Global Warming - yes, no, maybe?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

CO2 levels may, or may not have changed.

 

So, you don't know, but you're willing to give your opinion on AGW, eh?

 

Beyond that, the integrity of the data regarding BOTH CO2 and temperature measurements is seriously in doubt, due to the recent CRU email release.

 

No, not the raw data. You don't appear to know where the raw data is from.

 

There is NO proof that CO2 levels have significant effect on global temperatures.

 

Now you aren't even talking science; science doesn't deal with "proof," it deals with data, evidence, and models.

 

So far as I know, those claims that weather and climate are chaotic (in the mathematical sense) have not been repudiated or discredited.

 

Well, now you're just cherry-picking whatever sciency-sounding phrase you like, in order to reach a predetermined conclusion.

[HICO_Eagle]

Merlyn, instead of repeating myself, I'll direct your attention to rereading my first paragraph for my 02:05:09 post. Plenty in there about the hoax including Briffa's cherry-picked Yamal data, recent "homogenizing" of historical temperature records to create or increase a warming trend, etc. You want measurements? There's plenty of them in the raw satellite data, raw global monitoring station data, etc. There's also CO2 in the geologic record -- up to three times present day measurements albeit with entirely different global ecosystems. Try going through Dr. Roy Spencer's presentation at the AGU last week: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/cloud-feedback-presentation-for-fall-2009-agu-meeting/ or the adjustments at Darwin Zero: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/#more-14358

 

In the last roughly 50 years, the records at Mauna Loa have gone from 320 to 390 ppm. I would note that Kilauea has been smoking for over 25 of those 50 years and there's a "new" submarine volcano going off the coast of Hawaii although the claim at RealClimate.org is that ML measurements have trended consistently with other worldwide measurements. I haven't got access to those other measurements so really can't say although other claims at RealClimate about data consistency haven't really panned out.

 

I'll let you get down to doing some research and reading before speaking out of your posterior orifice again ...

 

(This message has been edited by HICO_Eagle)

[GaHillBilly]

Merlyn, it would make this easier if you could hold more than one thought or fact in your mind at time. I'll answer you, but it's probably futile, because then you'll respond ONLY to what's in this answer, rather than the complete thread.

 

 

+ Regarding my opinion vis a vis AGW:

 

I have voiced the same opinion about AGW throughout this thread, and that opinion is entirely consistent with not knowing what CO2 levels have been. That opinion is that GW is probable, but unproven; and that AGW is unproven AND improbably. (If you like, you can replace "proven" with "demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence to be statistically likely")

 

My further opinion is that, so long as AGW is unproven, we shouldn't spend TRILLIONS to try to fix it, using solutions that are themselves not 'proven' to produce the expected results. Given that we are way past broke as a nation, I think that our CURRENT financial situation is a far greater, and far more real threat, to my grandchildren than the hypothetical risk of AGW.

 

 

 

+ Regarding data:

 

I know where SOME of the data comes from, and that knowledge is one reason for my skepticism. It appears NO ONE knows where all the data comes from, and that's another reason for my skepticism. (But, there are many OTHER reasons for doubting AGW, besides these two.)

 

 

 

+ Regarding "proof":

 

Get a life . . . and a dictionary! Even practicing scientists use this word inconsistently. See above for what I "mean".

 

 

 

Regarding chaotic phenomenon:

 

Sheesh.

 

Just because you haven't heard of chaotic phenomena before, doesn't mean I made it up. "Initial conditions" is just a term from calculus or dynamic system analysis. "Sensitive dependence" or "non-linearity" means that small changes in initial conditions produce unanticipatably large changes in outcomes. The two phrases have been commonly combined.

[ http://www.google.com/search?q="sensitive+dependence+on+initial+conditions" ]

 

You've still got time to get a textbook on chaos in physics before Xmas. Get it, read it, and then you'll know more than I do about chaotic phenomena. While you're at Amazon, it's not too late to purchase some "Sai Baba Nag Champa Incense", to use while you mediate before your altar to Guru Gore!

