Accuracy of An Inconvenient Truth

[doG]

Sorry, but there is no science is up to that standard. There is always uncertainty, there is always the possibility of some new phenomenon, as yet undiscovered.

So we cannot say man IS the predominate cause, we can only theorize that he is. IMO such a theory ignores past warming cycles as being part of the equation.

[SkepticLance]

Another interesting datum, of relevence if you are a polar bear.

 

Arctic warming is only winter. Summer temperatures have not increased in 100 years. Winter temperatures have increased about 2 to 3 Deg. Celsius on average. This has no significance in terms of polar bear habitat. In winter, it is way below zero, and that warming does not melt ice or snow.

 

Arctic ice is thinning, but not due to warming. The thinning is from changes in wind patterns. At the same time, sea ice in Antarctica is actually increasing, at least as the long term trend.

 

Total ice in Greenland is 'in balance' as the long term trend, though there are places where it gets thicker, and other places where it gets thinner.

 

All the above from Prof. Michaels book.

[RichF]

Do not underestimate mother nature's counter measures. Prior to the little ice age, which lasted 400 years, Europe experienced unusually warm weather. It is believed that this caused glacier melting that resulted in cold, fresh water entering the northern oceanic streams. One theory states that this disrupted the streams, cooling the ocean temp an causing the little ice age.

 

What caused the the wierd weather prior and during the little ice age? Was it due to the increased volcanic activity, a solar minima or a shift in the magnetic field or a combination of all? Who knows. In the end mother nature will balance it out whether we are around to see it or not.

 

I would highly recommend reading up on the little ice age. Interesting stuff!

 

Quick Edit:

I do believe that green house gasses are bad and should be limited within reason but former politicians running around like chicken little screaming that the sky is falling turns me off.

[ecoli]

Premise 1) Mother Nature has natural cycles that alter weather patterns

Premise 2) The research on Global warming doesn't completely show that

anthropogenic aerosols is the main cause.

 

Conclusion - Anthropogenic aersols can't be the main cause, and current global warming must be the affected solely by Mother nature.

 

 

^ I think that sums up the faulty logic of the 'Non- AGG" guys, does it not?

[ecoli]

So we cannot say man IS the predominate cause, we can only theorize that he is. IMO such a theory ignores past warming cycles as being part of the equation.

 

The problem is, if we spend too much time debating whether or not it IS the cause, it may be too late, if it turns out that it was.

 

On the other hand, if we assume the worse, and do our best to find alternative fuel (which we'll need to do eventually anyway), limit emmisions, etc., than we certainly can't do more harm to the environment.

 

The way I see it on simple terms, is that there's a coin. One the head side of the coin says that humans aren't affecting the environment, the tails side says that AGG are defintely causing global warming.

 

If we do nothing, we flip the coin as is, and hope it lands on the right side.

 

But, we can prepare ourselves before tossing the coin. We can change our habits so that the affect of getting the head side of the coin is minimized. But, the effect of that preparation, even if the coin lands on tails, isnt necesarily harmful, even in terms of economic costs.

 

That's a simplistic, black and white version, anyway.

[bascule]

Another interesting datum' date=' of relevence if you are a polar bear.

 

Arctic warming is only winter. Summer temperatures have not increased in 100 years.[/quote']

 

Not according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center:

 

 

All the above from Prof. Michaels book.

 

See, the funny thing is anyone can write a book. A book is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

 

Here's another interesting book: Darwin's Black Box

 

This book clearly explains that the scientific concensus about evolution is wrong. Life could not have resulted from abiogenesis, because of "irreducibly complex" structures.

 

Well, that seals it for me. The biological concensus is wrong, and Michael Behe is right.

 

Evolution is disproven!

 

See, it doesn't work that way.

 

A book simply doesn't compare to a peer-reviewed scientific paper published in a journal like Science. For example, the Hansen et al 2005 paper Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications.

