Simple Question About AGW [Archive] - Page 2

CapelDodger

11th February 2008, 08:02 PM

Again, you are misinformed. Solar activity in fact varies across the centuries and not just in accordance with the 11 year solar cycle. And although cosmic rays have only been measured since 1935, it is possible to determine solar activity many centuries back in time. This is due to the variation in the amount of Carbon 14 produced as solar activity changes. And the variation of Carbon 14 can be measured via tree rings and by other methods. And once all the data is assembled, the direct correlation between solar activity and temperature is shown.

I am well aware of all that, but what about the trend over the last fifty years? That's the period during which the relevant warming has taken place, and direct measurements have been available. Forget the glorious past, what about the recent past? That's the period you're invoking Svensgard to explain, in preference to the more established view (AGW).

I wish I could find the Danish article I linked earlier in English as it is very informative.

Just pass along what you learned from it. Solar cycles, cosmic rays, and cloud-cover correlations we've already got. What else is in there?

I was referring to the article referenced here: "Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years' research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences." Did you read this article?

I was explicitly referring to the Torygraph article, which is what you referenced before. And this quote adds nothing to that anyway.

I don't think they are crackpots. You seemed to be implying they were.

Perhaps you have an over-active imagination. Perhaps that's what you assumed I would say, and then read the implication into what I did say. Who can really know?

Glad to see we are in agreement that they are not crackpots.

Why suggest that they might be in the first place? You brought the word into the conversation, after all, in order to defend them. Like a pushy lawyer.

It's also hard to take this kind of "refutation" seriously.

It's almost impossible to take that sort of response seriously. Really, if that's all you've got to say, keep your gob shut. I say this as a well-wisher.

It is not a solar cycle of "Danish" cloud-cover, but of global cloud cover. And yes, the graph concerns +/- 2% of cloud cover. Which is pretty significant. Imagine if the global temperature changed 2% as a consequence! (Temperature in Kelvin, naturally).

OK, global, my Danish wasn't up to that. But it's certainly not +/- 2%. That would be - not imply, but be - a 4% interval, not the 2% interval that I referred to. It goes up to +1%, then it drops down to -1%,then it goes back to pretty much where it started. You then imagine that global temperature varies by some equivalent during that period, and that nobody's noticed it before. Hardly likely, is it?

You had nothing further to respond to. If you disagree, please tell me what it was.

How can I respond to "Again, you are misinformed"? I disagree with it, obviously, but I'm none the wiser as to why I shouldn't. And that was the entirety of the contribution I was responding to. So you're right, there was nothing further to respond to, and I responded anyway, with what I regard as sound advice. Ignore it if you will.

Sorry, I can't see what? I just said that I can't see you claiming the hypothesis is weak as you have shown no reason for me to think so. You still haven't.

In that case, I doubt I can. I doubt anybody can, for that matter.

Do let us know how the CERN thing works out.

DanishDynamite

11th February 2008, 08:25 PM

I am well aware of all that, but what about the trend over the last fifty years? That's the period during which the relevant warming has taken place, and direct measurements have been available. Forget the glorious past, what about the recent past? That's the period you're invoking Svensgard to explain, in preference to the more established view (AGW).
The data fits going back before the time of the Vikings. The graph is in the Danish article I referred to previously. But if you are especially interrested in the latest decades, I can provide this random article I googled for AUP here. (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html)
Just pass along what you learned from it. Solar cycles, cosmic rays, and cloud-cover correlations we've already got. What else is in there?
Hard to summarize a summary. Sorry. I suppose I could translate the entire article....
I was explicitly referring to the Torygraph article, which is what you referenced before. And this quote adds nothing to that anyway.
In other words, you didn't read it. OK.
Perhaps you have an over-active imagination. Perhaps that's what you assumed I would say, and then read the implication into what I did say. Who can really know?
Perhaps you thought they were top-notch and just failed to make your view clear.
Why suggest that they might be in the first place? You brought the word into the conversation, after all, in order to defend them. Like a pushy lawyer.
See above.
It's almost impossible to take that sort of response seriously. Really, if that's all you've got to say, keep your gob shut. I say this as a well-wisher.
Then stop making throw-away comments which I can only answer in the way I did. Make substancial, constructive ones. Thanks.
OK, global, my Danish wasn't up to that. But it's certainly not +/- 2%. That would be - not imply, but be - a 4% interval, not the 2% interval that I referred to. It goes up to +1%, then it drops down to -1%,then it goes back to pretty much where it started. You then imagine that global temperature varies by some equivalent during that period, and that nobody's noticed it before. Hardly likely, is it?
No, the scale goes from -2% to + 2%. Not sure which figure you were looking at?
How can I respond to "Again, you are misinformed"? I disagree with it, obviously, but I'm none the wiser as to why I shouldn't. And that was the entirety of the contribution I was responding to. So you're right, there was nothing further to respond to, and I responded anyway, with what I regard as sound advice. Ignore it if you will.
You can respond by admitting that you were misinformed. Very simple.
In that case, I doubt I can. I doubt anybody can, for that matter.

Do let us know how the CERN thing works out.
I shall do my best. Let me know when you become a skeptic.

mhaze

11th February 2008, 09:25 PM

Danish Dyn:
It is not a solar cycle of "Danish" cloud-cover, but of global cloud cover. And yes, the graph concerns +/- 2% of cloud cover. Which is pretty significant. Imagine if the global temperature changed 2% as a consequence! (Temperature in Kelvin, naturally).
OK, global, my Danish wasn't up to that. But it's certainly not +/- 2%. That would be - not imply, but be - a 4% interval, not the 2% interval that I referred to. It goes up to +1%, then it drops down to -1%,then it goes back to pretty much where it started. You then imagine that global temperature varies by some equivalent during that period, and that nobody's noticed it before. Hardly likely, is it?

1,2, or 4% charge in global cloud cover....

is a really big deal!

a_unique_person

11th February 2008, 09:54 PM

1,2 or 4 degree rise in temperature

is a really big deal!

mhaze

11th February 2008, 10:02 PM

mhaze:1,2, or 4% charge in global cloud cover....
is a really big deal!
1,2 or 4 degree rise in temperature
is a really big deal!

Cloud cover.... CAUSE
Temperature: Effect

a_unique_person

12th February 2008, 01:27 AM

100% increase in CO2

BIG DEAL

fsol

12th February 2008, 01:30 AM

Cloud cover.... CAUSE
Temperature: Effect

Ooh pretty colours, it must be true!

TrueSceptic

12th February 2008, 05:40 AM

I understand how this works, but you appear not to. Let me help you.

No hypothesis or theory is ever proven. In fact, hypothesis and theories can only be refuted. Those theories which explain as much or more than others, and cannot be refuted, are the winners. They are the ones you see in textbooks.

OK, so proven is the wrong word, but it doesn't mean that you can automatically assume that something is valid or even just the best answer until it is refuted.

Those would be great theories if only they explained anything or predicted anything. They don't.
I agree. That is the point.

TrueSceptic

12th February 2008, 05:49 AM

No serious person is doubting that global temperatures are increasing.
Actually, some do doubt that. They claim that the reported increases are due to poor station data or doctoring the figures. Others claim that the increase has now stopped anyway.

varwoche

12th February 2008, 08:26 AM

This post is so out of touch with reality that it's hard to take seriously. Time to think Varwoche. Sheesh, and I thought it was a time to sow.

There are no trend lines, no R2 statistics. It is your side that beats the drum of "record" temps, so with 1998 being the "record" temp, it only stands to reason to view as the baseline for the current discussion. Cherry-picking this egregious is a sorry sight to behold.

It was Met O and others who predicted 2007 was the beginning of "record" temps exceeding 1998. I am simply showing it is going in the opposite sign. On the planet I inhabit, 12 of the 13 warmest years on record occurred in the past 13 years, 2007 amongst. link (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/)

You need to answer the following question: why is GISS diverged so far from HadCRU and others? I know you've already been told this but with hope springing eternal: it hasn't.

jimbob

12th February 2008, 11:04 AM

Why would using the cumulative sum be valid with highly autocorrelated data?

Why is the data autocorrelated, is it because there is noise added to a "typical" parameter and that this "typical" is moving?

A drunkard's walk might be autocorrelated, but this doesn't resemble that.

Anyway, as I said before, you don't need a cusum when you look at the simple mean-temperature vs time plot.

This resembles data for a parameter that is increasing.

CapelDodger

12th February 2008, 04:55 PM

The data fits going back before the time of the Vikings. The graph is in the Danish article I referred to previously. But if you are especially interrested in the latest decades, I can provide this random article I googled for AUP here. (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html)

Nothing about cosmic rays in there. I suppose you're using solar activity as a proxy. There is this though :

"He said firm conclusions about whether the present changes involve a long-term trend or a relatively brief aberration should come with continued monitoring into the next solar minimum, expected around 2006."

So how did that work out?

Hard to summarize a summary. Sorry. I suppose I could translate the entire article....

You said it was informative, so you surely carried away some salient points. But, whatever.

In other words, you didn't read it. OK.

Perhaps you thought they were top-notch and just failed to make your view clear.

I felt that "I don't know that I can refute a Torygraph article to your satisfaction, but I'll give it a shot" was unambiguous. You even thanked me, and then suggested that I "have a look at the article before criticizing". There's only one article involved at that point, so your confusion seems rather contrived.

See above.

Quite.

Then stop making throw-away comments which I can only answer in the way I did. Make substancial, constructive ones. Thanks.

I try, but "It's also hard to take this kind of 'refutation' seriously" doesn't give me much to work with. It's a bit throw-away, don't you think? If you simply say "You are mistaken" and move on, what's a man to do? Let it pass?

No, the scale goes from -2% to + 2%. Not sure which figure you were looking at?

The scale goes there, the graph doesn't. There's not much blue above 1% or below -1%. There's quite a lot of it closer to zero - but that's the way of it with cycles. Mostly there's just not much going on.

To see any trend requires examining multiple cycles, obviously. Any such trend will be considerably less than variation within a cycle. As an explanation for three decades of warming, the cloud-cover thing just doesn't hack it. Not without postulating cloud-cover as the dominant influence on climate.

You can respond by admitting that you were misinformed. Very simple.

I am not misinformed.

I shall do my best. Let me know when you become a skeptic.

Very barbed. Especially from someone who goes limp when "CERN" and "60 scientists" are paraded in front of him. I didn't notice you questioning exactly what involvement they had, you just appeared well impressed at their mere mention.

I do it my way, you do it yours. There no right way to be a sceptic, any more than there's a right way to spell it.

DogB

12th February 2008, 07:50 PM

Deleted.

Geckko

13th February 2008, 03:47 AM

Why is the data autocorrelated, is it because there is noise added to a "typical" parameter and that this "typical" is moving?

A drunkard's walk might be autocorrelated, but this doesn't resemble that.

Anyway, as I said before, you don't need a cusum when you look at the simple mean-temperature vs time plot.

This resembles data for a parameter that is increasing.

I think your initial intepretation was correct.

The CUSUM shows the temperature series to potentially a non-stationary series. Autocorrelation would be a potential source of this.

What this means is that the OP charts, plotting one against another, are highly susceptiable to finding spurious correlations (either statistical, or more commonly by simply looking at the two together). Which has been my point all along:

The plot in the OP is not very good statistical evidence for any inference that links the two series in any way.

jimbob

13th February 2008, 11:46 AM

I think your initial intepretation was correct.

The CUSUM shows the temperature series to potentially a non-stationary series. Autocorrelation would be a potential source of this.

What this means is that the OP charts, plotting one against another, are highly susceptiable to finding spurious correlations (either statistical, or more commonly by simply looking at the two together). Which has been my point all along:

The plot in the OP is not very good statistical evidence for any inference that links the two series in any way.

OK, I am only arguing the case that this is evidence that the temperature is actually rising, and rising at an increasing rate.

This still leaves the question about the "A" in AGW...

However I am unable to outguess climate physicists on that.

DanishDynamite

13th February 2008, 05:24 PM

OK, so proven is the wrong word, but it doesn't mean that you can automatically assume that something is valid or even just the best answer until it is refuted.
No, one can't assume that something is valid or the best answer. One needs to check if there are perhaps other, simpler answers. This is science. And this is what Svensmark is doing.
I agree. That is the point.
OK.

DanishDynamite

13th February 2008, 05:25 PM

Actually, some do doubt that. They claim that the reported increases are due to poor station data or doctoring the figures. Others claim that the increase has now stopped anyway.
They aren't serious people, then.

DanishDynamite

13th February 2008, 05:51 PM

Nothing about cosmic rays in there. I suppose you're using solar activity as a proxy.
Yes I am. I think I explained about how the connection between solar activity and cosmic rays is well known.
There is this though :

So how did that work out?
No idea, sorry.
You said it was informative, so you surely carried away some salient points. But, whatever.
It is indeed very informative and I wish I could find it for you in English. No luck so far, though.
I felt that "I don't know that I can refute a Torygraph article to your satisfaction, but I'll give it a shot" was unambiguous. You even thanked me, and then suggested that I "have a look at the article before criticizing". There's only one article involved at that point, so your confusion seems rather contrived.
OK, I suppose that my question regarding whether you read the "article" could be interpreted as the news article I linked to itself and not the article referred to in the article. In any case, did you read the article referred in the article?
I try, but "It's also hard to take this kind of 'refutation' seriously" doesn't give me much to work with. It's a bit throw-away, don't you think? If you simply say "You are mistaken" and move on, what's a man to do? Let it pass?I was referring to your "argument" at the point in question.
The scale goes there, the graph doesn't. There's not much blue above 1% or below -1%. There's quite a lot of it closer to zero - but that's the way of it with cycles. Mostly there's just not much going on.You must be looking at a different graph than I am. The blue curve alone varies between at least 1.6% and -1.8% as far as I can see.
To see any trend requires examining multiple cycles, obviously. Any such trend will be considerably less than variation within a cycle. As an explanation for three decades of warming, the cloud-cover thing just doesn't hack it. Not without postulating cloud-cover as the dominant influence on climate.
Not only do the 3 recent decades of data fit very well, but so does data going back to before the year 1000, including the "little iceage" and the Maunder Minimum. It may be an incredible coincidence, but denying the data by claiming it simply isn't there, is pretty close to woo.
I am not misinformed.
I have shown that you are. There is in fact an increasing solar activity and has been for decades. And there is a corresponding decrease in cosmic rays, also across the decades. You claimed this wasn't the case. Ergo, you were misinformed.
Very barbed. Especially from someone who goes limp when "CERN" and "60 scientists" are paraded in front of him. I didn't notice you questioning exactly what involvement they had, you just appeared well impressed at their mere mention.
Yes, that was barbed. But I think we both are quite adept at barbs. :)
I do it my way, you do it yours. There no right way to be a sceptic, any more than there's a right way to spell it.
Perhaps, but dismissing alternative explanations out of hand certainly doesn't seem very skeptic/sceptic.

varwoche

13th February 2008, 06:18 PM

A random page regarding solar activity here (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html). And on the other hand, here are studies that indicate the sun is not the cause of recent warming:

Cyclical changes in the sun's energy output are not responsible for Earth's recent global warming ... Instead the findings put the blame for climate change squarely on human-created carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases—reinforcing the beliefs of most climate scientists. link (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070712-sun-climate.html) no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming link (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml) Sunspots alter the amount of energy Earth gets from the sun, but not enough to impact global climate change ... The difference in brightness between the high point of a sunspot cycle and its low point is less than 0.1 percent of the sun's total output ... If you run that back in time to the 17th century using sunspot records, you'll find that this amplitude variance is negligible for climate. link (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html)

jsfisher

13th February 2008, 06:25 PM

And on the other hand, here are studies that indicate the sun is not the cause of recent warming:

Those are interesting links, varwoche. Thank you.

CapelDodger

13th February 2008, 06:30 PM

Yes I am. I think I explained about how the connection between solar activity and cosmic rays is well known.

It is. It's noisy, but across a few cycles it's pretty clear.

No idea, sorry.

A more recent meta-study concludes that there's been no trend in solar activity or cosmic rays over the last fifty years.

It is indeed very informative and I wish I could find it for you in English. No luck so far, though.

Don't worry about it. I find something informative when I go away with at least one "Well, I didn't know that" in my head.

OK, I suppose that my question regarding whether you read the "article" could be interpreted as the news article I linked to itself and not the article referred to in the article. In any case, did you read the article referred in the article?

The article of the which part? As I recall the link was to the Torygraph article. Easy meat.

I was referring to your "argument" at the point in question.
You must be looking at a different graph than I am. The blue curve alone varies between at least 1.6% and -1.8% as far as I can see.

At the extremes. 3.4%, but notice how little of the blue is out there, and how much closer to the zero-line. And, of course, most of it cancels out, so at the end of the cycle there's not much difference at all.

So the effect is there, but you've gone nowhere in demonstrating that there's a trend across solar cycles. That will necessarily be far less than the variation within a cycle.

Not only do the 3 recent decades of data fit very well, but so does data going back to before the year 1000, including the "little iceage" and the Maunder Minimum. It may be an incredible coincidence, but denying the data by claiming it simply isn't there, is pretty close to woo.

I'm certain there's no reliable cloud-cover data going back to Knut's day.

I have shown that you are. There is in fact an increasing solar activity and has been for decades. And there is a corresponding decrease in cosmic rays, also across the decades. You claimed this wasn't the case. Ergo, you were misinformed.

There is no increase in solar activity over the last fifty years.

Yes, that was barbed. But I think we both are quite adept at barbs. :)

That was irony. You really did go tickle-my-tummie to "CERN" and "60 scientists", so as a wannabe sceptic you don't rate yet.

Perhaps, but dismissing alternative explanations out of hand certainly doesn't seem very skeptic/sceptic.

I haven't used up all this bandwidth by being out-of-hand. I've provided good reason for my consigning this alternative to the darkest recesses of unlikelihood.

BenBurch

13th February 2008, 07:06 PM

The problem with the Solar Constant (which is not a constant) is that until very recently there has not been a great way to measure it that excludes effects of the atmosphere. And early measurements, even those during the space age suffer from having been done in all sorts of ways that are hard to mutually calibrate.

So, it is really hard to find ANY trend in the solar output that you can be really confident of, but you can set some limits, and those limits cluster around a zero change, but do not exclude a small change up or down.

mhaze

13th February 2008, 08:22 PM

And on the other hand, here are studies that indicate the sun is not the cause of recent warming:

The first of your links, Lockwood, has been pretty much discredited.

Have to study the other two a bit.

varwoche

13th February 2008, 09:29 PM

The first of your links, Lockwood, has been pretty much discredited. If I recall correctly, you made this same comment before in a different thread. As before, without a cite your feedback isn't useful.

In fact, in general, when you don't include a (meritorious) cite along with your challenges, by default I assume the truth is the opposite of what you post. (It's been a reliable system so far.)

TrueSceptic

14th February 2008, 06:01 AM

No, one can't assume that something is valid or the best answer. One needs to check if there are perhaps other, simpler answers. This is science. And this is what Svensmark is doing.

What he is doing and what others claim for it are 2 different things.

TrueSceptic

14th February 2008, 06:05 AM

They aren't serious people, then.
All the same, they are a sizeable proportion of GWS. Can I look forward to you joining us in responding to them when they say that stuff here?

TrueSceptic

14th February 2008, 06:20 AM

I have shown that you are. There is in fact an increasing solar activity and has been for decades. And there is a corresponding decrease in cosmic rays, also across the decades. You claimed this wasn't the case. Ergo, you were misinformed.

Can you show me some figures for that? Which best represents solar activity: insolation, for which we have only recent direct measurements, sunspot frequency, or something else? I looked at sunspot counts recently and they don't show a recent (late 20th century) increase.

I used these figures (http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt). They are easily put in a spreadsheet to produce graphs.

BenBurch

14th February 2008, 10:53 AM

a_unique_person

14th February 2008, 02:34 PM

The first of your links, Lockwood, has been pretty much discredited.

Have to study the other two a bit.

I think you mean the hangers on at CA think it has been discredited.

mhaze

14th February 2008, 02:38 PM

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-211545

The link is to the third group of discussion hosted by Svelgaard, a noted solar exert, on Climateaudit. The post count is upwards of 1500, and Svelgaard tries to answer every question asked.

A brief summary of his attitude is that total solar variability is likely low, which means that climate sensitivity to solar may be high (obviously it is at least 2x the sensitivity to greenhosue gas forcing). But for various reasons, sensitivity to solar might be considerably higher.

I'm not sure (haven't looked into it) to what extent the interaction between cosmic rays and the solar wind etc are discussed in these threads. They should be. Svelgaard comes across as conservative, but open minded.

But that does not do the subject justice, so let me again suggest reading the thread.

a_unique_person

14th February 2008, 02:40 PM

Bingo!

TrueSceptic

14th February 2008, 05:12 PM

The Sun is one of my interests. And I can confirm that other than the usual cycles there does appear to be no trend in the last 60 years or so. If there is, I've not seen the paper proving it. And knowing the Sun has become vital to certain commercial interests and so it has been an object of intense scrutiny for about that period of time.
Monthly sunspot counts and monthly average temps 1850-2007. Recent trends and any correlation can be clearly seen but I can add trends if anyone wants.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2289847b4d1f6aac5a.png ('http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10819')

CapelDodger

14th February 2008, 05:24 PM

The Sun is one of my interests. And I can confirm that other than the usual cycles there does appear to be no trend in the last 60 years or so. If there is, I've not seen the paper proving it. And knowing the Sun has become vital to certain commercial interests and so it has been an object of intense scrutiny for about that period of time.

There are satellites up there looking at nothing else. All day, every day.

What we get from the other end is argumentum ad proxy. Sunspots are their brittlecone pines. I bet, though, that as things warm up over the next two-to-seven years the positive phase of the Solar Cycle will be trotted out in explanation. By at least one of the usual suspects, and by at least two newcomers.

If I'm wrong, I'll eat brittle cone and admit it. If I'm right - well, that's reward enough in itself. I may make mention of it from time to time, of course ...

TrueSceptic

14th February 2008, 05:31 PM

There are satellites up there looking at nothing else. All day, every day.

What we get from the other end is argumentum ad proxy. Sunspots are their brittlecone pines. I bet, though, that as things warm up over the next two-to-seven years the positive phase of the Solar Cycle will be trotted out in explanation. By at least one of the usual suspects, and by at least two newcomers.

If I'm wrong, I'll eat brittle cone and admit it. If I'm right - well, that's reward enough in itself. I may make mention of it from time to time, of course ...
See the sunspots graph in the previous post. Some upward trend there, eh, especially since 1990?

CapelDodger

14th February 2008, 05:48 PM

The link is to the third group of discussion hosted by Svelgaard, a noted solar exert, on Climateaudit. The post count is upwards of 1500, and Svelgaard tries to answer every question asked.

Doesn't he have work to do?

A brief summary of his attitude is that total solar variability is likely low ...

Well, yeah, we can see that. Satellites, yadda-yadda.

... which means that climate sensitivity to solar may be high ...

"Means" given what assumptions? The ones that come with the "may"?

... (obviously it is at least 2x the sensitivity to greenhosue gas forcing).

You perhaps mean that for the hypothesis to stand it would obviously have to be at least twice the sensitivity of greenhouse forcing. Does he given any reason why climate should be so selective in its responses? Down here it's all about fluids and energy accounting. It strikes me that rather more is being loaded on clouds than they can support.

But for various reasons, sensitivity to solar might be considerably higher.

Various reasons, and they "might". What are these reasons again? I think we've strayed into mystic physics territory.

I'm not sure (haven't looked into it) to what extent the interaction between cosmic rays and the solar wind etc are discussed in these threads. They should be. Svelgaard comes across as conservative, but open minded.

He comes across as someone reveling in the attention he's getting. I don't see him dropping his hypothesis any time soon.

