# Climate Change - And why there is no one left who cares



## stevenson-again (May 30, 2012)

I have been following the global warming debate seriously for a number of years now, and I regularly participate on various blogs and read them daily. I started doing this in order to respond to my father, a retired engineer who was sceptical, and found that I wasn't sufficiently informed to counter some of his arguments. In the course of my research, I began to feel that my position, of the reality of CAGW and our need to mitigate, was not holding up. Then Climategate broke and my position was undermined entirely.

In response to Guy's thread regarding global warming, I thought I would put together the briefest summary I can with links to resources for those who want to inform themselves better about the debate. In the course of the thread, if there is something you want to know in more detail, I should be able to post links to resources, both peer-reviewed papers, and discussions about them so that you get a feel for their arguments and the weaknesses (or strengths).

*The Evidence:*

Contrary to what Guy initially posted, there is no evidence for CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). There is a case for AGW (without the C) but it is extremely difficult to be certain because of the problem of attribution, which I will come to.

- Over the past decade, man has emitted >30% of *ALL* CO2 he has ever emitted since the start of the industrial revolution. Yet temperatures have not only not shown accelerated warming, *but not even warmed at all.*

This is HADCRUT 3 temps since 1970 with CO2 trend overlaid. The linear trend is chosen at 2002 to avoid the big El Nino event in 1998 and the following La Nina. This period is recognised by some climate scientists as a climate shift (Tsonis et al) where trends are generally very flat either side.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcru ... scale:0.01

I have not used HADCRUT 4, because they are relatively fresh off the press and there are some criticisms with it. I would favour using UAH and suggest you play around with the different data series to look for yourself.

- Here is the opening address to the House of Commons from RIchard Lindzen, who holds the Atmospheric Physics and Meteorology chair at MIT. 

_Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest._

I strongly suggest you take a look at his presentation as it clearly states the case against CAGW from a respected Climate Scientist, and I know how credibility and authority can be so important to some:

Reconsidering Climate Change

- It is extremely important to note that in general skeptics and warmists agree on 98% of the science. In a way, a lot of the science is settled, in that it isn't generally disagreed with from either side. One of the problems with the debate is mischaracterising disagreement with CAGW to be 'denying' science. Except perhaps for the "Skydragon Slayers" this is NOT the case.

- The missing hotspot. Climate models predict that due to changes in the moist adibat, the top of the troposphere should warm faster than the surface due to greenhouse gases. This has been conclusively shown to be missing, seriously undermining the case for AGW (even without the C).


*The Disagreement:*

- ...Is entirely down to climate sensitivity and feedbacks.

- On it's own, a doubling of CO2 will not cause more than 1.1 to 1.2 Celsius warming. (Note that this is logarithmic. You have to double CO2 - ie 250 - 500 ppm causes 1 degree, 500 - 1000 causes 1 degree)

- It's the predicted feedbacks from this, almost entirely as a result of extra water vapour that would produce the 3 to 6 degrees warming the IPCC think might happen.

- But there is plenty of peer-reviewed literature (Lindzen amongst them) suggesting that the opposite is true, that the extra water vapour will constitute a net negative feedback. That's because water vapour condenses into clouds which then reflects sunlight and cools the planet - like a big sunshade. It's not as simple as that, because moist air does trap heat, and cloudy nights also prevent heat from escaping as much as they prevent heat from getting in. This is the diurnal feedback and it is not well understood, but results from the ERBE and CERES satellites suggest that the net negative feedback hypotheses is the right one. Plus we have the fact that the Earth hasn't been getting any hotter over the last decade.

- The reason scientists thought that there might be a positive feedback is entirely to do with the way they programmed their climate models. Climate models are extremely complex software programs based on fluid dynamics, and they contain within them certain assumptions about initial conditions, and certain factors that have not been measured or are hard to measure. They are sometimes referred to as fudge factors, and in fact according to fluid modellers (who model turbulence for airplanes, buildings etc) this is quite innocent because they get to test these parameters and adjust them to observations. But in the case of the climate models they don't get to do this.

- The scientists never-the-less thought they must have gotten it mostly right, and believed they had accounted for everything, which is why they thought that the "only" explanation was that CO2 was causing net positive feedbacks to occur that warmed the climate system. This is known as an argument from ignorance, and the main criticism is that they have been too confident that they have "thought of everything".

Next up: "Predictions"


----------



## paulcole (May 30, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Wed May 30 said:


> *The Evidence:*
> 
> 
> _ The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest._



Purely because of funding. Anything that relies on government funding is always the same. It's like repeat business.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 30, 2012)

Ah ha, morning Rohan!

OK, this is ground we've been over before between us, but for the benefit of other thread readers - with all the greatest respect in the world, I fundamentally disagree with your approach to the science, and I don't think you've given an accurate representation over the "disagreements". As you know, my view is that none of us here are remotely qualified to assess the science in any serious way - we can of course follow the basics and they're simple enough, but when it comes to the detail - much like quantum physics, nuclear fusion or any other discipline you care to name - we do well to rely on the best available evidence from the best available experts in academia. (I'll return to this in a minute).

We've established the basics of that claim - that anthropocentric climate change is, with high confience, occuring (many of course don't accept that, but glad to see here that we don't need to go over all that again at least). To move on to deal with the issue of catastrophic anthropocentric climate change (not a specific term I've used), we need to define what you mean. The projected global temperature rise duing the 21st century, for example, show a best estimate range between 1.8 and 4 degrees. The best available reasearch shows serious effects for that level of rise - for example, between 75cm and 2m for sea level rise (when ice sheet loss is factored in). There are of course many other things to consider as well as sea level rise, but that's just one example. Note - this is part and parcel of the mainstream scientific view, and we'll come on to some of the wilder theories that claim to counter this in a minute.

The last IPCC summary puts together the following risks and capabilities, which relate to the effects this century:



> Contraction of snow cover areas, increased thaw in permafrost regions, decrease in sea ice extennt - Virtually certain
> Increased frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation - Very likely to occur
> Increase in tropical cyclone intensity - Likely to occur
> Precipitation increases in high latitudes - Very likely to occur
> ...



My point in the OP is that you can track those graphs for temperature rise, and they don't stop at 2100. I should point out though that if we're lucky / wise enough to track the lower end of the rise, there is the beginnings of a leveling off, which would be extremely good news. We do know what has happened in the past when the earth was significantly warmer than today, and it was a very different world than the one we live in. Of course, we could be looking at many centuries before the more extreme effects kick in if we hit those temperatures that the Earth experienced in its ancient history (AFAIK comparatively little research has been done on projections beyond 2100 - most studies cut off abruptly at 2099). Nevertheless, none of this is remotely controversial, and part of the standard view of climate change (by natural causes or otherwise) in the scientific community.

OK. To return to experts, there are a very very few climate scientists who do not subscribe to the broad consensus view. One of these is Richard Lindzen (though he _does_ accept the basic reality of AGW), and since you've quoted him, it might be worth looking at him in particular. The entire basis of my claim, after all, is best available evidence from the academic community, and he's a part of that.

For a high profile researcher, he does not have a good track record. While he accepts anthropogenic climate change, he has proposed theories to explain how natural systems might counter the effects. His Wikiepdia page has a neat summary with regard to climate change:



> According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article, "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming. Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001, and offered more support in a 2009 paper, but today "most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited." Lindzen admitted "some stupid mistakes" in the 2009 paper, which he called "just embarrassing".



So of course, you can back that particular lone horse with that form, but... frankly I don't see why anyone would (for rational reasons, anyway).

Which leads us right back to square one. You can choose to listen to the 97% of climate scientists, all the world's major academic institutions and summary from every government from far right to far left, or you can choose to listen to the lone voices, despite all their claims so far being discredited. It's possible one of their theories, one day, will prove to be correct - indeed, let's hope so. If it is, it will pass peer review, be published, be challenged and it will stand, and then be cited in further research. As it is, even the best work which as passed peer review has not then stood - subsequent research has shown - to quote Richard Lindzen "some stupid mistakes". It happens.


----------



## midphase (May 30, 2012)

I think the problem with the internets is that anybody can pose as a scientific authority and promote any personal agenda they might have as fact. I believe it's a serious mistake to put everyone on the same playing field as much as it is equating political commentators to journalists. 

I feel that an effort to minimize CO2 emissions, look for alternative clean sources of energy and regulate pollution is a zero-loss proposition for mankind. If global climate change is man made, then we address that, if it's not, we live in a cleaner healthier planet--what's the discussion?

What I do find alarming is the degree of apathy that I see rising to dangerous levels everywhere. In essence, people seem to believe that the planet is going to hell anyway, so why give a crap? 

Oddly enough, all my apathetic friends are having children, WTF indeed!


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2012)

While I will try and get around to this at some point... 

Anyone who talks about "climategate" or says there's been no significant warming since 1995 and no warming since 1997 is just a liar, or ignorant, incompetent or insane and should not be trusted to provide any kind of information. It boggles my mind why anyone would take seriously people like Lindzen when he makes such egregiously false claims as this. There is no way possible way you can defend it. Also he is not a respected climate scientist just because you say he is. He is part of the tiny tiny % that disagrees with AGW. 

For some reason you believe the tiny fraction of dissenting voices in the scientific world, lead by some of least credible people imaginable with fans like those who read WorldNetDaily, WhatsUpWithThat or InfoWars that have about half a brain between them. There must be a certain point when you choose to trust these people and ignore all their faults and lies and keep pretending to yourself and insisting to others you're being rational and honest about it all.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 30, 2012)

Kays - good post. The apathy is a real problem, and obviously behind my starting this thread [*EDIT* - see errata at bottom of post]. I do understand it though. As I posted a page or two back, many of those of us who do accept the consensus feel a genuine hopelessness about it all. For any action to be remotely meaningful, it needs to be global and huge. It just seems like wishful thinking right now.



Ed @ Wed May 30 said:


> It boggles my mind why anyone would take seriously people like Lindzen when he makes such egregiously false claims as this. There is no way possible way you can defend it. Also he is not a respected climate scientist just because you say he is. He is part of the tiny tiny % that disagrees with AGW.



Just to clarify - Lindzen does accept the fundamentals of AGW at least, where he's out of step is that he seems on a lone mission to find a reason why it won't be all that bad (so far unsuccessfully). I'm not sure what motivates him - he does fit the classic right wing pattern of attacking anti-free market science in general, in particular challenging the link between smoking and lung cancer (even being an expert witness for the industry). It's kinda like he's in zone three of the ideology-driven denial flowchart:

ZONE 1 - it isn't happening. When the weight of evidence eliminates any possibility of that, you move to

ZONE 2 - it isn't us. When the weight of evidence eliminates any possibility of that, you move to

ZONE 3 - it won't be so bad after all. (typically this manifests as "a warmer world is good for us", but Lindzen appears to want to find a mechanism that will counterbalance the effects instead).

The point of the flowchart is that 1 leads to 2 leads to 3 because there is a PRESUMPTION that AGW can't be either real, or if it is it can't be bad. That's why I ask the question "what evidence would it take to convince you", and why the honest answer for a contrarian invariably seems to be "there isn't any" - it's a faith position.

*EDIT* - just noticed this is actually a new thread, and not the one I started - in the likely scenario that this one just takes over from the previous, part one of this discussion can be found here - http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25888


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2012)

He's still on Zone 1 as well as he also says its not that bad or dramatic a warming. 

He's the one that was cherry picking 1995 to say theres been no statistically significant warming (_trying to imply there's been no warming trend_), because he knew that if you simply looked at 1994 to 2009 it DID show statistically significant warming. If you pick a short enough time period you can even find cooling, but look overall you find the temp is rising. He intentionally chose that date for no other reason than he could obfuscate the facts to people who wouldn't know any better, and thats why Phil Jones was asked the question by the BBC which said they had taken some questions by skeptics, then as soon as Jones was honest enough to say yes theres been no statistically significant warming since 1995, that was suddenly all over the place as if Jones had said GW isnt happening (when he never said or implied that and actually said the opposite of) Did Lindzen speak up and correct his fellow skeptics? Of course not, thats exactly what he wanted.

Lindzen is *deliberately *deceptive, there's no possible way a smart scientist could say something that ignorant without it being on purpose.

So I have to reiterate for the "skeptics" here, why trust this man when he is so easily shown to be such a shameless liar? And this isnt ad hominem, he provably lied. Why then should we trust anything he says about such complex issues? And him being a liar is a fact and if anyone tells me it isnt I welcome their defence of his claims.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 30, 2012)

*Predictions:*

- It's worth bearing in mind that science has to work by falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested.

- Note the following graph that compares Hansen's 1988 predictions. Hansen is regarded as the 'father' of 'global warming' alarmism. Scenario A, is the temperature rise predicted as a result of continuing to increase CO2 emissions. Scenario B are the temperatures expected were we to start severely curtailing emissions after the year 2000. Scenario C is the temperature expected were we to have halted all emissions completely (a hypothetical) by 2000. As you can see temperatures have not risen above Scenario C. It shows that the understanding of how the climate reacts to increased CO2 was not fully understood:







The grey and black lines are GISS surface temperatures (the highest version of surface temperatures of the main data series) and RSS which is the satellite measurements, also known to be slightly higher than UAH satellite data set.

- There have been many ridiculous claims designed to invoke alarm and an urgency to mitigate:

- 4.5 Billion could die because of Global warming by 2012

- http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html (&quot;Children just aren't going to know what snow is,&quot;)

-http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10725.doc.htm (Between 50 and 200 million climate refugees by 2010)

-http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html (Arctic Sea Ice to Disappear by 2012)

- Note that the Arctic Sea ice extent is highly variable. Note also that *global sea ice* is relatively unchanged, as although there has been reduction in summer sea ice extent in the Arctic, the Antarctic has seen growth in sea ice extent.

_“The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”
—US Weather Bureau, 1922_

- Taken from Dr Lindzen's 2011 Parliamentary address, have a look at these two graphs and see if you can determine which is the 1970-2000 temperature rise and which is the 1910-1940 temperature rise. (Those of you who are very familiar with the global temperature series probably will - but will still get my point).







- The following graph shows a different narrative. I display this merely to show an alternative interpretation. I find this graph quite interesting and although it was created by an engineer rather than a climate scientist. Recently a http://www.springerlink.com/content/akh241460p342708/fulltext.html (paper came out came out) that supports this position, namely that the rise in temperature from 1970 to 2000 was part of a natural cycle that was also recorded from 1910 to 1940. If the cycle repeats, then it follows the slight cooling will continue until 2030, at which time temperatures may start to rise again.






http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GmtModel.PNG (Full size GMT Model)

I have much much more I would like to say about predictions, particularly regarding current solar activity, it's implications by comparison with the Maunder and Dalton minimum, and it's affect on climate, but will confine myself to this for now. I am very short of time at the moment, but my next post will be about the carbon cycle. CO2 emissions ain't CO2 emissions…..


----------



## stevenson-again (May 30, 2012)

Btw - I will tackle the consensus argument at a later point. But just quickly, it is worth bearing in mind that Lindzen is NOT a lone voice speaking out against IPCC over confidence. You also have Richard Mueller, Judith Curry, Pielke Snr, Pielke Jnr, Bob Tisdale, Roy Spencer, John Christie, Vincent Courtillot, Jeff Id, Ryan O'donnell, Richard Tol, Nicola Scafetta, Henrik Svensmark, Leif Svalgard, Easterbrook, Dessler, Braswell....

That's just off the top of my head. Bear in mind to that ALL of the people I mentioned, *including* Lindzen would be singatories to the highly specious claim of 97% of scientists agree - as if it meant anything at all.

I will cover sea level rise, and extreme weather in *attribution* to follow in the next couple of days.


----------



## chimuelo (May 30, 2012)

Judith Curry has an excellent site where she explains the misplaced isotopes from the Jupiter Probe, and also has other former NASA Scientists and Astronauts that meet in annual AGW conventions, and their corporate sponsors are being attacked as if the AGW and IPCC/UN are at war. Pretty amazing stuff.
Both sides have some valid points and its nice to see the Scientists debate as they respect each other and never resort to name calling as a way of ending the debate or silencing the other side. Those are the beneifts of an education.

What drew my attention to the whole Global Warming phenomona was the Signatories began withdrawing their names form the IPCC list.
Thats where I came across Judith Curry and other former NASA scientists, and astronauts who had interesting tales of the Jupiter probe, etc.

I figure when our times up, its up, so I am more interested in the future so the brave Scientists who actually get their hands dirty down in Antactica are really showing some intersting periods in Earths history and this area is where both sides are in agreement, which incidentally is why it went from Global Warming to Climate Change.
Some say we have peaked out and now should worry about a mini Ice Age.
Some say its a levelling off trend and will continue rising, others say it will drop.
But they all are using Ice Cores and periods of time in Earths history and have examples of why they believe it correlates to another time, or current times.

I just find their work fascinating and wish they could better predict the future w/o intervention from the Coal Industry or the UN.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 30, 2012)

> Yet temperatures have not only not shown accelerated warming, but not even warmed at all.



Once again:

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

Say no more.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 30, 2012)

Okay, I'll say more.

Do a search for "carbon dioxide global warming graph" and you'll find hundreds of these:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 30, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 31 said:


> > Yet temperatures have not only not shown accelerated warming, but not even warmed at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Once again, can you explain what that temperature graph shows Nick?


----------



## stevenson-again (May 31, 2012)

I don't have time to go into details now, but once I have posted up everything I intend to I will try to look at specific questions. With regard to Judith Curry - her blog and her approach to the whole thing is the most clear headed balanced and adheres to scientific principles that I have seen in the whole debate. Her's is the place I have spent the most time, and her opinion is the one I most respect. She has even allowed "Skydragon Slaye"r debate on her blog - one of the few places where their notions have been seriously entertained (for the purposes of settling this rather distracting and unnecessary viewpoint of a small fraction of skeptics). She is scrupulous about not being drawn in to the politicization of the science, very careful not criticize colleagues, except for highly special circumstances, which I may touch on at some point.

If anyone is truly serious about understanding science behind the debate, what the significant issues, the degree of uncertainty and more importantly, how to communicate that uncertainty, I can think of no better than Judith Curry and her blog. Some of the commentators are extremely interesting, and often include prominent climate scientists from time to time.

With regards to a possible return to Dalton or Maunder minimum conditions, I will talk a bit about that in alternative hypotheses, but I want to post on the Carbon cycle and Attribution first.

There's also climategate to consider - but I will post about that when I talk about the politicization of the issue. I would just breifly say that those who dismiss Climategate either haven't read the emails, or don't understand the issues they raise or their implications. Climategate seriously shook the climate science world and caused many climate scientists to reassess the way they had been going about things. To dismiss Climategate is really burying your head in the sand....don't do that...be prepared to examine evidence on its merits.

One last thing to those who want to dismiss the fact that there has been no increase in temperatures for the last 10-15 years - you are not going to get anywhere with that. Mainstream climate science has accepted that this is the case, and has already accepted that natural variability plays a much larger role in the temperature variation than previously thought. AR5 according to those who are involved as reviewers has already toned down its language significantly from AR4. What might help you is to discuss the secular trend and long term trends, and long term climate sensitivity as opposed to transient climate sensitivity. But as I will explain a bit later - this might not help you either.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 31, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:


> Btw - I will tackle the consensus argument at a later point. But just quickly, it is worth bearing in mind that Lindzen is NOT a lone voice speaking out against IPCC over confidence. You also have Richard Mueller, Judith Curry, Pielke Snr, Pielke Jnr, Bob Tisdale, Roy Spencer, John Christie, Vincent Courtillot, Jeff Id, Ryan O'donnell, Richard Tol, Nicola Scafetta, Henrik Svensmark, Leif Svalgard, Easterbrook, Dessler, Braswell....
> 
> That's just off the top of my head. Bear in mind to that ALL of the people I mentioned, *including* Lindzen would be singatories to the highly specious claim of 97% of scientists agree - as if it meant anything at all.
> 
> I will cover sea level rise, and extreme weather in *attribution* to follow in the next couple of days.



By all means carry on with your analysis, Rohan, but for me it has no value whatsoever. I don't mean that to sound personal or harsh, because it isn't. It's a statement of fact - if someone tries to engage in an analysis of a complex field of science, when they are trying to pursuade others that the overwhelming consensus view among expert scientists in the field is wrong, then they need to have some serious credentials and have published peer reviewed material. A layman doing so on a composer's forum makes no more sense to me that my starting a thread here about Quantum Field Theory, replete with data and graphs, that argues that all the experts are wrong (even though I only got a B at A level physics). 

So of course I will stick to the only part that makes logical sense to analyse - what the conclusions of the best available evidence says. Fortunately with the quote above, we now have something to go on here. Richard Lindzen's arguments may all be discredited, but maybe among this list of names, we have the real thing? That's worth a bit of my time.

*Richard Mueller* is a new name to me. He appears to be a cosmologist who has written some op ed stuff on the Hockey Stick.

*Judith Curry* is an interesting case, a genuine researcher who is keen to engage with the contrarian community. She identifies herself with "people that generally support the IPCC consensus (either currently or in the past) dare to question aspects of it" - so like Lindzen she supports the basics but not all the conclusions. In a casual search, so far the concerns don't seem to have much substance to them - as common in contrarian debates, uncertainties get elevated and assumed to ALL point in a negative direction. For anyone interested in the detail, a useful summary on one such example is here - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... statement/ . In short - she is in the field. While running blogs is all very interesting, genuine meaningful progress will only come with peer reviewed research - if she has a case that the IPCC has been over-alarmist (and as far as I can see she doesn't), this will come through the research.

*Roger Pielke Snr* AFAIK His research has not challenged any of the consensus points. Some of his personal views seem to have, however, but seem unsupported by the scientific evidence he was a part of.

*Roger Pielke Jr* Again, a scientist who accepts the broad consensus but challenges policy based upon it.

*Bob Tisdale* Can't find any credentials on him.

*Roy Spencer* Roy Spencer is a proponent of Intelligent Design, and a member of the board of the libertarian idelology-driven Marshall Institute. After publication of a recent paper he wrote which was found to be riddled with errors, the journal's editor resigned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

*John Christy* Again, like Lindzen, a track record of debunked science, which even he hasn't defended - http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-histo ... rming.html. Also linked to the usual libertarian thinktanks.

I could go on, but this is taking AGES...

Where are we going with this? I've taken a sample of the list of names (and there will of course be many more out there). So far I've found no reasearch that challenges the conclusion that has withstood the scientitic process (ie been debunked). I've seen a lot of affiliations to ultra-right wing groups. Gee, it's almost as if, among the thousands of working climate scientists, a very few have political or ideological views that are at odds with their own work.

Rohan, you seem very anxious to reframe the debates on the absolute fringes of the science as actually taking place centre stage. Look at the credentials, the publications and the citations. That's where the science really is, the further away you get from that scientific core the more the blogsphere takes over, with all of its ignorance and faith-led positions.

At this point, this thread has the potential to spiral out in a hundred dead end directions, all of which take time and effort. For now, *I'll just leave you with one question* therefore, Rohan, and I'd appreciate an answer (preferably before part 10 of the analysis!) Names like Lindzen, Spencer and Christy are the most respected on your list, and yet their research has been proven to be wrong, _by their own admission_. Why do you continue to favour them over those whose research has stood, and then continue to quote them? What am I to make of it when you are presented with Lindzen's errors, your reaction is to plunder a list full of scientists who have themselves made similar errors, and at least one of whom has an intellectually suicidal position on Intelligent Design? Are these the best names you have? Where will it stop?

Urgh, just about to post when I saw your most recent post above. I know this thread is going to consume hideous amounts of time - I would be grateful if you addressed the above - it's all very well praising Curry's terrific even-handedness, but it's at odds when you list Christy, Spencer, Lindzen et al. Again, if you are genuinely being even handed, why aren't you quoting the most cited climate researchers whose work has actually stood the test of time? AS for the temperature record, like Stephen this makes me deeply suspicious of the underlying motives. You haven't quite gone as far as saying it's a FACT that there is no recent warming (which, given expert testimony, ironically makes him factually incorrect and exposes a faith position, not a science-based one), but you're awfully close. It's sorta against my rules to get into details - you only really need to know that mainstream climate science disagrees with you. However, for a simple summary of why, the ever helpful Skeptical Science is on hand - http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... y-2008.htm . Since we're all short of time, I humbly suggest that you pause with the big presentation here, since it's all rather irrelevant - dealing with this question of why you are favouring unreliable sources is far, far more important.


----------



## chimuelo (May 31, 2012)

For a more humorous section, read the section where JCurry pondered the thought that the AGW folks had sent the Coal Industry to rescue her (finance), but actually destroy her by affilliation.
She has a great sense of humor, and that's why those that frequent there are from opposing sides so the debate is truly a place of learning as they respect each other.
It doesn't matter which "side" you take, they are all trying to get to the truth, as before any complex issue can be solved, a consensus must occur.
Which leads to another section where the UN speech that states" All Doubt Has Been " Removed."...................... :lol: 
And taxing the industry is a politicians excuse. Just shut down the Coal Plants that 
aren't in compliance and make laws that this added expense of retooling isn't passed onto the consumer in the usual finger pointing corprate/political backroom handshakes. That requires leadership, but as usual the lack of vision from DC elites adds more costs to the Middle Class, but if you want more Middle Class folks to be poor, it's brilliant.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 31, 2012)

> Rohan, you seem very anxious to reframe the debates on the absolute fringes of the science as actually taking place centre stage. Look at the credentials, the publications and the citations. That's where the science really is, the further away you get from that scientific core the more the blogsphere takes over, with all of its ignorance and faith-led positions.



Guy, this comment is extraordinarily ridiculous. It is the most egregious of logical fallacies and does you no credit. It absolutely does not matter what credentials, publications and citations are. That is NOT where science lies. Science lies in *empirical evidence.*

Also, I have to tell you that these arguments are NOT on the fringes at ALL. If you had read the climategate emails, you would realize that the 'team' scientists most heavily involved in establishing the CAGW narrative have voiced the exact same concerns privately that their skeptics where discussing publicly. What you are also ignorant of is that in certain blogospheric circles, some of the commentators are highly expert in specific areas of which climate science intersects - more expert than the climate scientists themselves in that discipline. I thought of many more names I could have added to the list afterwards, but honestly it is the stupidest argument you have is to use the argument of consensus, and the argument of authority. They are logical fallacies and do NOT support AGW or CAGW.

I have just been doing jury duty. The judge directs you to look at the evidence and ONLY the evidence when you have to consider a verdict. The number of views you hear, or the authority they come from does NOT count.

I promise you Guy, if you were to try and bring these arguments up even on moderate blogs, you would be completely derided as an idiot, by warmist and skeptic alike.

The ONLY thing that matters is the evidence.

In regards to the names I have mentioned, they are all extremely respected and well-published scientists and are taken seriously within the climate science community - to dismiss them in the way you have is ignorance of the highest order. When you talk about 'faith-based position' you need to take a hard look at yourself.

I have been following this issue closely and daily for years now. I know the personalities, I know what the issues are, I know what the arguments are, and I know where climate science is at at the moment. I seriously suggest you take a hard look at the points I am making - there is no secret about them - and try to find arguments *based on evidence* that can refute or at least cast some uncertainty on them.

Don't disgrace yourself or common decency with the foolish nonsense that these scientists shouldn't be listened to simply because another bunch of scientists think they are wrong.

Carbon cycle post coming shortly....


----------



## bdr (May 31, 2012)

Rohan, thank you for the time you are putting into your posts.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 31, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 31 said:


> > Yet temperatures have not only not shown accelerated warming, but not even warmed at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi Nick,

Actually there is quite a lot to say about this. I refer you to the graphs that you link. I am going to skip the carbon concentration for the moment because I have a more detailed post coming.

Please note the temperature graph which is the GISS data series. Note that the 5 year running mean does not extend to 2012. If it did you would see a flattening:

GISS Temperatures 2002-2012

Remember that over 30% of all the CO2 mankind has ever emitted was emitted in the last decade. And, despite that man is emitting more CO2 than ever before CO2 rate of increase has NOT accelerated, AND the temperatures have not been increasing.

But more importantly, I want you to look at the period of 1910 to 1940 in the graph you posted. You will note that temperatures were increasing then by about the same rate as they were since 1970 (or thereabouts). One of the big questions in climate science is *how to account for the warming between 1910 to 1940*. 

Because it is considered that man's emissions during that period were too small to be a significant factor.

What climate models have to do is use the instrumental period to calibrate the parameters determining how the climate responds over time. I happen to know how the GCMs (global climate models) account for this period. The answer is very important to be able to gauge the veracity of climate models, and it is an area that does create debate amongst climate scientists.

Before I tell you the answer, I was wondering if you might want to take a stab?


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:


> There's also climategate to consider - but I will post about that when I talk about the politicization of the issue. I would just breifly say that those who dismiss Climategate either haven't read the emails, or don't understand the issues they raise or their implications. Climategate seriously shook the climate science world and caused many climate scientists to reassess the way they had been going about things. To dismiss Climategate is really burying your head in the sand....don't do that...be prepared to examine evidence on its merits.



This is precisely the kind of thing that proves there's nothing but lies and distortions to the GW skeptics. Sorry Stevenson but there is nothing to the CRU emails, Im afriad if you do think there is anything to them YOU have not read the emails in context. ALL you have are quotemines. Have you even bothered to look up the responses to the skeptics commentary on their cherry picked quotes? Doesnt look like it from your description here since you fail to even acknowledge that any of them are misquotes.






> One last thing to those who want to dismiss the fact that there has been no increase in temperatures for the last 10-15 years -




:roll: And once again this old lie! Never gets old does it?

You are getting the script wrong, Stevenson, but to your credit this is exactly the impression people like Lindzen would like you to have. I believe it was Lindzen that started this whole "no statistical significant warming since 1995". Note the term statistical significant. He never said there has been no warming, but of course that is the implication when he talks to reporters about it and that is what then becomes the headline and since its his intent that people misunderstand doesnt bother to correct any of them.

Then there's that BBC interview (who had taken questions from skeptics) with Phil Jones asked him the loaded question if there's been any statistically significant warming since 1995 and he said no. The reason they chose 1995? Completely arbitrary, *except* that 1995 was the earliest date between 2009 they could pick to make the claim there had been no statistically signifianct warming, if they chose 1994 they couldnt make that claim. Then of course all the headlines came out saying Phil Jones admitted there had been no warming, or that global warming had stopped, even though it was clear he had actually said the complete opposite of this in the very article they quoted. Jones said that the data is very close to the 95% significance level (it turned out 93%). This means that of the warming trend observed since 1995 and 2009 Jones was saying that there is only 7% chance we would see these results if global warming was NOT happening. Displaying their amazingly shameless dishonesty skeptics actually managed to distort this into making out that Jones said the complete opposite.

I asked you to defend these lies, I dont see the point in even starting to talk about anything more complex if you keep using arguments from authorities that can be so easily shown to be some of the least credible people. 

Judith Curry is no better than Lindzen on this, and is poorly regarded generally. As I said before at a certain point you have chosen to continue to support demonstrable liars, or people so incompetent its impossible to tell the difference.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 31, 2012)

> Have you even bothered to look up the responses to the skeptics commentary on their cherry picked quotes? Doesnt look like it from your description here since you fail to even acknowledge that any of them are misquotes.



Yes I have. Sorry.


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:


> Remember that over 30% of all the CO2 mankind has ever emitted was emitted in the last decade. And, despite that man is emitting more CO2 than ever before CO2 rate of increase has NOT accelerated, AND the temperatures have not been increasing.



Apparently you are not aware that you cant just look at the last 10 years and decide nothing much is happening (also that is not the full picture just from looking at that graph anyway). Global temps rise and fall, you need to look at a long period of time to get a statistically significant understanding of whats happening. GW "skeptics" will look at a graph like the one below...

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistem ... 2012/trend

... and instead of showing you the fact that warming has increased they will instead only show you tiny parts of the graph, either to try and prove temperature isnt increasing much or is even cooling. All you need to do is zoom back and you see a full picture of how deceptive they are when they do this.




> But more importantly, I want you to look at the period of 1910 to 1940 in the graph you posted. You will note that temperatures were increasing then by about the same rate as they were since 1970 (or thereabouts). One of the big questions in climate science is *how to account for the warming between 1910 to 1940*.



Sorry but you guys always ask such simple questions as if no one has ever considered this before. Global Warming debunked by Stevenson! Its such a common claim that Skeptical Science blog much of which is written by climate expertshas a page on it . You think all these experts supporting AGW are just too stupid to ask such questions, while your heroic contrarians are the only ones to see the simple observation that clearly brings the whole theory to its knees? Why do you ask questions and act like there's been no answer to it? Because you simply dont care about what the response is, all you read is your contrarian skeptic websites.


