253 replies to this topic

[platypus]

b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.

There's no way you can know that.

We know for certain that greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere are a lot higher than during the Medieval.

[maxwatt]

b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.

There's no way you can know that.

There is a way that we can know this, through science rather than wishful thinking.

The Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. The rest of the world did not see as much warming, and were colder than they were today. We have records of sunspots activity by Chinese astronomers indicating higher solar output during that period, and also historical and geological records for the volcano activity.

Another denialist claim is that arctic sea ice is not decreasing. This too is flat out wrong.



Conspiracy theories in Science

[Dorho]

As someone who has followed the debate around GW for years, I not only find the topic extremely fascinating, but many of the brilliant and entertaining points brought up here make the debate here worth following just for the sake of their wittiness.

What I have come to find interesting, after being exhausted with the information regarding the topic itself, is how many people (I'm not talking about you guys) feel the need to position themselves at either end of the spectrum that ranges from spiteful denialism to shrill alarmism. I guess this kind dichotomy is common in the bipartisan political field of the US where pretty much every topic can be politicized and turned into a heated battle, but the trend has caught up elsewhere too. Based on my limited observations, the dichotomy around this subject, that may have roots in political and societal groupings in the US, does not know those kind of 'tribal boundaries' outside the US. That's pretty interesting, especially for a person like me who has very little knowledge of psychology but interest in the theory of memes and memeplexes.

What is also interesting is how many of the people from the opposing forces feel they are qualified to assess the stregth of the science (either way) based on very narrow knowledge of the issue and with very little or no relevant education. Again, I'm not talking about you guys. But believe be, I've seen some crazy ideas tossed around, even including heated opinions that can be interpreted as violent threats.

Personally, and this is completely non-professional opinion, I feel that the truth is somewhere in the between when it comes to the reliability of the current climate model predictions, and the more regional or quantitative the prediction becomes, the less I tend to trust them (with predictions for the Arctic being one of the few exceptions). The explanations for the observed climate evolution seem more solid, but then it is always easier to retrofit the theories to observations, and may I remark that yes, I know the definition of theory in the scientific context.

What I find tragic is that the various solutions that are being developed to replace fossil fuels are meeting opposition although that path has to take place as a part of sustainable development regardless of the truth about global warming, and the sooner the better.

[maxwatt]

As someone who has followed the debate around GW for years, I not only find the topic extremely fascinating, but many of the brilliant and entertaining points brought up here make the debate here worth following just for the sake of their wittiness.
....

If you have followed the "debate" or years, surely you have noticed that all the real scientists are on one side? Or that the other side cherry picks data, and keeps repeating the same shibboleths, no matter that they were disproved and discredited years ago?

What I find tragic is that the various solutions that are being developed to replace fossil fuels are meeting opposition although that path has to take place as a part of sustainable development regardless of the truth about global warming, and the sooner the better.

Very true. Carter put in place a program to make the US energy sufficient by now. Maybe Lincoln was wrong: you can fool most of the people all the time.

[platypus]

The explanations for the observed climate evolution seem more solid, but then it is always easier to retrofit the theories to observations,

As far as I know the global climate models and not 'tuned' to produce a climate reconstruction that matches the climate of the last 150 years. IPCC AR4 WG1 explains how the models work, I need to check that once I have some extra time.

[maxwatt]

The explanations for the observed climate evolution seem more solid, but then it is always easier to retrofit the theories to observations,

As far as I know the global climate models and not 'tuned' to produce a climate reconstruction that matches the climate of the last 150 years. IPCC AR4 WG1 explains how the models work, I need to check that once I have some extra time.

The scientists and mathematicians who create such models are quite aware of the hazards of overfitting, and test against datasets other than those on which the models were trained. Some of the techniques are discussed HERE

DIAGNOSING STRUCTURAL ERRORS IN CLIMATE MODEL
PARAMETERIZATIONS
Vincent E. Larson
1∗
, Jean-Christophe Golaz
2
, James A. Hansen
3
, David P. Schanen
1
, and Brian M. Griffin
1
1
Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin — Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI
2
NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory , Princeton, NJ
3
Naval Research Laboratory, Monterey, CA
1. ABSTRACT
It is often easy to see when an atmospheric model disagrees with data. It is usually much harder to loo locate
the ultimate sources of model error.

It is particularly difficult to diagnose errors in amodel’s structure, that is, errors in the functional form of the model equations. One technique that may help is parameter estimation or calibration, that is, the optimization of model parameter values. Typically, calibration is used solely to improve the fit between a model and obsevational data. In the process, however, calibration may cover up structural model errors.