But that does not do the subject justice, so let me again suggest reading the thread.

How does he answer the argument that global warming is an artefact of bad measurement practices? UHI and all that stuff? This guy's trying to explain why problematic warming is being caused by the Sun. What do you like, a random Dane's argument or McIntyre's? I reckon McIntyre will outlast the Dane.

jsfisher

14th February 2008, 05:53 PM

Monthly sunspot counts and monthly average temps 1850-2007. Recent trends and any correlation can be clearly seen but I can add trends if anyone wants.

Are there links you can provide to the two datasets you used?

CapelDodger

14th February 2008, 06:24 PM

See the sunspots graph in the previous post. Some upward trend there, eh, especially since 1990?

That doesn't work, of course, so the solar thing du jour is about the length of the cycles, which is supposed to reveal some aspect of mystic physics. It takes data-mining to desperately dangerous depths.

There are those who have made predictions based on what that data-mining has "revealed". Enough of them that at least some can claim to have called it, given the variety. Not many will be able to claim three in a row. Before that the subject was a backwater with a somewhat nutty reputation. From the moment solar cycles were identified people went looking for a climate signal and an odd sub-culture emerged, one side finding signals, the other knocking them down.

It never entirely went away, and suddenly it's thrust into the limelight because climate is centre-stage, and anything related is fair game.

CapelDodger

14th February 2008, 06:37 PM

Are there links you can provide to the two datasets you used?

Truesceptic linked to sunspot numbers in post 283. Temperatures you can find anywhere - pick any you like. The sunspots remain the same, and the warming doesn't go away.

CapelDodger

14th February 2008, 06:53 PM

If I recall correctly, you made this same comment before in a different thread. As before, without a cite your feedback isn't useful.

In fact, in general, when you don't include a (meritorious) cite along with your challenges, by default I assume the truth is the opposite of what you post. (It's been a reliable system so far.)

I think we can take it as read that Lockwood has been discredited in the minds of those that were gagging for it to be so. And lo, they have been fed pap and have eagerly sucked it up. Brother has said unto brother, "Sounds good to me", and so it has become established fact in their minds. Details evade them; hearing what they want to hear and carrying away an impression (a validating impression, of course) is more their thing.

jsfisher

14th February 2008, 07:18 PM

Truesceptic linked to sunspot numbers in post 283. Temperatures you can find anywhere - pick any you like.

Thank you.

mhaze

14th February 2008, 09:17 PM

I think we can take it as read that Lockwood has been discredited....

So thoroughly discredited that there is no point to even a discussion as to whether it is discredited. How about that?

BenBurch

14th February 2008, 10:01 PM

Monthly sunspot counts and monthly average temps 1850-2007. Recent trends and any correlation can be clearly seen but I can add trends if anyone wants.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2289847b4d1f6aac5a.png ('http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10819')

And this invalidates my statement how? I see the main sunspot cycle and its well known long term variability.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e1/Sunspot-bfly.gif/600px-Sunspot-bfly.gif

Shows up in the butterfly diagram best, in my opinion.

But there is no long term trend in the late 20th century there. Just the 11-14 year solar half cycle.

BenBurch

14th February 2008, 10:17 PM

fsol

15th February 2008, 01:21 AM

So thoroughly discredited that there is no point to even a discussion as to whether it is discredited. How about that?

Discredited how, where, by whom? Or are you just making things up again?

TrueSceptic

15th February 2008, 04:54 AM

Are there links you can provide to the two datasets you used?
Sorry. I meant to include the links but it was the first time I've posted an image and I got distracted in learning how to do that.

I gave the sunspots source earlier but here (http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt) it is again. The temp figures are from here (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual).

If you have other figures I'd gladly do graphs of those. CSV or fixed-width text is best. I'd prefer monthly too, for comparative purposes; monthly is also better if we want to "zoom in" on shorter time periods.

TrueSceptic

15th February 2008, 05:08 AM

And this invalidates my statement how? I see the main sunspot cycle and its well known long term variability.

Eh? Why do you assume that I'm trying to invalidate anything? I'm supporting your post!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e1/Sunspot-bfly.gif/600px-Sunspot-bfly.gif

Shows up in the butterfly diagram best, in my opinion.

But there is no long term trend in the late 20th century there. Just the 11-14 year solar half cycle.
Yes, I'm aware of butterfly diagrams.:) I think they are excellent for showing how the cycles develop but for comparing the numbers with other data such as temps I prefer a line graph.:D

TrueSceptic

15th February 2008, 05:14 AM

Here is another image to peruse; No long term trend here, either. Just the usual noise in the system;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png/500px-Solar-cycle-data.png
The trend is actually very slightly downward but I'll settle for no real significant trend. :)

BenBurch

15th February 2008, 07:34 AM

Ah, OK, I misread you. Sorry! :)

TrueSceptic

15th February 2008, 09:06 AM

Ah, OK, I misread you. Sorry! :)
That's OK. Perhaps I should've said more but I assumed (!) the intention was obvious.

TrueSceptic

15th February 2008, 12:27 PM

Sorry. I meant to include the links but it was the first time I've posted an image and I got distracted in learning how to do that.

I gave the sunspots source earlier but here (http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt) it is again. The temp figures are from here (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual).

If you have other figures I'd gladly do graphs of those. CSV or fixed-width text is best. I'd prefer monthly too, for comparative purposes; monthly is also better if we want to "zoom in" on shorter time periods.
Sorry, I posted the wrong link for temps, the annual set. It should be this (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly). They are both linked from HadCRUT3 (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/HadCRUT3.html)

mhaze

15th February 2008, 05:11 PM

If I recall correctly, you made this same comment before in a different thread. As before, without a cite your feedback isn't useful.

In fact, in general, when you don't include a (meritorious) cite along with your challenges, by default I assume the truth is the opposite of what you post. (It's been a reliable system so far.)

A quick check with google "Lockwood climate" brings up even more issues and complaints about the study than I recalled from last time we wisely didn't bother discussing it. But look into it if you like. Let me know if you find anything. And note that was only one of the three that I said wasn't worth discussing.

So here, you have an answer, again without a cite....

jsfisher

15th February 2008, 05:20 PM

TrueSceptic

15th February 2008, 05:32 PM

Thanks.

No, not at all. Your charts looked interesting, and if I get the time, I wanted to play with the correlations.
Make sure you use the figures from the corrected link for monthly temps (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly).

varwoche

15th February 2008, 05:38 PM

A quick check with google "Lockwood climate" brings up even more issues and complaints about the study than I recalled from last time we wisely didn't bother discussing it. But look into it if you like. Let me know if you find anything. And note that was only one of the three that I said wasn't worth discussing.

So here, you have an answer, again without a cite.... Got it (http://www.weather-forecasts.com/cityClimate/United+States/Missouri/Lockwood)! Thanks! :confused:

mhaze

15th February 2008, 05:46 PM

Ha! You are doing GREAT! Just keep looking!

THIS reminds me of AUP's "Read the IPCC. The ANSWER is in there somewhere in chapters 1-10".

No, seriously, you do see all the complaints, right?

TrueSceptic

15th February 2008, 05:49 PM

Got it (http://www.weather-forecasts.com/cityClimate/United+States/Missouri/Lockwood)! Thanks! :confused:
Tee-hee :D

TrueSceptic

15th February 2008, 05:59 PM

Ha! You are doing GREAT! Just keep looking!

THIS reminds me of AUP's "Read the IPCC. The ANSWER is in there somewhere in chapters 1-10".

No, seriously, you do see all the complaints, right?
What does that mean? What complaints?

a_unique_person

15th February 2008, 10:50 PM

mhaze

16th February 2008, 08:18 AM

What does that mean? What complaints?

Really, there should be nothing wrong with suggesting an article was not up to standards that would make it worth discussing. There are many to pick from, correct?

TrueSceptic

16th February 2008, 08:56 AM

Really, there should be nothing wrong with suggesting an article was not up to standards that would make it worth discussing. There are many to pick from, correct?
I find it laughable that you have "standards".

Perhaps we could look at the article piece by piece and you could point out its failings?

Tokenconservative

22nd February 2008, 08:51 AM

I will point out a similar quandary over whether cigarette smoking caused cancer.

Lung cancer happens at times in individuals who never smoked. So, for many years the defense of the Tobacco Industry was that you could not look at ANY specific death as a result of lung cancer and say definitively that it was caused by smoking. And then they would draw the conclusion that therefore no harm had ever been proven because you could not point to a single provable case.

Reality has a noisy signal, and when we try to find a trend we must make a rational assessment of probabilities.

-Ben

Wonderful, utter lack of logic.

Good show!

Tokie

mhaze

22nd February 2008, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze
Really, there should be nothing wrong with suggesting an article was not up to standards that would make it worth discussing. There are many to pick from, correct?

I find it laughable that you have "standards". Perhaps we could look at the article piece by piece and you could point out its failings?

One really does wonder about this type of thinking. Something is okay to discuss, even though a quick check shows all the issues and faults, and the published rebuttals. So sad. And Lockwood/Frolich were the ones that were going to "drive the last nail into the coffin of the sun". Is there a paucity of quality peer reviewed literature asserting "solar has no current influence on climate"?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446a000e229470.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7134)

a_unique_person

23rd February 2008, 03:04 AM

""solar has no current influence on climate""

That literature does not exist. Of course the sun is the major influence on the climate, but it's not a driver of change at present.

mhaze

23rd February 2008, 07:09 AM

""solar has no current influence on climate""

That literature does not exist. Of course the sun is the major influence on the climate, but it's not a driver of change at present.

Oh?

a_unique_person

23rd February 2008, 08:03 AM

Oh?

mhaze

23rd February 2008, 08:29 AM

You don't say.

zeusbheld

23rd February 2008, 12:59 PM

...and the rest of this thread is virtually a laboratory on my "Irrational Thinking: a Winner" thread.

Tokie

from the beginning.

starting with the guy who "debunks" the science by debunking the news stories.

David Rodale

23rd February 2008, 05:27 PM

You don't say.

Consensus trumps reality
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347c0b9baf2fdc.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10986)

Dr. Imago

23rd February 2008, 05:48 PM

That literature does not exist. Of course the sun is the major influence on the climate, but it's not a driver of change at present.

You are making a claim. If you can't back it up (which you implicitly admit in your very short post that you can't), it is meaningless. Worse, it is a foundless belief.

You're sounding more and more like someone who's swallowed whole the "religiosity" of the pro-AGW movement and, for all intents and purposes, has lost the ability for rational thinking.

Prove me wrong. (That's all I've ever asked.)

-Dr. Imago

varwoche

23rd February 2008, 06:08 PM

Prove me wrong. (That's all I've ever asked.) "Prove" is too strong a word of course. That said...

Sun Not the Cause of Recent Warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070712-sun-climate.html)

Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html)

No indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml)

mhaze

23rd February 2008, 06:10 PM

Consensus trumps reality
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347c0b9baf2fdc.jpg

That chart certainly does point up the problem with CO2 driving global temperatures quite nicely. Of course it is only the last 30 years, but we do consider 30 years as a period over which climate may be measured. And a warmer would say that there was a relationship over a longer term, I guess.

The Alarmist AGW trend line, the predicted linear extrapolation of the 1980s and 1990s temperature increase, ain't happening.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244723654333cdb.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8960)

CapelDodger

23rd February 2008, 06:43 PM

Consensus trumps reality
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347c0b9baf2fdc.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10986)

A pretty picture, but if you told us where you got it from we could better understand what it's about. Or you could just explain it to us, as you see it. Whatever. If a picture's worth a thousand words, surely this one is worth a few dozen.

CapelDodger

23rd February 2008, 07:14 PM

That chart certainly does point up the problem with CO2 driving global temperatures quite nicely. Of course it is only the last 30 years, but we do consider 30 years as a period over which climate may be measured. And a warmer would say that there was a relationship over a longer term, I guess.

The Alarmist AGW trend line, the predicted linear extrapolation of the 1980s and 1990s temperature increase, ain't happening.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244723654333cdb.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8960)

Another pretty picture, but it does claim to represent the "accurate long-term trend" from 1860 to 2000. Which you'll notice is upward. You'll also have noticed that 140 years is about two 60-80 year cycles, and the trend has gone up across both of them. The cycle is visible, but there's clearly some other influence imposed on it.

The accurate trend-line is alarming enough in its implications, and is the one that's taken account of. The really silly line in that picture is the thick black one, the current "no warming" period. It's a projection from a few years ago, and it's still not quite flat.

Your chosen model (a 60-80 year cycle) predicts clear cooling by 2015. Only seven years up the line. Are you prepared to commit yourself to it, or will you just dump it when some new hottie comes along?

CapelDodger

23rd February 2008, 07:26 PM

"Prove" is too strong a word of course. That said...

Sun Not the Cause of Recent Warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070712-sun-climate.html)

Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html)

No indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml)

We didn't get where we are today by demanding absolute proof, and those that did have generally perished in the proving of it. When it comes down to it, push becoming shove and so on, sound judgement is what distinguishes winners from the other lot.

a_unique_person

23rd February 2008, 07:48 PM

A pretty picture, but if you told us where you got it from we could better understand what it's about. Or you could just explain it to us, as you see it. Whatever. If a picture's worth a thousand words, surely this one is worth a few dozen.

He's been asked again, and again, and again. He never does tell us his sources.

a_unique_person

23rd February 2008, 07:53 PM

You are making a claim. If you can't back it up (which you implicitly admit in your very short post that you can't), it is meaningless. Worse, it is a foundless belief.

You're sounding more and more like someone who's swallowed whole the "religiosity" of the pro-AGW movement and, for all intents and purposes, has lost the ability for rational thinking.

Prove me wrong. (That's all I've ever asked.)

-Dr. Imago

The evidence has been supplied in these threads already. Thanks Varwoche. There's only so many times evidence can be presented before it gets to be tedious. As I said, my friend who is a climate research scientists (involved in modeling, what's more :eek:), gave up on the internet years ago. His much smarter than me, and realised that there are people out there who will never be convinced, so don't waste any time trying to do so. I can see his point.

CapelDodger

23rd February 2008, 07:55 PM

You are making a claim. If you can't back it up (which you implicitly admit in your very short post that you can't), it is meaningless. Worse, it is a foundless belief.

Rubbish. Your ignorance of what it's founded on is your problem, not something to be projected onto others. Educate yourself, don't demand that we go over the same ground yet again.

You're sounding more and more like someone who's swallowed whole the "religiosity" of the pro-AGW movement and, for all intents and purposes, has lost the ability for rational thinking.

You have clearly failed to educate yourself in a subject on which you are pontificating. You do come across as a pompous ass, there, I've said it.

Prove me wrong. (That's all I've ever asked.)

-Dr. Imago

You won't be proved wrong because you've never taken a definite position. I could be proven wrong, as could varwoche, because we've taken definite positions, based on sound judgement.

You'll have to wait a while to prove us wrong. Let us know how that works out for you.

CapelDodger

23rd February 2008, 08:07 PM

The evidence has been supplied in these threads already. Thanks Varwoche. There's only so many times evidence can be presented before it gets to be tedious. As I said, my friend who is a climate research scientists (involved in modeling, what's more :eek:), gave up on the internet years ago. His much smarter than me, and realised that there are people out there who will never be convinced, so don't waste any time trying to do so. I can see his point.

Dr Imago is no better than a Philosopher, going by the evidence. The strutting about while making demands thing gives it away :).

CapelDodger

23rd February 2008, 08:18 PM

He's been asked again, and again, and again. He never does tell us his sources.

mhaze is much the same. It's almost as if they're embarrassed about where they've been presented with them. So they upload the picture, post it, and contribute the caption (generally speaking) "What about that then, eh?".

It's all very demanding ...

mhaze

23rd February 2008, 08:42 PM

mhaze is much the same. It's almost as if they're embarrassed about where they've been presented with them. So they upload the picture, post it, and contribute the caption (generally speaking) "What about that then, eh?".

It's all very demanding ...
Oops, I forgot....

"What about that then, eh?"

zeusbheld

24th February 2008, 02:27 AM

Oops, I forgot....

"What about that then, eh?"

the careful observer will note that while you jumped in to dump your snide "what about that then, eh?" in there, you meticulously avoided disclosing your source.

if i'm to be persuaded that the climate change that is clearly happening is natural, i need links to sources so i can see your pretty pictures IN CONTEXT with the arguments they support.

i need a lot more, but that is a bare bones place to start.

mhaze

24th February 2008, 08:48 AM

the careful observer will note that while you jumped in to dump your snide "what about that then, eh?" in there, you meticulously avoided disclosing your source.

if i'm to be persuaded that the climate change that is clearly happening is natural, i need links to sources so i can see your pretty pictures IN CONTEXT with the arguments they support.

i need a lot more, but that is a bare bones place to start.

What Capeldodger does not tell you is that these charts have been discussed on this forum before including various references and supporting studies. As for requesting a reference to Rodale's graph, sheesh. That's just the old CO2 trend and two major temperature series. Which everyone should already accept. So this is a chart of basic raw data, rather than a chart which forms a correlation or a conclusion from that data. The chart I presented does form a conclusion, by noting a high correlation of the sinusoidal curve with the raw temperature data. The source is given below -

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446ebe79371e34.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8342)

I took this graph and marked it up to indicate some of the alleged trends and what I thought were more realistic. The issues that it shows are not that "there is or is not global warming" but...
Charts are often made starting in 1900 and ending in the current, these exaggerate warming by starting at a low and ending at a high. (Red line wrong, blue line right).
Charts for recent decades often have shown a linear continuation of warming which is not happening. (Purple line wrong, current climate is following the black line)
Tsonis 2007 and several other scientists, including the arthors of the study from which the 60-80 year chart was made, indicate that temperatures should go down in the next decades, not up.
Hansen, Gore and other climate alarmists started agitating largely in 1988 and have been riding a known, predictable upward trend of temperature due to natural causes while promoting it as due to man's CO2 emissions. That upward trend is now over and the temperatures are stable and or declining.
The chart acknowledges a trend toward a increase in temperature over the last century.Does that answer your question?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244723654333cdb.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8960)

Klyashtorian and Lyubushin 2003 (http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e01.htm#TopOfPage)

I draw your attention to two sets of summary graphs and note that R = 0.80 to 0.90 for all series studied by these scientists.

First graphs and discussions.

Figure 5.3 The full spectrum of unsmoothed reconstructed temperatures from ice core samples for the last 1420 years. (http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e1v.gif)
Spectral analysis of the time series of dT, ACI and LOD are presented in Fig 5.4. It is clear that the spectra of dT, ACI and LOD are rather similar. Primary maxima of dT and ACI are 50-55 years, and the period of the LOD cycle is 64 years. Other maxima are less pronounced, although there are clear peaks of ACI and LOD values (19 and 23 years, respectively) in the high frequency (left) range of the spectrum. The latter indicates that there is a global climate cycle with a frequency of about 20 years. Its effect on biota should be taken into account.

Second graphs and discussion.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e06c.htm#FiguraC

Dr. Imago

24th February 2008, 10:05 AM

You won't be proved wrong because you've never taken a definite position. I could be proven wrong, as could varwoche, because we've taken definite positions, based on sound judgement.

You love calling me names, don't you CD.

AUP made a specific point that solar influences have not contributed to the recently recorded phenomenon. Again, for completeness, this is what he said...

Of course the sun is the major influence on the climate, but it's not a driver of change at present.

... which is a bit like trying to have your cake and eat it too. And, worse, it's unsubstantiated.

Want a source? Here ya go:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

If this construct is accurate, you can't conclude what AUP has. Period. All name-calling aside. Or, do you want to now call NOAA a bunch of liars/deniers/asses?

-Dr. Imago

Slimething

24th February 2008, 11:06 AM

Rubbish. Your ignorance of what it's founded on is your problem, not something to be projected onto others. Educate yourself, don't demand that we go over the same ground yet again

You have clearly failed to educate yourself in a subject on which you are pontificating. You do come across as a pompous ass, there, I've said it..

This really is rich coming from you, CD. I've found your understanding of thermodynamics comical. I'm also waiting for your explanation as to why, if all the physiscs you rely on for your belief that AGW has been established ss fact, scientists trying to deliever a falsifiable hypothesis have failed to do so over one hundred years (your figure, not mine).

You'll have to wait a while to prove us wrong. Let us know how that works out for you.

Here's another of your favorite slights. As I've pointed out to AUP previously, the AGW side hasn't put out anything falsifiable either so there's no proving your side wrong. You keep harping on the net warming occuring on the planet as if that were proof of your hypothesis but it isn't. I think you need to study up on thermo before you try to make that k's (pun intended but you probably won't get it).

mhaze

24th February 2008, 02:40 PM

You love calling me names, don't you CD.

AUP made a specific point that solar influences have not contributed to the recently recorded phenomenon. Again, for completeness, this is what he said...... which is a bit like trying to have your cake and eat it too. And, worse, it's unsubstantiated.

Want a source? Here ya go:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

If this construct is accurate, you can't conclude what AUP has. Period. All name-calling aside. Or, do you want to now call NOAA a bunch of liars/deniers/asses?-Dr. Imago

Warmers have argued that solar cannot account for global temperature rise since 1950, and your graph does show flat from then forward. Warmers look for solar to produce an immediate and dramatic effect, not any effect delayed by years or decades.

For CO2 they have all kinds of nuanced delayed effects, and can blame or attribute most anything on CO2.

For the last decade and the current solar minima, It is hard to not attribute some part of the current level temperatures to solar. How much is open to question.

Dr. Imago

24th February 2008, 03:04 PM

For the last decade and the current solar minima, It is hard to not attribute some part of the current level temperatures to solar. How much is open to question.

However, the graph may possibly support the hypothesis that CO2 increases follow warming, not the other way around. And, if the oceans are indeed acting as one large "solar capacitor", this may account (in part) for the observations at Mauna Loa that higher fractions of CO2 are being recorded at that station.

More questions than answers...

-Dr. Imago

David Rodale

24th February 2008, 05:02 PM

Capeldodger said:
Siberia is warm :)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347c2056aec01c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11005)

David Rodale

24th February 2008, 05:08 PM

However, the graph may possibly support the hypothesis that CO2 increases follow warming, not the other way around. And, if the oceans are indeed acting as one large "solar capacitor", this may account (in part) for the observations at Mauna Loa that higher fractions of CO2 are being recorded at that station.

More questions than answers...

-Dr. Imago

Better still, wouldn't it be nice if someone would answer as to why the lower troposphere isn't warming as "the" climate models dictate? How can it ever cool if CO2 has such powerful heat retaining abilities?

CO2 AGW promoter's axiom:
1) the models are always wrong but they keep correcting them every couple of years to fit what really happens.
2) you can't disprove a scientific theory.
3) the science is settled

mhaze

24th February 2008, 09:25 PM

Better still, wouldn't it be nice if someone would answer as to why the lower troposphere isn't warming as "the" climate models dictate? How can it ever cool if CO2 has such powerful heat retaining abilities?

The total heat in the troposphere shows the actual amount of the greenhouse effect. If it isn't that much heat, it ain't that big a greenhouse effect. That's what we have, it seems.

No way to argue from authority - the authority is the actual middle troposphere temperature, not some UN agency.

Since this agrees with Schwartz's concepts on ocean heat capacity, where do we go from here? Looks like the case is getting pretty solid. Multiple lines of evidence with mutual, interlocking conclusions that agree nicely.

Douglass, Schwartz, Singer, Christy, Tsonis.

Did I miss any?

bobdroege7

24th February 2008, 09:26 PM

zeusbheld

25th February 2008, 03:28 AM

What Capeldodger does not tell you is that these charts have been discussed on this forum before including various references and supporting studies.

i asked *you*. don't pass the buck. you are the one making a claim. i'm new here, and wondering why you and Rodale consistently fail to contextualize the graphs you provide. if, EVERY time you post a graph, you can provide a link to its original context, i'm sure i'm not the only one who would be grateful. seems like common sense to me. apparently not.