 

Here's a synopsis:

 

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2005/story04-28-05.html

 

Using satellites, data from buoys and computer models to study the Earth's oceans, scientists have concluded that more energy is being absorbed from the Sun than is emitted back to space, throwing the Earth's energy "out of balance" and warming the planet.

 

Scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (Washington, D.C.), The Earth Institute at Columbia University (New York), and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (California) have confirmed the energy imbalance by precisely measuring ocean heat content occurring over the past decade.

 

The Earth’s energy imbalance is an expected consequence of increasing atmospheric pollution, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), and black carbon particles (soot). These pollutants block the Earth’s radiant heat from escaping into space, increasing absorption of sunlight and trapping heat within the atmosphere.

 

"This energy imbalance is the 'smoking gun' that we have been looking for," says James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, part of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, and the lead author of the study. "It shows that our estimates of the human-made and natural climate forcing agents are about right, and they are driving the Earth toward a warmer climate."

[SkepticLance]

bascule said :

 

Not according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center:

 

bascule, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. You have shown average temperature increase in Northern latitudes. I said SUMMER temperatures. Winter temperatures increased 2 to 3 degrees, so the average was an increase. My point, though, is still valid. It does not matter if winter temperatures increase. So instead of minus 40, we get minus 37??? Is anyone concerned???

 

You seem to like James Hansen? Professor Michaels reports on his work too. Dr. Hansen looked at the horrible range of computer models and their widely differing results. He reasoned (sensibly, it seems to me) that the best models would be the ones that most closely modelled what has already happened. He chose the best model by this standard, and used it to predict the next 50 years. Temperature increase of 0.75 Deg. Celsius!

 

Are you going to get all paranoid about 0.75 degrees over 50 years? If you do, I am sorry for you.

 

I have to say, though, your repeated comparisons to creationists and their opposition to evolution is objectionable in the extreme. I find it most offensive and I ask you to stop. In biology, there are no authorities who support creationism. In Climatology, there are many who are sceptical of the extreme global warming views. There is an enormous world of difference.

[bascule]

bascule said :

 

Not according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center:

 

bascule' date=' there seems to be a misunderstanding here. You have shown average temperature increase in Northern latitudes. I said SUMMER temperatures.[/quote']

 

Fine, here's another source that contradicts your book. In fact, they assert the exact opposite of what you contend, arguing that Arctic spring, summer, and autumn have warmed, while arctic winters have cooled (at least up through the '90s):

 

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.html

 

Comiso’s new study presents some striking trends. When compared to longer- term, ground-based surface temperature data, the rate of warming in the Arctic from 1981 to 2001 is eight times larger than the rate of Arctic warming over the last 100 years. There have also been some remarkable seasonal changes. Arctic spring, summer, and autumn have each warmed, lengthening the seasons when sea ice melts by 10 to 17 days per decade. Temperatures increased on average by almost one and a quarter (1.22) degrees Celsius © per decade over sea ice in the Arctic summer. Conversely, Arctic winters cooled from the 1980s to the 1990s. The study finds that winters were almost 1 (0.89) degree C cooler per decade.

 

 

So instead of minus 40, we get minus 37??? Is anyone concerned???

 

Are you going to get all paranoid about 0.75 degrees over 50 years? If you do, I am sorry for you.

 

Climate vulnerabilities are another matter entirely. All I'm trying to get you to do is to admit that anthropogenic forcings are predominant in driving global warming trends.

 

I have to say, though, your repeated comparisons to creationists and their opposition to evolution is objectionable in the extreme. I find it most offensive and I ask you to stop.

 

I find your spreading of lies and distortions offensive and ask you to stop.

 

In biology, there are no authorities who support creationism.

 

There most certainly are! Beyond Michael Behe, here's a nice list compiled by Answers in Genesis:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

 

In Climatology, there are many who are sceptical of the extreme global warming views. There is an enormous world of difference.

 

Okay SkepticLance, I'll take everything I've said back if you can find me a recent, peer-reviewed paper published in a major scientific journal which contends that natural climate forcings predominate anthropogenic forcings in driving global warming trends. I've already provided you with several which corroborate my assertion.

