Simple climate change refutation challenge

[Alric]

Jones issues well explained at climateaudit.org (2007 web award "best science blog"), links to the formal complaint and the data sources.

Still just a non-peer reviewed blog.

For global averaged temp, here ya go-
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf

See the "In Press" in 2006? That means NOT accepted for publication likely because it did not meet the peer review process. The telltale sign should be that none of those guys are climatologists. BTW, why are all these references PDFs from a link disembodied from any discussion?

Unanswered questions of mine-

• By the way. If you accept Moberg, then you have to accept Loehle. (Earlier you said that you wanted to stick with lots of "more recent" studies than Loehle). Please tell us where those "more recent studies than Loehle" are. Can we look at them?
• Now please go to your graph and show me where that pesky "unprecedented modern warming" is compared to the MWP.

I accept Lohele just fine along with all other temperature measurements. Lohele just does not mean what you think it does and its not more valuable than the other analyses. Like I explained before, the lower confidence interval agrees with all other studies.

I drew a huge red circle around where the unprecedented modern warming is. Its red and its huge. Here I'll post it again:

Also you still have to come up with any rationale for your analysis of correlation. Both for its applicability and the meaning of the result.

 

[Alric]

Lest we allow yet another AGW thread to drift far, far away from the point...

Did you get a response to this, to your satisfaction?

No. But I am learning a new meaning for the phrase "grasping at straws".

 

[Alric]

Spoken like a true creationist. Creationist also make the claim that evolutionary biologists are in denial of God's Word.

There is no support for the Mann Hockey Stick in scientific literature today. Steve McIntyre's work (published in peer-reviewed quality journals) has stood the test of time.

That is not a valid analogy. Creationists, not unlike you and mhaze, ignore the body of scientific evidence, use poor evidence, ignore arguments and are irrationally tied to an idea. In this case climatologists that have detected climate change and have come to a consensus are analogous with us biologists.

On the second point: show it!

 

[a_unique_person]

Then you shouldn't bother referencing your statements with references to history which are so easily rebutted. Just repeat that its "unprecedented" and therefore immune to disproof from history.

unprecedented for us. The rocks and bacteria seem to do fine, no matter what.

As for the "millions of years worth of fossil fuels" schtick, it would be something if those millions of years worth of fossil fuels were burned all at once, but it avoids the inconvenient truth that all of the current fossil fuel burning is but a small fraction of the natural flux. Carbon dioxide is currently rising, but most of it comes from the oceans probably as a delayed reaction to the Medieval Warm Period 800-1000 years ago.

Mauna Loa makes it pretty clear, the concentration is going up. Techoology similar to Carbon Dating tells us the extra CO2 is coming from us. There is a large carbon cycle, but it's not keeping up with what we are adding.

Evidence? Let's see if you can produce a scientific paper on an empirical result which shows such a forcing in the real atmosphere. Otherwise we'd have to conclude that you were blustering because you'd been shown to be wrong.

It's like asking if light bulbs emit photons. Of course CO2 re-emits radiation, and it's been measured. The absorption was first noticed over a hundred years ago. It's not ground breaking science. It was US air force research that first got onto the detaild investigation.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

If the laws of physics haven't changed in the last 150 years, then we should see carbon dioxide rise preceding temperature rise. Since we don't (and I'm still waiting for oh, over four years for you to substatiate this claim) then we'd have to conclude that a) carbon dioxide is an insignificant "greenhouse gas" or b) there is some unknown mechanism or negative feedback which negates the effect of CO2's radiative properties.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

 

[TrueSceptic]

Spoken like a true creationist. Creationist also make the claim that evolutionary biologists are in denial of God's Word.

There is no support for the Mann Hockey Stick in scientific literature today. Steve McIntyre's work (published in peer-reviewed quality journals) has stood the test of time.

Ah, I've got the joke now.

Your posts are parodies intended to discredit the GWS cause. Sorry I didn't realise this sooner.

I look forward to seeing how far you can take this.

 

[TrueSceptic]

You couldn't make it up.

Make up what?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Please tell me that you two haven't really been arguing about this for over four years. That makes me feel sad.

It would be surprising if Diamond could maintain the extremely high standard of his GWS parody for so long.

 

[mhaze]

Still just a non-peer reviewed blog.