 

[ http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Chaos-Physics-Mathematics-Phenomena/dp/0750305088 ]

[ http://www.amazon.com/Incense-Champa-Sai-Satya-Baba/dp/B0000ZUGS6/ ]

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

 

More articles on chaos & climate:

 

This page links to an article examining one aspect of chaotic phenomena, as it affects weather modeling, and offers links to many more:

[ http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1005341 ]

 

Additional links that appear to be relevant - I've only read the abstracts because I can't afford the articles (RANT: It irritates me no end that I have to pay for research paid for by tax-funded governments!!)

[ http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/63/2/201 ]

 

I scanned this article; it looked interesting and appears to attempt to address some aspects of chaos as it impacts climate model validity. However, I'm not capable of judging the validity of their analysis.

[ http://www.meteo.unican.es/files/pdfs/2008_revelli_jpa.pdf ]

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

"I'll let you get down to doing some research and reading before speaking out of your posterior orifice again ... "

 

"Merlyn, it would make this easier if you could hold more than one thought or fact in your mind at time."

 

Guys, I missed the section in debate class where it was presented that insulting your opponent makes your case more valid, if you could reference that I would appreciate it.

 

On the other hand, I only have the two quotes above because they follow one another. I understand there will be different opinions on Global Warming/Climate Change/AGW or whatever it will be called but can it be done in a way that wouldnt embarrass your scouts if your posts were read at your next unit meeting?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Neither one of you "geniuses" appear to have even noticed that I haven't stated anything about global warming itself, just your bizarre assertions that imply some kind of global conspiracy between thousands of people, and how neither of you are exactly experts but are ready to cry "hoax." I'd ask you what the color of the sky is in your world, but that would just perpetuate this idiocy.

[HICO_Eagle]

OGE, I spoke of him doing some research and reading since he claimed I hadn't presented any data on the hoax when in fact the very first paragraph of what I posted had tons. Mention of his posterior orifice was perhaps a bit of a reaction to his persistent and seemingly intentional obtuseness but you're right, it would not be acceptable in Debate class.

 

Merlyn, you still haven't addressed the point that none of what we are laying out requires a conspiracy of thousands. I pointed out for you that many of the "thousands" don't even have any expertise in the causal physics, that the data being used to push this bizarre hoax traces to a handful of zealots who refuse to provide access to the raw data, processing methods, etc. Your strident defense of the AGW hypothesis underlies all you wrote including the specious request to talk about CO2 levels when it's not clear you even understand what the levels are, potential sources, magnitude of overall effect, etc.

 

You can sneeringly talk about us "experts" and ask about the color of the sky all you want (it's a pale gray here but we're anticipating snowfall tonight), I've followed this debate for well over 20 years. I've given you citations, specific instances of data manipulation, etc. and all I've seen from you are vague references to "idiocy". Please go on.

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

Merlyn, you too, lighten up on descrbing the opponents argument, make yours and react

[vol_scouter]

Beevah,

 

You make a good point about a lack of emphasis in the south on getting a good education. I am was born and raised in the south so I can be critical of my brethren. I have a BS in engineering, an MS and PhD in physics, and an MD. I am very well educated, articulate, and well read. I have presented talks all over the world on aspects of my research (some of the talks have been invited). Despite this kind of record, I frequently face bigotry due to the fact that I hail from the south. I would imagine that my Georgia brethren have experienced similar discrimination from the enlightened elites from the north. I have been called a racist because I am from the south so much that the appellation has little sting. Upon questioning the liberal elites, I usually find that I have more black friends and colleagues (not to mention carrying for black patients) than they do. I was once told that anyone who uses the phrase 'y' all' can never have anything important to say. My retort was that 'y' all' is inconclusive rather than you guys and that the mark of intelligence was to evaluate the ideas conveyed rather than the accent and idioms used to convey those ideas. So excuse us if we get to be a little hair trigger.

 

On the other hand, the south too frequently devalues a good education. We are intelligent and have fine schools producing scholars making a large difference in our world. I good discuss my reasons for those values being askew in the south (as it also is in other sections of the country), but that is not germain to this discussion.

