The Challenge
I have a little challenge … I’m looking for anything from the climate change Deniers that is not a lie, distortion, misrepresentation, or out and out fraud. I am trying to find something, anything, anything at all pertaining to the climate change that we are currently experiencing that:
You’d Think They’d Shout it from the Roof Tops
If they had anything real, anything of substance, any evidence or fact at all you would think that they would shout it from the rooftops. You might imagine that it would be plastered all over every Denier website and blog, wouldn’t you?
Checking out Denier claims
For the past few months I have been checking out the Denier claims. At Digg.com alone I have looked at over a thousand. I have also read material on hundreds of Denier blogs and websites by both amateur and the professional shills, and watched too many absolutely ridiculous videos (eg the aptly named “Swindle“). I have searched high and low for anything of substance, anything at all, and the result of my search has been …
It’s all well aged porcine fecal matter. All of it, lock stock and barrel. They have nothing, nada, zilch, gar nichts, zip, wuyou, ничто, ei mikään, null set, sfa … how can I put this?
Yes there is a lot of legitimate debate about significant details of climate science, some of it quite heated. But anything that actually puts climate science into question? No, nothing.
Unless you folks know of something.
So there it is folks; have the Deniers actually got something squirreled away in some secret lair? Some actual evidence? even a single fact jealously guarded by a select Council of the Immundati? Let’s find out once for all if the Deniers have even a single scrap of reality to their stance, or if it’s all just lies and frauds.
Council of the Immundati
If you think you have something please post the link to this most Holy of Artifacts in the comment section below.
Remember it must meet the criteria given above, so please check How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic to be sure it has not already been debunked before posting.
Artifices will be labeled for what they are and mocked mercilessly. The better ones may be the subject of future blogs.
Naturally if nothing turns up it is not proof that nothing exists, but they spend so much energy and angst trying to convince us I would think they want us to see it, no?
If something real does turn up I will pack this Denier Slaying in and go get a life … So let’s do this.
Much thanks.
UPDATE:
I see I am going to have to sharpen the point somewhat here. Being blunt, the professional Deniers (see “The “Skeptics”: Who Are They?” at right) who have made a career out of Denial apparently have not been able to find anything, or at least they have not told anyone about it or put it on their various websites.
So the probability that something you find in a quick internet search or laying around Digg turns out to be “it” is really, really, really unlikely. Please see the criteria above … thanks again.
UPDATE Oct 12/ 2008
Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The Role of Ideology
—-
IMAGE CREDITS:
Seeing Beyond Sight Challenge by sparkieg
Greenfyre's 
You aren’t looking. You have no intention of looking. There’s no argument in existence that could change your mind if it smacked you right between the eyes. All you want is for some skeptic smuck to take your bait so you can accuse him or her of coming from a gene pool which obviously would be inferior to yours. Get a life. Find some other way to get your kicks. Find some other way to entertain the AGW “choir”.
—-
What about RP Sr. or Lindzen?
—-
OK, Mike. Here are TWO little links submitted to honor your challenge:
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/documents/MemoLettertoHighCommissioner.pdf
‘Open Letter to the British High Commissioner’, August, 2007
WJR Alexander
Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering
University of Pretoria, South Africa
http://www.nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/evans.pdf
‘My Life With the AGO and Other Reflections’, June, 2007
Dr. David Evans
Contractor to the Australian Greenhouse Office
Carbon Accounting Section
Hopefully, at least ONE of these links will pass muster. I do not know if either of these credentialled scientists are ‘old coots’ or ‘industry shills’ [1]. Quite frankly, I have learned not to expect too much from Warmers when their orthodoxy is challenged or threatened. Since neither link presents a peer reviewed paper [2], you cannot, in the final analysis, find a scientifically compelling pronouncement within them on the subject of GW. Hopefully, since your challenge doesn’t require reaching that lofty level of accreditation, you will be able ‘to find something, anything, anything at all’ in at least one of these links that is not a ‘lie, distortion, misrepresentation, or out and out fraud’. Neither Warners nor Skeptics have all the answers. Both Warmers and Skeptics have at least SOME of the answers.
I just want science to consider more than one hypothesis for the causes of GW [3], not just the one sanctioned by the IPCC. It is imperative that this be done, given the $trillions it will cost to radically change the world’s societies to control CO2 emissions. If time is of the essence, and if we chase the AGW CO2 cure, and if ten years down the road GW turns out to be caused by Mother Nature after all, were screwed. Well, not really, unless you subscribe to the Al Gore – Jim Hansen tipping point malarkey (it’s hard to know fact from fiction, truth from lies, on the subject of GW) [4]. We have time to give due diligence to conduct an expanded search for all likely causes of GW. If Mother Nature is the culprit, we’ll need to spend those $trillions on finding ways to adapt to this reality, and not waste them on ineffective CO2 reduction efforts [5].
Regards, Jeff
—-
Haha, I’m having a good time reading your posts. No suggestions from me, since my stance is that the deniers don’t have anything unless they use selective and anomalic sources that may not (and most often have not) survive(d) a closer look (that is, a thorough examination from fellow scientists).
But one comment though: You say “climate change is anthropocentric” in the first paragraph. You mean “also anthropogenic” or something like that?
—-
Hi,
I used to be a strong believer in Global Warming but I would call myself more of a sceptic now.
After watching “The Great Global Warming Scandal” and more recently these videos (part 1-4):
Can you address the points made here, I have no problem with global warming if enough evidence can back it up. I actually believe carbon dioxide will increase temperatures, but not by anything that will cause any real effect compared to sun spots etc.
I am just looking to find the truth here. There is a lot of bullshit to wade through from both sides of the argument on it, and you seem to know your stuff.
Cheers.
—-
On a related note, when it was shown in Australia, there was a debate panel afterward and an interview with the Swindle’s creator, Martin Durkin. Since Panda seems to like YouTube, allow me to link to that interview (part 1 of 2; keep following the video responses). It includes direct references of some of the more glaring errors, such as the “missing data filled in by Jesus“.
I should note that the panel included deniers, IPCC authors, journalists, coal representatives, WWF leaders, and so on. Interesting tidbit: The audience questions afterward were mostly asked by Lyndon LaRouche activists, and one of them admits it.
For a more comical take on the Swindle, I direct you to Marcus Brigstocke.
—-
Jeff says:
Mike,
Regarding http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/documents/MemoLettertoHighCommissioner.pdf
You said that Alexander “even buys into the ‘1998 was not the hottest year” fraud …”. From what I have seen, NASA did indeed make temperature corrections that put 1934 as the hootest year. not 1998. [1] I am aware that NOAA claims to be the official temperature keepers, but why would NOAA and NASA, two separate U.S. Government agencies (formerly in agreement with the record) now stand by different data? Aexander referred, correctly, to the NASA record that was changed after certain errors had been identified by Steve McIntyre. Alexander doen’t appear to said anything fraudulent. But you say he made a fraudulent claim… by your power of fiat.
Regarding,
Click to access evans.pdf
Evans has been neatly dispatched by ad hominem procedure. Nicely done, sir! [2]
Let me throw one example more your way to chew on (or up): Refer to:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791
A study published in Science Express on Oct 19, 2007 says that sea bed core sample analyses revealed that deep-sea temps rose by about 2 degrees C between 19 and 17 thousand years ago, leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and surface warming by about 1,000 years, and cannot be attributed to CO2 forcing. An anomoly? Perhaps. You said you were looking for something (anything!) that refutes climate change. This warming begs explanation, having preceded increases in CO2. Give it your best shot. [3]
Mike:
I had you pegged from my first comment.
Thanks, it was fun.
—-
For the record, since I suspect Jeff won’t see this, his comment above (regarding the Stott et al paper about the deep ocean CO2 “burp” at the start of the last deglaciation) is a great example of how a lack of relevant scientific knowledge combined with a denialist predisposition can lead to a completely wrong conclusion about a paper.
Interestingly the Stott et al results helped supply a key missing part of the deglacial mechanism picture. It’s important that CO2 not be part of that mechanism (at the start, anyway) since CO2 is, after all, just a gas and can’t lift itself by its own bootstraps (as it were). In essence, increased high-latitude insolation (from Milankovitch cycles) increases Southern Ocean winds, which in turn accelerates ocean circulation and degases the CO2 which was sequestered in the deep ocean as things cooled down during the previous glacial cooling.
There are some good on-line resources explaining all of this in detail, including 1) a Nature review focused on the deglaciation, 2) a review discussing the broader observed poleward shift in the climate zones and associated jet streams, and 3) Marchitto et al (2007), another paper finding the same CO2 pulse. There doesn’t seem to be a public-access copy of Stott et al.
One of the two papers (I forget which) found a double CO2 pulse, regarding which Huybers amd Langmuir have proposed an interesting solution, although I don’t know how accepted this is. But it more or less involves warming via volcanos melting things, so you’d think the denialists would be thrilled with it!
OT re the WordPress format: It remains ‘orrible. Is it possible to just borrow a template from another WP blog? If so I would recommend Tamino’s.
—-
The problem here is ‘How to disprove something that cannot be shown to be false’. The truth is the earth is warming. The cause of this warming is the question that cannot be answered by true pursuit of scientific research. [1] There are many trends that indicate several possible causes but this does not make it fact.
Prove that evolution is fact – this is impossible because you cannot disprove that God exists. Evolution appears to be true but it is still a Scientific Theory.
Anthropogenic Climate Change is also a Scientific Theory – it is still being investigated. Both Deniers and Alarmists need to remember that science takes time (and scientists have been wrong before). [2]
—-
JCP, you draw a false dichotomy between evolution and God’s existence. The two aren’t mutually contradictory, despite what the Discovery Institute says.
Likewise, the term “theory” in science means something slightly different than it does in colloquial English. In everyday parlance, a theory is what science calls a ‘hypothesis’ — a guess or inference that experimental data will test. In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has held up to repeated testing. Once it hits this point, the burden of proof is on the skeptic to disprove it, as it’s already passed experimental muster.
Also, there is no “AGW theory”. It’s a CONSEQUENCE of a theory. See Michael Tobis for a better explanation.
While you’re at it, on the “takes time” line, you’re right — but this has been a serious research topic since the 1930s (and was proposed in 1896). Twenty years ago, the Deniers (i.e. S. Fred Singer) said that we should wait and see. Today, he’s also saying you should wait and see (when he’s not complaining about conspiracies by THIRD WORLD KLEPTOCRATS!). Riddle me this: How long are we going to have to wait to satisfy you?
—-
Actually, a theory never ‘wins.’ Evidence against a theory settles it decisively; wrong; reject or update it.
Likewise, a theory getting predictions wrong is the strongest evidence against.
Science proceeds on guessing and *dis*proof of the wrong guesses.
Everything else is still in the running, and good luck improving on the current set with your investigations!
We can also make a distinction between theories that can and can’t be settled on the basis of evidence.
Those that can’t can largely be considered theology (like Freud.)
There is a misinterpretation of my statement concerning evolution. Evolution theory requires that Nature is the driving force. You cannot disprove that God is the driving force instead of Nature. Therefore there will always be some who say that Evolution is not true. Science cannot overcome the faith of some people.
The link to “just a theory” is so wrong. Anyone can post on a website for $20. [1] The references are nice but incomplete. I will use the definition that I have learned in my 8+ years of Chemistry education and 10+ years of research.
The fact that there are many deniers[2] with credentials says that the Scientific discussion is not over. Science fact cannot be determined in the public (non-scientific) forum [3].
In closing – Politics is anthropogenic – man will ultimately decide how to proceed. Politicians will debate and decide. Scientists will continue to research. Others will try to influence both.
A good scientist will not be influenced.
A good politician will always be influenced.
—-
In response to Brian D – How long are we going to have to wait to satisfy you?
1) How long did it take to show that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe?[1]
Science is not politics; Politicians must do what is considered best for the masses.
Science only looks for the truth. Actions based on incomplete understanding can lead to worse problems.
—-
Thank you for your time and comments. It is apparent that you have strong beliefs. [1] FYI I am not a global warming denier.
Science isn’t as absolute as you claim. [2] It is the best interpretation right now. [3] If you are indeed in the sciences no one should have had to point that out to you. [4]
—-
So, it should be a piece of cake for you to claim this $500K prize: http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
I guess your response will be that “It’s all been proved already! Why do I have to do it again? What about those 2500 scientists? etc. etc.” [1]
I doubt that this challenge is any more rigged than yours [2], and it would be interesting (for the observers, anyway) to see you try to take on Steve head-to-head. MY guess: you will throw off a couple ad hominem attacks and chicken out. [3]
Here’s a couple of things I didn’t find in the “How to talk…” screed:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ElNino.gif Currently, on junkscience.com, this graph appears with the claim that the rate of temperature fall after the 1998 El Nino falsifies the hypothesis that water-vapor enhanced greenhouse effect exists to a dangerous extent. The idea is, if there was a strong positive feedback effect from water vapor, it would show up with any temperature increase, however caused — it could not just be associated with CO2. [4]
There are actually a number of measurements that are only incoherently addressed by the AGW crowd; such as this one, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/well-gr.html, which shows the response to a perturbation in radioactive CO2 injected into the atmosphere by nuclear bomb tests. These tests ended abruptly in 1964, allowing the measurement of the CO2 lifetime of the radioactively tagged (C14) CO2 [5]. The graph demonstrates a ~12 year lifetime for atmospheric CO2. Note that this graph does not show “multiple lifetimes” or “long tails” (except that the concentration is decaying back to the equilibrium level).
(In case you aren’t aware of it: a short CO2 atmospheric lifetime doesn’t allow Human activity to account for more than a few percent of the atmospheric CO2)
I expect to get the usual incoherent rant [6] easily found on RealClimate in response. Too bad they don’t get out and make actual measurements, like these guys at Wellington did. I would look forward to an empirical attempt to show that this graph doesn’t actually mean what it simply shows, but all we’ll get is more hand-waving. (I have actually heard model runs referred to as “data runs”! This is a logical typing error — mistaking the map for the territory — and it is behind nearly all of AGW alarmism.)
—-
Re: UltimateGlobalWarmingChallenge.
People have tried this already. If it supports government action of any sort (i.e. if it suggests the free market can’t handle this), Milloy automatically dismisses it at junk science, and doesn’t need to provide a reason. (Read the rules of the challenge; that is perfectly legal under those.)
In this regard, it’s actually very, very similar to this challenge relating to evolution and put forward by convicted fraudster Kent Hovnid, except there Kent claims that independent scientists will evaluate the claim. (That’s right, the fraudulent young-Earth creationist is (at least on the surface) more fair than Milloy, who reserves the right to make scientific judgement calls on his own.)
This whole challenge is just a publicity stunt by the man who history will probably record as the perfect example of manipulation of science for personal gain.
If you didn’t know already, Milloy is quite possibly the biggest shill in existence. I know that people shouldn’t be called that blindly, but in Milloy’s case, it’s demonstrable — he was so deep into PhillipMorris’ pockets that even CATO had to fire him (but Fox News retained him!). In addition to running several simultaneous tax-deductable lobby groups out of his home, he also promotes the idea of junk science vs. sound science, which — by its ORIGINAL DEFINITION — is a political argument, not a scientific one (he didn’t even try to hide it back then). He’s the reason Fox News is seen as so paleolithic in the science department — in addition to climate change, he and his website dispute the links between smoking and lung cancer, CFCs and ozone, any form of resistance to DDT (spreading the myth that enviro greenies got it banned and killed thousands of people), and so on, in addition to studies linking gun control and crime.
Basically, the only common thread between those is that there was government intervention in the free market. This is a common trend in many Deniers (as Mike uses the term).
Sourcewatch him, or for something more amusing (albiet accusatory), read through Deltoid’s two collections on him.
