Aliens Caused Global Warming - Scientific Consensus

Sandvol said:

I get frustrated when I see people ask Bart these types of questions. Bart isn't concerned about being right or wrong but achieving his objective. Do you really think he is concerned about global warming just like statists were concerned about people who didn't have health care? Liberal statists' objective is the complete and utter destruction of the free market capitalist system so they can then build their utopian society. And, they are almost there. You need to read the book Ameritopia by Mark Levin.

Click to expand...

It's no wonder your posts make so much sense, Levin is a brilliant man and a true patriot . We need more people who are of that mindset.

FLVOL69 said:

It's no wonder your posts make so much sense, Levin is a brilliant man and a true patriot . We need more people who are of that mindset.

Click to expand...

Hear! Hear!

therealUT said:

By the way, Bart, your comment regarding the Met Office Report is asinine, if you think it supports your stance (as I take it, act now and do not wait for confirmed observations).
First, the Met Office report states that 10-year pauses are to be expected once a century, but not 20-year pauses. This is explained in the graphs, using a large temperature increase of 0.2C, and using only a single model (one of the few models that does suggest 15-year pauses of surface temperatures are possible).
Second, the Met Office report states that only on models in which the rate of climate change is low (so, not the most dire predictions, but the low and moderate predictions) should we expect 15-year pauses. Of course, throughout the document, like all other climate change documents, the qualifications are everywhere. "Well, it's likely" "not likely" "we must understand that we cannot fully trust these measurements" "we don't know how unusual this is", etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Third, and most importantly, "It is only with averaging periods of 30-years or longer that climate change can be detected robustly." Again, since models are not verified by the past, but by the future (I can explain the past in terms of Thor's wrath if I so feel like it), then to average 30-year periods takes at least 30 years. The first 30-year period ends in about four years, and the average for this period will actually tell against the models. So, yeah, we probably ought to wait another 30 years.

Click to expand...

The Met Office report states that we can expect such a ‘pause’ of a decade or more to occur twice per century due to internal variability alone. And that’s using a trend of 0.2 C/decade, which is on the upper end of what’s been observed. A lower value would result in more/longer ‘pauses’

Climate models are not yet good at modeling short-term fluctuations like this. Nobody has ever claimed otherwise. That's why they're only used for long-term trends. Only about 3% of the heat accreted by Earth goes into the atmosphere, which is why oceanic cycles can have such a noticeable influence on short-term trends. Our inability to model the oceans realistically doesn't mean we can't support multi-decadal global warming. 1998 was the strongest El Nino of the century. Since then the climate has predominantly been in a neutral or La Nina state, where cooler surface temperatures prevail while heat is buried into the ocean.

The only way to reduce the infrared warming effect of increased CO2 concentration over multi-decadal time scales is to reduce planetary solar heating. Earth must reflect enough sunlight to balance the increased thermal infrared heating from CO2 and the associated increase in water vapor concentration. Either clouds (cue Lindzen) or ice must become more reflective. That's it. We observe ice to be melting, and there's no evidence that clouds are becoming reflective enough to overcome the infrared warming. So there is no observed natural process that can greatly slow down the multi-decadal warming trend. Hiding the heat in the oceans is not a solution. The oceans will simply burp the heat back up within a few years of ingesting it. So when El Nino returns (possibly this year) and the long-term (30 year) trend doesn’t “tell against the models,” will you still be calling for another 30 years of observations? Will you hop on the “No warming since 2014” bandwagon 5-10 years from now? Or will you accept that science is right and we really do have a problem?

therealUT said:

Von Storch, for one. And, yes, climate models do serve a predictive function. You cannot deny such an assertion and then claim that we ought to pay attention to what climate science projections, based on models, say about the year 2100, 2500, 3000, etc. If you deny that climate models serve a predictive function, you deny any reasonable beliefs about the future of climate change.

Have you read the Oppenheim paper?

Yes, even if the models had precisely and accurately predicted the past 25 years we ought to hold off to ensure a large enough sample size, as well as intergenerational discourse and criticism. As it is, models don't show the pause (well, 98 percent of them don't), so they are in error for a large portion of the time span (greater than 2/3) on a significant matter.