 

Merlyn, I wrote a long discussion about the folly of consensus opinion in science and the pressures to conform that addresses some of your questions.

 

The evidence for global warming seems to fall well within historical values (measured or estimated). When a model was allowed to increase only the CO2 without an other processes (such as increased plant growth, ocean buffering, et cetera), the earth's temperature increased. I do not believe that anthropogenic global warming exists. I do believe that there are local effects (e.g. Phoenix) but not globally. By the way, have you ever asked yourself what the average global temperature means and how it is determined? Think of the temperature variation over the entire earth and realize that the variations that will cause the ill effects are on the order of a few degrees. In any given day, the temperature variation over the earth is an order of magnitude larger than the temperature effect. This means that the data must be very accurate to detect such small changes. The lack of transparency of the researcher's methods calls into question their results. Since the centers in question supply much of the data for the rest of the world, the whole argument when combined with the emails from the CRU makes the possibility of fraud high.

[GaHillBilly]

OGE, I would request that you go back and read my posts, and compare them to Merlyn's remarks. If you still think I'm being unfair to him, I'll happily request that you delete what I said.

 

But, I think you'll find that he's not paying attention to what has been said, and is ducking and sniping, rather than responding to the arguments.

 

His remark suggesting that the phrase "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" was something I manufactured because it was "sciency-sounding" was simply asinine. You can easily confirm this yourself if you follow the search link I posted for that exact phrase. I realize that if you aren't actually interested in this topic yourself, it requires some tedious reading to verify what I'm saying. But, I don't know how else to resolve it, short of giving in to his distortions.

 

I think he's used to being in groups where Guru Gore is worshiped unquestioningly, and where no one challenges some of the stupid things said about AGW. I'm very, very familiar with this pattern and I see it all the time among closed groups of evangelicals. But, contrary to liberal dogma, such unquestioning submission to the stupidities dominant in your particular circle is not a pattern unique to evangelicals OR Southerners.

 

I strongly suspect he actually is not able to follow much of what is being said, but doesn't want to either drop out or study up. So, he's sniping instead.

 

GaHillBilly

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

HICO_Eagle writes:

I spoke of him doing some research and reading since he claimed I hadn't presented any data on the hoax.

 

Your phrasing is misleading, since "data on the hoax" of course assumes that there IS a hoax.

 

And, of course, you haven't shown there's a hoax. You can claim it all you like, but that requires a conspiracy of thousands of people all over the world.

 

Merlyn, you still haven't addressed the point that none of what we are laying out requires a conspiracy of thousands.

 

To be an actual hoax, yes, it does. Thousands of people would have to be knowingly lying for it to be a deliberate hoax.

 

I pointed out for you that many of the "thousands" don't even have any expertise in the causal physics

 

There's no problem pointing to thousands of OTHERS who aren't experts, but that just means you're ignoring lots of experts.

 

And your own statements like "As a pure matter of physics, the amount of energy contained in solar storms impacting the Earth and the gaseous content in volcanic eruptions simply overwhelm manmade sources by orders of magnitude" is a ridiculous statement; you can't just compare how much energy is released. A hurricane has more energy than a nuclear bomb, but you can't use that comparison to argue that somehow a nuclear explosion will cause less damage to a city.

 

vol_scouter writes:

I wrote a long discussion about the folly of consensus opinion in science and the pressures to conform that addresses some of your questions.

 

Yeah, but listening to amateurs is no improvement, and listening to people with degrees in unrelated fields is often worse. Lots of creationists have engineering degrees, but there aren't many biologists in that group.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

HICO_Eagle writes:

His remark suggesting that the phrase "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" was something I manufactured because it was "sciency-sounding" was simply asinine.

 

I didn't suggest that at all. You'll note I quoted this from you: "So far as I know, those claims that weather and climate are chaotic (in the mathematical sense) have not been repudiated or discredited."

 

It's a sciency-sounding non-sequitur. Weather can be chaotic, but that doesn't make global warming a hoax. And it seems that statements about weather 20 years ago (about it being chaotic, etc) is something you're willing to accept merely because you can try to use it to argue against statements being made today about the weather (global warming, etc). But then you just appear to be cherry-picking what science you accept based on whether it agrees with your predetermined assumptions.