In a quite opposite application, calibration may be used to uncover the ways in which a model is wrong. The basic idea is to separately optimize model parameters to two different data sets, and then identify parameter values that differ between the two optimizations. When no single value of a particular parameter fits both datasets, then there must exist a related structural error.

The calibration method that we use produces an entire multi-variate distribution of parameter values. It may prove useful for a wide range of parameterizations. We apply the method to a parameterization of boundary layer clouds, uncover the presence of a structural model error, revise the model structure, and obtain improved results

[mikeinnaples]

When will global warming just be apparent for what it is, the warming of the planet?

Two record highs last week here.

89 degrees in the middle of winter.

Using your logic, the planet is undeniably warming.

[mikeinnaples]

Nothing resembling the severity of winters of the 21st century would have been experienced so regularly in any other warmup.

What do you mean severe winters? Last week I was surfing in the middle of the winter without a wet suit. Water temps just shy of 70* and air temps close to 90*. That is august weather here, not Feb. I case you missed it ...as you neglected to comment on it:

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MELBOURNE
309 PM EST MON FEB 07 2011

...RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE AT MELBOURNE...

A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 89 DEGREES WAS SET AT MELBOURNE TODAY.
THE OLD RECORD OF 87 WAS SET IN 2008.

Sorry for repeating information from previous posts, but your standard argument against global warming(climate) is based on local and/or regional weather. So in light of that, my response and counter argument is dead on.

[maxwatt]

Nothing resembling the severity of winters of the 21st century would have been experienced so regularly in any other warmup.

What do you mean severe winters? Last week I was surfing in the middle of the winter without a wet suit. Water temps just shy of 70* and air temps close to 90*. That is august weather here, not Feb. I case you missed it ...as you neglected to comment on it:

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MELBOURNE
309 PM EST MON FEB 07 2011

...RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE AT MELBOURNE...

A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 89 DEGREES WAS SET AT MELBOURNE TODAY.
THE OLD RECORD OF 87 WAS SET IN 2008.

Sorry for repeating information from previous posts, but your standard argument against global warming(climate) is based on local and/or regional weather. So in light of that, my response and counter argument is dead on.

and Braf is making it up; he has no record of temperature excursions above or below an average from paleo-climatological records. The models though predict that with increased warming there have been and will be greater extremes.

[Brafarality]

Nothing resembling the severity of winters of the 21st century would have been experienced so regularly in any other warmup.

What do you mean severe winters? Last week I was surfing in the middle of the winter without a wet suit. Water temps just shy of 70* and air temps close to 90*. That is august weather here, not Feb. I case you missed it ...as you neglected to comment on it:

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MELBOURNE
309 PM EST MON FEB 07 2011

...RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE AT MELBOURNE...

A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 89 DEGREES WAS SET AT MELBOURNE TODAY.
THE OLD RECORD OF 87 WAS SET IN 2008.

Sorry for repeating information from previous posts, but your standard argument against global warming(climate) is based on local and/or regional weather. So in light of that, my response and counter argument is dead on.

and Braf is making it up; he has no record of temperature excursions above or below an average from paleo-climatological records. The models though predict that with increased warming there have been and will be greater extremes.

Not making anything up! I didnt wanna seem like that.
All I was doing was speculating. I totally mentioned that like 3 posts ago.
Was just guessing that an analysis of the medieval warm period or some other time would yield such and such results.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Edited by Brafarality, 14 February 2011 - 01:38 PM.

[maxwatt]

Nothing resembling the severity of winters of the 21st century would have been experienced so regularly in any other warmup.

What do you mean severe winters? Last week I was surfing in the middle of the winter without a wet suit. Water temps just shy of 70* and air temps close to 90*. That is august weather here, not Feb. I case you missed it ...as you neglected to comment on it:

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MELBOURNE
309 PM EST MON FEB 07 2011

...RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE AT MELBOURNE...

A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 89 DEGREES WAS SET AT MELBOURNE TODAY.
THE OLD RECORD OF 87 WAS SET IN 2008.

Sorry for repeating information from previous posts, but your standard argument against global warming(climate) is based on local and/or regional weather. So in light of that, my response and counter argument is dead on.

and Braf is making it up; he has no record of temperature excursions above or below an average from paleo-climatological records. The models though predict that with increased warming there have been and will be greater extremes.

Not making anything up! I didnt wanna seem like that.
All I was doing was speculating. I totally mentioned that like 3 posts ago.
Was just guessing that an analysis of the medieval warm period or some other time would yield such and such results.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Instead of speculation, why don't you research it?