[swansont]

So we cannot say man IS the predominate cause, we can only theorize that he is. IMO such a theory ignores past warming cycles as being part of the equation.

 

 

No. We can still still look at the effects of individual factors, e.g. putting CO₂ into the atmosphere and measure how much is put there by humans. From that we can predict the overall effect of that action. This does not ignore past warming cycles if it accounts for the factors that caused them.

[swansont]

I have to say, though, your repeated comparisons to creationists and their opposition to evolution is objectionable in the extreme. I find it most offensive and I ask you to stop. In biology, there are no authorities who support creationism. In Climatology, there are many who are sceptical of the extreme global warming views. There is an enormous world of difference.

 

There are few positions so extreme that you can't find a credentialed person or two that support it. Creationism has, as bascule has pointed out, biologists who support it, which is what happens when you let iodology drive science. The comparisons are apt. Argument from authority is a logical fallacy, and science is not a democracy, so it's not a matter of lining up an "expert" or two one each side and voting. You have to dig deeper; you have to look at the data and the methodology.

 

I've steered clear of discussion of the data because it's not my field. But several of the criticisms about general methodology being flawed have been off base, as I've pointed that out.

[swansont]

You seem to like James Hansen? Professor Michaels reports on his work too. Dr. Hansen looked at the horrible range of computer models and their widely differing results. He reasoned (sensibly' date=' it seems to me) that the best models would be the ones that most closely modelled what has already happened. He chose the best model by this standard, and used it to predict the next 50 years. Temperature increase of 0.75 Deg. Celsius!

[/quote']

 

 

Do you have a citation for this?

[SkepticLance]

bascule.

I looked at your data on winter temperatures in the Arctic with great interest. I accept that it shows a pattern opposite to the study Prof. Michaels quotes, and I accept that it is probably a valid set of results.

 

What I suspect you don't know is that you just scored an 'own goal.'

 

I have said, a number of times, that a computer model has to be treated like a scientific hypothesis. It must be tested empirically. This is done by using the model to make a testable prediction, and then testing it.

 

One of thse testable predictions, from computer models based on the anthropogenic greenhouse gas hypothesis, is that warming in the Arctic will be primarily in winter. If we test this, and discover than the Arctic warms up more in summer, then we have falsified the basic hypothesis.

 

Of course, this is a distorted view of one set of results. It is much more likely that your set of results, which appear to falsify the greenhouse gas hypothesis, is simply another of the many sets of doubts and uncertainties surrounding the whole subject.

 

Swansont.

You asked for the Hansen reference. Prof. Michaels gives in his index :

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2001.98, 4113-20.

[Dr. Dalek]

But, we can prepare ourselves before tossing the coin. We can change our habits so that the affect of getting the head side of the coin is minimized. But, the effect of that preparation, even if the coin lands on tails, isnt necesarily harmful, even in terms of economic costs.

We are already doing that to a certain extent, I think. Even I, a global warming skeptic, would love to have a hybrid car just for the efficiency. I also have heard many ideas about powering vehicles through french-fry oil and bio-diesel.

 

I worry about the global warming debate's effect on the economy only because I can remember a few times in history where people have taken something to far just trying to be safe.

 

My main problem with the Global Warming community is that if someone like me or SkepticLance, or doG, comes out and brings attention to the fact that Mankind-induced Global Warming may not bring about the end of the world, or is not a certain thing we are labeled Skeptics.

It is healthy to be a little skeptical.

 

I think it would be a lot more productive if people like us stopped arguing over theories and the interpretations of data and started designing testable experiments.

[bascule]

My main problem with the Global Warming community is that if someone like me or SkepticLance, or doG, comes out and brings attention to the fact that Mankind-induced Global Warming may not bring about the end of the world, or is not a certain thing we are labeled Skeptics.

 

Strawman. Nobody here is arguing about climate vulnerabilities. All I've been trying to argue is that anthropogenic forcings are predominant, and neither you nor SkepticLance is yet to admit that.