[HICO_Eagle]

Well, it appears some horses just won't drink no matter how many times you lead them to the well so it would be best to just ignore their whinnying which is what I'll do. For the rest of the True Believers who are willing to at least check the science, I'll suggest these lines of inquiry to start:

 

- Effect of the geomagnetic field on cloud formation and aerosols in the upper atmosphere

- Associated effect on the geomagnetic field (above) from solar flares and geomagnetic storms

- Data sourcing to the GISS, GHCN and CRU

- Briffa's Yamal tree ring studies

- Selective mixture of data on Mann's hockey stick chart (reused by IPCC until Climategate surfaced)

- Changes to IPCC reports AFTER peer review

- Selective use of Antarctic monitoring station data

- Urban heat island effects

- Selective use of satellite data

- Strategic misuse of the peer review process by Jones, Mann, Wigley et al

- Principal component analysis (especially as applied to dendroclimatology)

 

By the way, don't bother using Wikipedia as a source although you might use it as a starting point to get to other sources. There is a group of activists at WP who maintain tight editorial control on anything or anyone associated with AGW (pro or con) -- look up William Connolley and Kim D. Petersen.

 

Sources frequented by skeptics will include (in no particular order)

Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That)

Steven McIntyre (Climate Audit)

Dr. Roy Spencer

Roger Pielke, Sr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. (Jr specializes more in science policy while Sr is a climatologist -- note that Jr isn't a skeptic per se but he is very troubled by the actions of the Mann/Jones/Briffa/Hansen cabal)

Warwick Hughes

Jeff Id (The Air Vent)

 

Sources frequented by AGW proponents include

Gavin Schmidt (Real Climate)

Ben Santer

William Connolley

Jim Hansen

Michael Mann

Phil Jones

Keith Briffa

 

I presume no one is dumb enough to try to cite Al Gore.

 

 

[vol_scouter]

Merlyn,

 

There are professional climate experts who dispute AGW. I believe that being a full time researcher with a PhD in theoretical physics gives me the credentials to evaluate the validity of scientific models and arguments. The evidence that has been presented to date provides some evidence for global warming but it is far from convincing for AGW especially since the changes made to the raw data, which raw data is used, and how it is evaluated is not published. I am sorry that your understanding of the scientific community precludes understanding how a powerful viewpoint can influence an entire field. As to CO2, water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than is CO2 but it is not considered in most models because it fluctuates so much. Many for the models do not take into account variations in solar power output. It is far from clear that the global warming trend is not due to the increased solar flux that man has no control. Also, there is a consensus opinion from climatologists that there is no AGW - they are in the minority but often in science the minority opinion is eventually shown to be correct.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

HICO_Eagle, you still aren't establishing a HOAX. Keep in mind that an incorrect theory does not establish a hoax -- the phlogiston theory of heat was wrong, but it wasn't a hoax. Even incidents of fraud don't establish that AGW as a theory is a hoax, as (as I've pointed out) you'd need a conspiracy of thousands of people around the world to make it an actual hoax.

 

vol_scouter writes:

There are professional climate experts who dispute AGW.

 

I know that. That doesn't make AGW a hoax, either.

 

Also, there is a consensus opinion from climatologists that there is no AGW - they are in the minority

 

Consensus:

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

 

I don't agree with your use of the word "consensus" to describe a minority opinion.

[vol_scouter]

Merlyn,

 

As usual, when shown not to have the better argument, you pick at the edges. By your definition, there exists no consensus opinion because it is no harmony - the minority is very vocal though at this time it remains the majority opinion. Your point had been to discredit the discussion against AGW by saying that the critics here were not able to make such statements. When shown that you are once again wrong, you try to turn the discussion. There are scientists on this list and professional climatologists who based upon available evidence do not believe in AGW. On either side, it is a belief because AGW is not settled science and no amount of consensus opinions will make it so or not. Only time can ever verify it and then there are so many confounding processes that it may never be known with certainty.