Why should we put faith in the same system which tells us increased CO2 emissions (of which their has been a great increase over the past 15 years) leads to higher surface temperatures that tells us the other indicators will also lead to massive climate change?

Have you ever zeroed a rifle?

Click to expand...

Yes I've zeroed a rifle. No I haven't read the Oppenheim paper. Link?

Ok so I found your von Storch 2% quote. Unfortunately he’s gone to the media with that statement without having a peer-reviewed publication to back it up, so there’s not much we can do in the way of analyzing his work. It appears he’s taking a page out of the denialist playbook by selecting 1998, an incredibly strong El Nino year, as the starting point for both his 10 and 15 year model evaluations. I wonder why he didn’t pick 1997, or 1999? The "pause” didn’t even start until ~2002.

Von Storch seems to be playing an odd game where he publicly states that AGW is real, but then he goes to the conservative media (Spiegel, WSJ) and makes contrary statements (or, perhaps they just like to twist his words). From the horse’s mouth:

In order to avoid misunderstanding, I am declaring already now: I am convinced that humankind can change climate, and I am equally convinced that humankind is presently changing climate…anthropogenic climate change is ongoing now; it can not be stopped; all what we can do is to limit climate change. The foreseeable future will hardly see any reduction of global emissions – but merely reductions of global emission growth. If we continue with business-as-usual and if no deus-ex-machina technological fit surprisingly emerges, we may well end up with a tripling or maybe even quadrupling of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at the end of the current century. Such levels will have severe implications. Making serious attempts to reduce emissions, we may be able to limit the increase in the greenhouse gas concentrations to a doubling of pre-industrial levels. “Doubling” is to be considered an achievement; a successful limitation. But also a doubling will have serious implications. Therefore we have to consider adaptation to climate change, not instead of, but parallel to mitigation of climate change. The goal is to limit the accumulation of greenhouse gases to “only” a doubling (or any other achievable significant reduction) and to prepare societies and ecosystems to adapt to unavoidable future changes."

Click to expand...

I’m not sure what to make of the guy. On one hand he resigned as editor-in-chief of Climate Research (with 4 other editors) over the most egregious case of pal review ever, where 14 deeply flawed contrarian papers were snuck in by Chris de Freitas. On the other hand, he himself published a fundamentally flawed critique of Mann's hockey stick (though that may have been an honest mistake). I can see where you’d consider him to be neutral. To me, it sound like he's playing good cop – bad cop. Either way I don’t think he’d agree with your “business-as-usual until at least 2050” approach (even Sandvol only asks for 10 years). Fortunately I don’t think most politicians would, either. We’ll probably implement a carbon-pricing scheme like much of the world already has within the next decade.

We could be royally ****ed if we just wait around until 2050. I see that as awful risk management, you apparently don’t. We’ll just have to agree to disagree there.

Meet The Surprising Star Of Showtime’s New Climate Change Series

Good read on evangelist Texas Tech climate scientist Dr. Hayhoe, who also happens to be married to a pastor

Ice core analysis of millennia > lame Office tables covering 30 years

Problem solved. Everyone become a vegan. Livestock give off more greenhouse gases than every human and their vehicle in the world. If we didnt eat meat we wouldn't kill earth!!!!!!!!!!!

Grand Vol said:

I do.

Al Gore is an unappreciated genius.

Click to expand...

He is super cereal

BartW said:

:snoring:

You guys seriously suck at science. Sandvol, how many times have I had to tell you that scientists don’t like you and your ‘skeptic’ sites misrepresenting their work? I won’t even dignify your copypastes with a rebuttal. You never answer them anyway.

That’s the annoying thing about “debating” ‘skeptics’. They have the advantage of just being able to make things up and it takes forever to knock down each argument as they’re only limited by their imagination while we’re limited by things like logic and data.

I’ll keep my 97%, you keep your 3%. Fix yourself a nice tobacco-DDT-asbestos cancerwich and kick back with a cold one while you watch the world burn. Fred Singer says nothing bad will happen and he’s never been wrong before, right?

Click to expand...

There, there. Just because your vinegar and soda volcano got bad grades in elementary school doesn't mean everyone else sucks at science. I have no idea what that statement means anyway. Suck at science. I don't give a shiite about sucking at science, I took exception with your juvenile notion that "most scientists are credible". You are so full of yourself (or shiite, you can choose) that you can't see that most scientists produce what their funding source tells them to produce or they don't get the chemistry sets paid for anymore.