Also, if you both can provide links to these threads you reference i'd be grateful.

at present i'm neither AGW skeptic nor believer, more like AGW agnostic. i expect to stay that way for some time as the math for modeling climate is.... complicated.

*your* tactics look dodgy, but perhaps you are just sincerely assuming a greater familiarity with the material in question? nonetheless it sure looks like a lack of full disclosure.

what i have noticed the considerable shortage of AGW skeptic papers in relevant peer review journals. so in short, i'm inclined to believe, based on skimming peer-reviewed journals, that a majority of relevant scientists are inclined toward AGW, but that doesn't prove it's happening, does it. as far as i can it certainly hasn't been proven yet, but it certainly hasn't been disproven either.

in short, my position is, "i don't know." if i were a policymaker i'd feel more inclined to investigate until i have a position. but i'm not. as an individual, i expect my 'carbon footprint' is less than most who are adamant about AGW--but for reasons having nothing to do with AGW (i don't own a car as i live in a city and dont' need or want one, among other things).

As for requesting a reference to Rodale's graph, sheesh. That's just the old CO2 trend and two major temperature series. Which everyone should already accept.

ALL charts and graphs should be referenced, as it is incredibly easy to doctor data when plotting it to support any claim made. i know next to nothing about the science involved, but i DO know how to massage data when plotting it. i worked in the graphics department of an investment bank for a while; my JOB was to show whatever trend was desired by the banker.

all the graphs you guys are posting look specious, at best. that may be only because plotted trends without supporting justification set off my alarm bells.

So this is a chart of basic raw data, rather than a chart which forms a correlation or a conclusion from that data.

the first graph you present is most definitely NOT 'basic raw data' there is a trend curve clearly marked on it. was that a deliberate attempt to con me, or don't you know what "basic raw data" is?

where is it from? it says AFTER Kyatshorin and Lyubushin, does this mean if i find the paper by these people (the one you still refuse to link to; i did NOT see it in the K + L paper you linked to) i'll get the contextual info for this graph, or did you take the graph from some OTHER article which relies on K +L?

The chart I presented does form a conclusion, by noting a high correlation of the sinusoidal curve with the raw temperature data. The source is given below -

again, the source is NOT given bellow, and b) after they rather efficiently (i didnt do the math, but it looked purty good) establish the correlation of the sinusoidal curve with raw temperature data they say

The concept of generating forecasts of anthropogenic climate change and consequent changes in fish production is beyond the scope of this study.

call me naive, but i tend to interpret 'beyond the scope' as 'no comment.' Is that why you never show things in their original context? if you're trying to convince me that your'e trying to con me, you're doing a GREAT job.

I took this graph and marked it up to indicate some of the alleged trends and what I thought were more realistic. The issues that it shows are not that "there is or is not global warming" but...
Charts are often made starting in 1900 and ending in the current, these exaggerate warming by starting at a low and ending at a high. (Red line wrong, blue line right).
Charts for recent decades often have shown a linear continuation of warming which is not happening. (Purple line wrong, current climate is following the black line)
Tsonis 2007 and several other scientists, including the arthors of the study from which the 60-80 year chart was made, indicate that temperatures should go down in the next decades, not up.
Hansen, Gore and other climate alarmists started agitating largely in 1988 and have been riding a known, predictable upward trend of temperature due to natural causes while promoting it as due to man's CO2 emissions. That upward trend is now over and the temperatures are stable and or declining.
The chart acknowledges a trend toward a increase in temperature over the last century.Does that answer your question?
no; for one thing, the paper *you* link to (no i didn't go through it and to the math) claims the climate oscillates, but explicitly makes no claims regarding an overall long-term trend.
Secondly, you make a lot of trend claims with NO links to supporting evidence and did you at least skim through the K+L paper and notice all that math supporting their claims? apparently not, as you've taken the liberty of drawing trendlines with a crayola (or the photoshop version thereof).

Again, from the paper *you* linked to (http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e01.htm#TopOfPage), in case you missed it the first time:

The concept of generating forecasts of anthropogenic climate change and consequent changes in fish production is beyond the scope of this study.

yet you dare to tread where the authors don't, without the need for dozens of pages of tedious math, apparently? you lost me there.

I draw your attention to two sets of summary graphs and note that R = 0.80 to 0.90 for all series studied by these scientists.
and this is enough for *you* to draw a conclusion the authors of the paper don't? wow i'm impressed.

In conclusion: please play fair. if you're gonna toss charts and graphs around, [b]please link to the original context.[/i] i'm not saying you're a snake oil salesman, necessrarily.. but right now, you *are* wearin' the uniform. note that my mistrust of your posts is partially based on your response in the simpler question about AGW" thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107206)

a_unique_person

25th February 2008, 04:31 AM

TrueSceptic

25th February 2008, 05:36 AM

In conclusion: please play fair. if you're gonna toss charts and graphs around, [b]please link to the original context.[/i] i'm not saying you're a snake oil salesman, necessrarily.. but right now, you *are* wearin' the uniform. note that my mistrust of your posts is partially based on your response in the simpler question about AGW" thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107206)
zeusbheld, you might like to have a look at HTBAGWS (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105743). I'll leave it to you to judge how fair or unfair I was in the OP.

varwoche

25th February 2008, 08:59 AM

"Prove" is too strong a word of course. That said...

Sun Not the Cause of Recent Warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070712-sun-climate.html)

Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html)

No indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml) This is the evidence that Dr. Imago requested and as yet has ignored.

I'd ignore it too, if I posted delusional nonsense such as...
It's quite clear to everyone who's paying attention that they've hung their hat on carbon dioxide. What is not clear - or proven - is that this is the correct place to do so. But, everything from this point forward is geared at bolstering that assertion and making any observations fit that premise, instead of considering alternate possibilities. I've talked about this extensively already. No need to rehash now.

zeusbheld

25th February 2008, 09:03 AM

zeusbheld, you might like to have a look at HTBAGWS (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105743). I'll leave it to you to judge how fair or unfair I was in the OP.

yah saw it, and have actually seen those or similar claims a number of times.

saw it posted somewhere in one of these threads can't remember who said it "even if AGW is wrong, it doesn't mean they're right." have to agree with that, if this lot are typical of "climate skeptics."

incidentally i know a vulcanologist whom i'd class as a credible AGW skeptic. what *he* says, is that we just don't know either way, yet. quite a bit different from the smoke and mirrors i see being posted by these so-called skeptics in this forum.

TrueSceptic

25th February 2008, 09:28 AM

yah saw it, and have actually seen those or similar claims a number of times.

saw it posted somewhere in one of these threads can't remember who said it "even if AGW is wrong, it doesn't mean they're right." have to agree with that, if this lot are typical of "climate skeptics."

incidentally i know a vulcanologist whom i'd class as a credible AGW skeptic. what *he* says, is that we just don't know either way, yet. quite a bit different from the smoke and mirrors i see being posted by these so-called skeptics in this forum.
Indeed. A true sceptic doubts until convinced by the evidence, but doubt is last thing you will see in GWS. Instead, you see unshakeable certainty that GW is not happening, or of it is, it can't be due to us.

jsfisher

25th February 2008, 09:43 AM

incidentally i know a vulcanologist whom i'd class as a credible AGW skeptic. what *he* says, is that we just don't know either way, yet. quite a bit different from the smoke and mirrors i see being posted by these so-called skeptics in this forum.

It is quite a bit different than what we see from either extreme of the debate.

mhaze

25th February 2008, 10:15 AM

In conclusion: please play fair.

Okay, well, I'd ask first, assuming you want to understand stuff. How to not get bogged down in details?

for one thing, the paper *you* link to (no i didn't go through it and to the math) claims the climate oscillates, but explicitly makes no claims regarding an overall long-term trend.

Spectrum analysis of a thousand years shows the climate cycle in question. What more do you want?

A quick check of one randomly picked thread shows for pages 10-14 25 citations by "skeptics", 13 by "believers" (3 cartoons therein, nice ones). I'm not really sure what you are exactly looking to be convinced of, if anything. JREF discussions range widely in how technical they can get, usually warmers bring in newspaper or media references, skeptics more often the scientific articles.

Is it that MSU temperatures or HADCRT temps are as described on the graph DR showed? Go here (http://www.icecap.us/), scroll down the middle of the page to the study that did this chart.

Is it that there is or is not a 60-80 year climate cycle that is influential in climate?

Is it that there is or is not "global warming?"

Seemingly the material issue in your discussion is 60-80 year cycles, here are a few random looks at this reality. This 60-80 year cycle isn't really in dispute, what is I think might generally be described is whether the influence of man's emissions and so forth overwhelm this and other natural cycles, including solar and others. These are just a few, this is a big subject and please note that it is only one of several dozen that are relevant to the so called "climatology' field. If the link is to a review, the full pdf technical article is available.

go down to april 8, 2005 article (there is also a peer review published article by these guys, cycle 60-80 years)
http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/50408/news/arctic/briefs.html

note cycle, well known today, major shift around 1970s (cycle, 60-80 years)
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

greenland warm in 1920-1930s just like today (cycle, 60-80 years)
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html

study based on applied theory of chaos (cycle....)
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/08/17/climate-change-chaos/

other notes. "chart was after" means it is from these Russians. I picked a html version of the PDF, the PDF is quite large, something like a hundred pages. The html version may be later in date. "raw data " referred as I recall to David Rodale's graph, which is just three lines of raw data. Sinusoidal chart does of course have the sinusoidal curve fit superimposed on the raw data. 2nd sinusoidal chart which you note looks like it is marked up with markers, those were done by me purposely to illustrate certain points.

Slimething

25th February 2008, 12:46 PM

incidentally i know a vulcanologist whom i'd class as a credible AGW skeptic. what *he* says, is that we just don't know either way, yet.

I would second that. The problem of establishing whether or not AGW is occuring is more complex than it seems. Two or more different warming drivers (natural vs anthropogenic) need to be resolved from one another. At present, the pro-AGW side can only point to the construct of their hypothesis. The anti-AGW side can only rebut with pointing out AGW predictions that have not come to fruition.

You may want to compare this debate vs the Malthusian scares that arise from time to time. I'm not saying that AGW is a scare although some politicians are certainly using it for that purpose. However, history speaks volumes here. Don't give away all your belongings just yet.

mhaze

25th February 2008, 08:20 PM

Slimething

25th February 2008, 09:17 PM

Likely that AGW man made forcing are a weak not a strong effect. Otherwise resolving would be quite easy.

I would tend to agree from the weight of the evidence. The scientific foundation of the AGW hypothesis appears sound but way overhyped. The people who tend to believe it at its worst don't seem to be too well grounded in scientific theory.

I've seen too many greenie carnival shows to trust that bunch at anything. A fair amount of my work is to debunk bad modeling by searching out and demonstrating actual measured field data. Field data ALWAYS trumps modeling, no matter how much we agree with the model's construction. Constantly updating your predictions on the basis of reality is called research, not verification. Add to that the fact that many complex models can only be debunked in fact and not by logic, and this AGW thing seems less and less ominous every passing year. (That's why I bring up the Malthusian scares as they were falsified by history, not theory.)

zeusbheld

26th February 2008, 01:35 AM

Okay, well, I'd ask first, assuming you want to understand stuff. How to not get bogged down in details?

for one thing, the paper *you* link to (no i didn't go through it and to the math) claims the climate oscillates, but explicitly makes no claims regarding an overall long-term trend.

Spectrum analysis of a thousand years shows the climate cycle in question. What more do you want?

the paper you cited didn't support your conclusion. have you got papers that do? apologies if you've posted them a thousand times, but if you know the papers, it ought to be easy to post the links again.

A quick check of one randomly picked thread shows for pages 10-14 25 citations by "skeptics", 13 by "believers" (3 cartoons therein, nice ones). I'm not really sure what you are exactly looking to be convinced of, if anything. JREF discussions range widely in how technical they can get, usually warmers bring in newspaper or media references, skeptics more often the scientific articles.

i don't care about the stats on who posts what. i'm reacting to the first dodgy post i saw on either side where the poster seemed to have some potential to make a case. yours. so the rest of that is utterly irrelevant.

Is it that MSU temperatures or HADCRT temps are as described on the graph DR showed? Go here (http://www.icecap.us/), scroll down the middle of the page to the study that did this chart.

again, i'm focussing on your post. aside from that, why does DR NEVER source the papers he gets his graphs from? that's either lazy or manipulative. until he does so he's not worth bothering with.

Is it that there is or is not a 60-80 year climate cycle that is influential in climate?

correct me if i'm wrong but that was the subject of the paper you linked to? they went through an awful lot of (what looked like) pretty good math (i was too lazy to work through it) to get that sinusoidal trendline.

Is it that there is or is not "global warming?"

well i've seen enough evidence that there is some global warming lately, not enough to convince me as to whether (or not) it is a) a long term trend or b) anthropogenic.

however, if you've got evidence that it is (or is not) warming i'd be interested in that, but i only look at science papers the rest is just 'net fun and games.

Seemingly the material issue in your discussion is 60-80 year cycles, here are a few random looks at this reality. This 60-80 year cycle isn't really in dispute, what is I think might generally be described is whether the influence of man's emissions and so forth overwhelm this and other natural cycles, including solar and others. These are just a few, this is a big subject and please note that it is only one of several dozen that are relevant to the so called "climatology' field. If the link is to a review, the full pdf technical article is available.

no. the issue is not the 60 - 80 year cycle, the issue is that you cited a paper which clearly establishes said cycle, but you *seem* to be insinuating that it is evidence against anthropogenic global warming. the authors themselves say, in their conclusion:

The concept of generating forecasts of anthropogenic climate change and consequent changes in fish production is beyond the scope of this study.

what i saw in *your* post is you drew heavily from their study, didnt' link to it until pressed, and concluded by drawing trend lines on the graph in photoshop.

what i want from you,

a) is science papers that explicitly support your conclusion.

failing that, if you're amibtious,

b) i want trend lines that you arrive at by taking sourced data, actually smoothing the data, and transparently demonstrating how you reach your conclusions (even if i end up being too lazy to recreate the full conclusion).

go down to april 8, 2005 article (there is also a peer review published article by these guys, cycle 60-80 years)
http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/50408/news/arctic/briefs.html

not sure what i'm supposed to glean from this; the link took me to a news article "circumpolar world mourns Pope John Paul II".

at any rate nunatsiaq.com is a news outlet NOT a peer-reviewed journal.

note cycle, well known today, major shift around 1970s (cycle, 60-80 years)
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

interesting but again, the actual author doesn't reach *your* conclusion. or at least find for me where he does; most of the links on the page appear to be broken.

greenland warm in 1920-1930s just like today (cycle, 60-80 years)
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html

this is more interesting, and their conclusion seems more relevant, but Greenland's a separate conversation from what *you* posted, is it not? and all i can get is the abstract, without paying nine bucks. also, it's worth noting that "AGU" host many papers which tacitly assume AGW, like this one. (http://www.agu.org/journals/scripts/highlight.php?pid=2007GL032179)

incidentally, here's AGU's "position statement" on Human Impacts on Climate. (http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml)

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

given AGU's position, i'd really like to see the full content of that paper (without having to pay nine bucks).

study based on applied theory of chaos (cycle....)
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/08/17/climate-change-chaos/

that looks interesting, but it's a blog. got the original paper by Tsonis, Swanson, and Krakov?

other notes. "chart was after" means it is from these Russians. I picked a html version of the PDF, the PDF is quite large, something like a hundred pages. The html version may be later in date.

is this the paper on the 60-80 year cycle by Klyatshorin et al? or another paper? i've got the Klyatshorin paper now, thanks.

"raw data " referred as I recall to David Rodale's graph, which is just three lines of raw data. Sinusoidal chart does of course have the sinusoidal curve fit superimposed on the raw data. 2nd sinusoidal chart which you note looks like it is marked up with markers, those were done by me purposely to illustrate certain points.

those certain points are what i want you to establish transparently, otherwise i have to assume that it is *your* conclusion based on conjecture.

zeusbheld

26th February 2008, 01:43 AM

I would second that. The problem of establishing whether or not AGW is occuring is more complex than it seems. Two or more different warming drivers (natural vs anthropogenic) need to be resolved from one another. At present, the pro-AGW side can only point to the construct of their hypothesis. The anti-AGW side can only rebut with pointing out AGW predictions that have not come to fruition.

You may want to compare this debate vs the Malthusian scares that arise from time to time. I'm not saying that AGW is a scare although some politicians are certainly using it for that purpose. However, history speaks volumes here. Don't give away all your belongings just yet.

do link to these "Malthusian scares" if you can.

what i find interesting about these AGW threads is that we have a thread full of (apparent) non-scientists and so many have a strong opinion on something very complex.

so far the anti-AGW people have been rather sloppy IMO. but again, i'd rather base *my* opinion on science papers than on keyboard warriors. that said, the better keyboard warriors can often cough up links to science papers to support their convictions. i find these papers interesting, if difficult, reading.

zeusbheld

26th February 2008, 01:50 AM

I would tend to agree from the weight of the evidence. The scientific foundation of the AGW hypothesis appears sound but way overhyped. The people who tend to believe it at its worst don't seem to be too well grounded in scientific theory.

well, at its worst you have "The Day After Tomorrow." but Hollywood is a bit of a straw man innit.

I've seen too many greenie carnival shows to trust that bunch at anything. A fair amount of my work is to debunk bad modeling by searching out and demonstrating actual measured field data. Field data ALWAYS trumps modeling, no matter how much we agree with the model's construction. Constantly updating your predictions on the basis of reality is called research, not verification.

is this what you do for a living? are you a climate scientist? if not, what got you into this strange hobby?

Add to that the fact that many complex models can only be debunked in fact and not by logic, and this AGW thing seems less and less ominous every passing year. (That's why I bring up the Malthusian scares as they were falsified by history, not theory.)

in principle i'd agree that transparency around data collection and data collection methodology is vital. science advances through failing to disprove things in spite of intense effort, not through proving things.

mhaze

26th February 2008, 05:42 AM

it's worth noting that "AGU" host many papers which tacitly assume AGW, like this one. (http://www.agu.org/journals/scripts/highlight.php?pid=2007GL032179)

Looks like a good study. Not what I object to which is "Alarmism".

Divine, D.V. and C. Dick. 2006. Historical variability of sea ice edge position in the Nordic Seas, Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, 10.1029/2004JC002851 March through August Ice Edge Positions in the Nordic Seas, 1750-2002 (http://nsidc.org/data/g02169.html)

Also may interest you.
"Global Warming: Scientific Forecasts or Forecasts by Scientists?". (http://forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf)

full pdf Tsonis. (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21743)

Discussion, Motl. (http://motls.blogspot.com/search?q=tsonis)

They argue that the synchronization disappears once the coupling between all/most of these cycles gets too high: a major climate shift is a consequence. The amount of synchronization decides about the ENSO variability as well as the global temperature, as they demonstrate by an analysis of major indices in the 20th century. This climate shift may be seen as a bifurcation - branching of one possible solution into two. It is accompanied by changes of the coupling parameter which acts as an external parameter.

....the shifts have occurred or will occur around 1913, 1942, 1978, 2033, 2072.....a 0.2 Celsius cooling between 2005 and 2020 should be followed by a 0.3 Celsius warming until 2045 or so and by cooling in the rest of the 21st century. 2100 is seen as more than 0.1 Celsius cooler than 2005.

Tokenconservative

26th February 2008, 06:04 AM

do link to these "Malthusian scares" if you can.

I don't do links--LIIINNNKKKKSSSSS!!!--esp. to issue of common knowledge, so here are some references, and if you are not as blinkered a far lefty as you otherwise seem to be, look them up.

Early 1960s: Silent Spring: hunters, pollution and habitat diestruction were killing off all the wildlife; all wildlife would be gone by 2000.
Outcome: LOL!

Mid-late 60s: The population bomb: we were going to have a SRO world by sometime in the 1990s resulting in global famines, etc.
Outcome: LOL!

1960s and 70s: by 2000 our world would be uninhabitable due to pollution.
Outcome: LOL!

Early 70s: we would be OUT of oil (completely out) by the early to mid-90s.
Outcome: LOL!

Mid to late 70s: The coming Ice Age. Global climate was growing dangerously...colder, and we were entering a new ice age.
Outcome: LOL!

70s-80s: Using up all arable land (by about 2000). We were putting too much land under the plow which would cause regional and global famine as soil "failed" due to poor farming practices.
Outcome: LOL! (100s of thousands of acres in the US and Canada have been voluntarily taken out of production and allowed to revert to natural state, producing, accidentally, the Popov's "Buffalo Commons"--this headlong race to return most of the central part of N. America to its natural state has paused recently because...more land is needed for production of corn to make...ethanol).

Today: AGW

Tokie

Pipirr

26th February 2008, 07:44 AM

Mid to late 70s: The coming Ice Age. Global climate was growing dangerously...colder, and we were entering a new ice age.
Outcome: LOL!

In fact that was a minority view (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm).

Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

mhaze

26th February 2008, 07:55 AM

varwoche

26th February 2008, 11:35 AM

One last try... Prove me wrong. (That's all I've ever asked.) As to the parenthetical, based on your performance, I think not. Here is Dr. Imago translated into English: I'm going to flail my arms about no matter what evidence (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3465767#post3465767) is presented, even evidence that I, Dr. Imago, specifically request. Ah, but then again, how is one to argue with somebody who has a portal (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3469484#post3469484) to knowledge that is unavailable to those grounded in the empirical world.

zeusbheld

26th February 2008, 12:46 PM

I don't do links--LIIINNNKKKKSSSSS!!!--esp. to issue of common knowledge, so here are some references, and if you are not as blinkered a far lefty as you otherwise seem to be, look them up.

wasn't talking to you.... you're not WOOOOOORRRTTTH IT. was talking to someone who, unlike you, has some potential for actually exchanging worthwhile information. and again, i'm interested in science papers. *not* propaganda from either side.

a science paper is something *you* wouldn't know if it bent you over a table and forcefully had its way with you. sorry for comparing you to a Tokay. you're not nearly as interesting.

zeusbheld

26th February 2008, 01:16 PM

Although it may or may not have been a minority view, global cooling certainly fits the "Malthusian scare" concept. There should normally be a reality that "extreme scare scenario" represents a minority view anywhere you go, right?

Just like we can go and look at decadal trends in publishing of stock market books and always find "The Coming Crash....<insert hyperbole as desire>", but reality is pretty mundane.

scares are a popular thrill ride; it's human nature.

but we're talking about the media now, right?

anything relatively recent (70s onward) generating a flurry of science papers? of course if you say "yes," i wanna see the papers.

Slimething

26th February 2008, 06:06 PM

do link to these "Malthusian scares" if you can.

Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe). Pretty even-handed. Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome)on the Club of Rome, the last group I know of that tried to make a living off Malthusian scare theory. Do a search on them. A popular book from the 70s called The Population Bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb) had people believing in food riots in American cities. I think you'll see some parallels. Note especially that Malthusian theories have never been theoretically disproven although they have been falsified by fact.

what i find interesting about these AGW threads is that we have a thread full of (apparent) non-scientists and so many have a strong opinion on something very complex.

I believe you're seeing backlash of strict science vs trendy science. AGW has no falsifiable statement and the anti-AGW side cannot refute other than point out predictions that are not or have not come true.

so far the anti-AGW people have been rather sloppy IMO. but again, i'd rather base *my* opinion on science papers than on keyboard warriors. that said, the better keyboard warriors can often cough up links to science papers to support their convictions. i find these papers interesting, if difficult, reading.

To be very frank, you're in the wrong place if you want a highly technical discussion. This is a skeptic's forum and as such what you'll find in response to most claims is "show me". You will sometimes find someone in the crowd with a direct and succinct refutation of a claim but the claim here is AGW which, as I've pointed out, is pretty much based on faith at this point.

