Global warming

[a_unique_person]

AGW can be supported or completely refuted by the past.

Obviously.

I don't see how, considering for the vast majority of the past there was no anthropo.

 

[CapelDodger]

Sure, the scientific language might be reduced down, but the language that imbues the text with a scientist's sense of uncertainty? Really?

As long as the sense of uncertainty remains, but given that's at the 10-% uncertainty level (90+% certainty) - and the uncertainty does remain in the actual papers the IPCC collates, which the more important governments have their own scientific staff to evaluate - I wonder just what you're asking for. The point of the IPCC reports is to act as an interface between the scientific world and the political one.

No, but it lines up with a lot of the science I've read related to the Mann et al reconstructions (and "independant" verifications) as well as having quotes from the IPCC itself that are enough to make me concerned about what's going on there.

Have you considered the possibility that the quotes have been presented misleadingly? Have you considered that the science you've read may not be science at all? There's a lot more pseudo-science than science out there, because the science can be stated simply and succintly.

Scientists are objecting, that's the thing. But scientific groupthink and political inanities are muffling them because they don't agree with this mystical "consensus" we keep hearing about.

Well, there's your flag properly nailed to a mast. The "mythical" scientific consensus.

Political inanities? Do you mean the Bush Minor White House, because I'm with you there, but it doesn't really support your case. All major governments have their own scientific advisors, and few governments want AGW to be real. Russia, Canada, perhaps Argentina, but all the instincts of government are against any such new complication.

Who's being muffled? You've read enough "science" to have a cock-eyed view of reality, and that's the stuff you claim is being muffled. It's not mainstream because it's bollocks. It used to be mainstream, but unfolding reality has demoted it. That doesn't keep them off Fox News or out of WSJ editorials, of course, but that's a subtle form of muffling known as "loss of cred".

Do you really think that the increasing global focus on AGW is down to inane politicians? Bush Minor beat Al Gore in the White House race, after all. Does that make his team inane? The IPCC was set up by politicians just as any committee is : hoping the apparent problem will go away before it reports. It's reported four times now, and there's no sign of it being wound up yet.

I've already pointed out several peer-reviewed papers that cast down on global warming. Heck, some scientists have gotten fired just for having Non-AGW viewpoints... (as I've said before)

Bollocks. Scientists have been fired for being crap scientists - have you considered that? If someone stands in an empty valley and claims it's still full of glacier, is that an anti-AGW stance?

No, but he made the focus of the second IPCC report his research on paleoclimatology.

No, he didn't. The second IPCC report wasn't focused on paleoclimatology. You may have been told it was, but I suggest you check your sources.

Regardless, it seems a bit odd that the person heading up the IPCC report is also someone with major research invested into it, from a political view. If you want a balanced evaluation, you don't choose someone who would be likely focus on their own efforts over other people's.

So you choose someone who has no expertise in any of the science involved. You seem particularly desperate to find something shady in the IPCC, but a liar such as Pat Michaels you squirm to excuse

I could be nasty and nit-pick that the climate obviously does not respond to only accumulated CO2, but that would be silly wouldn't it?

Nobody has ever claimed that's the case, but it's a popular strawman. There are those who claim climate doesn't respond at all to CO2 because CO2 responds to climate (the notorious 800-year lag refuge). You may have come across them in your reading.

What I want to know is, after several of the links I've posted, do you still trust the IPCC? It's ok if you trust the science behind it... I'm ok with that. But do you trust the IPCC itself?

I trust the science, and the IPCC's reporting of it. I don't trust the people you've linked to.

You've already marked them as a political entity (which I believe has changed since the beginning of this thread) ...

Do you mean the IPCC was not a political entity when the thread started, or that I've changed my position? I strongly suspect the latter, but if that's the case it's not so. I have long ploughed the furrow that explains the IPCC as a body set up by governments under the auspices of the UN to collate the current science of climate and report on it. Naturally politicians and diplomats made sure they had some control over it. What they don't have control over, of course, is climate change.