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:


> > Have you even bothered to look up the responses to the skeptics commentary on their cherry picked quotes? Doesnt look like it from your description here since you fail to even acknowledge that any of them are misquotes.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have. Sorry.



Oh is this going to be like discussing things with Stephen Baystead? Where I get one word hand waves of everything I write?

It is a fact that they are, all of them, some way more obvious that others, blatent and shameless misquotes only possible if you're intentionally trying to quote-mine for anything that you can use to twist into some kind of conspiracy.

You have also not addressed the no warming since 1995, as I said even Lindzen is smart enough to say "statistically significant warming" (he is wrong now however in 2012 if hes still saying that). It was never correct that the earth has not been warming since 1995, that is simply factually incorrect. Statistically significant is 95%, that means if something is 93% significant then its saying theres only 7% chance you'd see that trend if GW is NOT correct. So it was always a totally dishonest and deceptive claim.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 31, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:


> > Rohan, you seem very anxious to reframe the debates on the absolute fringes of the science as actually taking place centre stage. Look at the credentials, the publications and the citations. That's where the science really is, the further away you get from that scientific core the more the blogsphere takes over, with all of its ignorance and faith-led positions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Firstly, emperical evidence is PRECISELY what I am appealing too. My point - which you have not acknowledged - is that it is beyond you are I to adjudicate the details of this evidence. That is true of all complex science - it is a matter left to the scientists.

Second, you have ignored that the names I have pointed out have published research supporting your arguments which was been DEBUNKED. Lindzen says is 2009 paper was full of "stupid mistakes". Christy's / Spencers research on temperatures in the 1990s was incorrect and has been debunked. They are vaild researchers, this point I'm not disputing - these things are right to be explored and tested. Which is exactly what has happened - so far their evidence - which you agree is the only thing that matters - has not passed muster. I ask again - why do you appeal to them _and them alone_, given their track record? Why are you not appealing to Michael Mann, whose work has had relentless criticism from within and without science - and whose conclusions absolutely stand? (his statistical errors which Mann accepts in the first paper have been corrected of course, and have not changed the outcome).

I have absolutely NO intention of prentending to be a climatologist here. I still maintain its huge foolishness to vist blogs, even the sites represented by the mainstream scientists, and then feel you have enough of a grip and the breadth of the subject to make an independent, intellectual contribution to the debate. You may have been reading websites for years, but have you studied an academic course to degree level at least on climatology? I haven't, and unless you have and I'm mistaken, we're simply not in the game. Again, this absolutely isn't a criticism of your intellect - it's just pragmatism that I'd apply to everyone including myself. We can only make a valid intellectual contribution in an area in which we have expertese.

Let me be entirely clear about my comments on faith-based positions, because this is critical. Stephen said that it was a FACT that there had "there is no visible human signal in climate change data". A FACT - not his opinion, but a fact. Even most of those climate scientists you mention who are outside the mainstream subscribe at least to the view that AGW is real. Therefore, the only deduction I am able to make is that Stephen has a faith-based position. The evidence and the conclusion of practically every climate scientist today runs counter to his claim, and that alone cannot make it a fact. I can therefore say with confidence that Stepehen is wrong, EVEN if all the climate scientists are themselves wrong - to state, in 2012, that it is a FACT that there is no human signal in climate change data is false, end of story.

Now, you were arguing a similar point about warming in the past decade or two. As the link demonstrates, this isn't the mainstream view. You don't have to agree with that, but you do need to accept that this mainstream view of climate scientists MIGHT POSSIBLY be correct. You wrote "One last thing to those who want to dismiss *the fact *that there has been no increase in temperatures for the last 10-15 years - you are not going to get anywhere with that. Mainstream climate science has accepted that this is the case". My link shows otherwise. Rohan - you called it a fact, and it plainly isn't one. It is your view, and the view of some people you admire, it is absolutely NOT a fact. I don't even claim it as a fact that there is, I claim that it is extremely likely based upon the evidence and the conclusion of the mainstream climate scientists. If you are claiming what you said is a fact when I can clearly see this is not the mainstream view, that does make you factually incorrect. It's impossible to claim it as a fact. If you continue to do so, I can only conclude you too have a faith-based position. It's not a scientific approach, it fails basic logic. Care to restate?

As for me - "take a look at yourself" - I've been entirely clear all along. If the day ever comes when the peer reviewed evidence shows that the consensus view is wrong, and the scientific institutions that have ALL made statements supporting it begin change their statements, I'll change my view in a heartbeat. Because all that matters is the evidence, and I appeal to those most qualified in greatest numbers to assess this.

As for "Don't disgrace yourself or common decency with the foolish nonsense that these scientists shouldn't be listened to simply because another bunch of scientists think they are wrong", this again entirely misses the point. Their evidence has been shown to be INCORRECT, and the authors themselves have conceded the point on their papers.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 31, 2012)

Guy,



> Stephen said that it was a FACT that there had "there is no visible human signal in climate change data". A FACT - not his opinion, but a fact. Even most of those climate scientists you mention who are outside the mainstream subscribe at least to the view that AGW is real. Therefore, the only deduction I am able to make is that Stephen has a faith-based position.



As a matter of fact, Stephen is actually correct. It is a matter of *fact* that the human signal is NOT visible. It is *inferred* because of what we know about other *facts*. That is, CO2 is a greenhouse gas which obeys the laws of radiative physics and should cause not warming, but a slowing of cooling. The other *fact* is that human activities produce CO2.

This is NOT disputed by *anyone* who knows what they are talking about. But you are refusing to look at contrary evidence and entirely using ad hominem type arguments and arguments of consensus and authority. It is not argued that there has been a slow down in warming or 'flattening' as it is described generally over the last decade contrary to expectations from the standard GCM. There HAVE been attempts to account for it. One is http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/27/1102467108.abstract (Kaufmann et al) which attempts to attribute the slow down in warming on chinese aerosols.

From the abstract:

_Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings._

This paper is not skeptic friendly btw - it is making the case that it is because of Chinese pollution that the temperatures have not increased. It's come for quite some criticism and personally I find it a bit of a stretch as well. 

It is not controversial to say that the warming has flattened - this is generally accepted and you'd better get used to it.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 31, 2012)

> Their evidence has been shown to be INCORRECT, and the authors themselves have conceded the point on their papers.



You really don't know what you are talking about Guy. you are conflating mistakes which all scientists make including the members of the team who have made far more egregious ones with then dismissing the entirety of their work and views. I cannot tell you infantile this makes you sound. Stick to discussing the evidence and you won't go wrong.


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:


> As a matter of fact, Stephen is actually correct. It is a matter of *fact* that the human signal is NOT visible. It is *inferred* because of what we know about other *facts*. That is, CO2 is a greenhouse gas which obeys the laws of radiative physics and should cause not warming, but a slowing of cooling. The other *fact* is that human activities produce CO2.



WHOA, you just fell right off the deep end. 
Are you seriously saying that Co2 is not a forcing for warming?

Also, I'd still love you to defend your claim that theres been no warming since 1995.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 31, 2012)

> Are you seriously saying that Co2 is not a forcing for warming?



No, I am not saying that.


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:


> > Are you seriously saying that Co2 is not a forcing for warming?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not saying that.



You said Co2 "should cause not warming". If thats not what you mean then you're being deliberately deceptive just like the people you rely on for information, like Lindzen , who you misunderstood to have said theres been no warming since 1995 when even he never said that but that is the impression he wants you to take away and you fell for it just like he planned.




> As a matter of fact, Stephen is actually correct. It is a matter of fact that the human signal is NOT visible.



Stephen actually goes much further and says there is no evidence of warming AT ALL and that we are going to see global cooling because of the sun.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 31, 2012)

> You said Co2 "should cause not warming". If thats not what you mean then you're being deliberately deceptive just like the people you rely on for information, like Lindzen , who you misunderstood to have said theres been no warming since 1995 when even he never said that but that is the impression he wants you to take away and you fell for it just like he planned.



At no stage did I say CO2 should not cause warming. That is exactly the opposite of what I have said. You are not understanding what is being discussed presumably because of your severe political bias which I will discuss later. May suggest for the time being that you be very careful what you attribute to me.




> Stephen actually goes much further and says there is no evidence of warming AT ALL and that we are going to see global cooling because of the sun.



Well, I haven't seen Stephen make that claim but if he did I would not agree with it. It is not disputed by anyone who follows climate science that there has been warming since the end of the little ice age. There is a huge amount of dispute as to what caused it. CO2 without a doubt would contribute some regardless of what the main driver was - but please hold fire until I have posted on the carbon cycle....there is quite a bit of interesting things to note about CO2 before attributing the rise in temperatures to it.


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:


> At no stage did I say CO2 should not cause warming. That is exactly the opposite of what I have said. You are not understanding what is being discussed presumably because of your severe political bias which I will discuss later. May suggest for the time being that you be very careful what you attribute to me.



Still no defence of the "warming since 1995" ey? Oh but please dont let me stop you wasting your time presenting copy and pastes from powerpoint presentations from demonstrable liars like Lindzen or Curry's blog posts .

Always comes back to political bias doesn't it? Never at any time do you people ever seem to consider you have a political bias. As I said on the other thread you must believe that there is SO much money in carbon tax, so much more than oil and tax on that oil that the governments of the world have come together in secret and managed to convince or pay off or scare into submission scientists and institution's all over the world. Your Occam's Razor Gage is working backwards.



> Well, I haven't seen Stephen make that claim but if he did I would not agree with it



Just so you know then, quotes from Stephen:

_"" But the most important questions are these: *where is the warming* and where is the human signal. "
"Ed, talk to Prince Charles, he... believes in *man made up global warming*."
"The reality is that there has been *no warming for the past decade*"_ - to be fair, thats what you claimed as well, only you said since 1995 
_"All I would say is, enjoy what looks like very much to be the* onset of a solar minimum on the scale of Dalton*."_ Ie. He thinks climate is going to cool because of the sun.



> but please hold fire until I have posted on the carbon cycle....



I really dont care since you are taking all your arguments from people like Lindzen and wont defend such obviously false claims such as the "no warming since 1995." 

Ill make this bit below really nice and big since its my overall point here:

*This is a complex issue that scientists study for years and years to understand and you think we can just look at an internet post written by a composer parroting information he doesnt really understand from people like Lindzen that can easily be shown to intentionally distort even simple facts. Who is the most credible side in this debate?*

And if you do accept its warming you clearly dont believe its warming that badly or that its not too extreme, which makes you almost as bad as saying it isnt happening at all.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 31, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:


> Guy,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, before I reply to this, I think you need to calm down, Rohan - this isn't like you. I have been very firm in what I've said, but I've gone out of my way to say that there is absolutely no slight on your intelligence - my view is that you are approaching this all wrong. I'd appreciate it if you'd lay of the insults and the extremely patronising comments.

First of all, a reminder of a very basic thing. The statements of all those insitututes around the world and the sum of the peer reviewed literature as represented in the IPCC reports represent the scientifc consensus. That is all I am supporting. When you make such patronising comments about how clueless I am, it doesn't come over well, Rohan. Your position is the minority one. Now, you may be right. All those who you suppport may be right. But it isn't the view as represented by the summary of the science in the IPCC or the world's scientific institutions. Remember that as you poor scorn on your fellow posters.

OK, to the detail. If all Stephen meant by his original statement was that the human signal is there to be extrapolated from the data, then he should say so, I'll quite happily accept that and we'll all move on from that particular point. He hasn't clarified in that regard since I first expressed incredulity several days ago, and nor would I expect him to. Unless he corrects me otherwise, I'lll take it to mean what it appears to mean - that anthropogenic emissions have had no effect on the temperature record. Assuming that is the case, and since Stephen repeated it twice to make it absoluely clear, then Stephen has a faith position.

Now, I won't go into detail on the paper you quoted, but their abstract does not assume there has been no warming over the past 15 years (the high figure you quoted) - indeed that would be a huge misreading of the paper. They deliberately take the high point of 98 and take 10 years later which do not top that high figure - they deliberately take the cherry picked "best case scenario" and look at the dynamics involved. However, as Ed says, expand that out a little and the warming is pretty much on track. The warming - overall - has not flattened at all, and the paper you quoted certainly does not imply this. This is the key to understanding it - 1998 was an amazing freak high year (with a major el nino event) while 2007 was what appears to be a freak low. Again, the graph on this page puts that arbitary figure into context - http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... y-2008.htm . The average trend is clearly up, and it absolutely ISN'T the case that it is a "fact" that it is not. So no, I'm afraid I won't "get used to it", because it isn't correct.

As to the contrarians you point out - are you suggesting Christy / Spencer's paper in 1992 is correct? Or Lindzen's 2009 paper is right? If so, let's deal with that. If not, then we need to deal with it as well. Both papers represent a core argument of theirs, so it is highly relevant to their credibility. I'll make an exception of my "no detail" rule here, because the authors have increased importance in the wider debate, and we're trying to see if it is as reasonable to follow their conclusions as those in the mainstream.

EDIT - I've just re-read that Skeptical Science page again, and it does a superb job of explaining the long term rise in temperatures, and how contrarians can cherry pick data to show apparent cooling. The final animated graph in particular is excellent. Would love to hear your views on that, Rohan - that's a case that required an answer if you don't subscribe to it (which clearly you don't).


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 31, 2012)

Ed @ Thu May 31 said:


> stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:
> 
> 
> > > Are you seriously saying that Co2 is not a forcing for warming?
> ...




Ed, I'd rather not engage with you in any kind of debate since you are incapable of such things, but I am going to have to reply since you suggest, incorrectly, that I stated that there has been no evidence of warming at all. 

I suggest you learn to read properly and effectively. Of course there is evidence of modest warming - I said as much when I was discussing the illusion of the consensus - the fact that the first question was phrased in such a way that made 30% of scientists polled who responded (5% were climate scientists btw) in the affirmative. Of course it has warmed since the LIA and other minima during the past 1000 years. 

It has not warmed for at least a decade however even though lemonade bubble emissions have risen sharply. And remember, there is no visible human signal in global cimate change data, just in the GIGO of the always already flawed models.


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 31 said:


> Ed, I'd rather not engage with you in any kind of debate since you are incapable of such things,



I think if you provide more than 1 line snide arrogant hand waves I am very capable, my aggressive tone is due to your behaviour of complete unwillingness to be corrected about anything even the most simple and easy to understand observation such as a quote taken out of context.

I started off on the other thread trying to correct you on your use of the quote from Phil Jones, I spent ages trying to explain to you exactly how you have misrepresented him and you couldnt even bring yourself to even attempt any form of response to any of it. In fact forgetting about all my posts that you have all but ignored in their entirety you havent responded to any criticism with any substance at all for any your claims whatsoever as far as I can see. As I told you on the other thread you have some cheek to sit there are try and take the intellectual high ground when all you've ever done is make snide hand waves, quote-mines and strawman.




> but I am going to have to reply since you suggest, incorrectly, that I stated that there has been no evidence of warming at all.



I gave the quotes, if thats not what you meant I recommend you choose your words more carefully next time.



> I suggest you learn to read properly and effectively.



How rich coming from someone that changes Phil Jones' quote into literally meaning the opposite of what he actually said! :roll: 



> Of course there is evidence of modest warming - I said as much when I was discussing the illusion of the consensus - the fact that the first question was phrased in such a way that made 30% of scientists polled who responded (5% were climate scientists btw) in the affirmative. Of course it has warmed since the LIA and other minima during the past 1000 years.



As I said to Rohan, if you do accept its warming you clearly dont believe its warming that badly or that its not too extreme, which makes you almost as bad as saying it isnt happening at all. You are far more extreme than Rohan apparently as you even say that its going to be cooling now due to solar forcing. You might as well be saying it isnt warming at all. Rohan fits this perfectly claiming that there has been no warming AT ALL since 1995. This is total batshit crazy to me, since even his own source doesnt go that far.



> It has not warmed for at least a decade however even though lemonade bubble emissions have risen sharply. And remember, there is no visible human signal in global cimate change data, just in the GIGO of the always already flawed models.



Sorry you've merely asserted that. Whenhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e2GlooAPkM (we show you data)you will just say its all fake, thats what you people do. Your absurdly epic conspiracy capable of everything and anything you want or need of it. Claiming all the evidence is fake (with no evidence at that) doesnt mean you can then say as fact that there is no evidence. There is, you just believe its faked. For you to be unable to even acknowledge its existence, as if scientists are just believing in AGW for no reason at all, is a real testament to how intellectually bankrupt your position is.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 31, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Thu May 31 said:


> stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy,
> ...



Guy, you're adding 2 and 2 saying that the result is the square root of minus one. The apposite term here is inference. There is no signal visible in the data. 

Since Nick, for whatever reason, has not explained what that NASA graph he's posted twice now indicates, perhaps you'd want to have a go? I'd be interested to read what you think it shows. And indeed, whether you can identify the human signal in it.


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 31 said:


> Since Nick, for whatever reason, has not explained what that NASA graph he's posted twice now indicates, perhaps you'd want to have a go? I'd be interested to read what you think it shows. And indeed, whether you can identify the human signal in it.



So here's a great two questions for you to ignore:

1. Why do you think climate scientists believe the data shows humans are extremely likely to be responsible for the recent warming? What theory or reasons do you think they give?

2. What do you think a human signal would look like?

If you cant answer either of these you admit talking with you is pointless since you dont know what a human signal would look like and it would mean you dont know why climate scientists think humans are responsible in the first place. In short if you or any other "skeptic" cant answer these questions then they quietly admit they are just deniers, in that they dont know why they disagree with global warming theory, they just do and are just repeating mantras of "there's no evidence!". So you wanna take a crack at it?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 31, 2012)

Stephen.

You got your CO2 level (which is where your human signal comes in) and your temperature lines superimposed on your second graph. 

The correlation is uncanny.

It really is that simple, and there's no axis on the graph for blather about climategate, Al Gore, research funding, whether there's even a freaking debate...


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 31, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 31 said:


> Stephen.
> 
> You got your CO2 level (which is where your human signal comes in) and your temperature lines superimposed on your second graph.
> 
> ...



What are the temperature lines showing exactly Nick?


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 31, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 31 said:


> Guy, you're adding 2 and 2 saying that the result is the square root of minus one. The apposite term here is inference. There is no signal visible in the data.



OK, so you've quoted yourself again - do you wish to elaborate? Let's make it crystal clear - you're saying it is a fact there is no anthropocentric effect in global temperature records? In other words, if none of us were here, that the temperature would be exactly the same?


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 31 said:


> What are the temperature lines showing exactly Nick?



Since you keep asking this over and over and not elaborating let me try and decode this. You are asking because you seem to think there is no correlation, that the warming is explained some other way. Of course much of the warming you claim isnt happening at all anyway http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e2GlooAPkM (<b>and is faked</b>) by all those those horrible corrupt government sponsored scientists that presumably laugh in secret about how much money they are going to make from carbon taxes or something. 

The simple reason why climate scientists believe humans are responsible is that climate change doesnt just happen for no reason. They ruled out every other cause of what could be causing the warming, that CO2 production is unprecedented and we know this is a strong forcing for warming and as Co2 has increased so has warming. _(and please, dont come back saying co2 "lags behind temperature" or some long debunked denier meme like that)_

So, since you must believe that there is some other explanation for this warming I look forward to your explanation for it. Be sure that all these claims about it being the sun have been debunked in great detail so whatever you plan to post (_assuming you even bother to reply to this_) I strongly recommend you look up criticisms first. And as I asked you earlier, you still need to explain what the data WOULD look like if humans are responsible. Remember, if you cant, then you cant possibly say the data doesnt show a human cause if you dont know what a human cause would look like. Creationists say there's no evidence for change between kinds and then never define what a kind is. Dont make me have to compare you to a Creationist again, I know how you hate that.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 31, 2012)

See, I have to say rather than try to create long posts about the Climate Change World As I See It, it's far more useful to simply ask people to go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/ . It's a terrific resource. AFAIK it overstates nothing, it just summaries the peer reviewed evidence, and you can even choose your difficulty level. Everything Nick, Ed, myself and others say here is usually said far better with full references there. And before anyone says it, that's not lazy. Scientists believe what they do not because they are idiots or scared or politically motivated, but because of the evidence. Pretty much everything raised here that supposedly deals the nail in the coffin for the consensus is known and explained there, yet as the 10-15 year "flattening" proves, the actual science is continually ignored in favour of more spectacular conclusions. Why do we all put ourselves through it time and again when someone has done all the hard work for us?

So quite right, Ed - here's CO2 lags temperature to save ourselves the bother later - http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lag ... rature.htm . Perhaps I should just stick to linking there, and if someone actually deals with the real consensus position that they find there, then talk.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 31, 2012)

> The statements of all those insitututes around the world and the sum of the peer reviewed literature as represented in the IPCC reports represent the scientifc consensus. That is all I am supporting.



You are taking what they are saying on faith.

Be careful Guy, the skeptics use that same peer reviewed literature to make their point. There is a great deal to be said about the IPCC that you don't know about.

Again I'll repeat, the lack of warming over the last decade is NOT disputed in climate science circles. The article I linked to is a supporter of the AGW hypotheses and has been criticized by skeptics, who I think have a really good point. The paper tries to explain the lack of warming because of sulphates emitted by China. But those aerosols don't make it to the Southern Hemisphere where there has been cooling, and the Northern Hemisphere has been relatively warming over the same period. You would expect that if the Chinese sulphates were causing cooling for that to be manifested in the Northern Hemisphere rather than the south.


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2012)

Well personally in a debate like this just linking with no commentary to another site usually a bit of a cop out, after all they can do the same and so its all a bit pointless. Linking to something like Real Climate or SkepticalScience is fine but so long as you provide some kind of reason for why you're sending them there, you know? Like there's graphs or sources and and so on that dont need to just be repeated here.

I think Guy that the question you asked earlier about what would make people like Stephen or Rohan change their mind was good but not specific enough. If they say there's no evidence for human cause of warming then *demand* they tell you what the data would look like, refuse to let them brush off the question with anything else until they do that. Rohan tries to write these long posts attempting to argue we have no evidence for a human signal which is all meaningless until he says what he thinks a human signal would look like. I also think my other question I already answered is a good one. It seems to me people like Stephen keep saying theres no evidence of AGW because I dont believe they knew *why *climate scientists think there is a human cause.


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:


> .
> 
> Again I'll repeat, the lack of warming over the last decade is NOT disputed in climate science circles. T.



Yes, it really is. Sorry Rohan, you're just wrong on this. 100% totally demonstrably wrong.

You said:

"_*Over the past decade*.... temperatures have not only not shown accelerated warming, but *not even warmed at all. *_"
_...*no increase in temperatures* for the last 10-15 years_
...and now... _"the lack of warming over the last decade *is NOT disputed in climate science circles*"_

There is no possible way you can support any of this and if you spent 5 minutes trying to find evidence for it you'd realise how totally and utterly wrong you are. If you got this impression from Richard Lindzen, as I already told you on the previous page, even he was careful to say "no *statistically **significant *warming" between 1995 and 2009. *He did not say there is no warming trend,* because that is not what statistically significance means. It means the warming trend needs to reach *95% *significance before it can be called statistically significant. 95% would mean only 5% chance statistically that we would see that trend if GW was NOT happening. As i also said, choosing 1995 is intentionally deceptive anyway since if he had said 1994 even back in 2009 then it would have been statistically significant. One year later it was statistically significant between these two dates and now in 2012 it certainly is. There was never anything special about 1995 or indeed 2000.

*EDIT :*
Btw, from the same data you were using earlier:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistem ... 95/to:2012


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 31, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:


> > The statements of all those insitututes around the world and the sum of the peer reviewed literature as represented in the IPCC reports represent the scientifc consensus. That is all I am supporting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sigh.

Rohan, the "taking it on faith" taunt is very lazy and innapropriate. This is the scientific method. This is the best we have. Is it perfect, no. But if I have to put my eggs in a basket, I'm putting it in that. I guess you'd like to pull the IPCC apart, then NASA, then the NOAA, then the Royal Society, then the other 60 institutions, and put your own faith in Stephen Mackintyre and his blizzard of FOI requests, or scientists who preach Intelligent Design. Not me - and that's not faith, it's embracing the scientific method, the opposite of faith.

The bloody temperatures. I don't know if you're wilfully missing the point here or not. LOOK AT THE LINK. The paper you quoted I'm sure is a good piece of work, in which case what this means is that without increased the sulphates our overall long term rate of warming would have increased still further (highly likely, I'd imagine). They have chosen the two years at the beginning and end of a particular 10 year period which - _taken in isolation_ - shows no warming. Fine, perfectly fine as long as the context is clearly understood. But that is totally different to your assertation of 10-15 years. It's not "the last 10 years" either. AS THE LINK SAYS. Warming is bang on track, the average rate of increase taken over time is totally linear oh why not just link

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... y-2008.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... y-2008.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... y-2008.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... y-2008.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... y-2008.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... y-2008.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... y-2008.htm

It's all there. By all means come back and pick holes in it, but endlessly repeating stuff that isn't true according to the data isn't advancing this discussion one jot.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 31, 2012)

Ed @ Thu May 31 said:


> Well personally in a debate like this just linking with no commentary to another site usually a bit of a cop out, after all they can do the same and so its all a bit pointless. Linking to something like Real Climate or SkepticalScience is fine but so long as you provide some kind of reason for why you're sending them there, you know? Like there's graphs or sources and and so on that dont need to just be repeated here.



I guess. But what are they linking too? Blogs? Papers that we're not qualified to evaluate? Real Climate is terrific, but it's easy to portray as very partisan if you're minded to disbelieve those who run it for whatever reason. Skeptical science is different - it's just a summary of peer review, with references. I don't know of any view expressed there that is not supported by peer review, with the references to back it up. And summarising the science is more than I'd do anyway - I really try not to get involved in the detail for reasons I've explained (on a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being "qualified to call myself a climate scientist", I'm probably a 3, and acutely aware of it). But the questions keep on coming, so rather than me badly try and explain stuff I haven't spend 20 years in full time study pouring over, far better to link Skeptical Science and see perfectly logical responses that - crucially - are from peer reviewed science, and represent the consensus view. Basic logic therefore tells me to give these findings much greater weight than those of any of us in a composers forum.

It might be different if the arguments here were brand new and had never been thought of before, raising new questions. But it's the same old stuff that's been answered.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 31, 2012)

*The Carbon Cycle:*


So we emit CO2 and CO2 has gone up, so ergo we have caused CO2 in the atmosphere to increase.

Case closed.

….errr not so fast.






This is graph showing emissions increase versus the amount of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The first thing to notice is that the amount of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is LESS than the amount of CO2 we are putting into it. The second thing to notice is the variability from year to year of the total ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. NB - and because some people don't seem to be reading too carefully here - the lower graph is the *increase* in CO2 NOT the total.

The graph comes from Tom Quirks paper "Sources and Sinks of CO2"

What this means is that 1) Some of our emissions are sequestered by the biosphere (and other things) 2) the increase in CO2 is not directly correlated to our emissions.

The next very important thing to bear in mind is the size of the Carbon Cycle. The Carbon Cycle is many orders of magnitude greater than our emissions. We don't know precisely how much bigger, because the error bars are very large, but we put about 8.5 Gt of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the total carbon cycle is around 150 Gt, about 90 for the oceans and 60 for land organisms. That puts emissions conservatively around 5% of the total carbon budget.

Murray Salby, who holds the Chair for Climate Science at Macquarie University, suggests that in fact that the climate drives CO2 increase, and not the other way around. As temperatures warm, more CO2 is emitted principally from the oceans. The largest increases year-to-year occurred when the world warmed fastest due to El Nino conditions. The smallest increases correlated with volcanoes which pump dust up into the atmosphere and keep the world cooler for a while. In other words, temperature controls CO2 levels on a yearly time-scale, and according to Salby, man-made emissions have little effect.

Here is his presentation to the IUGG http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/global-emission-of-carbon-dioxide-the-contribution-from-natural-sources/ (here.)

The bottom line is, we are small bit players in the overall carbon cycle. Never mind finding it hard to find an anthropogenic signal within the temperature record - it's hard enough just finding a signal within the Carbon Cycle!

The limiting factor in plant growth is CO2. Greater concentrations of CO2 allow plants to grow faster and require less water. Temperature too plays its part, because warmer conditions allow the chemical reactions that take place within its cells to happen faster. I move to speculate: the biosphere reacts to greater concentrations of CO2 and heat by growing faster and more abundantly. There is support for that idea http://www.sciencemag.org/content/300/5625/1560.abstract (here - Nemani et al). According to satellites, during the period 1982 to 1999 the biosphere grew by about 6%.

Next up - *Attribution and Extreme weather Events*

*UPDATE*

I meant to include this earlier:

The reason for the increase in CO2 is due to Le Chateliers Principle which has to do with the solubility of gases. The oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere, and as they warm up they become less soluble to CO2. This is why CO2 increases in the atmosphere as the planet warms and decreases as it cools.

You can see this in the Vostok Ice cores as CO2 increases and decreases correlate with temperature but with a lag.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 31, 2012)

Guy,

since you want to play the credibility game, skeptical sciences name is mud in the blogosphere. Since you are looking at the UAH data (which is the graph you have posted) I should remind you that the UAH data is published by Roy Spencer. You know, the same Roy Spencer who has no credibility because he believes in Intelligent design? So we shouldn't believe that graph because, because, because...

But since we are looking at the UAH data - and I am very grateful you have brought it up, because it is regarded by most skeptics as the most reliable data set, I think it only fair to bring it up to date.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_current.gif (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... urrent.gif)


----------



## stevenson-again (May 31, 2012)

Guys - you really need to drop the 'the warming hasn't stopped' thing. It will really get you nowhere. It's not controversial. You need to get with the aerosol angle if you want to further your case.


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:


> Guys - you really need to drop the 'the warming hasn't stopped' thing. It will really get you nowhere. It's not controversial. You need to get with the aerosol angle if you want to further your case.



Please Rohan, please present some evidence, stop just insisting you're right. :roll:

*In every single graph you've posted its shown warming since 1995 and 2000*, even in the latest one! I also showed you, using the same data you used a page earlier, that there has been clear warming since 1995 and 2000. Even your own expert Lindzen you cited in your first post also *never said* there has been no warming since 1995 either, he said no statistically significant warming, which is totally different and you need a 95% significance to achieve. You claim this is not controversial? Can you even cite one pro AGW source or expert that accepts this? This is so grossly wrong Im not going to let it fly. Deal with it properly or concede you're wrong. If its so accepted you shouldn't have any trouble, right?

Even so, the latest one you've posted by Spencer has been misrepresented in numerous ways and its one that has been dealt with many times. Why do you pick out a single set from a heap of data sets and try and imply that since it doesnt fit the others that therefore everything *else* is wrong? You say skeptics regard it as the most accurate, except for good reason it is considered one of the least accurate, the only reason skeptics like it is because its slightly out of step with the rest of them and they can more easily distort it, which is why the *Skeptical Science* page Guy posted talked about it. And why do you ask questions about it as if there's been no response or explanation of this already? Maybe you'd like to explain why *you* dont like *the responses from the climate science community* , rather than trying to make Guy give his uninformed opinion as if there isnt already an expert response? You even go on to argue against a strawman to imply Spencer's arguments are rejected out of hand just because Spencer is a Creationist! Is this misrepresentation due to you having never bothered to read any actual responses to this argument you're making, or shall I presume a more dishonest motive?

And Im still waiting for what you think a human indicator would look like in the data. If you cant tell us what you're looking for you can hardly say there's no indicator, can you?

Im not sure why you are wasting your time trying to give these Power Point- like presentations when you cant answer simple questions about your position or deal with simple claims like the one above. All you're doing is preaching to the choir, seemingly trying to do a "gish gallop", to people that don't care about your unbelievably egregious errors and misrepresentations. Do you want to do more than just that, or what?


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 31, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:


> Guy,
> 
> since you want to play the credibility game, skeptical sciences name is mud in the blogosphere. Since you are looking at the UAH data (which is the graph you have posted) I should remind you that the UAH data is published by Roy Spencer. You know, the same Roy Spencer who has no credibility because he believes in Intelligent design? So we shouldn't believe that graph because, because, because...
> 
> ...



Where the hell did that curve come from?! I'm no staticistian, but I literally laughed out loud when I saw that, based on the data. I especially love how it projects downwards into the future. 1 year below the line (as almost half will be), and it's a new cooling period.

Oh, wait a minute.... Roy Spencer's own site... oh.


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Thu May 31 said:


> Where the hell did that curve come from?! I'm no staticistian, but I literally laughed out loud when I saw that, based on the data. I especially love how it projects downwards into the future. 1 year below the line (as almost half will be), and it's a new cooling period.
> 
> Oh, wait a minute.... Roy Spencer's own site... oh.



