Science Not Settled

[Phi for All]

Agree with Phill for all. There are Zombies...on both sides of the issue.

 

Agree with Wxman. He's repeating debunked arguments.

[Wxman]

Without full knowledge of all the relevant physical processes (models wrong) over a representative time period (only last 1-2K years...really) how can one possibly come to an informed conclusion? If there is a 5-minute uptick in the DOW and all the analysis/"experts"/models says a Bear market is definitely (95%) started are you going to go all in?

[swansont]

So why don't we pack up all science because we don't have full knowledge? Obviously, your computer might not actually work because we don't have full knowledge of all the physical processes going on. Throw your cell phone out, too. And your car, and all of technology.

 

Any gambit related to "the science is unsettled/we don't have complete knowledge" is just a dishonest dodge with a bad history. It was used by the tobacco companies to give the impression of uncertainty that smoking causes cancer, it's been used by creationists who want to discredit evolution and get religion taught in the classroom. And now it's being used by climate change denialists. You can tell the inherently dishonest ones by the tactics they use.

[overtone]

Indeed we do have a mystery. Why has the global temperature rise remained nearly flat over the last 15-17 years, yet CO2 has continued to increase..."October 1st marks the 17th year of no global warming significantly different than zero,” agreed Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science

As I pointed out above, that statement is an obvious and silly error - even the dubious graph of the inadequate and specialized single data set it's based on contradicts it.

 

 

 

Without full knowledge of all the relevant physical processes (models wrong) over a representative time period (only last 1-2K years...really) how can one possibly come to an informed conclusion?

The conclusion that there has been serious and rapid warming of the planet over the past century, including a solid rise in the past couple of decades, is based on tens of thousands of temperature readings of the warmed up stuff.

 

The physical processes involved in taking temperature readings are well studied and well known.

 

edit in: this is doubtless reputable in some sense:

 

Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science

but it's hard to avoid hearing Ben Affleck's character in Good Will Hunting, the guy who in the course of making moves on some college girls in a bar claims to have taken a university class in "science".

Edited October 3, 2013 by overtone

[Wxman]

Gee, the oceans have warmed, how convienent for the IPCC. Here's a different explaination. The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) is a mode of natural variability occurring in the North Atlantic Ocean and which has its principle expression in the sea surface temperature (SST) field. The AMO is identified as a coherent pattern of variability in basin-wide North Atlantic SSTs with a period of 60-80 years. Please note this is a NATURAL occurence. Where is the IPCC going to "hide' the heat next time? Also, exactly how large is that ocean heating shown in your graph? Is it significant?

 

“Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. … Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales. There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report.”

 

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AMO.htm

[swansont]

Please note this is a NATURAL occurence.

 

Whoop-de-frikkin-do. Nobody is claiming that AGW is magic.

 

Which means that regardless of whether it's man-made or not, one should be able to account for all of the energy coming in and leaving the earth, and from that, determine if the earth should warm up as a result. Calling something NATURAL doesn't change the fact that one should be able to study it and account for it. NATURAL doesn't mean that this is some new source of energy — it's not. An oscillation is something that goes up and then down again. That's shown in your link. So why is the temperature higher than in the past? How do you account for that? If we are in the downswing of an oscillation and that's driving the climate, then temperatures should be decreasing. Why aren't they?

[Wxman]

And a Whoop-de-frikkin-do day to you as well. Yes, AGW is not magic nor is it a given.

 

What I'm trying to do is show there are many inputs to the climate system, many of which are not completely understood...and do not have a sufficient period of record to know if current readings/trends are an anomaly or not. There are a number of other recognized oscillations besides the AMO. Some are long term, some are short period:

 

PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscilation): http://climateobserver.blogspot.com/2009/09/pacific-decadal-oscillation-pdo.html

La Nina/El Nino:

AO (Artic Oscillation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_oscillation

NAO (North American Oscillation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_oscillation

MJO (Madden-Julian Oscillation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madden%E2%80%93Julian_oscillation

 

It's also important to understand how these oscillations interact. Sometime amplifying an outcome and sometimes canceling themselves out.

I had a devil of a time reading the "oscillation tea leaves" while supporting long-range energy traders.

 

And lastly: http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/questions-the-media-should-be-asking-the-ipcc-the-hiatus-in-warming/

[overtone]

 

 

What I'm trying to do is show there are many inputs to the climate system, many of which are not completely understood...and do not have a sufficient period of record to know if current readings/trends are an anomaly or not.