82_VOL_83 said:

There, there. Just because your vinegar and soda volcano got bad grades in elementary school doesn't mean everyone else sucks at science. I have no idea what that statement means anyway. Suck at science. I don't give a shiite about sucking at science, I took exception with your juvenile notion that "most scientists are credible". You are so full of yourself (or shiite, you can choose) that you can't see that most scientists produce what their funding source tells them to produce or they don't get the chemistry sets paid for anymore.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, because scientists would compromise their morals (if they had any to begin with) to do fake research with pre-determined results for governments all around the world (and for multiple generations) because they want, nay, need global warming to be true to push their commie new world order agenda. If global warming didn't exist we'd all be out of a job! After all, there's nothing else to study in the universe...

FLVOL_79 said:

Problem solved. Everyone become a vegan. Livestock give off more greenhouse gases than every human and their vehicle in the world. If we didnt eat meat we wouldn't kill earth!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

we'd have to give up beer, too, lots of CO2 in beer

Sandvol said:

derp copypaste derp

Click to expand...

FLVOL_79 said:

Ice core analysis of millennia > lame Office tables covering 30 years

Click to expand...

LMAO these got likes? I was gonna ignore SV’s nonsense but this is a teaching opportunity I can’t pass up.

Here we have a fabulous example of confirmation bias. “Science is a lie! Unless (I think) it supports my position; then it’s truth!” It’s hilarious how you’ll fall for such obvious con jobs. I’ll give you guys an opportunity to regain some e-cred. If you can figure out what’s wrong with SV’s copypaste I’ll give you a science cookie.

Here's a hint. It involves the third and fifth characteristics of scientific denialism.

BartW said:

The Met Office report states that we can expect such a ‘pause’ of a decade or more to occur twice per century due to internal variability alone. And that’s using a trend of 0.2 C/decade, which is on the upper end of what’s been observed. A lower value would result in more/longer ‘pauses’

Click to expand...

Are you lying or are you just scientifically illiterate? This is a serious question. Yes, the conclusion to report two states, explicitly what you said, however, that conclusion is just not well written. The actual model-data from the report says we can expect 10-year pauses twice a century, not 20-year pauses, and the graph for 15-year pauses does not show that we can expect 15-year pauses twice a century, nor once a century.

BartW said:

Climate models are not yet good at modeling short-term fluctuations like this. Nobody has ever claimed otherwise.

Click to expand...

Bingo. You should think about this and the implications of such a statement. Climate models have only been predicting anything for around 25-years. You say they are not good at predicting short-term. Thus, it is required to give the climate models a long time (an intergenerational period of 40 years) in order to verify the predictions through observation. Not doing so is just putting blind faith in such models. That is not science, that is scientism.

BartW said:

The only way to reduce the infrared warming effect of increased CO2 concentration over multi-decadal time scales is to reduce planetary solar heating. Earth must reflect enough sunlight to balance the increased thermal infrared heating from CO2 and the associated increase in water vapor concentration. Either clouds (cue Lindzen) or ice must become more reflective. That's it. We observe ice to be melting, and there's no evidence that clouds are becoming reflective enough to overcome the infrared warming. So there is no observed natural process that can greatly slow down the multi-decadal warming trend. Hiding the heat in the oceans is not a solution. The oceans will simply burp the heat back up within a few years of ingesting it. So when El Nino returns (possibly this year) and the long-term (30 year) trend doesn’t “tell against the models,” will you still be calling for another 30 years of observations? Will you hop on the “No warming since 2014” bandwagon 5-10 years from now? Or will you accept that science is right and we really do have a problem?

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

1. According to the assumptions of science, you are correct. But, you must recall that these are always assumptions. I suggest you read individuals like Popper, Chalmers, Quine, and Kuhn in order to actually understand science, and not just the mechanics of science. Here's a little snippet from Popper, "Einstein showed that, in the light of experience, we may question and revise our presuppositions regarding even space and time, ideas which had been held to be necessary presuppositions of all science, and to belong to its 'categorical apparatus'...he found that if we alter it in a point which had so far been held by everybody to be self-evident and which had therefore escaped notice, then the difficulty could be removed...it certainly has to be admitted that, at any given moment, our scientific theories will depend not only upon experiments, etc., made up to that moment, but also upon prejudices which are so taken for granted that we have not become aware of them...Any assumption can, in principle, be criticized. And that anybody may do so constitutes scientific objectivity." Do you think Karl Popper was anti-science?