[Rational Madman]

So maybe, just maybe, there's something more to AGW movement than a narrative that suggests that the mood is shaped largely by evil corporations and fat cats manipulating the public. Maybe there are self-interested and philosophical motivations of several different and competing origins? Just a thought....

Such as? On the one hand, you have people and institutions who stand to lose billions if the status quo is substantially altered. On the other side, you have... scientists who stake their reputations on correct analyses, and who have little or no financial interest in the ultimate direction of policy. Other than living on Earth...

I will not deny that oil/gas corporations have a vested interest in lowering the costs of the inevitable reforms, but I have serious doubts about their ability to exercise omni control over the opposition. The industry's opposition is also far from being uniform, since some have decided to support climate change legislation, hoping that they can minimize the impact. For parties unaffiliated with the industry, their opposition seems to stem from being loath to accept the probable consequences of climate change, which may entail slower economic growth, sacrificing lifestyle luxuries---and in general, coming to terms with greater scarcity, inflationary pressures that may arise during the transitory period, reducing expenditures on valued programs---or in all likelihood, facing the burden of higher taxes, and accepting the towering public costs of mitigation---which I estimate will be approximately 5 trillion in new public spending in just the United States alone. So with such a terrifying future, the oil/gas corporations are not needed to fuel public skepticism, since our pleasure seeking nature, and powerful feelings of fear and doubt are more than sufficient to cripple reform efforts

Furthermore, I wouldn't characterize the debate in Manichean terms of altruism vs. greed. Because although scientists can expects relatively little financial gain from their scholarship, there is a professional and financial cost for swimming against the mainstream current, and I suspect that egoism may preclude some from backing away from claims that don't survive scrutiny. Additionally, I think it's also clear that some do stand to financially benefit from climate change legislation, though their earning potential and level of influence is yet to be on par with the oil/gas industry--since I'm from Iowa, I should have some idea, because the masses love ethanol.

Anyway, returning to the data from Open Secrets, I think it should appear clear that the majority of campaign donations come from individual donors that are subject to significant restrictions, and not corporate entities, which also face formidable barriers. The implication being that if politicians became resolved to refuse corporate money, they could survive politically---but admittedly, with greater difficulty. Although some major individual donors are affiliated with corporate entities, and bundle money from their colleagues, they don't constitute the majority---which consists largely of small donors. However, I won't deny that many public officials grant legislative favors for financial support, but these concessions are balanced out by the idealistic concerns that inspired their candidacy, and are simply a means to the end of prolonging their tenure. Indeed, given that many could be enjoying a much a higher level of compensation in the private sector, and because there have been few instances where large sums of money have been diverted for private use, I think it would be a strain to claim that our representatives have largely entrepreneurial interests.

For lobbying, there is such an immense number of players in the marketplace, that no entity could honestly claim ownership over a public official. Furthermore, there are also heavy---but imperfect---restrictions that prevent public officials from personally gaining from their expenditures. And contrary to convention, I believe that the success of lobbyists is due principally to the quality of their employees, who invariably come from very impressive backgrounds, and excel at convincingly illuminating solutions to legislative problems in a way that creates harmony between private interests, public interests, and the personal beliefs of the target official. Indeed, the variable influence of lobbyists---such as the disproportionate influence of Jewish lobbying groups---evidently has less of a functional relationship with expenditures, and is attributable more to the caliber of its advocates, and the resonance of their message. Additionally, in consideration of the overwhelming volume of information and responsibilities that legislators are subjected to, I also believe that they serve as an essential utility for the most part---even with the more egregious cases in mind. So for these reasons, the oil/gas industry has enjoyed some level of influence over public policy.

Edited by Rol82, 16 February 2011 - 08:44 PM.

[maxwatt]

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000

Pardeep Pall, Tolu Aina, Dáithí A. Stone, Peter A. Stott, Toru Nozawa, Arno G. J. Hilberts, Dag Lohmann & Myles R. Allen

Nature 470, 382–385 (17 February 2011) doi:10.1038/nature09762
Received 30 March 2010 Accepted 10 December 2010 Published online 16 February 2011