A formal complaint of scientific fraud is made to the head of the intstitution the individual works at. Not peer reviewed process.

See the "In Press" in 2006? That means NOT accepted for publication likely because it did not meet the peer review process. The telltale sign should be that none of those guys are climatologists. BTW, why are all these references PDFs from a link disembodied from any discussion?

Nope, you do not understand what it means. And by the way, this concept doesn't require a peer reviewed paper to grasp. Does the atmosphere heat the ocean, or the ocean heat the atmosphere? If you had heated a closed chamber on a stove, and that chamber was half full of water and half of air, how would you measure the "global average temperature" in that chamber? For discussion assume the liquid has 500x as many atoms as the gas.

http://www.atypon-link.com/WDG/toc/jnet/32/1?cookieSet=1

I drew a huge red circle around where the unprecedented modern warming is.

Post 235, but doesn't this lead us right back to "Is there or is there not a hockey stick of global temperatures?"

Hint: There is not.

 

[mhaze]

Perhaps you'd like to prove this.

If you do, as opposed to just asserting it, then where does that leave us when discussing temperatures? Any discussion about how present temps compare with earlier ones, such as during the MWP, then become gibberish (as if they aren't already!).

Yes, gibberish abounds, supplanted by honest confusion about technical terms.

Would I like to prove it? I have no need to prove it to an annonymous internet poster, but I have posted two references to the theory which you are welcome to read and comment on. In particular, I am disinclined to respond to someone's challenge to "prove something" who likely hasn't even read the technical papers and is (as likely as not) pretty clueless about the subject.

Is a global temperature a sort-of-useful metric? Maybe, probably, in some cases. Can you discuss present temps vs. MWP without a "global temperature"? Sure, just look at the regional areas and general patterns.

As an example, Greenland we know was warm before. Greenland is a "canary in the coalmine" for global warming. Greenland is now warm. Is Greenland experiencing "unprecedented warming"? No, it was warm before. Now, was that strictly regional?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Yes, gibberish abounds, supplanted by honest confusion about technical terms.

Would I like to prove it? I have no need to prove it to an annonymous internet poster, but I have posted two references to the theory which you are welcome to read and comment on. In particular, I am disinclined to respond to someone's challenge to "prove something" who likely hasn't even read the technical papers and is (as likely as not) pretty clueless about the subject.

I think you are another parodist like Diamond. It is the most likely explanation for the language and tactics you use.

Is a global temperature a sort-of-useful metric? Maybe, probably, in some cases. Can you discuss present temps vs. MWP without a "global temperature"? Sure, just look at the regional areas and general patterns.

"Look at"? Then what: still argue that it's not getting warmer after all? What would that mean?

As an example, Greenland we know was warm before. Greenland is a "canary in the coalmine" for global warming. Greenland is now warm. Is Greenland experiencing "unprecedented warming"? No, it was warm before. Now, was that strictly regional?

Everywhere on the planet has been much warmer at some time in the past. So what?

 

[mhaze]

....another parodist like Diamond.....language and tactics....So what?

I'm looking for substance in your post....looking.....looking.....looking....

Nothing, nada, zip, so going back...

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic
Do you really want to know, or are you just going to redefine "mainstream climate science" in your own denialist image?​

Diamond: Spoken like a true creationist. Creationist also make the claim that evolutionary biologists are in denial of God's Word.

There is no support for the Mann Hockey Stick in scientific literature today. Steve McIntyre's work (published in peer-reviewed quality journals) has stood the test of time.

Funny. You ducked and dodged this one too.

Originally Posted by mhaze
Yes, thank you. And anyone who wishes can replicate this with Excel or a similar product.
​

The correlation between 20th century temperature and CO2 is very weak.

As weak as that between temperature and CO2 rises when emerging from Ice Ages?

Now this one you did not duck and dodge, but neither did you carry it to any conclusion relevant to the OP. Or did I miss something? Or to use your words "So what?"

This is only going to lead around to you trying to prove there is a big old hockey stick, so why not just do it? Can you?

 

[mhaze]

Please tell me that you two haven't really been arguing about this for over four years. That makes me feel sad.

Have you not heard? The science is settled.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I'm looking for substance in your post....looking.....looking.....looking....

Nothing, nada, zip, so going back...

Funny. You ducked and dodged this one too.