[bascule]

One of thse testable predictions, from computer models based on the anthropogenic greenhouse gas hypothesis, is that warming in the Arctic will be primarily in winter. If we test this, and discover than the Arctic warms up more in summer, then we have falsified the basic hypothesis.

 

Whose model? Where's their paper? And how does this falsify the large amount of empirical data collected which demonstrates that anthropogenic climate forcings, particularly those of CO₂, predominate in causing global warming? How does this discredit the Hansen paper and the satellite data it's based on?

 

You're just spouting nonsense. Either back up your claims with links to scientific papers or shut up already. You're simply bilging blatant untruths.

 

Of course, this is a distorted view of one set of results. It is much more likely that your set of results, which appear to falsify the greenhouse gas hypothesis, is simply another of the many sets of doubts and uncertainties surrounding the whole subject.

 

Again, this is empirical data, collected from satellites. The kind of stuff you kept whining and bitching for before. Now that you have it, you scream doubt?

 

You've been shown to be wrong, and rather than simply admit it, you try to lie your way out of the corner you're stuck in.

 

It's clear you're not concerned about the science whatseover. It seems more like you have a personal vendetta and seek to spread fear/uncertainty/doubt about climate science.

[bascule]

Hmm, here's an intersting tibit on Michaels' challenges to the IPCC and the need for peer review:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=109

 

Next, we discuss the first of three so-called "bombshell" papers that supposedly "knock the stuffing out of" the findings of the IPCC. Patrick Michaels and associates billed his own paper (McKitrick and Michaels, 2004) (co-authored by Ross McKitrick ), this way:

 

After four years of one of the most rigorous peer reviews ever, Canadian Ross McKitrick and another of us (Michaels) published a paper searching for “economic” signals in the temperature record. …The research showed that somewhere around one-half of the warming in the U.N. surface record was explained by economic factors, which can be changes in land use, quality of instrumentation, or upkeep of records.

 

It strikes us as odd, to say the least, that, after one of the "most rigorous peer reviews ever", nobody involved (neither editor, nor reviewers, nor authors) seems to have caught the egregious basic error that the authors mistakenly used degrees rather than the required radians in calculating the cosine functions used to spatially weight their estimates**. This mistake rendered every calculation in the paper incorrect, and the conclusions invalid -- to our knowledge, however, the paper has not yet been retracted. Remarkably, there were still other independent and equally fundamental errors in the paper that would have rendered it entirely invalid anyway.

[SkepticLance]

bascule.

We would all take you a bit more seriously if you could cool the emotional outbursts. Good science is not emotional.

 

On the business of computer models predicting Arctic warming would be greatest in winter, my most recent source is Prof. Michaels book. However, I also saw it a few years ago in an article by Dr. Stephen Schneider.

 

Why are you unable to admit you made an error in claiming your data disproves my argument? No-one will hold it against you. I have even said that I do not believe that 'warmer in Arctic summer' data disproves your case.

 

So here we have two studies that came up with different results. So what. It happens all the time in a whole range of sciences - all those sciences which are statistical rather than precise.

 

And again, the main thing it points out is the confusion surrounding the whole field.

 

To get away from a point that arouses such vitriol ...

A few years ago, a group of economists (including four Nobel Laureates) met and calculated that $ 50 billion per year spent on Kyoto would return a social value of less than $ 1 for each dollar spent. They calculated that, if the money was spent instead on HIV/AIDS prevention, it would save 28 million lives and return $ 40 for each dollar spent.

 

This information came from today's New Zealand Herald, which reprinted an item originally published in the Observer. Yes I know. You will tell me it is not a reliable source of data. Nevertheless, the point made above is valid.

[bascule]

bascule.

We would all take you a bit more seriously

 

Seems like all the scientists here take me seriously' date=' and aren't taking you and Dr. Dalek seriously, with your rather distorted views of what science is.

 

if you could cool the emotional outbursts. Good science is not emotional.

 

Lies and FUD are not "good science" either.