Here's one I decided to make just now, what do you think?

*Click here for full image*


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 31, 2012)

The real question is what psychological motivation people would have for making such mooseheaded arguments.

Is it the attention? The thrill of winding up other people? Reality being too inconvenient?


----------



## stevenson-again (May 31, 2012)

> Please Rohan, please present some evidence, stop just insisting you're right.



Ok. I had hoped that you would do your own checking but if it helps you move on...

The main problem is you are not looking at what these graphs are actually saying. If you draw a graph scaled in a certain way, anything can look exciting and interesting. You have to actually sit down and work out what they telling you.

I have repeatedly said that it just well accepted that the warming has stopped over the last decade. I have also linked you to pro-AGW papers that have attempted to explain it.

But here it is roughly as it is generally accepted:

According to Santer et al we need 17 years to be confident of a trend in which we could detect an anthropogenic component. This is why Lindzen chose 1995 as a starting point for his analyses and why it is often cited. It's not unreasonable on the one hand, but it can be uninformative on the other.

Tsonis et al 2001, much cited in the IPCC reports, have a different theory regarding temperature trends, which has to do with the *climate shifts.* For example, the temperature for Europe is almost completely flat for the period of 1970 to 1986 or so and then it jumps up dramatically and is flat after that. The temperature for the US is completely different, with it's peak temperature (record year) actually higher in the 30s than the recent 1998 peak.

Then there is the cycle theory, that there are natural cycles such as the PDO (the pacific decadal oscillation) basically phases of ENSO, where there are more El Nino's for warm years and more La Nina's for cool years.

Taking the 17 year period however cuts across a climate shift, or PDO phase change reckoned to be around the time of the 1998 El Nino - which was a huge warming event.

So while it is not especially informative informative I show you a graph here where we take Ben Santers* 17 year period:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/fr ... 95/to:2012

which corresponds to 0.2 degrees per 17 years, or 0.12 per decade, or 1.2 degrees warming per century. 1.2 is reckoned to be the effect of a doubling of CO2 without feedbacks. Remember no feedbacks (ie positive) = no problem.

So now look at the graphs when we go back before the 1998-1999 turning point, and then afterwards.

Climate shift change in trends

What is generally avoided is using 1998 as an end or starting point (and the subsequent La Nina) because it is something of an outlier and can skew results either in favour of cooling or in favour of warming. If there is enough time it evens out:

1998 end and start point

In each case, the trend before and after the climate shift (if you go along with that hypotheses) is something like less than 0.05 degrees per decade. Not much to shout about.

Here is a post at Judith Curry's where the "Pause" is discussed. I realize some of you are really excising yourselves about it by I can assure, you I read these blogs daily and there is nothing controversial about the lack of warming for the last decade.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/04/pause/#more-5671

From the article:

_This concept of a recent pause in the warming seems to be fairly widely accepted by many mainstream consensus scientists (e.g. the recent Greenwire article),with explanations ranging from aerosols, to solar, to oceans. The duration and magnitude of a pause that is significant in the context of the AGW debate is debatable, but I have made some suggestions. Note that the short time scales considered here preclude determination of a statistically significant trend at the 95% confidence level, although lack of statistical signficance does not negate the existence of a pause as defined here._


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2012)

@Nick: 

No idea, some people just get set on defending a contrarian view point and at some point decide they have gone far too far down the rabbit hole to admit such basic errors which is what you see here.

I see Rohan did end up making the "co2 follows temp" claim I mentioned earlier. Sigh. I suppose to him this is all new claims no one has ever heard before, its not like its isnt a point refuted a thousand times or anything.


----------



## chimuelo (May 31, 2012)

I think there's another angle Nick .......

Guy, Ed and Jose Herring are all competing to get a project finsihed for auditoning at for the same production company.
Jose knew if he got Stevenson-Again to post some AGW stuff that Guy and Ed would become so involved and forget about the project, and spend hours trying to be the right guy, that Jose could finsih the project and get first shot and win the bid.
o[])


----------



## stevenson-again (May 31, 2012)

> I suppose to him this is all new claims no one has ever heard before, its not like its isnt a point refuted a thousand times or anything.



Can you point to where this has been refuted? Have you listened to the Salby Lecture? Can you explain why CO2 changes *lag* temperature in the Vostok ice cores?


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 31, 2012)

NEWS FLASH! 

I have solved global warming with a new filter design (patent pending).

The filter allows global warming doubters to ignore all scientific evidence that doesn't match their worldview. Even if 100% of scientists agreed that global warming was occurring with 100% confidence, the totality of the evidence would be blocked. (Of course, if that happened, earth would cease to have any average temperature whatsoever.)

My new I-don't-like-it-so-it-doesn't-exist filter will be available in drug stores located throughout tropical areas above the 60th parallel in 2050. Get yours while supplies last!


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 31, 2012)

Since no one has been in a position to answer the question about what that NASA graph actually indicates, I shall infer from that that apart from Rohan, certain people are unable to read the graphs.


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:


> If you draw a graph scaled in a certain way, anything can look exciting and interesting



I love how you make the same point to me as I already made to you a page ago when you posted the graph only showing a period of 2002 to 2012 (_which as I said earlier still shows a warming trend you deny exists)_ in order to argue there isnt really any warming going on. 



> I have repeatedly said that it just well accepted that the warming has stopped over the last decade. I have also linked you to pro-AGW papers that have attempted to explain it.



You cant be talking about the Mann, Kaufmann et all paper you posted a quote from on page 1, since that doesnt say there's been no warming since 1995 or 2000, not even in the cherry picked quote you used. Be sure to read what it actually says not what you'd like it to be saying, it does seem to be very different.



> But here it is roughly as it is generally accepted:



Firstly, lets get things straight. Judith Curry is a climate skeptic and contrarian, rightly highly criticised by proponents of AGW for many of her baseless statements and unfounded accusations and insinuations of dishonesty, you'd know that if you actually looked further afield. There's no way you could paint her views as an example of mainstream pro-AGW opinion and it really surprises me that this is your entire argument.




> According to Santer et al we need 17 years to be confident of a trend in which we could detect an anthropogenic component. This is why Lindzen chose 1995 as a starting point for his analyses and why it is often cited.



We dont just have 17 years worth of data, we have a lot more than that. We also dont just have data since 1995. Therefore it is clearly deceptive to arbitrarily pick 1995 since if Lindzen had chosen 1994 then it would have been statistically significant and Lindzen wouldnt have been able to go around saying there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995 for so long.

I see you have not replied to my points that Lindzen did not say there has been no warming at all, which if you remember was your original claim you have since repeated twice. Why do you not recognise that the warming not being statistically significant does not mean that no warming is happening? In fact Phil Jones was asked if the warming trend was statistically significant in Feb 2010 and said no, even though it was "very close" to the 95% significance level.. Thats saying its close to 5% chance the trend is NOT due to global warming! A year on and it was at that level. So either way you're completely wrong on all counts. 



> Tsonis et al 2001, much cited in the IPCC reports, have a different theory regarding temperature trends, which has to do with the *climate shifts.* For example, the temperature for Europe is almost completely flat for the period of 1970 to 1986 or so and then it jumps up dramatically and is flat after that. The temperature for the US is completely different, with it's peak temperature (record year) actually higher in the 30s than the recent 1998 peak.



Link please. But lets get back to the point shall we. You claim that there has been NO warming AT ALL since 1995. Not only that you claimed this is not contravercial. You have not backed up a single part of this claim. As I said in my previous post every single graph you have posted up till now has showed warming. 



> The there is the cycle theory, that there are natural cycles such as the PDO (the pacific decadal oscillation) basically phases of ENSO, where there are more El Nino's for warm years and more La Nina's for cool years.
> .... 1998 El Nino - which was a huge warming event.



Yes yes we already know all this, you keep trying to make arguments as if no one ever thought of it before, as if no one ever thought to factor in the PDO cycle and that if you could just get the information out there it would be obvious to everyone.

1. All the data your have posted shows warming you say doesnt exist.
2. You cite Judith Curry that believe the warming has stopped as if she represents the opinion of AGW supporters.



> ---SNIP---
> 
> What is generally avoided is using 1998 as an end or starting point (and the subsequent La Nina) because it is something of an outlier and can skew results either in favour of cooling or in favour of warming. If there is enough time it evens out:
> 
> ...



Amazing... So even though your own flawed cherry picked data still shows warming, you're still going to defend your claim that there has been no warming at all since 1995.

Secondly I have already shown youan article on SSthat talks about the UAH data, why, as I asked you before do you claim the UAH data trounces all other data sets? We already know that UAH data is flawed and unreliable as there's many biases in the methods and problems have had to have been corrected on numerous occasions and the trend almost always goes *up*. Other researchers analysing the satellite temperature data don't agree with Spencer and the RATPAC (weather balloon) data agrees with the higher temperature estimates. As SS puts it, "_The microwave sounding units (MSU) aboard the satellites don't actually measure air temperature, but rather the intensity of microwave radiation given off by oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, and the intensity of this radiation is a proxy for air temperature. Given that the radiation reaches the satellite sensors having travelled through a warming lower atmosphere and cooling stratosphere, that bias exists between the various sensors, issues with orbital decay, and a host of other obstacles, there's a lot of careful and painstaking analysis required, and much that can go wrong. "_ 


You post *this graph* and then imply that the trend line would have continued on as it did between 1979 and 1998?*I chopped out 1998 El Nino spike and drew the trend line over again*, it still fits even without it, it certainly doesnt fit what you seem to be arguing. In fact I needn't have bothered since actual scientists *have already done such a graph removing El Nino.* 1979 to 1999 trend is 0.10oC per decade, the 1999 to 2010 is 0.21oC per decade. The removal of El Nino does nothing you'd like it to do, since its an *average*. Yes anomalies like this can affect the bias of the trend line, but this is * precisely *the reason why you need to look at much longer time periods to determine statistical significance and why the whole no warming since 1995 is so indefensible. 



> Here is a post at Judith Curry's where the "Pause" is discussed. I realize some of you are really excising yourselves about it by I can assure, you I read these blogs daily and there is nothing controversial about the lack of warming for the last decade.



Since she is an admitted climate skeptic and is criticised all over the place for her views, your argument is invalid. I asked for pro AGW sources that have no problem with the idea that there has been no warming AT ALL since 1995 to prove this is not controversial. Curry's opinion is not an example of mainstream pro-AGW opinion and you would be wise to just admit you are incorrect in suggesting she is, otherwise this is another indefensible claim you're making. You have also failed to demonstrat that the data shows no warming, your own inaccurate data you selectively choose to hinge your entire point on still doesnt even support the idea that no warming has occurred. You try and quote graphs and data that literally show the opposite of what you're saying it says. 

In case you were wondering where and how Curry is criticised, here's a *small *sampling.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... erts-foot/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic ... _Curry.htm
http://skepticalscience.com/baked-curry ... cline.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... statement/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... onference/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/0 ... yre-watts/
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/0 ... in-schmid/


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 31 said:


> Since no one has been in a position to answer the question about what that NASA graph actually indicates, I shall infer from that that apart from Rohan, certain people are unable to read the graphs.



That Co2 correlates with the warming, but since you ignored my response to you I'll take it you have no idea why scientists believe that human influence through Co2 is the cause of the warming we're seeing and you have no idea what a human signature would even look like. Keep those wheels spinnin' Stephen...


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:


> > I suppose to him this is all new claims no one has ever heard before, its not like its isnt a point refuted a thousand times or anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you point to where this has been refuted? Have you listened to the Salby Lecture? Can you explain why CO2 changes *lag* temperature in the Vostok ice cores?



Yes its been refuted a thousand times, its one of those often repeated canards. What you have unconsciously admitted here is that you are not saying that all the responses are not good enough, but rather you simply don't know of any. So again I have to point of the fact that you do not seem to be aware of just how debunked this claim already is shows how much you look outside of your skeptic sources. Guy even gave you a link earlier but still you act like you have never heard any of this before.

Do you believe the Great Global Warming Swindle a generally good credible film as well? Thats a famous example of the use of this "co2 lag" claim. If so, thats exactky my point. That film is the easiest thing to pull apart and *should *be the most embarrassing thing for GW skeptics, but they really dont seem to care how poor their claims are or hold themselves accountable for their errors.

Here's just few examples of popular sites that debunk this claim:
http://tinyurl.com/cm5d4s (made tiny as the auto-hyperlink didnt work, also links to other sites that address the claim)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... p-and-co2/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lag ... rature.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun- ... p-lag.html

Rather watch a video?


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 1, 2012)

> You cant be talking about the Mann, Kaufmann et all paper you posted a quote from on page 1



Mann is not involved in that paper. It is Kaufmann et al. I suggest you read it and what I was saying about it again.



> Judith Curry is a climate skeptic and contrarian



isms and ad hominems and even then you are not correct. Judith Curry describes herself as a warmist, but highly critical of the IPCC. I strongly suggest you get yourself some information. Secondly she is a climate scientist publishing regularly and highly respected. She is 'in the game' as it were and knows what goes on.



> We dont just have 17 years worth of data, we have a lot more than that. We also dont just have data since 1995. Therefore it is clearly deceptive to arbitrarily pick 1995 since if Lindzen had chosen 1994 then it would have been statistically significant and Lindzen wouldnt have been able to go around saying there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995 for so long.



Ed you don't know what you are talking about, which is why I am posting all this stuff here. Go and CHECK what I am saying and try to understand it instead of just bloviating. We do NOT have much more data than 1995 - for the UAH series. It ONLY goes back to 1979. That's because it is satellite data. By all means extend it back to 1979, you will NOT get a very significant trend of warming beyond the 17 years I showed you. I explained why 17 years is accepted - it is and it isn't. Ben Santer does not have a great deal of credibility amongst skeptics for a variety of reasons, but 17 years is not considered unreasonable length of time to determine a trend and skeptics have shrugged their shoulders and run with it. The problem is that trends *change*. The period where it is considered to be a turning point, where other data series show a clear rise in temperatures is until the 1998-2002 period after which the trend flattens.

You can't just simply extend the trend back for as long as you want and say anything meaningful about that. How far do you want to go back? Go back a century and you will get a 0.8 degree rise. It's considered by the IPCC that roughly the starting point to consider human emissions as being significant enough to have an effect on temperatures as being from 1970 where temperatures started to rise compared to the 30 year period before it.

All the data series, including the UAH have problems with them. I know what they are if you are interested. However, all of them show a flattening trend over the last decade. That's really significant because we have been putting increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and the models all predicted that temperatures would continue to rise or rise even faster. That they haven't done so tells us something about the transient climate sensitivity, and it' response to CO2. Remember *CO2 alone* is not the big deal, it's the *feedbacks*.



> Secondly I have already shown you an article on SS that talks about the UAH data, why, as I asked you before do you claim the UAH data trounces all other data sets?



SS is not the most credible of sources. You wouldn't know that unless you were participating regularly on the various blogs. The warmist/alarmist that take on skeptics tend to avoid using that site because it plays into their (the skeptics) hands somewhat. The reason why UAH is considered the most reliable data set is because it is satellite measurements that are free of contaminating factors that affect surface stations, such as UHI and poor station siting. You have RSS as an alternative satellite measurement, but those in the know have criticisms about that that has to do with instrument calibration - which is not the same as discounting it altogether - I am not saying that. All of the data sets have their problems. UAH will give you a very tiny warming over the last decade, HADCRUT 3 will give you slight cooling, HADCRUT 4 will give you a completely flat trend, BEST will give you a small warming, GISS will give you a flat trend or the most tiniest of cooling not worth mentioning (although I did). Yet most skeptics will point top the UAH series as the one they feel most comfortable with.


Ed - I mentioned earlier that I read various climate blogs and participate on the daily. I have even downloaded the odd data set and reconstructed them myself


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 1, 2012)

PS. the reason why SS does not do so well in arguments is because they misrepresent and mischaracterize the skeptic position. I really don't want to go into why - it's a distraction. Just lets look at evidence and if you want to post from SS then fine.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jun 1, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu May 31 said:


> Guy,
> 
> since you want to play the credibility game, skeptical sciences name is mud in the blogosphere. Since you are looking at the UAH data (which is the graph you have posted) I should remind you that the UAH data is published by Roy Spencer. You know, the same Roy Spencer who has no credibility because he believes in Intelligent design? So we shouldn't believe that graph because, because, because...
> 
> ...



Ah, good morning everyone, welcome to round #423,677.

I'm still staggered at this. Ed's done a fine job at mopping up all the other issues. I did enjoy Chimuelo's and Jon's jokes, but neither quite as funny as Roy's graph here.

It feels like a "I need go no further" moment. Rohan, presumably you linked this approvingly to show that, in fact, with another 1 year of data, it proves we're now cooling again. If so, if I've made that assumption correctly, I can see no value in continuing a rational debate.

Let's consider it more closely for a moment, to take in the breathtaking scale of it. Now, the first thing to note is that it starts in 1979 - there's a perfectly valid reason for this, since that's the year the UAH starts. Fine. But you'll notice the curve drawn to illustrate the trend is already going down. Well that's a bit odd, isn't it? Well, let's look at other temperature records to see what else was happening in the 1970s, to see if the trend was indeed higher than the early 80s. Well, there's a whole slew of them here - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ . And blimey crikey charlie - they all show a steady RISE in the 1970s. So that UAH downward beginning looks, well, made up.

Now let's look at the downward end, for where we are today. The 13 month average for the previous year was very high +0.2 degrees above the overall trend, and on a level with the huge freak 1998. Taken as a whole to that point, the overall trend looks exactly as SS portrayed it - a slow, steady increase. Now we have another 1 year of data, and that falls -0.05% below the line. This is not only now defined as a new cooling cycle, Roy goes further and actually becomes a prophet reading into 2013, which continues the downward trend. That too is made up. So he's invented a neat looking regular curve over the data which is made up.

Rohan, this is the core of my problem with your evidence. Stuff like this looks very similar to what the laughable Global Warming Swindle program did, where they literally mislabled axis, misattributed sources and shamlessly cherry picked data to invent graphs out of thin air.

Now, I'm not asking you to suddenly switch sides (which is wholly unrealistic). But by continually claiming that warming has stopped as a FACT, you are arguing yourself out of the debate. Clearly it is not a fact. Again, maybe it has - we'll look back in another 15 or 20 years and see everything has stopped. But a) that's impossible to know now, and b) the majority of experts in the field do not believe that is what is occuring. A casual glance at the temperature sets on the NASA site reveals different takes on the past 10-15 years - some look flattish to the naked eye, some look like they are rising. So to claim it is a fact that it has stopped is absurd.

And this doesn't negate that things almost certainly WOULD be worse if it weren't for aerosols. That's been known for many decades, indeed is a horrible irony that as environmental pollution is cleaned up, the overall temperature problem gets worse. Despite the aerosols and anything the sun is up to, overall we still at this stage appear to still be warming.

Indeed, one doesn't need to bother with any data at all to prove that your claim of the warming having stopped being a fact can be shown to be false. Real Climate is the home of the mainstream view, that's where you go if you want to hear the views of mainstream climate science from the collective horses mouth. Here is something Gavin Schmidt wrote a couple of months ago on a post regarding an update of a temperature graph:



> Since the “no warming since 1998/1995/2002″ mantra is so seductive to people who like to focus on noise rather than signal, the minor adjustments in the last decade will attract the most criticism. Since these fixes really just bring the CRU product into line with everyone else, including the reanalyses, and are completely unsurprising, we can expect many accusations of groupthink, deliberate fraud and ‘manipulation’. Because, why else would scientists agree with each other?



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ture-data/

My point in quoting that is not to show that Schmidt is "right" but to demonstrate the mainstream view. You may completely disregard that mainstream view, Rohan - indeed it seems you do - but you cannot then claim your own conclusions as "fact". It's a logical fallacy. You can't carry on quoting a paper looking at a very specific 10 year period from Kaufmann et al, and then use it as an argument that mainstream scientists say that warming has stopped. They don't, because they believe it hasn't (in 2011 Mann said "the claim that 'global warming has stopped' is simply false" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... al-climate - so that's the view of a very mainstream climate scientist). And Ed is also right - you can't quote Curry as an objective witness here either. As Ed posted, her work so far is not highly regarded. She is in the game, but hardly a major player, and reflects views that are not in the broad consensus. You talk of misrepresenting - well if you claim she represents the mainstream AGW view, there's a good example.

There's a terrific saying - "people have the right to their own opinions, but don't have the right to their own facts". Ed, Nick, myself and others are not saying that it is a FACT that there has been recent warming, we are using the language of science (likely, highly probable) etc. You are claiming facts where there are none to be claimed, indeed it is easily disproved that they cannot be considered facts at this time. That isn't science, it's rhetoric or faith.

And by proudly linking stuff which is plain made up like the Spencer Curve, you do your case no favours whatsover. It reinforces the impression that you see what you want to see, only listen to the voices you want to hear. You've accused me of ad hominem attacts. Well, I guess that's a fair cop in the case of Spencer. If someone believes in something they call science - Intelligent Design - whose claims of Irreducible Complexity have been scientifically DISPROVED (not a matter of opinion) then absolutely I question their scientific judgement. If I announced that I was actually a believer in a flat earth, I'd expect you all - rightly - to jump on me in an instant. (TANGENT - broader issues such as belief in God are another matter entirely, since it's not stuff that is disproved and far from it. This is basic verifiable stuff). Roy Spencer literally believes in the impossible, and that's not good for a scientist. So seeing his curve is perhaps no surprise. Now, you can brush that away with an "ad hominem" flick of the wrist, but it seems entirely logical to me. If I climate scientists who accepts the AGW consensus is also on record in believing in Intelligent Design, I'd stop listening to that voice and quoting them in a second.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 1, 2012)

Good lord. Is there a prize for the winner?? There certainly should be, given the impressive efforts.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 1, 2012)

Guy,

The lack of warming in the past decade is not controversial in climate science circles. I say this as a regular lurker at most of the major climate change blogs. But I actually don't want you to take my word for it - I want you to *check for yourself*.

You again dismiss Roy Spencer and Judith Curry without regard for what they have to say - and I think that is highly deplorable of you, and way beneath you. You worry about faith-based opinions, but you constantly refer to a consensus or your idea of authority to help form your opinion. THAT is faith based. You are getting bent out of shape about the line drawn through Roy Spencers graph without actually checking what he has to say about it. Roy Spencer is the scientist in charge of the UAH data series and satellite measurements. It's his graphs that SS use. Go and *check* to see what that line actually means - you are making assumptions about it without checking or understanding it.

You know very little about the climate change issue and Ed even less and I am trying to at least give you a better perspective. Don't take my word for it - but DO check for yourself and stop the nonsense authority based arguments - don't take their word for it either. I am less tolerant of that approach from you because you are based in the UK where the issue is not so politicised. There are reasons why Ed and others like him based in the US have such trenchant views which I will come to in due course.

Go to wood for trees and start playing around with the data sets - it's not hard. Look at the picture I posted of models versus actual temperature change. Look at the links I posted in my previous post. Even Phil Jones admitted there was no statistically significant warming since 1995:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

Go to wood for trees and look at the long term trend - say 30 - 40 years (this is the period considered by the IPCC to have had an anthropogenic component) a medium term trend say 20 years and a short term trend, say 10 years. when doing the short term trend - be careful because end points in such a noisy signal can make a trend that short deceptive BOTH ways. You will notice that the trend *changes* ie it gets flatter the shorter the period. This is the opposite of what should be happening according to the models.

But finally look at the AMOUNT of actual warming. Actually READ the graphs don't just look at the pretty picture and see that it is pointing up a bit. For CO2 + Feedbacks to be alarming there needs to be a trend of more than 0.2 to 0.3 degrees per decade according to Gavin Schmidt. There has been *nothing like* that amount of warming over the last decade *despite* human emissions having gone up faster than ever.

Finally, it is what you call a 'strawman argument' to say to skeptics "you say there has been no warming - but there has!". Most if not all skeptics agree that the earth has warmed. What they do not agree is the extent to which CO2 was responsible. They point to the model expectations of warming based on a theory of how extra CO2 can induce positive feedbacks not tallying with observations. If you theory does not match observations, then your theory is wrong. That's science.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jun 1, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Fri Jun 01 said:


> Guy,
> 
> The lack of warming in the past decade is not controversial in climate science circles. I say this as a regular lurker at most of the major climate change blogs. But I actually don't want you to take my word for it - I want you to *check for yourself*.
> 
> ...



We have been here before many times Rohan. The last thing I'm going to do is start plundering datasets and analysing them myself, and I've explained why. Can I therefore ask directly - why do you consider your own analysis superior to those who are most qualified in the field? That's my entire view on the subject - I can't wish to compete, I appeal to the most credible authority therefore.

Speaking of which, there's a limit to how many times I can post this, but Mann believes warming has definitely not stopped (and obviously he is not alone). Given his credentials, that's the end of the argument for claiming that its a fact that it hasn't. It's that simple.

You're right, I'm not very interested in what Spencer has to say. Can you explain to me why I should listen to a scientist who is on record as believing the impossible? If I have that bit wrong, I'll gladly reconsider my position.

Curry is totally different, and I don't disregard what she says (where did I say I do?). My point in context of the last post is that her views are not consistent with the AGW mainstream, which you seemed to be suggesting they were. Her work so far hasn't been broadly accepted and Ed I believe has linked some of the debate on that. So I have no beef with her, but see her in context of the overall community.

Phil Jones - brace yourself for an Ed explosion (which imo would be justified). Again, you raise this like it's a new point and none of the reubuttal that has been made exists. But just for kicks - http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jo ... e-1995.htm

I think we all know that contrarian arguments differ, indeed that itself is a very interesting point - so your saying that I'm creating a strawman is itself a strawman! Some say there's no warming, some say there is but it's not our fault etc. That's all standard stuff. As to CO2 not matching models, well forgive but...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/exponen ... arming.htm (towards the bottom).

I have to say, despite your saying that SS does not adequately reflect the contrarian positions, it's hitting every one of yours bang on the head.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 1, 2012)

> Can I therefore ask directly - why do you consider your own analysis superior to those who are most qualified in the field? That's my entire view on the subject - I can't wish to compete, I appeal to the most credible authority therefore.



Guy - it is NOT just my opinion. All sorts of scientists including many from the "Team" (do you know what I mean when I say "Team") do acknowledge the slow down in temperatures. There are just countless scientists that are either climate scientists or meteorologists who from related fields who know how to understand this data.



> My point in context of the last post is that her views are not consistent with the AGW mainstream, which you seemed to be suggesting they were.



You simply don't understand her position and this line of reasoning does not hold. Are the entirety of her views consistent with the mainstream? Are some of her views consistent with the mainstream? Of the views that are not consistent, what are her justifications and do they seem reasonable to you? Why should she hold views that are consistent with the mainstream and how would that serve science for her to hold the same views? Simply a blanket characterisation is *mis-characterising* her position. She is highly regarded and respected, was invited to be an author of the up-coming AR5, and extremely effective communicator on an extremely complex subject.

Since you want to use SS stuff that's fine - but again they mischaracterise the points made against especially the C part of CAGW.

This is the data set they are using taking us up to 2012.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcru ... 2012/trend

There is an upward trend no doubt about it. *how much* is that trend? According to the graph they have, 0.11 degree per decade. That equates to 1.1 degree per century - not even skeptics dispute this - but it's not enough to cause alarm. In my graph which is more up to date, it's about 0.1.

Now go to the second series and change trend line start point to 1997. Actually do this yourself don't click on the following link unless you have to:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcru ... 2012/trend

Notice that the trend flattens. What is generally regarded as being pretty undisputed is that at the very least the warming has slowed or plateaued - the warmists call it a "pause" because they expect the warming to continue (actually so do most skeptics except they think it will start warming again around 2030 for various pretty interesting and reasonable reasons).

What we need is another decade of warming starting as soon as possible of around 0.4 to 0.5 degrees to offset this rather flat one. That would take the trend off the top of the graph but it would bring observed temps back in line with model projections. We have never recorded such a fast temp change, and combined with the current lower solar activity it would put CAGW right back on the table.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 1, 2012)

Throughout recorded history individual and political opinion has always polarized into two camps. There are those who fundamentally believe that humanity is irredeemably lost, that people must be subordinated to social control and that individual choice cannot lead to desirable social outcomes; and there are those who take the opposite view. This is what I describe as the ‘pessimistic’ and the ‘optimistic’ view of humanity – this distinction has been manifest in many ways: the catholic versus the protestant, the communist versus the capitalist, and now those who support the CAGW version of environmentalism and those who do not.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990′s the pessimists were in disarray. Communism, the creed which had emerged as the 20th Century expression of the pessimists’ agenda had collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. For a short while those who believed that humanity could, through individual action and freedom, create a better world appeared to have won the argument. The retreating left had to find something – anything – to turn the tide in their favour. They needed a much more sophisticated argument to express their world view – an incontrovertible argument that would allow them to capture the moral high ground and be sufficiently alarming in its implications to win over politicians and populations to their agenda. The beauty of CAGW is that it cannot be fixed by the individual or indeed the individual state. It needs a global solution because if runaway global warming has the potential to wipe out a large proportion of humanity then action to prevent it must be equally drastic. THe little poeple must be protected, as they are helpless w/o massive Governments.

However, the last dozen years have not been good for those who take a more optimistic and liberal view of humanity. The turn of the century brought a nasty dose of millennium angst and a fundamental questioning about where we go from here. Y2K, the dot.com crash, 9/11, financial boom and bust have all produced fertile ground for the pessimists to regroup and in climate science they found their Trojan Horse. Here was a relatively new science bringing under a single umbrella a wide range of sub-disciplines: geo-physics, oceanography, meteorology and many others – all populated by scientists who whilst not technically involved in atmospheric physics might well be sympathetic to the central CAGW message.

By good fortune for the pessimists, a small sub-group of relatively modest UK and US research institutions had been developing their specialism investigating the recent history of global temperature change and the role of CO2 and other atmospheric gases in regulating the climate. Bring them together with a group of savvy and articulate protectors of the little people, establish a UN panel with the remit of winnowing out of the scientific literature anything which supported the CAGW position and marginalised anything that challenged it, and the Trojan Horse was assembled.

The attack came on two fronts: first the CAGW narrative had to be sufficiently persuasive to win over those scientists whose research, no matter how tangential to the central thesis, would give it added credibility. With this a claim of ‘scientific consensus’ could be established supported by the various scientific bodies who in one way or other act as mouthpieces for the scientific community. Second, the political agenda had to be captured. In this the pessimists were aided by another social and political change.

Across the major economies, politicians had found it increasingly difficult to relieve their populations of their cash. The old approaches to the taxation of income were no longer viable – so called ‘progressive’ taxation and the ‘welfarism’ it supported were becoming very unpopular. Politicians, who by and large are a pragmatic lot, had to find ways of relieving us of our cash by stealth. In the UK, for example, hundreds of tax wheezes were invented to raise taxes in ways the political class hoped would go unnoticed. Furthermore, stealth taxes are much harder to avoid – no accountant or tax lawyer can reduce the tax you pay when you buy a new TV, fill your car with fuel or buy an airline ticket. So the last 20 years have been characterized by a search for new ways to relieve us of our money. In CAGW, the scientific and moral argument could be made for the ultimate stealth tax. Use energy and we will tax you.

And so we have it: a potent brew of political fundamentalism, fiscal expediency, social anxiety, uncertain science and huge vested interests. I do not think science can now resolve the debate about global warming. It is not that the science is of no consequence – it has simply been marginalised in the much bigger social and political debate that is underway. Scientists are highly specialised, discoveries come in bits and the knowledge gained is provisional. For the young working scientist cracking the next problem and publishing the result is the main priority. They will interpret the significance of what they discover, just like the rest of us, according to their underlying beliefs about the way the world works. But as far as the bigger picture is concerned their views are no better than anyone else’s.

The positive message is that the tide is now beginning to turn against the pessimists. Climategate and all that went with it gave hope to those arguing against the CAGW orthodoxy. But in the end the revelations were not conclusive. What is and will be conclusive is the fact that the climate is simply not playing ball. The balmy climate of the last 50 years may be coming to an end. Global temperatures appear to have steadied over the last ten year, the rate of increase in sea level is slowing and across the planet things are not quite going the way the prophets of doom would have us believe. It is not decisive yet but in 5 years it might well be, and as further good quality research establishes the role of other forcings in climate change the pessimists will have to look for another outlet for their world view. But be of no doubt – they will. The battle will be reengaged but next time on a different stage.