Now this one you did not duck and dodge, but neither did you carry it to any conclusion relevant to the OP. Or did I miss something? Or to use your words "So what?"

This is only going to lead around to you trying to prove there is a big old hockey stick, so why not just do it? Can you?

Keep it up! Everything you post makes it harder for me to shift the idea that you are a very good satirist of GWS.

 

[Alric]

A formal complaint of scientific fraud is made to the head of the intstitution the individual works at. Not peer reviewed process.


Nope, you do not understand what it means. And by the way, this concept doesn't require a peer reviewed paper to grasp. Does the atmosphere heat the ocean, or the ocean heat the atmosphere? If you had heated a closed chamber on a stove, and that chamber was half full of water and half of air, how would you measure the "global average temperature" in that chamber? For discussion assume the liquid has 500x as many atoms as the gas.

http://www.atypon-link.com/WDG/toc/jnet/32/1?cookieSet=1

Post 235, but doesn't this lead us right back to "Is there or is there not a hockey stick of global temperatures?"

Hint: There is not.

This post is indicative of all the wrong ways in which you argue the issue.

1. Make assertions without any discussion or data to back it up.

2. Self referencing

3. Distrust of the scientific consensus.

Addressing this specific post:

Anyone can complain about anything. The issue is whether the complain is valid. All the papers that you discount are still the definitive work in global temperature change whether you like it or not.

Can you show that the paper by the non-climatologists was published in a peer review journal?

You can't reference your own previous baseless post as reference.

 

[David Rodale]

Keep it up! Everything you post makes it harder for me to shift the idea that you are a very good satirist of GWS.

You and Alric don't appear to have researched much on your own. This is quite clear based on the HS spaghetti graph so prominently displayed as if to say "see, this is proof the 20th century warming is unprecedented in the last 1000 years". You seem to rely heavily on Wikipedia and script dumps for your information.

You also have a misconception that Loehle's paper is his own work, correct me if that is not the case.

Alric and Truesceptic, please keep an open mind and you'll discover how the Mann hockey stick and its cousins used the same faulty methodologies and sources. You also appear to believe when an article is "peer reviewed", it therefore must be true, unless of course it disagrees with your POV which you then summarily disregard.

Read the Wegman report
After reading the findings, does the HS give you warm fuzzy feelings? Scroll down further to learn about social networks. Do you think it is acceptable for co-authors to review the author's work?

Of course, you aren't willing to read "contrarian" websites although ClimateAudit (Steve McIntyre) is where one will find all the information concerning the HS.

Aside from that Alric/Truesceptic, what do you think about this recent tree ring study?

The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around ad 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized.

Now you may say that is not "global" because that is what you've read. How is it then the 18 reconstructions in Loehle's paper also disagree with the HS? Maybe Mann has special
powers?



What is it you require to sow a seed of doubt you have duped into believing we live in an era of "unprecedented" warming?

A recent recap of the hockey stick for newbies is available here, complete with statements made under oath. Enjoy.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even care with the facts are.

 

[David Wong]

Okay, I'm a layman here.

Am I understanding the anti AGW position correctly? Because as I understand it, they're saying:

1. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

2. Yes, there has been an increase in CO2 in the last couple of centuries due to the burning of fossil fuels.

3. Yes, there is data indicating that as CO2 has risen, temperatures have also risen, which would in fact be consistent with the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that an increase of it would increase the greenhouse effect;

BUT

4. Either researchers are reading the temperature data wrong for some reason,

OR

5. There is probably some other factor causing the increase, which by sheer coincidence also kicked in right around the same time CO2 was increasing (such as the sun getting hotter, etc) and so this other factor has fooled the vast majority of the scientific community, causing them to blame CO2 for the increase, when in reality it was this other factor.

Am I understanding your position correctly?

Forgive me, I'm relatively new to this debate.

 

[David Rodale]

This post is indicative of all the wrong ways in which you argue the issue.

1. Make assertions without any discussion or data to back it up.

2. Self referencing

3. Distrust of the scientific consensus.

Addressing this specific post:

Anyone can complain about anything. The issue is whether the complain is valid. All the papers that you discount are still the definitive work in global temperature change whether you like it or not.

Can you show that the paper by the non-climatologists was published in a peer review journal?

You can't reference your own previous baseless post as reference.

