What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

I'm trying to figure out when it was that I argued for consensus

My posts consistently showed that the so-called consensus is a bit 'trumped-up' and over-hyped, and that it does not really exist. My statement that the AGW case is weak is based on what we can observe; the measured temperature. It's not doing what the AGW crowd predicted it would. My statement is based on the lack of causality observed in the paleoclimate. This is, again, not what the AGW alarmists predicted.

Ten or 20 years ago you could have argued with some authority that when we get better ice and dirt cores, they will show a CLEAR cause and effect relationship 'tween rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures. That's EXACTLY what the alarmists were saying 20 years ago. I remember it well; that's when I was still a believer. But we both know that's not how it's worked out.

20 years ago you could have predicted with some degree of authority that by the first decade of the 21st century, the climate will be 3 or 4 degrees warmer than it is now, in 1988. It seemed plausible back then. I remember Hansen's predictions from that period and what a stir they created. But now that we are there, and the observed temperatures are NOWHERE CLOSE to Hansen's predictions, such predictions have lost plausibility.

Since the logical paradigm hasn't really changed much since then, and the empirical reality shows a great disparity with the predictions made previously using that paradigm, it certainly seems profoundly illogical to continue to put faith in predictions of dangerous warming in the near or far future based on that obviously flawed paradigm. It's clear to anyone not biased one way or the other, that the paradigm used has not successfully predicted a future state of the climate; it has failed.

It is therefore logical to conclude that this paradigm (anthropogenic CO2 raises atmospheric CO2 which causes dangerous warming) has not accurately described the present, therefore it cannot be trusted to predict the future.

Had Hansen's prediction come anywhere close to accuracy, you could rightly argue that the case for the reality of AGW had strengthened. If better ice and dirt core analysis had showed that whenever CO2 levels rose in the past, then temperatures were sure to increase afterwards, then you could rightly argue that the present-day case for AGW had strengthened.

Tell me Thomas; What possible finding in ice and dirt cores could have dissuaded you from your faith that increased CO2 levels cause atmospheric warming? Is there a possible finding that could do that? If you answer 'No', then how can you say you are open-minded

Similarly, what empirical finding WRT measured temperature would dissuade you?

Jimbo

[Boston]

As you have argued for the importance of consensus on your side of the issue, and argued that the pro-AGW consensus does not in fact exist, it seems a bit unfair to discard the importance of consensus at this juncture.

A summary statement that the AGW theory is weak is your viewpoint and not the substance of the science or a summation of the points as argued in this thread. The evidence continue to build- particularly as "more advanced data gathering capabilities" come into play. Once again- as documented in this thread.

are you high
what does this drunken logic mean

let me reiterate for the record
I believe there is a substantial body of evidence supporting rapid global climate change
I believe there is a extremely high probability that change is due to human interaction within the system
I believe the majority of scientists in this field of study agree
thus forming a consensus
I believe there is some anomalous data that while preserved for consideration exists outside the data stream
I believe you must have bean high when you wrote that last
cause it made no sense whatsoever

take the night off friend
enjoy the stars and a moment with your girl
drink lots of water later tonight and take a few vitamins
it will help the hangover in the morning

have a great time

then try the hole writing thing again some time tomorrow night
k

down the hatch and cheers B
I hope some day we can all shake hands and hoist a few
B

[Boston]

Jimmy I think he meant that for me
but Im pretty sure he would be cut off
at least in the bars I hang out in
best
B

[Jimbo1490]

I was wondering how long it would take you to figure that one out You can save yourself the embarrassment and go ahead and delete it. I do agree with you though that he makes no sense

Doh! there we go agreeing again

Jimbo

[Boston]

no worries
Ill leave all as is
B

[bntii]

Originally Posted by bntii

Jimbo
As you have argued for the importance of consensus on your side of the issue, and argued that the pro-AGW consensus does not in fact exist, it seems a bit unfair to discard the importance of consensus at this juncture.

What the hell does that mean....?


Oh brother.......

This is what I get for fighting some point for another.

To recap before I shoot myself:

Jimbo has cited a that a consensus exists in the skeptics camp- the petition project, body of research by scientists, etc.

Jimbo has argued repeatably that 'the consensus' on the AGW theory does not in fact exist, is overstated, etc..

By both of the above he has fully allowed the ideal of consensus in this debate to carry weight.
ie- he has reinforced the ideal that if a consensus behind AWG theory exists, that this is a valid point in this debate and he cannot therefore dismiss it as not relevant.

Did he even dismiss it? he asks himself while looking for the bullets.....

