, I read an article that said that in the year 2000 they recorded the highest solar output seen in the past 1000 years but then I've also read that there's been no increase in solar output since 1978. This is just one of many many examples of source data discrepancy. Anyone else seeing this?

Yes. Sources must be checked incredibly carefully; frank denial of scientific data is occurring, just as it does in denial of evolution, assertion of the value of homeopathy, and other such subjects. I will not speculate on the motives for this.

The global warming debate is turning out to be very weird. It almost smells like a woo debate.

It is. Look at the scientific literature, and then look at the denial sites, and more importantly, look at the types of arguments that are being used to deny it.

It seems, however, that the science and logic aren't as much of a problem as the source data discrepancies. I've heard that it's global socialism trying to control and bring down industrialized nations to force equality and I've also heard that it's just earth-friendly folks just trying to keep others from wrecking the planet.

For me, it's quite a ways beyond being "earth friendly" or trying to "save the planet." Honest scientists are being smeared, literally defamed, by individuals who claim that they have manipulated their research; and not just a few such scientists, but an entire discipline.

What's the deal? Shouldn't this be at least somewhat straightforward? How can I read two completely different sets of source data about temperatures, CO2 levels, solar output levels, etc. and only the people on each side of the debate are quoting the data that support their own side of the debate. I see little objectivity and rarely see people dealing with the "other side's" data.

When the "data" is made up by people whose goal is to obfuscate, what would you see done differently?

It's like the two sides are dealing with data from two different planets.

Yes; one from the scientific literature, and the other not.

I smell strong bias on both sides of this human-caused global warming debate. Any ideas on why this is? Has anyone found anyone who actually deals with both sides of the data and logic objectively?

The scientific literature is peer-reviewed. Either you believe scientists try to find out what's going on, and accurately publish their results, or you don't. If you don't, there's not much further to be said.

 

[rcronk]

Thanks for the reply. Hopefully someone else will answer question #1 since I've come to respect the views of the people here.

I have been looking at both sides and one side uses the hockey stick graph, the other side says that that graph was based on flawed data and doesn't even show the medieval warm period or little ice age. I've seen the graph and it's looks to be true that the medieval warming period and little ice age aren't there - if they were, it would paint a very different picture. Which side do I believe? I mean, mistakes are made and dissent is the key to eliminating mistakes. You can't just say "well it's peer reviewed, so just believe it" because regarding 9/11, many claimed peer review when it really wasn't. The paragraph below sheds doubt on peer review but that's only if it's true.

One side cites "a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10 percent of these 'scientists' know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine." Is this true or smear?

 

[CapelDodger]

Sept. 2007 is no warmer than Sept. 1988.

Every other month of 2007 was warmer than its equivalent in 1988. In fact adding the variances for months 1-9 in 1988 and 2007 yields 1.4 and 2.8 respectively. The variance in August 2007 was twice that in 1988 (0.32 and 0.16 respectively).

See http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt for the details. It's the source data for the graph you posted. (Do you have a link to the source for the graph itself? It's difficult to tell much from a picture.)

Notice how many negative variances there are in the 80's and early 90's, tailing-off up to 1998, after which there are hardly any negative variances at all.

The world is warming. One month taken in isolation doesn't alter that fact.

 

[CapelDodger]

Thanks for the reply. Hopefully someone else will answer question #1 since I've come to respect the views of the people here.

You could count the contributors on each side of the argument yourself - it's not very difficult to classify most of them . On the AGW side there's me, of course, a_unique_person, Schneibster, varwoche, and Megalodon amongst recent contributors. On the anti-AGW side are mhaze, David Rodale, Lucifage Rocifale, and jerome recently; rockoon and Diamond have been pretty quiet for a while but no doubt they're still out there. Apologies to those I've missed.

Frankly, I don't think it's a useful measure. Some subjects attract enthusiasts, and AGW is one of them. 9/11 is another.

I have been looking at both sides and one side uses the hockey stick graph, the other side says that that graph was based on flawed data and doesn't even show the medieval warm period or little ice age. I've seen the graph and it's looks to be true that the medieval warming period and little ice age aren't there - if they were, it would paint a very different picture.

They are there. They're just not as prominent as European tradition has them. Mann et al is a global reconstruction, and demonstrates that the Western European experience of these periods was not representative of the global experience. In the case of the LIA there's also the matter of the European historical perception, which is exaggerated for a number of reasons. Not least of those is the spread of Calvinist apocalypticism which promoted every bad harvest or violent storm into a harbinger of imminent doom. In truth, Europe suffered far more from war than from climate in the 16thCE.