Damn Big Al was so close.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail ... n-on-wuwt/


----------



## Ed (Jun 1, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Fri Jun 01 said:


> . Even Phil Jones admitted there was no statistically significant warming since 1995:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm



:shock: :shock: :shock: *ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDING ME  * :shock: :shock: :shock: 

Before I address anything else you've said (_massive goal post moving and all_), can you please explain to me how on earth you have managed to quote-mine Phil Jones even after I have already preemptively explained what Jones was saying in detail here in multiple posts just on this thread alone, not counting all the others on the previous thread trying to get Stephen to admit he had taken Jones out of context. Just go back and look, multiple times in various different ways have I already debunked this unbelievably stupid quote-mine. This means you either did not read or did not understand what I have previously posted, either would be surprising at this point, the alternative is you are being dishonest but I find it hard to believe you would be stupid enough to make such a simple claim you already know is so utterly debunked in the same thread, even on the same page, by the people you are talking to AND as if we've never heard it before. 

*Phil Jones NEVER said or implied that there was no warming since 1995. He actually said the complete opposite. * You have not read the quote in context nor have you understood what statistical significance is, and by now you really should considering how many times I have brought it up.

Do you have *ANYTHING *better than misquotes Rohan? Why should anyone take you seriously when you cant even get this simple thing right? Skeptics like you like to pretend they are scientific and that may convince some people, but when it comes down to it they act like you do right here. Misquoting people they dont agree with because they would *prefer *it if they were saying something they arent. That might work with the Daily Mail or on WhatsUpWithThat but when someone actually knows what the guy said in context and understands what he meant you aren't going to get away with it. Quote-mines like this have to be the surest marker possible of an untenable bankrupt position.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 1, 2012)

Get a clue Ed. *Statistically significant warming.*

This non-controversial in climate change blogs.

Please seriously think about this:

The point is there may have been warming, but it is NOT enough to warrant alarm. 0.1 degree per decade is 1 degree warming per century.

What they *expected* to happen did not happen: namely that warming trend would *increase*.

These are not misquotes, and I fully understand *exactly* what was being said. 

Think about this for a moment: I have trawled the climate change blogs daily for a number of years. I know the arguments and the counter arguments. There are counter arguments you can make to support the AGW case but you have not made them. When I finish posting what I have to post on this topic I will make some arguments for the AGW case for you.

In the mean time I think you need to take a step back, realize you don't really have full grasp on the issues in the debate and try to debate with evidence that you have yourself checked and investigated, rather than parrot extremist opinions. In that way you'll educate yourself on what is a really vast and extremely complex issue, full of uncertainties but unfailingly fascinating and rewarding.


----------



## Ed (Jun 1, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Fri Jun 01 said:


> Get a clue Ed. *Statistically significant warming.*
> 
> This non-controversial in climate change blogs.



Are you seriously telling me you see no difference between saying "_there is no warming_" and _"the warming has stopped_", and saying there has been _"no statistically significant warming_"? :shock: You DO understand they dont mean the same thing, right??

You claimed it is not controversial that the warming has stopped, but cite people like Judith Curry to prove that, a self described "climate heretic" (skeptic) as if her opinion is representative of the mainstream AGW position. You couldn't possibly get the idea that her opinion represents what you want it to even if you only ever read her blog! Its like if a Creationist said it was uncontested that there are no transitional fossils and gives someone like Roy Spencer as an example to prove it.

Then you cite Phil Jones that *never *said or implied that the warming has stopped since 1995. He *explicitly *says the complete opposite in the very BBC interview you posted. Why do you refuse to actually read it? I dare you to actually post some quotes from that interview since if you did you might realise where you went wrong. Jones certainly didnt say or imply there has been no warming, that it had stopped, paused, *or* that the warming wasnt significant even back in Feb 2010 when the interview was conducted and he certainly didnt a year later when he said it _was_ statistically significant, nor does he believe that now in 2012 which even if we ignore your use of his BBC quote would be enough to prove he doesn't agree with what you say he does. But even though he was first to say you skeptics misquoted him on this, you're still going to argue over 2 years later that not only were you originally right, but that Jones (_despite him saying he doesnt)_ STILL believes it now!?

And btw your own data does not show only 0.1 degree per decade, I posted the adjusted trend to account for El Nino so I dont know where you managed to find such a incompetent analysis but it probably comes from the same place that managed to convince you Phil Jones said the opposite of what he said and believes what he specifically says he doesnt believe. From what you posted of how you obtained your figures, it seems you literally are doing what this graph shows here. 

Just to be clear.... "no statistically significant warming" does* not mean* "no warming" or "there has been no significant warming". There is a massive gulf of a difference, and you'd know already if you'd read what Jones had said at the time. For something to be said to be "statistically significant" is *SPECIFIC* and requires the data to trend towards the 95% significance level, in Feb 2010 it was 93%. 2% more and Jones would have said YES, the warming is statistically significant since 1995. At the time of that interview his data showed that there was only 7% chance statistically that the warming trend was NOT due to global warming (thats why he says it was close to the 95% significance level). Looking for statistically significance does not question whether any warming is happening at all, it means between 1995 and 2009 we would need enough data points (95% significance) to statistically say with high certainty that the observed warming _between these dates_ could be attributed primarily to global warming and not some other factor. Why, why why, do you act like he is believes the opposite of what he actually thinks? 

If you really cant see any difference between the statements you or Curry have made compared with what people like Jones have said, then you really shouldn't embarrass yourself further by acting like you know what you're talking about.


----------



## midphase (Jun 1, 2012)

Lil' Ed makes me proud!


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jun 1, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Fri Jun 01 said:


> > Can I therefore ask directly - why do you consider your own analysis superior to those who are most qualified in the field? That's my entire view on the subject - I can't wish to compete, I appeal to the most credible authority therefore.
> 
> 
> 
> Guy - it is NOT just my opinion. All sorts of scientists including many from the "Team" (do you know what I mean when I say "Team") do acknowledge the slow down in temperatures. There are just countless scientists that are either climate scientists or meteorologists who from related fields who know how to understand this data.



You haven't answered the question. My question is - why do keep imploring us all to evaluate the data independently when it is clearly beyond our capability to do so? There's always this sense of admonishment if we don't read up all the data to post-degree level, which is the level required to assess much of this. It appears you do consider yourself qualified to assess things independently, and I'd still like to hear more on that.



stevenson-again @ Fri Jun 01 said:


> > My point in context of the last post is that her views are not consistent with the AGW mainstream, which you seemed to be suggesting they were.
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't understand her position and this line of reasoning does not hold. Are the entirety of her views consistent with the mainstream? Are some of her views consistent with the mainstream? Of the views that are not consistent, what are her justifications and do they seem reasonable to you? Why should she hold views that are consistent with the mainstream and how would that serve science for her to hold the same views? Simply a blanket characterisation is *mis-characterising* her position. She is highly regarded and respected, was invited to be an author of the up-coming AR5, and extremely effective communicator on an extremely complex subject.



This is her own description of her herself and the purpose of her blog:



> I look forward to a growing climate heretics club, where people that generally support the IPCC consensus (either currently or in the past) dare to question aspects of it.



Which is fine - but it doesn't place her firmly in the mainstream, which was the only point I was making. By her own words. That doesn't mean she has nothing to contribute or isn't in the field - she does and she is. But it doesn't place her in the centre of mainstream, and (as you have not acknowledged) her work to date has received criticism.



stevenson-again @ Fri Jun 01 said:


> > Since you want to use SS stuff that's fine - but again they mischaracterise the points made against especially the C part of CAGW.
> >
> > This is the data set they are using taking us up to 2012.
> >
> > ...



Actually you're right - that graph thing is rather fun. Here's some of my results:

Very little warming

Warming from 1980 - 1990 is about 0.05 degrees
Warming from 1980 - 1995 is about 0.1 degrees

Cooling

Cooling from 1988 to 1997 is about 0.01 degree
Cooling from 2002 - 2008 is about 0.08 degrees

Hey, it's almost like lil' ol me - with no qualifications at all - can make it say whatever I want!

If we take 1990 - 2012, we get about 0.3 degrees.
Pick '95 and it slows. Pick 2011 and it speeds up again (I don't know how it handles partial years).

Now, I thought you were arguing for a period of 17 years (15? 17?) in which case - we have warming (depending on exactly which date you pick). Which means that it is not a "fact" that there is none.

Come to think of it, I'm confused about what you're arguing for now, anyway. Is it still a fact that there is no warming over the past 15 years? Or is it now 0.1 degrees per decade which isn't worth worrying about? 

Are you saying that because, depending on what figures you put into a little web app, you can make either flat lines or shallow ones, there's nothing to worry about? See, that would strike me as possibly simplistic.

See now, here's another link to SS which deals with this http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earth-e ... arming.htm . According to IPCC projections, the bang on average amount of warming we would expect to date is about 1 degree. We actually have 0.8 degrees. That doesn't sound a million miles off to me, and apparently we have the sun, aerosols and all sorts giving us an easy ride right now. I see very little evidence to be unconcerned.


----------



## zacnelson (Jun 4, 2012)

@ Chimuelo, I love that long post you did on Friday, quoting that article summarising the way the CAGW cause has been latched onto by left wing groups desperate for a unifying metanarrative to push their agenda of wealth re-distribution and one world government. So true! According to reports from the Copenhagen conference a few years ago, there was an astounding dominance of activist groups there from socialist or communist organisations, not environmentalist. Because they understood exactly the implications of the CAGW agenda; it is the perfect tool to enforce larger government, and to bring down the west. Ironically this cause is championed by mostly white middle class westerners with a guilt complex. And yet they expect the second and third world countries to go without the cheap and abundant source of energy that enabled western cultures to raise their standard of living decades ago. If all of this hysteria could be channeled into something of worth, think of the REAL issues of global poverty and disease that could be addressed. They want to lower the standard of living for the enitre world, instead of raising the standard of living for the impoverished parts of the world. I think AIDS in Africa is a more worthwhile cause for the leaders of nations to unite about, rather than naive notions about `improving' the climate.

In Australia the Greens movement is mostly populated by former members of socialist or communist parties or organisations, who recognise that the Green zeitgeist is the fashionable vehicle to attach their broader agendas to. The genuine old-school environmentalists are no longer the norm; the Green political platform focuses on all sorts of restrictive public policy and social engineering etc and the traditional environmentalist concerns are more of a footnote. Recently certain high-profile Greens Party high priests in Australia have openly declared the essential need for a `one world parliament' and the `suspension of democracy' (these are exact quotes) in order to tackle CAGW. Now THAT is alarming.


----------



## zacnelson (Jun 4, 2012)

@ Stevenson-Again

Firstly, let me compliment you for your thorough and well-researched posts. You express yourself very clearly. I have previously read almost all the stuff you have shown (although some of this stuff is hard to come by when the newspapers her in Australia are so biased in favour of CAGW!!), however you have a great ability to condense the information into readable portions. 

I was wondering, have you ever considered compiling some kind of website, or PDF document summarising your findings? I think what is unique about your approach is that you are coming from a genuinely interrogative position, and that previously you believed the populist CAGW position. Therefore your ability to create a synthesis of different sources and to provide an inductive logical path to your conclusion would make for an effective communication tool.

I also noticed you have an Australian flag on your posts, but it says you are located in London. Are you originally from Australia?


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 4, 2012)

Funny thing is, wherever you see George Soros money, you can pretty well know it's the utopian world that H.G.Wells wrote about decades ago.
I do really want to hold hands and skip through fileds of Lillies w/ N.Koreans, but I just can't envision that at this time.

FWIW I am a Conservationalist, which means I hunt and Fish, and I hate Japnese Whalers, but would never march with anti pipeline people, so I am similar to world leaders. I " evolve " and " refine " my positions as I learn more.
I love the Ice Core Scientists as only they have actual records that show what high concentrations of Co2 have done in the past, and what they " might " do in the future. Fascinating stuff.
But the data is inconclusive, but chance does favor the prepared mind.

Natural Gas is the best way forward, so when I see the Greens wasting time with Bird killing Wind Turbines and Billions of wasted taxpayer money on useles Solar Panels, I look to the other side of the equation, and drill baby drill isn't my idea either.

Odd that the best alternative isn't being heralded by either side.
This is just another reminder of who they really work for, and it sure isn't us.

Peace.


----------



## Ed (Jun 4, 2012)

Zac Im disapointed. 

Rohen has showed he doesnt even know what statistical significance means and cant even stop himself from quoting people out of context. His own data debunks his claims, since every single graph he has posted shows warming since 1995, warming he denies exists. He claims the idea that warming has stopped is not contraversial, but to prove that cites a self described climate skeptic and quote-mines Phil Jones. When I have specifically explained what Jones meant in almost every post in different ways he just cannot bring himself to accept that the people he relies on for informatiom have lied to him. Jones believes, even at the time of this BBC quote, the complete opposite of what skeptics like Rohan pretend he beleves. Its a lie, plain and simple, and Rohan defends it because he has to otherwise he has to admit that people like Richard Lindzen are dishonest. Make no mistake, these are *entirely *indefensible claims and that is easily proved. Yes, PROVED, not just asserted. I can easily prove to you that what Rohan is saying is not just false, but the people who said it must have known it was false before they said it. It is not a matter of debate. He even uses the well debunked "Co2 follows temperature" canard. He doesnt need to make a website since everything he is saying is parroted directly from websites like Whats Up With That or Judith Curry.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jun 4, 2012)

Well Ed, it all backs up my sig - people just believe whatever they want to believe. It's that simple.

To a casual observer witnessing all the passionate debate here, they'd come away with "6 of one and half a dozen of the other". Some say this, some say that, who knows. I'd like to bring it back to one major difference certainly with my position and that of the Contrarians - I've gone on record as saying what evidence it would take to change my mind. Conspicuously, nobody arguing against has dared tackle that very revealing question. That, to me, is the difference between faith and evidence-based positions.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 5, 2012)

If they really cared about cutting emmissions, we'd have GM building Natural Gas cars.
Every Bus here in Las Vegas is Natural Gas. All public transportations is Mag-Lev, and Natural Gas.
China has proclaimed they will build no more combustible engines, but rather electric ( since they burn more Coal than we do) and Natural Gas.

So no matter if Big Oil/Coal is funding the scientists, or the UN Slush funds and Billions Al Gore begs for, nobody buys their bull shit anymore.

Natural Gas will kill the demand for Big Oil, so I can understand their motives.
Government can't grow unless there's a united reason to hire hundreds of thousand of more Federal Scientists, and Solar Panel workers, who also serve a double purpose, as they will vote for their employers.

But China doesn't live in a world of lies and deciept. 
They already know America will try everything else and then make the right decision, and by that time their BYD Electric Motors will be all over America, and then their low cost Natural Gas Cars will arrive after we wasted billions and years fighting each other over seperate agendas...

Digging in ypur heels for either of these 2 funded groups, is no better than OWS or the Tea Party. The same old shell game where only 2 choices are available.
I see 3 choices, but nobody wants the 3rd and the best, cheapest fastest way forward. Really baffles me that the Chinese know this scam, yet the indoctrinated westerners need China to save the Earth..............What a joke.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 5, 2012)

*Explaining Phil Jones' "No stastistical significant warming" statement*

I think it is probably worth a moment to take look at what Phil Jones actually means by this statement, because it might help give some context to what is actually debated in the climate science community, as opposed to what is reported by mainstream media and misconstrued by those on either side of the debate. It gets a bit technical but please bear with me.

The reason he might say that there is some warming (over the period in question) but that it can't be claimed to be "statistically significant" is to do with statistical validation tests that must be passed in order for it to be considered scientifically valid. The test that is usually performed auto-correlated data such as the temperature data in question is called "r2" or "least squares" validation stastistic. "Auto-correlated" data is where a point of data is dependent on the *previous* point. If you think about temperature, it does not jump from one extreme of the data range to the other, it changes gradually over time. Daily, we get the warmest point at during the daytime, and the coolest during the night, and the temperature changes relatively gradually between the maxima and minima. This occurs seasonally as well and often interanually.

The r2 validation stastistic is usually used to test for *correlation,* but it can be used to test the validity of a trend. What they do is create *red noise*, also known as a *random walk* to test the data against. Red noise is a signal that generates random data points that are *auto-correlated*. As I explained earlier that means each data point is related to the previous data point so that you can' t immediately jump from one extreme to the other. It's sometimes described as "drunken walk" where you imagine a drunken man trying to walk along a straight line and failing to do it accurately. The red noise is set to the same "sample rate" (directly analogous to our understanding of digital audio) and constrained to the same data range. What they do is take the difference between the red noise signal and the data they want to test, square it then divide the result by the number of samples which should (unless I have missed a step), give a number between 0 and 1. This is called the correlation coefficient. They then repeat this 100 times and average the result. Numbers close to 1 represent a perfect correlation, and numbers close to 0 represent no correlation.

If there were a trend within the data, the squared number would be larger, because the data you are testing and the random data would not cancel out. It would not say whether it was an upward or downward trend, but that doesn't matter - you can determine that in other ways (just by looking for a start). But you need a data set that is long enough relative to the data fluctuation. That is to say the x axis (time) needs to be long enough compared to the y axis (temperature variability). From a statistical point of view, with a data series as noisy as global temperature, you really do need a good length of time to be sure that any trend you think you may have determined is not a spurious artifact happened on by chance. 

What he means by "within 95% confidence" is that it is generally accepted within in science that you need to be sure there is less than 1 chance in 20 that your correlation is not an artifact of random data. That's because, by the nature of random auto-correlated data, you can get what would appear to be trends that are not real, as I mentioned earlier. As time goes on, and if the trend persists, the likelihood of it happening by chance diminishes.

But he goes on to say that he is 100% confident that it has warmed. He is in fine company there, apart from the fact statistically speaking this true of the data as we have it if you go back far enough, there are other ways of determining this. All the R2 statistic can tell you is whether or not your trend might have been by chance - it's a factor, but it's not the only information you have regarding this qualitative point. Skeptics use that same information to suggest that there may have been slight cooling since 2002 even though it absolutely is not statistically significant. I really suggest that the our 2 'believers' re-read Dr Jones interview with the BBC - but with more dispassionate eyes. There is very little there that would trouble a skeptical climate scientist, except for agreement with chapter 9 of AR4. Skeptics say this is an 'argument from ignorance', that simply because you cannot account for the warming any other way it must have been due to CO2 (and moreover anthropogenic CO2). This is akin to saying that because you can't account for how the earth stays up, it must be supported by an infinite number of turtles. There are alternative hypotheses to CO2 induced warming not considered by AR4, for reasons I could go into at enormous length.

Here is a great graphical representation of this problem. This is a scattergrpahic representation of 20th century warming. 







You can see that if your time period was too short you would hardly make out a trend. But it also shows the trend in relation to natural deviation from the mean. One of the important points to remember one discussing warming is that while the trend is certainly there, it is not large enough to validate models predicting between 0.2 and 0.6 degrees celcius per decade. Again re-read Phil Jones and also this response from Gavin Schmidt:

_“what year would you reconsider the CO2 – Warming paradigm if the CRU Global annual mean temperature is cooler than 2005 – 2009…?”_

*“You need a greater than a decade non-trend that is significantly different from projections. [0.2 - 0.3 deg/decade]”*

Well, we have had a decade of non-trend that is significantly different from predictions.

One of the most important pieces of evidence arguing against CO2 or any other greenhouse gases *causing* the recent warming is the lack of a 'hot spot' in the troposphere, showing that the top of the troposphere has been warming *faster* than the surface.






Really this, combined with the lack of warming (or insufficient warming if you want), ought to cast doubt that the policy of *mitigation* is necessary or desirable. The policy of *adaption* is a much better fit and should allow for other possibilities such as global cooling, which is potentially more problematic for society. There are, and have been negative policy implications due to the alarmist nature of the concern about global warming, which I would like to touch on at some point.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 5, 2012)

@ Guy

Good work my man - as Obi wan said; "You've taken your first steps into a larger world"




> Very little warming
> 
> Warming from 1980 - 1990 is about 0.05 degrees
> Warming from 1980 - 1995 is about 0.1 degrees
> ...



Don't worry about your lack of qualifications - the data says what the data says. If you are worried about qualifications, ask for help from those who either have no dog in the hunt, or compare explanations from a couple of sources, ideally those who have not professed advocacy positions, but even better those who are outside of the debate altogether. You're now heavily invested on the pro-CAGW side so it is going to take a strongly open mind to listen.



> Now, I thought you were arguing for a period of 17 years (15? 17?) in which case - we have warming (depending on exactly which date you pick). Which means that it is not a "fact" that there is none.
> 
> Come to think of it, I'm confused about what you're arguing for now, anyway. Is it still a fact that there is no warming over the past 15 years? Or is it now 0.1 degrees per decade which isn't worth worrying about?



I'm not saying it at all. Ben Santer, who in my opinion is a complete idiot (but I won't go into why - no ad homs beyond that comment) makes that case in a recent paper. It raised a few eyebrows amongst skeptics who wondered if there would be a paper coming out in a few years arguing for 21 years, and then 25 years, etc etc, in the hope that temperatures might start behaving themselves and start going up again. Generally though, it is not unreasonable to make the case for a longer period of time because it becomes statistically more significant (see my previous post). So, since it is part of the peer-reviewed literature it has sort of been adopted. The problem with it, as you are discovering, is that it can cut across climate events such as the 1998-2002 period meaning that you can miss important information about the climate that you might want to factor in.



> Are you saying that because, depending on what figures you put into a little web app, you can make either flat lines or shallow ones, there's nothing to worry about? See, that would strike me as possibly simplistic.



No I am not saying that, because that would indeed be simplistic. What I am saying, is that from my daily trawl of climate science blogosphere, where discussions take place about climate science in just the same way as we discuss music here, it is accepted that the trend has flattened. When this was initially discussed a few years back, it was pointed out (rightly) that models cannot account for every twist and turn of natural variability, and that the temperatures would soon 'self-correct' and rejoin model projections. The longer things go and the greater the deviation from the model projections, the more it looks like the models aren't right. To a lot of skeptics, the '17-year' test for a trend proposed by Santer et al, looked like buying time for temperatures to increase again in line with models.



> See now, here's another link to SS which deals with this http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earth-e ... arming.htm . According to IPCC projections, the bang on average amount of warming we would expect to date is about 1 degree. We actually have 0.8 degrees. That doesn't sound a million miles off to me, and apparently we have the sun, aerosols and all sorts giving us an easy ride right now. I see very little evidence to be unconcerned.



I have to say, if I were to link you to articles and discussions at Watt's Up With That you would probably deride me and it for being a denialist site where no science goes on. Well, when you link to Skeptical Science I have to say, I raise a smile. I have engaged there in the past and in general throughout the blogosphere skeptical science has pretty bad reputation. The main problem it has is that it mischaracterises the skeptic position of scientists such as Dr Lindzen. If SS is the only place you are getting your information, then you are most definitely going to get a skewed version of things. I don't suggest that you stop going there, I suggest that you check the veracity of what they say. I suggest you check whether or not Lindzen's arguments really have been rebutted, and what he has had to say about those rebuttal's (scientists usually get an opportunity to comment on rebuttals of their work).

0.8 degrees is the amount of warming we have had since records began. The measurements regarding the sun and aerosols prior to the latter half of the 20th C are all *estimated*. That is, there are n*o direct measurements.* These estimates are fed into the GCMs to account for the variations in temperature so that they resemble the data prior to when accurate measurements started to be taken in order to work out the affect of CO2 on the climate. This is known as a circular argument; in order to work out the effect of CO2 on the climate they estimate the amount of TSI and aerosols had on the climate by deducting what effect they think CO2 had on the climate! These problems where discussed amongst the climate scientists as can be seen in the Climategate 2.0 emails so they knew about them.

What we are concerned with is the point at which it is generally acknowledged anthro-CO2 started having an effect on the climate - which is the warming that started in 1970. However you cut it, there has been suspiciously little warming over the last decade despite more than 30% of all of man's recorded emissions going into the air. If you say that it is due to natural variability, then fine, but it cuts both ways - some of the rise up to 2000 could easily have been natural variability as well.

Oh and invoking thermal inertia (and ocean heat content) is going to quite literally get your CAGW argument into hot water as well. Shall I continue?


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 5, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Tue Jun 05 said:


> What we are concerned with is the point at which it is generally acknowledged anthro-CO2 started having an effect on the climate - which is the warming that started in 1970. However you cut it, there has been suspiciously little warming over the last decade despite more than 30% of all of man's recorded emissions going into the air. If you say that it is due to natural variability, then fine, but it cuts both ways - some of the rise up to 2000 could easily have been natural variability as well.



And it is worth pointing out too that in a paper published in 2000, James Hansen argues that: '... rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols.'

That there has been no statistically significant warming since then seems to make his subsequent hysterical activism about CO2 emissions curious indeed.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 5, 2012)

> '... rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols.'



Just to clarify Stephen's point: what Hansen means is that these aerosols that have a cooling effect, have been reduced thus creating a warming effect, as well as other non-CO2 GHG's that have a warming effect.

But this was factored into TAR and AR4.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jun 5, 2012)

Now, being as I'm on holiday with the family, I should definitely keep this brief - normal FULL THROTTLE service resumed next week. But it's raining, so in the meantime...

The thing that you misrepresent most, by far, Rohan is that the mainstream position is mainstream. Skeptical Science is, in your world, another biased blog like Watts Up, Junk Science et al. My entire argument has always been, and remains, that the mainstream position has overwhelming support from the climate science community. While you and others like to pour scorn on the IPCC, NASA, Royal Society et al, these are all uncontroversial to the vast majority working in that discipline. Quoting Judith Curry as having mainstream views - when by her own words she does not - exacerbates this.

The mainstream position is that warming continues, and yes it is very much something to be concerned about. For evidence, see the IPCC, Royal Society et al. It is the blogsphere that argues otherwise, which is entirely different to the mainstream view. You may think that the mainstream is biased / incompetent, but that is what that vast majority of the most qualified scientists believe to be most accurate. Which is where I also stake my claim. That is not being closed minded, it is being rational.

So the SS summary here - http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... ediate.htm is a good one of the mainstream position, and exactly the opposite of what you are portraying - check out the work and graph done by Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, half way down, which eliminates the noise from the data. I'm sure there's a contrarian rebuttal, but it's not the point - this is the mainstream view of the most cited, most qualified scientists, and quelle surprise, it's different to the blogsphere. Sorry I can't more deeply jump down this rabbit hole with you, but I will always, always, always appeal to the most qualified view in science, not DIYers or bloggers.

And I notice still that no-one has answered the question "what evidence would it take to convince you that AGW is real". I continue to find this the most telling of all. Being as I have answered my own position on this (on the question of what would it take to convince me that AGW is NOT real), who is being closed-minded here?


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 5, 2012)

> The thing that you misrepresent most, by far, Rohan is that the mainstream position is mainstream. Skeptical Science is, in your world, another biased blog like Watts Up, Junk Science et al. My entire argument has always been, and remains, that the mainstream position has overwhelming support from the climate science community. While you and others like to pour scorn on the IPCC, NASA, Royal Society et al, these are all uncontroversial to the vast majority working in that discipline. Quoting Judith Curry as having mainstream views - when by her own words she does not - exacerbates this.



Guy, the problem is in what you consider mainstream views to be. Your characterization of the mainstream as some how harmoniously expressing near-certainty of the reality of CAGW is absolutely and demonstrably not the case. The Royal Society's motto is "Nullus in Verba" - take no ones word for it, and in fact has received complaints from its members on its published position. Your view, in short about what climate scientists believe to be the case is massively over-simplified and a product of a great deal of ignorance. Your faith that some of the scientists you quote or that the ''Authorities' you quote have got it right is exactly equivalent to having faith that your priest is right about god, or that the instructions from the church must be followed.



> And I notice still that no-one has answered the question "what evidence would it take to convince you that AGW is real".



I did answer this! The answer is we need to see at the very least a decade of a warming trend at least greater than 0.2C/decade to come anywhere close to validating models and the current understanding of the climate and at least 0.3C/decade for there to be a serious concern about it. In order for there to be a trend like that in the next five years you would need temperatures at least more than 0.4C/decade for the next five years. We need five years straight that piss all over the 1998 El Nino. 

You also need to show that the upper troposphere is warming *faster* than the surface. That would show that it is GHG's that are *causing* the warming.

If you don't mind taking people's word for it such as the Royal Society's or Michael Mann's, then take my word for this; the 'mainstream view', such as it is, is as complex and diverse as the people make it up as I have discovered engaging with all kinds of scientists from time on the blogsphere. there are serious short-comings with the IPCC, how they performed their assessment, and how there question they are supposed to answer has been framed. Climate science does not work in the neat little boxes you imagine it to be, and there are deep problems with the way it has been conducted as evidenced by Climategates 1.0 and 2.0. Some scientists, such as Judith Curry, and the Pielkes, have attempted to grapple this thorn. If you want to have an opinion based entirely on faith that the people you are listening to are right, then that's entirely up to you, but i don't think you then have a right describe others who have gone to the trouble to check what they are saying makes sense, is acting out of faith.


----------



## Ed (Jun 5, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Tue Jun 05 said:


> *Explaining Phil Jones' "No stastistical significant warming" statement*
> 
> I think it is probably worth a moment to take look at what Phil Jones actually means by this statement, because it might help give some context to what is actually debated in the climate science community, as opposed to what is reported by mainstream media and misconstrued by those on either side of the debate. It gets a bit technical but please bear with me.



To know what Phil Jones meant when he agreed with the question that there has been no statisticalally signifiant warming since 1995 is to *read the quote in context
*



> The reason he might say that there is some warming (over the period in question) but that it can't be claimed to be "statistically significant" is to do with statistical validation tests that must be passed in order for it to be considered scientifically valid.



Not quite, its not scientifically invalid if it doesn't reach 95% it refers to how much certainty and confidence we can have. What we're talking here is "skeptics" turning *93% confidence into "no warming" or "insignificant warming. "*. That is not what it means and is a lie pure and simple. Jones never said or implied that, as I shall go on to show.



> What he means by "within 95% confidence" is that it is generally accepted within in science that you need to be sure there is less than 1 chance in 20 that your correlation is not an artifact of random data. ...As time goes on, and if the trend persists, the likelihood of it happening by chance diminishes.



Precisely. 

Now lets look at the quote in context shall we...



> QUESTION: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
> PHIL JONES: Yes, but *only just*. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is *quite close to the significance level*. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.




1. He says that there has been no statistically significance warming since 1995 "*but only just*". 
2. He goes on to say he has calculated from 1995 till Feb 2009 does show the warming trend is "*very close*" to the 95% significance level. 
3. He says that statistical significance is much *more likely to be seen for longer periods* than for shorter periods. 

The point here is that 1995 is an arbitrary date chosen because at that time the trend between these dates did not reach 95% significance. If they had chosen 1994, Jones would have *not *agreed with the question. 

The HadCRUT data showed 93% confidence the planet was warming since 1995, but from, 1994 to 2009 it was already 95% significant.See how different the trends look just because you went back a *SINGLE *year.









Lets have a look at a few graphs to demonstrate how these "skeptics" are dishonest when it comes to misrepresenting "statistical significance" in the data.

Temperature data *from 1995 - 2009*, the period Jones is referring to. 






Now look at an earlier date. How about *from 1980-1998*







What is the point of looking at these graphs? Well, since you have already described what statistical significance is you should know already. We need to have more data in order to know what is really happening in the temperature record. If you only look at these two graphs between these arbitrarily chosen time periods, it seems like the temperature hasn't increased much since the 1980's, or has it?

Lets look at those dates together. So, *from 1980-2009*







Now you can see just how much hotter global temperatures have been between these dates. So lets just add some more data in there....

*From 1970 - 2012*






Are you getting the picture yet? To quote Jones again, "*Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.*"

Now you have already said you like the satellite UAH data, so lets see what that says if we *DON'T* just choose arbitrary start and end points I have added in trend lines *from 1985 - 2009*






The turquoise colour data is data is from 2009-2012 but not included in the trend estimation lines. The* blue line is data from 1995-2009* and purple from 2000-2009, but claiming that the trend is not still going up would evidently be a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Lets look at the same graph but *carry on the trend estimation through to 2012* rather than stopping at 2009:






Remember this is data *FROM 1995 TO PRESENT (2012). *

But lets get back to Phil Jones shall we. You claimed that your (quote-mined) interpretation is that Jones means, even at the time of the interview (Feb 2002) and still today, that the warming has paused and not significant or that the warming isnt happening at all. As is painfully obvious to anyone who actually read and understood what he wrote in context he never meant that, he actually said the complete opposite. But its worse than this because you're arguing he still thinks this over 2 years later!

So what did Jones say a year later? From 1995 till present the data *is *now statistically significant, he says



> "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.
> 
> "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."