You made a good point Boston. The pro-AGW consensus is strong and the skeptics don't have squat.


I was busy looking up recipes for coconut crab... carry on!

[Boston]

no worries mate

on a hole other note

I think I would like to make a apology to Jim for joking around about something he obviously holds near and dear
his Atkins diet
I was finding humor in the apparently tenuous claim that Atkins had died of a heart attack
and regret the off color nature of my remark
fact is
with out an autopsy there is no way to tell what killed him
it was widely reported as a heart attack
and thats what I had heard as well
but those reports certainly may be inaccurate in light of the agreed fact that no official cause of death was ever issued
and with out an autopsy even the attending physician cannot for certainty assess the actual mitigating factors involved

for all the things Jim and I are going to disagree on
I was out of line commenting on his personal choices
guy can eat nothing but virgins for all I care
I say
let the games continue
Sincerely
B

[Jimbo1490]

It's OK.

I don't blame you for believing the misinformation that's out there; a LOT of people believe it. I just wanted to set the facts straight.

But there IS an official cause of death; The medical examiner listed it as a "subdural hematoma caused by blunt trauma to the head" An autopsy was not needed to determine this. He presented to an emergency room with an obvious head trauma, NOT cardiac symptoms. His heart did not stop during the hospitalization in question. He was disconnected from life support machines when it became apparent his brain had in fact died.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

By both of the above he has fully allowed the ideal of consensus in this debate to carry weight.

It's really quite the opposite. The AGW camp trumpets endlessly about the consensus to (presumably) persuade undecided/unmotivated members of the public. I was merely showing that there is actually NOT a strong consensus among scientists; that there are many reputable, non-wacky men of science that opposes the consensus view, making the consensus view of less importance that the AGW crowd purports it to be. This is nothing more than an "appeal to authority", one of the basic logical fallacies.

Yeah, we skeptics have 'squat' as you say. 'All we have' is:

No warming for at least 10 and more like 13 years, in the face of the very ominous predictions trumpeted dogmatically by AGW pundits years ago

Lack of causality between CO2 level and warming in the paleoclimatolical record

Complete lack of warming in the tropical troposphere, where basic greenhouse theory and ALL the climate models show that warming will be UNMISTAKABLY prominent IF the warming is caused by the greenhouse effect


The fraudulent and secretive behavior of some of the main pundits in the AGW camp don't help either, but even without that sideshow going on, one wonders what is keeping such a wounded ship afloat

Could it be..... POLITICS

Jimbo

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Hey Boston,

You are doing the 'appeal to authority' thing again. Not good dude. This is the refuge of those who don't want to address the questions directly.
I guess you've probably seen that pesky Oregon Petition Project by now.

I know the link has been posted to this thread several times but here we go again:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

They've got something over 30,000 REAL scientists signed up now! I'd say you and the AGW gurus have got your work cut out for you, trying to discredit and discount each and every one of these guys!

Jimbo

This ball is either in play or not.

"All you have"...?
Answered in order:

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

No warming for at least 10 and more like 13 years.......Jimbo

Could you please provide some data?

"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend."

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Lack of causality between CO2 level and warming in the paleoclimatolical record

Some thoughts:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-temp-and-co2/

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Complete lack of warming in the tropical troposphere, where basic greenhouse theory and ALL the climate models show that warming will be UNMISTAKABLY prominent IF the warming is caused by the greenhouse effect

Please see the following:

Consistency of modeled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere

Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E. Taylor, T. M. L. Wigley, J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P. J. Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R. Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood, and F. J. Wentz, submitted:
"Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology. 3/08.
Abstract: A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified a "potentially serious inconsistency" between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006). Early versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the tropical surface had warmed by more than the troposphere, while climate models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases. We revisit such comparisons here using new observational estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We find that there is no longer a serious and ubiquitous discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates.
This emerging reconciliation of models and observations has two primary explanations. First, because of changes in the treatment of buoy and satellite information, new surface temperature datasets yield slightly reduced tropical warming relative to earlier versions. Second, recently-developed satellite and radiosonde datasets now show larger warming of the tropical lower troposphere. In the case of a new satellite dataset from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), enhanced warming is due to an improved procedure of adjusting for intersatellite biases. When the RSS-derived tropospheric temperature trend is compared with four different observed estimates of surface temperature change, the surface warming is invariably amplified in the tropical troposphere, consistent with model results. Even if we use data from a second satellite dataset with smaller tropospheric warming than in RSS, observed tropical lapse rates are not significantly different from those in all model simulations.
Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations. This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the application of an inappropriate statistical "consistency test", and the neglect of observational and model trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability."