I also believe you are being a bit critical of the anti- side while letting the pro- side ride with provenly false claims such as "the science is settled", "AGW is a theory", "AGW is proven", "you can't disprove AGW without falsifying modern thermodynamics", "a warming planet proves AGW", and so on. All these statements are bunk but they surface over and over again. Other than that, I like your skeptical and open-minded approach.

Slimething

26th February 2008, 06:12 PM

is this what you do for a living? are you a climate scientist? if not, what got you into this strange hobby?

I'm an analytical chemist who at this moment is involved in quite a bit of ecological, environmental and safety modeling. I see disturbing parallels to really bad modeling practice in some of the pro-AGW arguments. Generally, though, I don't like to see science so abused.

in principle i'd agree that transparency around data collection and data collection methodology is vital. science advances through failing to disprove things in spite of intense effort, not through proving things.

Well, it advances both ways. The most important step in discovery is to differentiate competing hypotheses by devising a definitive test. That is, a test that, given an outcome, would exclude at least one of the hypotheses from being true. We have nothing like that yet for AGW yet the proponents won't stop claiming that the science is established. KInda irks me.

CapelDodger

26th February 2008, 06:28 PM

You love calling me names, don't you CD.

I don't remember thinking of one. What was it?

AUP made a specific point that solar influences have not contributed to the recently recorded phenomenon. Again, for completeness, this is what he said...

... which is a bit like trying to have your cake and eat it too. And, worse, it's unsubstantiated.

No, it's not like that at all.

Want a source? Here ya go:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

Solar influence level since 1960. I knew that.

If this construct is accurate, you can't conclude what AUP has. Period.

I find it hard to conclude otherwise. How do you do it? There's no solar trend since 1960. There are wiggles in the line, but have you looked at the scale on the y-axis? Perhaps more to the point, have you ever read How To Lie With Statistics? It's a must-read, IMO.

All name-calling aside.

What was that name? I must have thought it good at the time.

Or, do you want to now call NOAA a bunch of liars/deniers/asses?

-Dr. Imago

No, I'll pass on that. Do you want to? I'm good with them being squeaky-clean.

zeusbheld

27th February 2008, 02:57 AM

Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe). Pretty even-handed. Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome)on the Club of Rome, the last group I know of that tried to make a living off Malthusian scare theory. Do a search on them. A popular book from the 70s called The Population Bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb) had people believing in food riots in American cities. I think you'll see some parallels. Note especially that Malthusian theories have never been theoretically disproven although they have been falsified by fact.

that's all pop stuff though. speaking for myself, i'm not interested in pop stuff because that sort of thing would happen anyway, as it presses our instinctual buttons. it has no bearing whatsoever on whether the claims have anything to do with reality.

got more recent stuff? and are there science papers backing these people up? granted i wasn't there but i don't get the impression that these ideas were widely accepted and researched by scientists; looks more like a few outliers cashing in on our instinctual desire to thrill at being scared.

I believe you're seeing backlash of strict science vs trendy science. AGW has no falsifiable statement and the anti-AGW side cannot refute other than point out predictions that are not or have not come true.

the appearance of the AGW scientific debate to a layperson--as opposed to net fora, where the appearance is shrill loons coming out of the woodwork--is that it will come down to these models consistently making accurate predictions. that still may not be enough for strict scientific fact, but my impression is it would add considerable weight to the hypotheses involved. my impression, also, is that given that climate is measured in 30 year chunks, it will take a while for predictions yea or nay to reach a critical mass.

if strict science vs trendy science is really happening, string theory may be headed for a world of hurt, huh?

To be very frank, you're in the wrong place if you want a highly technical discussion. This is a skeptic's forum and as such what you'll find in response to most claims is "show me".

which is why i'm here. "show me." i'm not necessarily looking for a highly technical discussion, but i do need one rooted in science, and i'm hoping for more pointers to toward actual research papers. seems to me that any skeptic worth their salt would want to see the [scientific] case in matters of science, and at least try to understand what's being said.

You will sometimes find someone in the crowd with a direct and succinct refutation of a claim but the claim here is AGW which, as I've pointed out, is pretty much based on faith at this point.

well here's the thing. i don't see where the AGW crowd have proved their point, but there DO seem to be more people publishing papers on it than publishing papers with alternate explanations, and papers tacitly accepting it. that doesn't mean it's 'scientific fact' of course.

I also believe you are being a bit critical of the anti- side while letting the pro- side ride with provenly false claims such as "the science is settled", "AGW is a theory", "AGW is proven", "you can't disprove AGW without falsifying modern thermodynamics", "a warming planet proves AGW", and so on. All these statements are bunk but they surface over and over again.

i've been critical of the other side, too--someone made the absurdly irrelevant claim that anti-AGW types need to "get out more" as if going outside and seeing your petunias bloom earlier every year would settle anything (disclaimer: i obviously know nothing about gardening).

i haven't seen too many of the kinds of statements you describe, mainly perhaps because of my timing in entering this board and because the shrill irrelevance of posters like "Tokie" drowns them out. i picked on MHaze not primarily because of the obvious sloppiness of his citations but because i expect somewhere in there are the resources to make a better case, and i'd like to see it. notice i haven't picked on this "Rodale" fellow as much because he seems rather lost in his own world and unlikely to provide the kind of transparency i'm looking for.

most of the statements you describe are obvious howlers, only ones that aren't are "AGW is a theory" and "the science is settled" (which are essentially the same claim, are they not?). and *my* forays into science papers have uncovered no stronger claim than a consensus amongst relevant scientists. the consensus seems demonstrable but that IN NO WAY to me implies the science is "settled."

most of the shrilly irrevant posters on both sides are howling like mad dogs because AGW IS what one generally refers to as "post-normal-science"---policy decisions attempted before the science is settled. by its nature it will attract more partisan loons on both sides than anything else. and most likely frustrate people who can understand the science involved so much as to drive them off (my vulcanologist friend, who spends the bulk of his time studying aircraft contrails rather than is/is there not AGW, doesn't bother with this sort of net bickering).

Other than that, I like your skeptical and open-minded approach.

i suppose my "science" position at present can be summed up as follows:
it is apparent to me that the science isn't settled. it appears, from the papers i've skimmed, that there IS an anomalous climate shift, that hasn't been easily explained away by the usual influences on climate. "global warming," in other words, appears to me to be happening, although "climate change" is a more apt term. the permanence, cause and degree of this change are not settled as far as i can tell. AGW seems to my untrained eye plausible enough but NOT in any way "proven."

anyone, feel free to jump in and correct any of that, but anyone who wants to be at all persuasive, please offer links to science papers and transparent sources.

my "policy" position would be summed up:
it may be possible that as the pro-AGW crowd assert, that the problem is something we should start fixing before it is settled, but i'm frankly not sold on that yet at all. that said i'm inherently for alternative fuels as dependence on 'foreign oil' is a bad thing, i'm tentatively for nuclear power, "sustainable" architecture, fuel efficient transportation and clean rather than dirty coal technology regardless of AGW.

having clearly stated my position, i now expect both pro- and anti-AGW types to jump down my throat.

mhaze

27th February 2008, 11:11 AM

i suppose my "science" position at present can be summed up as follows:
it is apparent to me that the science isn't settled. it appears, from the papers i've skimmed, that there IS an anomalous climate shift, that hasn't been easily explained away by the usual influences on climate. "global warming," in other words, appears to me to be happening, although "climate change" is a more apt term. the permanence, cause and degree of this change are not settled as far as i can tell. AGW seems to my untrained eye plausible enough but NOT in any way "proven."

my "policy" position would be summed up:
it may be possible that as the pro-AGW crowd assert, that the problem is something we should start fixing before it is settled,....

Sounds pretty reasonable. Lots of uncertainty.

Beware.

(Skeptics sow doubt and confusion and the science is settled.):D

varwoche

27th February 2008, 12:01 PM

which is why i'm here. "show me." Here are some studies you might consider:

Bern University (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7227080.stm), Feb 2008
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the 20th century increased ten times faster than at any other period in the preceding 22,000 years.

Cal Tech et al (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071016090525.htm), Oct 2007
A team of American and Canadian scientists has devised a new way to study Earth's past climate by analyzing the chemical composition of ancient marine fossils. The first published tests with the method further support the view that atmospheric CO2 has contributed to dramatic climate variations in the past, and strengthen projections that human CO2 emissions could cause global warming.

Rutherford Appleton et al (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070712-sun-climate.html), July 2007
Cyclical changes in the sun's energy output are not responsible for Earth's recent global warming ... Instead the findings put the blame for climate change squarely on human-created carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases—reinforcing the beliefs of most climate scientists.

Livermore Labs, Scripps (http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2007/NR-07-06-08.html), June 2007
Climate models can replicate the ocean warming observed during the latter half of the 20th century, and that most of this recent warming is caused by human activities ... casts doubt on recent findings that the top 700-meters of the global ocean cooled markedly from 2003-2005.

Potsdam Institute (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20060825-0942-environment-climate.html), Sept 2006
Ice Age evidence confirms that a doubling of greenhouse gases could drive up world temperatures by about 3 Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit), causing havoc with the climate, a study showed on Friday.

NOAA (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-07-05-ocean-acidity_x.htm), Sept 2006
Human activities, chiefly the burning of fossil fuels, have upset a natural balance in ocean acidity ... We have very clear evidence, and there is no doubt this is occurring ... Ice core measurements show that oceans have not been as acidic as they now are for at least 650,000 years, and probably millions of years beyond

NASA Goddard Center (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/troposphere_ozone.html), March 2006
NASA scientists have found that a major form of global air pollution involved in summertime "smog" has also played a significant role in warming the Arctic ... According to this new research, ozone was responsible for one-third to half of the observed warming trend in the Arctic during winter and spring. Ozone is transported from the industrialized countries in the Northern Hemisphere to the Arctic quite efficiently during these seasons.

Scripps, Livermore Labs (http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=666), Feb 2005
results clearly indicate that the warming is produced anthropogenically ... The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming.

mhaze

27th February 2008, 03:24 PM

Here are some studies you might consider:

Bern University (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7227080.stm), Feb 2008
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the 20th century increased ten times faster than at any other period in the preceding 22,000 years.

Cal Tech et al (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071016090525.htm), Oct 2007
A team of American and Canadian scientists has devised a new way to study Earth's past climate by analyzing the chemical composition of ancient marine fossils. The first published tests with the method further support the view that atmospheric CO2 has contributed to dramatic climate variations in the past, and strengthen projections that human CO2 emissions could cause global warming.

Rutherford Appleton et al (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070712-sun-climate.html), July 2007
Cyclical changes in the sun's energy output are not responsible for Earth's recent global warming ... Instead the findings put the blame for climate change squarely on human-created carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases—reinforcing the beliefs of most climate scientists.

Livermore Labs, Scripps (http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2007/NR-07-06-08.html), June 2007
Climate models can replicate the ocean warming observed during the latter half of the 20th century, and that most of this recent warming is caused by human activities ... casts doubt on recent findings that the top 700-meters of the global ocean cooled markedly from 2003-2005.

Potsdam Institute (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20060825-0942-environment-climate.html), Sept 2006
Ice Age evidence confirms that a doubling of greenhouse gases could drive up world temperatures by about 3 Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit), causing havoc with the climate, a study showed on Friday.

NOAA (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-07-05-ocean-acidity_x.htm), Sept 2006
Human activities, chiefly the burning of fossil fuels, have upset a natural balance in ocean acidity ... We have very clear evidence, and there is no doubt this is occurring ... Ice core measurements show that oceans have not been as acidic as they now are for at least 650,000 years, and probably millions of years beyond

NASA Goddard Center (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/troposphere_ozone.html), March 2006
NASA scientists have found that a major form of global air pollution involved in summertime "smog" has also played a significant role in warming the Arctic ... According to this new research, ozone was responsible for one-third to half of the observed warming trend in the Arctic during winter and spring. Ozone is transported from the industrialized countries in the Northern Hemisphere to the Arctic quite efficiently during these seasons.

Scripps, Livermore Labs (http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=666), Feb 2005
results clearly indicate that the warming is produced anthropogenically ... The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming.

Pseudoscientific Varochian Neo-Alarmism noted.

zeusbheld

27th February 2008, 04:51 PM

Here are some studies you might consider:

there are some credible institutions listed there (in particular, i have an inordinate fondness for Scripps, since i saw my first-ever real live shark there when i was five)...

and some very interesting hypotheses...

BUT here's the thing. they are articles and press releases. NONE are science papers. some are articles ABOUT science papers, but none are genuine science papers, with all the data, endless charts, and messy higher math that is beyond my comprehension, and none of the publications are peer-reviewed journals. i may google the actual papers in question, but i have a long, long list of things to google already.

incidentally, i should add that i am Naomi Oreskes' survey is solid and has resisted attempts to refute it to my satisfaction. yep, i'll agree there's a consensus. four years later, probably even more scientists in relevant disciplines on board. all articles and press releases do, though, is add to the weight of how many scientists say AGW is happening. i already know there are lots of 'em. but consensus ain't how science works.

i am trying to understand what the science that has been done is saying, not the scientists who do it, however well-intentioned and convinced they may be. i want to see the actual work. therefore, i want to see the science papers that are doing the heavy lifting towards establishing AGW (or some other cause for GW) as i struggle to understand what's going on.

it's probably apparent by now that unless a shocking paper surfaces that slices, dices and even makes julienne fries, i'm unlikely to be convinced either way next week or even next month, and i don't know how long it will take. i don't make policy decisions so the world will not be on pins and needles while i make up my mind.

not that y'all need to jump around to entertain me, just clarifying my position. but speaking of jumping around, i think more people should at least try to direct all that energy they expend jumping toward looking at the actual science behind it, even if (like me) you've got a snowball's chance in hell of actually understanding it.

varwoche

27th February 2008, 04:59 PM

BUT here's the thing. they are articles and press releases. NONE are science papers. some are articles ABOUT science papers, but none are genuine science papers It's unfortunate that most papers aren't available for free online. And it's especially annoying that papers funded by taxpayer $ are not available for free online. But that's the lay of the land; do with it what you will.

mhaze

27th February 2008, 05:26 PM

Free data and free scientific articles!

Wins.

zeusbheld

27th February 2008, 05:26 PM

It's unfortunate that most papers aren't available for free online. And it's especially annoying that papers funded by taxpayer $ are not available for free online. But that's the lay of the land; do with it what you will.

i know!!!! it irks me, especially living in Bangkok where i can't just spend an afternoon or two in a library.

CapelDodger

27th February 2008, 05:34 PM

got more recent stuff? and are there science papers backing these people up? granted i wasn't there but i don't get the impression that these ideas were widely accepted and researched by scientists; looks more like a few outliers cashing in on our instinctual desire to thrill at being scared.

I was there (Boomer, Class of '54), and it was mostly taken up by the younger generation, the media on slow news days, and SF writers. I think every generation (as it enters adulthood) has the feeling that it's a defining generation, and Apocalypse Soon appeals to that.

It perhaps had some impact in China after Mao, but I think they did the math for themselves.

the appearance of the AGW scientific debate to a layperson--as opposed to net fora, where the appearance is shrill loons coming out of the woodwork--is that it will come down to these models consistently making accurate predictions. that still may not be enough for strict scientific fact, but my impression is it would add considerable weight to the hypotheses involved.

Some predictions from the few alternative hypotheses would also be useful. Accuracy of a single prediction is somewhat subjective. A cohort of predictions provide a more objective ranking.

my impression, also, is that given that climate is measured in 30 year chunks, it will take a while for predictions yea or nay to reach a critical mass.

It's a rolling thirty years, and the subject came up more than thirty years ago. I think the "thirty year" idea is more to do with the Hansen et al 1988 model and paper than climate science per se. That model is (in modern terms) fairly crude, and was only predicted to get into its full stride from thirty years on and forward. Of course, that doesn't mean it's all over the place for 29 years and suddenly snaps into place; it's done well enough over the last twenty years to not be discredited. Which is the best it could do, really.

More modern models, with vastly greater computing resources available and the lessons of earlier models to learn from, are not so restricted. Last summer, modellers at the Hadley Centre published predictions of what will occur in the next six or seven years. Which is bold.

if strict science vs trendy science is really happening, string theory may be headed for a world of hurt, huh?

The destiny (so far) of every Theory of Everything.

i've been critical of the other side, too--someone made the absurdly irrelevant claim that anti-AGW types need to "get out more" as if going outside and seeing your petunias bloom earlier every year would settle anything (disclaimer: i obviously know nothing about gardening).

I'll accept "irrelevant" as in your terms of scientific papers, but it was by no means absurd or irrelevant in its original context. Damned if I recall which thread it was in or when, but a bit of anecdotal was called for at the time. People are arguing that "global warming stopped in '98" on the basis of graphs and statistics; hundreds of millions of anecdotal experiences say otherwise. The Bali Conference and up-coming Copenhagen Conference say otherwise. The Bush White House fighting-retreat says otherwise.

Science isn't the only evidence worth discussing. That's what you want to concentrate on, and I'm fine with that. Leave me to plough my own furrow.

my "policy" position would be summed up:

I don't even go there. What's the point? There won't be any policies that aren't reactive, and we can't predict who'll be reacting when to what.

Stick to the science, is my advice. Policy is a diversion, and we know how some people love diversions.

Slimething

27th February 2008, 06:09 PM

that's all pop stuff though. speaking for myself, i'm not interested in pop stuff because that sort of thing would happen anyway, as it presses our instinctual buttons. it has no bearing whatsoever on whether the claims have anything to do with reality.

got more recent stuff? and are there science papers backing these people up? granted i wasn't there but i don't get the impression that these ideas were widely accepted and researched by scientists; looks more like a few outliers cashing in on our instinctual desire to thrill at being scared.

Can't help you. I wasn't arguing that the Malthusian stuff is fact or not and it's been over thrity years since I ran into the Population Bomb stuff. If you want to research that scare, I'm sure you'll find at least some discussion among accredited scientists. However, most of that was retrospective as to why the predictions didn't happen. To my knowledge, there has never been a formal academic refutation of Malthus.

which is why i'm here. "show me." i'm not necessarily looking for a highly technical discussion, but i do need one rooted in science, and i'm hoping for more pointers to toward actual research papers. seems to me that any skeptic worth their salt would want to see the [scientific] case in matters of science, and at least try to understand what's being said.

All that either side has right now are random observations that either support or rebut an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There are lengthy bibliographies availabe on the web for the separate studies. The interpretation is the crux of the controversy.

most of the shrilly irrevant posters on both sides are howling like mad dogs because AGW IS what one generally refers to as "post-normal-science"---policy decisions attempted before the science is settled. by its nature it will attract more partisan loons on both sides than anything else.

If you are stating that there's more politics about this controversy than science, I am in full agreement.

i suppose my "science" position at present can be summed up as follows:
it is apparent to me that the science isn't settled. it appears, from the papers i've skimmed, that there IS an anomalous climate shift, that hasn't been easily explained away by the usual influences on climate. "global warming," in other words, appears to me to be happening, although "climate change" is a more apt term. the permanence, cause and degree of this change are not settled as far as i can tell. AGW seems to my untrained eye plausible enough but NOT in any way "proven."

You're going to have to define for me exactly what you mean by "the usual influences on climate". I'm convinced that there is no one who really knows exactly what influences climate other than the sun. If such were known, I think that it would be rather easy to model climate. All you would have to do is apply different weights to each component and you'd have a fairly precise model in no time. That hasn't happened yet.

my "policy" position would be summed up:
it may be possible that as the pro-AGW crowd assert, that the problem is something we should start fixing before it is settled, but i'm frankly not sold on that yet at all. that said i'm inherently for alternative fuels as dependence on 'foreign oil' is a bad thing, i'm tentatively for nuclear power, "sustainable" architecture, fuel efficient transportation and clean rather than dirty coal technology regardless of AGW.

I'm all for the cessation of all types of pollution as quickly as possible. I just don't like to see science used as the whipping boy for trendy pseudo-science. It may be OK to force people to do stuff based on fear of putative AGW but sliding into pseudo-science eventually kick our asses more thoroughly than AGW would, if it is or isn't real.

Slimething

27th February 2008, 06:18 PM

NASA Goddard Center (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/troposphere_ozone.html), March 2006
NASA scientists have found that a major form of global air pollution involved in summertime "smog" has also played a significant role in warming the Arctic ... According to this new research, ozone was responsible for one-third to half of the observed warming trend in the Arctic during winter and spring. Ozone is transported from the industrialized countries in the Northern Hemisphere to the Arctic quite efficiently during these seasons.

This one is fascinating. Ozone is now more contributive to AGW than CO2. While ozone is nefariously wiping out the poles, it's doing flat zip to warm the cities from whence it came. Varwoche, I would take this one off the list.

As far as the others, I haven't read most of them but, from the descriptions, I would say "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." I dislike directed science. DDT and eggshells (what else was in them shells?).

CapelDodger

27th February 2008, 06:28 PM

it's probably apparent by now that unless a shocking paper surfaces that slices, dices and even makes julienne fries, i'm unlikely to be convinced either way next week or even next month, and i don't know how long it will take. i don't make policy decisions so the world will not be on pins and needles while i make up my mind.

It's one of the joys of this kind of arena that it won't have the slightest impact on the big picture. There's freedom in that.

not that y'all need to jump around to entertain me, just clarifying my position. but speaking of jumping around, i think more people should at least try to direct all that energy they expend jumping toward looking at the actual science behind it, even if (like me) you've got a snowball's chance in hell of actually understanding it.

Climate science is not that difficult to understand. Statistics a bit more so, but not as esoteric as it's often made out to be. (Resort to esoteric statistics is a definite warning sign, to my mind.)

The scientific argument has been done to death around here; what we're left with is pretty much what you've observed. Not a great source for the scientific background.

Slimething

27th February 2008, 06:31 PM

Science isn't the only evidence worth discussing. That's what you want to concentrate on, and I'm fine with that. Leave me to plough my own furrow.

Stick to the science, is my advice. Policy is a diversion, and we know how some people love diversions.

A little intellectual dissonance, anyone? :boggled:

CapelDodger

27th February 2008, 06:51 PM

This one is fascinating. Ozone is now more contributive to AGW than CO2.

"One-third to a half" becomes "more" in just one step. Bravo.

So that's the Arctic in winter and spring sorted, with hardly a trace of "Anthropogenic". (Irony.) How's the rest of the world reacting?

While ozone is nefariously wiping out the poles, it's doing flat zip to warm the cities from whence it came.

Do I hear the death-knell of the Urban Heat Island effect there?

As far as the others, I haven't read most of them ...

Well there's a thing.

...but, from the descriptions, I would say "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." I dislike directed science. DDT and eggshells (what else was in them shells?).

Directed Science? Directed how? Science has never prospered where it's been directed. What on Earth are you suggesting? Some unseen global power that can direct science?

Post-predicted hoc is often quite validly associated with propter. That's how science works. Observe, hypothesise, predict, observe again. Mystic science, the "something might turn up" position, really doesn't fit in there. AGW does.

CapelDodger

27th February 2008, 06:57 PM

A little intellectual dissonance, anyone? :boggled:

How so? Please do expand. A couple of long words and a smilie doesn't convey much.

varwoche

27th February 2008, 07:32 PM

As far as the others, I haven't read most of them but, from the descriptions, I would say "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." I dislike directed science. DDT and eggshells (what else was in them shells?). Does it hurt much? When your knee jerks into your chin that is.

David Rodale

27th February 2008, 07:44 PM

This one is fascinating. Ozone is now more contributive to AGW than CO2. While ozone is nefariously wiping out the poles, it's doing flat zip to warm the cities from whence it came. Varwoche, I would take this one off the list.

As far as the others, I haven't read most of them but, from the descriptions, I would say "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." I dislike directed science. DDT and eggshells (what else was in them shells?).