This is something that was *reported on all over the place* all you need to do is google it. Such as *here*, or *here *, or *here* or at common "skeptic" websites *like here* or *here* that are just so shocked at Jones now saying the warming is significant as if he cant make up his mind. Maybe if they hadn't quote-mined and twisted what he originally said into something completely different they wouldn't be so shocked. You claim you read all these websites daily so how can you still be presenting Jones as believing something totally different?

And yet you believe all that is wrong, Jones wasnt misquoted and even though he says the warming since 1995 *is *statistically significance *a year ago* he doesnt really mean that. :roll: 



> But he goes on to say that he is 100% confident that it has warmed.




Thats funny because I distinctly remember you saying this...

_Over the past decade.... temperatures have not only not shown accelerated warming, but *not even warmed at all. * ...no increase in temperatures for the last 10-15 years 
...and now...the lack of warming over the last decade *is NOT disputed in climate science circles" ...Even Phil Jones admitted there was no statistically significant warming since 1995: 
This non-controversial in climate change blogs *_


So to conclude then... 

1.In the BBC article he says the complete opposite of what you say he said. 
2. A year after in 2011 you can see he has specifically told you he is not saying what you say he believes, and that the data since 1995 is now statistically significant,

You have not presented any evidence, bescides quote mines, that what you say is uncontroversial is actually uncontroversial . You still cant bring yourself to accept that Jones doesnt agree with what you say he agrees with. This is why your position is bankrupt Rohan, you now need to defend the idea that Jones doesnt really believe what he specifically said he does believe.

PS: I also noticed on the previous page you seem to think Im an American. I am British and have never gone to America in my life.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 5, 2012)

Oy freaking veh.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 5, 2012)

> 2. He goes on to say he has calculated from *1995* till Feb *2009* does show the warming trend is "very close" to the 95% significance level.



You aren't understanding what he is saying Ed.

There is no quote mining.

There is a 12 years of warming from 1995 to 2009, when these quotes were made:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcru ... 2009/trend

But if you take the next 12 year period from 2000 - 2012 you don't get a trend at all. the trend has flattened.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcru ... 2012/trend

If he was calculating for the current period of 12 years he would have said there was no warming whatsoever.

For the trend to be significant over a short period, it would need to be very distinct, otherwise you need longer periods. 

Please also note the amount of warming trend he posted (0.12C) over that period. that equates to about 0.11 degree warming per decade, maybe less. That would equate to 1.1 degree warming over the whole century and that is NOT considered to be cause for alarm. It needs to be a minimum of 2 degrees C but 3 degrees is what the IPCC say is the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. We are not on track for that as you can clearly see.


----------



## Ed (Jun 5, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Tue Jun 05 said:


> > 2. He goes on to say he has calculated from *1995* till Feb *2009* does show the warming trend is "very close" to the 95% significance level.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good god man, read my post in full.


Jones specifically said it *IS *statistically significant since 1995 a *YEAR *ago. 


Despite skeptics being shocked he has so drastically changed his mind, he never changed his mind, the significance just went from 93% to now 95% it just needed another year to do it.

You can cheery pick two dates close together and find cooling, so what? I can find periods where inflation has dropped, but it doesn't mean it isnt still going up. You need a longer period than 15 years (1995-2009), that is what Jones specifically said last year and even said at the time. You can find periods of cooling throughout the data since the 1970's, but as you can see the trend is still warming as you can see in the graphs I posted.

Hialriously you then choose a period even smaller at only 12 years, to prove there's cooling and no warming at all! You even think its a legitimate point that Jones, if asked, would have to say there's been no warming between these dates going by this particular data! HadCRUT doesnt include much of the data that we do have such as much of the Arctic where a lot of the warming has been observed, so it wouldnt be accurate to say this data shows this anyway, but of course this doesnt seem to matter to you either.



> If he was calculating for the current period of 12 years he would have said there was no warming whatsoever.



As Jones said to the BBC a year later, as I already posted in my previous reply..._" That period *1995-2009 was just 15 years* - and because of the* uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods*, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "*It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends* and getting significance on a consistent basis"_


You say Skeptical Science misrepresent you, but you are literally doing what this image shows you guys do:

*-- FULL SIZE* 






You skeptics have turned managed to turn 93% confidence into "no warming" or "insignificant warming", at the time of the BBC interview, now you're saying he still thinks theres no warming 2 years later even when he specifically said the opposite of what was originally twisted last year! There is no possible way you can defend this. Jones does not believe what you say he believes, stop digging that hole and just concede this was a misrepresentation.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 5, 2012)

What is that last graph showing exactly?


----------



## Ed (Jun 5, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Tue Jun 05 said:


> What is that last graph showing exactly?



If you click the link and see what it looks like full size, then you can see what it is saying. Also check my other post with all those graphs, it also shows what Im talking about. Looking in isolation at 1980-1998 and 1995-2009 it can look like nothing much has happened, but see both at the same time and you can see how different it is.

The temperature trend clearly is going up, but "skeptics" will intentionally choose two dates close to show you, exactly how Rohan just did, to show no warming is happening or than the earth is cooling. But it is not cooling, check the entire graph and you see the trend is always up. They do not move back and look at the entire data because it doesnt show what they want. There is *always *periods of cooling and periods where not much warming happens, but if you look at a longer periods of time you can see what is really going on.

Its like looking at waves coming in on a beach, some waves will come come further up the beach than others. So if you measure where a wave will come up to, how much data do you need to need to know the tide is coming in? Skeptics only want to look for about 5 minutes before deciding nothings happening.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 5, 2012)

Ed @ Tue Jun 05 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Tue Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> > What is that last graph showing exactly?
> ...



No, I'll ask the question again: what is the graph showing? That graph is meaningless without some very important information which, surprise surprise, is not furnished. The question is, do you understand what that information is?


----------



## Ed (Jun 5, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Tue Jun 05 said:


> No, I'll ask the question again: what is the graph showing? That graph is meaningless without some very important information which, surprise surprise, is not furnished. The question is, do you understand what that information is?



Are you intentionally trying to misunderstand? This is about how "skeptics" present the data in ALL graphs. 

This graph* i posted to you just now* is, the "_BEST land-only surface temperature data (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes 1973 to 1980, 1980 to 1988, 1988 to 1995, 1995 to 2001, 1998 to 2005, 2002 to 2010 (blue), and 1973 to 2010 (red). _"

Here's another version.

*-- FULL SIZE *






This graph is "_Short-term cooling trends from Jan '70 to Nov '77, Nov '77 to Nov '86, Sep '87 to Nov '96, Mar '97 to Oct '02, and Oct '02 to Dec '11 (blue) vs. the 42-year warming trend (Jan '70 to Dec '11; red) using http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php (NOAA NCDC land-ocean data)."_


But what the graph corresponds to doesnt matter, what Im showing you is that skeptics will cherry pick specific start and end points in order to argue there is no warming or that there is cooling. They do not look at the full record because the trend is still going up, not cooling and not static insignificance.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 5, 2012)

Ed - do those two graphs show the same thing?


----------



## Ed (Jun 5, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Tue Jun 05 said:


> Ed - do those two graphs show the same thing?



Are you just trying to wind me up Stephen? 

Yes, they both show the same thing. They are showing how skeptics will cherry pick two dates close together so they can falsely argue that no warming is happening or that its cooling. Both graphs show this, using two different sets of temperature data. Now, stop stringing this out, what exactly is your point?


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 5, 2012)

Sigh - Ed I will go through your rather irrelevant post at some stage, but you are completely missing the point. I *explained* that in order for a trend to become significant it needed as much time against the noise as possible. I am completely aware that he stated later the warming was statistically significant a year later. It's obvious it would be because if it was close to significance for that period another year should make it significant. You *know* this for this kind of data precisely because you know more about it than being simply auto-correlated random noise, which is why determining a R2 validation for it is simply needed to be scientifically valid.

But knowing that stuff also means that you can look at trends shorter than a statistically significant one in order to see if there is more going on than can be revealed by a straight linear trend. You lose important information by not examining shorter periods, you just cannot be as *certain* about it from a statistical point of view.

Again if you want to take 1995-2010 as benchmark for statistical significance (ie the period is long enough) you need only calculate for the same period from 1997-2012. You will find a warming trend *lower* than the one for 1995-2010. The further back you go it will be the same, the trend will decline. But more importantly, the trend will be lower than the trend required to be a cause for alarm. In fact, look at the trend for Jones original period that failed the statistical validation and then look at the trend that passed it. The end point is 2010 which is an El Nino year. No wonder it passed! Even then it is only a 0.16 degree warming in 15 years! That's 0.11 per decade if you round up generously. If you take a longer a period 1995-2012 you get a *lower trend* of barely 0.15 in 17 years. There is no way around it.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jun 5, 2012)

One question: Do the skeptics believe that there is no warming *with a 95% confidence level?*

We might as well have everybody playing by the same rules.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 5, 2012)

> One question: Do the skeptics believe that there is no warming with a 95% confidence level?
> 
> We might as well have everybody playing by the same rules.



Hi Jon,

You only need to show a *trend* with a confidence level. That's because trends can be artifacts of a chaotic auto-correlated data set. If you don't get a passable R2 for the trend you can't be confident that is really a trend.


----------



## Ed (Jun 5, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Tue Jun 05 said:


> I *explained* that in order for a trend to become significant it needed as much time against the noise as possible.



Oh really? 

Then why do you keep saying that 1995-2009 or 2000-2012 matters, when climate scientists like Jones are telling you you need a much *longer *period of time to differentiate between noise and other factors? 

You keep wanting argue you can keep using these small periods of time to argue that the warming has stopped or may even be cooling, using intentionally restricted data, data you already understand you need more of precisely so you can tell the difference between whats real and whats just noise.




> I am completely aware that he stated later the warming was statistically significant a year later. It's obvious it would be because if it was close to significance for that period another year should make it significant.





Excuse me Rohan? :| 

If you KNEW this why did you claim that it was uncontraverical that there has been "no warming" or that the warming has stopped or is not signifiant since 1995 and that people like Jones has admitted this? How was anyone going to get an accurate idea of what Jones believes from simply reading your commentary on him? You tried to make him believe, today, the opposite of what he does. He *never *believed what you say he did, not even back in Feb2010 that you ripped the quote from.


And if you KNOW that you will achieve statistical significance by looking at a longer time period and you KNOW that you need data from a long period of time to differentiate between noise, then why do you keep insisting on making a big deal out of "_no statistical significant warming between 1995-2009_"? Why does that make any difference if you simply have to look one year on for it to reach the 95% statistical signifiance from *93%* the period you cherry picked before, and when the trend is even more solid when looking at more data from previous years? Your original claim was also that the warming isnt happening at all since 1995, yet tried to quote Phil Jones to show it was uncontroversial when at the time the data shoiwed since 1995-2009 they were 93% certain of the warming since 1995! Thats two completely different things you tried to say meant the same thing. How can you possibly justify changing him talking about 93% confidence into him admitting that there was no significant warming or that it had stopped? 1995-2009 verses 1995-2010 went up a "massive"(sarcasm) 2% significance, how is this news and how can you treat it so differently?

I said you can find periods of cooling and where nothing much seems to be happening in the temperature record, but the trend is always UP and so long as you dont microscopically cherry pick specific periods, you can easily see that. 





> But knowing that stuff also means that you can look at trends shorter than a statistically significant one in order to see if there is more going on than can be revealed by a straight linear trend. You lose important information by not examining shorter periods, you just cannot be as *certain* about it from a statistical point of view.



There are two different arguments here.

First is your faulty claim that you are able to look at recent short term trends and ignore the rest of the temperature record. 

But that isnt really what I'd like to talk about first. What I'd like to talk about is your claim that people like Phil Jones and others accept that since 1995 till today the warming has either _not happened at all, stopped, paused or is not significant. _You said this is not contravercial, remember? But now you say you KNEW all along that Jones said the warming *IS * significant? So please explain to me what justification you have to try and use him to prove something is not controversial when a year ago he had already specifically said he doesnt agree?




> Again if you want to take 1995-2010 as benchmark for statistical significance (ie the period is long enough) you need only calculate for the same period from 1997-2012. You will find a warming trend *lower* than the one for 1995-2010. The further back you go it will be the same, the trend will decline. But more importantly, the trend will be lower than the trend required to be a cause for alarm. In fact, look at the trend for Jones original period that failed the statistical validation and then look at the trend that passed it. The end point is 2010 which is an El Nino year. No wonder it passed! Even then it is only a 0.16 degree warming in 15 years! That's 0.11 per decade if you round up generously. If you take a longer a period 1995-2012 you get a *lower trend* of barely 0.15 in 17 years. There is no way around it.



This is the second claim you're making, and of course misrepresenting it all again, but I just want to first get you to accept that you misrepresented Jones.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jun 5, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Tue Jun 05 said:


> > One question: Do the skeptics believe that there is no warming with a 95% confidence level?
> >
> > We might as well have everybody playing by the same rules.
> 
> ...



So you admit that you have no confidence that there is a trend of zero or negative warming?


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 5, 2012)

If there was a "negative warming" we would use the technical jargon for it in the industry namely; "cooling". 

If I had no confidence that there was no trend, it would mean that I was confident that there was a trend. You don't have a 'zero' trend - that's an oxymoron. It just means there is no trend.

Have a read of my post explaining how they validate a trend. In a noisy data set, if you say that a trend is present then you are saying something that needs to be justified. If the trend were negative you would use the same calculation to validate it - the validation test is insensitive to the direction of the trend - either up or down. All you are doing is saying whether or not you can be confident that it is not an artifact of a noisy system "tricking" you into thinking there was a trend.

But this is just a statistical test. We know more about the climate system than that it is merely a red noise generator. This is why I have no objection to Phil Jones' comment 'but only just' - which Ed is struggling to grapple with. Even though it is not strictly statistically valid at the time he was interviewed to say that there was warming - we know there was. Most of it was around the 1998-2002 climate shift. But in the same way, we can also say that since that time there has been no additional warming of any significance, statistical or not.

And this can be corroborated by taking valid lengths of time, say Santer's 17 years, and moving forward from a period where a trend is obvious up to the present. What happens is the trend will decline.


----------



## Ed (Jun 5, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Tue Jun 05 said:


> This is why I have no objection to Phil Jones' comment 'but only just' - which Ed is struggling to grapple with. .



"Only just" means 93% instead of 95%, which it did clock over to a year later. Thats only 2% difference. A trend isnt invalid if its 93% off and suddenly become valid at 95%. 

You seem to think him saying the data shows a trend of 93% statistically significant warming from 1995-2009 means the same as saying there is insignificant warming or that no warming is happening from 1995 till 2012. Sorry, but what Jones said even at the time is the complete opposite of what you represented him as believing then and believing today.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 5, 2012)

> First is your faulty claim that you are able to look at recent short term trends and ignore the rest of the temperature record.
> 
> But that isnt really what I'd like to talk about first. What I'd like to talk about is your claim that people like Phil Jones and others accept that since 1995 till today the warming has either not happened at all, stopped, paused or is not significant. You said this is not contravercial, remember? But now you say you KNEW all along that Jones said the warming IS significant? So please explain to me what justification you have to try and use him to prove something is not controversial when a year ago he had already specifically said he doesnt agree?




Ed - it is willful miss-characterization to say that I or any skeptic has said there has been no warming. What has been widely acknowledged is that since 2002 not 1995 that the warming trend has not continued. It really doesn't take an Einstein to figure that out. I quoted Phil Jones in relation to the point about the lack of warming to illustrate that the warming trend predicted has NOT occurred. You *need* 0.2 per decade *minimum* and you have half that.

I explained the difference between saying something is significant from a statistical point of view and what we might lose by ignoring all the other things we know about the climate. If we want to know what kind of trend that will pass a statistical next time we calculate it (say the following year) we can look back at the decade and look at the shorter time scales. Because there has been no additional warming since 2002, you will get a decrease in the trend from the same start point each time you calculate it.

Think of it this way; supposing 2010 had been a major La Nina year instead of an El Nino. What do you think the trend would have shown despite there being a really low end point? The trend would still have been up, and would have passed the R2 (providing that the limiting factor for the previous year was time and not persistence). It would be lower but it would still be up. Now supposing that the following year was another La Nina - back to back? 2 years running you have temperatures way below the running mean and the consequent climate behaviour. Yet the trend would still be up - less up but still up.

You have lost important info about the climate if you persist in suggesting looking at it purely from a passed R2, which is why you don't look at only that.

Moreover, had Phil Jones had a statistically valid warming for 1995-2009 it would have meant that the warming was greater in value. Had the warming trend been much beyond the 0.12 that he calculated, the trend might have passed validation. The most important point here is that the trend is *too low* to agree with models and as time goes on the disagreement gets worse, both because the warming trend is not there but also because the models predict increased warming.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 5, 2012)

> You seem to think him saying the data shows a trend of 93% statistically significant warming from 1995-2009 means the same as saying there is insignificant warming or that no warming is happening from 1995 till 2012.



No that is absolutely not what I am saying. Please try to read what I have written. Hopefully my previous post will clarify things for you.





> Sorry, but what Jones said even at the time is the complete opposite of what you represented him as believing then and believing today.




No - you are projecting your idea of what I think Phil Jones 'believes'. Phil Jones is heavily invested in AGW and comes out pretty badly in the climategate emails. Never-the-less, he cannot say something publicly that cannot be justified, especially at the time when the inquiries were getting underway.

I know exactly what the guy was saying throughout the interview - and about statistical significance. If you got the impression that the trend 'only' just failed the test one year and then passed the next, you would miss the significance of this especially if you don't understand statistics - which clearly you don't and nor would the vast majority of the public or the media.

I'll say it again: you need a trend that WOULD have passed the significance test in order to make a case for CAGW - that of in excess of 0.2C/decade. That the trend passed the following year is trivially true in the context of what we know about temperatures from 2002.


----------



## Ed (Jun 5, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Tue Jun 05 said:


> Ed - it is willful miss-characterization to say that I or any skeptic has said there has been no warming.



:shock: :lol: You *literally *have said there has been no warming "at all" for the past ten *TO 15 YEARS*. Why are you lying about what you said when anyone can go and check in this very thread? Actually I do know, its because you realise you overstated it and cant defend it. And you even go so far as to claim no skeptic has said there has been no warming? Excuse me then but what is this headline "_Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995_" Orhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/11/a-note-from-richard-lindzen-on-statistically-significant-warming/ (this) from Richard Lindzen saying there has been "_no warming since 1997_". It moves of course, from 1995, then 1997, then 1998, then 2000, then 2002 I think we're on now. You deny your own words and theirs.

I certainly am not taking you out of context either, since when I initially questioned you on this you claimed the idea that the warming had stopped, paused or is insignifiant is not contraverical and cited Phil Jones as way to prove this. Yet Jones categorically and explicitly, even 2 years ago, said the complete opposite! I can find a lot of aggressive disagreement from all pro-AGW sources and experts about the "skeptics" assertion that the warming has stopped in the past 10-15 years. So if you say you are aware of all that, then I dont understand what honest justification you can have for claiming its readily accepted and uncontroversial except to create a false impression to anyone who doesnt know better.



> What has been widely acknowledged is that since 2002 not 1995 that the warming trend has not continued.



Yes, you never really said this:

"_no increase in temperatures for the last 10-*15 years*"_

You're *wrong of course*:even since 2000.







You choose the data and periods of time you can find that support you and ignore everything else. How can you do that that? Easy! You cherry picked your dates, 2002 is the earliest year you can pick so you go with that. Then you cherry pick your data source. Doesnt matter if it helps the fiction that there's no warming going on. 



> It really doesn't take an Einstein to figure that out. I quoted Phil Jones in relation to the point about the lack of warming to illustrate that the warming trend predicted has NOT occurred. You *need* 0.2 per decade *minimum* and you have half that.



Rubbish, you quoted him as agreeing with the position that warming has been insignificant. You do understand the difference between what he said even back then? Apparently not since you keep going and dont seem to care that only a year later the data now *was *statistically significant, you dont seem to think this is relevant information someone might need to know to get an accurate understanding of what Jones' position really is.

Jones was only 2% shy off 95% statistical significance between 1995-2009. 2% is not a huge difference and doesnt suddenly allow you to paint him as agreeing with a position that requires him to believe the warming since 1995 is not significant. If something is not 95% that doesnt mean its invalid, its about confidence. 95% confidence vs 93%. Your implication that if its 2% off 95% means we might as well reject the significance of the trend completely is absurd. If we look at a longer period to account for noise and natural fluctuation the warming trend is clear. 

Your position was that it is uncontroversial that there has been no warming and that Phil Jones proves that, except you say you knew that his position is actually that the warming IS significant since 1995. Up is down, black is white. Everything is topsey turvey. You cannot use Jones to claim your position is uncontroversial, it most certainly is.




> I explained the difference between saying something is significant from a statistical point of view and what we might lose by ignoring all the other things we know about the climate. If we want to know what kind of trend that will pass a statistical next time we calculate it (say the following year) we can look back at the decade and look at the shorter time scales. Because there has been no additional warming since 2002, you will get a decrease in the trend from the same start point each time you calculate it.



Climatologists know that there is more than human influence that causes climate change, thats why you need more than a decade to see what really happening. Climate systems fluctuate, if you want to know what is really happening you need to look at a far longer period than just the tiny cherry picked periods you want to use. We expect there to be a fair amount of interannual variation. 




> Think of it this way; supposing 2010 had been a major La Nina year instead of an El Nino. What do you think the trend would have shown despite there being a really low end point?



Are you that brainwashed by your skeptic hero's that you think other climate changing factors like this are *not *taken into account? 



> Moreover, had Phil Jones had a statistically valid warming for 1995-2009 it would have meant that the warming was greater in value.



At only 2% off for that period (1995-2009) and then achieving 95% significance one year later you're extremely disingenuous in not telling anyone that. Even more disingenuous you failed to tell people that he was *only *talking about 1995-2009, rather than 1995 till present which is how you presented it.


----------



## Ed (Jun 5, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Tue Jun 05 said:


> No - you are projecting your idea of what I think Phil Jones 'believes'.



No, Im choosing to read what he actually wrote and what he actually said compared with your characterisation of what he said.

You did not bother to remind readers that when he talked about statistical significance since 1995 in that interview it was only 2% off the 95% significance level and ONLY between the period of 1995-2009 rather than between 1995 and *today* and that this was said * over 2 years* ago and that a year later said that the warming *has *been statistically significant since 95. Therefore what you said is totally false. You even say you KNEW he said there was statistically significant warming since 1995 *before you wrote that he didnt!* There is no possible way readers would have known this just by reading your characterisation of his position.



> I'll say it again: you need a trend that WOULD have passed the significance test in order to make a case for CAGW - that of in excess of 0.2C/decade. That the trend passed the following year is trivially true in the context of what we know about temperatures from 2002.



So you're saying the uncertainty of 2% means we can treat it the same as if its not happening at all. Incredible. You bang on and on about uncertainty but ignore the extreme uncertainty when using sample sizes as short as only 10 years.I'll say it again, if you cherry pick two dates close together you can make a trend that says whatever you want.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 5, 2012)

Ed @ Tue Jun 05 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Tue Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed - do those two graphs show the same thing?
> ...



You succeed in winding yourself up mostly Ed. :lol: 

However, on a more serious note, you have just revealed that you are unable to read and indeed comprehend on any reasonable level the graphs that you are blithely posting as proof of something or other.


----------



## Ed (Jun 5, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Tue Jun 05 said:


> You succeed in winding yourself up mostly Ed. :lol:
> 
> However, on a more serious note, you have just revealed that you are unable to read and indeed comprehend on any reasonable level the graphs that you are blithely posting as proof of something or other.



Care to tell me why Stephen? No? Didnt think so.

It is as dishonest for me to cherry pick a short period of time that shows warming as it is for you to cherry pick a short period of time that shows cooling or nothing. You need a long period of data in order to know what the actual trend is. We know the earths temperature fluctuates and more than just humans factors are responsible for that. Only by looking at a long term trend can we be sure what the trend really is and what it means. Global warming doesn't mean every year is monotonically warmer than the last and it isnt expected to be, the models and theories predict a long term warming trend and this is exactly what we are seeing. The dates Rohan chooses are entirely arbitrary except that these are the only ways he can try and make the data say what he wants it to say. He understands about noise and fluctuations but refuses to actually look at the long term trend so we account for it, indeed he wants to use the fluctuations and noise to his advantage to create doubt in people that dont understand he is doing this. If you choose close enough dates you can make a trend that shows anything you want.

Skeptics have said warming has stopped since 1995, then it was 1998, then 2000 and now he's moved it to 2002. See a pattern here? Just keep moving the date closer until it gives you the answer you want. In the next 10 years temperature is predicted to continue to increase, when it does they will just move the date again, just like they did this decade or they'll argue its just a fluctuation (irony) and will have to wait another 10 years to see what excuse they'll have at that point.

When you want to find out how your investments are doing, do you only look at one tiny most recent period and see an upward or downward trend and declare thats what happening over all? Or do you need to look at the entire data to see if the trend is generally increasing or decreasing? You cannot determine what your money is really doing unless you do that either.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 5, 2012)

You're missing the point completely Ed. You clearly don't understand how the graphs work and as a result they do not show what you imagine they show. 

Oh well.


----------



## Udo (Jun 5, 2012)

Why not just ignore posters like Stephen Baysted (and others that talk complete nonsense, make baiting remarks or deliberately distort the facts). It would keep this thread a bit more concise and meaningful. Valid/sincere opposing opinions are of course welcome ....


----------



## Ed (Jun 5, 2012)

Udo, well with that last response Stephen is definitely in my "purely posting to troll" pile. As I said a good thing he probably doesnt interpret his investments like he does these temperature graphs.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 5, 2012)

Udo @ Tue Jun 05 said:


> Why not just ignore posters like Stephen Baysted (and others that talk complete nonsense, make baiting remarks or deliberately distort the facts). It would keep this thread a bit more concise and meaningful. Valid/sincere opposing opinions are of course welcome ....



/\~O


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 5, 2012)

Ed @ Tue Jun 05 said:


> Udo, well with that last response Stephen is definitely in my "purely posting to troll" pile. As I said a good thing he probably doesnt interpret his investments like he does these temperature graphs.



Maybe if I used a big font in bold or in red, or words like freakin, creationism, liar, 911 truther? Would that help? 

Trouble is Ed, you spout off in a highly belligerent and insulting manner attempting to shout down people who challenge your beliefs, and the truth of the matter is that you don't understand the graphs you post. Oh well.


----------



## Ed (Jun 5, 2012)

As I said before Stephen, if you present strawmen after strawman and quotemine after quotemine and deny you're doing it I have no patience for you and I will treat you as you deserve to be treated. You have only ever responded to me with snide hand waves, sorry if Im not going to be nice to you. You are disgrace to the truth.

Rohan is now denying he ever said there has been no increase in temperatures for 10-15 years even when he literally did say that in those exact words on page 2 and anyone can check. Aint that somethin'? Rohan said he *knew *that Phil Jones does *NOT AGREE* that there has been "no statistically significant warming" since 1995. He has admitted this by saying he already knew what Jones said last year, which means he knew what he said before wasn't true before he said it. I would never call someone a liar if someone hadn't proven they have lied and I'd only do so after trying for a long time to explain it to them so they would naturally, if they were honest, admit they made a mistake.

Now if you want to tell me how I dont understand the graphs please do explain it and show me how stupid I am, but you wont because you think insisting you're right is better than any evidence. If you dont reply again with anything of substance I need not reply further to your childish trolling as I'd only be repeating myself.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jun 5, 2012)

Being as I'm working on 90% reduced power here, just a suggestion to avoid another page of Phil Jones related graphs. We have some good news here - amid the noise of "you said" / "you misunderstand' / "you couldn't read a graph if it hit you in the face" discourse, Rohan has actually moved the argument on. He admits that we DO have warming, but not enough to worry about, in contrast to the view of the most qualified professionals. Rohan is now seeking 0.4 degrees rise per decade in order to consider this to be a serious problem and moreover we need a row of extremely high years in the immediate future, or else its all just a storm in a teacup. If someone cares to rip that particular argument apart, it might advance the debate a little, otherwise that's where I'll be headed at the beginning of next week.

To close for the moment, let me tell you all about what a terrific time we had on the beach yesterday. It had been a lousy weather day, and the forecast not good either. And yet the clouds broke at 4pm, the sun suddenly shone with unexpected warmth, we leapt out to play in the waves and build sandcastles as the tide rolled in. We built a fine castle, with a trench running to it. A few waves run into the start of the trench, but not much real action. Then BAM - a massive wave crashed right up to the castle and round it, causing a partial collapse. But then - ages went by. 10 waves, 20 waves, 30 waves. Nothing came close. Then after what must have been 50 waves, another big one hit, even though it wasn't quite as big as the first. More smaller waves... and then another REALLY big one did some damage. Then more followed, some smaller, some bigger - the latter with increasing frequency. Slowly but surely, the castle succumbed to the inevitable.

But for a while there, it really did look like the tide was going out.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 6, 2012)

> Yes, you never really said this:
> 
> "no increase in temperatures for the last 10-15 years"



No I absolutely DID say this, and it's true



> You're wrong of course:even since 2000.



And I am not wrong as proved by the graph you posted! Don't you actually READ the graphs? And you accuse me of quote mining and cherry-picking? You choosing 2000 which is a La Nina year is as bad as me choosing 1998 as an end year - which I have not done. You have to take a neutral year and plot your trend across the strong ENSO years. When looking at data at short time scales you have to be careful of your end points - particularly the start. The climate is generally thought to have stabilized after a climate shift of the type characterised by the Tsonis et al 2001 paper. In which case you take 2002 to see if the trend over the previous decade has continued, otherwise you take 1997 to avoid starting at 1998 which would give you an erroneous *downward* trend.

Try to get a grip on the scale of the temp trends you are talking about:






This graph shows the Globally averaged deviations from average temperature plotted on a scale relevant to the individual station deviations from which they were drawn.



> At only 2% off for that period (1995-2009) and then achieving 95% significance one year later you're extremely disingenuous in not telling anyone that. Even more disingenuous you failed to tell people that he was only talking about 1995-2009, rather than 1995 till present which is how you presented it.



The point you continually miss is that if the trend had been in line with models predicting *C*agw then the trend at that time *would* have been statistically significant - and easily so. That you can show a trend from 1995 before the 1998-2002 climate shift is true, but trivial - ie unimportant to make the case for CAGW. Never-the-less, I grant that I should have been prepared to discuss Phil Jones comment in more depth at the time I quoted it. Without understanding what statistics have to say about a trend, and what information they don't say, it is true to say the context would be lost.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 6, 2012)

One last comment regarding the Phil Jones issue before I move on to attribution:

It turns out that Phil Jones may have stuffed up his calculations for his 1995 to 2010. check out Lucia's take:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/st ... h-hadcrut/

and Jeff Id:

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/experts/

It appears Dr Jones used white noise in his calcs. I haven't fully parsed these two posts but they are saying much the same things I was saying earlier in the thread.

From Jeff's blog:

_The black ‘slope’ line just peaks over the top of the red line for under half of 1995. Since we are in June of 2011 we can still say 16 years with no significant trend, but the silliness of the thing is what this post is about. _

But enough about global temps for the moment. I only got drawn into this because Guy and Ed were not up to date regarding thinking in climate science regarding the recent pause in warming.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jun 6, 2012)

Again, 90% reduced power - a source please for that "absolutely nothing to worry about" graph 2 posts up? I realise the y axis is hugely inflated, but even so it looks awfully suspicious to me. A basic rule here should be that any graph / data has a source, or else we may as well just post our own kids drawings.

Just to also store up more stuff for me next week - Rohan, cut to the chase and give us your take on why all the mainstream climate scientists and organisations say what they do, with the whole thing so simply demolished? Is it incompetence, conspiracy or a bit of both?


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 7, 2012)

Just use the national deficit and unemployment projections, and you'll notice the tempuratures rising, then during every summer Joe Biden speaks of all of the " Green " jobs created and this explains the recent levelling off.
This adminstration blows so much air, it can control the graphs that NASA and NOAA use.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jun 7, 2012)

FWIW, here's another data point...

*Spring was warmest on record, NOAA reports*
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47721816/ns ... 9DU5cXl-g4

One shouldn't read too much into it. It's another data point. It's for the US, rather than global. (Maybe it was freezing cold in Brazil.)

As the last paragraph says, _"It's tempting to tie the warmer temperatures to manmade emissions and climate change, but NOAA emphasizes in its reports and statements that weather is influenced by other, natural factors as well. Instead, it notes that the warm pattern is indicative of what one would expect with climate change."_


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 7, 2012)

> Rohan, cut to the chase and give us your take on why all the mainstream climate scientists and organisations say what they do, with the whole thing so simply demolished? Is it incompetence, conspiracy or a bit of both?