It's often claimed that there are "IPCC models" and "IPCC-funded research" and, generally, that "it all comes from the IPCC". Just another refuge from the real world - which, you may have noticed, has continued to get warmer since the IPCC was established.

... and political entities are often likely to have agendas, yes?

"Entity" is such a useful catch-all, isn't it?

The IPCC was created by politicians. What do you imagine their agenda was when they did so? Surely not to promote AGW. IMO, the intention was delay - "We have taken action. We've set up a committee" - in the hope that it would go away. It hasn't, of course.

 

[CapelDodger]

... surRealClimate ...

A silly name! Damn, you're so cutting I wonder why anyone dares engage with you at all. Masochists, I guess.

 

[Pipirr]

AGW can be supported or completely refuted by the past.

Obviously.

Isn't this more of the "If MWP true then AGW = worthless" kind of argument?

Break this down for me, if you wouldn't mind.

Would you say, for example, that if the temperature 800* years ago was higher than now, then AGW is refuted?

Or:

if the temperature 800 years ago (or the last x number of years) was lower than now, then AGW is plausible?

Or neither?



(*or whatever year you like)

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't see how, considering for the vast majority of the past there was no anthropo.

Some people seem to wish they lived in the past, before all this AGW unpleasantness cropped up.

The relevant period, obviously, is the last few decades since anthropo-CO2 came of age. No great surprises there for science, but much discomfort for contrarians.

Models, shady politics, conspiracy, the past, a soon-forgotten future (the next three to eight years, mark my words, will make no difference to contrarians, just to their arguments), anything but the real world unfolding around us.

 

[CapelDodger]

The last two comments I made don't refer strictly to Hansen 1988. They address a fundamental question that we seek a high quality, evidence based furthering of --

What is natural variability in climate?​

Assuming you mean global climate (that being the issue at hand), natural climate variabilty reflects variation in total energy-content of the fluids that coat our planet.

Energy being a conserved entity (such a useful word) that directly implies that the energy-budget at any particular time influences the climate. In present times the energy-budget is in surplus. Why? Not because income has increased since we only have one client - the Sun - and it hasn't been paying more. So it must be reduced outgoings.

What could cause that? Step forward : AGW. 380+ppmCO2 (let alone the rest of it, CFC's, methane, bromides and such). A third up on pre-industrial levels.

What have you got as an alternative cost-cutting exercise?

 

[CapelDodger]

You really ought to bother to do some research before you say something stupid like this.

"Ought to"? That's to impose your value-judgements .

mhaze doesn't care about showing himself up as an idiot. You and I would, but that's personal-values territory.

I'm not worried about you discouraging mhaze, because there we have the ideal Duracell Bunny; barring accident he'll be going for way more than three to eight years. It's the principle of the thing that bothers me. I really dislike the "ought" word without context.

Had you prefaced this with "If you don't want to appear an idiot ..." I'd have had no problem .

 

[Schneibster]

The last two comments I made don't refer strictly to Hansen 1988. They address a fundamental question that we seek a high quality, evidence based furthering of --

What is natural variability in climate?
​

I disagree with this, but on different grounds than other respondents. My grounds are, we have good reason to believe that "snowball Earth" (the Cryogenian Period- I don't think I need to be specific about what that implies) and periods during the Mesozoic that had temperatures tens of degrees hotter than now have both occurred, and since there were no people then, one can hardly refer to them as "unnatural."

The real question is, given the current output of the Sun, and the current state of Earth's orbit, and the current natural environment, and the current things humankind is doing to the atmosphere, is it reasonable to expect that what we are doing is creating hotter conditions? And the answer appears to be, "yes."

 

[CapelDodger]

I disagree with this, but on different grounds than other respondents. My grounds are, we have good reason to believe that "snowball Earth" (the Cryogenian Period- I don't think I need to be specific about what that implies) and periods during the Mesozoic that had temperatures tens of degrees hotter than now have both occurred, and since there were no people then, one can hardly refer to them as "unnatural."