There's nothing like an irrefutable hypothesis. No matter what happens, it's caused by AGW. Very convenient.

Slimething

27th February 2008, 08:32 PM

Do I hear the death-knell of the Urban Heat Island effect there?

Another CD claim out of the blue: AGW accounts for the urban heat island effect. Evidence?

Directed Science? Directed how?

Directed science: studies incorporating a known bias performed to confirm a conclusion rather than test an hypothesis.

Science has never prospered where it's been directed. What on Earth are you suggesting? Some unseen global power that can direct science?

So much to learn; so little time, huh? Know you not of any falsified studies? How did your cave get internet service?

Post-predicted hoc is often quite validly associated with propter. That's how science works. Observe, hypothesise, predict, observe again. Mystic science, the "something might turn up" position, really doesn't fit in there. AGW does.

Your imaginary view of science is showing again. Science is NOT observe, hypothesize, predict, repeat. That's what I call the iterative stochastic approach and it's not science. It might be where you live but not here on Earth. Science is hypothesize, devise a test, test, judge results. It's not science if the test cannot falsify the hypothesis. Your approach is called research/hypothesis formation and it's only a small part of science.

Again, you use the mystic science label. Can you explain to me yet, if all the science needed to model climate is known, why hasn't it been successfully modeled in over one hundred years of trying? After that, you can back up your claim that past climate can be post-dicted with the simple physics you know. How about your claim that a model is not a hypothesis? What fun, living in a make-believe world!

Slimething

27th February 2008, 08:34 PM

Does it hurt much? When your knee jerks into your chin that is.

Not nearly as much as being fooled by irresponsible conclusions, varwoche. From where I sit, researchers can determine (1) if there is a correlation between overall climate and a natural phenomenon and (2) the approximate concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at that time. There is no authoritative method of linking them at the moment.

Prove me wrong.

mhaze

28th February 2008, 12:23 AM

This one is fascinating. Ozone is now more contributive to AGW than CO2. While ozone is nefariously wiping out the poles, it's doing flat zip to warm the cities from whence it came. Varwoche, I would take this one off the list.

As far as the others, I haven't read most of them but, from the descriptions, I would say "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." I dislike directed science. DDT and eggshells (what else was in them shells?).

Well, I concur from the presented summaries but the actual articles may be quite different from those summaries.

bobdroege7

28th February 2008, 12:38 AM

zeusbheld

28th February 2008, 01:12 AM

It's one of the joys of this kind of arena that it won't have the slightest impact on the big picture. There's freedom in that. i was never worried that i would somehow slip up and make a difference ;)

Climate science is not that difficult to understand. Statistics a bit more so, but not as esoteric as it's often made out to be. (Resort to esoteric statistics is a definite warning sign, to my mind.)
maybe it's easy for you, but maybe i just suck at math and so when i look at the relevant equations or the mathematical reasoning behind the models i get a headache.

The scientific argument has been done to death around here; what we're left with is pretty much what you've observed. Not a great source for the scientific background.
i look stuff up on my own, but given that most science papers cost ten or twenty bucks, every now and then someone pops into a forum like this and has a link to a paper i wouldn't have found on my own.

zeusbheld

28th February 2008, 01:16 AM

But the first one is a science paper from a peer reviewed journal (PNAS which is available on line for free) and can be found here

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/105/6/1786?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=lenton&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

the second is from Nature

the third from Proceeding of the Royal Society

the forth is Lawrence Livermore labs

the fifth is Climate Dynamics

the sixth is NOAA

the seventh is NASA

and the eighth is Scrippts at the University of California San Diego in association with Lawrence livermore labs.

If that's Varwochian psuedoscience, I'm all for it.

Maybe mHaze would like to repost some high school chick's blog drivel and we'll see which is more scientific.

thanks for that! as i said the articles cited papers, most of which were published in journals i recognize and respect, but as Varwoche pointed out most of 'em expect money for a full text. in this case i was just too dim to find the actual paper.

zeusbheld

28th February 2008, 01:18 AM

A little intellectual dissonance, anyone? :boggled:

i think it's a fair enough comment given that i specifically pointed out that was what i'm interested in doesn't imply that the poster in question is only interested in the science part.

zeusbheld

28th February 2008, 01:30 AM

Well, I concur from the presented summaries but the actual articles may be quite different from those summaries.

and the full text are articles and press releases, not the abstract of the paper. Varwoche made a valid point that most of the actual papers cost money, but you can't really see how they arrived at their conclusion without the whole paper. with the best of intentions and without questioning anyone's integrity, something often gets lost in that game of password. sometimes what's lost is irrelevant, sometimes it isn't.

a_unique_person

28th February 2008, 01:34 AM

Your imaginary view of science is showing again. Science is NOT observe, hypothesize, predict, repeat. That's what I call the iterative stochastic approach and it's not science. It might be where you live but not here on Earth. Science is hypothesize, devise a test, test, judge results. It's not science if the test cannot falsify the hypothesis. Your approach is called research/hypothesis formation and it's only a small part of science.

I would wonder what a great number of scientists are doing in the world these days. They are working with many areas where it is impossible to 'falsify' their research. String theory and astronomy and other areas of research come to mind. Not everyone has the luxury of a laboratory.

zeusbheld

28th February 2008, 05:25 AM

TrueSceptic

28th February 2008, 05:52 AM

there are some credible institutions listed there (in particular, i have an inordinate fondness for Scripps, since i saw my first-ever real live shark there when i was five)...

and some very interesting hypotheses...

BUT here's the thing. they are articles and press releases. NONE are science papers. some are articles ABOUT science papers, but none are genuine science papers, with all the data, endless charts, and messy higher math that is beyond my comprehension, and none of the publications are peer-reviewed journals. i may google the actual papers in question, but i have a long, long list of things to google already.

incidentally, i should add that i am Naomi Oreskes' survey is solid and has resisted attempts to refute it to my satisfaction. yep, i'll agree there's a consensus. four years later, probably even more scientists in relevant disciplines on board. all articles and press releases do, though, is add to the weight of how many scientists say AGW is happening. i already know there are lots of 'em. but consensus ain't how science works.

i am trying to understand what the science that has been done is saying, not the scientists who do it, however well-intentioned and convinced they may be. i want to see the actual work. therefore, i want to see the science papers that are doing the heavy lifting towards establishing AGW (or some other cause for GW) as i struggle to understand what's going on.

it's probably apparent by now that unless a shocking paper surfaces that slices, dices and even makes julienne fries, i'm unlikely to be convinced either way next week or even next month, and i don't know how long it will take. i don't make policy decisions so the world will not be on pins and needles while i make up my mind.

not that y'all need to jump around to entertain me, just clarifying my position. but speaking of jumping around, i think more people should at least try to direct all that energy they expend jumping toward looking at the actual science behind it, even if (like me) you've got a snowball's chance in hell of actually understanding it.
Zeusbheld, please do not take this the wrong way, but there seems to be a problem here: you will only be convinced by reading the original scientific papers, and not by someone's summation or interpretation of them, yet you say that you are unlikely to understand the science in those papers anyway. :confused: Have I got that right?

Isn't this therefore down to trust: whom do we trust to summarise scientific papers for those of us who don't work in that particular field?

In another forum someone said that they didn't trust climate scientists or the IPCC but they would trust the opinion of someone like Stephen Hawking; after all, he's widely respected as a great mind and he is not involved in climate science so has no axe to grind. I didn't know Hawking's views on GW, or even if he had any, so I was a bit surprised to find that his views were extremely alarmist (http://www.livescience.com/environment/ap_060622_hawking_climate.html). The response to this? Well, I bet if he really looked at it, he wouldn't believe it! Sigh...

zeusbheld

28th February 2008, 06:19 AM

Zeusbheld, please do not take this the wrong way, but there seems to be a problem here: you will only be convinced by reading the original scientific papers, and not by someone's summation or interpretation of them, yet you say that you are unlikely to understand the science in those papers anyway. :confused: Have I got that right?

let me clarify: i am unlikely to COMPLETELY understand the science behind it, and i am wary of lay people who say they do. i'm not completely averse to summations and interpretation, but science papers tend to follow this nifty format where they have an abstract and conclusions. so while i may not completely understand the math, i can understand what the paper is actually claiming, and the thrust of their argument.

press releases follow a format too, and um. it isn't quite the same. in my experience "the media" has a bias--it isn't political, it's toward selling papers or attracting viewers.

Isn't this therefore down to trust: whom do we trust to summarise scientific papers for those of us who don't work in that particular field? fair enough. and i trust the authors of the paper, in their abstract and conclusion.

In another forum someone said that they didn't trust climate scientists or the IPCC but they would trust the opinion of someone like Stephen Hawking; after all, he's widely respected as a great mind and he is not involved in climate science so has no axe to grind. I didn't know Hawking's views on GW, or even if he had any, so I was a bit surprised to find that his views were extremely alarmist (http://www.livescience.com/environment/ap_060622_hawking_climate.html). The response to this? Well, I bet if he really looked at it, he wouldn't believe it! Sigh...

Hawking's views are pretty out there; day-after-tomorrow type stuff.

i have no innate distrust of climate scientists, but i want to read from their papers, what they are really saying and how they got there.

TrueSceptic

28th February 2008, 07:46 AM

let me clarify: i am unlikely to COMPLETELY understand the science behind it, and i am wary of lay people who say they do. i'm not completely averse to summations and interpretation, but science papers tend to follow this nifty format where they have an abstract and conclusions. so while i may not completely understand the math, i can understand what the paper is actually claiming, and the thrust of their argument.

press releases follow a format too, and um. it isn't quite the same. in my experience "the media" has a bias--it isn't political, it's toward selling papers or attracting viewers.

fair enough. and i trust the authors of the paper, in their abstract and conclusion.

Hawking's views are pretty out there; day-after-tomorrow type stuff.

i have no innate distrust of climate scientists, but i want to read from their papers, what they are really saying and how they got there.
Thanks for clarifying. The work of specialists (not just scientists) can so easily be misrepresented by those with idealogical or political agendas. Sadly, very little climate science does not suffer from this.

I thought that abstracts were often available free. Perhaps we can see what's available...

mhaze

28th February 2008, 08:53 AM

But the first one is a science paper from a peer reviewed journal (PNAS which is available on line for free) and can be found here

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/105/6/1786?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=lenton&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

the second is from Nature

the third from Proceeding of the Royal Society

the forth is Lawrence Livermore labs

the fifth is Climate Dynamics

the sixth is NOAA

the seventh is NASA

and the eighth is Scrippts at the University of California San Diego in association with Lawrence livermore labs.

If that's Varwochian psuedoscience, I'm all for it.

Maybe mHaze would like to repost some high school chick's blog drivel and we'll see which is more scientific.

Actually I was referring lo the summaries posted of the papers.

Having not read the papers themselves.

varwoche

28th February 2008, 10:57 AM

Pseudoscientific Varochian Neo-Alarmism noted. You claim alarmism...?

Having not read the papers themselves. ... and yet you didn't even follow the links. Pure mhaze.

The 'I didn't even read it yet I've reached a conclusion' syndrome appears to be spreading.

varwoche

28th February 2008, 02:12 PM

Prove me wrong. Prove is too strong a word. There's lots of things that are widely accepted but can't be proven.

And since you dismiss scientific evidence out of hand without even reading it, and since you scare-quote "climate science" as if it's not real science, I see no point in jumping through hoops on your behalf. Sorry 'bout that.

CapelDodger

28th February 2008, 03:47 PM

it is my understanding that string theory is controversial amongst physicists, exactly because it has been dominant for so long without producing falsifiable claims.

As it happens, one prediction - more than three spatial dimensions - may be falsifiable by the Large Hadron Collider when it gets up to speed (which is quite some speed, I can tell you :)). It may be able to at least put an upper limit on the number of spatial dimensions; if that limit turns out to be three then string theory becomes more of a hobby interest than a scientific pursuit.

CapelDodger

28th February 2008, 04:04 PM

maybe it's easy for you, but maybe i just suck at math and so when i look at the relevant equations or the mathematical reasoning behind the models i get a headache.

That level of math is beyond me, but I can usually get the drift. Partial differential equations is about where my maths education stopped. I never studied statistics so I'm not at all good with that. The best book on statistics I've ever read is How to Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff, so I'm not completetely disarmed.

I think a good grounding in thermodynamics is key to understanding climate. It's all about how energy flows through a system so as to maximise (within the system's constraints) the rate at which entropy is increased. When you look at it that way everything slips into place :).

i look stuff up on my own, but given that most science papers cost ten or twenty bucks, every now and then someone pops into a forum like this and has a link to a paper i wouldn't have found on my own.

Do you know RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/ ? That's a good source of links and references.

TrueSceptic

28th February 2008, 04:42 PM

That level of math is beyond me, but I can usually get the drift. Partial differential equations is about where my maths education stopped. I never studied statistics so I'm not at all good with that. The best book on statistics I've ever read is How to Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff, so I'm not completetely disarmed.

Once you get into complex dynamic systems, such as fluids, the maths is inherently difficult. You need computers for even the simpler equations or it just takes too long, even for one point (or cell) in space at one point in time, with one set of initial conditions. You can see how the computations would increase exponentially when you introduce multiples of those. (I did this stuff over 35 years ago so I can remember only the basics.)

I think a good grounding in thermodynamics is key to understanding climate. It's all about how energy flows through a system so as to maximise (within the system's constraints) the rate at which entropy is increased. When you look at it that way everything slips into place :).

That would be a good start. Fluid dynamics is at least as important.

Do you know RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/ ? That's a good source of links and references.
I agree.

Note: that site pretty much represents 'The Team', as Steve McIntyre refers to it, so anyone referencing it can expect attacks from the GWS crowd.;)

CapelDodger

28th February 2008, 05:16 PM

Another CD claim out of the blue: AGW accounts for the urban heat island effect. Evidence?

Do what now? :confused:

You stated that ozone isn't warming the cities its generated in. Which implies that there's no extra warming in cities, ergo no warming bias introduced by the Urban Heat Island effect. Unless you think there's some cast-iron way of separating the two effects and the ozone contribution is nil.

Directed science: studies incorporating a known bias performed to confirm a conclusion rather than test an hypothesis.

What is this known bias, who knows about it, and how do they know? As one who's clearly in the know you could enlighten us.

So much to learn; so little time, huh? Know you not of any falsified studies? How did your cave get internet service?

To repeat myself, science has never prospered when it's been directed. The Nazis rejected "Jewish science", the Soviets under Stalin rejected genetics, the Catholic nations rejected free thought in general. Check out how things worked out for them.

Climate science, on the other hand, is prospering. There's no sign of the dead hand of conformity holding it back. More and more scientists and institutions around the world are getting involved, more and more funds are available, more and more attention is attracted to it.

Your imaginary view of science is showing again. Science is NOT observe, hypothesize, predict, repeat. That's what I call the iterative stochastic approach and it's not science. It might be where you live but not here on Earth. Science is hypothesize, devise a test, test, judge results.

How does that differ from my cycle?

OK, I start with observe, because observation precedes any hypothesis. The hypothesis (if it's useful) leads to a prediction of something as yet unobserved. Then it's back to observation, to see whether what's predicted is actually what's observed. That may require an experiment, or it may require looking for a phaenomenon that has not yet been directly observed or measured.

Observe, hypothesize, predict (devise a test), observe (test). The hypothesis is judged on subsequent observations.

It's not science if the test cannot falsify the hypothesis. Your approach is called research/hypothesis formation and it's only a small part of science.

AGW theory can be falsified quite easily. Global cooling would do it, absent other obvious influences such as major vulcanism or asteroid strike. We've had global warming, but if AGW theory is wrong it could as easily have been global cooling. Perhaps it has coincided with some other forcing, but that strikes me as extremely unlikely. One decade, maybe; two decades, it's a bit of a stretch; three decades and it's good enough for me.

Again, you use the mystic science label. Can you explain to me yet, if all the science needed to model climate is known, why hasn't it been successfully modeled in over one hundred years of trying?

For most of that time there were no computers, which was something of a handicap, but Hadley Cells were modelled on paper back in the 18thCE. Respect to Hadley, and to Coriolis, and, of course, to Arrhenius and Milankovich. Among others.

Sticking to the era of active modelling, Hansen et al 1988 has done a pretty good job, and you're in no position to say that recent models aren't accurate. The data's not in yet.

The science involved is fairly simple, but the application is a bitch. A thin film of fluids on a rotaing sphere orbiting a fixed energy source that's not quite normal to the axis of rotation. And that's without bringing geography into it. Modelling the broad picture counts as a success in the circumstances

After that, you can back up your claim that past climate can be post-dicted with the simple physics you know.

What non-simple physics are you suggesting? Dark matter? Dark energy? Dark climate-specific-stuf? There's been no call for it so far.

How about your claim that a model is not a hypothesis? What fun, living in a make-believe world!

Let us know how that works out for you in the long-run.

A model is not a hypothesis. It's a representation of a hypothesis, a test of a hypothesis, if you will. Models are tools, just as telescopes and microscopes are tools.

Pipirr

28th February 2008, 05:26 PM

{snip}A thin film of fluids on a rotaing sphere orbiting a fixed energy source that's not quite normal to the axis of rotation. And that's without bringing geography into it.

Speaking of thin films of fluids on spheres, I like this visual. Worth a look.
http://blog.phiffer.org/post/27344630

No claim to accuracy made.

Slimething

28th February 2008, 05:39 PM

I would wonder what a great number of scientists are doing in the world these days. They are working with many areas where it is impossible to 'falsify' their research. String theory and astronomy and other areas of research come to mind. Not everyone has the luxury of a laboratory.

If it's impossible to falsify research then it's not even at the hypothesis level yet. To have a hypothesis that will eventually be accepted as a theory, it must be falsifiable. No mention of labs, cyclotrons, etc need enter into this discussion.

Why is it that perfectly rational and intelligent people want to give the AGW hypothesis a pass on this part of the scientific method? Is it fear that waiting too long will doom us? Maybe so, but the scientific method got us this far and I say let's stay with the thing that got us here. I'm very skeptical that the scaremongers using AGW for their agenda are correct anyway.

Slimething

28th February 2008, 05:49 PM

Prove is too strong a word. There's lots of things that are widely accepted but can't be proven.

Did my wording offend you, varwoche? I so humbly apologize. Could you, pretty please, sir, point to a falsifiable link between the mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and Earth's heat content? When you get a chance, that is. Don't break a sweat!

And since you dismiss scientific evidence out of hand without even reading it, and since you scare-quote "climate science" as if it's not real science, I see no point in jumping through hoops on your behalf. Sorry 'bout that.

I've dismissed the claims of one of your links on exactly the point I challenged you on. I read the summaries of the others and noted that they too appear to suffer from the same flaw. That flaw is presupposing that carbon dioxide is indeed a major temperature driver. So, yes, I will disbelieve any statement using that assumption for now. I will not dismiss the raw data those studies turned up without a good reason, though, as raw data is different from interpretation.

You don't surprise me or disappoint me by refusing to meet my challenge, varwoche. Sorry 'bout that.

CapelDodger

28th February 2008, 06:11 PM

Once you get into complex dynamic systems, such as fluids, the maths is inherently difficult.

It's practically impossible is on the small scale, but on the large scale (and climate is pretty large) the chaos fades away. The fluid dynamics of a wave breaking is still uncertain (or was last I heard), but an experienced surfer can pick out a pattern in very short order.

You need computers for even the simpler equations or it just takes too long, even for one point (or cell) in space at one point in time, with one set of initial conditions. You can see how the computations would increase exponentially when you introduce multiples of those. (I did this stuff over 35 years ago so I can remember only the basics.)

Even with today's resources models operate on atmospheric cells that are a hundred or more kilometres across and a kilometre deep. A lot of fine detail is going to be lost in there. To my mind the most important lost detail is clouds, which exist generally on a much smaller scale. Cloud-effect has to be averaged across the cell, and that's a definite weakness.

That would be a good start. Fluid dynamics is at least as important.

It's certainly important. On the other hand, thermodynamics does inform fluid dynamics, and so takes precedence IMO. (I was proselytised by a thermo-dynamicist at an impressionable age. Given any new subject I always start from that perspective. "It's the entropy, stoopid".)

Interestingly, thermodynamics and fluid dynamics are both strongly grounded in the 19thCE. This is old, well-established science. And well-resourced at the time, since they pertain so strongly to steam-based technology (the cutting-edge of the day).

Slimething

28th February 2008, 06:16 PM

You stated that ozone isn't warming the cities its generated in. Which implies that there's no extra warming in cities, ergo no warming bias introduced by the Urban Heat Island effect. Unless you think there's some cast-iron way of separating the two effects and the ozone contribution is nil.

It's too precious how, when it suits you, you verbalize the problem with establishing AGW (resolution of the natural and anthropogenic effects) yet, usually, you dismiss the natural component to bolster your belief in AGW. Well done.

Climate science, on the other hand, is prospering. There's no sign of the dead hand of conformity holding it back. More and more scientists and institutions around the world are getting involved, more and more funds are available, more and more attention is attracted to it.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you making that claim that, because it's popular and well-funded, some climatologists won't succumb to tempation for fame, honor and wealth? Let me know how that goes, will you? Those are usually the ingredients needed for corruption.

OK, I start with observe, because observation precedes any hypothesis. The hypothesis (if it's useful) leads to a prediction of something as yet unobserved. Then it's back to observation, to see whether what's predicted is actually what's observed. That may require an experiment, or it may require looking for a phaenomenon that has not yet been directly observed or measured.

Observe, hypothesize, predict (devise a test), observe (test). The hypothesis is judged on subsequent observations.

Is English not your first language? Since when does observe mean test? You really need to review your science. You've got it upside down, inside out and backwards. I don't fall for that stuff. I don't care what you mean if what you say is diametrically opposed to it. Why do you rely on hand-waving when understanding the scientific method is so damned easy?

AGW theory can be falsified quite easily. Global cooling would do it, absent other obvious influences such as major vulcanism or asteroid strike. We've had global warming, but if AGW theory is wrong it could as easily have been global cooling. Perhaps it has coincided with some other forcing, but that strikes me as extremely unlikely. One decade, maybe; two decades, it's a bit of a stretch; three decades and it's good enough for me.

You've amazed me again. First you call it the AGW theory. Just couldn't resist, huh? Sorry, bub, it's a hypothesis, if anything, and I'm being generous. As it can't be falsified yet, it's not even that. Strictly, it's more of a thought experiment that will someday lead to a hypothesis.

I've taken you to task previously for the statement that a cooling world would falsify the AGW hypotheses. That is not true and you only say it because you don't know much about thermodynamics. The AGW hypotheses are proposed mechanisms which try to describe how human activity has influenced the planet's climate. Not only are these hypotheses not yet falsifiable as to their intrinsic correctness, there is no indication as to how efficacious each proposed mechanism will be. That is, AGW gases may indeed warm the earth but a stronger climatic mechanism could cause cooling while AGW is occuring. That is, AGW may indeed be active even when the planet is cooling. Remember my tellng you about not making your k's? There is nothing to rule out that k[climatic factor n] >> k [AGW].

The science involved is fairly simple, but the application is a bitch. A thin film of fluids on a rotaing sphere orbiting a fixed energy source that's not quite normal to the axis of rotation. And that's without bringing geography into it. Modelling the broad picture counts as a success in the circumstances

I know what's simple here and it's neither the science nor its application. I am telling now that your belief that all the necessary science that needs to be known to understand climate is already known is absolute nonsense. That's a permutation of "the science is settled" gaffe. I would tell you right now that, given the time, money and power that has been pooled into trying to model climate without success, your premise that all we need to know is known gets less and less likely every day. Whereas we have the mathematics to deconvolute tremendously complex matrices of intertwined signals, you keep retreating into the tired argument that "we have to wait just a little longer" while some other fool is telling me that "there's no time to wait".