I will do after my attribution post coming soon. The person who can/has explain this best is Judith Curry who up until climategate was a 'consensus' scientist, and I will be largely summarizing her position, which itself is a synthesis of a number of her peers such as the Pielke's (who have extremely interesting things to say almost all the time) but also outside of climate science. In fact that his her current raison detre at the moment. A large part of her efforts are toward science/policy interface, characterizing and communicating uncertainty, and examining post-normal science. I think she is as interested socio-psychological process that led science to it's current polarized mess as she is in the science of climate itself. I mean - your question cuts right to the heart of Dr Curry's research efforts.

While Ed characterised her as a contrarian and heretic earlier, I had to laugh. That's a badge she wears with considerable pride....but I digress.

@Jon:

They are quite right about reading too much into a warm spring and this preludes my attribution post perfectly. We shouldn't read too much into our (UK) extremely cold spring either. And one of the most important and salient points that a lot of climate scientists make is that climate is NOT global. Our bickering earlier about the global temperatures is utterly ridiculous in the context of understanding climate change. You will get plenty of scientists who will say Global temperature is virtually meaningless. I am not sure I fully agree - I still think it serves as a proxy and tells us *something* but I do agree that what people interpret it to mean is probably not at all meaningful.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 7, 2012)

In the mean time guys, watch this video about Free Speech. It's brilliantly done and highly relevant in the context of 'consensus'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmuzrHwMkMU&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmuzrHwM ... r_embedded)


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 7, 2012)

> Again, 90% reduced power - a source please for that "absolutely nothing to worry about" graph 2 posts up? I realise the y axis is hugely inflated, but even so it looks awfully suspicious to me. A basic rule here should be that any graph / data has a source, or else we may as well just post our own kids drawings.



Sorry - you're quite right. The source is S.L.Grotch from the Laurence Livermore Laboratory.

It should be added that this graph is quite old, but the point is still relevant. One of the problems of looking at graphs is that without the context you can show what appears psychologically to people to be a big scary trend line. what this graph is showing the context of the annual deviations from the mean on the same scale taken from individual stations from which the data was drawn. Individual stations annual means can vary +2 or -2 degrees C so this graph puts that scale of temp variability into some sort of scale when considering a global average.

What Ed is doing that I object to is displaying graphs without actually reading them. He showed a graph that had a trend of less than 0.1 degree/decade, and that was by picking a 2000 which as I have explained is a La Nina year and should be avoided for the same reasons you should avoid 1998 which would also be disingenuous. The trend from the mid-70s or so up to 1997-8 is around 0.18 - 0.17 C/decade. So he just showed me a graph making my point - that the trend has changed to be virtually flat (and picking 2000 was in the middle of the changing trend so not a good start point). Since 2002 was a neutral year for ENSO that's the year we say the trend has flattened.

And remember you need *at least* 0.2 degrees C/decade to even start raising an eyebrow. In order to get 17 years of 0.2C/decade warming *starting* from 2002 - so just another 7 years of data, you would need a warming rate of between 0.4 - 0.5C/decade!

That's waaay off the chart and I can tell you the climate scientists really don't think that's going to happen. Hence aerosols.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 8, 2012)

*Attribution Part I*

Trying to write this little post in as brief a summary as possible is nearly impossible because of the complexity of the subject. But hopefully I can get some critical thinking started.

Attribution is basically the study of principle cause. For example, the Earth warmed between 1970-2000, but what caused it? Kilimanjaro lost much of its snow cover during this period, but what caused that?

Trying to attribute a specific cause to a specific event turns out to be incredibly complicated and almost never what you might think, it's almost always a non-linear correlation, and almost always interdependent of other factors.

For example, Kilimanjaro lost it's snow cover because the Earth warmed, right? And that warming was due to increases in CO2 right? Actually no, Kilimanjaro lost it's snow cover due to precipitation changes and did not actually warm at all (or very much). So then man had nothing to do with it, right? Wrong again, the precipitation changes were most likely due to http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/jd/jd1103/2010JD014712/2010JD014712.xml&t=jd,2011,fairman (land use changes.)

Attributing recent warming to CO2 emissions is also beset with similar confounding factors. There is the fact that as oceans warm they emit CO2 because water can not hold as much CO2 (think of how fizzy your drink is when it warm compared to when it is cold), therefore simply saying that there is a correlation between temperature and CO2 does not necessarily tell you what caused the warming. Yes, the additional CO2 will cause additional warming, but you cannot be certain as to how to attribute initial warming. Was it from the rise in emissions? In which case why does the increase in atmospheric CO2 average at 2ppm rise so monotonically, while the rate of emissions has been increasing?

One of the reasons that climate sensitivity was thought to be so high (ie feedbacks tripling the amount of warming) is because the amount of CO2 rise was not enough to have caused the warming by itself. But that is the argument from ignorance - just because you can't account for it does not entitle you to work out the difference by using a highly uncertain *unmeasured* variable.

Then there is the issue of attribution of the anthropogenic warming component from the natural variation and natural forcing. It was the IPCC's overly confident assertion that Anthropogenic facts were 'very likely' the cause of >50% of the warming since 1970 that isn't justified by the supporting research that has caused all the problem. There are other factors related to natural variability not given due consideration in the last IPCC report, AR4 (assessment report 4). Let's just take one small example:

_The issue is very simple. There are large natural cycles such as the 60-year cycle, plus many other cycles, that the models of the IPCC, including the model used in your three papers, do not reproduce, as proven in my papers.
By not reproducing these natural cycles, those models have greatly overestimated the anthropogenic GHG by mistaking the warming since 1970 as due to GHG alone, while at least 2/3 of it was due to the positive phase of this 60-year cycle.
Once that the appropriate corrections are done, the projections for the 21st century are much less allarmistic that what the AGW advocates and the IPCC have proposed. And my forecast model since 2000 based on such assumptions agrees well with the data , while the IPCC model have failed, as the above figure shows very well up to now._
Nicola Scaffeta, discussing his work which uses fast fourier transformations that we use in our plug-ins and DAWs, to break down a signal into its component harmonic cycles, in just the way sound is made of sinodic signals and harmonics that comprise go together to make a note with a specific timbre. Melodyne is a great example of the kind of statistical function working in practise.

He is not the only one who believes a lot of the warming can be explained by these cycles of superimposing signals (think the way a standing wave can propagate - if you understand the phyiscs of that you can understand how this can happen with various cycles to produce extra warming), most especially the 60 year cycle that correlates to the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) that switches to 30 years cool and 30 years warm. The Brisbane floods that were experienced recently occur every 28 to 30 years at the time the PDO flips between phases. One of the real dangers of the consensus based science that has influenced policy is that despite previous flooding, and knowing that these flooding events occur at regular 30 year intervals, plans to defend against them were not completed because it was thought that drought as a result of global warming would be the most likely result. Instead of finishing the flood defences, they build a desalination plant, since mothballed because Queensland have a glut of water, and running it would be uneconomic.

The most important reserve of judgement I think should be made is to the attribution of any extreme weather event on Climate Change. For example rather than global warming having exacerbated extreme weather, there is in fact no trend at all and even a decline in highly energetic hurricanes, cyclones and tornados. But the damage being done by them and the costs incurred have increased. Why? Because we live in flood plains, and in the paths of tornados and hurricanes. In short we are more exposed to them not because they have been increasing in frequency or intensity, but because there are more of us, we have more stuff, and we don't seem to remember more than a couple of years and certainly not long enough to realise that what happened a few years ago might happen again.

Take a look at the Hurricane Drought since Katrina. It was a record period without hurricanes:







Tornados also have not increased and look to have decreased:






*Sea Ice*






Global Sea Ice Extent Larger

One of the many memes popular in the debate is of course the Arctic Sea Ice extent declining as a sure sign of global warming. Firstly, bear in mind that that does not *prove* that Anthro-CO2 caused the warming, only that warming occurred. But warming may not *necessarily* be the reason for sea ice to decline - it is actually affected changes in by warm ocean currents, and the changes in directions of prevailing winds. Although, I should add, it is generally acknowledged that the Arctic has warmed as well as those factors being in play. But as you can see by the above graphs, the decline is not that alarming and the Antarctic has not declined at all. The other important thing to bear in mind that accurate measurements have only been taken since the satellite era - toward the end of the 70s. Anecdotally, there is plenty of evidence that the Arctic has lost just as much of its summer ice (and its only summer ice that is affected) previously in the 20th Century, and before Anthro-CO2 could caused any effect on the climate.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 8, 2012)

*Attribution Part II*

*Sea level Rise*

Sea Level Rise Large






One of the biggest genuine dangers of global warming is sea level rise. This is elementary physics - as water heats up it expands. But talk about confounding factors, there are so many for sea level rise! In terms of global warming alarm it has to be the mystifying non-argument ever. The concern was that sea-level rise would accelerate. I won't talk about the exaggerations made by some less scrupulous scientists, but the IPCC had the range from 18 to 59 cm. The confounding factors are isostatic rebound from the last ice age, tectonic shift, and underground aquifer depletion. But as you can see, sea level rise has not accelerated as predicted and is below the IPCCs estimates, if you take the BAU scenario.

Judith Curry has an extremely interesting thread very current on her site which examines a rash of new papers relating to sea level rise. From her concluding comments:

_JC comments:  When I raise the issue of emphasizing adaptation over mitigation, the response I often get is that the sea level rise issue is so global and overwhelming that mitigation is the only sensible way  to deal with the global sea level rise.  It is good to see these new data-driven analyses of relevance to sea level rise that highlight the uncertainties in our understanding of past sea level rise (and by inference, future sea level rise).
It will be interesting to see how all this plays out in the AR5.   I found the “science community was shocked” comment by Rahmstorf to be very illuminating; that is what happens when you do “consensus” science rather than focusing on the uncertainties and challenging your science._
That's long enough - god I could go on - but I wouldn't be able to give everything the detail it deserves. I haven't even touched on Climate History - incredibly interesting area which throws up many surprises important in the context of the GW debate.

I leave you with signs that the orthodox 'mainstream' climate science is starting to shift its views. This article in the Mail, a paper I would not normally go near, is actually quite a good summary of some of the issues besetting the IPCC position.

David Rose Article in Mail

Candid Comments from Climate Scientists is an interesting thread where many of the big players in climate science discuss the hiatus in warming, it's implications, and possible causes.


----------



## zacnelson (Jun 9, 2012)

Some more great posts there mate! Keep em coming!! (If you have time!) That article in the Mail was very telling


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jun 10, 2012)

*Climate Change - the consensus view [PART ONE]*

Having been away for a week, I've had a chance to take a step back from the whirlwind of this particular debate. I thought it best, therefore, to attempt to write as consise a post as I am able to show the big picture... however, this particular big picture is pretty damn big, so this is nevertheless probably my longest ever VI post - so long in fact it needs to be in 2 parts. Er, sorry.

I am acutely aware that it just appears as if some people say some things and some say others, so you pays your money and you makes your choice. Rohan has done a superb job at presenting what looks like a well-researched and independent analysis of the whole area. However, I think the issue is important enough to demonstrate why, with the best of intentions and the old maxim “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”, he has in fact done the exact opposite. To avoid charges of hypocrisy, I make absolutely no claims of being an expert in climate science myself, rather I appeal directly to the most reliable sources and use basic logic in my argument.

Before launching in, an important caveat. Contrarians all believe different things, and those differences are reflected here at VI Control. Some say that AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is real but doesn't matter. Some say it is real but it isn't large enough to matter. Some say warming is real but humans haven't caused it. Some say there was warming but now it's over. Some say there never was any warming of any kind at all. Rather than focus on picking apart any one of those positions (which often seem to shift and vary even in the same sentence), I'm going to show who exactly represents the mainstream position, what it says (and doesn't say), how it differs from ALL those contrarian positions and what has thus far been presented. We're so far from Kansas at this point, it needs a huge step back. So forgive if not everything addresses issues you are interested in or have some elements are repeated from earlier posts, but we have to – briefly - start at the beginning in a logical order.

The starting point for me at least is the C word – Consensus. All of the world's major institutions have endorsed the basic reality of AGW, from NASA to the NOAA to the Royal Society. To date, none have modified their positions. In a meta analysis of peer reviewed literature between 1993 and 2003, it was found that 0% of papers had conclusions which were against the AGW hypothesis. In a more recent paper (Doran 2009), it was found that 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded “yes” to the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”. In another 2010 paper (Anderegg), which had an almost indentical percentage figure, they find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

So no matter what you read by whomever, the consensus is extremely well established. But what about that tiny yet vocal percentage of climate scientists – Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke, Judith Curry etc – who disagree with the consensus? Who's to say that they aren't in the right? After all, there have been cases in the past where the maverick voices in science were proved right in the end. The first thing to note is that in the main they do agree that AGW is occuring, even if they continually play this down or try to disprove elements of it. But the most important thing is that, so far, their academic work has been found to be in error, and thus has not been further cited (which is a significant indicator as to the quality of the work). Lindzen's legendary 2009 paper he admits himself contained _“stupid mistakes”_ that were _“just embarrassing”_ ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/scien ... wanted=all ), while Curry's 2011 paper which challenged part of the IPCC's stance has also been rebutted (Jones and Stott, 2011, Huber and Knutti, 2011). If you are interested in the details, you can read some of the discussion as to why the mainstream scientists have taken a rather dim view of Curry's work here at the Real Climate blog, (Real Climate is run by mainstream and commonly cited climate scientists) - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... statement/ . In short, to date none of the contrarian arguments have withstood the rigours of the scientific method, while those supporting AGW have, time and again.

So what are we to make of the claims that warming has slowed or stopped? Or claims made here that actually at least one scientific institution HAS changed its position? Well, to kill two birds with one stone, the UK's Royal Society had a recent internal kerfuffle regarding a Climate Change guide they produced, following complaints from some contrarians within the society. It eventually surfaced, with 2 contrarians as co-authors. It concluded not only that _“There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century”_, but even during the less spectacular-looking last decade _“2000-2009 was, globally, around 0.15 °C warmer than the decade 1990-1999”_. This, remember, from the society who have supposedly jumped into the contrarian camp, according to some enthusiastic folks at least (however implausible that claim is).

Given the scale and robustness of the consensus, you might wonder why, when the global temperature graph of the past decade or so in isolation doesn't look as worrying as the previous few. First, although there are graphs that might not look too spectacular, as the Royal Society suggests it is nevertheless the warmest decade on record. You can see the overall trend more clearly the further back you go - over 30-40 years shows the last decade within the normal limits of steadily rising temperatures. Indeed, when the specifics of El Nino, volcanoes etc are all removed (the so-called “noise” in the data), the trend hasn't shifted at all, and maintains a rock solid even steady rise ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html , animated image 3rd down, Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011 – see also image above for the 40 year trend and how it is possible to demonstrate cooling by cherry picking the data). Indeed, when the never-reliable Daily Mail printed a story in January 2012 by David Rose which reported the UK's Met Office as saying “warming had stopped”, the Met Office had to print a press release saying _“This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading” _http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/?tw_p=twt .

But the other thing which is perhaps less obvious is that temperature is only part of the story. The basic science behind the AGW theory was known in the 19th century and can be easily reproduced in a high school experiment. We know CO2 is a greehouse gas, we know it warms, we know we've shoved a whole heap up there and therefore we'd EXPECT the Earth to warm. When you do the sums, however, the Earth's land temperatures aren't rising quite as fast as you might imagine. This is primarily because a whole bunch of that heat goes into the oceans, and also man-made pollution (ironically) is keeping it at bay. When all the number crunching is done, we would expect a warming of around 1 degree above pre-industrial levels by now, in fact it is 0.8 degrees which is well within the error bars of projections. Essentially we're still very much on track, so the peer reviewed science and scientific institutions continue to reflect this.

*PART 2 BELOW*


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jun 10, 2012)

*Climate Change - the consensus view [PART TWO]*

So the final question – is it really all that bad? Let's say that observed warming to date is how things will continue. 0.15 degrees per decade (many figures have this very slightly higher) doesn't sound much, and a no-brainer calculation arrives at only 1.5 degrees warming for the whole century after all. So why all the fuss?

According to the most recent IPCC report, “dangerous” climate change is thought to occur at 2 degrees of warming (relative to 1990 average). However, subsequent peer reviewed research suggests that this figure was optimistic – indeed, only 1 degree of warming is now seen to be as dangerous as 2 degrees was previously thought to be ( http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf - also gives a summary of what areas “dangerous climate change” covers). At current observed temperature rises, with no additional factors, this will occur somewhere around 2060.

The really bad news however is that as the global temperature increases, positive feedbacks are likely to kick in – the earth's own systems amplifying anthropogenic warming (just as naturally released CO2 has done in the Earth's distant past, to give one example). Although there is huge uncertainty as to magnitude and timing of such “tipping points” which mean they remain out of the broad temperature rise projections, the peer-reviewed mainstream view is that they represent significant risk – and a risk with potentially severe consequences. Although it may take several centuries to come to fruition, the progress may be unstoppable, once the tipping elements are passed – and these points may well occur very soon. As the paper referenced above puts it, _“even modest increases in GMT [Global Mean Temperature] above levels circa 1990 could commit the climate system to the risk of very large impacts on multiple-century time scales”_. Another much cited paper elaborates: _“Society may be lulled into a false sense of security by smooth projections of global change. Our synthesis of present knowledge suggests that a variety of tipping elements could reach their critical point within this century under anthropogenic climate change. The greatest threats are tipping the Arctic sea-ice and the Greenland ice sheet, and at least five other elements could surprise us by exhibiting a nearby tipping point”_ ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2538841/ ). It's very important to realise that NONE of these tipping points are part of the basic temperature projections, and will come on top, and in each case it will be practically impossible for any human intervention to prevent the natural processes that we indavertently kick-started.

This is all in the future, but what about now? There is strong evidence that even our current 0.8 degree rise from pre-industrial levels is responsible for some of the very serious phenomena experienced around the world today. There has been a lot of recent work done in the area of attribution of extreme weather events. In Dim Coumou & Stefan Rahmstorf's 2012 paper for Nature, they conclude that _“for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate”_. Since their paper has been published, the phenomenal number of broken high temperature records in 2012 (15,290 individual records broken in the USA in March, which is itself a record for number of records broken in any given month - http://news.yahoo.com/start-2012-march-shatter-us-heat-records-042848594.html (http://news.yahoo.com/start-2012-march- ... 48594.html) ) seems likely to add weight to their conclusions.

Another very important related point is that the global temperature masks regional variations. The Arctic has received most warming of anywhere in the world, and recent studies (eg http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051000.shtml ) have linked this to a change in behaviour in the jetstream – which may in turn be affecting extreme weather in the Northern Hemisphere. So even if we have no further feedback effects – as we well might – our warming world appears to be causing serious problems, due in part to our apparently very modest rising to date.

So to summarise:

*1.It is beyond doubt that mainstream climate scientists and scientific institutions in general embrace – and continue to embrace - the explanation that humans are currently warming the planet.
2.Despite what may be claimed in the blogsphere, 2000-2009 is the warmest decade on record by between 0.15 and 0.17 degrees, and the underlying trend is continuing in this upwards direction. This is explicitly confirmed by main scientific institutions.
3.If our observered rate of warming continues, it is expected to lead to dangerous climate change within this century, while positive feedbacks may make this serious situation ultimately more critical.*

All this is why some of us are rather exasperated by what has been discussed here. The blogsphere creates the impression that the debate about whether AGW is real or has stopped is ongoing – it isn't. Vital work continues on the uncertainties, but to all intents and purposes, the basic realities of AGW are uncontested within the field (if not within the internet). The very few climate scientists who have published research reaching a conclusion against the consensus view have so far substantially been found in error.

The mainstream view of climate scientists and scientific institutions as a whole is that AGW is real, and all the above, taken together, is part of why the professionals at least do very much care about climate change. It really doesn't matter how many dubious graphs are linked on internet forums, or how loudly some unqualified people claim “facts” on the internet, that is what the mainstream consensus is. Merely stating something is a fact when it is easily shown to be false does not make it so. Now, of course you can take it or leave it. What you can't do is say that the mainstream consensus view does not exist, which is rather like saying black is white. You have to either suggest (and be minded to believe) either gross professional incompetance or a full-blown liberal conspiracy to advance the argument that AGW is not real (which, of course, plenty of people do).

BTW, much more detail on all the above, and any references that I don't specifically mention can be found at http://www.skepticalscience.com , which is a useful summary of the conesensus position and links to the actual science. As such, it is very different from other sites on the Net. It doesn't make it necessarily right of course, but if you want to know what the experts actually say in their research, and how their science refutes popular myths (a huge number of which have already been repeatedly raised on this thread, despite claims that they don't reflect what contrarians really say) then it's an excellent place to start.

In conclusion - how to explain the discrepancy here? Rohan and others claim that warming has stopped (or nearly stopped), and furthermore, that's the mainstream position in climatology. Yet I've demonstrated from multiple sources that this is false. The reason why we hear this so often is that the tiny percentage of climatologists who have a contrarian position dominate the discussion of a huge section of the blogsphere, and if that is your own view, then that is solely whom you listen to. Rohan in particular quotes from the same small range of climatology sources, all of which lie outside the mainstream view, and even in some cases in the popular media - The Daily Mail's David Rose in particular has been demonstrated to be unreliable and even has the dubious honour of being the subject of a special press release by the Met Office whom he misquotes. The mainstream is consistently ignored in favour of views which, although unsupported by best scientific evidence, are more palatable to many, including the right wing press. You might think that presented earlier in this thread there is serious debate, with serious data and serious graphs (and I anticipate many more to come), but it's built on sand – there is nothing of substance in it. If there was, the mainstream scientists would be awash with further research and debate of their own. Instead, they are working to reduce genuine uncertainties and are further developing this vitally important area of scientific research.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jun 10, 2012)

*Climate Change - the consensus view [POSTSCRIPTS]*

(sorry, too long even for 2 parts!)

*POSTSCRIPT 1* - One misconception which is often in evidence is that the mainstream view only accepts “alarmist” projections, and aggressively shouts down more sober science. As just one example of how absurd this is, during my reasearch I found this Real Climate blog post regarding a paper which suggested the IPCC projections of sea level rise were far too conservative - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... t-ice-age/ . The post was highly critical of alarmist tabloid headlines, but also found the science wanting, suggesting that the author had overstated their case. As it turns out, there has been further research to suggest this much higher figure may be correct after all - http://www.glaciology.net/Home/PDFs/Ann ... ingsby2100 . This is the reality of real debate in the climate science community – healthy scepticism in the true sense of the word, and robust debate - not the caricature of hysterical alarmism that is often presented here. There is plenty of hysteria, selective quoting and cherry picking, but that lies outside the mainstream – the scientific method itself will not stand for it.

*POSTSCRIPT 2* – a specific plea to those who, like me, accept the validity of the mainstream view – please do correct any errors I have made in terms of representing the broad consensus. I'm no self-proclaimed expert, this is merely an attempt to correct consisitent misrepresentation and point at the sources.

*POSTSCRIPT 3 *- Please don't quote entire posts when replying, otherwise this thread's page count will explode!


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 11, 2012)

> rather I appeal directly to the most *reliable sources* and use basic logic in my argument.



....and immediately fall into a serious trap Guy. You ironically, in the same sentence as 'basic logic' use an Aristotelian logical fallacy.

Your question; "Why did the consensus get it so wrong?" is one I want to answer in a final post. Because what you consider reliable and the basis for why that is, is seriously dubious. Your adherence to the line that "well these important scientific institutions believe it so therefore must I" is directly analogous to the adherence of religious dogma. That is not why you should believe what they say. You should believe what they say based on *empirical* evidence - and I stress *empirical* for very important reasons, and a falsifiable theory. A scientific theory, for it to be valid, must make predictions that can be *falsified*. That is to say, it must be able to say that if the theory holds true we should expect to see this or that, and if we don't then the theory is wrong. That this is missing in climate science, or has been for a long time is probably the strongest and most valid of all the criticisms, and has to do with the way the problem has been framed. But I'll come back to that.




> Contrarians all believe different things, and those differences are reflected here at VI Control. Some say that AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is real but doesn't matter. Some say it is real but it isn't large enough to matter. Some say warming is real but humans haven't caused it. Some say there was warming but now it's over. Some say there never was any warming of any kind at all.



You forget "some say it is real but is good for us."

And in one sentence you characterize extremely well the general *miss-characterization* of the 'scientific' skeptic position. It's starts with the first word; "contrarian". You then go on to characterize opposing views to the orthodoxy as disparate and inconsistent and therefore imply that they are not valid. But that is simply rubbish. Even if those views were disparate and inconsistent with each other, it still does not by proxy make the prevailing 'consensus' view correct. That's like saying John and Peter don't agree with Paul and Bill. But John and Peter don't agree with one another, therefore Paul and Bill are correct. 

Apart from "some say there never was any warming at of any kind at all", (which is patently absurd - I have never heard a science-based skeptic ever suggest that) none of the other points of view are in anyway inconsistent. One of the key skeptic points of view is that "Climate Change" is an oxymoron - the nature of the climate IS change. The Climate always warms or cools - characterizing the debate as skeptics 'denying' this is the classic strawman and a diversion from the main point - where is the evidence that the warming is anthropogenic?

And to absolutely confirm this point you mention this:



> In a more recent paper (Doran 2009), it was found that 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded “yes” to the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”.



Yet that question could be answered "yes" by many skeptics!!! Yet:

- the poll was US-based and only polled 79 people who claimed climate science as the main area of expertise.
- It' not peer-reviewed. Merely an article.
- I could name enough scientists just off the top of my head that would bring that figure down to 50%.
- Consensus is NOT an argument.

As Einstein said when a certain German Chancellor arranged for 100 scientists to say that Einsteins theory of relativity was wrong he replied - _"If I was wrong then one would have been enough!"_

The Royal Society by it's very charter is not supposed to make any conclusions about on going scientific inquiry. That it put out a pamphlet "Climate Change Controversies" is a political departure from it and are full of inaccuracies. Just pulling out one random example:

_We know from looking at gases found trapped in cores of polar ice that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now 35 per cent greater than they have been for at least the last 650,000 years. From the radioactivity and chemical composition of the gas we
know that this is mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels, as well as the production of cement and the widespread burning of the world’s forests.
_

Actually no they do NOT know that CO2 is 35% higher concentration than in the last 650,000 years. That's because the resolution of the ice cores is far too low to be able to state something like that with any kind of certainty AT ALL. CO2 fluctuates a great deal around a mean. There was more CO2 in the atmosphere around briefy in the early 1940's than presently and it is highly dependent on the average temperature. They also do NOT know it was mainly from the burning of fossil fuels because the isotopic markers they use to determine this is so uncertain. This lead to a group of it's fellows writing a complaint:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10178124



> First, although there are graphs that might not look too spectacular, as the Royal Society suggests it is nevertheless the warmest decade on record.



Which it is. And it is utterly *meaningless*. Since the record doesn't go back more than 150 years, a mere batting of an eye-lid in climatological terms, and since the temperatures have generally been rising since the end of the little ice-age of course the last decade is the warmest on record. Had you been writing this in 1940's that comment would also have been true - and just as meaningless. One of the great controversies in the climate science is the existence of the medieval warm period where temperatures were reckoned to be warmer then than today. For a long time that was the consensus view. If the consensus view is always right, then why did it change?

The medieval warm period was well known to have existed, which is why climate historians are well represented on the skeptic side of the great divide. It was at least as warm as today and most likely warmer - at least in Greenland where archeologists have found artifacts buried in the permafrost. Clearly they were buried or covered before the earth had frozen over, and had since the ground is still frozen it seems logical to assume that temperatures are still cooler today. And there is much more evidence for the MWP being global being uncovered all the time.



> But the other thing which is perhaps less obvious is that temperature is only part of the story. The basic science behind the AGW theory was known in the 19th century and can be easily reproduced in a high school experiment.



Again true but trivial - and a strawman argument. It was Arhenius that proposed that the earth was being kept warm by heat trapping gases and Tyndal who established the radiative warming properties of CO2. The issue of Anthropogenic global warming rests on feedbacks and climate sensitivity. As I have said constantly - it's this and no other that matters from the point of view of falsifying the theory. The only way that CO2 can cause warming we should be concerned about is if the feedbacks are net positive and at the very least over 2degC/century. The warming from a doubling of CO2 or CO2 equivalents is 1.1 - 1.2degC. You *must* have the feedbacks to have a case that there is going to be anything to do something about.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 11, 2012)

2 well written opposing theories, I am still unconvinced that Science can predict either way what is to come in the next decade, much less 100 years.
But at least the concern from both sides raises so many valid points.

One thing I always notice though is that using the term " Skeptics " and " Contrarians " is not how scientists engage in debate, but rather believers who wish to denegrade anyone who disagrees with them.
Reminds me of the way some relatives of mine used the term " Non-Jewish " as if they were the proper, or majority Religion.
Naturally coming from a multi racial, multi religious based family I am quite familiar with these condescending generalizations meant to denegrade those they disagree with.
Sceintists don't engage in debates using such tactics, but rather their minions.

Stevenson-Again has demonstrated over and over a courteous, fact based theory backed by articles and discussion.
Those who disagree that joined into to the OPs thread that disagree, use emotionally charged tactics, which won't make me change my mind, but I do notice that tactics like this are just another reason some people might overlook most of their repititious, emotionally charged posts.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jun 11, 2012)

I think I'm at the end of the road on this one. My lengthy post is exactly how I see the mainstream science, and exactly why I support it - I don't really have anything more to contribute.

In conclusion, mine is a vote for the scientific method vs a vote for the ideology-driven blogsphere (the religious dogma comment, Rohan, is as telling as it is absurd). As the science evolves, I'll go with it, whichever direction it takes, because the scientific method is the best we have to go on - and the best defence against dogma, political or religious agendas.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 11, 2012)

> scientific method vs a vote for the ideology-driven blogsphere (the religious dogma comment, Rohan, is as telling as it is absurd).



It is not absurd. It is extremely apt.

It is the thing I admire most about Judith Curry, her 'insiders' view of how climate science got to where it is and her unremitting message of returning to evidence based science rather than consensus science and the ivory towers "we know best" attitude that was a hallmark of the hockey-stick controversy that has completely undermined what authority climate science claimed to have.

At the heart of it all is characterizing uncertainty. That sounds very dry and dull, but once you understand and fully comprehend what she means by that you can understand why climate science is constantly misrepresenting its own findings. Just look at her latest post:

The Psychology of Uncertainty

Her bolding:

_the classical scientific paradigm, in rejecting uncertainty as an essential aspect of reality, has been the unwitting agent of great injury both to our planet and our psyche. I believe that this situation is in urgent need of redress and necessarily involves “revisioning” both our scientific and psychological relationship to uncertainty._

and....

_The reasoning about the climate system reflected by the IPCC is fundamentally deterministic. Yes, initial conditions and model parameters are varied in climate model simulations to some extent, and multiple models are used, but the overarching philosophy is fundamentally deterministic. Confidence in conclusions is judged in the context of arguments for and against, with disregard to acknowledging areas of ignorance (see my Italian Flag post).

An issue of substantial concern is how we actually use the scientific findings (whatever their merit) in policy making. The UNFCCC policies seem to me to be a case in point of having lost reverence, not only for our planet, but for the complex, interpenetrating web of relationships that comprise the world.

And finally, the complex web that has been woven between climate science and policy makers makes the following statement an issue of substantial concern:

Scientists, like manufacturers, are not eager to retool the plant just when it is starting to turn a profit. Not, that is, unless they want to generate a level of crisis and anxiety that may well threaten the entire system on which their enterprise is based.

Taming the uncertainty monster at the climate science – policy interface requires reflection on these issues._

There is ideological positions on either side of the debate - especially in the US. On the one hand, you have conservatives who see the CAGW meme as threatening their libertarian values, by requiring government to control the economy and interfere in markets in order manage what to them is an imagined risk, but is really just a grab for power and influence over the populace. They are motivated by a sense of preserving liberty. Then you have the left wing liberal side, who don't want to see a tragedy of the commons, who believe that unconstrained individualistic self-interest is harmful both to ourselves and the environment we want to preserve for our children. They are motivated out of a sense of responsibility.