 

On the business of computer models predicting Arctic warming would be greatest in winter, my most recent source is Prof. Michaels book.

 

However, I also saw it a few years ago in an article by Dr. Stephen Schneider.

 

Books and articles are not peer-reviewed scientific papers published in a major journal.

 

So, in other words, you have no scientifically credible source for your assertions.

 

They are unscientific. Can we please keep this to actual science?

 

Why are you unable to admit you made an error in claiming your data disproves my argument?

 

What error, what data, and what argument?

 

So here we have two studies that came up with different results. So what. It happens all the time in a whole range of sciences - all those sciences which are statistical rather than precise.

 

Yes, there's a "debate" going on in biology now too: evolution vs. intelligent design. The difference is the advocates of intelligent design have no science on their side.

 

I've asked you quite a few times now: find me a paper which corroborates the assertion that natural forcings predominate over anthropogenic ones.

 

You have failed to do this.

 

You have failed to find any peer-reviewed papers which corrobrate your assertions. You keep falling back on a book. Anyone can publish a book. Books don't have to undergo the peer review process, which is essential for good science.

 

And again, the main thing it points out is the confusion surrounding the whole field.

 

This is the same claim those advocating intelligent design make in order to bolster their claims, namely that because the "debate" exists in the first place there is some legitimacy to the other side.

 

This clearly isn't the case. Intelligent design is unscientific.

 

A few years ago, a group of economists (including four Nobel Laureates) met and calculated that $ 50 billion per year spent on Kyoto would return a social value of less than $ 1 for each dollar spent.

 

Please, no red herrings. The issue at hand is still whether or not anthropogenic forcings are predominantly responsible for global warming.

 

The issue is not climate vulnerabilities.

 

The issue is not Kyoto.

 

Do you still believe that the assertion that anthropogenic forcings are primarily responsible for global warming is unscientific?

 

If so, please find scientifically legitimate criticisms of the IPCC report, the NRC report, and the Hansen paper.

 

I've already provided information showing Michaels challenges to the IPCC report are based on faulty calculations which used degrees instead of radians, in addition to other problems.

 

You have no science on your side.

[SkepticLance]

bascule said :

 

Do you still believe that the assertion that anthropogenic forcings are primarily responsible for global warming is unscientific?

 

bascule, it would make our discussion more meaningful if you would take the time to actually read what I have written.

 

What I have said is that we do not know which is more dominant. A recognition of a lack of data to support a position is very scientific. Drawing definitive conclusions when the data is insufficient is very unscientific. I recognise that there is not sufficient data to say whether natural forcings or anthropogenic forcings are dominant.

 

We know that there have been two major global warming periods in the last 100 years. Both gave a similar degree of warming. About 0.4 Deg. Celsius averaged over the whole world.

1. 1910 to 1940

2. 1976 to 1998

 

The first was not preceded by a large increase in greenhouse gases, but the second was. Both are associated with significant and substantial increases in solar activity as shown by readings of sunspots. The rational conclusion is that warming number 1 was caused by natural forcings and warming number 2 by both natural and anthropogenic.

 

I regard this as a very rational position to take. Your adamant view that we know it all and it is all 'humans are guilty' is not a reasonable position in view of the facts.

[bascule]

bascule said :

 

Do you still believe that the assertion that anthropogenic forcings are primarily responsible for global warming is unscientific?

 

bascule' date=' it would make our discussion more meaningful if you would take the time to actually read what I have written.

 

What I have said is that we do not know which is more dominant.[/quote']

 

So, your answer to my question is "yes"

 

Now, can you please show me some scientific criticisms of the papers I've provided, or papers written by others which argue the other side?

 

You are yet to produce one paper which corroborates the alternate hypothesis, namely that natural forcings dominate.

 

A recognition of a lack of data to support a position is very scientific.

 

If there really is such a lack of data. Claiming a lack of data when there is not is the approach creationists take in an attempt to "discredit" evolution.

 

I recognise that there is not sufficient data to say whether natural forcings or anthropogenic forcings are dominant.