2. So, if by 2024, there has been no surface temperature warming for the past 25 years, will I be pressing to wait another 30 years before pushing to institute policies to mitigate climate change? Yes. Asking such a question as if it is somehow a reductio demonstrates that you are a blind zealot of scientism and not a scientist.

BartW said:

Yes I've zeroed a rifle. No I haven't read the Oppenheim paper. Link?

Click to expand...

1. What happens when your zero on your rifle is not precise? You might hit a lot of targets, and only miss a few. But, missing those few ought to be the impetus to go back and recalibrate. Of course, there is also the case in which you might zero your rifle to 300m, thus you may, due to the trajectory of the slug, have to adjust your aim point at 150m, and the problem might not be the zero, after all. But, you find this out when aiming at center mass at the 300m target you hit center mass. The 300m target is, ostensibly 2100-2500 CE. Right now, these models are missing the 25m targets. It could be they are zeroed correctly; however, it might be they are not. But, there is no easy method in which we can verify, because we cannot bring the future to us. Thus, we must increase the sample size, and see if our predictions hold over a larger number of years. Again, they might not and the models still might be zeroed correctly. But, that is mere faith; and you cannot institute interventionist policies that restrict freedom and liberty of currently living individuals, to include making food less available and more expensive, based on mere faith.

2. The Oppenheim paper is the best paper ever written on scientific explanation. I suggest you read it. Just search Oppenheim and Hempel.

BartW said:

Ok so I found your von Storch 2% quote. Unfortunately he’s gone to the media with that statement without having a peer-reviewed publication to back it up, so there’s not much we can do in the way of analyzing his work. It appears he’s taking a page out of the denialist playbook by selecting 1998, an incredibly strong El Nino year, as the starting point for both his 10 and 15 year model evaluations. I wonder why he didn’t pick 1997, or 1999? The "pause” didn’t even start until ~2002.

Click to expand...

I don't wonder at all. The pause began in 1998.

BartW said:

Von Storch seems to be playing an odd game where he publicly states that AGW is real, but then he goes to the conservative media (Spiegel, WSJ) and makes contrary statements (or, perhaps they just like to twist his words). From the horse’s mouth:

Click to expand...

1. Your horse's mouth comment comes in 2009. His statements regarding the pause and puzzle come four years later. So, after being a very robust believer in the most dire predictions of climate change, he now questions that positions based on observations from the past 15 years. That is not an odd game. That is the game all scientists ought to be playing.

2. Of course, you pin von Storch with some weird game because he is obviously only reaching out to the conservative media. I'll even grant the crazy implication that Der Spiegel is some bastion of conservative thought, because I don't need it. You are drawing an inference from the fact that these publications published these comments by Storch that Storch specifically sought out these publications. That is an unwarranted inference. It could be that Storch wanted to tell any and every publication that was willing to listen, and these are the two that jumped at the opportunity.

BartW said:

I’m not sure what to make of the guy. On one hand he resigned as editor-in-chief of Climate Research (with 4 other editors) over the most egregious case of pal review ever, where 14 deeply flawed contrarian papers were snuck in by Chris de Freitas.

Click to expand...

This is ad hominem, and you know it. Storch had barely even taken over as Editor-in-Chief when the scandal broke, and it was something that was taking place before he took over. If you knew anything about the inertia of editing processes amongst different academic journals, you would know that no incoming Editor-in-Chief is going to immediately overcome that inertia. As for Storch, his reputation, within the academic and scientific communities, was not harmed one bit from the incident; and, now, he is in the same position with the AMS's Journal of Climate (do you think that is a contrarian organization and a contrarian journal)?

BartW said:

On the other hand, he himself published a fundamentally flawed critique of Mann's hockey stick (though that may have been an honest mistake). I can see where you’d consider him to be neutral. To me, it sound like he's playing good cop – bad cop. Either way I don’t think he’d agree with your “business-as-usual until at least 2050” approach (even Sandvol only asks for 10 years). Fortunately I don’t think most politicians would, either. We’ll probably implement a carbon-pricing scheme like much of the world already has within the next decade.