Which side do I believe? I mean, mistakes are made and dissent is the key to eliminating mistakes. You can't just say "well it's peer reviewed, so just believe it" because regarding 9/11, many claimed peer review when it really wasn't. The paragraph below sheds doubt on peer review but that's only if it's true.

One side cites "a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10 percent of these 'scientists' know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine." Is this true or smear?

And the other side cites a petition signed by Donald Duck and Darth Vader. Dismiss such nonsense. Look to the science - and, of course, the world around you.

 

[mhaze]

Has anyone found anyone who actually deals with both sides of the data and logic objectively?

Yes, they are at www.climateaudit.org. That is a correct answer to this question. For an example, look at the section entitle "A little Secret" down on the home page. This explains a current project which is "bringing the tree ring proxies up to date". Tree ring measurements are used to tell historical temperatures, but almost all of the studies end in the 1960s or 1970s.

Here is the general problem explained in simple language.

A certain rule set and algorithm is used to compute say, temperature at 1104AD from tree rings. That rule set, applied to tree rings from 1980-2007, should show accurately today's known temperatures. If it does not, then clearly the rule set and algorithm must be modified. If it is modified, then what is the result on the prior calculation of the 1104AD temperature?

For some reason, climate scientists just haven't got around to going out and "bringing the tree ring proxies up to date". They say they do not have funding, or there is no need for it. Consider the response of Mann (yes, the hockey stick Mann) on this issue:

Most reconstructions only extend through about 1980 because the vast majority of tree-ring, coral, and ice core records currently available in the public domain do not extend into the most recent decades. While paleoclimatologists are attempting to update many important proxy records to the present, this is a costly, and labor-intensive activity, often requiring expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy equipment to difficult-to-reach locations.
​

The challenge that Steve McIntyre placed on his small group of unpaid amateurs was to see if they could go out, and resample the tree ring sets that are of importance for the studies such as those used by the IPCC with this constraint -

Hit the Starbucks on the way out to the field in the morning, and hit the Starbucks on the way back in after doing the "costly, and labor-intensive activity, often requiring expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy equipment to difficult-to-reach locations".
​

The participants reported success in the difficult part, that of hitting the Starbucks on the way out and also back in. Getting the tree ring cores they reported was quite easy.

McIntyre has this suggestion -

Let’s see how they perform in the warm 1990s -which should be an ideal period to show the merit of the proxies. I do not believe that any responsible policy-maker can base policy, even in part, on the continued use of obsolete data ending in 1980, when the costs of bringing the data up-to-date is inconsequential compared to Kyoto costs.
​

Now I would ask this question. Why do people hate him and want to smear him? Because such work can easily bring the whole house of cards down? But does that imply that no one expects the work to confirm prior scientific results? If so, why such a presumption?

 

[CapelDodger]

The paragraph below sheds doubt on peer review but that's only if it's true.

One side cites "a letter..."

Nobody peer-reviews a letter (or petition, or documentary). Peer-review pertains to scientific papers. It's a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being taken at all seriously. Peer-review weeds out obvious factual errors and logical mis-steps, erroneous or missing citations, and such-like stuff. If a paper passes that and is published that's when the serious picking-apart starts.

Ideally a scientific paper presents experimental results that are theoretically reproducible, but in the case of climate-change there's just the one experiment going on. We can't rewind to, say, 1988 and try a different scenario - what we've had is what we've got. And, along th same vein, we'll get what's coming to us.

We can observe the experiment but we can't tweak the parameters. Which is not to say that we can't learn from it.

 

[rcronk]

Thanks everyone for your answers - looks like I need to remain in lurker mode and keep listening and reading for now.

P.S. Do people on both sides of the issue agree that www.climateaudit.org is an unbiased source? If not, is there a site that both sides could agree is unbiased?

 

[Schneibster]

Thanks for the reply. Hopefully someone else will answer question #1 since I've come to respect the views of the people here.

Your tone so far has been respectful and agnostic; may I suggest you add a poll thread? It's not very scientific, but it will give you an idea. And your not being combative will encourage more from both sides to express their opinions without having to wrangle. I'd do it, but I'm liable to be regarded as a controversial figure by those on the other side.

I have been looking at both sides and one side uses the hockey stick graph, the other side says that that graph was based on flawed data and doesn't even show the medieval warm period or little ice age. I've seen the graph and it's looks to be true that the medieval warming period and little ice age aren't there - if they were, it would paint a very different picture. Which side do I believe? I mean, mistakes are made and dissent is the key to eliminating mistakes. You can't just say "well it's peer reviewed, so just believe it" because regarding 9/11, many claimed peer review when it really wasn't. The paragraph below sheds doubt on peer review but that's only if it's true.