The real question is, given the current output of the Sun, and the current state of Earth's orbit, and the current natural environment, and the current things humankind is doing to the atmosphere, is it reasonable to expect that what we are doing is creating hotter conditions? And the answer appears to be, "yes."

It certainly doesn't appear to be anything else that's doing it, and given the coverage and interest these days "anything else" will very quickly become apparent. Hasn't happened yet, despite the warming of the last few decades. Looks like it just ain't there.

 

[Pixel42]

Heck, some scientists have gotten fired just for having Non-AGW viewpoints... (as I've said before)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm

I invited sceptics to put their cards on the table, and send me documentation or other firm evidence of bias. For my part, I agreed to look into any concrete claims. Given the fury evidenced by sceptical commentators, I was expecting a deluge [...]

The sum total of evidence obtained through this open invitation, then, is one first-hand claim of bias in scientific journals, not backed up by documentary evidence; and three second-hand claims, two well-known and one that the scientist in question does not consider evidence of anti-sceptic feeling.

No-one said they had been refused a place on the IPCC, the central global body in climate change, or denied a job or turned down for promotion or sacked or refused access to a conference platform, or indeed anything else.

If there is an anti-sceptic bias running through the institutions of science, it is evidently keeping itself well hidden.

 

[Schneibster]

But I will say this; if someone persistently claims to be a great football player, and yet fails to find the net when you put him in front of an open goal, you cannot do other than doubt his claim.

No kidding. Having asked this question myself and gotten no more than he has, I would have to say that the goal is open, but nobody seems to be able to kick the ball in.

 

[mhaze]

Isn't this more of the "If MWP true then AGW = worthless" kind of argument? Break this down for me, if you wouldn't mind. Would you say, for example, that if the temperature 800* years ago was higher than now, then AGW is refuted?

Or:
if the temperature 800 years ago (or the last x number of years) was lower than now, then AGW is plausible? Or neither?

(*or whatever year you like)

I already did that with the Hansen 1988 "al-gor-ithm", using the reverse of the "logic" used to prove present day "AGW". However, if I understand your views correctly you (as do I) view Hansen's theory that 3 standard deviations difference in a few years of temperature constitute a "smoking gun" of global warming to be ridiculously absurd.
You'd like a better proof than that, right?

It just so happens that the current discussion is over a successor to the (weak) Hansen AGW assertions. The Mann et al Hockey Stick. As Schneib has noted, there are several hockey sticks. As Steve Mc Intyre has proven, Mann's "al-gor-ithm" results in hockey sticks when random noise is put into it.

Gore has promoted the Mann Hockey Stick, in his $100,000 per visit lectures and in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. In the picture and the accompanying text he says (As I quoted, and as as Schneib then makes note of) that it was verified separately by ice core data. Gore seems to have goofed and the graph he is displaying is Mann. So, he's proved Mann is right by using Mann. But his intentions are good, he means to prove Mann by showing Thompson.

Given this amount of confusion, I think we need to start by examining the "method of proof of AGW" used by Mann with his hockey stick. That means going back to the graph and examining it a bit.



The chart labels to the right hand side look a bit odd. What to do?



Is it wise to refute this graph that Gore presents?

Pipirr has asked for some rebuttal of AGW. Carefully looking at Gore's hockey stick chart shows it is cooling, not warming.

What to do?

 

[Pipirr]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm

Andres Millan:
"Most global warming sceptics have no productive alternatives; they say it is a hoax, or that it will cause severe social problems, or that we should allocate resources elsewhere," he wrote.

"Scientifically, they have not put forward a compelling, rich, and variegated theory".

 

[Pipirr]

I already did that with the Hansen 1988 "al-gor-ithm", using the reverse of the "logic" used to prove present day "AGW". However, if I understand your views correctly you (as do I) view Hansen's theory that 3 standard deviations difference in a few years of temperature constitute a "smoking gun" of global warming to be ridiculously absurd.
You'd like a better proof than that, right?