 

You can make the claim. That doesn't make it the case.

 

We know that there have been two major global warming periods in the last 100 years. Both gave a similar degree of warming. About 0.4 Deg. Celsius averaged over the whole world.

1. 1910 to 1940

2. 1976 to 1998

 

Psst, warming has continued past 1998. 2005 was the hottest year on record.

 

The first was not preceded by a large increase in greenhouse gases, but the second was. Both are associated with significant and substantial increases in solar activity as shown by readings of sunspots. The rational conclusion is that warming number 1 was caused by natural forcings and warming number 2 by both natural and anthropogenic.

 

Okay, so you're going over what we both already know for the third time...

 

I regard this as a very rational position to take. Your adamant view that we know it all and it is all 'humans are guilty' is not a reasonable position in view of the facts.

 

Your assertion "we don't have enough data" is not a reasonable position in view of the facts.

[SkepticLance]

bascule said :

 

Now, can you please show me some scientific criticisms of the papers I've provided, or papers written by others which argue the other side?

 

You are yet to produce one paper which corroborates the alternate hypothesis, namely that natural forcings dominate.

 

I do not need to produce a paper because, as I have said repeatedly, I do not know, nor does anyone else know which forcing is dominant. If we do not know, we cannot produce 'proof'.

 

bascule, my reasoning is based on a recognition of the doubts and uncertainties surrounding this issue. You think that is spurious. If so, can you explain to me why the IPCC cannot come up with a single computer model to give a single answer to virtually any question about global warming, and particularly why the IPCC reports predicted warming that might be 1.5 Deg. Celsius up to 6 Deg. Celsius over the next 100 years.

 

How can they be that uncertain if the science is certain? The simple reality is that the IPCC is not sure of its details, and neither can you or I be.

[SkepticLance]

If anyone is interested; about the Hansen paper I cited earlier, showing that the likely warming over the next 50 years is likely to be in the vicinity of 0.75 Degrees Celsius ...You can get the abstract of this paper on

 

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/26/14778

[swansont]

If anyone is interested; about the Hansen paper I cited earlier' date=' showing that the likely warming over the next 50 years is likely to be in the vicinity of 0.75 Degrees Celsius ...You can get the abstract of this paper on

 

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/26/14778[/quote']

 

 

"We argue that trends can be reduced to the level needed for the moderate "alternative" climate scenario (2 W/m2 per century for the next 50 years) by means of concerted actions that have other benefits ..."

(emphasis added)

 

Looks like Hansen is arguing that it is possible to achielve growth that small, but not what is predicted to happen if no action is taken.

 

You've misrepresented this. He's NOT predicting that the temperature increase will be 0.75 C in the next 50 years with the status quo.

[bascule]

You've misrepresented this. He's NOT predicting that the temperature increase will be 0.75 C in the next 50 years with the status quo.

 

This looks quite a bit like how Michaels presents Hansen. Hansen makes a number of possible predictions based on possible trends, then Michaels presents only one, out of context, and uses it in an attempt to discredit Hansen:

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/pat_michaels_fraud_pure_and_si.php

 

Essentially, it's a strawman

[doG]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.html

This is a great example of someone slicing the data to support their viewpoint instead of looking at the whole picture. Here the writer tries to compare a 20 year span to a 100 year average' date=' apples and oranges really. Why not compare a 20 year span to another 20 year span, say 1980-2000 to 1916-1936. Then we find that the earlier span had 175% greater warming trend than the current span that the author wants us to look at. Picking and choosing the data to fit a hypothesis while disregarding the rest of it is not science and this is evidence of the type of distorted analysis global warming proponents are using to prove their point. Perhaps some of our man-made problems-proponents can explain that earlier trend and how it was caused by man too.

 

For those that think the end is near, search on phanerozoic carbon dioxide levels. While current charts indeed show CO2 levels as high as they've been in the last 20 million years you'll see that they are also some of the lowest levels in time when we look back 50 million years or more.