I am not interested in the political question - only the science. At one stage I was as die hard a 'believer' in the dangers of global warming as you are. I can tell you, that quite a number of 'skeptics' are ideologically liberal, and were there a real danger of CAGW, the government/UN is exactly who *should* be doing what it can to minimize the dangers and/or mitigate. However, in attempting to engage in a debate with my father who was skeptical, I was forced to 'bone-up' and try to understand the debate better. I found the more I looked the shakier things got for the CAGW premise and more recently the AGW premise. The more you look into it and think about it and not just take things at face value, the more doubt creeps in. As soon as you allow any doubt from the consensus view the whole basis melts away before the data and evidence which overwhelmingly points away from CAGW. You nearly started down that road a while back when you started to play around with the graphs. Keep going. Keep looking. Keep asking questions - ask open questions with an open mind. Don't take anyone's word for it - not a "skeptics" and not a "mainstreamist" and abandon the nonsense of veracity by authority. Challenge climate scientists who participate on blogs. The blogosphere has fast become a front-line sort of 'peer-review' - a lot of good science is carried out there. And why not - the societal impacts of policy decisions made based on what these guys simple 'say' is truly vast.

When I say challenge, ask a scientist or commentator at RealClimate about something that a skeptic says. Then go to that skeptic with the response. After a while you get an idea of whose case is strongest....but keep it on hold and be prepared for that to be reversed months later. That's how science works....
If you go through with that, bear in mind that the debate is highly polarized especially in the states. Whole careers and credibility have been invested on either side of the question. With careful dispassionate respectful questioning you can get some extremely interesting answers.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 11, 2012)

Seven words: direct correlation between CO2 and temperature increase.

The rest is a load of bullshit.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jun 11, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Mon Jun 11 said:


> It is not absurd.



It's absurd.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 11, 2012)

> direct correlation between CO2 and temperature increase.



yeah? which came first?


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 11, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Mon Jun 11 said:


> > direct correlation between CO2 and temperature increase.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah? which came first.



Indeed, the correlation is there, but CO2 lags temperature increases.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 11, 2012)

*whimper*


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 11, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Mon Jun 11 said:


> stevenson-again @ Mon Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> > It is not absurd.
> ...



It's certainly not absurd Guy. 

You choose, by your own admission, to 'believe' and, to paraphrase a venerable scientific institution's motto, 'take their word for it'. Clearly you are simply unwilling to go beyond the logically fallacious idea of the consensus, even though it is always already a political construct not a scientific one (it is also an illusion). It would appear that you refuse to question the scientific basis or the political realities that lay behind what you believe in, and you will not countenance any viewpoint that differs from the credo. And that is in all respects analogous and tantamount to having religious faith.

Unfortunately, just like the adoption of any religious position, you have no proof, only the prophecies (in this case the fantastical 'projections' of doom from unvalidated and fundamentally flawed GIGO models) that sadly for Gore, Pachauri, the Team, political advocacy NGOs etc are simply not coming to pass. And there is good reason for that. 

Your faith is strong, admirably so, but time will tell whether it is warranted or not. 

Cheers


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 11, 2012)

> It's absurd.



It is *not* absurd Guy.

You are saying that the reason you think Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, is because some important (to you) people with letters after their names have decreed it so. Not only that, that important societies of people of science who are somehow the sole arbiters of knowledge, have put out messages in support of their fellow scientists who have decreed it so. Can you really not see the parallel with religion? I mentioned that the Royal Societies motto is 'Nullus in Verba" which means "take no ones word for it". Do you not see the irony of taking the word of a society whose professed philosophy is not to take their word for it?

Not only that, but you would completely disregard the viewpoints of scientists who don't agree with the conclusions someone at those politically connected places have made public, because those people's view points aren't worth examining because they don't agree with these worthy societies.

Mate, in my universe - that is absurd.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 11, 2012)

Speaking of a religious faith, most major religions believe we are in the end of days as Tornados, and weather patterns have increased the coffers, so even the Preachers have a stake in believing their ancient texts.
Same with the Hopi and Mayans too...
So " Contrarians " are definately in the minority as Science and Religion have joined together.
The Preachers have even larger offerings after their Sermons, and the Scientists recieve endless funding.
Interesting parallels.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jun 11, 2012)

chimuelo @ Mon Jun 11 said:


> The Preachers have even larger offerings after their Sermons, and the Scientists recieve endless funding.



Top Hollywood composers receive large amounts of funds too. They're in on it! ~o) 

In fact, every successful profession in the world receives an unending stream of funds. Dentists, burger flippers, prostitutes. They're all out to get us! >8o 

o-[][]-o


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 11, 2012)

chimuelo @ Mon Jun 11 said:


> The Preachers have even larger offerings after their Sermons...



You are factually and statistically inaccurate as 95% of U.S. churches have a membership under 500. Last year in Memphis, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, several hundred independent churches were near foreclosure proceedings on the church property.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 11, 2012)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... NsNbOFQBYg

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... pKpCBBB9_Q

That's probably also an accurate estimation from the smaller/private Churches.
But I saw Benny Hinn everytime I tried to find the live Bluegrass Channels I love while in Tennessee in April.

You oughtta check out the YouTube video of where he can heal 3-4 people per second, and the usual pair of folks catching them as they fall, all healed up and ready to face the end of times....
He definately should have a Cover Charge.
I really like the tax free status and online prayers for pay.
Sure seems like Religion is getting pretty scientific to me.

You don't even need to leave your house anymore as God can stop in and naturally Benny Hinn has to translate for you as God doesn't speak English, he's actually Mexican.

Watching him I get the same feeling of disgust when watching predictors of Earths future if we dont pay more money.......


----------



## zacnelson (Jun 11, 2012)

I think you'll find most Christians (myself included) do not for a moment associate themselves with Binny Hinn! He may be on the TV but that doesn't make him representative of the majority. However I do agree with you wholeheartedly that there are similarities between CAGW evangelism and religions. There is a new kind of environmentalist piety where the new form of sin or transgression is to damage the earth and reducing your carbon footprint is the new penance. And like some religious people, the CAGW movement thrives on exaggerating or inventing an immediate apocalypse.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 11, 2012)

No Offense Zach,
I was simply pointing out how money funds the healing process, as well as the scientific results that amazingly are rewarded with even more money if certain conclusions are sought.

Christians I know practice their beliefs in private from my experience, it's more of a lifestyle.

I actually went to a Black Gospel church with bandmates in Philly while I was there, and I laughed my ass off as they had a picture of Jesus, and they made it obvious he was of a darker pigment, but definately not white.

It's little things like that I learn as I go along in life that I tend to remember and relate to. I never had so much fun singing and enjoying myself. Reminded me of a Dixieland Funeral once the body goes underground.

There is so much to learn from listening to others, and sharing their beliefs as well as your own, instead of digging in with your heels.

Confuscious say, only the wisest and stupidest of men never change.
Maybe they meant the Rich and the Poor........which leaves the middle class.... 0oD

Peace


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 11, 2012)

zac, any reference to blind faith only applies to those of you who refuse to accept reality. Believing that this is not happening requires one to be completely deluded.

And no, of course I'm not saying all faith is in that category.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jun 12, 2012)

It's absurd.

It's absolutely, manfiestly, completely absurd.

In corner A - the scientific method. Something yes - yes, let's use the B word here - BELIEVED because it is a consensus among almost all people who are best qualified. They arrive at this conclusion after working on evidence and having it vetted, then other colleagues try to find further errors in it of ANY kind. In turn, once the debate has effectively ended because there is no significant argument left that challenges the broad conclusion, the institutions of the entire science community then also support it. This, Rohan, is described by you as "like a religion".

In corner B - a small band of scientific mavericks and The Internet. So far, the sum total of their research has been found to be in error, and has been debunked. Yet, according to you Rohan, only THEY have seen the light. Only THEY have the truth, and if we only have eyes to see what to you is plainly obvious, then we too will embrace the One True Position. And this is described as the only "evidence-based position".

It's not only absurd, it's maddeningly absurd.

I realise with every passing word I am completely wasting my time. People just believe whatever they want to believe after all. But raising the "CO2 lags temperature" canard by both Rohan and Stephen is yet one more proof of this. No doubt they both know the explanation. As the world warms, more CO2 is released naturally into the atmosphere, so that's the only way it can work historically - how else would the CO2 get there first? But now of course we have humans and cars and factories, and us clever souls found a way to rip CO2 out of the ground and shove it right up there, saving mother nature a slow and laborious job (don't worry, Mother Nature will join in too in its own good patient time). So for the first time in the Earth's history, we've been clever enough to beat nature at its own game, and CO2 is leading temperature rise. But its the same CO2 and - however it gets up there - it warms.

Rohan and Stephen both know this. Not only is this explanation satisfactory, it's the ONLY answer that can possibly make sense - we've only been in this game of burning fossil fuels in massive numbers for a couple of hundred years, and the earth is 4.5 billion years old. This ridiculous fallacy was used in the risible "Great Global Warming Swindle documentary", and a friend of mine raised it as compelling evidence that the documentary-makers were right. When I explained in 30 seconds what I've just explained to you in 30 seconds, he actually got angry that he had been effectively lied too by the programme-makers. Hours later he was still furious! That was an honest reaction when there's an explanation that is so obvious (and so universally accepted) that there's no alternative but to accept it, unless you are minded to reject ANY evidence that doesn't support your ideology. 

So why raise it now as if it was a coup de grace? Because absolutely any straw is clutched to in order to DENY. Yes, it is definitely time to use the D word. Rohan is perpetually quoting the Royal Societies motto, and is no doubt delighted that 2 contrarian / deniers have indeed made it into their authorship of the climate change guide, and yet still rejects their own conclusions. And NASA. And the NOAA. And NAS. And The Met Office, And the Geophysical Union and... (insert 55 more institutions here). Ed had it spot on - it is exactly the same as the "fake" moon landings, the government plot behind 9-11. The huge, the obvious, the big picture (as I described in my long post) is rejected in belief of an absurd conspiracy embraced and fuelled by unqualified people on the internet who want to see the world in terms that fit their own ideology.

To add to this, actually there IS a genuine conspiracy at work here, where companies and individuals have poured incredible sums of money and used political influence to support an industry which is under threat - the fossil fuel industry. It has also been embraced by right wing libertarians, who see any restriction onto the free market, for whatever reason, as communism. Unlike fake conspiracies, however, this is verifiable and a matter of public record.

All this is why it is absurd. My language is far too conservative. This is an assault on science, and an insult on the intelligence and integrity of scientists. It's the oldest, cheapest trick in the book to accuse others of that which applies to yourself, and this is a classic example. As I've repeatedly said, I'll change my views in a moment if the insitutitions of the world change theirs, if the evidence genuinely changes they will be required to do so. So far there is absolutely no sign of that happening, because there is no evidence of substance to require it to change. That is not religion, that is not faith, that is science, and if you can't tell the difference then it's a sad day indeed.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 12, 2012)

> In corner A - the scientific method. Something yes - yes, let's use the B word here - BELIEVED because it is a consensus among almost all people who are best qualified. They arrive at this conclusion after working on evidence and having it vetted, then other colleagues try to find further errors in it of ANY kind. In turn, once the debate has effectively ended because there is no significant argument left that challenges the broad conclusion, the institutions of the entire science community then also support it. This, Rohan, is described by you as "like a religion".



No - what is like a 'religion' is your acceptance, and that your picture of reality is that they have come to confident conclusions or that the errors and uncertainties have been acknowledged. The problem is, you simply have not done the hard yards of asking the questions and examining the veracity of the conclusions the mainstream have come to. You are unaware of how science proceeds normally and prefer to believe that science is above the petty politics, hubris, and self-interest that blights many of mans other endeavours. It's extreme naivety bourne of an unquestioning mind.



> In corner B - a small band of scientific mavericks and The Internet. So far, the sum total of their research has been found to be in error, and has been debunked. Yet, according to you Rohan, only THEY have seen the light. Only THEY have the truth, and if we only have eyes to see what to you is plainly obvious, then we too will embrace the One True Position. And this is described as the only "evidence-based position".



Again an utter mis-characterisation based on your ignorance of how the whole thing actually works. The 'small-band' is not so small, and really those that speak out are simply in a position to be out-spoken, and their size is irrelevant to the question of whether they are right or not. Mavericks in science are the ones who move science forward, who challenge established notions, who are prepared to acknowledge areas of ignorance. Mavericks are to be cherished and listened to.

What you simply don't understand Guy, is the tribal behaviour of these scientists. If you don't agree with so and so then forget about getting your paper published, or having anything like an easy time through peer review. If you don't publish, you don't get funding - publish or perish. You fail to acknowledge hubris, political influence and general politicking that goes on in not just climate science, but in other science as well. I have a friend who is a scientist and they often have to temper their real views because of political concerns. You don't hear about this in other science fields because no other science has conclusions that have such a profound impact on public policy. Science normally has these squabbles and disagreements, but over time it is generally self-correcting - your rocket either flies or it doesn't. In the case of climate science, we have been asked to make drastic changes to the entire world economy before the science has had a chance to be conclusive.

You seem to think that these academics have thoroughly checked their own work, or that some one else has. Not a bit of it. These are academics and the standard of due diligence is extremely poor. They don't check their work anything like as thoroughly as is required by law in the commercial sector. As a consequence, errors based on incorrect assumptions or even completely incorrect maths get through and become the basis for other peoples work. When scientists and engineers used to the extreme rigours of the commerical sector take a look they are pretty appalled at the sloppiness. Nothing highlights this better than the climategate emails. Also the tribal, petty, gate-keeping, and bullying behaviour of what is really just a small cabal of scientists thrown into sharp relief by it. But you haven't read any of the climategate emails, you are unaware of Steve McIntryes work discrediting the hockey-stick and the extraordinary hubris that follows it. If you understood the in full the issues surrounding the hockey-stick and how it came to be, you would have an understanding of how science is just a human endeavour like anything else and subject to the same frailties.

I could suggest reading: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Illusion-Climategate-Corruption-Science-Independent/dp/1906768358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339492098&sr=8-1 (The Hockey-Stick Illusions)

It really is extremely readable and fascinating and impeccably referenced.

If you won't listen to the objections to the 'mainstream' view from people who really understand it deeply, then you are not coming to a balanced view on your own. You are taking the word of those you deem to be 'Authorities' for no other reason than they are 'Authorities' and they should know - they have made all the checks and balances for you. That is having *faith* in them that may not be justified were you in possession of the same facts.

When people come into possession of the facts they are generally converted by them to doubting the IPCC position. A recent convert was Dr Fritz Vahrenoldt, who was an environmentalist and IPCC reviewer (on renewable energy). He writes:

_Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. ‘I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate were similarly sloppy._

If you want to understand more about the IPCC process and the criticisms of it, Canadaian journalist Donna Laframboise wrote http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=delinquent+teenager&x=0&y=0 (&quot;The Delinquent Teenager Who Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert&quot;)

Again it is extremely well referenced and would give you pause for thought. It does not discuss the science, merely the process that lead to the IPCC and might just shake you out of your obsession with the veracity of the consensus.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 12, 2012)

> To add to this, actually there IS a genuine conspiracy at work here, where companies and individuals have poured incredible sums of money and used political influence to support an industry which is under threat - the fossil fuel industry. It has also been embraced by right wing libertarians, who see any restriction onto the free market, for whatever reason, as communism. Unlike fake conspiracies, however, this is verifiable and a matter of public record.



OMG - you really need to research more - you are talking utter utter rubbish. What is verifiable and a matter of public record is the amount of money at stake from the consensus position and is one of the reasons why it has prevailed for as long as it has. Jo Nova has actually done the sums and it is pretty much the other way around. Just look at todays post:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/how-gr ... the-world/

In the US at least 'climate' funding out-stripped any funding from 'fossil-fuel' interests by 3,500 to 1.







It's one of the great lines of complete bilge that is bandied around in the debate that skeptics are fossil fuel funded "schills". Absolute rubbish. You just post on those verifiable and matters of public record evidence and we'll just see.....


----------



## zacnelson (Jun 12, 2012)

Global warming alarmists accuse sceptics of being conspiracy theorists and yet here in Australia they happily commit to their own conspiracy theory about sceptics being funded by malicious underhanded oil companies etc. They are never held to account when they have no evidence of this funding because the media is so biased.  They never have a problem with the billions of government funding thrown at greens propaganda and ineffective renewable energy programs.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm done. I no longer have the patience or time to trawl through the endless shit, the endless denial sources and graphs. It's hopelessly built on sand, as if it's JUST the IPCC that is corrupt, or JUST the Royal Society, or JUST NASA or JUST EVERYONE. You have to pick apart absolutely everything to arrive at the conclusion that the conspiracy theorists do, with the entire scientific community unable to see what is obvious to the conspriacy theorists. And Rohan - you have the audacity to lecture us on our inability to appreciate the science and then throw up absolute nonsense like "CO2 leads temperature, ergo there's no link between the two", and temperature graphs that may has well have been drawn by a dog for all the merit they have. Mate, you cannot see what is in front of your own eyes - you only have eyes to read the "evidence" you want to read.

For the final, the very last time - the scientific method isn't perfect, but it's the best we have, the best defence against idealogues, the religous pressure groups, the political bias. That's not just limited to climate science, it's ALL science. And yup, that's my hat in their ring - for the record one last time - I'm with these guys:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Science
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

And if you want a concise summary of why they all endorse AGW and why it is of concern, my post on the previous page is a decent summary I humbly think.

As for books, this excellent one - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1408824663/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1339504631&sr=1-1-catcorr (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Merchants-Doubt ... -1-catcorr) - picks apart the right wing war against science for the past 60 years - many of the same players who are spreading rubbish now about climate change were doing so from the mid-50's on smoking and cancer - often with the full knowledge they are are being duplicitous. And it's on the record.

Anyway, I'm bowing out - this week alone I must have spend 5 or 6 hours on this, for absolutely no reason at all - people believe what they want to believe, it's a complete waste of my time. My final rational response is to get on with the rest of my life. Night all.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 13, 2012)

Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Societ
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former Chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003
Garth Paltridge, retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, Visiting Fellow ANU
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University
Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC
Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna
Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics and professor emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia
August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming,
Reid Bryson (1920–2008), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Robert Jastrow (1925–2008) was an American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist. He was a leading NASA scientist.
Marcel Leroux (1938–2008) former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin,
Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences
Judith Curry chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
Peter Webster Professor, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Vincent Courtillot Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris
Murry Salby Macqurie University Dept of Environment and Geography
Jonathan Jones Dept Physics Oxford University
Robert Ellison Hydrologist and Environmental Scientist
David Evans former advisor to Australian Government on Climate Change
David Wojick PhD Philosphy of Science
Carig Loehle Ph.D., is principal scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement
Harold H Doiron System Modelling NASA Johnson Space Center 1963-1979, Apollo Program, SkyLab Program, Space Shuttle Program
Jeff Glassman Physical Modelling BS, MS, PhD, UCLA Engineering, Department of Systems Science
David Young NCAR Ph. D. Mathematics from University of Colorado
Bob Carter, Dept Geology James Cook University, Queensland

That's 58 to your 51. I believe I win.

LOL....


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 13, 2012)

No doubt they're all shills for 'big oil' or creationists or 911 truthers. :mrgreen: 


In other news, looks like those scientists who wish to bury the real data because it, erm, is a bit inconvenient (and doesn't produce nice hockeysticks for oscar winning performances), have been at in again. This time they 'screened out' the longest, highest resolution paleo data because it produced this graph:

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com ... _1kyr1.png


http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-u ... me-series/


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 13, 2012)

Yeah I was going to bring that up. I have a final post I want to make address the "how did they all get it so wrong" thing.


----------



## midphase (Jun 13, 2012)

So essentially what you're both trying to defend is human's ability to continue to pollute the planet? Is that it?

I mean seriously, you're essentially arguing in favor of more pollution, less regulation, more usage of carbon and fossil fuel, less clean energy, less efficient usage of energy, less need to filter and control emissions.

Congrats?


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 13, 2012)

midphase @ Wed Jun 13 said:


> So essentially what you're both trying to defend is human's ability to continue to pollute the planet? Is that it?
> 
> I mean seriously, you're essentially arguing in favor of more pollution, less regulation, more usage of carbon and fossil fuel, less clean energy, less efficient usage of energy, less need to filter and control emissions.
> 
> Congrats?





No. CO2 is *not* a pollutant - it's a naturally occurring trace gas (found in very small quantities (parts per million)) and absolutely essential for life on our planet (plants need it for photosynthesis etc). Hence why commercial growers often pump CO2 into their greenhouses to enhance growth. Oh and just to make you feel guilty, you'd better not breathe out anymore  

Clean energy. Hmmm. You mean like Windmills? Perhaps you should google 'Neodymium' which is used in large quantities in the huge magnets that help these behemoths function (well, they don't really work but still). Or the massive concrete bases that these things need to sit on (concrete production isn't exactly ecomentally friendly). Or the steel that they need to be constructed from. Or the infrastructure that needs to be put in place so they can be delivered and erected in remote places (roads mainly, but vast lengths of cables and other things). Or the back up power station that needs to be working to deliver electricity when they invariably don't deliver anything (well apart from huge payments to rich landowners in subsidies - like our 'first lady's' father). 

Or perhaps you mean hybrid cars, like the Prius? Ever considered their batteries and how they are produced? And the rare earth metals that need to be mined and processed and refined (in various parts of the world) and then shipped back across the world so that these cars can be less efficient that the latest petrol and diesel cars? 

Still, like you, I'm absolutely delighted to be taxed on my lemonade bubble emissions, meanwhile real ecological disasters are being ignored.


----------



## midphase (Jun 13, 2012)

Stephen, I gotta hand it to you...you're a real piece of work!

I'll defer to Barney Frank's response and bow out as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 13, 2012)

midphase @ Wed Jun 13 said:


> Stephen, I gotta hand it to you...you're a real piece of work!
> 
> I'll defer to Barney Frank's response and bow out as well:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8



Interesting video Kays. Can't see the relevance myself, but hey if you can then you're a better man that I. 

We'll see what happens in the next few years as the house of cards continues to collapse. Just don't feel too guilty every time you breathe out mate.


----------



## paulcole (Jun 13, 2012)

midphase @ Wed Jun 13 said:


> So essentially what you're both trying to defend is human's ability to continue to pollute the planet? Is that it?
> 
> I mean seriously, you're essentially arguing in favor of more pollution, less regulation, more usage of carbon and fossil fuel, less clean energy, less efficient usage of energy, less need to filter and control emissions.
> 
> Congrats?




When you say "pollute the planet" what exactly does that mean?


----------



## Udo (Jun 13, 2012)

The elimination of the human race would solve all major problems. They're making a lot of progress already ... :wink:


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 13, 2012)

Udo @ Wed Jun 13 said:


> The elimination of the human race would solve all major problems. They're making a lot of progress already ... :wink:



Indeed, it's the only viable long term solution to save Gaia.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 13, 2012)

Well the largest Carbon footprints by Humans on the entire globe will be at the next G20 " summit " where they all get together and try and figure out what to do with the rest of us.....

Limos with a single person, Private Jets where pooling is unheard of, that's for the peasants and serfs, surely not Royalty.

Yet the peasants will be expected to obey all of the rules put forth by the elites to save the Planet, as they fly home every weekend from DC on non-stop Military Cargo planes meant to carry tonnage instead of a single elite, who can't stomach sitting with the commoners, much less having thier children subjected to the schools they created where less desirable children sometimes graduate.... o=<


----------



## zacnelson (Jun 13, 2012)

Well said Chimuelo! There is so much hypocrisy ... like Richard Branson going on about global warming whilst planning air flights into space, Al Gore's exorbitant lifestyle, Hollywood millionaire actors condemning the `one-percenters', and now James Cameron is talking about mining in space.... ironic after the stupid eco warfare theme of Avatar


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 14, 2012)

One of the big problems in the debate is the mis-characterization of the skeptic position:



> And Rohan - you have the audacity to lecture us on our inability to appreciate the science and then throw up absolute nonsense like "CO2 leads temperature, ergo there's no link between the two", and temperature graphs that may has well have been drawn by a dog for all the merit they have.



No CO2 does NOT lead temperature. Temperature leads CO2 and there is an extremely tight correlation between the two. The temperature graphs that I have been using are using the same data that the IPCC use. The reason it appears to be drawn by a "dog" to Guy is that it tells a different story from the one he is convinced by.



> So essentially what you're both trying to defend is human's ability to continue to pollute the planet? Is that it?



On the absolute *contrary*.

A great deal of skeptics are environmentalists. The concern is that by hand-wringing over CO2 emissions, the focus is off anthropogenic effects on the environment that are far more serious and far-reaching. Characterizing CO2 as a pollutant is a major distraction from real environmental issues.



> I mean seriously, you're essentially arguing in favor of more pollution, less regulation, more usage of carbon and fossil fuel, less clean energy, less efficient usage of energy, less need to filter and control emissions.



Again - I cannot tell you more strenuously that this is pretty much the opposite of the skeptic position. My father, a retired mechanical engineer whose last part of his career was with BP, is convinced it's vital that mankind moves away from fossil fuels. But NOT because of CAGW and NOT at the disadvantage of poorer developing nations.

Anthony Watts, one of the most prominent skeptics, drives around in an electric car, has his house virtually energy neutral with solar panels and highly insulated. Also believes man needs to move away from fossil fuels.

I myself also think mankind needs to move from fossil fuels, and we need to ensure our impact on the environment is sustainable. And that may take government intervention. I am skeptical of the libertarian idea that all government is waste and hampers the true economy. I think while there may be examples of poor wasteful bureaucracy, there are examples where it excellent, efficient and works for the good of society. It is NOT a given that government regulation = bad. Just take a look at the global financial crisis for an example where lack of regulation has caused capitalist systems to implode.

Suggesting that skeptics are funded by big-oil or support totally free market and wanton destruction of the environment is exactly backwards from what my impression is the majority skeptic are interested in. (Skeptics are a very broad church with disparate but overlapping views. There are for example politically motivated skeptics predominantly but not exclusively based in the US who do view CAGW as a hoax designed to enslave the populace. I don't agree with them and they are in a relative minority) The skeptics of AGW are simply concerned by:

- That the evidence supporting it is NOT there
- That the policies designed to mitigate it are worse than useless
- That in light of the great uncertainties, mitigation policies harm our ability to adapt to actual climate change
- That the issue is a major distraction from real environmental issues
- That the entire way it has been framed, by trying to achieve a consensus is anti-science
- That the behaviour of some scientists is not impartial, rational, dispassionate assessment of evidence but political advocacy, and that the fall out is that science as a whole has had its credibility and image severely tarnished.


----------



## paulcole (Jun 14, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed Jun 13 said:


> Udo @ Wed Jun 13 said:
> 
> 
> > The elimination of the human race would solve all major problems. They're making a lot of progress already ... :wink:
> ...



Indeed. It's human beings that do the polluting. Not climate change. 

This word climate bugs me as you know. You just don't hear anyone here in England say " wow the climate is really bad today " or "this climate is really messing with the planet this week" do you?

It's either good or bad weather. And actually there is no such thing. Good or Bad is totally subjective and means one thing to one person and something else to another. There is just weather. What that has to do with human beings is way beyond any science that I can see. 

Chimuelo, royalty travel around in horse drawn carriages and the horses crap all over the road. But this is offset by serfs who walk behind the carriages, usually out of camera shot, and pick the stuff up for recycling. This is how England became great. The ability to make compost no matter what the weather was doing.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 14, 2012)

paulcole @ Thu Jun 14 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Wed Jun 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Udo @ Wed Jun 13 said:
> ...




That sounds like one of them thar 'green jobs' that we were promised that would revolutionise the economy. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q0IQ_vI9WZ0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 0IQ_vI9WZ0)

:lol:


----------



## paulcole (Jun 14, 2012)

The Americans are almost as mad as we are. 

It's currently raining here and it's been raining more or less since April 16th.

Really bad climate conditions yet again today. Nothing can stop us making compost though. 

Just got to love that MP from Brighton. >8o


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 14, 2012)

This is the sort of thing skeptics are into:

http://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_ ... _fuel.html)

...and briefly touches on why fossil fuels are NOT a good idea. Nothing to do with climate change.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 14, 2012)

(sigh) You guys argue over this when it simply DOESN"T MATTER who is right because either way, common sense dictates that the lower we make our carbon footprint, whether it affects "climate change" by 1% or 7000%, it is the smart thing to do and therefore worth holding our politicians and product providers (and ourselves) feet to the fire. 

The only ones against doing so are those who simply do not want to spend the money to make their products greener and that is just too bad for them, they are going to have to tow the mark, either by government fiat or better, consumer demand.

Vote with your wallet instead of endlessly arguing on forums where nobody changes anybody's mind.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 14, 2012)

> You guys argue over this when it simply DOESN"T MATTER who is right because either way, common sense dictates that the lower we make our carbon footprint, whether it affects "climate change" by 1% or 7000%, it is the smart thing to do and therefore worth holding our politicians and product providers (and ourselves) feet to the fire.



I only that were what is proposed. These things are called 'no regrets' policies skeptics agree with and not only support - often actually *live*.

The problem is, as a result of the alarmism stupid things are put in place that not only don't do anything, only benefit those who know how to game the system. Also, are you aware of the 'broken windows' fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of ... ken_window

Provided society moves in the direction of alternative high density energy, and not delude itself with some of the nonsense such as Australia's carbon tax, carbon trading, or carbon sequestration, any form of efficiency is of net benefit to society and should be supported regardless. Subsidizing uneconomic measures to attempt to mitigate something that may well be completely beyond our control with pointlessly futility, is BAD and damages our capacity to cope with whatever the climate throws at us.


----------



## paulcole (Jun 14, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jun 14 said:


> (sigh) You guys argue over this when it simply DOESN"T MATTER who is right because either way, common sense dictates that the lower we make our carbon footprint, whether it affects "climate change" by 1% or 7000%, it is the smart thing to do



Uhhh Deep Sigh. I think the point that was being made, at least in the recent comments, was the way to lessen carbon footprints is to start off by lessening the human race by a considerable margin. THAT'S WHAT MATTERS. That's the smart thing to do.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 14, 2012)

Ah yes. The global cull. It's the kindest thing really....


----------



## paulcole (Jun 15, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu Jun 14 said:


> Ah yes. The global cull. It's the kindest thing really....



Yes. But then you've probably got more chance of seeing a fat bird in Series 1 of Star Trek than you will ever seeing that.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 15, 2012)

paulcole @ Thu Jun 14 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jun 14 said:
> 
> 
> > (sigh) You guys argue over this when it simply DOESN"T MATTER who is right because either way, common sense dictates that the lower we make our carbon footprint, whether it affects "climate change" by 1% or 7000%, it is the smart thing to do
> ...



Great idea, let's start by eliminarting everyone naamed Paul :D


----------



## robh (Jun 15, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Jun 15 said:


> Great idea, let's start by eliminarting everyone naamed Paul :D



And Lakers fans.


----------



## Udo (Jun 15, 2012)

Udo @ Thu Jun 14 said:


> The elimination of the human race would solve all major problems. They're making a lot of progress already ... :wink:


Less radical than my original statement, but still providing at least 80% of the positive impact, just eliminating conservatives would make the world a significantly better place. :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 15, 2012)

It had to happen: I'm with Udo.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 15, 2012)

Yeah but even if we got rid of just the Conservatives and Wealthy Liberals, that's only 40-45% of the electorate.
55-60% of people who actually think before they pull the lever should be added, since they represent the largest and most effective majority. /\~O


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 15, 2012)

Wealthy liberals advocate policies against their own short-term interest because they put what's right ahead of their own greed. That's the difference - they aren't supply-side jagovs who are so arrogant that they think only they work hard, they're the ones who create jobs, and therefore their taxes should be lowered.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 16, 2012)

You mean like the way they side stepped Congress again as a way to beg Latinos for votes...?
I actually supported that 100% and wish they didn't use minorities as political pawns during a campaign, but it was brilliant and just, no problems with me.

But this leads me to the greed you mention above, which always makes me think of the wealthy Liberals wanting to tax themselves at 20-30% more, as they feel they aren't paying their fair share and claim they don't need the money.

Perhaps they can put their money where thier mouth is and sidestep Congress and start taxing themselves. Surely it will prove they aren't just full of the usual lies and decipt of how they care so much for the working man, plus it will embarrass the hell out of all of the Greed I see from both fake parties. Causing the offering plates to be passed around.

But this won't benefit wealthy Liberals, so I guess Sidesteeping Congress and the American voters won't be used to tax themselves to better support their consituents.
Now if it was our money, which they already spent long ago, I am quite sure they would have no problem giving that to Green projects where Bundlers and Relatives have invested money, in exchange for subsidies, and also stiff the taxpayers as they are first to get paid back.

We'll see what the wealthy Liberals in California do to keep their Public Pension Ponzi schemes alive. They have had total control of that process for decades now.
When they make a mistake their wealthy friends have lawyers and offshore accounts to avoid paying for their failures, but your fellow Statesmen get stuck with ever rising costs and higher taxes, Goldfish regualtions, etc.