This guy is a crackpot who does piles of damage based on where he is. It’s only a matter of time before his shilling backfires (it did already on CATO).
Apologies if this seems ad-hom, but given Milloy’s record, I figured it should be brought up. It is pertinent, as it casts doubt on the honesty of his ‘challenge’.
Oh, and one last point: CO2’s atmospheric residence time is on the order of centuries. The Industrial Revolution was around 200 years ago (also on the order of centuries). Pre-industrial concentrations were around 270ppm; current concentrations are around 385ppm (last I checked; I could have old data here). This is a 43% increase. Other data (such as carbon isotope ratios) allow us to say with confidence that this increase is almost completely (“almost” being used as a colloquialism of scientific uncertainty) due to human activity. This is not a trivial change in atmospheric composition.
“I can back this up with peer-reviewed research.”
Can you? And if you do have a peer-reviewed reference for your claim, why haven’t you submitted it to the Denier Challenge?
@Mike
I said:
“My guess: you will throw off a couple ad hominem attacks and chicken out.”
Your reply:
” [3]No, you seem to be the specialist in making speculative ad hominems, dissmissing what you imagine I will do.”
I concede your point: My prediction was 50% wrong. [A]
You said:
“[5] The graph shows exactly what it says it shows, and nothing more – the CO2 at Wellington, not the atmospheric CO2. ie it only shows where the CO2 isn’t wrt to one very specific geographic location, not where it is. ”
This may not be incoherent, but it is pretty lame. Are you trying to (indirectly) claim that CO2 is not rapidly well-mixed in the atmosphere? [B] In that case, you are standing alone against a real scientific consensus, with lots of data behind it. The C14 measurements were made at multiple locations in both hemispheres, and those measurements established that the mixing time is on the order of a year in the hemisphere of origin [C], with about a one-year lag into the other hemisphere. You will be hard-pressed to find anyone in the AGW crowd that believes that mixing is much slower than that. For your implied argument to have any substance at all, mixing time would have to be decades.
Just to be clear what the graph shows:
1. It shows that there is a physical process that removes ~ 50% of radioactive CO2 from the atmosphere in 12 years. [D]
2. When you include the fact that there is a background level of C14 (from cosmic ray interactions in the upper atmosphere), and the bomb perturbation is decaying back toward that background, the graph is easily shown to be consistent with a single exponential decay constant for CO2 removal.
Since there is no good reason to suppose that this (unknown) mechanism treats C12 significantly differently than C14 (else the whole carbon dating idea is seriously flawed), it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is ~12 years, regardless of its source, and the continuous removal of same is described by a normal exponential process (such as might be caused by diffusion, solubility etc.) [E]
Since the whole meme of blaming Humankind for all of the increase in atmosphere CO2 fails with such a short lifetime, what this graph shows is that CO2-based AGW is bunk. [F]
—-
Sheesh — now you are getting incoherent.
About your “…Central Europe where the peak isn’t until the late 70s.” Mike, there is no peak in that graph in “the late 70s” or at all — the data only starts after the peak had occured — can’t you even read a graph? Take a look at the Wikipedia page on Carbon 14 — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 — they give a plot of 14C at New Zealand and Austria on the same graph. You may notice that the New Zealand data starts out about 1 year behind (and somewhat lower) than the Austrian data, but after 3-4 years, they are identical (when mixing is essentially complete). The reference given claims that these values are representative for the Northern and Southern Hemisphere, respectively. Are you really trying to claim that this is just due to geographical chance?
The fact that some atmospheric testing took place after 1964 simply biases the lifetime calculation to slightly longer times — if corrected for, this would imply an even shorter CO2 lifetime.
Your “exchange vs. removal” idea is particularly incoherent — I agree that this is 11 grade science: You need to review your chem 101 textbook (assuming you ever took chemistry). Check out the chapter on “equilibrium reactions”. Whether CO2 concentration is growing, shrinking, or staying constant is controlled by the relative rates of exchange between the processes that are working in both directions. What the 14C measurements allow us to do is to measure the absorption half of those processes fairly accurately (since the bomb 14C was mostly injected into the atmospheric half of the balance). I get the impression you don’t understand this, but think that completely different processes must be acting depending on the direction concentration is going.
And yes, you are now resorting to ad hominem attacks.
—-
To BobC:
Bravo!
Thanks for taking the time to present the challenge that Mike asked for. I enjoyed reading the exchange! Thanks to you, I believe Mike got what he asked for….and more.
Jeff
—-
Thanks Jeff, glad you enjoyed it!
Looking in on Mike’s home page, however, it seems that he is even more shrill and dismissive of anyone who disagrees with him or AGW. I don’t think that I was ever having an actual dialog with him about data or facts.
More and more, these “conversations” remind me of arguing with missionaries at your door — their minds are fixed and nothing can affect that.
I can only hope that the lookers-on will be motivated to do their own investigating and some realize what a house of cards AGW and the “consensus” really is.
With regards to the arguments made above: If the simplest theory of trace gas lifetime (universally applied to all atmospheric gases except CO2) adequately explains all the data, [1] then there is no need to look for a more complicated theory. The problem with the theory as accepted in the ’70s was that it only allowed for Human emissions of CO2 to be responsible for about 4% of the CO2 increase over the last 100 years. This political problem is the motivation for the construction of ever more complicated, nonlinear (and exceptional: only applied to CO2) theories for CO2 lifetimes, which DO allow Human activities to take the blame for CO2 increase. The problem with these theories (besides being politically motivated) is that none of them adequately explain the existing data. Hence that data is ignored or dismissed, as Mike tried to do. Mike’s problem was, that he wasn’t even aware of this data until I brought it up, and he tried to wing it without doing his research — he got off script.
There are people over at RealClimate who will try to argue (inadequately, IMO) that the “new” theories are really compatible with the old data — but they NEVER address the fact that no “new” theories are needed to explain the data: they are all politically motivated.
If I really thought that a “consensus” of scientists thought that the construction of politically motivated theories was a correct way to do science, I would be forced to believe that science education was grossly inadequate. I think, however, that the “consensus” is a political smoke screen and doesn’t really exist.
—-
Welcome back Mike;
Unfortunately, your responses simply confirm that you don’t understand what I’ve been talking about.
Your links are completely irrelevant — they cover the greenhouse effect of CO2, something I never even mentioned; and your implication that I was trying to “refute climate change” indicates either a desperate attempt to create a strawman argument, or a lack of reading comprehension.
(There is a relevant statement, though, in the “…Deniers just don’t get it” link: “Deniers usually seem highly offended when all of the existing evidence is not immediately tossed out the moment they show up with some ‘new study’”. This is funny, because it is just what I’m accusing you (and all the other pro-AGW activists) of doing – throwing out, or ignoring, existing evidence because it doesn’t fit your politically motivated theory.)
Your entire response to my Oct 21 post simply confirms that you don’t understand the concept of processes in equilibrium. I really don’t have the time (I’m taking time out from paid consulting to write this) or the inclination to educate you in freshman chemistry concepts, which is why I invited you to review them. Since I know you won’t, however, (and for the benefit of other readers) here is a very short review:
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is the result of a (quasi) equilibrium between processes that increase it (call these ‘R_in’) and those that decrease it (call them ‘R_out’). The simplest assumption is that these processes run at rates that are proportional to the concentration (or the difference in concentration in the air and some sink). Let’s call this the “linear” assumption (linear in rate). These kind of processes result in exponential plots of concentration over time when recovering from a perturbation. They are characteristic of diffusion, solubility, osmosis, many chemical reactions, etc.
Human-caused CO2 obviously doesn’t satisfy this assumption – so if it turns out that the rate of Human-caused CO2 is not small compared to the natural processes, then this theory won’t produce a good fit to data.
There are an infinite number of combinations of rates of processes ‘R_in’ and ‘R_out’ that will result in a given concentration of CO2. If you want to know how much the equilibrium concentration will change if you add an input (call it ‘H_in’, for Human-caused), then you need to know the actual rates – not just the relative ratio of R_in to R_out.
For example, if the rates of R_in and R_out are low, then the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere will be long, and a relatively small H_in will cause a large concentration change. If R_in and R_out are high, then the CO2 lifetime will be short and the same H_in will cause a smaller concentration change.
Knowing the CO2 concentration with time does not tell us the actual rates of R_in and R_out. However, introducing a perturbation and watching it relax DOES. (It also allows us to check on our ‘linear rate’ assumption: if the relaxation curve is not exponential, then we know the assumption is false.)
This is exactly what the carbon-14 measurements do – measure the relaxation from the A-bomb produced increase of 14C in the atmosphere. The results of these measurements are that the CO2 lifetime is ~12 years in the atmosphere, and, of the 70 ppm increase in concentration over the last 50 years, Humans are, at most, responsible for ~4ppm of it. The rest of the increase is natural, and probably beyond easy control.
Also, the 4ppm is the maximum amount Humans could change the CO2 concentration by means of controlling the amount of fuel that we burn. The claim that we must reduce combustion to “stop global warming” is bogus, and is based on political agendas, not science.
Please note, Mike, what I am NOT saying:
1) I’m not saying that climate is not changing.
2) I’m not saying that global warming isn’t happening.
3) I’m not saying CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.
4) I’m not saying anything about the greenhouse effect.
In fact, my opinion on all of these things is completely irrelevant to the argument I’m making above. Try to keep your “refutation” focused on what I’m actually claiming.
BobC:
> I don’t think that I was ever having an actual dialog with him about data or facts.
For much of what you’ve written, that is the case. Lots of dissembling and fallacious argument, with very little in the way of substantive, evidence-based discourse.
You expend large quantities of verbiage on explaining what you are “NOT” saying, and little or none in explaining exactly what you are ‘saying’.
> I really don’t have the time … or the inclination to educate you…
Ah, that old canard – “I could prove you wrong, but I don’t have the time”. Yeah, whatever.
You present yourself as a towering intellect (almost in the Viscount Monckton mould) and yet, after much typing, you’ve not met the challenge – not even close – and you’ve not convinced me of anything, other than you’re a ‘hollow vessel’.
If there’s a grain of substance to your seeming waffle, why have you not published it? Why have you not claimed your Nobel, world fame, adulation and massive wealth for debunking the greatest scientific error / swindle in human history?
Those were rhetorical questions. We know why. You have nothing beyond rhetoric and partially formed pseudo science, all built on a foundation of Dunning Kruger and cognitive dissonance.
—-
“I’m looking for anything from the climate change Deniers…”
This is your request yet it is double speak. Firstly you need to acknowledge that those seeking scientific enlightenment almost all start from the well established fact that climate changes. The climate always has changed and always will. It appears that it is you who are in denial of this fact. According to you and to many others, people that are aware that the climate always has and always will change are to be labled “climate change deniers”.
It is you are are the climate change denier. The ones you seek to discredit and belittle are the very ones who are pointing out that what climate does is to change.
—-
“Therefore, Your Honour, the evidence clearly shows that the defendant is guilty of murder, as charged.”
“But Your Honour, people die every day.”
—-
Wow.
I could barely read the article and comments for all the bias. [1]
As a ‘fence sitter’ I haven’t seen anything but sketchy data that has no doubt been massaged in order to maintain the extreme claims on either side and make sure the grants keep rolling in. [2] They generally lack scope and fall into the same traps as most of the studies by people that look at one slice of an equation and boldly predict an answer (which they have to subsequently change over the next 50 years as they find “new” data to skew the equation)
Since I am not a scientist, I have to refer to history. There are several, several, references to similar global events happening in other areas. [3]
If you think I am being too dismissive, I will refer you to what has been a ages-spanning track record of scientists getting it WRONG.
A few in case you fail to see my point.
Y2K? mmmhmm End of the World circa 1999 [4]
The dramatic crime increase that will turn NA into an ultra-violent and lawless society by 2000. (Oh wait.. 1995 saw a dramatic EBB to violent crime and it’s been going down ever since) [5]
Chernobyl being uninhabitable for 100 years? [6]
They talk doom because that’s what gets them published. Then, when they turn out to be WRONG, most typically shirk responsibility in favor of a scapegoat.
Of course, nothing I just wrote is going to change the black-and-white view you have painted in your head likely the result of the same types of exaggerated misinformation you so boldly claim to fight against.. and then use belittling tactics to try and get your point across. [7]
Super convincing.
Of course, seeing how humans are responsible for LESS than 3% of the worlds carbon emissions. The majority is caused by forest fires and volcanic eruptions. I am pretty sure that in terms of volcanic activity we have been pretty light these last few hundred / thousands of years so it would stand to reason this should have happened a long time ago.. and if it did it is clearly NOT irreversible. [8]
Until the matter is actually studied in its entirety, and all other possibilities are ruled out, I am going to take the news that we are warming the earth (as a bad or unnatural event) with the same salt I take when the crazzies on the street tell me the sky is falling. [9]
—-
[1] A claim you fail to document
[2] Wow! 3 false memes in one sentence.
a) Because you haven’t seen it, it must not exist? is that your logic? Start here, get back to me for more when you are through all of it (provided specific detailed critique of how and why it is sketchy if you still feel it is).
b) Completely bogus belief that data has been massaged. Where is your evidence? your credible source for the claim? This is just maiden aunt gossip … put up or shut up.
c) The ridiculous “grants” conspiracy claim which has been <a href=” “>debunked, again … where is your evidence?
[3] IF your statements were correct (they’re not, more below), your logic is “there have been false fire alarms in the past, therefore all fire alarms are false. Right? I guess we should all be grateful that you are not a fireman, police officer etc … we hope.
[4] i) That was computer programmers largely, ii) they said IF we do not solve the problem there will be chaos, IF we solve the problem there will not be chaos. We solved the problem, there was not chaos. This is supposed to be relevant how?
[5] What are you talking about? I have never heard of this, and it is certainly nothing there was any scientific consensus on.
[6] And the current population of Chernobyl would be what, exactly?
[7] Because nothing you have written is accurate or relevant. “Super convincing.”
Show how the science is wrong, or even better talk about the article that this comment thread is for instead of posting the standard set of false Denier talking points.
[8] Again you manage to cram a lot of nonsense into very little space. a) Human caused CO2 is 100% of the problem even if only 3% of the Net production … just like a huge corporation losing 3% per/yr will still go bankrupt eventually. b) Volcano myth false. c) A trivially true statement, the planet probably will eventually stabilize, after humanity has been pretty much wiped out or near to it.
[9] The science already exists, you just have never looked at it. Do that instead of spending time on wingnut websites that feed you the type of silly talking points you have posted here.
Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The Role of Ideology
oh,
and Al Gore is a douche.
Global Warming or no Global Warming, he is capitalizing on people’s fears and making a hell of a profit doing it.
That is neither for or against global warming.
Just one for the douches.
—-
You seem to be conflating scientists and the media, Brian.
Y2K? mmmhmm End of the World circa 1999
I spent my Y2K in a government control room, monitoring responses all over the province in case of any mistake. There was a problem — however, the experts identified it, people acted upon it, and we solved the problem. (We only got a couple alerts from stations that hadn’t been corrected.)
However, the “end of the world” story was brought about by the popular media, not the computer scientists. It would have been worse had folk declared the computer scientists alarmists and then did nothing, but they listened and acted.
The dramatic crime increase that will turn NA into an ultra-violent and lawless society by 2000.
Citation, please? I’m no social scientist, but to the best of my knowledge this was NOT promoted in the peer-reviewed literature; it sounds an awful lot like a trashy headline.
Chernobyl being uninhabitable for 100 years?
Again, citation? Radioactive decay laws kind of throw that number into the “speculation” category.
They talk doom because that’s what gets them published.