A model is not a hypothesis. It's a representation of a hypothesis, a test of a hypothesis, if you will. Models are tools, just as telescopes and microscopes are tools.

Computers are tools. Models are hypotheses. Some models are even theories. Every physics equation you ever saw in your life is a model. For some reason, you've convinced yourself that models only belong in computers or catwalks. T'aint so.

Really, you need to go back to remedial science class. Nothing you say makes sense. If you want to believe in unfalsifiable stuff, fine. No one's going to object. Just don't try to blame science for it.

Pipirr

28th February 2008, 06:42 PM

On falsifying the AGW hypothesis. M. Tobis, a climate modeller had this to say: (http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/02/first-big-surprise.html)
R. Pielke Jr. asks at what point the theory on which we operate might be falsified. I have to say I have a hard time answering. If this means falsifying the theory of the greenhouse effect, it's baffling. The question is sort of like what it would take to abandon the idea of gravity. It is pretty much incomprehensible to me how the theory of radiative transfer might be falsified without taking the whole of science down with it.

While Lucia, well, I think she is an engineer, had a different take on it.
“What trend in GISS Land/Ocean temperatures over the next 5, 8 or 10 years, would be inconsistent with the most recent IPCC projections of climate change?”

This question can be answered, because it nails down a metric– GISS Land/Ocean, and specifies the “current consensus” with projections that are published, and, so, knowable. The answer is a bit complicated, since the IPCC provided a range of projections, described the probabilities in somewhat vague terms and has different projections for both short and long terms trends.

In my opinion, the short answer to the question is: If, the weather is such that an ordinary least squares fit to GISS Land/Ocean data for the next decade shows any negative trend, this would be inconsistent with the IPCC’s short term projection for temperature which appears to be 2.0°C per century.
You can read about it at the links below.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/what-weather-would-falsify-the-current-consensus-on-climate-change/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/can-ipcc-projections-be-falsified-sample-calculation/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/yet-more-on-falsification/

I like Lucia's approach, in as much as she defines a metric to use and it would be obvious if temperature increases meet the demands of the hypothesis or not. Its clear and straightforward.

There is clearly a difference between the two viewpoints. For a climate modeller, when expressed in very elementary terms, the AGW hypothesis may simply be a question of radiative transfer. Increasing the CO2 content is expected to lead to warming, so for a climate modeller, this aspect is fundamental to the work that they do. The rate of warming is what is in question: given a doubling of CO2, what will happen? Falsifying AGW requires falsifying some basic physics. Lucia defined her falsification criteria differently. Her test is applied to the model outputs, the predictions the modellers make of 'what will happen'.

In really simple terms, and I do like things simple, AGW would be falsified for me if CO2 doubled and nothing happened. Or, what are we up to now, increased by a third and nothing happened. I suspect that for that to be true, some physics that I admittedly don't well understand will need to be either just plain wrong or to have been wrongly applied for a heck of a long time; or some unknown mechanism will minimise the effects of the CO2 increase.

In that sense, falsification of AGW seems quite straightforward to me. Nothing needs to happen. But I think we often talk at cross purposes. What is implicit to a climatologist is not implicit or obvious to an engineer or, e.g. a JREF forumite. Slimething, you aren't the only one out there wondering about falsification. Its an important question.

*Both Tobis and Lucia were responding to this post. (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001308is_there_any_weather.html)

a_unique_person

28th February 2008, 08:23 PM

If it's impossible to falsify research then it's not even at the hypothesis level yet. To have a hypothesis that will eventually be accepted as a theory, it must be falsifiable. No mention of labs, cyclotrons, etc need enter into this discussion.

Why is it that perfectly rational and intelligent people want to give the AGW hypothesis a pass on this part of the scientific method? Is it fear that waiting too long will doom us? Maybe so, but the scientific method got us this far and I say let's stay with the thing that got us here. I'm very skeptical that the scaremongers using AGW for their agenda are correct anyway.

It's all a part of science. Scientists are working hard at creating a string theory, I don't know what else you'd call them, or what else they are doing.

CapelDodger

28th February 2008, 08:51 PM

I like Lucia's approach, in as much as she defines a metric to use and it would be obvious if temperature increases meet the demands of the hypothesis or not. Its clear and straightforward.

And demonstrates some balls. I too like that approach.

What struck me was this from Pielke Jr :

"What behavior of the climate system could hypothetically be observed over the next 1, 5, 10 years that would be inconsistent with the current consensus on climate change?".

So there is a current consensus, and we've the word of a Pielke to back it up with. Cool.

(That "1, 5, 10 years" is the antithesis of "ballsy". What a wimp.)

zeusbheld

29th February 2008, 12:52 AM

That level of math is beyond me, but I can usually get the drift. Partial differential equations is about where my maths education stopped. I never studied statistics so I'm not at all good with that. The best book on statistics I've ever read is How to Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff, so I'm not completetely disarmed.

3 semesters of calc is as far as i got. and that was a looooooooong time ago.

quite familiar with the Huff book and the principles contained therein. used to do graphics in an investment bank, and boy did those people use every trick in the book!

I think a good grounding in thermodynamics is key to understanding climate. It's all about how energy flows through a system so as to maximise (within the system's constraints) the rate at which entropy is increased. When you look at it that way everything slips into place :).

understanding the basics gives you a grounding in the basic processes, but reading the actual papers still involves math all over the place and gives me a ****in' headache.

Do you know RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/ ? That's a good source of links and references.

yeah, i have ample blog resources on the 'yes AGW' side. still keenly interested in links to any papers though. the IPCC report is de facto a policy recommendation, what i'm interested in is scientific papers attempting to establish the A in AGW.

for blogs, etc i'd be interested in CREDIBLE 'no AGW' material, because all i can find is partisan horse droppings by zero-credibility political hacks like Steven Miloy, the Ann Coulter of science.

TrueSceptic

29th February 2008, 05:21 AM

yeah, i have ample blog resources on the 'yes AGW' side. still keenly interested in links to any papers though. the IPCC report is de facto a policy recommendation, what i'm interested in is scientific papers attempting to establish the A in AGW.

for blogs, etc i'd be interested in CREDIBLE 'no AGW' material, because all i can find is partisan horse droppings by zero-credibility political hacks like Steven Miloy, the Ann Coulter of science.
IMO the only sceptic sites worth bothering with are Climate Audit (http://www.climateaudit.org/) (McIntyre) and
Prometheus (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/) (Pielke).

They put the work in, even if I disagree with them!

a_unique_person

29th February 2008, 05:26 AM

IMO the only sceptic sites worth bothering with are Climate Audit (http://www.climateaudit.org/) (McIntyre) and
Prometheus (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/) (Pielke).

They put the work in, even if I disagree with them!

I notice that Steve McIntyre has given up his frenetic attempts to understand the whole physical basis of global warming, and is now just back to attacking the temperature record. Good move, I think he was cracking up.

mhaze

29th February 2008, 06:01 AM

On falsifying the AGW hypothesis. M. Tobis, a climate modeller had this to say: (http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/02/first-big-surprise.html)While Lucia, well, I think she is an engineer, had a different take on it. You can read about it at the links below.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/what-weather-would-falsify-the-current-consensus-on-climate-change/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/can-ipcc-projections-be-falsified-sample-calculation/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/yet-more-on-falsification/

I like Lucia's approach, in as much as she defines a metric to use and it would be obvious if temperature increases meet the demands of the hypothesis or not. Its clear and straightforward.

There is clearly a difference between the two viewpoints. For a climate modeller, when expressed in very elementary terms, the AGW hypothesis may simply be a question of radiative transfer. Increasing the CO2 content is expected to lead to warming, so for a climate modeller, this aspect is fundamental to the work that they do. The rate of warming is what is in question: given a doubling of CO2, what will happen? Falsifying AGW requires falsifying some basic physics. Lucia defined her falsification criteria differently. Her test is applied to the model outputs, the predictions the modellers make of 'what will happen'.

In really simple terms, and I do like things simple, AGW would be falsified for me if CO2 doubled and nothing happened. Or, what are we up to now, increased by a third and nothing happened. I suspect that for that to be true, some physics that I admittedly don't well understand will need to be either just plain wrong or to have been wrongly applied for a heck of a long time; or some unknown mechanism will minimise the effects of the CO2 increase.

In that sense, falsification of AGW seems quite straightforward to me. Nothing needs to happen. But I think we often talk at cross purposes. What is implicit to a climatologist is not implicit or obvious to an engineer or, e.g. a JREF forumite. Slimething, you aren't the only one out there wondering about falsification. Its an important question.

*Both Tobis and Lucia were responding to this post. (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001308is_there_any_weather.html)

From the third of your links -

Now, as it happens, I don’t like to use already collected before a prediction to test a prediction. I don’t like that the IPCC does that. But, oddly enough, the IPCC seems to do this all the time, and includes already existing data in their predictions. So….
if you think calling the IPCC’s “2001-2010″ predictions, made in 2007 ‘predictions’ even including the eariler data is fair, and
if the IPCC would normally use this 2001-2007 data to “confirm” their “prediction”, made in 2007
then, it is, in some sense, fair to falsify their “predictions”, based on the same data the IPCC would use to confirm their predictions.As you can see, the current Hadley trend is flat, flat, falt.
So yes, if the flat trend in Hadley data persists to the end of 2010, that would be inconsistent with projections of the predicted 2.0C/century trend. Only lower rates of increase would be consistent with the actual weather to a 95% confidence level.

Support for David Rodale's assertion that in the last decade, it has not been warming.

mhaze

29th February 2008, 07:22 AM

You claim alarmism...? ... and yet you didn't even follow the links. Pure mhaze. The 'I didn't even read it yet I've reached a conclusion' syndrome appears to be spreading.

You've posted links to articles that can't be retrieved without payout $, knowing that people would not pay the $ out. Your summaries of the articles content may or may not reflect the actual scientific conclusions.

Consider, for a moment, how often I've posted an article that clearly cut into the AGW-warming point of view, and how it got picked at based on nuances of grammer or the politically correct AGW disclamer contained therein. The ability of persons such as yourself to produce such (weak) criticisms was based on my providing articles for which the full pdf was available without charge.

If you cannot (or will not) do the same, don't expect your spin or the spin of others regarding the actual conclusions of the scientists writing the articles to be considered as fact.

On the contrary - expect your posted links to be disregarded!

TrueSceptic

29th February 2008, 07:51 AM

I notice that Steve McIntyre has given up his frenetic attempts to understand the whole physical basis of global warming, and is now just back to attacking the temperature record. Good move, I think he was cracking up.
I don't agree with him (surprise!), but he does at least argue the data, and not just repeat the all-too-common right-wing fantasist drivel that so pollutes the deniosphere.

mhaze

29th February 2008, 08:05 AM

..... attempting to establish the A in AGW.

for blogs, etc i'd be interested in CREDIBLE 'no AGW' material, because all i can find is partisan horse droppings by zero-credibility political hacks like Steven Miloy, the Ann Coulter of science.

Well, just start with Andrew's list.

That should keep you busy for a while.:)Andrew's list (http://pm-esip.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps)
AMSU Global Daily Temps (http://pm-esip.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps)
Analysis Online (http://www.analysisonline.org/)
AccuWeather (http://www.accuweather.com/) (USA)
- AccuWeather Canada (http://www.accuweather.com/canada-index.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0) (Canada)
- AccuWeather UK (http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/index.asp) (UK)
- AccuWeather International (http://www.accuweather.com/world-index.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0) (International)
Atmoz (http://atmoz.org/blog)
Bob Carter’s Blog (http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eglrmc/new_page_1.htm)
Art Horn’s “The Art of Weather” (http://www.theartofweather.com/)
Blue Crab Boulevard (http://bluecrabboulevard.com/)
Bald-Faced Truth (http://baldrant.blogspot.com/)
Bill Meck’s Blog (http://community.lex18.com/weather)
Blue Hill Observatory, Milton MA (http://www.bluehill.org/)
Climate Audit (http://climateaudit.org/) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Canada)
Climate Police (http://www.climatepolice.com/) (Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, USA)
Climate Science (http://climatesci.org/) (Roger A. Pielke, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA)
Climate Skeptic (http://www.climate-skeptic.com/) (USA)
CO2 Science (http://www.co2science.org/) (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, USA)
Comment & Information on Climate Change (http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eglrmc/new_page_1.htm) (Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology, Australia)
Climate Resistance (http://www.climate-resistance.org/)
COAPS Climate Study US (http://gis.coaps.fsu.edu/httpdocs/climstudy.php)
Climate Debate Daily (http://climatedebatedaily.com/)
Craig James’ Blog (http://blogs.woodtv.com/?cat=11)
Demand Debate (http://www.demanddebate.com./)
Doomsday Called Off Documentary (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C012004CB098DE90)
Earth Changes (http://www.earthchangesmedia.com/)
EcoMyths (http://ecomythsmith.blogspot.com/) (Graham Smith, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada)
EnvironmentNC (http://www.environmentnc.com/) (John Locke Foundation, USA)
ecoEnquirer (http://www.ecoenquirer.com/) (USA)
Facts on Energy (http://factsonenergy.com/) (Institute for Energy Research, USA)
Friends of Science (http://www.friendsofscience.org/) (Canada)
Global Warming Hoax (http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php)
Global Warming.org (http://www.globalwarming.org/) (The Cooler Heads Coalition, USA)
Global Warming and the Climate (http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/index.htm) (Norway)
Global Warming Debunking News and Views (http://www.sitewave.net/news) (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA)
- Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.oism.org/pproject)
Global Warming Heartland (http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/) (The Heartland Institute, USA)
Global Warming Hyperbole (http://www.globalwarminghype.com/) (USA)
Global Warming Hysteria (http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/) (UK)
Global Warming Information Center (http://www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html) (National Center for Public Policy Research, USA)
Global Warming Skeptics (http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/) (USA)
Greenie Watch (http://antigreen.blogspot.com/) (John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Mensa Member, Australia)
Hall of Record (http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/)
Harris-Mann Climatology & Long Range Weather (http://www.longrangeweather.com/) (USA)
ICECAP (http://icecap.us/) (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA)
IPCC Fourth Assessment (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html)
Ice Age Now (http://www.iceagenow.com/)
Junk Science (http://www.junkscience.com/) (Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, USA)
- Demand Debate (http://www.demanddebate.com/)
- Ultimate Global Warming Challenge (http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/)
John Coleman’s Corner (http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/11338421.html)
James Spann’s Blog (http://www.jamesspann.com/)
John McLean’s Global Warming Issues (http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm)
John Daly’s What the Stations Say (http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm)
Junk Science (http://www.junkscience.com/)
Jennifer Marohasy (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog)
Johnston's Archive - Environmental Topics (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/index.html) (Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Physics, USA)
Gary Sharp’s It’s All About Time (http://sharpgary.org/)
Landsurface.org, The Niyogi Lab at Purdue (http://www.agry.purdue.edu/climate/dev/news.asp)
Metsul’s Meteorologia (http://www.metsul.com/secoes/visualiza.php?cod_subsecao=32&cod_texto=858)
Marshall Institute Climate Change (http://www.marshall.org/subcategory.php?id=9)
Models, Methods, Software (http://danhughes.auditblogs.com/)
NC Watch (http://ncwatch.typepad.com/)
Norcalblogs (http://www.norcalblogs.com/)
NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)
NiceWeather.com (http://niceweather.com/) (Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, USA)
Not by Fire but by Ice (http://iceagenow.com/) (USA)
Number Watch (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/number%20watch.htm) (John Brignell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Electronics & Computer Science, UK)
Popular Technology Climate Links (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050)
Planet Gore (http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/) (National Review Online, USA)
Ponder the Maunder (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eponderthemaunder/index.html) (USA)
Prometheus - The Science Policy blog (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus) (Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, USA)
Powerlineblog (http://powerlineblog.com/)
Predict Weather (http://www.predictweather.com/) (Australia, New Zealand, UK)
Raptor Education Foundation (http://www.raptoreducationfoundation.org/)
Ross McKitrick Google Home Page (http://ross.mckitrick.googlepages.com/)
Reid Bryson’s Archaeoclimatology (http://ccrweb.aos.wisc.edu/cpep_web/archaeo.html)
Roy Spencer’s Nature’s Thermostat (http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm)
Real Climate (http://www.realclimate.org/)
Ross McKitrick (http://ross.mckitrick.googlepages.com/) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, Canada)
Scientific Alliance (http://scientific-alliance.org/)
Small Dead Animals (http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/)
Surface Stations (http://www.surfacestations.org/)
Sufacestations Gallery (http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php)
Surfacestations Main (http://www.surfacestations.org/)
Science Bits (http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar)
Science & Environmental Policy Project (http://www.sepp.org/) (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, USA)
Science & Public Policy Institute (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/) (USA)
Science is Broken (http://nov55.com/gbwm.html) (Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA)
Spiked - Environment (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/issues/C32/P20) (UK)
Still Waiting for Greenhouse (http://www.john-daly.com/) (Australia)
TCS Daily - Science Roundtable (http://www.tcsdaily.com/sections/science_roundtable.aspx) (USA)
The Association of British Drivers - Environment (http://www.abd.org.uk/env.htm) (UK)
- Global Warming Links (http://www.abd.org.uk/links/gwt.htm)
The Global Warming Challenge (http://theclimatebet.com/) (J. Scott Armstrong, B.A. Applied Science, B.S. Industrial Engineering, Ph.D. MIT, USA)
The Global Warming Hoax (http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/) (USA)
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (http://www.climatescience.org.nz/) (New Zealand)
The Politics and Environment Blog (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog) (Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, Australia)
TechCentralStation (http://tcsdaily.com/)
The Heartland Institute (http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/)
Science and Environmental Policy Project (http://www.sepp.org/)
The Reference Frame (http://motls.blogspot.com/search/label/climate) (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Czech Republic)
Tom Nelson Blogroll (http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/)
The Week That Was by Fred Singer (http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/)
The Inhofe EPW Press Blog (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Issue_id=88388d58-7e9c-9af9-7d66-62e366f3f189)
Tom Skilling’s Blog (http://blogs.trb.com/news/weather/weblog/wgnweather)
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (http://www.climatescience.org.nz/)
The Tropical Meteorology Project (http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/) (William M. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences, USA)
US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs) (USA)
ViziFrame (http://www.viziframe.com/)
Wisconsin Energy Cooperative (http://www.wecnmagazine.com/index.html)
Vaclav Klaus, Czech Republic President (http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/default.asp?CatID=YJrRHRsP&catP=10&textID=0)
Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/) (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, USA)
- SurfaceStations.org (http://www.surfacestations.org/)
Warren Meyer (http://www.coyoteblog.com/)
WeatherShop (http://www.weathershop.com/)
Willaim Briggs (http://wmbriggs.com/blog)
Warmal Globing (http://warmalglobing.com/)
Warwick Hughes - Free Lance Science Research (http://www.warwickhughes.com/) (Australia)
- Errors in IPCC Climate Science Blog (http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog)
World Climate Report (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, USA)
WeatherStreet (http://www.weatherstreet.com/) (Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA)
- WeatherQuestions (http://www.weatherquestions.com/)
WeatherAction (http://www.weatheraction.com/) (Piers Corbyn, B.Sc Physics, M.Sc Astrophysics, UK)

Safe-Keeper

29th February 2008, 08:37 AM

Pseudoscientific Varochian Neo-Alarmism noted. I know I'm going to regret this, but I have to ask - what's the difference between 'alarmism' and 'neo alarmism'? Did you merely note that some libbies use 'neo-conservative' in a deregatory way and think it sounded cool, or is there some sort of point?

zeusbheld

29th February 2008, 08:40 AM

Well, just start with Andrew's list.

That should keep you busy for a while.:)

there's a lot of crap on there. if i haven't already said i'm not interested in shameless political hacks like Miloy. let me make it perfectly clear right now: "JUNK SCIENCE" is a complete waste of bandwidth.

also, forget anything with "hoax" in the title; i don't own a tinfoil hat and don't plan on one. like most conspiracy theories, all the climate conspiracy theories i've seen are pretty loony. i've read papers by some of the more controversial pro-AGW scientists--Hansen for example--and while they may be wrong, and a lot of people may still agree with them, that ain't enough to call it a conspiracy. the stench these sorts of arguments give off is exactly why i'm calling for credible, science-based blogs critical of AGW. it's not that i believe conspiracies never happen; Enron was real. but hey i'll gamble and risk missing something good by ignoring all conspiracy theories thanks. it's a risk i'm willing to take, tinfoil isn't my color thanks.

now if you wouldn't mind winnowing out the conspiracy nuts and political hacks and limiting it to AGW-SKEPTICAL science-based blogs, i'm still interested. incidentally, "real climate" is full of scientists, true--but pretty strongly pro-AGW. pro-AGW science blogs are easy to find.

zeusbheld

29th February 2008, 08:46 AM

I know I'm going to regret this, but I have to ask - what's the difference between 'alarmism' and 'neo alarmism'? Did you merely note that some libbies use 'neo-conservative' in a deregatory way and think it sounded cool, or is there some sort of point?

you could at least look it up for yourself in weakiepedia. *yawn.*

incidentally, neocon isn't necessarily derogatory, it's just linked to a very specific strain of conservatism.

mhaze

29th February 2008, 08:55 AM

If it's impossible to falsify research then it's not even at the hypothesis level yet. To have a hypothesis that will eventually be accepted as a theory, it must be falsifiable. No mention of labs, cyclotrons, etc need enter into this discussion.

Why is it that perfectly rational and intelligent people want to give the AGW hypothesis a pass on this part of the scientific method? Is it fear that waiting too long will doom us? Maybe so, but the scientific method got us this far and I say let's stay with the thing that got us here. I'm very skeptical that the scaremongers using AGW for their agenda are correct anyway.

Slime, AGW theory requires a "hotspot" in the middle troposphere levels, this hotspot being most pronounced in the tropics due to radiative effects being the most pronounced. As I have presented research which shows this hotspot does not exist, or arguably exists but is a faint shadow of what AGW theory would require, it seems that at here is a hypothesis of AGW that has been refuted pretty nicely.

mhaze

29th February 2008, 08:58 AM

there's a lot of crap on there. if i haven't already said i'm not interested in shameless political hacks like Miloy. let me make it perfectly clear right now: "JUNK SCIENCE" is a complete waste of bandwidth.

also, forget anything with "hoax" in the title; i don't own a tinfoil hat and don't plan on one. like most conspiracy theories, all the climate conspiracy theories i've seen are pretty loony. i've read papers by some of the more controversial pro-AGW scientists--Hansen for example--and while they may be wrong, and a lot of people may still agree with them, that ain't enough to call it a conspiracy. the stench these sorts of arguments give off is exactly why i'm calling for credible, science-based blogs critical of AGW. it's not that i believe conspiracies never happen; Enron was real. but hey i'll gamble and risk missing something good by ignoring all conspiracy theories thanks. it's a risk i'm willing to take, tinfoil isn't my color thanks.

now if you wouldn't mind winnowing out the conspiracy nuts and political hacks and limiting it to AGW-SKEPTICAL science-based blogs, i'm still interested. incidentally, "real climate" is full of scientists, true--but pretty strongly pro-AGW. pro-AGW science blogs are easy to find.

Well, I anticipated responses like this but have no intention of shaping up a list to meet your particular interests. You're welcome to do that, since it's you that would like it. By the way, all of your arguments yada-yada-yada above quoted can be applied to "pro-AGW blogs" by the score, as I am certain you realize.

You wanted a list, you got a list.

mhaze

29th February 2008, 09:01 AM

I know I'm going to regret this, but I have to ask - what's the difference between 'alarmism' and 'neo alarmism'? Did you merely note that some libbies use 'neo-conservative' in a deregatory way and think it sounded cool, or is there some sort of point?