Have you read Hansens original paper '88?
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/...ansen_etal.pdf

And his 2006 review/update of this paper?
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/...sen_etal_1.pdf

Thanks

[Jimbo1490]

Or graphed another way, (with a much less alarming perspective, don't ya think?)

http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/....5e286c4970b-pi

SO there ya go; 1980-2008 with no *significant* warming.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas'

I have never read the full report from '88, only excerpts published in Science magazine, which I used to get. There's really nothing unusual in the '88 report; Hansen lays out the premise for the model, lists the things the model accounts for and also those things that the model (for whatever reasons stated) does not take into consideration. He then makes a test run assuming a stable CO2 concentration, then makes a run using the observed CO2 rise projected into the future and comes up with a prediction.

It's obvious that he assumes that CO2 (and other 'trace gases) causes warming, so he tunes the model to let CO2 produce the warming observed (from the late 70's to the late 80's) then asks the model to project what the future climate would be if CO2 concentration were to continue to rise. Of course the model then tells you that temperature will rise, and alarmingly so, because that is what you have, in effect, told the model to tell you. This illustrates the very problem I'm talking about. This is circular reasoning! The model cannot be depended upon to predict anything given these conditions! The proof of that is what happened over the next 20 years.

Jimbo

[Boston]

may not be of a heart attack but your dying on us here Jimmy
the number of scientists supporting the theory is unmistakably up
way up
like up to 97% from 60%
now please
if all this is, is an exorcise in futility ( the conclusion I came to long ago ) then feel free to continue the confusion
but isnt it about high time you start admitting a few basics
the majority
vast majority of climate scientists are in agreement
its called a consensus

I was merely showing that there is actually NOT a strong consensus among scientists;

sorry Jim you havent shown anything, on the contrary
I would note the following Gallup pole numbers in direct disagreement of your statement
( this information has been posted previously but you must have missed it )

Changing scientific opinion
In 1991 the Gallup organization conducted a telephone survey on global climate change among 400 scientists drawn from membership lists of the American Meteorological Association and the American Geophysical Union.

(in 2007) We repeated several of their questions verbatim, in order to measure changes in scientific opinion over time. On a variety of questions, opinion has consistently shifted toward increased belief in and concern about global warming. Among the changes:

In 1991 only 60% of climate scientists believed that average global temperatures were up, compared to 97% today.
In 1991 only a minority (41%) of climate scientists agreed that then-current scientific evidence “substantiates the occurrence of human-induced warming,” compared to three out of four (74%) today.

I think this should beyond any doubt lay to rest the idea that there isnt a consensus view

bntii

a valiant effort ( hows the old brain muscle feeling today )

the relevant ( relevant being the key word ) data has already been presented time and again
there seems to be some basic misunderstanding of the way science conducts itself in collating and considering data
untill that is understood and accepted
actually looking at the relevant data rather than the anomalous will continue to confuse our detractors

based on the consensus numbers of say 97% I believe the following analogy is a reasonable way to look at what we are dealing with

imagine your in a class of 100 people and 3 are having trouble understanding
the class moves on with out them and before you know it is so far ahead that its hard for the 3 to catch up
they seek tutorial help and may still not get it
there is some point that didnt click
now if one or all of these unfortunates kept repeating the same issues over and over then Ild take em back to there place of competency and try to start from there (assuming they were willing)
however
I might also ask why it is these three are trying to be artists when they clearly cant paint

this is basically the issue at hand
engineers deal with numbers
scientists deal with data
relevant data is the key to understanding why it is that 97% of climate scientists have formed a consensus
treating all data streams like number sets will only get the engineering types confused
that is if he is trying to paint a picture of the weather
crap in
crap out
works both ways

Ive seen excellent engineers have endless trouble conducting science
and excellent scientists who made some pretty silly engineering mistakes
takes an artist to put em together

best to all
its beer thirty
B

[bntii]

I haven't read the papers and am diving into it a bit just now Jimbo, thanks for the lead.

Still a bit in the dark on the how this is all coming out of the wash.

Fairly good analysis and debate on the model, issues with it, and how well it was predictive of observed temps.
There seems to be a big shuffle around when the zero is set; 1956... or 1984, which I don't quite get as it is just a graphing technique to me....

Will post if I get a handle on it...

Boston- I just keep trying to trap Jimbo into agreeing with me....

It doesn't turn out too well.

Thomas

[Guillermo]

Boston and Thomas,
have you read this?
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conferenc...pdf/ICS176.pdf
Please do it and tell me what do you think.

Cheers.