You evidently have never been exposed to a scientific journal. You get published there by presenting a scientifically sound conclusion or interesting experimental result, not by promoting doom and gloom. Attention-grabbing headlines are a mark of the press, not scientists.
Of course, seeing how humans are responsible for LESS than 3% of the worlds carbon emissions. The majority is caused by forest fires and volcanic eruptions.
Incorrect. Look at what the science says.
While human emissions (on the order of 7 GtC/yr) are a small amount of the total carbon emitted, they are NOT balanced through natural cycles. A readable summary, including an explanation as to why we know the current CO2 increase is unusual and due to human activity, is available here, along with citations from the peer-reviewed literature.
Al Gore is a douche.
Ever note how it isn’t the scientists, or those promoting science, who bring up Al Gore? It’s always those arguing for inaction.
Let me put this to you bluntly: Fuck Al Gore. He’s not important to this, nor did he factor in the slightest into my understanding of climate science. Science isn’t determined by activism, documentary making, or the Nobel Peace Prize*. Science is determined through careful observation of evidence, and Al Gore isn’t producing any of that.
On a related note, neither are you. That’s the WHOLE point of this post, and all you do is bemoan alarmist media rather than provide the one scientific source that Greenfyre asked for. While I’m sure that makes you feel all morally superior, it only serves to undermine your position, as it suggests you haven’t based your worldview on evidence (and even hints that you cannot tell science and media apart, which is frankly disturbing).
* The IPCC got this prize as well, but it isn’t due to their science; if you wonder why a science organization would qualify, see here or here, for instance, and note who wrote those.
Oh, and while my reply goes through moderation:
“Until the matter is [b]actually studied in its entirety[/b], and all other possibilities are ruled out, I am going to [keep going with business as usual]”
But also:
sketchy data that has no doubt been massaged in order to maintain the extreme claims on either side and [b]make sure the grants keep rolling in.[/b]”
Setting aside that you haven’t documented any data ‘massaging’ (although I can — on the inactivist side, in papers that weren’t published because peer review caught it!), don’t you see the problem in calling for more research and then saying that all research is a ploy for grant money?
—-
“I’m looking for anything that alleges to refute climate change itself, that climate change is anthropocentric, or that it is not a clear and present danger, etc,”
Just to be clear, are you insinuating that ALL climate change is anthropocentric or just the recent batch?
—-
Jason:
Are you insinuating that Greenfyre has an agenda, or are you just using the word “insinuating” wrongly?
Just to be clear.
I’ll take this “Challenge” on.
Although, I see that from the start you toss out “Qualifiers” that are subjective and open for interpretation. I agree with those folks out there who say you are just using this as a way to try to bolster your ego no matter what I present to you. I fully expect to see you Ad Hominem, Strawman, and Cherry pick anything I present that you can’t answer.
Let’s begin with MY “qualifiers”:
1. My MAIN contention with Climate Change as put out by Alarmists such as yourself is that it’s NOT a Catastrophe, a Crisis, or a Disaster.
2. My second contention is that the current (Geologic) warming is NOT Anthropogenic in nature.
3. My third contention is that the warming effect that HAS happened is NOT happening Rapidly. The definition of “Rapidly” being, over the course of a few decades.
-Not a Catastrophe-
Alarmist claim:
“Global Warming will cause increased and more intense storms, Etc.”
Actual facts:
Over the last 150+ years or so, Tropical Storm and Hurricanes have gotten fewer, MUCH fewer. Especially considering that the numbers represented prior to 1950 are underreported since this was before the advent of routine aircraft fly-by, and sattelite. Although there is some evidence that those that have formed ARE “relatively” stronger. The increase in damage and loss of life stems from population migration INTO historical landfall areas, NOT from increasing intensities.
Links:
Click to access Wang_Lee_GRL_2008.pdf
Click to access NWS-TPC-5.pdf
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdeadly.shtml?
http://www.flseagrant.org/program_areas/coastal_hazards/hurricanes/index.htm
Alarmist Claim:
“Global Warming will cause a rise in Malaria Worldwide.”
Actual Facts:
Malaria is not, repeat not, a tropical disease. The largest outbreak in the past 100 years was in the 1920s and 1930s in Siberia – not noted for its tropical climate. Some 13 million people were infected, of whom 600,000 died, 30,000 of them in Arkhangelsk, Russia’s port on the Arctic Circle. The malaria mosquito, according to Professor Paul Reiter, the world’s foremost expert, is capable of surviving in temperatures as low as –25 degrees Celsius (–13 Fahrenheit). Its only dependence upon temperature is that, during the breeding season, it requires an ambient temperature of at least 15 degrees C (59 F). The REAL reason Malaria has risen is because of the international ban on DDT.
Links:
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/climate-change-and-malaria-growth-not-linked.html
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no1/reiter.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5485/1763
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;289/5485/1697
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(04)01038-2/fulltext
Alarmist claim:
“Global Warming will cause the sea levels to rise and drown much of the World’s coastline, possibly by 2100”
Actual facts:
As global warming progresses, sea level is expected to rise primarily due to the melting of continental ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. However, the ultimate amount of flooding is HIGHLY uncertain. A full deglaciation of both poles could raise sea level as much as ~65 meters (210 feet), though it is VERY LIKELY that the ultimate sea level rise will be only a fraction of this possible total. Also, keeping in mind that while there has be SOME Glacier loss in Greenland, the MAJORITY of Antarctica has been ~GAINING~ ice. Current worst case scenarios that TRIPLE Greenland Ice melt still leave us with less than 3ft/CENTURY rise. Finally, taking into account that the IPCC, NOAA, and WMO have all CONSISTENTLY REDUCED their predicted amount of sea level rise ~EVERY YEAR~… and Al Gore’s scenario in AIT becomes positively LAUGHABLE.
Links:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/sealevel#_note-3
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/dougla01/dougla01.html
http://www.nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/01/sea.level.rise
http://www.physorg.com/news4180.html
Click to access djw-ptrsa364.pdf
My Lunch break is over so I’ll continue tomorrow…
Doc
Good Morning, and Merry Christmas!!
Ok, let’s get back to it… You know, I had a whole BUNCH of links and stuff that totally crushed the Alarmist position that Global Warming or “Climate Change” as you guys now call it, was some sort of catastrophe, or crisis. It was beautiful! I spent a good portion of my free time last night looking all the scientific papers up and everything. Then wouldn’t you know it… the IPCC went and made it ALL totally obsolete. So I can actually close down my first contention. which was:
1. My MAIN contention with Climate Change as put out by Alarmists such as yourself is that it’s NOT a Catastrophe, a Crisis, or a Disaster.
I believe YOUR requirements for this little challenge were, (and I quote):
“I am trying to find something, anything, anything at all pertaining to the climate change that we are currently experiencing that:
Alleges that it refutes a significant aspect of climate change science, not details (eg quibbling over whether storms get more frequent or not is detail that in no way affects the general facts of climate science). I’m looking for anything that alleges to refute climate change itself, that climate change is anthropocentric, OR THAT IT IS NOT A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER,”
Now, since it is the IPCC and it’s AR reports that are the FOUNDATION of Alarmist science and politics… Pretty much anything they say, or it’s Chairman says, is GOSPEL.
~~ I turn your attention to the latest environment news headlines, coming from the WORLD/UN Environmental conference being held in Poland…~~
Quote:
“There is no clear evidence that global warming is an imminent danger to the world, says Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
and,
“I don’t think we should jump to conclusions if we get material that is based on the last one or two years,” he said. But governments should rethink their responses to the panel’s 2007 report”
Link:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/12/09/climate-meeting.html
Now that statement was made Dec 4th, and hit the newswires Dec 9th… I have YET to see it in the MSM. I also noticed that IMMEDIATELY there was a response on all the Alarmist websites backpeddaling, and trying to make up excuses for what the Chairman said. Oh, he CYA’ed the IPCC and said that even though AGW wasn’t an imminent threat we should still keep going with all the carbon taxes and crap anyway. But the FACT of the matter is this… HE SAID GLOBAL WARMING WASN’T AN IMMINENT THREAT.
Period.
You loose, Greenfyre.
Challenge lost.
Kaput.
Thanks for playing.
Buh-Bye.
Oh, and as a follow up: Go to this next link and see what happened that LAST time there was an academic debate between Alarmists and Skeptics on the topic of, “Global Warming is NOT a Crisis” (Hint: Gavin Schmidt of Realclimate.org and two of his Alarmist buddies get CRUSHED by the Skeptics.)
Link:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151
Believe it or not… Gavin cries over his spilt milk on Realclimate and you know what his excuse for LOOSING is?? That darn Michael Creighton is so darn tall… and funny. I kid you not.
Finally, you asked for a link to something scientific that points to.. and I quote again, “something, anything, anything at all pertaining to the climate change that we are currently experiencing that alleges that it refutes a significant aspect of climate change science”
Here you go, the latest (although certainly not the only) peer reviewed scientific paper:
Quote: (First freakin’ sentence of the paper)
“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.”
What do they conclude??
“In summary, our results emphasize the significant role of remote oceanic influences, rather than the direct local effect of anthropogenic radiative forcings, in the recent continental warming. They suggest that the recent oceanic warming has caused the continents to warm through a different set of mechanisms than usually identified with the global impacts of SST changes. It has increased the humidity of the atmosphere, altered the atmospheric vertical motion and associated cloud fields, and perturbed the longwave and shortwave radiative fluxes at the continental surface. While continuous global measurements of most of these changes are not available through the 1961-2006 period, some humidity observations are available and do show upward trends over the continents. These include near-surface observations (Dai 2006) as well as satellite radiance measurements sensitive to upper tropospheric moisture (Soden et al. 2005).”
Doc’s Laymans translation: BOOYAH! It’s the Oceans and the Humidity… not CO2. Suck it, Alarmists.
Link:
Click to access CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf
My favorite line out of the whole paper is, (Emphasis mine)
“Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal multi-decadal climate variations ***is a matter of active investigation*** (Stott et al. 2006; Knutson et al. 2006; Pierce et al. 2006).
A matter of “Active investigation”??!!
What the hell happened to, “The Science is settled”??!!!
I thought the “Consensus” had already spoken!! It sure as heck doesn’t sound freakin’ settled to me!!
Once again, Greenfyre… YOU LOOSE. Challenge over. I win.
Doc
DocNavy:
Yeah, if newswires are running it, then it means it’s being suppressed. Uh…
So first you claim there’s no global warming. Then you claim that there is global warming but it’s not caused by carbon dioxide. Make up your mind.
Also, here’s the complete abstract of the paper you cited (emphasis mine):
So before you scribble another reply filled with exclamation marks and capital letters, you should really try reading beyond the first sentence of paper abstracts.
1. “Yeah, if newswires are running it, then it means it’s being suppressed. Uh…”
I said newswires were running it, and NOT the MSM. see anything from CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, FOX, BBC, heck how about Reuters, WaPo, LAT, NYT, ChiTrib, etc. about it?
No, you haven’t. It’s been out there for 2 weeks, though. Nice Ad Hominem attack though.
2. “So first you claim there’s no global warming. Then you claim that there is global warming but it’s not caused by carbon dioxide. Make up your mind.”
I NEVER said there was no Global Warming. Where did I say that?? In fact my 2nd and 3rd Contentions expicitly state that there HAS been Global Warming. Let me remind you:
“2. My second contention is that the current (Geologic) warming is NOT Anthropogenic in nature.
3. My third contention is that the warming effect that HAS happened is NOT happening Rapidly. The definition of “Rapidly” being, over the course of a few decades.”
I only contend that I do not believe that the warming is Man’s Fault. Nice Strawman argument though.
3.”Also, here’s the complete abstract of the paper you cited (emphasis mine):
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. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and
increasing the downward and longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.”
Try reading the actual paper instead of spinning ONE sentence. You are trying to divert attention from the main conclusion of the paper. Which is that it is not direct GHG forcingc that are largely responsible for Global Warming, it’s the Oceans and the Humidity. Anthropogenic heating of the oceans is a “Maybe” that they throw in there. More likely, and more logically sound, is that it’s solar in nature.
Nice Cherry pick though.
Once again, (and let me put it in caps for ya) NOTHING I HAVE POSTED HERE HAS BEEN REFUTED BY YOU OR ANYONE ELSE.
I have met the challenge criteria (and exceeded them)
My links are good.
The IPCC Chairman said what I said he did.
I have provided links to scientific data that refutes that AGW is a crisis.
I win. You loose. Deal with it. I played by your rules. You lost.
Doc
PS. Here’s a link to ANOTHER peer reviewed paper that says that as much as 50% of the warming attributed to Man by Alarmists is actually from Solar forcings, NOT CO2.
link:
http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/solar-link-to-50-of-warming-during-the-past-100-years/
You loose again.
Oh, by the way…
Speaking about how all the warmalist organizations continually REDUCE the predicted amount of sea level rise, well… here we go again. Dated 12th of this month:
link:
http://climatesci.org/2008/12/12/holland-inundated-no-way-guest-weblog-by-hendrik-tennekes/
Quote from the movie “The Waterboy”:
“Ahhh, we suck again!”
Doc
DocNavy:
OK, I stand corrected on this.
Huh? I didn’t know newswires aren’t a sort of mainstream media.
Oh, the irony. You pick only the first sentence of the abstract, and when I quote the entire abstract, suddenly I’m guilty of “cherry pick”. So you’re saying it’s a “cherry pick” to consider more information?
Also, all I did was quote the entire abstract and highlight the last sentence, and suddenly this is “spin”, oh noes. Yet when you try to explain away that last sentence by writing lots of words, somehow that’s not spin. Yeah, yeah…
But hey, let me “spin” again by simply quoting the abstract once more (emphasis mine, again):
…and maybe you can once more try to, um, not spin the last sentence away.
(Alternatively, you can try to ignore it and divert the discussion away by spamming a few more links to fulfil your link spam quota. I know, I know.)
1. “Huh? I didn’t know newswires aren’t a sort of mainstream media.”
Well at least you admit you don’t know, that’s the first step. Now that we understand that you, in fact, DON’T know we’ll move past your nit-picking.
Either you are smart enough to understand the difference between an item that hits the newswires and isn’t picked up by anyone, and one that is subsequently picked up by an actual news AGENCY and reported, OR you you are too ignorant to be trying to refute me. You pick.
2. “Oh, the irony. You pick only the first sentence of the abstract, and when I quote the entire abstract, suddenly I’m guilty of “cherry pick”. So you’re saying it’s a “cherry pick” to consider more information?”
Like I said before, I’ve read the paper in it’s entirety. YOU want to focus on ONE sentence in the abstract. Guess what, genius? Just because the authors use the word “Anthropogenic” doesn’t mean the entire paper SUPPORTS AGW theory. For sake of space I pointed out the initial statement, and the conclusion. Do you REALLY wanna get into an indepth discussion on the entire paper point by point? I mean we CAN, but ultimately we WILL come to the end of the paper where the “conclusion” is located, then you will end up looking like a buffoon. Again this one is up to you.
Either you admit that the paper ~DOES NOT~ support the AGW theory that GHG’s in the form of Man made CO2 are the primary driver of Global Warming, or you can stick to what looks like your current track that the paper in some way DOES support AGW theory. Either way quit trying to dance around the main point of the paper.
Look, mebbe you think I’m coming on strong here… but LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THIS PAGE. (Caps added for your benefit) Umm, duh. Hell, read what Greenfyre says about using the word “Denier”. YOU folks are the arrogant bastages here. I’m just bringing it down to YOUR level, and holding you accountable.
that said…
So, you got SH!T to say about the actual challenge here? Or are you planning on dodging everything and continuing Ad hominems? I mean if you want to break this down to a name calling contest, hell… I’m in the Navy bro. I’m pretty sure I can out cuss you anyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
As far as I can tell, I’ve met just about every “qualification” this challenge has put out, and then some. What have you got?? Nada. Zip. Ziltch. ZERO. Nothing but some lame a$$ed attacks on my spelling (Oops! Guess spelling renders my argument invalid.) and a WEAK attempt at trying to devalue the paper I put forth by focusing in on ONE SENTENCE in the ABSTRACT. (Again, caps are for your benefit.)