Is Michael Mann a "climatologist"?
Is James Hansen a "climatologist"?

What is a "climatologist" as opposed to a physicist, geologist, chemist, mathematician, etc. etc. ?

Is that like a psychiatrist compared to a M.D.?

 

[TrueSceptic]

You and Alric don't appear to have researched much on your own. This is quite clear based on the HS spaghetti graph so prominently displayed as if to say "see, this is proof the 20th century warming is unprecedented in the last 1000 years". You seem to rely heavily on Wikipedia and script dumps for your information.

You also have a misconception that Loehle's paper is his own work, correct me if that is not the case.

Alric and Truesceptic, please keep an open mind and you'll discover how the Mann hockey stick and its cousins used the same faulty methodologies and sources. You also appear to believe when an article is "peer reviewed", it therefore must be true, unless of course it disagrees with your POV which you then summarily disregard.

Read the Wegman report
After reading the findings, does the HS give you warm fuzzy feelings? Scroll down further to learn about social networks. Do you think it is acceptable for co-authors to review the author's work?

Of course, you aren't willing to read "contrarian" websites although ClimateAudit (Steve McIntyre) is where one will find all the information concerning the HS.

Aside from that Alric/Truesceptic, what do you think about this recent tree ring study?
Now you may say that is not "global" because that is what you've read. How is it then the 18 reconstructions in Loehle's paper also disagree with the HS? Maybe Mann has special
powers?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_10323471750ecb5cb9.jpg[/qimg]

What is it you require to sow a seed of doubt you have duped into believing we live in an era of "unprecedented" warming?

A recent recap of the hockey stick for newbies is available here, complete with statements made under oath. Enjoy.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even care with the facts are.

This is funny because I think I've hardly mentioned the Hockey Stick.

BTW I would take you more seriously if you stopped referencing McIntyre all the time. Why this obsession?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Okay, I'm a layman here.

Am I understanding the anti AGW position correctly? Because as I understand it, they're saying:

1. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

2. Yes, there has been an increase in CO2 in the last couple of centuries due to the burning of fossil fuels.

3. Yes, there is data indicating that as CO2 has risen, temperatures have also risen, which would in fact be consistent with the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that an increase of it would increase the greenhouse effect;

BUT

4. Either researchers are reading the temperature data wrong for some reason,

OR

5. There is probably some other factor causing the increase, which by sheer coincidence also kicked in right around the same time CO2 was increasing (such as the sun getting hotter, etc) and so this other factor has fooled the vast majority of the scientific community, causing them to blame CO2 for the increase, when in reality it was this other factor.

Am I understanding your position correctly?

Forgive me, I'm relatively new to this debate.

Actually, some GWS (Global Warming Sceptics) don't accept 1, 2, or 3.

I attempted to satirise GWS here but I've already seen in the few days I've been here that I did not go far enough!

Oh, and welcome!

 

[neltana]

I know this is the internet...but isn't it just possible that the people in this forum legitimately disagree? I mean, there is a lot of material to wade through and understand. I'd be shocked if everyone agreed on the details!

At the risk of pulling this discussion back to global warming, what follows is a summary of where the discussion seems to stand:

If I'm understanding things correctly, mhaze questions whether the current warming that we are experienced is truly higher than what we've seen in the past. In particular, he considers it possible (likely?) that the medieval warm period was as warm as it is today, at least in some regions (I think that's what he is saying). He questions the over-reliance on the abstract measure Global Mean Temperature to understand climate change.

This conclusion appears to be rejected by TrueSceptic who maintains that it is warmer in all regions today than in the past x number of years. Alric appears to concur. They also appear to feel that Global Mean Temperature is the best way to understand warming and cooling trends on Earth.

Diamond appears to feel that the causal link of CO2 rise causing temperature rise has not been established by other than theory (if even then).

There have been a lot of other issues raised, but it seems that these are the major points of contention right now.

So, my question is, can these points of contention be resolved with new information and analysis. To paraphrase the joke mhaze made "is the science all in yet?" In other words, do you expect new studies will change your view of climate change, or just confirm what you already know?

If both sides are convinced the matter has already been settled in their favor, we might as well switch over to discussing "invisible Bigfoot." If, on the other hand, one or more sides still feel there is uncertainty, this discussion makes sense.

I apologize in advance if I have misrepresented anyone's views.