We could be royally ****ed if we just wait around until 2050. I see that as awful risk management, you apparently don’t. We’ll just have to agree to disagree there.

Click to expand...

There you go, begging the question, again. If we wait around until 2050 to see whether or not the models are actually correct, we will be royally ****ed because the models are actually correct. You have to remove your bias (the models are actually correct). Then, you can say something like, we could be royally ****ed if we wait around and we might not be royally ****ed if we wait around. On the other hand, we could be royally ****ed if we act now and we might not be royally ****ed if we act now.

If the proposed solution to climate change was a no-cost solution, then I'd be all in. But, the proposed solution is a large-cost solution (lack of ****ing food for individuals that are already barely at the subsistence level...that's a billion ****ing people), and we are not sure that we actually must act. We are basing it on scientifically modeling, not scientific experiment and observation. And, the observations we do have do not mesh with our assumptions. Those are bold ****ing facts; and, if you want to starve individuals because you really, really like your scientific models and you really, really think that the world must conform to the models (and, not the models to the world), then you are not only a zealot, but an *******.

Every move you have made in this debate can be traced back to exactly what Heidegger warned us about in the early 20th Century. Science turning into scientism. Scientists turning from experiment and observation, to simply placing all their trust in their "scientific assumptions" (which, by the way, is all a model is, albeit a very sophisticated assumption device), and the masses putting all their trust in the scientist. It is scientism, not science. Science makes hypotheses, builds experiments, and patiently waits for the results. And, sorry, but the results of the models are not the results of the experiment.

From It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.....

"And then, best of all. Sir Isaac Newton gets born and blows everyone's nips off with his big brains. Of course he also thought he could turn metal into gold and he died eating mercury. Making him yet another stupid (*slaps 'b****' sticker*) b****!...

I'm glad you brought up, Mr. Reynolds. Because science... is a liar sometimes. This... is Aristotle. Thought to be the smartest man on the planet. He believed the Earth was the center of the universe. And everybody believed him because he was so smart until another smartest guy came around. Galileo. And he disproved that theory... making Aristotle and everyone else on Earth look like... (*slaps a sticker that reads 'B****' on Aristotle's picture*) b****."

This is not directed at anyone or a reply to anything written already.

Any person who "knows" and never accepts that his knowledge is suspect and open to debate or alternate, plausible, and/or contradictory concepts or ideas, especially concerning things which can not be proven or dis-proven, are made to be a hypothesis or just one's belief.

Religion, global warming, whatever, accept that no one truly knows what they are talking about, regardless of how much that belief seems to be truth.

Stop thinking we are somehow special, or able to understand, or are meant to. Stop thinking so highly of ourselves that blind and unwavering thoughts or beliefs make you more important, or even just relevant, in this universe.

A common theme I see from BartW is attacking the credibility of any scientist who questions IPCC. I'm sure some of the criticism is warranted but it seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to attack the scientist. To the extent such defensiveness occurs the objectivity of science is defeated. The open-minded inquiry and willingness to question core assumptions is lost.

volinbham said:

A common theme I see from BartW is attacking the credibility of any scientist who questions IPCC. I'm sure some of the criticism is warranted but it seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to attack the scientist. To the extent such defensiveness occurs the objectivity of science is defeated. The open-minded inquiry and willingness to question core assumptions is lost.

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with science. Bart is an operative and a zealot. This is right out of the Marx and Alinsky play books.

therealUT said:

**** **** ****

Click to expand...

You keep telling us a carbon tax will kill billions. Can you back that up? Many economists seem to disagree. And so far no countries have crashed and burned from carbon pricing...

therealUT said:

According to the assumptions of science, you are correct. But, you must recall that these are always assumptions. I suggest you read individuals like Popper, Chalmers, Quine, and Kuhn in order to actually understand science, and not just the mechanics of science. Here's a little snippet from Popper, "Einstein showed that, in the light of experience, we may question and revise our presuppositions regarding even space and time, ideas which had been held to be necessary presuppositions of all science, and to belong to its 'categorical apparatus'...he found that if we alter it in a point which had so far been held by everybody to be self-evident and which had therefore escaped notice, then the difficulty could be removed...it certainly has to be admitted that, at any given moment, our scientific theories will depend not only upon experiments, etc., made up to that moment, but also upon prejudices which are so taken for granted that we have not become aware of them...Any assumption can, in principle, be criticized. And that anybody may do so constitutes scientific objectivity." Do you think Karl Popper was anti-science?