Apparently, “I loose” the “challenge” because I misspelled something, and because YOU can’t tell the difference between “Newswire” and (Let me spell it out for you) the MAINSTREAM MEDIA. Go figure. Alarmists…pffft.
Doc
So you’ve “read the paper in it’s entirety”, but “for sake of space” you totally forgot to mention the last sentence of the abstract — which just happens to mention the possibility of anthropogenic influences — and therefore I’m guilty of “cherry picking”.
And of course, since I merely quoted the abstract and emphasized the last sentence, like so:
…therefore I’m guilty of “spin”. Meanwhile, you keep writing more and more sentences to explain that last sentence away, and that’s of course not spin. Oh wait…
Yes, I do. Do you? After all, you claim to have read the entire paper, so going through it should be a walk in the park. Come on, have a go at it.
Fine by me. Let’s go. It’s YOUR funeral, not mine.
Before we get into the guts of this paper though, just to keep things on track, I’d like an answer from either YOU or Greenfyre on the “Challenge”. Which WAS the point of this whole thing.
I believe that I have met and exceeded the criteria for offering up “Something, anything, aything at all” that has not been “debunked” and proves that Global Warming is NOT, (and I quote) ” a clear and present danger.” [1]
I mean if you can’t believe the Chairman of the IPCC… who can you believe? [2]
I spent my off time and lunch break dealing with you sanctimonius, elitist, self righteous blowhards. You seem to want to just blow past everything that’s been put up, (as I predicted in my opening paragraph, of my first post.) and focus on what you obviously think is the winning strategy of focusing on the ~possible anthopogenic influences~ that MAY be PART of oceanic warming. (You’d be wrong, but hey you’re the one who’s choosing to pick at the edges of a scientific paper rather than deal with the meat.)
No worries, I’ll be there to pull you back on track when you realise you are in a loosing proposition and try to back out. (See, if you haven’t already looked, I’ve done this kind of thing before with people like you.) I’m VERY familliar with Alarmist bait and switch, strawman, and ad hominem tactics.
So… the “Challenge”??
(In the meantime you might want to print out the paper, as I have, so you can keep notes. Also, for sake of argument, there wil be NO using Wiki, Scourcewatch, Factwatch, DeSmogblog, or Gristmill in an attempt to refute scientific data presented in the paper. Those sources are NOT a scientific resource. I promise I won’t use Junkscience, or Discoverthenetworks either. I leave union of concerned scientists,and reaclimate in because they’re at least run by scientists, but because I do, I expect you to honor CO2science, wattsupwiththat, cliamteAudit, ICECAP, and climateScience as they are as well. Got a public Library? Use it.) [3]
Doc
—-
DocNavy:
i have a simpler suggestion. How about simply using the bibliography section of the paper, i.e. Compo and Sardeshmukh (2008), and trace back from there? If this one paper is The Galileo-Like Tome That Destroys The Alarmist Climate Science Hoax, then surely it’s so rock-solid that every claim it makes will either be properly argued or properly referenced.
I’m still waiting for your “in-depth discussion” of Compo and Sardeshmukh, DocNavy.
Well, finally Mutt decides to make an appearence. I was wondering how long I’d have to deal with Jeff. [1]
So now we come down to it.
“2] The data. Frankly nothing else interests me.
It’s an odd quote and I have been hoping to find somewhere that gives the full context in so far as it contradicts everything we know.”
What are you hoping for here? The Chairman of the IPCC CLEARLY stated thet Global Warming was not an imminent threat. What context are you looking for? Imminent like in tomorrow? A year from now, 10 years from now, 20? I’d have to reason that if something isn’t going to effect the planet in a timeframe much shorter than it takes for us to adapt then … well it isn’t “imminent”.
Now then, YOU asked for “Something anything, anything at all” that alleges to refute that Global Warming was not a “Clear and present danger”.
I believe that the chairman of the IPCC publically stating that Global Warming was not an “imminent threat” qualifies, he’s the official representative of your beloved IPCC. He said it, that’s it, unless he retracts I suppose.
I’ve also posted a link to a very recent paper that concludes that as much as 50% of the warming attributed to Man is misplaced.
So, where are we at on this “Challenge”? I say, “Challenge met”, you say, “Nuh uh.” Gee, I don’t think we needed a computer modeller to predict THAT outcome.
-On a sidenote: My opinion of his statement is that the IPCC Chairman knows that Global temps will continue to stagnate as they have and then fall over the next 20-30 years, and doesn’t want to look stupid. As the effects of the cooling PDO/NAO sink in. Along with the next 10-13 years of a really weak Solar Cycle 24. Add to that maybe 1 major volcanic eruption like Pinatubo which may or may not happen in the next 25 years… Well, I don’t think a WARMING Earth will be the problem.
You want data.. here you go:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GSA.pdf&ei=AgRMSef6CJCk8ASo15msDw&usg=AFQjCNESy3WahyMuBlbM_kgYL2ENpuiIoA
Speaking of data gathering, IMHO, I believe that once the survey and accompanying report on the state of USHCN data gathering sites is complete, we’ll find that the main bulk of hard data that is gathered by GISS is going to be suspect. Although many of us who pay attention already think Hansen’s numbers are “Subjective” rather than hard data. (Since when does taking a temperature today change the temperature you took 20 years ago? ‘Shrug’ I mean don’t you find it strange that GISS is ALWAYS reporting higher temps than everybody else?)
Just like post 1998 Global Warming, Solar Cycle 24, and the sea level rise…the elusive catastrophic “Tipping point” also seems to be loosing steam. Oh, hey…I made $50 off the Dr. Zwalley and his “Ice free Arctic by end of summer” prediction. I can’t wait till next year to see if he tries it again. You want in on that action if he does?
On to jeff:
Bibs’ fine. So where would you like to begin?
By the way, I’ve done a little post tracking and you seem to have a penchant for putting words in people’s (Skeptics) mouths. I’ve already called you on it once on this board, and I really hope I’m not going to have to spend half my time correcting your statements.
Since you say that I’m trying to divert the discussion let’s get back to it for a sec…You have made a number of statements claiming/insinuating that I tried to decieve you/Greenfyre by not printing the ENTIRE abstract (Which you so thoughtfully have now three times.) and not pointing out the last sentence which uses the word “Anthropogenic”. Might I remind you that I specifically pointed out “My favorite line”, here:
“Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal multi-decadal climate variations ***is a matter of active investigation*** (Stott et al. 2006; Knutson et al. 2006; Pierce et al. 2006).
Which clearly states “other anthropgenic” forcings. So, I’m obviously NOT trying to “hide” anything. Why is this insignificant? Read the first 7 words of the quote.
Their premise isn’t that GHG’s or even anthropogenic GHG’s don’t exist. It’s not even that anthropogenic GHG’s don’t factor in. Their premise is (I’ll quote it for ya)
“In summary, our results emphasize the significant role of remote oceanic influences, rather than the direct
local effect of anthropogenic radiative forcings, in the recent continental warming. They suggest that the
recent oceanic warming has caused the continents to warm through a different set of mechanisms than
usually identified with the global impacts of SST changes.”
The answer to YOUR argument can be found on pg.11: (Quote)
“Regardless of whether or not the rapid recent oceanic warming has occurred largely from anthropogenic
or natural influences, our study highlights its importance in accounting for the recent observed continental warming. Perhaps the most important conclusion to be drawn from our analysis is that the recent acceleration of global warming may not be occurring in quite the manner one might have imagined.”
And THAT, dear Jeff, is the important part. “Not in quite the manner one might have imagined.” Ahhh, questioning the science of the “consensus”! Skepticism. Looking for an answer that JUST MIGHT not be what the IPCC says it is, but is STILL true. Wow. I can smell the brain cells frying in your skull from here… Discussion started.
Doc
Doc
—-
Sorry for any spelling errors, I type fast and only have 30mins for my break.
Doc
Doc, the chairman of the IPCC (economist Rajendra Pachauri, who replaced atmospheric scientist Robert Watson as the IPCC chair at Bush’s request) also said:
“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late…What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”
This is why Mike asks for data, not he-said-she-said — conflicting quotes.
As to your data, you link to a paper which does NOT support your point (it uses ten-year centered means, so its critical sentence “we don’t expect an increase in the mean temperature of the next decade” means that the mean temperature from 2005-2015 is not expected to exceed the mean temperature from 2000-2010. This is NOT the same as “we’re cooling/global warming has stopped”). The confusion over Keenlyside was widespread, but a simple reading of their Figure 4 should have been enough to clue in scientifically literate readers. They do predict a slight cooling relative to 1994-2004 (readers may recognize this includes the 1998 El Nino), but there is reason to suspect their predictions. (I cannot comment on your link from the known denialist site ICECAP.us, since the link is broken.)
Nothing in the evidence you have just provided contests any of the core principles in AGW, nor does it contradict any of the predictions. You have even degenerated to making personal threats on others, relying on brute force instead of scientific prowess to justify your claims. Your claim of victory is premature and on shaky ground.
(Aside: Joe Romm mailed Keenlyside himself and got the following response:
…based on our results we don’t expect an increase in the mean temperature of the next decade (2005-2015) [compared to 2000-2010]. … However, as you correctly point out [in the above link], our results show a pick up in global mean temperature for the following decade (2010-2020). Assuming a smooth transition in temperature, our results would indicate the warming picks up earlier than 2015…All our figures are decadal means, and it is hard to say (due to high frequency internal variability) at which point [after 2010] a rapid increase will occur.
Doesn’t sound like Keenlyside supports your hypothesis either.)
Well, it depends on what you mean by “what the IPCC says”, doesn’t it? If by “what the IPCC says” you’re referring to the exact climate models used exactly, then you’ll be right. But if by “what the IPCC says” you mean the big facts, i.e. as Greenfyre said
…then you’re still a long way from fulfilling the challenge.
Indeed, even Compo and Sardeshmukh themselves say that
Note that “Stott et al. 2006; Knutson et al. 2006” are also the same papers that your quoted sentence mentions.
That is to say, Compo and Sardeshmukh (2008), Knutson et al. (2006), and Stott et al. (2006) all say that while the current climate models do not model sea temperature variability well, they have been successful at modelling global surface temperatures.
This is just a quibble over details, not by any means a wholesale refutation of climate science.
Morning folks.
Greenfyre:
“If you imagine being uncivil will motivate me to deal with your screed all the sooner you are very much mistaken.”
As I stated before, if it seems that I am coming on a bit strong, and laying it on thick… I am. Maybe I’m counterpunching before the punch has been thrown. I’ve started to tone it down some as you have been civil and at least haven’t stooped to ad Hominem yet, unlike others.
let’s be honest here, though… this whole site, and especially THIS page is condesending, eliteist, and downward-nose-peering at anyone that doesn’t hold to YOUR tenets of scientific belief. [1] (I know, you can argue that they aren’t your tenets, they are the tenets of the “Consensus”, but THIS isn’t the Consensus’ site, is it?) You’ve made it VERY clear on this site that when you use the term “Denier” YOU MEAN IT AS AN INSULT, and that you view those who you’d call skeptics as intellectual inferiors. [2]
Based on what you’ve said on this site, and because I DON’T hold to the theory that manmade CO2 is the PRIMARY driver of this geologic era’s recent planetary warming, [3] I must conclude that you think I fall somewhere between being an uneducated ignoramus (hardly), and a bought-and-paid-for lying, deceitful fraud at the beck and call of “Big Oil” or some other equally evil planet raping Industry. Or, maybe because I am an active member of the US military and a three time combat vet, and you are a self-proclaimed “Rabid Activist”, and peace loving Zen Buhddist… Maybe you’d classify me as a “baby killer” or “Warmonger”. I don’t know. [4] What I DO know is that you’ve made it abundantly clear on this site that that you think people like me (Skeptics) [5] are in someway below you. Either intellectually, or morally/Ethically.
Considering that the net is and open and public space, and you have numerous links, and feeds to other sites in an effort to get your message out, I ask this:
How can you expect to walk around in public, proclaiming to the World as “rabidly”, loudly and strenuously as you can that you think Skeptics are lying, frauds or Ignorant/uneducated dupes, and NOT expect a skeptic that crosses your path to eventually come back at you in a similar manner? ‘Nuff said. [6]
BrianD:
“the chairman of the IPCC (economist Rajendra Pachauri, who replaced atmospheric scientist Robert Watson as the IPCC chair at Bush’s request)”
Give me a break! Since when does the UN’s IPCC bow to the Mighty G.W. Bush, and for another matter… what does being an Economist vice Atmospheric scientist have to do with executing his capacity as Chairman? Your insinuation that President BUSH somehow pulls the strings of the IPCC, and had a competent Atmosperic scientist replaced with a friendlier, less competent Economist… is quite frankly, not believeable. As for the quote:
““If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late…What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”
Hey, AWESOME!! A hard date to hold them to. Yay! Of course then the question arises, is it “not and imminent threat” or do we only have till 2012? The IPCC is notorious for recasting their predictions every year or two to come in-line with observed temperatures in an effort to make it seem like they’ve been “right on track”. The reality is that the IPCC has been consistently wrong, up to and inlcuding completely botching the most recent spate of stagnating Global temps. On top of that, their predictions come with absolutely HUGE margins of error. Margins that would be laughed at in most other fields of scientific endeavor, not to mention economic models. The last time they came out with hard dates was in 1991 (recast in 92). Why don’t you go check out THOSE predictions for where we should be today. Does the phrase, “Swing and a miss” ring any bells?
Of course you can argue that, “Well, science has come a long way since then, we understand the Global Climate a lot better now”, but that doesn’t say much for the whole “Science is settled”, “Debate is over” malarkey, does it? It also throws the theory of CO2 being the primary driver of Global temps into a tailspin since we are past 10 years of no warming yet CO2 has continued to rise “Drastically”.
I know, I know… I’ve read all the Alarmist blogs and articles on how the Earth is STILL getting warmer, the warming was masked, blah, blah blah. Math is still math though, and anybody with a little knowledge of excel and where to get the raw data from GISS, HADCrut, RSS, or UAH can plot the temps from 1998 till now or break it up into 5yr trends 1998-2003, 2003-2008, or even better yet set it up as 120, and 60 month rolling trends (which would be most accurate, IMHO) and see the direction they go. Guess what? They aren’t up. Well, to be totally honest a straight 1998-2008 using raw GISS anomaly data WILL trend slightly upward with a 0.151c/decade, but we’re talking about GISS here. GISS is almost always running 5x to 10x higher than everyone else. (Thanks Jimbo!) If you don’t want to do the math yourself you can always head on over to Watts’ site (oooh, he’s such a denialist, but a “denialist” who has publically caught up Hansen on his math more than once.), or if you prefer you could wander over to Digitaltribes.wordpress.com and see what Joe has up.
My time is up, it’s Saturday and I have kids… so I’ll bid you adieu for now. I’ll post on your other comments later when I get the chance. Saturday is pancake day.
Frank: I didn’t forget you either. I’ll be back, I promise.
Doc
—-
DocNavy:
I find it interesting that you proclaim loudly that you’ve answered the challenge with Compo and Sardeshmukh’s paper (2008), and you’re so very ready to “get into an indepth discussion on the entire paper point by point”… and yet when I call you on on it, you prefer to spend your time blabbering on about how you’re a combat veteran (perhaps also a POW? I don’t know).
… skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation. The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. (wikipedia)
Greenfyre:
“It’s called the scientific method. If you don’t follow the scientific method then what you are doing is not science.”
“If you cannot substantiate your claims with science then you are talking religion.”
I absolutely agree with you on this. Completely. I submit to you though, that the process by which the IPCC has made it’s TAR and 4th report conclusions falls SQUARELY in the “Not science/religion” category. At no point does the IPCC actually come out and say “Man did it.” What you get instead, are projections (which themselves are just that, projections not fact.) of POSSIBLE outcomes with percentages of reliability. (IE: We are 90% sure that this is the result of man contributed CO2) I’m sorry but that is the very definition of “Faith”. Talk to any devout Biblical scholar and they’ll say something similar.
That’s not very scientific.
Since when has “science” been run by “Consensus”? Consensus is a political term. Of course that makes sense in-as-much as the IPCC is a political body with a scientific bent rather than the other way around.
In your own professed field of expertise, I seem to remember that early biologists all held to the theory of “Generatio spontanea” till the late 17th century. Guess the “Consensus” was wrong, but you couldn’t tell them that back then, could you?
Also, and this goes for Frank as well… I am getting the impression that you (both) feel that AGW “IS” Climate Science.
It is not.
AGW is a THEORY (some would say a hypothosis) that exists within the realm of the ~newly formed~ scientific dicipline of Climate Science. It is not the be-all and end-all of all things Climate. Besides, the “science” of AGW has a history of bending the rules of the scientific method.
The IPCC is a closed loop system of a small group of politicians and scientists who’s stated mission is:
““the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change”
Not climate change as a whole. “Human-Induced” climate change. That’s not very scientific.
The whole point of using the “Double blind” method is to keep the researchers data from being tainted by the bias of the researchers themselves. There are reams and reams of studies that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that if a researcher already has a specific conclusion in mind their data and their ultimate conclusion will coincide regardless of actual fact.
You have “peer reviewers” reviewing submissions that they have obvious confilct of interests with, up to and including having authors reviewing papers that cite THEIR OWN WORK.
That’s not very scientific.
You have government sponsored groups/individuals acting as reviewers and “enforcing”, through censorship of dissenting papers, a particular viewpoint.
That’s not very scientific.
Climate scientists extensively use statistics, yet as a matter of routine do NOT consult outside statisticians on their methods. Further, there are a number of cases in some of the foundational papers regarding AGW, where the scientists REFUSE to release their methods to the scientific community so that their results could be reproduced. THAT’S definately not “the scientific method”.
I ask you, as a “research biologist”, do you know of even ONE SINGLE paper accepted by the IPCC that even LOOKS for an answer that isn’t “Human-Induced”? Seems to me that they are casting a very narrow net for solutions.
” And maybe if you spent time discussing the science rather than obsessing on trying to fabricate motivations for responses to a lack of scientific rigour as based on anything other than the lack of rigour, you might have stronger case.”
Ok point made. I’ll agree with you. That particular line was kinda a cheap shot, but it doesn’t invalidate everything that came before it.
Frank:
“If this one paper is The Galileo-Like Tome That Destroys The Alarmist Climate Science Hoax”
“This is just a quibble over details, not by any means a wholesale refutation of climate science.”
Enough with the third grade drama. I never said it refutes “Climate science” I said it refutes one of the MAIN platforms of AGW. There’s a big difference. (see comments above) As to your “Quibble”, Rodger Pielke Sr. put it very succinctly:
“Three climate change hypotheses, only one of which can be true:
1. The human influence is minimal and natural variations dominate climate variations on all time scales.
2. While natural variations are important, the human influence is significant and involves a diverse range of first-order climate forcings (including, but not limited to the human input of CO2)
3. The human influence is dominated by the emissions into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide.
It is the position of the IPCC (And apparently you and Greenfyre as well. Correct me if I am wrong.) that number three is the correct answer.
It is the position of Prof. Pielke and the Compo and Sardeshmukh’s paper (2008), and to some degree the Keenlyside paper that number two is correct.
Sorry, but that isn’t a “quibble” over details. One says it’s a combination of natural and SOME Anthropogenic drivers that heat the ocean, and INDIRECTLY influence Global temps… the other says that it’s PRIMARILY the DIRECT driver of Anthropogenic GHG’s (CO2) coupled and enhanced by water vapor in the atmoshpere that drive Global temps. Again… big difference, not a “quibble”.
It is MY position and the position of the Easterbrook paper that number one is correct. (Although, in all honesty I DO lean somewhat towards #2)
Also, were do you come off that I am required to immediately answer you and your comments? (per your last post) It was plainly OBVIOUS that I was answering people in the order that they posted. Greenfyre first (It IS his site), Brian second and you last. If your powers of perception and deduction couldn’t allow you to figure that out… well maybe you are in over your head. I’ll “blather” all I want, to whom I want, in the order that I want. Thank you very much.
Doc
DocNavy wrote:
” What you get instead, are projections (which themselves are just that, projections not fact.) of POSSIBLE outcomes with percentages of reliability. (IE: We are 90% sure that this is the result of man contributed CO2) I’m sorry but that is the very definition of “Faith”. Talk to any devout Biblical scholar and they’ll say something similar.
That’s not very scientific.”
You mean like “we are 90% certain that Jesus is the son of God” or “we are 95% certain that Mohammed is the profet of Allah”? Yes, religous faith is often expressed in terms of probabilities, is it not?
—-
Lars:
Wow! Good one. Hahaha! You have cut me to the quick. Not.
What I mean to say, and I’m sure you got the gist of it and aren’t really that dumb as to not understand what I was saying, was that basing a percentage of reliability on a projection of the future IS NEITHER fact nor is it the “scientific method”, it’s faith based. Asking a Biblical scholar, or religious apologist, to “Prove” the veracity of the Bible or their philosophies ends up with a discussion talking about this that or the other archaeological find or discovery, maybe some Geology that points to some aspects written in the Bible, and then summed up with a statement of the reliability of those finds as connected to Biblical writings. In the end though, what you ultimately get is someone going on faith. Same thing here.
I must assume you are intentionally playing dumb. Funny sarcasm though… and yet still invalidates nothing I’ve said.
Doc
PS. Oh, originally I logged on to wish every one a Merry Christmas. So Merry Christmas.
Greenfryre:
I hope that’s not your complete answer to the whole post. LMAO
DocNavy,
If the biblical scholar you describe is going on faith, it is hardly the fact that he gives a “statement of reliability” that makes it so. It is bread-and-butter for empirical scientists to quantify their confidence in the conclusions drawn from some set of data. If that would mean that they are going on faith, then basically all science (with the exception of mathematics) is going on faith.
And if the use of projections implies “going by faith”, then any use of science in decision making (political and otherwise) would be faith.
DocNavy,
Hell of a job you’re doing here, [1] but your intellect is wasted tilting at these robotic windmills — as you’ve noticed, they have started recycling arguments. Too bad we can’t arrange a debate between you and John Kerry[2] (you know, the guy who said only dopes go into the military — probably was thinking of himself.)
Since anyone with some intelligence and experience at due diligence can see that climate can’t be controlled by adjusting a minor component of a minor contributor (Anthropogenic CO2) [3], why are these guys defending it so desperately? The answer is that controlling anthropogenic CO2 is an excellent way to establish near total control over people’s lives. Global Warming is only the excuse that they hope to use to fool the public into surrendering their freedoms.
The political stakes are so gigantic that those committed to achieving them can no more afford to engage in real debate than the pathetic representatives of the former USSR could afford to give an honest interview to a Western news agency.
Fortunately, thanks to spokespersons like you, the Controllers are losing the battle. Exchanges like this are read by many “lurkers” who can see for themselves the difference between honest argument and politically-driven desperation. [4]
—-
BobC wrote: “..they have started recycling arguments”.
Actually, recycling valid arguments is perfectly acceptable. Recycling arguments that have been refuted over and over again is not acceptable though. BobC’s post (like most “skeptic” rants) is full of the latter.
The ‘Global Warming was not an imminent threat’ seems to not be a direct quote from Rajendra Pachauri, but a reporter’s conjecture based on the cited quote, “”I don’t think we should jump to conclusions if we get material that is based on the last one or two years.”
If deniers are grabbing that ‘not an imminent threat’ as justification, then an exact quote from transcripts would be a better source. If they are using the reporter’s words, then, well then we’ve been down that road before.
Also, note that Rajendra Pachauri was quoted on the 11th: “The impacts of climate change are now so evident. If we don’t take immediate action they will get far worse.
“And remember, poorest countries and the poorest communities in these countries are the most vulnerable to these effects.” http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Global_Warming/Soon_we_wont_be_able_to_adapt_to_climate_Pachauri/articleshow/3822846.cms http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20081211/957/tod-very-soon-we-won-t-be-able-to-adapt.html
Or also from the 9th, “It is critical for us to get a much better understanding of the impact of climate change in some parts of the world.” http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Dec09/0,4670,EUPolandClimateScience,00.html
Mike: Interesting blog you have here. I like the way that you attack in a take no prisoners way. Not very scientific perhaps, but in my opinion one part of the discussions of global warming that is missing. I will try to stop by more often.
DocNavy: I took a read through the C&S paper. To me the money quote (from the second paragraph) is
I think it illustrates Mike’s point very well. There is nothing about the science of AGW that is being questioned (unless you have a different idea of what little doubt means). However they feel that one of the details that needs to me looked at is the role of the oceans.
However I will give you a kudos for relying on a paper that is based exclusively on climate models. Too often these arguments boil down to the skeptical argument “the models are wrong, the models are wrong”. It is refreshing to see that there is someone arguing the other side who accepts that the models are accurate.
BobC: you said Since anyone with some intelligence and experience at due diligence can see that climate can’t be controlled by adjusting a minor component of a minor contributor (Anthropogenic CO2). So I take it that you would not object to adding say 10 parts per trillion of botulinum toxin to your body? After all that is several orders of magnitude less that the amounts of CO2 we are talking about.
Regards,
John Cross
—-
Finally, with John Cross’s post, we are getting to the point of the C&S paper; it is a suggested modification of a particular part of how atmospheric heat transport works.
“Doc” misread it as a “crushing” refutation of the AGW hypothesis because his ideological bias predisposed him to do so. But it was quite clear even from the abstract quoted early on that the paper took no stance on what was driving global warming as a whole. It only asserts that warming OVER LAND is largely attributable to warming influence from the oceans. Why they are warming is ultra res for that paper.
Thus, C & S is basically irrelevant to the point Doc was trying to make–that the scientific basis of AGW is flawed. Challenge failed.
Here is a compilation of actual studies of CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere (note, not speculative, nonlinear, unverified models constructed specifically to justify long lifetimes). You can find these, and the references, in an article by Tom Segalstad at http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
The bottom line is, actual measurements put the CO2 lifetime at 5-10 years, and hence the maximum anthropogenic CO2 contribution to the atmosphere at ~4%
Therefore, trying to control the climate by controlling anthropogenic CO2 production is a fool’s errand and doomed to failure.
However, total control of energy use is a wonderful way to vastly increase political control.
EXCERPT:
The atmospheric residence time (i.e. lifetime; turnover time) of CO2 has been quantified based on measurements of natural radiocarbon (carbon-14) levels in the atmosphere and the ocean surface; the changes in those levels caused by anthropogenic effects, like “bomb carbon-14” added to the atmosphere by nuclear explosions; and the “Suess Effect” caused by the addition of old carbon-14-free CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels; and the application of gas exchange theory to rates determined for the inert radioactive gas radon-222. The results from these measurements are shown in Table 2, mainly based on the compilation by Sundquist (1985), in addition to the solubility data of Murray (1992), and the carbon-13/carbon-12 mass-balance calculation of Segalstad (1992). Both of the last two recent methods happened to give a lifetime of 5.4 years based on completely different methods.
Authors [publication year] Residence time (years)
Based on natural carbon-14
Craig [1957] 7 +/- 3
Revelle & Suess[1957] 7
Arnold & Anderson [1957] 10
including living and dead biosphere
(Siegenthaler, 1989) 4-9
Craig [1958] 7 +/- 5
Bolin & Eriksson [1959] 5
Broecker [1963], recalc. by Broecker & Peng [1974] 8
Craig [1963] 5-15
Keeling [1973b] 7
Broecker [1974] 9.2
Oeschger et al. [1975] 6-9
Keeling [1979] 7.53
Peng et al. [1979] (5.5-9.4)
Siegenthaler et al. [1980] 7.5
Lal & Suess [1983] 3-25
Siegenthaler [1983] 7.9-10.6
Kratz et al. [1983] 6.7
Based on Suess Effect
Ferguson [1958] 2 (1-8)
Bacastow & Keeling [1973] 7.0
Based on bomb carbon-14
Bien & Suess [1967] >10
Münnich & Roether [1967] 5.4
Nydal [1968] 5-10
Young & Fairhall [1968] 4-6
Rafter & O’Brian [1970] 12
Machta (1972) 2
Broecker et al. [1980a] 6.2-8.8
Stuiver [1980] 6.8
Quay & Stuiver [1980] 7.5
Delibrias [1980] 6.0
Druffel & Suess [1983] 12.5
Siegenthaler [1983] 6.99-7.54
Based on radon-222
Broecker & Peng [1974] 8
Peng et al. [1979] 7.8-13.2
Peng et al. [1983] 8.4
Based on solubility data
Murray (1992) 5.4
Based on carbon-13/carbon-12 mass balance
Segalstad (1992)
5.4
Table 2. Atmospheric residence time (i.e. lifetime, turnover time) of CO2, mainly based on the compilation by Sundquist (1985; for references in brackets).
Judged from the data of Table 2 there is apparently very little disagreement from early works to later works regardless of measurement method, that the atmospheric CO2 lifetime is quite short, near 5 years. This fact was also acknowledged early by IPCC’s chairman Bolin (Bolin & Eriksson, 1959).
John Cross:
I invite you to look up the difference between a toxin and a fertilizer.
If you are confusing CO2 with a poison, you might want to steer clear of winter tomatoes, as they are nearly all grown in greatly enhanced CO2 concentrations.
BobC:
So what’s the difference between the water that you drink and the water that drowns people?
No, water can’t be harmful, ever, eh? The more water, the merrier! Massive flooding, be my guest!
frankbi said:
“No, water can’t be harmful, ever, eh? The more water, the merrier! Massive flooding, be my guest!”
Frank, you seem to be responding to some argument I never made, so there is nothing for me to repy to. Try responding to an argument I DID make (unless you aren’t up to the challenge).
As a reminder of what this discussion is about, Mike asked for evidence that the AGW hypothesis (that is, anthropogenically caused global warming) was wrong – or rather, evidence that …”refutes a significant aspect of climate change science.” (A formulation that rather begs the question of what is the science – but that’s Mike’s prejudice at work.)
The persons and organizations promoting the AGW hypothesis (such as can be seen at RealClimate) have realized that, for the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to be due to human action, the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere must be quite long (100’s of years).
Mike doesn’t seem to grasp this idea – rather strangely, since he is supposedly “trained as a research biologist” and must have, therefore, taken some college chemistry, where the math of equilibrium reactions between reservoirs is usually covered. For those unfamiliar with this, the general idea is explained in the following discrete model:
Suppose you have two reservoirs (for CO2): one (the oceans) is 50 times the capacity as the other (the atmosphere). Every year, about 1/8 of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged with the oceans. The normal, linear model of this would therefore say that the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere would be about 5 years – (7/8)^5 = 0.513… Since the ocean reservoir is 50 times the atmospheric one, the half life of CO2 there is 50 times longer – (399/400)^250 = 0.53…
Now suppose that, as a one-time event, you dump a quantity, X, of CO2 into the atmospheric reservoir. Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that you can label this CO2 – with little “made in China” labels, perhaps. The straight-forward linear model described above then shows that the amount of remaining “Chinese CO2” in the atmosphere asymptotically approaches about 0.02X and the rest (0.98X) is in the ocean reservoir. The rate at which this happens is controlled by the shorter (atmospheric) half-life, being about 90% complete after a little more than 4 half-lives (~20 years). Refinements of this model would require knowledge of how the exchange rates depend on concentration, a subject we currently don’t know enough about.