Interest in attributing the risk of damaging weather-related events to anthropogenic climate change is increasing1. Yet climate models used to study the attribution problem typically do not resolve the weather systems associated with damaging events2 such as the UK floods of October and November 2000. Occurring during the wettest autumn in England and Wales since records began in 17663, 4, these floods damaged nearly 10,000 properties across that region, disrupted services severely, and caused insured losses estimated at £1.3 billion (refs 5, 6). Although the flooding was deemed a ‘wake-up call’ to the impacts of climate change at the time7, such claims are typically supported only by general thermodynamic arguments that suggest increased extreme precipitation under global warming, but fail8, 9 to account fully for the complex hydrometeorology4, 10 associated with flooding. Here we present a multi-step, physically based ‘probabilistic event attribution’ framework showing that it is very likely that global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions substantially increased the risk of flood occurrence in England and Wales in autumn 2000. Using publicly volunteered distributed computing11, 12, we generate several thousand seasonal-forecast-resolution climate model simulations of autumn 2000 weather, both under realistic conditions, and under conditions as they might have been had these greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting large-scale warming never occurred. Results are fed into a precipitation-runoff model that is used to simulate severe daily river runoff events in England and Wales (proxy indicators of flood events). The precise magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution remains uncertain, but in nine out of ten cases our model results indicate that twentieth-century anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of floods occurring in England and Wales in autumn 2000 by more than 20%, and in two out of three cases by more than 90%.

[Solarclimax]

Not even going to read the posts. All i have to say is if you believe in anthropogenic global warming then your a complete brainwashed sheep, or you have some sadistic vested interest in filling peoples heads with crap. And before anyone thinks i'm a conspiracy theorist or i'm being rude. Screw u, there's more than enough evidence that man made global warming is complete nonsense all one has to do is a quick google search to know that.

Edited by Solarclimax, 09 March 2011 - 04:42 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

What comes first, ignorance or the troll?

[Brafarality]

Yes, Ive ruffled feathers here and there, here and elsewhere, here and now, but the interaction between Solarclimax and Mikeinapples, as brief as it was, puts me off, since it is each side of a debate calling the other ignorant or unintelligent. Nothing comes of that.
True, Solarclimax was a bit blunt, and will certainly not win any followers to his cause with such an approach, although that may not have been the intention. But replying by calling someone ignorant and a troll is not much better. Sorry to say it.
Oooh! Cant help it. Name calling and free-speech suppression always gets me tingly and nettled.
Right now, Im completely suspended in non-belief on climate change and am not really sure of anything. Was too much a believer for years and had to take a strong non-believer stance to balance out the emotional rigidity that had developed in support, and now stand hovering helpless.

An active and intelligent discussion is the knowledge vampire's lifeblood: just waiting for this discussion to send me a sign, sort of like Jacob or Moses or someone else who waited. Just waiting for that emotionally connecting piece of evidence or perspective to verge the dim verge one way or another from the horizon's bleak limits to bulging convex certitude.
Peace.

[mikeinnaples]

But replying by calling someone ignorant and a troll is not much better. Sorry to say it.

Oh, you misunderstand me. It was an either/or thing.

Either he is trolling to troll or he is ignorant to quickly believe google search results that are rife with opinions/conspiracy (google it yourself and see what I mean), rather than looking at actual research himself. There is a distinct difference in the way you made your case against global warming and the way he made his, especially given that it was his very first post in the thread.

Personally, I assumed troll and responded as such.

[Brafarality]

But replying by calling someone ignorant and a troll is not much better. Sorry to say it.

Oh, you misunderstand me. It was an either/or thing.

Either he is trolling to troll or he is ignorant to quickly believe google search results that are rife with opinions/conspiracy (google it yourself and see what I mean), rather than looking at actual research himself. There is a distinct difference in the way you made your case against global warming and the way he made his, especially given that it was his very first post in the thread.

Personally, I assumed troll and responded as such.

Hey, Mike,
I almost thought I was getting ignored around here! I was about to raise the MF-in ruckus!! ;-)
Enjoy the weekend.

[maxwatt]

The problem with the debunkers of global warming is that these denialists keep repeating the same shibboleths no matter how many times they've been disproved, like a broken record.

[Brafarality]

The problem with the debunkers of global warming is that these denialists keep repeating the same shibboleths no matter how many times they've been disproved, like a broken record.

Someone recently pointed out the rating number at the lower left of each post, and I now see that you are definitely of the popular set around here!
Im at a 13 approval at the moment, so I have some work to do.
I think that nonbelievers continue to say the same stuff because they have not been convinced by the opposing evidence.
Some of it is flimsy. Some is more convincing.
Until winters truly moderate over much of the world, it is going to be tough to convince many through abstract, statistically based evidence, as opposed to something like warm and rainy winters for 10 years in a row in Boston, or something like that, but, by then, of course, it will be too late.

Edited by Brafarality, 11 March 2011 - 05:09 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

Brafality ....you and I could be friends despite the GW differences. If you are ever in the Mel/Cocoa Beach area of Florida lemme know, beer is on me.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 11 March 2011 - 06:28 PM.