Ordinarily, what happens is that a few papers come out on one and another side of an issue, and there's conversation and perhaps mild controversy. More data is gathered, and as the knowledge on the subject improves, the controversy generally clears up and the truth, or as much of it as we can figure out, emerges. As this happens, a consensus forms among the scientists in that field; it's never unanimous, and because of the nature of science, you can never be absolutely certain that some fact won't come along and throw everything into a cocked hat later, but scientists go to a lot of trouble to try to avoid that. There's a lot of language in scientific papers that seems like hedging to most people; that's why. We can't know everything, and even our best theories sometimes turn out wrong. What we're talking about here, however, after a lot of data have been gathered and scrutinized, is something on the order of the Sun not rising tomorrow; sure, it could happen, but it's really pretty unlikely.

Peer review is a process where the data gathering and analysis techniques and the conclusions drawn are examined by other scientists. They look for holes in the data gathering process, and the analysis process, and places where a conclusion was drawn that's not supported by the data provided. They look for places where data that should have and could have been gathered was not. If they find anything like that, then a dialog ensues; basically, either it gets fixed or explained to their satisfaction, and that generally involves changing the paper and perhaps even doing more research, or the paper doesn't get published. Is this a guarantee it's right? Of course not; no one can guarantee the Sun will come up tomorrow, but it's pretty likely.

However, in this particular case, efforts have been made for financial and political reasons to corrupt this process. Scientists have been threatened with having their funding cut if they published certain conclusions, or been forced to alter their papers before submitting them to peer review, and this is not speculation, it is sworn testimony under penalty of perjury in front of Congressional committees. Lies have been told in front of those same committees, as has been documented on an active thread on this forum. Distortions of scientific papers by selective quoting ("cherry picking"), the use of rhetorical tricks, and misrepresentations of scientific statements are common, on the 'Net, in the news media, and by both public and private figures. The root reasons this campaign has been undertaken are financial; this has driven action by political and ideological forces dependent for political campaign funds upon those likely to be adversely affected if AGW is generally accepted and measures to combat it undertaken.

And the end result indicates this effort has been a success. People just like you are only now, after more than a decade, coming to realize that the scientists were right all along. They haven't yet started to figure out how much less it would have cost to do something about it back then, how much more it's going to cost now. Some, because of their ideology, still don't believe it; though these days, they are a shrinking minority. And I want to be very clear here: this was a politically, financially, ideologically driven campaign to conceal the truth from the public; in other words, a cover-up. And now, the people who engaged in it are trying to cover that up, too. And they knew it was the truth from the start; don't you ever believe otherwise. They knew they were lying, and there's no question about it. And they did it for money and power, because they're greedy and they thought no one would find out, and now they're doing everything they can so no one will.

One side cites "a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10 percent of these 'scientists' know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine." Is this true or smear?

I am not familiar with this story; I am aware of a letter cited by anti-GW forces which was claimed to be signed by a similar number of scientists, contesting global warming, which turned out much this way, with doctors, engineers, and people who could not be verified as existing among the signatories, but none on the GW side. If such a thing was done, no matter by whom, it was deplorable, and an obvious attempt to produce non-factual "evidence." Could you cite the article where this is claimed so that it can be validated or debunked?

 

[CapelDodger]

You should scurry off to find some links that show differing numbers for natural variation, if you can.

The relevant point is that Tung is dealing with the variation across a cycle - in this case the solar cycle of about 11 years. A cycle returns to its starting point. You're keen enought to attribute current observations to longer cycles - 60-80 years or 1500 (plus or minus 500) years - that are returning to their start-points that you surely understand what a cycle is.

Or do you hold that natural variation is zero? Then of course, you might have a point. Some warmers do indeed hold that natural variation is zero. Do you?

Blatant strawman. Nobody claims this. Nobody claims that climate didn't vary before the Industrial Revolution, or the Agricultural Revolution 8-10 thousand years ago. Of course there's natural variation, and natural cycles.

When a natural cycle keeps re-starting from a higher base - as is the case with the solar cycle - something else is in play. In this case, of course, it's increasing CO2-load. Just as predicted from the underlying science.

 

[Schneibster]

Thanks everyone for your answers - looks like I need to remain in lurker mode and keep listening and reading for now.

It gets pretty acrimonious. If you don't like that, then that's probably your best course.

P.S. Do people on both sides of the issue agree that www.climateaudit.org is an unbiased source?

Absolutely not. It's run by an oil company executive and an individual who did fake science for Phillip Morris to try to deny that cigarettes cause cancer and heart disease. I leave the results to your imagination.

If not, is there a site that both sides could agree is unbiased?

I seriously doubt it; the anti-AGW folks believe that the peer-reviewed science is biased. As a counterbalance to the other side, I suggest http://www.realclimate.org and could suggest a few others if you'd like.