The conversion to a continuous-time model (which is more precise, but doesn’t change the main conclusions) is basic calculus — an example of which can be found in nearly any college chemistry text.
The bottom line here is: If mankind is to be responsible for most of the CO2 increase in the last century, then the half-life of atmospheric CO2 must be quite long, greater than 100 years. And, of course, the only part of the CO2 growth we can control by restricting emissions is the fraction we are responsible for in the first place.
The problem for the AGW hypothesis is that, according to the 3 dozen studies I referenced above, Mankind can only be responsible for 2-15% (with a mean of about 5%) of the CO2 increase seen since 1950. The AGW supporters’ response has been to propose non-linear models where CO2 lifetimes can be much longer than the straight-forward calculation from the exchange rate and reservoir capacity would indicate. For these models to be scientifically acceptable, however, they would have to either reproduce the measured results of the above studies, or their proposers would have to show reason to think that the measurements were in error. Since neither of these things has been done, the situation that stands now is that all long-lifetime models have been falsified by the above measurement studies.
It’s no good just quoting published long-life models: what is needed is to show that 1) These models reproduce the known measurements, and 2) There is some evidence to support the long-life model over the linear ones. None of this has been done – AGW supporters simply ignore the measured data as if it didn’t exist.
So, irregardless of whether CO2 increase can drive climate in a significant way, measurements of CO2 lifetimes in the atmosphere do not allow for Humankind to be responsible for more than a small fraction of the observed CO2 increase.
I would say that this refutes a “significant aspect of” the AGW hypothesis — that Mankind is responsible for most of the increase in CO2 in the last century.
I might add (in case someone thinks of it as an objection) that, while many of the measurement studies assume the linear model for purposes of calculating the half-life, the “Bomb Carbon-14” studies do not — in fact they provide very strong evidence that the linear model is the correct one.
You claimed that CO2 can’t be a toxin because it’s a fertilizer.
I’m pointing out that water that you drink is the same kind of water as water that drowns people. By your ‘logic’, since you can drink water, therefore water can’t drown people, right?
But feel free to find an excuse to ignore what I say, because I know you will.
“AGW supporters simply ignore the measured data as if it didn’t exist.”
Hmm… Perhaps we should start referring to AGW supporters as “deniers”. 😉
Frank,
To conclude that I said (effectively) that “water can’t drown people” is a stretch.
While many things are toxic in high concentrations, the term “toxin” is usually reserved for substances that are poisonous in nearly any concentration — which water and CO2 are not.
As for ignoring what you say — I have responded to your statements. Why don’t you try responding to mine? (Not just straw men statements you assign to me by “logic”.)
I’ve put up ~1000 words in the last couple of days that I claim meets Mike’s challenge of “refuting a significant aspect of” AGW, and all you can talk about is things I never actually said.
I don’t know. I think I see the point of frankbi’s argument from analogy.
1) Winter tomatoes are grown in CO2
2) It is safe to eat winter tomatoes
3) Therefore, raised atmospheric levels of CO2 and the
Earth’s temperature response are also safe.
1) Water is necessary for life.
2) It is safe to drink a glass of water
3) Therefore, a flood will not kill people
Something wrong, there, Bob. 😦
Lots wrong with the CO2 lags temperature debunks AGW argument, too.
Are you Bob ‘C’ as in Carter, by any chance?
BobC,
In order to clarify things regarding the halflife and residence time of CO2, let us consider the following example:
Imagine that you and your brother collect marbles. You have 50 marbles, and your brother has 2500 marbles (he’s your parent’s favorite). Every week you and your brother meet and exchange marbles: you give 10 marbles to him and he gives 10 marbles to you.
One day it is your birthday, and your parents give you 50 more marbles, in a different color. So now you have 100 marbles. You go on with your exchange procedure every week, exchanging 10 marbles with your brother, and you give him of both your old and your new marbles. After 5-6 weeks, you have given away around 25 of your new marbles, so only around 25 of your new marbles remain as your property (halflife for new marbles = 5-6 weeks). After 40 weeks, you would have maybe one of the new marbles left.
Does that mean that after 40 weeks, you only have 50 or 51 marbles left? No, because each of your new marbles was exchanged for an old marble of your brother’s. You still have 100 marbles.
And as long as the exchange is symmetrical (10 for 10), you will still have 100 marbles (until your parent gives you some more, and that will not happen until your next birthday).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like you are talking about what corresponds to the new marbles (e.g. the particular CO2 molecules that were dumped in the atmosphere). But the interesting question is the total amount of marbles/CO2 molecules, which is determined by the difference in the exchange. In the marble example, the difference was 10-10 = 0, and hence the number of marbles on each side remained the same.
Great argument Lars!
I’m glad someone actually read (and replied) to what I said, instead of trying to “logically” determine some absurd statement “equivalent” to some unimportant (to the case) statement I made offhand.
You are quite correct — the CO2 concentration would go up if the exchange acted the way you assume. (Sort of like a 2-way conveyor belt with a fixed capacity.) Short of that kind of artificial arrangement, however, equilibrium (and quasi-equilibrium) systems in the real world have the exchange rate a linear function of the concentration (This, in fact, is why I referred to it as the “linear model”.) If this were the case for your example, then I would have started giving my brother 20 marbles/week when I first got the extra 50, while he would have still given me 10. As the number of marbles reduced, I would have reduced my exchange rate in a linear fashion, and he would have increased his proportional to the number of marbles he currently had. Eventually, I would have 51 marbles and he would have 2549, when our exchange rates became equal. (This would require a fractional marble to be exchanged, but we can recover the discrete model by starting with 10 times the number of marbles in your example.)
So, one non-linear model that would indict Mankind for the increase in CO2 would be to postulate that the atmosphere-ocean CO2 exchange operates at a fixed rate, not proportional to the concentration or either side.
One problem with this model would be that, short of artifical situations like a conveyor belt, we have no examples of this behavior and innumerable examples of the proportional type of exchange. Another problem would be stability, as it wouldn’t tend to reach equilibrium.
Additionally, we know that the exchange rate between a gas and liquid is indeed a linear function of the concentration, so there must be at least some part of the atmospheric-ocean exchange that obeys the linear model. To achieve a fixed-rate model one would have to postulate processes that exhibit a negative linear rate.
Another possibility; one could postulate that it takes a long time for CO2 to diffuse downwards into the ocean. This would cause the effective short-term ocean reservoir to be much smaller than 50X the atmosphere, and would therefore result in higher (short-term) atmospheric concentrations. This hypothesis has the advantage of not requiring one to postulate unknown (and unobserved) processes that work like conveyor belts.
This hypothesis is easy to check: measure the CO2 concentration as a function of depth in the ocean and estimate the time constant for depth transfer, infer the effective short-term reservoir size, and re-visit the equilibrium calculations to decide how much of the atmospheric concentration increase could be due to anthropogenic causes.
I don’t have this data at the moment, and can’t spend any more time today (I’m working, after all) but feel free to look into this if you like — if true, it takes the bite out of my argument.
I haven’t seen, however, any long-lifetime models that even try to explain the lifetime measurement experiments — just hypothesizing ways that CO2 could stay around for a long time, unconnected to any actual observations. Maybe you can find something more convincing.
BTY: The ‘law’ that diffusion rates are proportional to concentration is derived at a basic level from the atomic theory of matter (& I think we can all agree that is a fairly well-validated “theory”). As far as I know, there is no way to build a passive system that violates this rule (as opposed to an active system such as a conveyor belt, or an agreement with my brother).
Since the Earth is not in thermal equilibrium, however, there do exist “active” (e.g., using outside energy) systems galore. One example is plate tectonics: The rate at which the crust (and everything on it) is recycled into the mantle is approximately a constant (over several millions of years, anyway) and is not related to what’s on the recycled crust. Plate tectonics, however, is way too slow to be involved in the last century’s CO2 increase.
The task for those who would hypothesize that CO2 has a long lifetime (or “no definable lifetime” or “a long-tailed distribution” as I have seen in the literature) is to come up with a mechanism which allows that to happen. Additionally, the postulated mechanism must be able to reproduce the known data (see the 36 studies above) at least approximately. Since this will not be a normal diffusion mechanism, it will have specific characteristics that will potentially allow one to verify it.
For example:
1) Lar’s fixed exchange rate model (deal with my brother) would result in the half-life becoming a function of concentration, rather than a constant: 50 marbles, exchanged at 10/week gives a half-life of 3.1 weeks (0.8^3.1 = 0.5), while 100 marbles, exchanged at 10/week gives a half-life of 6.5 weeks (0.9^6.5 = 0.5). This could be detected by measuring the half-life at separate times (with correspondingly different CO2 concentrations). I don’t see a trend vs. time in the listed studies, but that would be interesting to explore more analytically.
2) My suggestion that perhaps the ocean capacity is quite small on a short time scale would show up as a “long tail” in the decay of an impulse, as the equilibrium concentration would be significantly higher if the ocean reservoir were much smaller. This experiment has been done (see the “Bomb Carbon-14” measurements). Unfortunately, the “long tail” in that measured distribution is easily explained by the continuous production of C14 by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, and provides no evidence that CO2 has an unusually tendency to linger.
Another problem for the “long lifetime” hypotheses is that it is well established that other atmospheric gases follow the linear model quite well, so the hypothesis will have to explain why CO2, alone of all atmospheric components, is a special case.
To my knowledge, no “long lifetime” CO2 model has even begun to meet the minimum requirements to escape from the “Bull-Session” stage. If anyone can point to one that does, I would be very interested. Currently, the only viable theory is the simplest one — CO2 behaves like every other atmospheric gas that is exchanged with the oceans, and has a well defined half-life, with the residual CO2 (from an input) being proportional to the reservoir capacity ratios.
Also BTY: (and perhaps off-topic: sorry, Mike)
Up until about 25 years ago, it was considered uncontroversial “settled” science that CO2 behaved like every other atmospheric gas and had a lifetime of ~5 – 10 years.
What changed since then? There is no new evidence that the older studies were in any way incorrect. What has changed is that there is a need (what else can you call it except political?) for atmospheric CO2 increase to be attributed to Human action. Funding is available for scientists who publish papers supporting this requirement. Hence, we see new models published with absolutely no connection to the past measurements — as if they didn’t even exist.
This illustrates the sad state of “climate science”.
Anyone who thinks that peer review is not rife with politics has probably not participated in the process. If peer review were such a good way to guarantee quality and accuracy, why don’t we let, say, applications for an open-pit mine be reviewed and approved by only other mine owners?
Peer review was mostly harmless when science didn’t matter very much — say in the 19th century. In the 20th century, most economically important science was protected through the patent system — peer review was irrelevant to the economic consequences.
Now, however, multi-trillion dollar policies are being decided on peer-reviewed science — much of which is not replicable as the scientists keep their data and algorithms secret. This is idiocy on a scale that dwarfs my suggestion for approving pit mine applications above.
The really dumb thing about this is that society already has mechanisms to deal with this kind of decision: The way the FDA approves new drugs is a good example. The FDA doesn’t just take a drug company’s word on the efficacy of a new drug — it has to be verified through independent tests and audits.
Anyone who truly believes that we face eminent danger from preventable climate change should be pushing for a similar independent replication and audit of climate science. A rigorous and open examination would convince most people of the need for immediate action (depending, of course, on the results of the audit). Participation with such audits should be made a condition of government grants.
Proposing massive changes to society on what amounts to “taking someone’s word” is irresponsible in the extreme.
Martha,
At the risk of perpetuating this nonsense, I will try to explain where you have gone wrong.
I said (to John Cross):
“I invite you to look up the difference between a toxin and a fertilizer. If you are confusing CO2 with a poison, you might want to steer clear of winter tomatoes, as they are nearly all grown in greatly enhanced CO2 concentrations.”
frankbi first assumes that this is equivalent to:
“So what’s the difference between the water that you drink and the water that drowns people? No, water can’t be harmful, ever, eh? The more water, the merrier! Massive flooding, be my guest!”
Need I point out that there is no logical connection here?
frankbi’s second attempt is closer to the mark:
“You claimed that CO2 can’t be a toxin because it’s a fertilizer.”
I agree with that – that is an accurate summation of my statement. Frankbi, however, seems to be confusing things which are toxic in high concentrations (nearly everything!) with toxins. So in my next post, I attempt to explain the difference:
“While many things are toxic in high concentrations, the term “toxin” is usually reserved for substances that are poisonous in nearly any concentration — which water and CO2 are not.”
Now, you enter the scene, and assign to me the following syllogism:
1) “Winter tomatoes are grown in CO2”
2) “It is safe to eat winter tomatoes”
3) “Therefore, raised atmospheric levels of CO2 and the Earth’s temperature response are also safe.”
This appears to be an illogical slicing and dicing of the previous posts. If you had used for the conclusion:
“Therefore, CO2 is not a toxin.”
you would have been correct. My original point to John Cross was meant to be that this conclusion is obvious and his strawman argument was ridiculous, as is yours.
BobC,
Yes, obviously the fixed exchange in my example with the marbles does not apply to CO2. My point was that even if individual marbles/molecules have a short lifetime, it does not automatically follow that an added amount quickly disappears.
You are correct that CO2 atmosphere-ocean must obey Henry’s law. But there are two catches here:
(1) The oceans are not a homogeneous reservoir. It takes time for CO2 to reach the deeper parts of the ocean. The acidity in the ocean surface water has actually increased by around 30%! (see http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13539). Hence, the amount of CO2 going the other direction must also be going up.
(2) The atmosphere has an exchange with other reservoirs as well, in particular the biosphere, and those does probably not follow Henry’s law.
Lars:
You said:
“My point was that even if individual marbles/molecules have a short lifetime, it does not automatically follow that an added amount quickly disappears.”
Agreed. My point is that, if such is true of CO2 (as is nearly universally claimed by current theories), then there will be identifiable effects (“fingerprints”, if you will) in the many modern measurements of CO2 atmospheric lifetimes that deviate from the linear model (Henry’s law, if you will: although I was thinking of diffusion-like mechanisms more general than just solubility). In the absence of any such measured effects, one must reject the currently popular theories as unsupported, and the only viable conclusion is that CO2 behaves like other atmospheric gases with a short atmospheric lifetime, and hence a large fraction of anthropogenically added CO2 is quickly stored in reservoirs much larger than the atmosphere.
Unless you choose (for your own reasons) to credit models which contradict observations, this conclusion destroys the main basis for AGW: That Humans are responsible for the majority of CO2 increase in the last century.
Since neither Mike (nor anyone else, other than Lars) seems willing to contest my claim of meeting Mike’s challenge, [1] I am resorting to posting counter arguments myself.
It might be argued that the IPCC’s work constitutes an “audit” of climate science. I claim that it does not. [2]
If the FDA did their audits like the IPCC, they would convene a panel of scientists from the drug company (who are, after all, the experts on the drug in question), and let them review their own work; then let the drug manufacturers write the final report.
It should be obvious why the FDA doesn’t operate this way. Just as obviously, the IPCC’s work does not constitute an independent audit of climate science.