Click to expand...

No, but I feel you’re reducing the argument to science was wrong before. Every assumption is criticized constantly. But I fail to see where we should discount direct measurements of radiation entering and leaving the Earth system based on a philosophy of pyrrhonism. It’s a simple heat balance – conservation of energy. Maybe everything ever is wrong, but if I were a betting man…

therealUT said:

So, if by 2024, there has been no surface temperature warming for the past 25 years, will I be pressing to wait another 30 years before pushing to institute policies to mitigate climate change? Yes. Asking such a question as if it is somehow a reductio demonstrates that you are a blind zealot of scientism and not a scientist.

Click to expand...

You conveniently reworded my question. If, by 2020, the “pause” is disrupted by El Nino (as it has been repeatedly in the past) and the 30-year trend is consistent with model predictions, you would still have us wait until 2050?

therealUT said:

The Oppenheim paper is the best paper ever written on scientific explanation. I suggest you read it. Just search Oppenheim and Hempel.

Click to expand...

Thanks I’ll give it a read

therealUT said:

I don't wonder at all. The pause began in 1998.

Click to expand...

Using 1998 as a starting point is shameless cherry-picking.



Where's the pause? My point remains - the “2%” comment has no peer-reviewed work to back it up. And I remind you that temperatures are still entirely within IPCC predictions.

therealUT said:

This is ad hominem, and you know it. Storch had barely even taken over as Editor-in-Chief when the scandal broke, and it was something that was taking place before he took over. If you knew anything about the inertia of editing processes amongst different academic journals, you would know that no incoming Editor-in-Chief is going to immediately overcome that inertia. As for Storch, his reputation, within the academic and scientific communities, was not harmed one bit from the incident.

Click to expand...

If you’ll go back and read my post (maybe it was poorly worded?) you’ll see I was praising Von Storch for resigning over the journal’s refusal to revise or retract the contrarian papers that were snuck in by de Freitas. However, I contrast that with his failed attack on Mann’s hockey stick (which Von Storch still claims as an achievement on his site) and the obvious case of cherry-picking above. I stand by my point that he’s made a number of misleading statements to the media. But he’s certainly done good scientific work. I’m in no way comparing him to the Fred Singers or Roy Spencers out there. He seems to be straddling the isle, throwing criticism at both skeptics and alarmists. So yes he seems more-or-less neutral. I’ll pay attention to what he does in the future.

therealUT said:

1. According to the assumptions of science, you are correct. But, you must recall that these are always assumptions. I suggest you read individuals like Popper, Chalmers, Quine, and Kuhn in order to actually understand science, and not just the mechanics of science. Here's a little snippet from Popper, "Einstein showed that, in the light of experience, we may question and revise our presuppositions regarding even space and time, ideas which had been held to be necessary presuppositions of all science, and to belong to its 'categorical apparatus'...he found that if we alter it in a point which had so far been held by everybody to be self-evident and which had therefore escaped notice, then the difficulty could be removed...it certainly has to be admitted that, at any given moment, our scientific theories will depend not only upon experiments, etc., made up to that moment, but also upon prejudices which are so taken for granted that we have not become aware of them...Any assumption can, in principle, be criticized. And that anybody may do so constitutes scientific objectivity." Do you think Karl Popper was anti-science?

Click to expand...

Popper! Ah, seeing Popper on VN warms my heart. Popper is awesome.

BartW said:

LMAO these got likes? I was gonna ignore SV’s nonsense but this is a teaching opportunity I can’t pass up.

Here we have a fabulous example of confirmation bias. “Science is a lie! Unless (I think) it supports my position; then it’s truth!” It’s hilarious how you’ll fall for such obvious con jobs. I’ll give you guys an opportunity to regain some e-cred. If you can figure out what’s wrong with SV’s copypaste I’ll give you a science cookie.