Please. It has been the denialists who have been ignoring all those natural oscillations, and doing things like measuring a lack of warming by starting from an extreme Pacific oscillation year.

 

 

 

And lastly: http://bobtisdale.wo...tus-in-warming/

When you post links to people setting up the next round of Fox News style questions by showing how to get innuendo out of graphs people won't understand, you give away the denialist game.

 

It's like posting one of those memos Roger Ailes sends ouf to all his "news" readers and pundits and analysts, instructing them on the proper vocabulary to use in creating innuendo and misleading their audience.

[Wxman]

Overtone. That's the AMO not the PDO. So new info just denial?

[overtone]

So new info just denial?

None of your posting has contained any info new to any climate scientist, or even any of the casually informed posters on this forum.

 

Your presentation of it, such as links framed in recommendations that journalists ask Foxtype questions designed to wrongfoot media rookie scientists rather than inform their readers, is standard Murdoch/Koch denialism.

 

The propaganda use of"natural oscillations" is particularly revealing - the juxtaposition of that use with claims of no warming since about 1998, a flattening of the warming trend for "17 years", or the like, is simply diagnostic: this is deliberate argument in bad faith, deliberate confusion and muddling, deliberate dishonesty.

Edited October 8, 2013 by overtone

[Wxman]

The science is real and the "science" of AGW is a long way from being settled. The fact you brought up the Koch brothers (forgot Bush) has significantly undermined your credibility in this discussion. You have singlehandedly weaponized denial. And exactly what are your qualifications to discuss climate science again?

[iNow]

Arguments are not made based on ones credentials, but based on ones logic and evidence. The evidence is very clearly in support of the human contributions being the single largest current driver of recent increases in average annual global temperatures. Also, as has already been repeatedly pointed out, science is almost never "settled," but we can still draw conclusions that have an incredibly high likelihood of accuracy. Much like we don't fully understand quantum mechanics, yet still have computers that work and allow us to point out the silliness of your "humans can't impact climate" worldview on discussion forums like this...

[Wxman]

"Arguments are not made based on ones credentials, but based on ones logic and evidence." A mind-boggling statement. Without the appropriate knowledge/training how the hell can you judge or evaluate the evidence.

 

"The evidence is very clearly in support of the human contributions being the single largest current driver of recent increases in average annual global temperatures." Wrong again. The "evidence" tenuous at best is based on much too a short time period, the models don't have a clue (especially the last 15-17 years), I've shown that the warming oceans is a common occurrence, and the missing heat "hiding" in the ocean is a red herring.

 

"Also, as has already been repeatedly pointed out, science is almost never "settled," but we can still draw conclusions that have an incredibly high likelihood of accuracy. Your right the science is not settled, glad to see you finally agree. Again, if you starting with faulty theory then you can also have a high likelihood of being wrong.

[overtone]

The fact you brought up the Koch brothers (forgot Bush) has significantly undermined your credibility in this discussion.

I didn't. You did. I was just crediting a couple of your sources.

 

The fact that you do not credit the media and corporate sources of what you post, but pretend to have scientific sources for what is obviously not based on physical evidence or argument from physical theory (too many simpllistic "errors", all of the same agenda), is part of the problem here.

 

As noted:

 

Your presentation of it, such as links framed in recommendations that journalists ask Foxtype questions designed to wrongfoot media rookie scientists rather than inform their readers, is standard Murdoch/Koch denialism.

 

Meanwhile:

 

 

- - - And exactly what are your qualifications to discuss climate science again?

I wasn't discussing climate science, but denialist propaganda as it appears here - not a closely related matter.

 

Like this:

 

Your right the science is not settled, glad to see you finally agree

Whether or not the science is "settled"t has nothing to do with your posting regarding AGW, which is not based in science settled or otherwise.

 

As the gratuitous (and false) innuendo there (the "finally") illustrates perfectly.

 

The fact that climate science is far from settled in the matter of exactly what effects the dramatic anthropogenic boosting of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to have, does not bestow legitimacy on whatever nonsense you want to post on that matter.

 

 

 

Again, if you starting with faulty theory then you can also have a high likelihood of being wrong.

And if you start with no theory and no comprehension of anyone else's theory, you have almost no chance of being right. Edited October 9, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

"Arguments are not made based on ones credentials, but based on ones logic and evidence." A mind-boggling statement. Without the appropriate knowledge/training how the hell can you judge or evaluate the evidence.

 

Thank you for clarifying your lack of understanding of the logical fallacy called "argument from authority".