[platypus]

Not even going to read the posts. All i have to say is if you believe in anthropogenic global warming then your a complete brainwashed sheep, or you have some sadistic vested interest in filling peoples heads with crap. And before anyone thinks i'm a conspiracy theorist or i'm being rude. Screw u, there's more than enough evidence that man made global warming is complete nonsense all one has to do is a quick google search to know that.

So belief in science and the scientific method is being brainwashed, while accepting what republican interest groups say as fact in not? And what makes you think a "google search" will help you in assessing what the truth is? Maybe if you stick to Google Scholar it might...

[Brafarality]

Brafality ....you and I could be friends despite the GW differences. If you are ever in the Mel/Cocoa Beach are of Florida lemme know, beer is on me.

Awesome. I will definitely do that. :-P

[Brafarality]

The current unbearable heat wave is actually caused by global cooling! Something to do with the air circulation patterns and the build up of the ocean conveyer belts.
Kidding. Had to say it since the reverse is so often said and it always sound ludicrous.
Be well all. The heat is beyond unpleasant.
Sounding like a public service announcement, but those cooling centers do exist. Havent been to one but know someone who has.
Cheers all!

[mikeinnaples]

Had to say it since the reverse is so often said and it always sound ludicrous.

Not ludicrous when you understand the difference between regional weather and global climate.

However sticking to the AGW line of logic, this week's heatwave must be, beyond a shadow of a doubt, undeniable proof of global warming :p

[Brafarality]

Had to say it since the reverse is so often said and it always sound ludicrous.

Not ludicrous when you understand the difference between regional weather and global climate.

However sticking to the AGW line of logic, this week's heatwave must be, beyond a shadow of a doubt, undeniable proof of global warming :p

Yes! Excellent.
I don't have any AGW spirit anymore. It just overtook me for a few weeks, sort of a mental fad, I guess.
Not even sure if I really believe any AGW viewpoints, but couldnt pass up on a bad attempt at cleverness.

[Brafarality]

Return of anti-global warming sentiment, like a simple beast, swayed by the latest snow or cold wave into an emotional response...
I almost cant believe what I just cleaned off my car in late October in New Jersey. Have never seen anything like it before. Hope it doesnt mean another brutal winter, though anomalies do not often correlate with overall trends.
But, if global warming supporters genuinely try to tie this in with global warming, then there is complete intellectual dishonesty going on. They would be more like those who continually rationalize their own behavior, even though deep down they sense there is something wrong or amiss with it.

And, I will resume my weak rhetorical twist: I will correlate ANY warm weather event with global cooling, just as the reverse is done with global warming.
Heat wave? Caused by global cooling, since global cooling will cause local fluctuations.
25 hurricanes one season? Global cooling, since global cooling will cause changes in air and water circulation patterns.
Epic heat wave? Definitely global cooling, since global cooling will cause more weather extremes.

The internal conflict is that I am on the 'wrong' side here and am typically as bleeding heart as one can be, but I cant go along with this. It is not happening. I know my opinions on this are entirely emotional, but I suffer through one brutal winter after the next, colder and colder, and am continually told its global warming. So, for every heat wave, I will now declare it caused by global cooling.
Cheers all!

[maxwatt]

The above isn't right. It isn't even wrong.

Paraphrasing Wolfgang Pauli's remark on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague

see:

http://www.guardian....-global-warming

[Mind]

The one thing that is wrong with AGW scenarios is that they use unrealistic fossil fuel scenarios. To the extent that carbon emissions cause warming, the process is dynamic and self limiting. If we are already at a point where the earth's natural resources are over-extended, then the human population is not going to expand to 9 billion or 11 billion or whatever figure the IPCC is using now for the population later this century. If the oceans are already beyond repair and declining, and the temperature so warm that crops won't grow, and pollution so bad that lifespans will start decreasing, then fossil fuel usage is most certainly going to be much much much much less than the IPCC expects over the next century because there will not be any people around. I ran a simple model with the assumption that fossil fuel usage will peak somewhere around 2030 and then decline later this century because of alternative energy breakthroughs (I am optimistic, plus according to REN21, we already get 16 to 20% of our energy needs from alternative sources, a fact that the IPCC is 100% oblivious to), and the model (again very simple) would indicate a rise of about 1 more degree before declining again after 2050.

Of course, for bringing up a legitimate rational and scientific discussion about model inputs, I have been called a tool of big oil (I wish, I would have a lot more money), a flat-earther, a skeptic, what-not. If mainstream AGW theorists want to convince more people, they should stop sounding so religious and condescending.

[Exception]

The Opening Post seems to be mainly using the argument that "(issue Y) is supported by (ideology X), (ideology X) is bad, therefore (issue Y) is bad."

I can't take that seriously