Well, what I really want is to understand the argument that DR was making (and that you seem to support), that if the MWP existed, then AGW is disproved. I would like a simple explanation as to why that would be so. The Hansen-based explanation that you gave earlier wasn't obvious.

I'm not a climate scientist, and I'm not interested in defending AGW to the death. What I want is to get a grip on this argument. For one thing, I can't quite believe that it is being put forward with any seriousness. Do you really think that the presence or absence of a MWP would prove or disprove AGW?

I'll give you this though: if theere was a MWP, and the temperature level and rate of increase exceeded that of the last few decades, then AGW would lose a good soundbite.

But that's all, as there is so much more to AGW than good soundbites.

 

[Locri]

What? This is an inauspicious beginning. Did you actually read what I said? It doesn't appear so from this.

Yes, I did read what you said. But if the MWP and LIA exists, it makes sense that we'd be warming up again. I would agree that there is possibly some additional warming due to manmade GHG, but not to the extent that many AGW people believe. You said:

Already we have a problem. What "natural climate variations?"

In a way that seems to imply that either there are no natural climate variations or they aren't important. I disagree. See the above for why.

So? Because it's "just a summary" it doesn't have to be accurate?

From what it says, it seems to be accurate... here are some things you got wrong:

It is all of these together that are creating the problem, not CO2 alone.

Whereas the paper says:

2.Almost all of the warming in the second half of the 20th century, perhaps a half a degree Celsius, is due to man-made greenhouse gasses, particularly CO2.

I bolded the important part. Now, please explain how this is saying that it's CO2 alone? You were wrong.

I think it is a vast oversimplification to limit the discussion essentially to a single specific feedback.

And yet, the paper says:

4. Positive feedbacks in the climate, like increased humidity, will act to triple the warming from CO2, leading to these higher forecasts and perhaps even a tipping point into climactic disaster

Hmm... feedbacks, with an 's' I'm pretty sure that's the plural of feedback meaning that there is more than one. You were wrong.

You totally ignore the point, which is it's a strawman argument. No one but deniers claims that AGW is "all CO2."

And yet he didn't. You are wrong again.

For the moment I have to go but I'll try to address your other issues later. I should point out though that if I were using the Schneibster method of reading things, you've been wrong several times just at the beginning of your post, so I guess I don't have to read anymore of it, right?

 

[mhaze]

Well, what I really want is to understand the argument that DR was making (and that you seem to support), that if the MWP existed, then AGW is disproved. I would like a simple explanation as to why that would be so. The Hansen-based explanation that you gave earlier wasn't obvious.

I'm not a climate scientist, and I'm not interested in defending AGW to the death. What I want is to get a grip on this argument. For one thing, I can't quite believe that it is being put forward with any seriousness. Do you really think that the presence or absence of a MWP would prove or disprove AGW?

I'll give you this though: if theere was a MWP, and the temperature level and rate of increase exceeded that of the last few decades, then AGW would lose a good soundbite.

But that's all, as there is so much more to AGW than good soundbites.

More than good soundbites? Yes, there are in AGW all the parts of a good monsters in the closet story told to young children to frighten them before they go to bed.

To accurately answer your question, though, here goes. There was a MWP as warm or warmer than today.

Assume it is desirable to prove that AGW was strictly by human factors.
Assume you are on the scientific team that was asked to prove that.

How would you do it?

 

[Locri]

I'll give you this though: if theere was a MWP, and the temperature level and rate of increase exceeded that of the last few decades, then AGW would lose a good soundbite.

But that's all, as there is so much more to AGW than good soundbites.

I would agree, the MWP alone does not make for an ultimate argument to end AGW. I think the most important part is that it gives us a good idea that very warm temperatures have happened in the past for reasons we can't currently explain and therefore might happen again.

Some people like CD would have us believe that the past climate isn't important to understand. Although I would agree that the modern situation is different, it is silly to ignore the past. If we had an extremely good understanding of what was causing climate changes in the past we could do a better job of figuring out where the climate would be without the influence of manmade GHG and therefore we'd be able to better see just how much warming is natural and how much is caused by us.