 

[Pipirr]

P.S. Do people on both sides of the issue agree that www.climateaudit.org is an unbiased source? If not, is there a site that both sides could agree is unbiased?

climateaudit? I would not agree that it is unbiased, especially if one includes the comments. If you take McIntyre only, this is his description of the website: "Through the use of proxy data, statistics, as well as commentary and discussion, Steve McIntyre tries to show how human induced global warming does not add up."

So yes, he has taken a side and uses the website to demonstrate his point.

It's a blog, it's not peer reviewed, and the commenters tend to be of a like mind.

So, unbiased? Hell no.

 

[Pipirr]

As a counterbalance to the other side, I suggest http://www.realclimate.org and could suggest a few others if you'd like.

Agreed. I think it does a good job of presenting the peer reviewed climate science.

 

[CapelDodger]

Thanks everyone for your answers - looks like I need to remain in lurker mode and keep listening and reading for now.

P.S. Do people on both sides of the issue agree that www.climateaudit.org is an unbiased source? If not, is there a site that both sides could agree is unbiased?

ClimateAudit is very far from unbiased. It's nit-picking, cherry-picking, self-basting denialism with a snide-order [sic] of character-assassination with conspiracy dressing. Superficially attractive to some, but don't go there without wearing protection.

 

[Schneibster]

Superficially attractive to some, but don't go there without wearing protection.

I'm thinking Leslie Nielsen's full-body protection from The Naked Gun.

 

[CapelDodger]

Agreed. I think it does a good job of presenting the peer reviewed climate science.

Agreed indeed, but it's only one step below Al Gore on the Denialist Demonisation Index. About on a par with Hansen.

There'll be no meeting of minds on an unbiased website. In the end you have to go to the science, and in particular the current observations. Of the Sun, of cosmic rays, of Arctic ice-extent/cover, of temperatures. RealClimate is good source for links, and some very cogent argument and commentary, but in the end you have to look behind it.

Getting out much is also good . As a gardener (from a long line) and walker I don't need McIntyre or anybody else to tell me that the climate's changing rapidly. McIntyre will probably claim to prove me deluded from a decade or so up the line, but I don't pay that much never-mind.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm thinking Leslie Nielsen's full-body protection from The Naked Gun.

I'm thinking the full CBN kit. The sort of armour that mhaze dons before he leaves ClimateAudit to come here.

Come to think of it ... isn't this the most unbiased site to come to? Talk about the whole rich tapestry of life ...

 

[Pipirr]

RealClimate is good source for links, and some very cogent argument and commentary, but in the end you have to look behind it.

Aye, but that's where it gets tricky. Hard though it may be to believe, seeing as I have occasionally posted in this thread, I'm not actually a climate scientist. I appreciate the exposition of the literature that realclimate provides...

 

[CapelDodger]

You still didn't answer the question. Correlation r=.22 means there is essentially no link between CO2 and temperature fluctuations. Solar activity on the other hand has a strong correlation.

Sun's activity rules out link to global warming
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn12234

'"We decided to do a simple and direct analysis of the potential role of the Sun in recent climate change without using any model output," says Lockwood.

Lockwood and colleague Claus Fröhlich, at the World Radiation Center in Switzerland, used direct measurements only for their study. As Lockwood puts it: "This is just what the spacecraft have seen."

Looking at data from the past 40 years, the two researchers noticed that solar activity did what Lockwood describes as a "U-turn in every possible way" in the mid-1980s.

"The upshot is that somewhere between 1985 and 1987 all the solar factors that could have affected climate have been going in the wrong direction. If they were really a big factor we would have cooling by now," Lockwood told New Scientist."'

One is bound to wonder how your "strong correlation" is arrived at. I get the picture, but where did you get it from ?

Since correlation is not causation, what direct evidence can you provide that supports the hypothesis CO2 drives temperature? It doesn't exist.

It exists in the observable world. Just as predicted by the underlying science. Where the heck else is the extra energy coming from if not from retention? Not from extra income.

For all the supposed peer reviewed studies supporting AGW, if it were tallied up, your side really does more talking than presenting evidence. Mostly what we get are lectures, ad hom attacks galore, unsupported assumptions, and a whole lot of speculation.

That's your perception.

My perception is that the anti-AGW camp spends a lot of time in the past (some of it very distant, even before my time), casts aspersions on honest scientists, quotes dishonest scientists, brings up Al Gore a lot, personalises the argument generally, and doesn't get out much.

In the end it's all just shadows cast into a cave, isn't it?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Sun's activity rules out link to global warming

So, the sun does not cause the globe to warm.

That's a knee slapper.

Maybe if they gave the information a less silly title one would not know that it was propaganda.