Here's a hint. It involves the third and fifth characteristics of scientific denialism.

Click to expand...

No biters? Alright, I’ll explain.

The first layer of fail is that the GISP2 data is from one ice core at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet (high latitude, high altitude), so it isn’t remotely representative of average global temperature. That’s like checking the thermometer in your backyard and claiming to know the temperature everywhere.

Then GISP2 ends in 1854 where it’s nonchalantly spliced with HADCRUT3 global temps. Without noting it that’s deceiving in and of itself, but even then the HADCRUT3 data were misrepresented. We’ve seen temps rise ~ 1 C since 1854 but your plot shows maybe half of that.

Anyway, if they wanted to show a plot of local temperatures in Greenland they could have spliced it with, you know, temperature data from Greenland?



And the CO2 plot is from the EPICA Ice Dome C ice core, which is in Antarctica, not Greenland. I could make the same argument about cherry-picking one location but since the atmosphere is fairly well-mixed I’ll let that slide. What you should notice though is that this data set ends in 1777. Heck, if we're going to add the modern temperature data should we not also be adding the modern CO2 data?



And there you have it. Another funny thing about comparing data from Greenland with data from Antarctica is that their temperatures are anti-correlated. Here we have global average temperature from a multi-proxy reconstruction (Vostok is shown in Dark Blue, GISP2 in light blue):



Note that the average global temperature today is hotter than any time in the holocene. If you look closely you'll see that Vostok and GISP2 temps are indeed anti-correlated. That means their average will have far fewer and smaller fluctuations then either separately. The rapid rises and declines in the Greenland ice core during the holocene are not global events, but the equivalently precipitous rise in 20th century temperatures is.

So what have we learned? Denialists are not at all interested in furthering their knowledge. They only want to sift the information provided by real scientists and pick out bits and pieces they can misuse to further their political ends. Tsk tsk. There goes your cookie.

therealUT said:

We are basing it on scientifically modeling, not scientific experiment and observation. And, the observations we do have do not mesh with our assumptions.

Click to expand...

Left this little nugget out. Here you go again, holding up surface temperature models as the pinnacle of climate science. You realize there are other experiments, observations, and models (the vast majority actually) that have proven entirely consistent with climate science? What about the correct predictions of increasing downward radiation, decreasing outward radiation, stratospheric cooling, cooling and contraction of the ionosphere, decreasing diurnal temperature range, polar amplification, ocean acidification, rising tropopause, or the tens of thousands of natural rythms that have been upset… what about predictions that have proven to be too conservative, such as the rate of sea level rise and arctic ice melt?

Not only are you cherry-picking 1998 as the start of your “pause”, you’re cherry-picking surface temperature as the only data set that matters. After all, only 3% of Earth’s energy budget goes into the atmosphere. What about, say, ocean heat content, which accounts for over 90% of Earth’s energy budget?

Bart, while you are tallying predictive success to outweigh a significant predictive and explanatory lapse, don't forget the following:

- the earth has continued to rotate on its axis
- the earth has continued to revolve around the sun

I'm sure that the more predictive successes you list, the less I'll give a **** about the significant lapses. I can predict at least 1,000 things that will happen tomorrow. I'm probably the next nostradamus.

Pointing to explanatory lapses is not cherry-picking. Refusal to acknowledge the significance of the lapses or the attempt to focus everyone only on the successes is cherry-picking, and, further, is antithetical to science.

Enjoy your scientism, you've earned it. I'm out.

BartW said:

You keep telling us a carbon tax will kill billions. Can you back that up? Many economists seem to disagree. And so far no countries have crashed and burned from carbon pricing...

No, but I feel you’re reducing the argument to science was wrong before. Every assumption is criticized constantly. But I fail to see where we should discount direct measurements of radiation entering and leaving the Earth system based on a philosophy of pyrrhonism. It’s a simple heat balance – conservation of energy. Maybe everything ever is wrong, but if I were a betting man…

You conveniently reworded my question. If, by 2020, the “pause” is disrupted by El Nino (as it has been repeatedly in the past) and the 30-year trend is consistent with model predictions, you would still have us wait until 2050?

Thanks I’ll give it a read

Using 1998 as a starting point is shameless cherry-picking.