We are left with the prospect of spending trillions of dollars (with dire consequences for society, if such spending is wasted) on the basis of theories that are falsified by known data (CO2 lifetimes) and studies that can’t be replicated due to the scientist’s (Mann and Hansen, for example) keeping their data and/or algorithms secret. Any attempt to access enough information to verify their studies is treated (politically) as if the scientists were being censored.
Regardless of what you believe about AGW, you ought to be able to smell a rat here. If AGW is true, let’s verify it. The strenuous attempts to avoid verification convince most people they are being conned. [3]
My opinion: The scientists who are dependent on the $5B grant stream for AGW don’t want to risk their livelihoods by letting outsiders review their work. From the politican’s point of view, the power represented by total control of energy is as attractive as catnip to cats.
This represents more of a convergence of interests than a conspiracy – not much different than the relationship of the military-industrial complex to government. In both cases, independent oversight is necessary, as the consequences of wrong policy can be high. [4]
—-
BTY: In President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell speech, he not only warned against an “industrial-military complex” taking control of policy decisions, he also warned of a similar danger from the “scientific-technological elite” :
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
I think we are seeing this happen today.
—-
Hi again BobC,
Two quick points:
(1) Not all atmospheric gasses behave the same way. Methan, for instance, is actually chemically destroyed by reactions with other compounds in the atmosphere. CO2 on the other hand is mainly just shuffled around between different carbon reservoirs.
(2) That CO2 is quickly stored in much larger reservoirs (i.e. the oceans) is contradicted by the observations that (a) CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing significantly, and (b) the surface water of the oceans is becoming more acidic (+30% of hydrogen ions), so apparently the CO2 absorbed by the oceans is not going downwards very fast.
Hi Lars,
These are good points, and would be valid in a brainstorming session about CO2 absorption/emission mechanisms. (And, today, they would be good enough to pass peer review and be published, as long as the “peers” were carefully selected.)
In the end, though, theories incorporating these mechanisms either can reproduce the measured data, or they cannot. I have not been able to find any “long lifetime” papers that even make the attempt. I have seen one that mentions the “long tail” in the C14 studies without, however, reporting the study’s conclusion about how much of that tail is due to residual C14 (basically the equilibrium concentration when the concentration equals in the atmosphere and the sinks) and how much is due to the continuous production of C14 in the upper atmosphere.
The only theory that currently is truly supported by the data is the linear one; and that predicts that ~2% of all Human-created CO2 will remain in the atmosphere essentially permanently (at least on a Human time scale). According to that theory, then, we will need to cut back on emissions in the next few thousand years (assuming that CO2 really is a climate driver, and that a cooler planet is a worthwhile goal, which are arguments for a different time).
BTY: The linear theory doesn’t predict that atmospheric CO2 concentrations should be stable. In fact, it predicts that such concentration may vary widely, depending on the ocean temperature, for example. In a cooler Earth, the atmosphere-ocean exchange rate would slow down and Humans could be responsible for a larger fraction of atmospheric CO2. (Note that this is a negative feedback. Statistical studies of climate records demonstrate that the Earth’s climate is dominated by negative feedbacks at nearly all time scales. The dominate positive feedbacks postulated by AGW theory have never been actually observed.)
But again, this argument is essentially pointless: deciding public policy (especially at this scale) on journal papers is dangerously naive. Policy decisions of that magnitude must be based on independent reviews.
BobC,
How would you explain observations (a) and (b) in my previous post?
Hi Lars,
On point (a), “CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing significantly”: I believe that that would be an expected result of increasing ocean temperatures, as the solubility of CO2 would decrease, resulting in a higher ocean -> atmosphere CO2 transfer rate. In effect, the oceanic reservoir for CO2 would be reduced. At any rate, the bare fact that CO2 concentrations are increasing does not mean that Mankind is primarily responsible for it — that is not a defensible argument.
As to your point (b): ” the surface water of the oceans is becoming more acidic…”: This is a subject I don’t know enough about to have an opinion on. A quick internet search shows that it is a fairly complicated issue involving solubility, biological actions, and land erosion, at the least, and there are currently not any models with demonstrated predictive skill.
Currently, the oceans have a pH of ~8, which is on the basic (not acidic) side of neutral (pH 7); so “ocean acidification” is really talking about the oceans becoming less alkaline, and closer to neutral.
These are kind of side issues to my main points, however: As an engineer, I am biased toward whether or not there is evidence that an hypothesis is correct, and not what theoretical arguments might lead one to propose the hypothesis in the first place (engineers have to make things work, after all).
So, point 1: The data (as opposed to various theoretical arguments) seems to be all against the hypothesis that CO2 has a very long atmospheric lifetime, and in favor of anthropogenic CO2 being fairly rapidly removed from the atmosphere.
And, point 2: The standard for publication (peer review) is a very weak indicator of correctness (an issue I have run into numerous times trying to use published ideas in actual devices). When something has to work, the ideas must be verified, which often is a lot of work and expensive. The resistance in the climate science community to independent verification (and their selective ignoring of inconvenient data) does not convince me that we need to take draconian action. (And, if I was convinced, I would still insist that we need independent verification, since the costs of being wrong are astronomical.)
BTY Lars, I appreciate your comments, but I’m taking way too much time with this. I have some professional deadlines coming up and am going to bow out for a week or two.
I’ll check back in later in case anyone has comments pertaining to the points I tried to make.
I am not, however, in possesion of the “Theory of Everything” and cannot explain every fact or reported fact about the environment. I’ve tried to make my main points clearly:
1) That crucial elements of the AGW hypothesis are apparently falsified by known data — in particular the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 has a long atmospheric lifetime. [1]
2) Serious policy decisions must be based on independent verification (yes, that means letting your “opponents” have all the ammunition they need to try to shoot you down), and no one in the AGW community seems to be willing to bet that they are right. [2]
If anyone cares to respond to these points, I will be happy to reply when I get back. (Who knows, maybe you can convince me I’m wrong!)
—-
Bob,
re. the points you have made.
A) C02 is [safe] i.e., not poisonous
B) C02 is not a toxin i.e., not poisonous
Doesn’t seem to be much difference between A (which you say is a ridiculous conclusion to attribute to you) and B (which you say is a correct conclusion to attribute to you).
Do you see a problem? But I agree, let’s not belabour it.
You’re right, I chose not to address your content. One reason for this is that I looked at your comments and links and references, and felt you would dodge facts, repeat familiar falsehoods, and give the illusion of debate. The repetition of cherry-picking re. Bolin particularly stands out.
Besides this, it seems your analytic skills are not as sharp as you think, and your theoretical understanding of the chemistry of the atmosphere needs to be updated with new sources.
While your at that, you need to update your understanding of modeling. The newest modeling is giving us a much better idea of what is attributable to natural variation and what is human-caused. In other words, the most current state-of-the-art models can separate natural forcing from human-caused changes caused by greenhouse gases and other manufacturing effects. The most current simulations (e.g. Hansen et al) have helped to make climate change analysis more accurate, along with theory.
Of course, while the interpretation of climate science includes theory and models, it also includes what is observed. The most recent changes in patterns of diverse systems (everything from when plants are leafing out to where birds are flying) are consistent with what the state-of-the-art computer simulations are telling us about human-caused climate change.
One need only go to the most current and competent research sites and study the facts.
In summary, I saw no point in providing you with a platform for false debate, so I didn’t address your tired points.
.
I think it is worthy if you wish to encourage a critical perspective that can identify both where modern science has been forced to become an establishment, and where it has been successful resisting it. Since I don’t like to think your crap sandwich is a deliberate deception, I’ll assume it is caused by a weak understanding and a strong ego.
You comment, “ The really dumb thing about this is that society already has mechanisms to deal with this kind of decision: The way the FDA approves new drugs is a good example. The FDA doesn’t just take a drug company’s word on the efficacy of a new drug — it has to be verified through independent tests and audits.”
You must be joking, Bob. This is quite a naïve conception of the pharmaceutical industry and the role of the FDA as a regulatory mechanism. It is more evidence that while you care about a critical perspective in science and knowledge in general, you have trouble accurately identifying the interests at play.
take care
BobC,
The oceans are acidifying because they take up more carbon oxide than they release (carbon dioxide+water -> carbonic acid):
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13539
So there is no way that the current increase of carbon dioxide can be caused by relases from the oceans. That is clearly contradicted by the data.
And by the way, the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase is way too large to be explained by the rrecent temperature increases. It would have required something like the temperature increase between an ice age and current conditions. This is again what the data says.
These are not merely “theoretical arguments”.
And that the oceans will not absorb excess carbon dioxide very fast was understood already 50 years ago, by people like Revelle and Suess, and Bolin and Eriksson.
Sorry about the poor editing in my previous post.
Bob has pioneered a novel approach to finding scientific truth with a dictionary.
CO2 not toxin according to his definition
therefore:
CO2 cannot cause harm
therefore:
no global warming
Ocean ph “basic” according to definition
therefore:
ocean not acidifying
therefore:
no problem
Now if we could just get lexicographers to alter the definition of “warming” in such a way that it’s no longer applicable to the changes in the earth’s temperature – Voila! Problem solved.
BobC
On ocean acidification
‘Basic chemistry leaves us in little doubt that our burning of fossil fuels is changing the acidity of our oceans,’ said John Raven, professor of biology at the University of Dundee, UK. ‘The rate of change we are seeing to the ocean’s chemistry is a hundred times faster than has happened for millions of years. We just do not know whether marine life which is already under threat from climate change can adapt to these changes.’
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2005/July/01070501.asp
Another article on ocean acidification here:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/02/02/tech-acidic-ocean.html
Strongly recommend the book “The Carbon Age” by Eric Roston
That’s where I learned the following and much more.
Not only do the coral and the shellfish we are familiar with depend on a certain pH level in seawater, so do coccolithophores, tiny plankton that are armored with calcium carbonate shells, just like the more familiar shellfish and coral. Except these little guys are critical to a balance in the carbon cycle, that has supported life as we know it for millions of years. And besides that, they are the very bottom of the food chain that all other sea life depends on.
They cannot survive in acidic water, because they can’t form their alkaline shells. And they are one of the biggest carbon sinks on earth. Their shells eventually fall to the bottom of the deep sea, locking carbon, in the form of calcium carbonate, out of the carbon cycle, and thereby helping keep the cycle in a balance that has supported life as we know it.
This is acidification is happening now, not in some hypothetical future.
Here’s what else I learned in the book.
( IMHO (as a layman) this ought to be enough
to put away many skeptic arguments that are meaningless in light of these two pieces of knowledge.)
It took 60 million years for coal to develop in the earth, from carbon accumulating, by precipitating out of the carbon cycle, and being locked away in coal deposits. Now we are releasing this 60 million year accumulation into our atmosphere, and back into the carbon cycle, in 150-200 years, or a geological nanosecond.
It only takes basic science and common sense to understand the implications of that.
Life as we know it depends on a fairly narrow band of climate variables and a fairly stable carbon cycle to maintain them.
I would like a skeptic to explain how this is part of a natural cycle, or is anything like any natural cycle that the earth has been through before. I mean ones that didn’t wipe out 90% of life on the planet.
And if you like some skeptics would reply that
“nature fills a vaccuum, new species will fill the gaps left by species that go extinct, big deal”
You might want to know that…
It took 100 million years to replace the biodiversity that existed before one of the great dying offs.
—-
Richard,
To the problem of ocean acidification, one can add that the warming of the oceans can lead to lower marine oxygen levels:
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/study-predicts-ocean-dead-zones-20090126-7pk2.html
We are indeed in end-permian times!
Except for BobC, who climate-science-wise is in the 1950’s.
BobC – The Dunning-Kruger Effect?
However it begs the question – why do denailists, who have no expertise in climate science, and I suspect in most cases, no expertise in any scientific discipline – think they are able to pick apart the research of experts with such a simple sucker punch? Well there might be an answer; The Dunning-Kruger Effect;
“The Dunning-Kruger effect is an example of cognitive bias in which “people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it”. They therefore suffer an illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average.”
Put basically we tend to overestimate our own skill and underestimate other’s abilities and the worse we are at understanding an area, the worse our estimation of how little we know. I have the ability to see that there is much in this area I am not equipped to deal with. That’s why science has the peer-review process – so people who are equipped can critique each other’s work. But the denailists would have us believe that they (somehow) have a special (magical?) insight into GSCE-level science that eludes a professional scientist?
—-
Wow, what can I say? Mike asked for something that refuted a significant aspect of AGW. I pointed out that AGW depends on the proposition that CO2 has a long atmospheric lifetime (50-1000 years), and that all actual measurements of CO2 atmospheric lifetime have concluded that it was short (2-15 years half-life). [1]
I said that I knew of no long-lifetime model that could explain the historic data – apparently no one else here does either.
But, you won’t let a little thing like an argument you can’t answer cause doubt, so you have spent the time I’ve been gone attacking me, beating straw man arguments, and generally ignoring the actual argument I made (except for Lars, who at least tried to address it). Martha said it perfectly: “In summary, I saw no point in providing you with a platform for false debate, so I didn’t address your tired points.” (I think you’re fooling yourself, Martha: I don’t think you can address them in any logical manner.)
I have to conclude that Mike’s challenge is a fraud and this website exists mostly to let the deluded support each other’s delusions.
(Of course, that seemed probable after a brief perusal of the site months ago – I don’t know why I ever expected anything else.)
Despite everything, I hope you all are right (even if accidentally), and the climate resumes warming up soon. If it continues to cool, things are going to get grim – history is clear that warm periods are much happier for Human civilization than cold ones.
—-
BobC has not yet responded to my objections to his arguments:
(1) the oceans will not absorb excess carbon dioxide very fast, which was understood already 50 years ago by people like Revelle and Suess, and Bolin and Eriksson.
(2) The surface waters of the oceans are acidifying (term used by Royal Society) because they take up more carbon dioxide than they release (carbon dioxide+water -> carbonic acid).
(3) the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase is way too large to be explained by the recent temperature increases.
—-
“CO2 has a short atmospheric lifetime, which doesn’t allow human activity to account for more than a few percent of the atmospheric C02”
-as stated by Bob
-as stated by Oregon Institute of Science [sic] petition project, Singer, Lindzen, etc.
Bob has been here wasting time since October. He has not chosen to read this or any other current or competent sites or follow the hyperlinks. He evidences little understanding of the carbon cycle, limits to carbon uptake, earth systems or perturbation.
Bob can’t visit any university research sites since that is where socialists are trained. 😉
—-
Hi Mike,
Yes, obviously BobC is not going to change his mind about anything, no matter how much evidence is presented to him. Denialists love their misconceptions and hold onto them no matter what. But I found the particular question about the ocean’s absorption of CO2 interesting, and half a decade ago there actually was a genuine scientific debate about it.
Sorry, that should have been: “half a *century* ago there actually was a genuine scientific debate about it.”
Good grief!
“As usual:
– you offer no credible source for your claim,” — Mike
Good Lord, Mike! (Martha also) Scroll back to my Jan27 post — I referenced 36 peer-reviewed studies where CO2 atmospheric lifetime was measured by diverse means.
In response, you offer a paper that uses a model to hypothesize long lifetimes — as a rebuttal to 3 dozen measurement studies?
(I haven’t looked at all the references, but it appears that Susan only references other modelers. Apparently, facts -especially inconvenient ones that might threaten the funding stream — have no place in current climate “science”.)
Anarchist606: It is amusing imagining you trying to review a scientific paper for publication — how on Earth could you do that given your belief that you cannot question the work of a “professional scientist”?
You (and many of the others on this blog) appear to be (as Ludwig von Mises put it) “of the class of people who can’t think their own thoughts”. Not being able to reason anything out for yourself, you are limited to repeating the thoughts of those you assign as authorities. But, how do you pick those authorities, if you can’t analyze their work? The answer is that you have to make those decisions irrationally.