 

[Locri]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm

Hmm... interesting article... I'll have to read it a bit more in depth when I have the time.

A quick search popped up this very quickly though:

Associate State Climatologist Fired for Exposing Warming Myths

And that was just 30 seconds of searching pretty much.

 

[Pixel42]

Associate State Climatologist Fired for Exposing Warming Myths

Having read the story, I'd say a more accurate headline for it would be "Scientist fired for deliberately disobeying his boss's instructions".

If there is anything to this story, why did no-one bring it to Black's attention?

 

[Schneibster]

Yes, I did read what you said.

Really?

But if the MWP and LIA exists, it makes sense that we'd be warming up again.

First, that's a non-sequitur. I see no reason why it would "make sense" that we'd be warming up again, IF the MWP and LIA exist. It's like saying, "If I had some ham, then I could fly to the moon." Doesn't follow, you see?

Second, what does that have to do with the paper you asked me to review? Speaking of a script, what is that? Did we get to the part in the script where you say, "LIA and MWP?" Or did you just dream that up on your own?

Third and finally, what does that have to do with whether you read and understood what I said, and how does it constitute a response to it?

I would agree that there is possibly some additional warming due to manmade GHG, but not to the extent that many AGW people believe.

Again, what is this? How is this a reply to anything I said? What does this have to do with the conversation we were having, specifically, regarding this paper you asked me to review, and now wish to argue what my opinion should be with me about?

Do you often find that people you are talking to become confused? Do you regularly notice that they become impatient or frustrated when you make certain statements? Do you make an attempt to ensure that what you say has some sort of connection to what came before, but find after you've said it that you can't remember what that connection was?

In a way that seems to imply that either there are no natural climate variations or they aren't important. I disagree. See the above for why.

Taken out of context, I suppose it does. Of course, if you'd actually read what I said instead of trying to cherry-pick something to have a fight about, you'd realize that I said nothing of the kind, but as I said, it doesn't appear to be very important to you that you understand an opposing position; you're SURE they're wrong, so that's GOOD ENOUGH, right?

From what it says, it seems to be accurate...

Then again, perhaps not so much. It is not, as I said, an accurate representation of the opposing argument, and since I have been writing in support of that argument for several years, you'll pardon me if I observe that your statement to the contrary carries little weight, particularly in view of the demonstrated facts that you don't take the time and trouble to understand opposing positions yourself, and seem to inject random pieces of propaganda into your speech at inappropriate times.

I bolded the important part.

And as far as I can see understood it, and responded to it, no better than you did me.

Now, please explain how this is saying that it's CO2 alone?

What does the word "particularly" mean to you? I said what I thought was fair, and I showed how what was said was not.

You were wrong.

Then again, perhaps not so much. Particularly has a very specific meaning, and it's one you've chosen to ignore. And that's OK, but if you're going to ignore it, then you don't get to say this. Of course, there's a bit of a problem even if you DON'T ignore it, because you don't get to say it then either.

You don't get to cherry-pick the parts you like, ignore the ones that aren't so good, and say it's "all good." It's not all good. Sorry.

Hmm... feedbacks, with an 's' I'm pretty sure that's the plural of feedback meaning that there is more than one. You were wrong.

Given I see no mention of any feedback but water vapor, again, perhaps not so much. If you disagree, please show me in that statement you quoted where there is mention of any other.

You really, really need to work on this reading comprehension problem you're having.

And yet he didn't. You are wrong again.

Really? Why don't you show in that statement of the antithesis, in a supposedly unbiased paper, where any other was mentioned.

I don't see it. And I looked.

That means it's an unfair statement of the antithesis.

That means it's a strawman.

Now, how was I wrong, again?

For the moment I have to go but I'll try to address your other issues later. I should point out though that if I were using the Schneibster method of reading things, you've been wrong several times just at the beginning of your post, so I guess I don't have to read anymore of it, right?

Let me try your way:

I think birds are pretty. So you're wrong about AGW.

That work for you?