[npts2020]

I realize this thread has probably been abandoned by Wxman but if not, I would like to ask if there is EVER any level of human activity that could affect the climate? If so, where is that level of activity?

[John Cuthber]

Yes, the current level for example.

[Wxman]

Have not abandon the site. Just a nice, long golf vacation. To answer your question "Has man ever affected the climate?" I'd have to give that a big no. The "climate system" is very complex and must be viewed over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years to determine trends, repeatable cycles. Atmospheric Science/Climate are very young (fronts/jet stream not named/understood until WWII). Only when the "climate system' is understood can you "hypothesize" a cause if the occurrence is outside a "norm", let alone if man caused the anomaly. At a minimum, the climate system is a three-dimensional integration of many complex process over a very long time period. AGW alarmists have taken a

" minuscule snapshot in time" and inferred a one-to-one relationship with a gas that constitutes .0039% of the atmosphere. That is not science. In case you haven't noticed, the only thing getting warmer (bigger) is Uncle Al's bank account.

[John Cuthber]

Have not abandon the site. Just a nice, long golf vacation. To answer your question "Has man ever affected the climate?" I'd have to give that a big no. The "climate system" is very complex and must be viewed over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years to determine trends, repeatable cycles. Atmospheric Science/Climate are very young (fronts/jet stream not named/understood until WWII). Only when the "climate system' is understood can you "hypothesize" a cause if the occurrence is outside a "norm", let alone if man caused the anomaly. At a minimum, the climate system is a three-dimensional integration of many complex process over a very long time period. AGW alarmists have taken a

" minuscule snapshot in time" and inferred a one-to-one relationship with a gas that constitutes .0039% of the atmosphere. That is not science. In case you haven't noticed, the only thing getting warmer (bigger) is Uncle Al's bank account.

I hope you enjoyed the golf.

Re " the only thing getting warmer (bigger) is Uncle Al's bank account. " you are still plainly wrong.

 

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics/glnhsh.png

[Wxman]

Thanks. Had a great time. I think I had as many "beverages" as strokes. Gee, a 150-year record. How about 3-4 Hundred thousand year record. How the heck can you conclude massive warming without a valid context. Again, it's like looking at a 5-second uptick in the DOW and declaring a Bull Market.

[overtone]

- - Gee, a 150-year record. How about 3-4 Hundred thousand year record. How the heck can you conclude massive warming without a valid context.

How about 800k? Here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html You wanted 400k:? here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

 

We have various records of temperature and CO₂ on this planet going back to the dinosaurs and before. They all tell the same story, just like the physics and the chemistry and the oceanography and the astronomy and everything else tells.

Edited October 22, 2013 by overtone

[Wxman]

Thanks for the graph (400K). Clearly shows the cyclic, periodic nature of both parameters and proves my point. Climate is a cycle of cycles.

[overtone]

Clearly shows the cyclic, periodic nature of both parameters and proves my point. Climate is a cycle of cycles.

Nobody says any different.

 

That wasn't your point, before. Before, you were trying to claim the recent observations of the warming effects of CO₂ lacked adequate context. That claim was false.

 

btw: The fact that you were unaware of the existence of this data proves beyond doubt that you have no familiarity with the evidence and arguments behind the warnings of the likely effects of recent CO₂ level boosting. You should understand that that level of unfamiliarity invalidates anything you say on the matter.

Edited October 23, 2013 by overtone

[Wxman]

Was aware of the data, but the first time I'd seen the chart, which only reinforces the fact there are natural cycles of temp/CO2. More importantly, and the central question in this whole debate, is what is the real cause/affect between the two. Does the rising CO2 cause a temperature increase (AGW alarmists) or does a rising temperature cause a rise in CO2. Recommend you read the entire article http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658. Their conclusions below. Let me guess your response...no peer review, debunked, full of holes Blah, Blah, Blah.

 

12. Conclusions.

There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO₂ and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO₂ always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.

(1)

The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2)

Changes in global atmospheric CO₂ are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3)

Changes in global atmospheric CO₂ are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4)

Changes in global atmospheric CO₂ are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5)

Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO₂ since January 1980.

(6)

CO₂ released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO₂, and changes in atmospheric CO₂ are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7)

On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO₂, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8)

Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO₂.

[iNow]

Does the rising CO2 cause a temperature increase (AGW alarmists) or does a rising temperature cause a rise in CO2.

False dichotomy. It's both, and that acknowledgement changes nothing about the certainty with which we know the primary driver of the current warming trend.