Derogatory? No, to the contrary. Unlike 90% of the Warmologists posting at JREF, Varoche makes a serious effort to find literature to support AGW.

varwoche

29th February 2008, 09:38 AM

You've posted links to articles that can't be retrieved without payout $, knowing that people would not pay the $ out. Your summaries of the articles content may or may not reflect the actual scientific conclusions. What a pile of drivel.

Consider, for a moment, how often I've posted an article that clearly cut into the AGW-warming point of view, and how it got picked at based on nuances of grammer Ditto but more so. The reason your cites get "picked at" is because they are so often abject jokes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3075882#post3075882).

zeusbheld

29th February 2008, 09:41 AM

Well, I anticipated responses like this but have no intention of shaping up a list to meet your particular interests. You're welcome to do that, since it's you that would like it.

gee thanks, sport. that's like going into Burger King, asking for a cheeseburger and having them tell you "there's probably one in the dumpster." we'd both be slightly better off if you hadn't bothered. but hey, no biggie, at least you didn't charge me for the dumpster-dive.

By the way, all of your arguments yada-yada-yada above quoted can be applied to "pro-AGW blogs" by the score, as I am certain you realize.

with all due respect... NO SH*T SHERLOCK! your Nobel prize is in the mail. check to follow.

You wanted a list, you got a list.

with all due respect, NO.

i asked for:

for blogs, etc i'd be interested in CREDIBLE 'no AGW' material, because all i can find is partisan horse droppings by zero-credibility political hacks like Steven Miloy, the Ann Coulter of science.

you even quoted it in your response.

yet you regurgitated a list so random that it included not only Miloy, but freakin' "Real Climate"? you're aware they're pro AGW???? apparently not.

maybe you'd better sit down for this.... this may shock you.... but i *can* google. no really, i can. seriously.

point of my request was that, if anyone had done *their own* homework and found the kind of resources i was looking for, and if they are interested in sharing them, i'm interested. with all due respect, is there any reason i should expect the rest of your thinking to be any less sloppy and haphazard?

if you're playing to the cheap seats, that's fine, why pretend you're responding to what i'm looking for?

zeusbheld

29th February 2008, 09:57 AM

a post so nice, i posted twice. d'oh.

mhaze

29th February 2008, 10:11 AM

What a pile of drivel.

Ditto but more so. The reason your cites get "picked at" is because they are so often abject jokes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3075882#post3075882).

You are welcome to produce links that link to actual scientific papers and have them considered on their merits or lack of. As it is, you've got unsubstantiated assertions. Pretty simple.

Anthropogenic:

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 439-468, 1 September 1999)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon

Global warming (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/%7Ewsoon/myownPapers-d/Aug27-PIPGreview2003.pdf)
(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
- W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas

Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable (http://www.sepp.org/research/scirsrch/EOS1999.html)
(EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Society, Vol 80, page 183-187, April 20, 1999)
- S. Fred Singer

Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL019024.shtml)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
- A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bell/pgeo/2007/00000028/00000002/art00001)
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
- Soon, Willie

Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change? (http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3627.1)
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/%7Ewsoon/myownPapers-d/Soonetal01CR.pdf)
(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002) (http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2002/22/c022p187.pdf)
(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al. (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/%7Ewsoon/myownPapers-d/June20-03-OurReplytoKarolyetal.pdf)
(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved? (http://www.springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/)
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August, 2006)
- L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar

Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings (http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/0707.1276)
(arXiv:0707.1276, 07/2007)
- Soon, Willie

The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97GL02207.shtml)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

mhaze

29th February 2008, 10:18 AM

.....

Link no worky.

Andrew's List (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050)

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

fsol

29th February 2008, 10:35 AM

fsol

29th February 2008, 10:37 AM

From the third of your links -

Now, as it happens, I don’t like to use already collected before a prediction to test a prediction. I don’t like that the IPCC does that. But, oddly enough, the IPCC seems to do this all the time, and includes already existing data in their predictions. So….
if you think calling the IPCC’s “2001-2010″ predictions, made in 2007 ‘predictions’ even including the eariler data is fair, and
if the IPCC would normally use this 2001-2007 data to “confirm” their “prediction”, made in 2007
then, it is, in some sense, fair to falsify their “predictions”, based on the same data the IPCC would use to confirm their predictions.As you can see, the current Hadley trend is flat, flat, falt.
So yes, if the flat trend in Hadley data persists to the end of 2010, that would be inconsistent with projections of the predicted 2.0C/century trend. Only lower rates of increase would be consistent with the actual weather to a 95% confidence level.

Support for David Rodale's assertion that in the last decade, it has not been warming.

It's just a shame for DR that the data doesn't support his assertion.

mhaze

29th February 2008, 10:46 AM

THey also get picked at when they don't say what he thinks they say. Not because of some grammatical nuance either.

Whether I agree with your specific comments or not, this is the same standard of critical examination that should be applicable to Varoche's linked papers with their ostensible assetions.

Except that I provide the source material to allow such critical discussion.

Thanks for making my point.

And since you dismiss scientific evidence out of hand without even reading it, and since you scare-quote "climate science" as if it's not real science, I see no point in jumping through hoops on your behalf. Sorry 'bout that.

Yep, well, who knows, varoche. Maybe some of those links do support your radical non mainstream view of AGW, but no one will ever know, because no one is going to go pay $9 - 35 per article to find out, will they?

You've posted links to articles that can't be retrieved without payout $, knowing that people would not pay the $ out. Your summaries of the articles content may or may not reflect the actual scientific conclusions.

What a pile of drivel.

Prove it.

varwoche

29th February 2008, 11:06 AM

You are welcome to produce links that link to actual scientific papers and have them considered on their merits or lack of. Indeed, linking directly to peer-reviewed papers is the ideal. Unfortunately, as you know, papers that are available online for free are in the extreme minority.

This means that we often must link to indirect sources. And obviously, we must always take into account the possibility that the science is not accurately portrayed. For this reason, it's important to link to unbiased sources as best we can and avoid sources that willfully twist the facts.

This of course is the worst case scenario -- citing agenda-driven, non-expert propagandists who are proven liars. This could aptly be described as the mhaze scenario (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3075882#post3075882), and it has no place on a skeptical forum.

(Thanks for the links btw.)

mhaze

29th February 2008, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3483738#post3483738)
You are welcome to produce links that link to actual scientific papers and have them considered on their merits or lack of.

Indeed, linking directly to peer-reviewed papers is the ideal. Unfortunately, as you know, papers that are available online for free are in the extreme minority.

This means that we often must link to indirect sources. And obviously, we must always take into account the possibility that the science is not accurately portrayed. For this reason, it's important to link to unbiased sources as best we can and avoid sources that willfully twist the facts.

This of course is the worst case scenario -- citing agenda-driven, non-expert propagandists who are proven liars. This could aptly be described as the mhaze scenario (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3075882#post3075882), and it has no place on a skeptical forum.

(Thanks for the links btw.)

Ah, an answer with no content except a personal attack. The only reasonable response is to repeat my simple and polite request.

You are welcome to produce links that link to actual scientific papers and have them considered on their merits or lack of.

zeusbheld

29th February 2008, 11:29 AM

Link no worky.

Andrew's List (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050)

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

right. a list including a crappy, skewed agitprop documentary (at least the music's not... too.... spooky). have you been fitted for your tinfoil hat yet?

i'll check out the list of apparent science papers you posted though. meanwhile, watch out for those Bilderbergers.

rather than fighting hype with science, fight it with.... hype. it's about as entertaining (and only slightly less poorly crafted) as "Loose Change."

no... wait... THERE'S the spooky music.

i guess credibility's not in your best interest.

zeusbheld

29th February 2008, 11:51 AM

THey also get picked at when they don't say what he thinks they say. Not because of some grammatical nuance either.

he seems to be doing everything within his power to drive fence-sitters toward tree-hugging irrationality.

bobdroege7

29th February 2008, 12:04 PM

Actually I was referring lo the summaries posted of the papers.

Having not read the papers themselves.

Ah, the dog ate my homework defense.

If one is to be a skeptic, one must be willing to do two things.

One is to critially examine the evidence and the second is to be willing to change one's mind.

If you expect our side to read what you post and give it some critical attention then you must do the same.

mhaze

29th February 2008, 01:38 PM

right. a list including a crappy, skewed agitprop documentary (at least the music's not... too.... spooky). have you been fitted for your tinfoil hat yet?

i'll check out the list of apparent science papers you posted though. meanwhile, watch out for those Bilderbergers.

rather than fighting hype with science, fight it with.... hype. it's about as entertaining (and only slightly less poorly crafted) as "Loose Change."

no... wait... THERE'S the spooky music.

i guess credibility's not in your best interest.

(yawn). I await YOUR list, zeus. You know what they say, beggers can't be choosers...:)

mhaze

29th February 2008, 01:47 PM

Ah, the dog ate my homework defense.

If one is to be a skeptic, one must be willing to do two things.

One is to critially examine the evidence and the second is to be willing to change one's mind.

If you expect our side to read what you post and give it some critical attention then you must do the same.

My point is that no one is going to pay $9 - 35 to refute or read an article, including you. But that doesn't make the poster's assertions as to it's comments (or his cut and paste of someone else's assertions as to it's comments) authoritative. It's his job to substantiate the assertions, either by producing the actual articles, substantial excerts from them, etc, whatever would do the job.

Just produce the documents that you think support your case, whatever you think your case is.

It's really pretty simple. There isn't any need for a lot of chatter and personal attacks, unless you actually don't have much to produce.

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane" - Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor

zeusbheld

29th February 2008, 02:31 PM

(yawn). I await YOUR list, zeus.

seems like, as a deeply entrenched anti-AGW, you'd be eager to show that rational people are skeptical of AGW rather than resorting to documentaries with spooky music like a 9-11 troofer. but i guess 'deeply entrenched' trumps 'rational.'

i may never have a list, but here's the thing: if someone asks for a cheeseburger, and i don't have one, i don't give them anything. and i definitely dont give them a dog diarrhea sandwich.

You know what they say, beggers can't be choosers...:)

hey! nice cliche! *yawn*.

i thought maybe, just maybe, i thought you'd notice the difference between "beggers" (sic) and giving you a chance to augment your case against AGW (rather than, oh i don't know, make it clear your tinfoil hat is more than a fashion statement).

you know what they say, dog diarrhea in a sandwich is still dog diarrhea. enjoy your usual meal.

zeusbheld

29th February 2008, 02:33 PM

My point is that no one is going to pay $9 - 35 to refute or read an article, including you. But that doesn't make the poster's assertions as to it's comments (or his cut and paste of someone else's assertions as to it's comments) authoritative. It's his job to substantiate the assertions, either by producing the actual articles, substantial excerts from them, etc, whatever would do the job.

translation: do as mhaze says, not as he does.

Just produce the documents that you think support your case, whatever you think your case is.
and if the documents come from mhaze's blog list, make sure you're wearing your tinfoil hat.

zeusbheld

29th February 2008, 02:41 PM

First you call it the AGW theory. Just couldn't resist, huh? Sorry, bub, it's a hypothesis, if anything.

have to agree with that. a context like this, 'theory' should be used rigorously. 'evolution' is a theory in the scientific sense (as i understand it; i'm not a scientist). AGW is a hypothesis at this point.

i do find this to be an important distinction.

TrueSceptic

29th February 2008, 03:36 PM

Hawking's views are pretty out there; day-after-tomorrow type stuff.

Yes, but that wasn't why I told the story. The point was that a "sceptic" said that he respected Hawking and was sure that someone that clever wouldn't be taken in by AGW. Yet, when I presented the evidence of Hawking's actual views, did the sceptic reconsider his own views? Did he hell! He then shifted to claiming that Hawking couldn't have really looked at the subject. This is denialism, not scepticism, and it infests this subject.

TrueSceptic

29th February 2008, 03:44 PM

(yawn). I await YOUR list, zeus. You know what they say, beggers can't be choosers...:)
Wow, Zeus, a real sceptic, asks the GW "sceptics" here for credible sceptical sites and you say this?!

I already posted links to the 2 most credible ones (IMO), Climate Audit and Prometheus. Care to add those?

mhaze

29th February 2008, 04:33 PM

These are already on the list in post 422.

a_unique_person

29th February 2008, 04:40 PM

These are already on the list in post 422.

The OISM?

mhaze

29th February 2008, 04:55 PM

mhaze

29th February 2008, 04:59 PM

Hawking has also said that one way or another we could possibly really mess the planet up, and we needed to progressively develop ways to get a part of the human race permanently off planet. In this context he was mainly talking about designer bugs. (just to put his remarks in a wider context).

zeusbheld

29th February 2008, 05:16 PM

Yes, it appears they are not there. Very few web links to them so they did not come up. They are a skeptical organization, therefore they should be included.

The list in #422 isn't meant to be my best choices, but all inclusive.

A feast. A carnival.

again i have to ask: why the carnival when all i wanted was your (or anyone's) best choices?

and if you just felt the urge, why pretend your response had anything to do with what i asked?

i owe you one, oh great benefactor. so basically in the unlikely event you ever ask me what the best movies i've ever seen are, out of gratitude i'll give you a link to IMDB and say "i've seen about ten thousand of 'em. some of 'em were good, some of them were dog diarrhea, most are somewhere in between."

Lucifuge Rofocale

29th February 2008, 05:21 PM

I'd rather play Poker.....who plays Texas Hold'em?

zeusbheld

29th February 2008, 05:33 PM

The OISM?

already got 'em.

not much of a website though. decent enough overview, handy downloadable power point presentation, haven't seen it yet (major backlog of downloaded stuff to read, not just GW). may be some links to papers (if i'm not mistaken they've published some).

so far i find Lindzen interesting but as far as i can tell he doesn't blog.

Slimething

29th February 2008, 06:05 PM

Slime, AGW theory requires a "hotspot" in the middle troposphere levels, this hotspot being most pronounced in the tropics due to radiative effects being the most pronounced. As I have presented research which shows this hotspot does not exist, or arguably exists but is a faint shadow of what AGW theory would require, it seems that at here is a hypothesis of AGW that has been refuted pretty nicely.

Not you too, mhaze! Please repeat after me: hypothesis, not theory. (Slime curls up in fetal position.)

What I consider to be primal to the AGW thought-experiment is that artifacts, any artifacts, are systematically warming the planet. I can't argue that it's not happening because the mere existence of blacktop where there once were trees would make that true in a trivial sense. I have not examined the various popular hypotheses as you have so I don't know of the hot-spot you speak of is common to all variants of the greenhouse gas AGW hypotheses. I doubt it is so, for the moment, let's say that one or several hypotheses requiring the formation of a hotspot have been falsified on the basis of one false prediction. However, there must be some hypotheses that don't predict that so AGW hypotheses are still alive.

I have noted before that, based on the physics underpinning the basic concept of greenhouse gases adding insulation and thus warming the planet, I believe that the hypotheses are probably true but not proven. I am begining to reach the opinion, though, that such signal as AGW is generating is weaker than first expected and may be unresolvable for quite some time. We'll just have to wait and see.

mhaze

29th February 2008, 06:06 PM

again i have to ask: why the carnival when all i wanted was your (or anyone's) best choices?

and if you just felt the urge, why pretend your response had anything to do with what i asked?

i owe you one, oh great benefactor. so basically in the unlikely event you ever ask me what the best movies i've ever seen are, out of gratitude i'll give you a link to IMDB and say "i've seen about ten thousand of 'em. some of 'em were good, some of them were dog diarrhea, most are somewhere in between."

Now pick your best choices.

CapelDodger

29th February 2008, 06:15 PM

quite familiar with the Huff book and the principles contained therein. used to do graphics in an investment bank, and boy did those people use every trick in the book!

:D

When PC's and spreadsheets and graphics and cheap printers and PowerPoint came in ... I was already primed to advise people on what chart option to select depending on the intention. It's been a valued part of my toolkit since I was a teenager.

yeah, i have ample blog resources on the 'yes AGW' side. still keenly interested in links to any papers though. the IPCC report is de facto a policy recommendation, what i'm interested in is scientific papers attempting to establish the A in AGW.

IPCC reports are packed with references in the scientific parts. The primary task of the IPCC is not to recommend policy but to collate current scientific research and understanding, for the benefit of actual policy-makers. That's where the meat is.

for blogs, etc i'd be interested in CREDIBLE 'no AGW' material, because all i can find is partisan horse droppings by zero-credibility political hacks like Steven Miloy, the Ann Coulter of science.

It's a bit of a give-away, isn't it? The GW Sceptic presentation reeks of defensiveness, the consensus presentation doesn't. Only one side is associating themselves with such scoundrels. Only one side is shrill and often at least borderline hysterical.

And only one side whines so much.

mhaze

29th February 2008, 06:20 PM

Not you too, mhaze! Please repeat after me: hypothesis, not theory. (Slime curls up in fetal position.)

Ewwee... Stupid mistake me.

What I consider to be primal to the AGW thought-experiment is that artifacts, any artifacts, are systematically warming the planet. I can't argue that it's not happening because the mere existence of blacktop where there once were trees would make that true in a trivial sense. I have not examined the various popular hypotheses as you have so I don't know of the hot-spot you speak of is common to all variants of the greenhouse gas AGW hypotheses. I doubt it is so.......Well. it would have to be for CO2. As for the atmospheric effects hypothe sized for the other gases, good question.

But note even with CO2, what is refuted is the strong greenhouse warming and high climate sensitivity.

CapelDodger

29th February 2008, 06:37 PM

Well, just start with Andrew's list.

That should keep you busy for a while.:)

If you thought that was going to buy you some respite from zeusbheld you've clearly choosen hope over reason.

mhaze

29th February 2008, 06:40 PM

If you thought that was going to buy you some respite from zeusbheld you've clearly choosen hope over reason.

A wee bit demanding, that one.

Like he's the only kid on the block.

And only one side whines so much.

Indeed. Have your buddies considered alternative emotive and expressive modalities?

CapelDodger

29th February 2008, 06:47 PM

But note even with CO2, what is refuted is the strong greenhouse warming and high climate sensitivity.

I know you guys were talking amongst yourselves, but it's been refuted, has it? Is the science finally settled - in your opinion and (hardly coincidentally) in your favour)? "Strong" and "high" provide you with some wiggle-room, of course. Perhaps you could quantify what's been settled. I can but ask, and only hope for a straight answer. Reason suggests I won't get one.

CapelDodger

29th February 2008, 07:01 PM

A wee bit demanding, that one.

Like he's the only kid on the block.

This superior attitude is not doing you any favours. zeusbheld is not about to cede control of the conversation he started; if you can't handle that you shouldn't have got involved in the first place.

Indeed. Have your buddies considered alternative emotive and expressive modalities?

Which brings us to "gibbering". (I was sure I could depend on you to introduce that.) All we need now is some whining gibberish from Lucy and we'll have a full-house.

fsol

29th February 2008, 08:19 PM

My point is that no one is going to pay $9 - 35 to refute or read an article, including you. But that doesn't make the poster's assertions as to it's comments (or his cut and paste of someone else's assertions as to it's comments) authoritative. It's his job to substantiate the assertions, either by producing the actual articles, substantial excerts from them, etc, whatever would do the job.

Just produce the documents that you think support your case, whatever you think your case is.

It's really pretty simple. There isn't any need for a lot of chatter and personal attacks, unless you actually don't have much to produce.

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane" - Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor

You should remember that the next time you decide to link to CO2science.

Slimething

29th February 2008, 08:25 PM

I know you guys were talking amongst yourselves, but it's been refuted, has it? Is the science finally settled - in your opinion and (hardly coincidentally) in your favour)? "Strong" and "high" provide you with some wiggle-room, of course. Perhaps you could quantify what's been settled. I can but ask, and only hope for a straight answer. Reason suggests I won't get one.

You won't get an answer from me. I was considering dumbing down what we were talking about so you could understand it but I'm laughing too hard to do it. mhaze, do you have the patience?

mhaze

29th February 2008, 09:50 PM

You should remember that the next time you decide to link to CO2science.

CO2science?

Down, but not Out!
A week ago we experienced a terrorist-like Denial of Service Attack on our website that rendered it inaccessible to patrons. Unfortunately, the company that managed our website was unable to stop the attack, and we had to make the decision to host our website elsewhere. Moving our website to another server is not a simple task and must take place in stages. For now, only the current weekly issue of CO2 Science will be accessible, followed by a gradual return to full website access and functionality in the coming days and weeks.

Warmologists? Those who would stop www.co2science.com articles like this

Lake Qinghai on the Tibetan Plateau Reference
Xu, H., Liu, X. and Hou, Z. 2008. Temperature variations at Lake Qinghai on decadal scales and the possible relation to solar activities. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 70: 138-144. What was done
Working with sediments retrieved from Lake Qinghai on the northeastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, the authors reconstructed a 600-year temperature history of the region based on high-resolution series of the sediment's total carbonate content, the δ18O and δ13C of its carbonates, and the detrended δ15N of organic matter contained in the sediment cores, which they compared against total solar irradiance histories reconstructed from sunspot numbers, and tree-ring 14C and ice-core 10Be data that are also indicative of solar activity.
What was learned
Xu et al. report that their temperature history indicates that "the intervals of 1430-1470, 1650-1715, and 1770-1820 are consistent with the three coldest intervals of the Little Ice Age," and that "these obvious cold intervals are also synchronous with the minimums of the sunspot numbers during the past 600 yeas," namely, "the Sporer, the Maunder, and the Dalton minimums," which facts strongly suggest, in their words, "that solar activities may dominate temperature variations on decadal scales at the northeastern Qinghai-Tibet plateau." In addition, their observation that "more and more evidence indicates that the Little Ice Age occurred worldwide," provides more and more evidence that it was likely solar-induced.
What it means
If the development of the significant cold of the worldwide Little Ice Age was driven by a concomitant change in some type of solar activity (which seems fairly well proven by a wealth of real-world data, of which the study of Xu et al. is but one example), it logically follows that the "undevelopment" of the Little Ice Age (i.e., the global warming of the 20th century) was primarily driven by the reversal of that change in solar activity, and not by the historical rise in the air's CO2 content. However, as also noted by Xu et al., how small perturbations of solar activity have led "to the observed global warming, what is the mechanism behind it, etc., are still open questions." Nevertheless, everything else about the matter seems fairly well established.

mhaze

29th February 2008, 10:24 PM

You won't get an answer from me. I was considering dumbing down what we were talking about so you could understand it but I'm laughing too hard to do it. mhaze, do you have the patience?

Nope! But from Andrew's list (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050) here is the home study list -

Greenhouse Theory:

Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? (http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/science/defreitas.pdf)(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002) - C. R. de Freitas

Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/5501/112)
(Science, Vol. 291. no. 5501, 5 January 2001) - Eric Monnin, Andreas Indermühle, André Dällenbach, Jacqueline Flückiger, Bernhard Stauffer, Thomas F. Stocker, Dominique Raynaud, Jean-Marc Barnola

Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles (http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/1/33)(Geology, v. 33; no. 1; p. 33-36, January 2005) - Lenny Kouwenberg, Rike Wagner, Wolfram Kürschner, Henk Visscher

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/16/8335)(Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)- Richard S. Lindzen

Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2007GL029698.shtml)(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L15707, 2007)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy, Justin Hnilo

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change (http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10//c010p069.pdf)
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1998) - Sherwood B. Idso

Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris? (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf)(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 82, Issue 3, pp. 417–432, March 2001)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, and Arthur Y. Hou

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161)(Physics, arXiv:0707.1161) - Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
QUOTE A. there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, B. there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, C. the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, D. the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, E. the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, F. thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system (http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf)
(Accepted for publication in Journal of Geophysical Research)- Stephen E. Schwartz

Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels (http://www.maik.ru/abstract/paleng/4/paleng2_4p115abs.htm)(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003) - A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese

The "Greenhouse Effect" as a Function of Atmospheric Mass (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2003/00000014/F0020002/art00011)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)- H. Jelbring

zeusbheld

1st March 2008, 12:58 AM

Not you too, mhaze! Please repeat after me: hypothesis, not theory. (Slime curls up in fetal position.)

problem is, the word "theory" has a different yet completely legit meaning in the wider world. as a parallel, no doubt analytic philosophers cringe whenever they hear some layperson say things like "my philosophy of life is you reap what you sow."

iv'e even heard scientists occasionally make this usage error (usually outside of their field, heh). nonetheless it is very much worth preserving its specialized meaning within science; look at the grief abuse of the word has caused in the hands of creationists!

so in short, it's a fussy point true, but 100 percent cringe-worthy. and a lot more important of a distinction than the specialized use of "philosophy." maybe we need a new word for "scientific theory"....

a_unique_person

1st March 2008, 01:05 AM

Not you too, mhaze! Please repeat after me: hypothesis, not theory. (Slime curls up in fetal position.)