It shows.
(It explains perfectly why nobody on this blog can respond logically to a logical argument. My arguments might be right or wrong, but you are incapable of determining that.)
Lars:
“BobC has not yet responded to my objections to his arguments:
(1) the oceans will not absorb excess carbon dioxide very fast, which was understood already 50 years ago by people like Revelle and Suess, and Bolin and Eriksson.
(2) The surface waters of the oceans are acidifying (term used by Royal Society) because they take up more carbon dioxide than they release (carbon dioxide+water -> carbonic acid).
(3) the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase is way too large to be explained by the recent temperature increases.”
I won’t be responding Lars for two reasons:
1) I don’t know enough about the ocean-atmosphere interaction to contribute anything meaningful.
2) These are not “objections” to my argument. They are irrelevant to my main point that the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is too short (as determined by 36 peer-reviewed measurement studies) for Human-produced CO2 to have contributed more than a minor amount to the atmospheric CO2 increase of the last 50 years.
The measurements are what they are, whether we can explain them theoretically or not.
“I referenced 36 peer-reviewed studies where CO2 atmospheric lifetime was measured by diverse means.”
No, you didn’t — Segalstad did. And he compiled a misleading list.
“nobody on this blog can respond logically to a logical argument. My arguments might be right or wrong, but you are incapable of determining that”
You presented false information so the conclusion you draw is also false. You did not have an argument.
It is easier to get it right, and takes about the same amount of time and effort as getting it wrong.
Our question is this: why do you deliberately and completely ignore all the current studies showing a much longer anthropogenic carbon uptake cycle? Why does Segalstad?
It is blatantly disingenuous cherrypicking for the purpose of misleading people.
The study you cite is based on Sundquist.
Here is what Sundquist et. al have to say about the data (including Sundquist 1990):
-On the basis of such analyses, it is now generally believed that a substantial fraction of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere will remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, and about 15-30% will remain for thousands of years. From “Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases”
(Sundquist et. al. 1999).
You can find this and other credible science related to your specific concerns, online at the AGU site. The AGU’s position is consistent with the IPCC.
You facts are what they are.
The C14-measurements are well in agreement with our current models of the global carbon cycle:
Click to access NaeglerJGR2006.pdf
Lars,
Finally, a model that takes actual measured data into account! (Thanks, Lars.) Unfortunately, Soloman, et. al. (as referenced by Mike) don’t use Sundquist’s or Naegler’s models, as they are forced to admit that “70% to 85%” of Human-produced CO2 is relatively rapidly removed from the atmosphere, a result that doesn’t support Susan Soloman’s “1000’s of years” alarmism.
To even get the remaining 15-30% to hang around a long time (more than a few decades) you have to make a tightly targeted series of assumptions about the “data” you haven’t got yet — not a process that promises a high degree of success.
An obvious conclusion from Naegler’s work (which he wisely doesn’t draw — he still wants to publish in the US, obviously, even thought his funding at Heidelberg is probably secure) is that Human CO2 production can only be responsible for a small part of the last 50 years’ increase, and hence we can only slightly modify said increase by restricting production.
And Martha: Perhaps you could let us know how you determine that a list of peer-reviewed studies is “misleading”?
My guess is, that the studies tend to support conclusions you would rather not believe, but I’m willing to consider your reasons should you have any.
Actually, I’m not.
Martha’s right — I’ve wasted too much time here. I’ll leave you to your mutual admiration society — good luck with the reality thing!
Wow. What a ridiculous premise. Trying to get people to deny climate change? Is there ANYONE that doesn’t think the climate changes? Now if you had said global warming…
—-
BobC,
Where did find that ‘“70% to 85%” of Human-produced CO2 is relatively rapidly removed from the atmosphere’?
According to figure 4 in Jaegler, you still have around 25% left after 50 years.
[…] so far as to issue a challenge to the despicable, lying, Astroturfing frauds, similar to the one at Greenfyre’s, show me evidence that I’m substantially wrong about any of these basic numbers: – 20 pounds […]
Ya know, it’s time to quit fighting the previous blogwar.
There are really only a few of the frothing types remaining. Businesses generally are planning, or trying to plan, for what’s coming. Governments are making serious plans. The next generation already understands what their old uncles don’t yet have much of a clue about and likely never will
Sober, serious, thinking people need help understanding the science.
Entertaining the ranters who are still fighting over whether anything’s happening is _really_ just getting old.
It has its place, I admit. Topics like this are flypaper for them. But there are far more people out there who have gotten a general understanding that something real is happening and want to make sense of their lives with the news.
Someone should start a blog. A well filtered one.
Maybe you should, Hank. 🙂
I’ve enjoyed reading your comments over the last several years.
S2
Seconded.
I’ve also found Hank’s link finding skills invaluable at times.
Chris
It’s been long time but I want to address this point from BobC, the resident denialist:
“1. It shows that there is a physical process that removes ~ 50% of radioactive CO2 from the atmosphere in 12 years.”
Uhm, No. It doesn’t.
The isotope carbon-12 (12C) forms 98.93% of the carbon on Earth, carbon-13 (13C) forms the remaining 1.07%. Carbon-14 (14C) occurs in trace amounts on Earth of up to 1 part per trillion (0.0000000001%).
Fossil fuels contain no 14C, and have a higher concentration of 12C wrt 13C since plants prefer 12C for photosynthesis. They contain no 14C because it
Adding only 12C and 13C to the atmosperic mix causes the percentage of that 14C in the mix to decrease.
To explain it in really simple terms:
mix one cup of white sugar and a cup of brown sugar in a bowl. 50% of that mix is brown sugar. Right?
Now ad another bowl of white sugar. What’s the concentration of brown sugar in the mix now? 33.33%. It’s decreased!
Ad another bowl of white sugar. The mix now contains 25% brown sugar. It’s halved!
There was no brown sugar taken out of the concentration.
Comprende?
—-
@BobC: I’ve read some more post of you and I’m struck by the notion that you seem to think that there is a difference between “CO2” (supposedly natural?) and “anthropogenetic CO2”.
What kind of nonsense is that?
Speaking of logical fallacies:
” I’m looking for anything that alleges to refute climate change itself, that climate change is anthropocentric, or that it is not a clear and present danger, etc, and”
A negative cannot be proven. I cannot show you Santa does not exist, I can only show you it is very unlikely that he does. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
Also your sentence has an error in English usuage. “Alleging” is something referenced in the second or third person..
“A negative cannot be proven”
Sam, you better not try to pass an introductory logic course.
It is not only possible but common to construct a valid deductive argument that ‘proves a negative’.
From a valid deductive argument, we can logically infer there is no such thing as Santa.
If you want to talk instead about an inductive argument, we can again conclude there is no such thing as Santa. Using this type of argumentation, our conclusion would be highly likely but not absolutely certain — just like any other type of knowledge we have that is based in experience. We don’t dismiss this inductive conclusion just because we can’t show that Santa Absolutely does not exist.
If you want to say there is such a thing as Santa, the burden of both deductive and inductive arguments to the contrary actually lies with you.
Do you mean that the anthro forcing is the largest? That it is one of the biggest? That it is significant (an equal among peers)?
Would results showing that it was measurable but not practically significant meet your desiderata?
The meaning of anthropocentrism is more about how we dominate other species and generally overlook our duty towards others. Sadly, it has led to viewing the environment purely in terms of its value to humans; discussing climate change as if we are the only species impacted; and perceiving some members of our species as more important than others. As such, one can see that ‘anthropocentric’ has deeply philosophical and sociological meaning.
I think you know that the ‘A’ in ‘AGW’ is usually taken to mean ‘anthropogenic’, as in ‘human caused’ — as in the overwhelming scientific evidence that the main driver of the current warming trend is C02 emissions from human activity.
Did you have evidence to the contrary?
“glaciers are melting… and not one entity that we trust with our money to look out for our interests as a species has any freaking clue as to why”
There are entities that have a clue. They’re called climate scientists. They are not the entities that deal with your money.
cheers
Martha said:
I did not realize the philosophical connotations of that term. My personal ethical philosophy leans towards deontology, so I’m a bit familiar with the ethical concepts of ‘duty’. Would you say we have a ‘perfect duty’ towards the survival of other species?
I think the primary literature (and especially the recent findings about stratospheric water content) show that human CO2 emissions have effects with magnitudes similar to other forcings (at least on short time-scales, that’s one of the reasons it’s challenging to find the ‘signal’ among the ‘noise’ in attribution studies). Can you point me at an attribution study that shows CO2 emissions are in-fact the primary driver?
Thanks for addressing my questions and not flaming me.
Cheers to you!
Nice work on finding that! I wasn’t sure what that was from until I stuck it in to Google. You realize I wasn’t the one who said that right? So what about the claims about the AGW-disaster connections? Any thoughts on that?
Hi,
1) Re. C02 Science. What primary literature are you speaking of? The overwhelming majority of published climate science says C02 is the main driver of the current warming trend. This science is linked and discussed all over this site and many other credible science sites. You aren’t the first visitor I’ve seen ignore it and I’m sure you won’t be the last.
I see you depend alot on Pielke. I encourage you to know that Pielke has been extensively debunked by competent scientists.
2) Re recent ‘findings’ regarding stratospheric water vapour. Is it Susan Solomon’s research you’re talking about?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-wisdom-of-solomon/
Romps and Kuang?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090420121421.htm
These scientists are not challenging the core science of AGW.
Solomon, for example, wonders if changes in stratospheric water vapour might have helped keep the warming from being even worse in the past decade.
You know, no one is suggesting that all feedbacks are known or understood. Global climate and the carbon uptake cycle is a complex system. Climate knowledge is an evolving science. However, we don’t have to know everything to know alot, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists say the evidence continues to agree with AGW.
The question is why you think they are wrong.
If you have evidence that they are wrong, please post it. This site has a thread for Challenging the Core Science. 🙂
A. NOAA & NASA 2 out 3 sensors placed next to heat sources, info on multiple Web sites, some with pictures, indicate cheating (a. Roofs, b. chimney’s, c. AC units, d. blacktop driveways & parking lots.
B. Temp. DATA altered because high was 80 years ago, Graphs look bad for Warmer’s. Again this info has been on Web for years, showing Graphs. before and after edit.
C. Studies leave out Medieval Warming Period 930AD to 1300, Tree ring & Ice core data, plus historical records from many countries; Sci. does not let you leave out critical facts. Iceland discovered before 930, Greenland was green and discovered after 930AD.
D. No money reason but 10s of millions in funding.
Al Gore made a Billion, changed laws to profit from Occidental Petro, Current TV sale to Quatar, Ethanol Scam, & Carbon Trading Scam.
E. Sunspot cycle 8 to 14 years, some cycles weak, some are strong. The more sunspots the warmer the Earth; cause UV & Solar wind, info is on Web, check Solar Sci.
Let’s do a little critical thinking about a key concept in AGW known as the “global mean temperature” (aka average global temperature). And for the sake of this discussion let’s forget about the vagaries of actually measuring temperature and pretend it’s about as easy and accurate as finding out a person’s age. OK? Let’s begin.
Our critical thinking will take the form of a thought experiment featuring the global mean age of humans.Now typical of thought experiments several hypothetical quantities will be used for expository purposes so don’t waste your time debating minutia – stick to the big picture. Also for you public school products the arithmetic mean is what we’re talking about here and it is interchangeable with what you know as the “average”.
So if I told you that the global mean age of humans was 27.2 years in 1993 and by 2013 decreased by 0.15 years by 2013 what would that tell you? Not much. Even it a mega-tsunami struck a heavily populated coastal city it would more-or-less kill without regard to a person’s age so the global average wouldn’t move much at all despite the tremendous carnage. At least if the global median age was cited we’d know that half of the population was older and half was younger than the median but the global mean age leaves us grasping at straws.
Take for instance the fact that the global mean age has decreased 0.15 years since 1993 – is that “good” or “bad” for humanity? Did it decrease because of an increase in the birthrate or because of an increase in the death rate of seniors or both? Also we know that infant mortality, gender mortality and longevity are dependent on many geographical, sociological and biological factors. But all this detail is ground to a slurry by averaging disparate data points in some gigantic statistical sausage maker of a calculation.
Now back to AGW and the much touted average global temperature…just why should the air temperature on a street corner in Bonn, Germany be averaged with the air temperature over a soy bean field 61 miles due north of Kansas City with the air temperature over a spot in the ocean 57 degrees south latitude 151 degrees east longitude? And this statistical phantasm of a “global average temperature” is suppose to be the oracle by which view the immense complexity of global climate? What a joke!..
“Whether the ice caps melt, or expand — whatever happens — the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.” ~ Mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler, professor at Tulane University
“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” ~ South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.
“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” ~ Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid
“There is no credible evidence of the current exceptional global warming trumpeted by the UNIPCC…The UNIPCC is no longer behaving as an investigative scientific organization or pretending to be one…Their leaders betrayed the trust of the world community.” ~ Chemist Dr. Grant Miles, author of numerous peer reviewed scientific publications on atmospheric chemistry who was elected to a Fellowship of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, was a member of UK Atomic Energy Authority Chemical Separation Plant Committee
Facts: Only about 20 thousand years ago New York was under 2 miles of ice, the last major glacial ice left NY some 11 thousand years ago. Look these facts up for starters.
Glacial ice has been receding for millennia, today’s erosion is a continuation of this process.
Today AGW science documents a ramp in global warming beginning about 150 years ago that they attribute to mankind. 150 years ago reaches deep into a portion of our history where we got around on horseback and the global human population was tiny by todays standard. So using the first 30-40 years of this 150 year warming period as the yardstick that measures mankind’s beginning influence on the environment according to AGW pundits you can easily extrapolate the following; if we reduced most of the earths population to mid 19th century levels, and eliminated most manufacturing we would still be in the same global warming mess using the data the pundits of AGW supply.
Why? Because AGW science points to the mid 19 century as the beginning of the sharp upward curve in global warming that they attribute to humans. Obviously if so few humans and industry could have initiated this sharp increase in GW at such an early period in human industrialization then the only real solution to global warming would be to dramatically reduce human population and manufacturing to pre 19th century levels to mitigate GW, actually to 18th century levels to get in front of the inflection point so that AGW science/alarmists let humanity completely off the hook. This is absurd right? But these are the conclusions you are left with if you believe what AGW pundits are saying.
The liberal media recklessly uses broad statistics to spin its GW message, the media group think is overwhelming, as is the politics and money behind it. Today pundits of AGW are trying to rebrand global warming to “climate change” in an attempt to not lose face because some of the models have not worked out, they are trying to distance themselves from “warming” so they can continue the charade indefinitely.
A question to ask yourself; how many climatologists are affiliated with universities? Many right? Perhaps most. A great deal of science is funded by universities. Most universities are extremely progressive, and they’re flush with cash from hyperinflation of tuitions primarily caused by Federal government tuition subsidies (much of which is in default), not to mention direct government funding for research. Some of this money is used to fund progressive research priorities. The government actually funded 700k for a musical about global warming, look it up, unbelievable. GW is a macro geopolitical phenomenon promoted and funded by the global progressive movement as a methodology to redistribute wealth from 1st world countries to third world countries using carbon credits. If you don’t know what carbon credits are please look it up.
The political shills behind AGW science often times use factual raw data derived from science to draw non factual conclusions that is then used as media talking points. When looking at the vast 2 mile thick ice sheets that have melted within the last 20 thousand years on this continent it’s PREPOSTEROUS that it’s so easily written off that there’s no continuation of this process even to this day regardless if man has “incrementally” contributed. The science is anything but conclusive. Sadly global warming is mostly politically sculpted for money, power and new world view doctrine.