Where's the pause? My point remains - the “2%” comment has no peer-reviewed work to back it up. And I remind you that temperatures are still entirely within IPCC predictions.

If you’ll go back and read my post (maybe it was poorly worded?) you’ll see I was praising Von Storch for resigning over the journal’s refusal to revise or retract the contrarian papers that were snuck in by de Freitas. However, I contrast that with his failed attack on Mann’s hockey stick (which Von Storch still claims as an achievement on his site) and the obvious case of cherry-picking above. I stand by my point that he’s made a number of misleading statements to the media. But he’s certainly done good scientific work. I’m in no way comparing him to the Fred Singers or Roy Spencers out there. He seems to be straddling the isle, throwing criticism at both skeptics and alarmists. So yes he seems more-or-less neutral. I’ll pay attention to what he does in the future.

Click to expand...

You're the Master of Shameless:

BartW said:

No biters? Alright, I’ll explain.

The first layer of fail is that the GISP2 data is from one ice core at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet (high latitude, high altitude), so it isn’t remotely representative of average global temperature. That’s like checking the thermometer in your backyard and claiming to know the temperature everywhere.

Then GISP2 ends in 1854 where it’s nonchalantly spliced with HADCRUT3 global temps. Without noting it that’s deceiving in and of itself, but even then the HADCRUT3 data were misrepresented. We’ve seen temps rise ~ 1 C since 1854 but your plot shows maybe half of that.

Anyway, if they wanted to show a plot of local temperatures in Greenland they could have spliced it with, you know, temperature data from Greenland?

And the CO2 plot is from the EPICA Ice Dome C ice core, which is in Antarctica, not Greenland. I could make the same argument about cherry-picking one location but since the atmosphere is fairly well-mixed I’ll let that slide. What you should notice though is that this data set ends in 1777. Heck, if we're going to add the modern temperature data should we not also be adding the modern CO2 data?

And there you have it. Another funny thing about comparing data from Greenland with data from Antarctica is that their temperatures are anti-correlated. Here we have global average temperature from a multi-proxy reconstruction (Vostok is shown in Dark Blue, GISP2 in light blue):

Note that the average global temperature today is hotter than any time in the holocene. If you look closely you'll see that Vostok and GISP2 temps are indeed anti-correlated. That means their average will have far fewer and smaller fluctuations then either separately. The rapid rises and declines in the Greenland ice core during the holocene are not global events, but the equivalently precipitous rise in 20th century temperatures is.

So what have we learned? Denialists are not at all interested in furthering their knowledge. They only want to sift the information provided by real scientists and pick out bits and pieces they can misuse to further their political ends. Tsk tsk. There goes your cookie.

Click to expand...

Nice exaggerated inaccurate skew of the chart you shameless zealot. Why is the temperature 1-2C lower during the Holocene interglacial than the previous interglacial when the CO2 level is much higher?

therealUT said:

Bart, while you are tallying predictive success to outweigh a significant predictive and explanatory lapse, don't forget the following:

- the earth has continued to rotate on its axis
- the earth has continued to revolve around the sun

I'm sure that the more predictive successes you list, the less I'll give a **** about the significant lapses. I can predict at least 1,000 things that will happen tomorrow. I'm probably the next nostradamus.

Pointing to explanatory lapses is not cherry-picking. Refusal to acknowledge the significance of the lapses or the attempt to focus everyone only on the successes is cherry-picking, and, further, is antithetical to science.

Enjoy your scientism, you've earned it. I'm out.

Click to expand...

Aw c’mon TRUT, I wasn’t being that mean. I know you want to keep arguing

It basically comes down to this:

If the “pause” actually continues for another 10 years, I would readily admit the models are defunct.

If the “pause” is just short-term variation, and the long-term trend 10 years from now turns out to be exactly what the models predicted, you still won’t accept that they’re right. Not until 2050, which IMO is an incredibly arbitrary and rather silly requirement. And possibly deadly. Even Sandvol only asks for 10 more years of observation.

Sandvol said:

Nice exaggerated inaccurate skew of the chart you shameless zealot. Why is the temperature 1-2C lower during the Holocene interglacial than the previous interglacial when the CO2 level is much higher?

Click to expand...

Specifically, what is wrong with my version of your graph?

When were CO2 levels "much higher"?