What I consider to be primal to the AGW thought-experiment is that artifacts, any artifacts, are systematically warming the planet. I can't argue that it's not happening because the mere existence of blacktop where there once were trees would make that true in a trivial sense. I have not examined the various popular hypotheses as you have so I don't know of the hot-spot you speak of is common to all variants of the greenhouse gas AGW hypotheses. I doubt it is so, for the moment, let's say that one or several hypotheses requiring the formation of a hotspot have been falsified on the basis of one false prediction. However, there must be some hypotheses that don't predict that so AGW hypotheses are still alive.

I have noted before that, based on the physics underpinning the basic concept of greenhouse gases adding insulation and thus warming the planet, I believe that the hypotheses are probably true but not proven. I am begining to reach the opinion, though, that such signal as AGW is generating is weaker than first expected and may be unresolvable for quite some time. We'll just have to wait and see.

The theoretical basis for greenhouse gases is quite sound. The only bickering should be on the extent of the warming caused.

Understanding and attributing climate change http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

zeusbheld

1st March 2008, 01:07 AM

A wee bit demanding, that one.

Like he's the only kid on the block.

no, more like he expect people who *claim* to have put some thought in the matter to show some evidence they have.

given that you are rather adamant about your position, i would naturally expect you'd already worked all this out for yourself. given your conviction, i'd expect you'd have some knowledge of the sites you're foisting on people. apparently not.

i *could* tell you the ten films that have influenced me the most, off the top of my head. but in your case, you get a link to IMDB and told to go figure it out for yourself. you've earned it.

Indeed. Have your buddies considered alternative emotive and expressive modalities?

why? has whining has been working sooo much better for you than putting a teeny bit of thought into it? :bwall

zeusbheld

1st March 2008, 01:10 AM

Now pick your best choices.

you start. that would require thinking, however. so i won't hold my breath.

fsol

1st March 2008, 03:14 AM

CO2science?

Down, but not Out!
A week ago we experienced a terrorist-like Denial of Service Attack on our website that rendered it inaccessible to patrons. Unfortunately, the company that managed our website was unable to stop the attack, and we had to make the decision to host our website elsewhere. Moving our website to another server is not a simple task and must take place in stages. For now, only the current weekly issue of CO2 Science will be accessible, followed by a gradual return to full website access and functionality in the coming days and weeks.

Warmologists? Those who would stop www.co2science.com (http://www.co2science.com) articles like this

Nice to see that you are sticking to your tried and tested "no evidence for your claims" motif. Of course it was "warmologists" (whatever or whoever that might be) that carried out the DoS. It couldn't possibly have been anyone else. :rolleyes: The word "pathetic" springs to mind for some reason.

Lake Qinghai on the Tibetan Plateau Reference
Xu, H., Liu, X. and Hou, Z. 2008. Temperature variations at Lake Qinghai on decadal scales and the possible relation to solar activities. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 70: 138-144. What was done
Working with sediments retrieved from Lake Qinghai on the northeastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, the authors reconstructed a 600-year temperature history of the region based on high-resolution series of the sediment's total carbonate content, the δ18O and δ13C of its carbonates, and the detrended δ15N of organic matter contained in the sediment cores, which they compared against total solar irradiance histories reconstructed from sunspot numbers, and tree-ring 14C and ice-core 10Be data that are also indicative of solar activity.
What was learned
Xu et al. report that their temperature history indicates that "the intervals of 1430-1470, 1650-1715, and 1770-1820 are consistent with the three coldest intervals of the Little Ice Age," and that "these obvious cold intervals are also synchronous with the minimums of the sunspot numbers during the past 600 yeas," namely, "the Sporer, the Maunder, and the Dalton minimums," which facts strongly suggest, in their words, "that solar activities may dominate temperature variations on decadal scales at the northeastern Qinghai-Tibet plateau." In addition, their observation that "more and more evidence indicates that the Little Ice Age occurred worldwide," provides more and more evidence that it was likely solar-induced.
What it means
If the development of the significant cold of the worldwide Little Ice Age was driven by a concomitant change in some type of solar activity (which seems fairly well proven by a wealth of real-world data, of which the study of Xu et al. is but one example), it logically follows that the "undevelopment" of the Little Ice Age (i.e., the global warming of the 20th century) was primarily driven by the reversal of that change in solar activity, and not by the historical rise in the air's CO2 content. However, as also noted by Xu et al., how small perturbations of solar activity have led "to the observed global warming, what is the mechanism behind it, etc., are still open questions." Nevertheless, everything else about the matter seems fairly well established.I wonder if I go and actually read the paper, if it will say what they purport it to. The last time I went and did that with CO2science it ummm...didn't.

TrueSceptic

1st March 2008, 08:18 AM

why? has whining has been working sooo much better for you than putting a teeny bit of thought into it? :bwall
This is all rather amusing, isn't it? You come here as a real open-minded sceptic, pretty much asking to be persuaded by evidence from either side, and mhaze spends most of his time insulting you. He's some advocate for his cause!

Slimething

1st March 2008, 09:29 AM

so in short, it's a fussy point true, but 100 percent cringe-worthy. and a lot more important of a distinction than the specialized use of "philosophy." maybe we need a new word for "scientific theory"....

zeusbheld, I've learned from past unpleasant experience that some words have too much meaning. In a debate, never let the other side control the lexicon. If you do, soon they turn the language against you and you find yourself being a "denier", or "pro-abortion", or "being against the Patriot Act". I know I'm echoing what you are saying but I wanted to explain why, in a debate about science, I am particularly anal about honoring the terminology.

Yep, we do need a new word for either the scientific or the vulgar meaning of "theory".

Slimething

1st March 2008, 09:33 AM

The theoretical basis for greenhouse gases is quite sound. The only bickering should be on the extent of the warming caused.

That is exactly what I've been saying but in too verbose a manner, AUP. Thank you for clarifying it. I agree with the the physics underpinnings. However, I feel that there are either undiscovered or unconsidered factors that apply and are hampering the development of a hypothesis with acceptable precision. (Sorry, I can't help myself lapsing into the jargon.)

TrueSceptic

1st March 2008, 10:02 AM

And only one side whines so much.
It's handy that Coulter was mentioned. Just the sort of person GWS want on their side...or perhaps she really is!

Lucifuge Rofocale

1st March 2008, 10:12 AM

Sure, as Prince Charles is the person you want in your side.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269482,00.html
Britain's Prince Charles Compares Global Warming to Nazis

Wednesday, May 02, 2007
http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gifLONDON — Britain's Prince Charles (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:siteSearch%28%27Prince%20Charles%27%29;) said Tuesday that urgent action is needed to fight climate change, likening the struggle to Britain's battle against Nazi Germany in World War II.
The environmentalist prince told a business conference at his St. James's Palace residence that "the crisis of climate change (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:siteSearch%28%27climate%20change%27%29;) is far too urgent and discussion simply isn't enough."
"I do not want my children and grandchildren, or anyone for that matter, saying to me, 'Why didn't you do something when it was possible to make a difference and when you knew what was happening?'" he said.

"We can do it, just think what they did in the last war. Things that seemed impossible were achieved almost overnight."
The 58-year-old heir to Britain's throne is a firm supporter of environmentalist causes, and runs an organic farm on his Highgrove (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:siteSearch%28%27Highgrove%27%29;) estate in western England. He also has a multimillion-dollar line of organic foods, Duchy Originals, whose profits go to charity.

zeusbheld

1st March 2008, 10:31 AM

zeusbheld, I've learned from past unpleasant experience that some words have too much meaning. In a debate, never let the other side control the lexicon. If you do, soon they turn the language against you and you find yourself being a "denier", or "pro-abortion", or "being against the Patriot Act". I know I'm echoing what you are saying but I wanted to explain why, in a debate about science, I am particularly anal about honoring the terminology.

hear hear! i am often accused of "wasting time hashing out semantics" but really... if you don't agree on the semantics how do you know you're talking about the same freakin' thing???? semantics matter.

****** digression alert *********
incidentally i have been accused of being both for and against the Patriot Act. problem with being in the middle is both extremes shoot at you. (off topic but the patriot act has some very good anti-money-laundering provisions).
*****end digression alert *******

Yep, we do need a new word for either the scientific or the vulgar meaning of "theory".

i hold no hope of of the great unwashed adopting something like "idea" instead of "theory" so maybe a new word on the science side is the way to do. "established theory" and "tested theory" are far too dorky.

mhaze

1st March 2008, 10:34 AM

An erudite and distinguished group, the Warmers are.

Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout, B.A. Drama (no science degree)
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Rosie O'Donnell, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma
Uma Thurman, High School Dropout
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout + College Dropout

mhaze

1st March 2008, 11:01 AM

zeusbheld

1st March 2008, 11:20 AM

zeusbheld

1st March 2008, 11:26 AM

This is all rather amusing, isn't it? You come here as a real open-minded sceptic, pretty much asking to be persuaded by evidence from either side, and mhaze spends most of his time insulting you. He's some advocate for his cause!

it's OK, since he opened that can of worms, i have no qualms about playing those sorts of games... and actually... i kinda like that dirty feeling.

fortunately for him, his drivel has no bearing on science, other wise he'd have proved global warming through sheer abject incompetence at trying to "disprove" it.

Lucifuge Rofocale

1st March 2008, 11:51 AM

and all of them make more money than you. and Willie Nelson in particular has a rep as a 9/11 'troofer'--that means fancier tinfoil hat than *yours*.

so? relevant how?

celebrities and their academic record have no bearing on the actual science being done (or not done).

The point made was about this casual observation:

It's handy that Coulter was mentioned. Just the sort of person GWS want on their side...or perhaps she really is!

Mhaze and I simply pointed to some examples of wackos (in Charles case) or people with no qualifications that are AGW believers......wich would have been completely unnecesary if, per example, somebody posted something like this:

and Coulter make more money than you.
so? relevant how?

Wackos have no bearing on the actual science being done (or not done).

TrueSceptic

1st March 2008, 12:15 PM

I wait still for Trueseptic to define contrarian...
I did, and you disagreed with my definition. So...?

Dr. Imago

1st March 2008, 12:20 PM

celebrities and their academic record have no bearing on the actual science being done (or not done).

Especially to those of us most concerned with the science not being done.

-Dr. Imago

TrueSceptic

1st March 2008, 12:22 PM

you wouldn't happen to be sent to discredit skepticism would you? just askin'.
I have already suggested that some "sceptics" here must be parodic plants because no real sceptic could be so ridiculous, but of course if they are really good we will never catch them out and even if we did they would never admit it! ;)

TrueSceptic

1st March 2008, 12:26 PM

Especially to those of us most concerned with the science not being done.

"Science", as defined by you, not being done, in your opinion.

Round Robin

1st March 2008, 01:02 PM

varwoche

1st March 2008, 01:06 PM

Especially to those of us most concerned with the science not being done. Time and time again you fail to answer challenges to this line of thought that you keep touting. I assume this vague statement relates back to this whimsical gem: It's quite clear to everyone who's paying attention that they've hung their hat on carbon dioxide. ... But, everything from this point forward is geared at bolstering that assertion and making any observations fit that premise, instead of considering alternate possibilities. I've talked about this extensively already. No need to rehash now. Apparently you're not following the state of the science or even the thread(s). Otherwise you'd be aware that your claim -- consisting of pure speculation that you've failed to provide an iota of support for -- is abject nonsense:

study about the sun (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070712-sun-climate.html)
study about the sun (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html)
study about ozone impact on arctic (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/troposphere_ozone.html)
study about aerosols (http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=712)
study about aerosols (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2005/pr20051221.html)

I could list many more studies that don't concern CO2, on both sides of the fence.

Lucifuge Rofocale

1st March 2008, 01:18 PM

I fail to see how the probability of (A)GW reality has anything to do with the acceptance or non-acceptance of it by laypersons whose judgement may be saddled with various political or ideological agendas. In fact, the words of individual climate scientists carry little weight on their own.

Not the word of a single scientist or group of scientist have anything to do with the reality of AGW. But a single study can prove it false or true

The facts surrounding (A)GW are affected by neither eloquent opponents nor ridiculous proponents.

That was my point. My new point is that when this failure is commited by an AGW believer most people don't notice it. No one has corrected Truesceptic dumb argument about Coulter, but the discussion about the counterargument is quite alive.

Dr. Imago

1st March 2008, 01:21 PM

Time and time again you fail to answer challenges to this line of thought that you keep touting.

Huh? What challenges? I'm not the one making specific claims. I am the one challenging people to do additional science that will either prove or disprove their current claims.

Science - it's quite simple - is the unbiased collection and assimilation of facts that help to elucidate something meaningful and predictive about a particular area of interest. There are many ways to remove bias from this process, none of which I've seen consistently employed to date.

To that end, all I've asked is that the people looking at retrospective data, and making broad, sweeping statements about the accuracy, meaningfulness, and validity of those data, use more rigorous methods to either further prove or disprove their conclusions.

Specifically, I would like to see two things:

1) Controlled experiments where the microfractions of CO2 being discussed demonstratively show a quantifiable heat-rentention effect on the order of magnitude now being attributed to current AGW models.

2) A prospective, blinded study of dendrochronology controlling for other mitigating factors that would validate the current historical temperature record.

These are two very easy experiments that could be started today. The first one could be done in an afternoon. The second one may take a decade (or so), but would demonstrably make the point about the effect of CO2 - either way.

Why won't these researchers do these experiments? I've heard a lot of excuses why they won't, but still no one is doing them. Funny.

I don't care about other "forcers" of climate change at the moment. Let's focus on CO2, upon which is the peg the majority of this debate's hat is currently hung.

PROVE THE PRINCIPLE! This has NOT adequately been done to date. Correlation does not equal causation. And, there has not definitively proven to be a causative link. (I feel like the only sane man in a crazy world. SHEESH!)

-Dr. Imago

Lucifuge Rofocale

1st March 2008, 01:29 PM

1) Controlled experiments where the microfractions of CO2 being discussed demonstratively show a quantifiable heat-rentention effect on the order of magnitude now being attributed to current AGW models.

That you will never see.
For newcomers, AGWrs claim that the physics about their pet theory is very sound.....CO2 have some properties that make it a "greenhouse gas".

But......... the real question is : Those properties are still in effect when CO2 is in a 1000 PPM dilusion (almost homeopatic) on air? And what happens when this CO2 is stored in large masses of water?

There are some other questions, and AGWrs have come with nice theories about this, but a controlled experiment we haven't see.

zeusbheld

1st March 2008, 01:47 PM

The point made was about this casual observation:

It's handy that Coulter was mentioned. Just the sort of person GWS want on their side...or perhaps she really is!

Mhaze and I simply pointed to some examples of wackos (in Charles case) or people with no qualifications that are AGW believers......wich would have been completely unnecesary if, per example, somebody posted something like this:

ah. point taken. i didnt' notice that. (translation: noticed and forgot, even though i was the one who brought up Coulter, but only coz mhaze brought Miloy after being specifically requested not to).

certainly there are wackos on either end. and they all make more money than you. or me.

incidentally, i'd service Ann Coulter. i'm easy. but i wouldn't let her bear my children. she's a creationist.

Alric

1st March 2008, 01:54 PM

Specifically, I would like to see two things:

1) Controlled experiments where the microfractions of CO2 being discussed demonstratively show a quantifiable heat-rentention effect on the order of magnitude now being attributed to current AGW models.

2) A prospective, blinded study of dendrochronology controlling for other mitigating factors that would validate the current historical temperature record.

1: That would be similar to showing sugar is sweet. CO2 and other man-made gases are greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing can be calculated very precisely. This equation shows radiative forcing for C02

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/0/d/a0d6bbe1cf969c447b5475d3dfbc5bb3.png

And this is my calculated radiative forcing by C02 in the atmosphere for the past 50 years using Mauna Loa CO2 concentration data:

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=10014&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1202712471

2) Multiproxy studies are validated and calibrated using multiple measurements. For that line of argument you would have to falsify tree rings, lake sediment analysis, glacier retreat, coral reef build up, and I am probably missing a few. For example calibrated glacier retreat:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/oerlemans2005/fig3a.jpg

Oh, oh..oh...Is that a hockey stick I see?

zeusbheld

1st March 2008, 01:57 PM

Not the word of a single scientist or group of scientist have anything to do with the reality of AGW. But a single study can prove it false or true

yes, and when that 'single study' happens, it will inevitably be followed by lots of further research reproducing the result.

That was my point. My new point is that when this failure is commited by an AGW believer most people don't notice it. No one has corrected Truesceptic dumb argument about Coulter, but the discussion about the counterargument is quite alive.

that's fair enough, for sure.

but the best way to CORRECT it is for posters like mhaze to stop posting even dumber, sloppier arguments. no offense, but DUH.

but looking at this forum--and let's be clear i'm NOT sold on the A in AGW--there are too many people on the skeptic side in this forum that just do a crap job of posting. if one paid no attention to the science, didn't give a rat's orifice about 'democraps' and 'republic***s', one would probably be put off by sloppy posts like mhaze's and inclined to trust more careful posters like Trueskeptic. damn shame too since it's utterly superficial.

mhaze, raise your game. the world needs more skeptics who are skeptics, rather than tinfoil hatters.

Slimething, well played and keep it up.

Round Robin

1st March 2008, 01:58 PM

Not the word of a single scientist or group of scientist have anything to do with the reality of AGW. But a single study can prove it false or true

Sincere question: when a field becomes as large (encompassing many scientific disciplines) and as mature ("greenhouse effect" was proposed in the 19th century), what single study could disprove GW or AGW? Those seem to be pretty big theories with many sub-theories and hypotheses. I could imagine someone proposing a seminal hypothesis that demonstrates a non-causality between atmospheric GHGs and global temperature, but that would then require many, many more studies to test, replicate, and verify it.

As an example, could any one single study disprove the Theory of Evolution now, after 150 years? Ok... I suppose finding "a bunny rabbit in the pre-cambrian" would disprove at least part of it, but would such a study be accepted without a great deal more studies to verify it?

That was my point. My new point is that when this failure is commited by an AGW believer most people don't notice it. No one has corrected Truesceptic dumb argument about Coulter, but the discussion about the counterargument is quite alive.

Oh, I don't know about that... I think that Greenpeace can often act idiotically, as can many other ideologic (as opposed to scientific) environmentalists, and I don't think that this is a secret among those who accept AGW as probable. Is it possible that there is a confirmation bias to your hypothesis that AGW "believers" (I don't agree with the framing of that point with the word "belief") get a free pass when it comes to their evangelism? I'm quite aware that I'm highly susceptible to confirmation bias of my assumptions!! :)

Dr. Imago

1st March 2008, 02:00 PM

1: That would be similar to showing sugar is sweet. CO2 and other man-made gases are greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing can be calculated very precisely. This equation shows radiative forcing for C02

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/0/d/a0d6bbe1cf969c447b5475d3dfbc5bb3.png

And this is my calculated radiated forcing by C02 in the atmosphere for the past 50 years using Mauna Loa CO2 concentration data:

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=10014&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1202712471

Fine. Let's put it in a bottle and do the test. Argued in principle. Why has no one proven it in practice?

2) Multiproxy studies are validated and calibrated using multiple measurements. For that line of argument you would have to falsify tree rings, lake sediment analysis, glacier retreat, coral reef build up, and I am probably missing a few. For example calibrated glacier retreat:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/oerlemans2005/fig3a.jpg

Oh, oh..oh...Is that a hockey stick I see?

Gibberish.

I've set out the experiment before, and will state it again. Select your trees. Place appropriately calibrated measuring devices near those trees. Let trees grow. Send tree rings to scientists in a blinded manner a set period of time from when the experiment was initiated. And, have them attempt to correlate the data in a blinded manner to the actual observations.

Not done yet. Why?

-Dr. Imago

zeusbheld

1st March 2008, 02:10 PM

Correlation does not equal causation. And, there has not definitively proven to be a causative link. (I feel like the only sane man in a crazy world. SHEESH!)

YES! i've seen a LOT more proAGW than noAGW science papers and granted i most likely don't fully understand the science, but all i'm seeing is correlations! normally i read evo bio papers (for fun, believe it or not). compare and contrast.

i don''t know enough about it to know what experiments *should* be done, but the stuff i have seen is suggestive, sure. but i've seen NO papers that'd convince me that AGW is a nailed-down theory, let alone that it's gonna be a disaster that we have to fix NOW before it happens or.... else.

and when i express my skepticism i get offered links to tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories from so-called skeptics. i expect the climate scientists are working in good conscience (unlike many internet posters and conspiracy nuts). but... there hasn't been enough time and enough research done to sort the wheat from the chaff. fads and trends hit science as much as any human activity, and until it's done and dusted we don't KNOW.

mhaze

1st March 2008, 02:18 PM

For that line of argument you would have to falsify tree rings,

That is fairly easily done. Note Loehle 2007 is a multiproxy study without tree rings.

Alric-
And this is my calculated radiative forcing by C02 in the atmosphere for the past 50 years using Mauna Loa CO2 concentration data:

Hard to read the graph, but it looks like you are claiming "1" increase in 50 years? Is that w/meter 2?

David Rodale

1st March 2008, 03:18 PM

For that line of argument you would have to falsify tree rings,

That is fairly easily done. Note Loehle 2007 is a multiproxy study without tree rings.

Hard to read the graph, but it looks like you are claiming "1" increase in 50 years? Is that w/meter 2?

Here's one with tree rings :) We mustn't forget the unprecedented warming in the Arctic either
Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers (http://www.springerlink.com/content/8j71453650116753/?p=9ddaf2f63141459da7289ee7be4a4b41&pi=5)
Abstract
This paper presents updated tree-ring width (TRW) and maximum density (MXD) from Torneträsk in northern Sweden, now covering the period ad 500–2004. By including data from relatively young trees for the most recent period, a previously noted decline in recent MXD is eliminated. Non-climatological growth trends in the data are removed using Regional Curve Standardization (RCS), thus producing TRW and MXD chronologies with preserved low-frequency variability. The chronologies are calibrated using local and regional instrumental climate records. A bootstrapped response function analysis using regional climate data shows that tree growth is forced by April–August temperatures and that the regression weights for MXD are much stronger than for TRW. The robustness of the reconstruction equation is verified by independent temperature data and shows that 63–64% of the instrumental inter-annual variation is captured by the tree-ring data. This is a significant improvement compared to previously published reconstructions based on tree-ring data from Torneträsk. A divergence phenomenon around ad 1800, expressed as an increase in TRW that is not paralleled by temperature and MXD, is most likely an effect of major changes in the density of the pine population at this northern tree-line site. The bias introduced by this TRW phenomenon is assessed by producing a summer temperature reconstruction based on MXD exclusively. The new data show generally higher temperature estimates than previous reconstructions based on Torneträsk tree-ring data. 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.
The article concludes the Arctic has actually cooled in the last 1500 years, and as we all know now (at least those that didn't assimilate) the recent ice melt was due to wind and oceanic circulation patterns and not temperature.