San Jose and San Diego are a wake up call for the sure to fail Public Union grip on the Middle Class in your state. 70% and 66% are extremely large majorites and actually reflect the actual size of the private sector middle class workers, and they themselves are Democrats according to the exit polls.

I equally despise the greedy GOP " Conservatives " as they will pretend to represent whatever wealthy group has sponsored them, just like the beggars from the left.
I think maybe after Obama gets re elected the wealthy Liberals might tax themselves, as right now they are spending enough for these 40,000 per plate dinners that the peasants could never imagine in their entire life.
But they're really for the working man, honest...


----------



## midphase (Jun 16, 2012)

Chim,

Your level of cynicism and nihilistic outlook on the state of...well...everyone and everything, is troubling and leaves one to wonder what in the world you're still doing in this country?

While I've never understood the "love it or leave it" attitude, and I do believe that government dissent is a form of patriotism, in your case you seem to have just given up on the entire country as a whole. You don't appear to have any glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe we could make some improvements in the way things are. Nor do you offer any suggestions or ideas on how to improve the state of things...just cynicism upon cynicism.

You condemn both sides equally, and conclude that we are so fucked by both ends that we might as well assume the position and let them do their worst.

From your point of view, everything is corrupt, unfixable, and controlled by the wealthy exclusively. Further, you proclaim that unions are evil, Obama is a puppet (and so is Mitt), pensions are a ponzy scheme, and amply criticize states that you don't even live in. 

Your posts repeat the same sentiment ad nauseum, you might as well just copy and paste them over and over...instead you manage to re-word the same exact message in a 1000 different ways...what a waste!

I have never encountered anyone with such a negative outlook as you. Perhaps you are right, but that doesn't make it a healthy way of living your life. I sincerely hope that it's all an act, that in person you're a much more jovial individual with many positive things to contribute to your friends and family...otherwise I sure do feel sorry for them!


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 16, 2012)

Sorry but when I hear such propoganda like the GOP stands for this and the Liberals stand for this, I will always respond, as I know what they " say " they stand for, but I watch what they actually do and see their wealth and power increase as they are concerned with themselves, not you or me.
But I have a wife who believes in these fairy tales, and I can blow off steam here instead of watching her bubble burst and me getting no trim...
And Junior hates politics, and for good reason.
Afterall, him and his friends who are all multi national, latinos, blacks, asians and whites never heard of racism until they listened to our noble dividers in DC.
So even they kind of see the scams but are too busy chasing chicks or making mixes.

Peace.. o-[][]-o


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 16, 2012)

Unions are not evil, just their greedy non negotiating leaders that would rather see their members out of a job instead of having flexibility.
I am a Union man, always have been, but even my pension is half of what some paper pusher might make, just becasue daddy got them a gig.
Firefighters, Police and Teachers are not being laid off in Nevada becasue the negotiating is between Corporations and Union negotaitors, not Liberal politicains who get campaign cash to sell out their private sector middle class workers.
Big difference.
But you must know that, if not you can expect to see a huge problem in your own state within a year or so. Once you see why the voters are so upset, you might understand, and will probably agree.
Negotitating, is where people learn to live better and get along.
Seemed to work in Wisconsin where Firefighters and Police were exempted becasue their jobs are pretty dangerous. Their Teachers Union negotiators were like many others across the nation, and preferred the Middle Class working men and women would continue seeing their taxes raised to cover more and more of the same corrupt tactics.
Teachers deserve better representation, and so do the average Joes trying to raise a family.

Meanwhile, Back at the Climate Change Ranch.............


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 17, 2012)

....final post coming soon. Busy having my face mashed up at martial arts seminars :-p


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 17, 2012)

In the meantime, it looks like James Lovelock - father of Gaia, Green guru, CAGW alarmist extraordinaire - has another crisis of conscience and speaks out against the UN IPCC, windymills, sustainability, and what he calls the 'Green religion'. 

Article can be found here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... intcmp=122

Worth pointing out to non UK chaps, the Guardian is left wing, pro green, pro CAGW.


----------



## paulcole (Jun 17, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Sun Jun 17 said:


> Worth pointing out to non UK chaps, the Guardian is left wing, pro green, pro CAGW.




....with about 14 readers and mostly a load of bollocks. 8) 


But just every now and again they can get it right.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 22, 2012)

*The IPCC - How Did we Go So Wrong - Where Do We Go From Here - Part 1*

Guy asked an important question earlier in this thread; How is it that all these reputable institutions and scientists - and so many of them - got it all so wrong?

The answer is: they didn't.

If that sounds contradictory to everything I have been saying, then it's important to understand how the scientific process generally works and understand what the 'objections' actually are, and even more important to understand how the IPCC works.

The criticisms of a certain section of the climate science community and its disproportionate influence on the IPCC, boil down to just a few key areas of disagreement. There is a great deal of agreement on a very broad range of scientific issues, so on balance, and without looking too carefully and the conclusions drawn, most scientists or scientific bodies or even skeptics could confidently agree with lots of the science. And actually, that's pretty normal - in many areas of science there is a great deal agreed upon and areas where there might be raging debate.

But generally, the way the whole question of Anthropogenic Climate Change has been posed leads to erroneous conclusions and for venerated societies to adopt positions about which they have no direct expertise other than simply to 'trust' what some of their peers have told them.

*Peer Review*

Peer review is nothing more than a very coarse filter whereby the paper in question is given to reviewers who have known expertise in the field and they check it to see whether there are no obvious errors, that it contributes to the understanding and knowledge of that field, and that it generally makes sense. They do not check any of the sums, examine the evidence about which conclusions are made, or examine any of the assumptions upon which the case the paper is making might rest upon. In academia this is normal and not a problem, but in the commercial sector, you are required by law to conduct due diligence studies. For a project potentially costing millions or even billions, all of the evidence supporting the proposal has to be examined by an independent body, whose job it is to reproduce findings, check for instrumental errors, check assumptions on which conclusions are made, test and examine all the code and check all the maths. It is truly a huge undertaking, and dispute the huge policy impact of CAGW, no such study has ever been undertaken. The IPCC is not such a study….it is merely an assessment.

Judith Curry: 

_Yet, we have allowed it_ [The IPCCC] _ to dictate global policy and form a trillion dollar green industrial complex – all without applying a single quality system, without a single performance standard for climate models, without a single test laboratory result and without a single national independent auditor or regulator. It all lives only in the well known inbred, fad-driven world of peer review._

*The IPCC*

The IPCC reports to the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) who ask the IPCC to assess the science relating to human-induced climate change, the impacts of it, and the policy options for mitigation and adaption. Critics such as Judith Curry, object to the the framing of the mandate since it is broadly speaking a filter that extracts only science that supports AGW. This creates a feedback cycle, whereby in order to get your report into the IPCC and further your career you are obliged to write papers supportive of AGW.

Furthermore, the IPCC is supposed to reflect peer-reviewed literature only - yet a full 33% is from what is known as 'grey-lit', non-peer reviewed literature coming from NGO's such as Greenpeace and WWF. Frankly, I think it is fine to consider info from such bodies provided you acknowledge the bias and that the work is not at least had some expert review. Just because it is biased does not mean it is worthless or wrong. But they do not acknowledge it and Pachurai insists that the IPCC only assesses peer-reviewed literature.

Next, the IPCC have often used authors and lead-authors who are really inexperienced. Michael Mann would be an extremely good example, as his initial (and now spectacularly discredited) graph that set the touch-paper on the polarisation of the debate was toward his Ph.D. And there are many other examples; Richard Klein was 25 and after 2 years working with Greenpeace found himself a lead author, Laurens Bouwer had not yet completed his masters degree and was yet a lead author.

In a reverse example, Chris Landsea was a hurricane expert and lead author of the first 2 assessment reports made an objection which was brushed aside. Kevin Trenberth (who is a now a confirmed idiot - for lot's of reasons) held a press conference in his capacity as an "IPCC" scientist and hurricane expert (he was not) and claimed that the 4 hurricanes that hit the US in 2004 was "just the beginning" and was a result of climate change. When Chris Landsea complained that there was not a shred of evidence _"….that substantiate these pronouncements? What studies are being alluded to that have shown a connection between observed warming trends on the earth and long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity? As far as I know there are none."_

And then there are cases where peer-reviewed literature was allowed in after the cut-off date by "Team" insiders, despite not being peer reviewed, and others been cut out. This from Phil Jones in the Climategate emails: _"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"_

Redefine peer review literature! Talk about moving the goal-posts. Climategate is riven with extremely questionable and downright fraudulent behaviour. And the motivation? It's because these guys have a predetermined position, a "cause" that they serve, and their research efforts aim exclusively to support it. This is called confirmation bias. In Climategate 2.0 email from Micahel Mann regarding Judith Curry who by then was starting to speak up about some of the irregularities:

_"I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause."_

To fully grasp the extent to which the IPCC process has or had been compromised, I would suggest reading http://www.amazon.co.uk/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340373879&sr=1-1 (The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert)

Judith Curry that characterises the problem the best, whereby the confidence in the conclusions is simply not warranted by the evidence or the type of evidence:

_Hegerl et al. state: “The remaining uncertainty in our estimates of internal climate variability is discussed as one of the reasons the overall assessment has larger uncertainty than individual studies.” Translating this uncertainty in internal climate variability (among the many other sources of uncertainty) into a “very likely” likelihood assessment is exactly what was not transparent or traceable in AR4 attribution statement. We most definitely “do not appreciate the level of rigor with which physically plausible non- greenhouse gas explanations of the recent climate change are explored,” for reasons that were presented in our paper. In our judgment, the types of analyses referred to and the design of the CMIP3 climate model experiments that contributed to the AR4 do not support a high level of confidence in the attribution. Hegerl et al. take issue with our statement “The high likelihood of the imprecise ‘most’ seems rather meaningless.” Hegerl et al.’s proposal to add “>50%” to the attribution statement might have improved communication of uncertainty on this point. Nonetheless, this small change would still fall short of addressing the problems our article described (and quoted from assessment users) about the fundamental difference between 51% and 99% attribution._


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 22, 2012)

*The IPCC - How Did we Go So Wrong - Where Do We Go From Here - Part 2*

*The Politics*

For me personally, it is simply about the science. there are those who may well object to the notion of CAGW because mitigation measures are politically abhorrent to them. But if CAGW were real, then I would be as ardent as anyone in advocating anything that would make a difference. But the quality of the evidence is such that betting your economy is not good value. There are forewarnings worth bearing in mind however:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtIZBcWBcis (Eisenhowers Warning)

_The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

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. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded._

The consequences for getting policy wrong because of over confidence in the IPCC conclusions can be seen in Australia, where an unnecessary, ineffective (for it's intended goal) and deeply divisive carbon tax has been introduced. But also in terms of eroding our understanding of climate with disastrous consequences. The recent floods in Queensland are an example of this. Because it was expected that drought would become the new norm, the flood defences instigated 30 years ago, of which the Wivanhoe dam was part, were not completed. Instead, a desalination plant was built. As the PDO turned negative and La Ninas returned, so did the floods that occur regularly, and have occurred regularly every 30 years (or so). It was 30 years since the previous set of floods that Queenslanders vowed never to be caught on the hop again and the defences were planned. The most recent floods were less severe than the last, but because the Wivanhoe dam which had returned to being full was not sluiced, owing to the value of the water that would have been released and lack of appreciation of the changing climate, it over-flowed and contributed to floods.

2 new desalination plants costing $4 billion AUD have been moth-balled at $500 million a year without produces a litre of water, because the dams are full. Australia has always gone through periods of flood and drought, and despite the current glut of water, the droughts will return - and it will have nothing to do with CO2 emissions.

More importantly, by making energy expensive, and less available to poorer nations, we contribute to much greater human suffering than we would by adapting to the affect of rising CO2 - a lot of which is beneficial and NOT necessarily detrimental. The fastest way to stabilise the population of the planet is by increasing wealth (and education for women), as is the best way to protect the environment. I know a number of skeptics, who have actually done humanitarian work in some of these desperately poor countries and the damage done to the environment by people living on the margins is truly enormous. They simply cannot either afford or have the resources to manage their environment effectively as they live from day to day trying to survive. If you want to save lives and the planet - build coal-fired power stations - lots of them.

*Fossil Fuels* 

…are bad. M'Kay?

They are. They are dangerous and invasive to extract, difficult to transport, and often turn up in parts of the world that we would rather they didn't. They are a source of conflict and inequality. We need to get off them as soon as we can - without hurting ourselves or more importantly the poorer nations. There are realistic alternatives to fossil fuels waiting in the wings, but renewables just aren't going to touch what's needed. They are impractical and potentially just as disruptive to the environment than any imagined effect caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2. But because we are being erroneously told we need to change NOW - efforts are going into forms of energy production that are just not realistic. As someone once said - make haste a little more slowly. Here is a fantastic perspective on renewables - from someone who is accepting AGW:

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables.html (Reality Check on Renewables)


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 22, 2012)

My god, what a timely and pertinent article in the Financial review by Garth Paltridge. An excellent overview of the entire issue at a macro-societal level:

http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/22/scien ... #more-8895


----------



## zacnelson (Jun 24, 2012)

Some more great posts, thanks for that. I also thoroughly enjoyed that article by Garth Paltridge.


----------



## midphase (Jun 25, 2012)

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/06/25/usgs_sea_level_study_shows_east_coast_levels_rising_faster_than_global_average_.html (http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/06/ ... rage_.html)


As it turns out, the ocean levels are rising after all...go figure!


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 26, 2012)

midphase @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/06/25/usgs_sea_level_study_shows_east_coast_levels_rising_faster_than_global_average_.html
> 
> 
> As it turns out, the ocean levels are rising after all...go figure!




Midphase, did you read the actual scientific paper, or just the journalist's report of a report of the actual paper? There's a big difference. :D As one of the reporter's says: 

"But don’t sell your beachfront property quite yet. This theory lacks the support of actual measurements that show a waning of ocean circulation. Some scientists credit the sea level speedup to weather patterns that could soon reverse.

The recent trend may reflect fluctuations in pressure or temperature that oscillate over decades, says James Houston, director emeritus of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Engineer Research and Development Center in Vicksburg, Miss. Sea levels along the East Coast fell before 1960, he says, and may very well do so again.

“If the paper would have been written in 1960 … it would probably have concluded that there was a cold spot,” says Houston. “We may be back to a cold spot from 2010 to 2039.”"

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good gloopal wombling scare story. :mrgreen: 




In other far more significant climate news:

One of Guy's consensus organisations - The American Geophysical Union - in a new study which actually looked at real data (rather than the GIGO of models) found that the Fimbul ice shelf in Antarctica is not melting. 

"Previous ocean models ... have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a significant mass loss in this region that is actually not taking place,"

American Geophysical Union said:

"It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.

The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ..."


Who'da thunk it? Unvalidated fantasy computer models being wrong. Again.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 26, 2012)

> As it turns out, the ocean levels are rising after all...go figure!


Actually, they are not.

The paper referenced was only for the US east coast only. But even so you should treat that with a good deal of skepticism. This is effectively what they are talking about:

NAS Alarmist Sea Level Rise - San Fransisco

You can see San Fransisco (west coast I know but relelvant for context) sea level, which has been tapering off in recent years against the kind of jump in sea level they are talking about. This was proposed in a paper published by the National Academy of Sciences!

Here is Global Sea Level Rise as published by NASA.

The USCG paper has just been published. It may, or may not be correct. But conflating it with global warming as a result of emissions is the sort of way over-reaching that attracts so much criticism.

- Excepting for mitigating negative feedbacks, it is unarguable that sea levels will rise somewhat as a result of global warming, because of thermal expansion.
- But that does not mean the global warming was *caused* by emissions, only that it is evidence the world has warmed.
- Sea levels had already began to rise, so far as we can tell, since well before emissions was thought to have had any impact on temperature anyway.
- Sea levels have fluctuated dramatically within recorded history.

So since the worlds sea levels have decelerated, but the East Coasts have, according to this study at least, increased, it is more likely that other factors involved such as a decrease in isostatic rebound, or shifting tectonics, or other natural factors that have caused it. It's worth being sure about sea level changes, so that defenses and adaption can be prepared, which is how such a study should contribute toward policy (so long as it is checked thoroughly to be sure of its veracity). But is a massive over-reach and dangerous for it to be used as evidence for CAGW since it is only reporting a regional effect.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 26, 2012)

Cross posting with Rohan.


----------



## zacnelson (Jun 26, 2012)

SLAM DUNK!


----------



## noiseboyuk (Aug 28, 2012)

I'm not sure why I'm posting this, but another day, another record smashed as sea ice extent drops to new low, several weeks ahead of the annual minimum and at a rate of a speeding express train:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19393075

It's only an op ed piece from a renowned evioronmentalist, so not worth anyone's time whose mind is made up, but George Monbiot does an excellent summary of why this is extremely bad news for us in the Northern Hemisphere and how the politicians have abandoned all pretence at ever dealing with the issue. It's published in the Guardian, but this version is referenced to the science sources - http://www.monbiot.com/2012/08/27/the-h ... he-moment/

In the haitus of this thread, I see that one confirmed sceptic who loudly did his own study to reveal the truth about all these lies found, er, that is was all true. Whoops. Now, of course, he's a stooge who has been paid off or something. I'm linking this source cos its from the denialist Daily Telegraph, so is automatically more fun - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... finds.html . Worth noting that the mainstream science community never saw much validity in his exercise since it simply repeated stuff they were long since done with, and were accordingly not much fussed about his conclusions, even though it agreed with theirs..

Cue a dozen posts to explain that black = white, if only we listened to Judith Curry etc and me tiresomely repeating my signature. Repeat forever. None of the above changes any of the established facts, just adds a bit of an update on the science and the scene... in other words, no need to trawl through the same entrenched stuff again. Best just re-read this and Rohan's thread again if you're really in the mood for hours of futility confirming my signature... oops, dammit, there I go again.


----------



## Ed (Aug 28, 2012)

Ah man, this thread again.

I was actually going to come back once I had some time (was very busy over July) and address some of the new rubbish thats been posted, but after I had time to read some of it and have it forced to be settled in my mind for a while I realised it was just pointless at this point.

Since this topics been bumped to the top again, I'll take this opportunity to say the following. We are not experts, mostly we have to rely on the credibility of peoples actions, in order to know who best to trust for reliable and accurate information. Rohan clearly has a little hobby reading a lot of GW skeptic materials, but I have come across a LOT of people that are armchair enthusiasts of the fringe and what you end up noticing is how similar they all sound, the trick is to recognise that even though something might have been put to you in a confident and scientific sounding way, it might still be total bollocks, but depending on your knowledge all you may have to go on is how it *sounds* and you might be more willing to take it way more seriously than it deserves. This doesnt just happen in the fringe either, two physicists might be arguing about Quantum Physics and one could be making the most egregious errors and I wouldnt have the first clue as to how to tell the difference. If you have become accustomed to arguing or reading materials and debates in a wide range of "fringe" subjects such as Creationism, homeopathy, 911 trutherism, AIDS denial, germ theory denialism, moon hoaxers, NWO CTists, anti-vaxxers, Scientology etc, you can find even in some of these crazy subjects people that can make a very scientific and reasonable sounding argument and say things that, if you dont know better, may cause to find yourself wondering if they could have a point. The point being, that a lot of the flawed arguments end up being more or less exactly the same, irrelevant of the subject matter. Not being familiar with this means hearing someone like Rohan talk about GW skepticism doesnt start those alarm bells ringing, raise any red flags and you're more likely to believe on faith what he is saying is true, despite the very clear clues that what he is telling you is not credible at all.

It would take several posts to list all these clues, some more obvious than others, but I'll list 2 major ones which should have been enough for anyone with their brain switched on. The first and foremost clue you may be talking to someone that on the face of it sounds like they know what they're talking about actually doesnt, is that they will make simple boneheaded errors, misrepresentations, misquotes and bizzare illogical arguments. In the case of Rohan we have the fact that I proved he outright lied about what Phil Jones said. Phil Jones never said what Rohan said he said, the quote used was originally a quote-mine that even at the time could never be used to infer support for what Rohan was trying to use it for. Except that it was even worse than that, because it was an old quote, but Rohan uses it as if it was a recent comment reflecting Jones' current position or opinion on the matter when in fact it was the exact opposite and has been for quite some time. So how can I be so audacious as to actually say he isnt just wrong, but that he lied and he knowingly misquoted Jones? Thats quite a bold claim right? Well I don't make that accusation lightly. I say that because whether he realised it or not he actually admitted it in one of these replies, though no one seemed to notice, that he knew all along that Phil Jones didnt believe what he tried to make out he believed. When I showed him a more recent quote from over a year ago that was the complete opposite of his claim about what Jones's opinion and position was, he said he already knew about it! So unless he was lying about knowing about the more recent position of Jones, to try and not look so ignorant and stubborn for just believing his skeptic websites without question, then that's the definition of a lie and is indefensible. Now, like I said before, this is one of the common clues to look out for. Outright, but small, lies and misquotes. But apparently it seems like some people would rather look the other way as if this is somehow a small insignificant detail and that Im just being picky, even though its been proved that Rohan intentionally misquoted someone. I dont understand why someone would expect to trust any of these other more complex details they dont understand, as if this person will so unashamedly misrepresent what his opponents say and believe but somehow can be trusted to be truthful and honest about the rest of it.

The second major clue might seem minor, but in fact leaves me speechless as to just how utterly ridiculous it is. Rohans not a stupid guy, yet I was floored and still am that he actually spent more than a moment thinking the following argument was a good one. So on Page 5 Guy posts a list of some science institution's that accept AGW, in response to this (_and maybe there's some dumb joke Im not getting_) Rohan actually lists INDIVIDUAL skeptics, then says he has listed more INDIVIDUALS than Guy's list so concludes, _"I believe I win. LOL...."_ Individuals are the equivalent of an official position of an entire INSTITUTION? Really?? This is truly one of the most stupidest arguments I've ever seen from anyone trying to argue that their position is not as fringe as it is, and Ive seen a lot of attempted rationalisations. Even if Rohan were right and it isnt as fringe as I have been saying, this would still be a laughable and embarrassing argument for it. So again, this is another clue. As soon as this kind of behaviour becomes apparent one should immediately take everything that person says with a pinch of salt and only tentatively accept a claim for arguments sake, yet we have someone like Zac replying to Rohans claims with comments like "SLAM DUNK". I can only roll my eyes.

Life is too short to debate a few unqualified people and a composer who fancies himself an armchair climate expert about an offtopic subject of this board when clear and obvious signs that he should not be trusted to provide any credible information about the topic goes ignored. What would be the point in trying to deal with anything deeper than that, when such dishonest and absurd arguments are handwaved with such ease and disregard? This is a complex and intellectually demanding subject, people have posted graphs they clearly dont understand and dont know how to interpret, making basic errors even I can see, yet act like they really have somehow 1up'd the climate scientists that say AGW is real, as if they had never thought of it before or somehow that the evidence was so clear and obvious anyone can understand it and it just needs to get out into the open.

And thats all I really have to say about this topic now.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 28, 2012)

Another really good hint is that the person says global warming is not man-made.


----------



## ryanstrong (Aug 28, 2012)

Appreciate the conversation here, but may I bring a little light-heartedness to the discussion by George Carlin...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw


----------



## noiseboyuk (Aug 29, 2012)

Ah... Ed's back... the third paragraph is perfection. I dunno about lying though.... the human brain's ability to fool itself is pheonomenal. We literally do not see or hear what is in the world around us, everything is through our own filter. My guess is that Rohan simply doesn't see or comprehend what to someone else will be plainly obvious. He's clearly a very intelligent guy and he genuinely believes what he thinks is the result of independent scrutiny. So the contradictions and manifest absurdities don't even register.... well, that's my theory anyway.

But yes - to follow a list of all the major institutions with a list of names is.... well. No point in revisiting any of that, but there's a terrific psychology PHD awaiting someone who studies all this....


----------



## paulcole (Aug 29, 2012)

Someone explain to me why here in England we just had the wettest summer on record, with rain from April 16th after some goon said the words worst drought ever. It's actually rained more days since that date than has been dry; by a mile.

So lets hear those magnificent reasons, based on scientific and non scientific, funded driven analysis.

Hang on though. Did the jet stream move south for the summer? And was the jet stream moving south, man made or not?


----------



## Ed (Aug 29, 2012)

I wonder if Paul is one of those people who says, _"its so cold here, GW cant be real! LOL!_". 
It appears a good blog entry from the Met Office talks about the recent wet Uk weather we've had in relation to climate change.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 29, 2012)

I find the stupidity breathtaking.

Sorry, just had to say that.


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 29, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Aug 29 said:


> I wonder if Paul is one of those people who says, _"its so cold here, GW cant be real! LOL!_".
> It appears a good blog entry from the Met Office talks about the recent wet Uk weather we've had in relation to climate change.



when i lived there i found the met office to be one of the best fictional writers of all time. trying to plan a vacation around what they said became a fiasco. but keep the global warming news coming its great entertainment. :lol:
part of the bbc remit we did involved met office cost and the overwhelming verdict on that was it is a waste of money especially given the way the bbc has deteriorated over time. i read that their md has now been fired and is moving to the new york times.
figures. :lol:


----------



## Ed (Aug 29, 2012)

George UK weather is very hard to predict, such is the nature of the variability of the UK climate. Can be stormy one day, sunny the next, rainy the next then clear up in the afternoon, cold the next, then hot the next. Crazy. In the few other countries i've visited its been a lot more consistent day to day than what I've experienced in sunny ol England. Under the circumstances I think the Met does a very good job and is mostly very accurate with their day to day predictions.


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 29, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Aug 29 said:


> George UK weather is very hard to predict, such is the nature of the variability of the UK climate. Can be stormy one day, sunny the next, rainy the next then clear up in the afternoon, cold the next, then hot the next. Crazy. In the few other countries i've visited its been a lot more consistent day to day than what I've experienced in sunny ol England. Under the circumstances I think the Met does a very good job



:lol: 

ed its fucking impossible to predict.

you dont have climate i think someone already indicated that already.

the metmen are a waste of time. look out the window is a better option in the uk.


----------



## Ed (Aug 29, 2012)

George Caplan @ Wed Aug 29 said:


> :lol:
> 
> ed its [email protected]#king impossible to predict.
> 
> ...



I cant tell if you're just exaggerating or joking, but since I've lived here all my life I can say that the Met is mostly and generally correct, if you're getting the up to date forecasts. Anyway the point was that its not the Met that are bad its that UK climate is so variable.


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 29, 2012)

ed I lived there probably longer than youve been alive and still own a house in surrey and an apartment in london. i recall the 87 weather forecast and the subsequent aftermath of that all too well. its because you dont have climate like we have say in the states. its useless trying to convince anyone that anyone knows about global anything. its a bunch of typical liberal crap as always. they love it especially if its funding their pointless existences.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Aug 29, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 29 said:


> I find the stupidity breathtaking.
> 
> Sorry, just had to say that.



I know.

It is truly depressing.


----------



## Ed (Aug 29, 2012)

George Caplan @ Wed Aug 29 said:


> ed I lived there probably longer than youve been alive and still own a house in surrey and an apartment in london. i recall the 87 weather forecast and the subsequent aftermath of that all too well. its because you dont have climate like we have say in the states. its useless trying to convince anyone that anyone knows about global anything. its a bunch of typical liberal crap as always. they love it especially if its funding their pointless existences.



lol, wow. So the single greatest blunder in TV weather forecasting history means the Met is useless, the science of meteorology is 100% flawed and its all just as bad as it was then at that time. I guess this is why you see the world as you do. I check the weather forecast for my area and its more than likely correct 80-100% of the time. You're right, we don't have weather like you have in the States, I think I said that already: our weather and temperature is far more variable from day to day. Not sure how you connect this to global warming except in some ridiculous attempt to suggest that because you believe the Met cant predict weather patterns (you're wrong) we cant know anything about global climate at all. Thats some leap, but I dont think you're thinking with the part of your brain you use for reason.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Aug 29, 2012)

Ed, please don't waste any time on George's responses. If you read his Off Topic posts, most things boil down to a liberal pinko bullshit commie plot. At first I thought it was satire then I realised.... oh boy, I think he's the real deal. I have to say Paul's last - which I think prompted Nick's comments - was fairly hair raising too. So incredibly basic in its misunderstanding. (Paul, if you are genuinely interested, the weather we've been getting thus summer is thought to be fairly typical of what is to come - extremes in precipitation as well as temperature. There's lots of links on this and my original thread to expand on why - indeed it was a good video on this subject that sparked my OP in this thread - http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25888 ).

It's clearly a different issue to Rohan's. Rohan clearly spends many hours and days devouring the subject, but from a seeming inability to weigh sources... he can only hear the highly vocal tiny minority, and seems to ignore the overwhelming majority. That's very different to good old fashioned ignorance. That said, there is some common ground. Both seem to me to be driven by ideology first and science a distant second, and your analogy to creationism is apt there. Either you just believe and don't care about science (ignorance) or you either consciously or unconsciously ignore science (stupidity or delusion). You really have to start from a position of belief to keep mining the thought processes, to keep rejecting the scientific process as the ideas are tested and discarded.

With Intelligent Design, the premise of irreducible complexity is at the heart of the theory - and it's a perfectly reasonable premise. But that's all it is - a premise, a starting point that needs to be tested. And when put to the test, irreducible complexity is falsified. For rationality, that's case closed, but obviously not if yours is a faith-based position. It's merely an obstacle to be overcome - tiny loopholes to be found, new modifications to be postulated. Again, that in itself is ok, if the new theories are then scrutinised. The difference is that for rational thinking, there will be no weight given to these theories unless there is some evidence to back them up, and it gets fairly wearing to keep going over far-fetched ideas that all point to the same conclusion, even though every previous theory has been falsified. For the faithful, however, it's a bottomless pit. If there's even 0.0000000001% doubt, that's there to be mined. With, if you will, religious fervour

[disclaimer - certainly this isn't a pop at all forms of spirituality - all the issues there are hugely complex and far beyond the scope of the normal scientific method, or at least our ability to invoke it... cutting edge theoretical physics or neuroscience can do little more than hint at the kind of ground that would need to be covered. However, specific theories in conflict with science, such as ID, are clearly absolute bunk.]

The position with climate change is very similar indeed. The weariness with which contrarian science is viewed by the mainstream community is seen as evidence of conspiracy on the part of contrarians themselves - witness the fracas over so-called Climategate. But weariness is the human response to the scientific method, where every alternate explanation has been studied and rejected ("it's cosmic rays"/"no it isn't, we already disproved it"). Rohan's many theories he's linked have all been debunked. You highlighted a couple of points that make no sense in Rohan's case, for me one that sticks in the memory is championing Richard Lindzen's 2009 paper. When pointed out that Lindzen himself called it embarrassing and full of stupid mistakes (and kudos to him for saying so), it seemed to not matter. It's that kind of response that tells you something altogether stranger is going on.

For the basics are so simple. Without any greenhouse gasses there is no life as we know it on Earth - they help regulate the Earth's temperature and make the planet habitable. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's concentration has measurably and significantly increased in the last 200 years, so we'd expect temperatures to rise. And guess what - they have. Alternate theories have to not only be shown to be correct (all so far having singularly failed to have done so), but there also has to be an explanation of why increased CO2 is NOT in fact warming. And of course many have tried, and all have failed. Hence all the statements from all the institutions - Occam's Razor strikes again.

Sigh. Its a form of madness. Mine I mean... I know as I type these words I'm wasting yet more seconds of my life in doing so. Is even one person convinced by basic rationality, an appeal to the scientific method? If so, I'd be heartened, but I have no evidence of it. Partly its explained by my signature - mostly, I think - but I have to concede that I really can't be very good at this sort of thing either. I spent a few days summarising all the evidence as best I could a few pages ago - what a pointless waste of my time that was! Did ANYONE read that with an open mind and go - "gee, perhaps there IS a reason why 97% of climate change scientists and every major institution believe that stuff?" No, every contrarian here thought one thing only (subconsciously) - "I don't want to believe it, it doesn't fit my worldview, so whatever he writes is clearly wrong". Or I'm very crap at writing. Or both. It's just seen an equivalence of Rohan's many many posts (which I will concede must have taken considerably longer to type than mine) - six of one and half a dozen of the other. And yet to me there is a massive difference. All I do is appeal to the best sources, I don't even really discuss science which, I continually maintain, I am thorougly unqualified to do - if 97% of structural engineers tell me my house is about to collapse, I don't study their field to see whether or not they are correct, I get the hell out. Whereas Rohan quote mines and cherry picks discredited theories and presents it as science himself, despite being unqualified to assess anything. And sounds superficially convincing whilst doing so.

Rarely is anyone's mind changed by internet forum debates, mind - I remember a while ago asking the question if anyone had ever had an opinion changed as a result of a forum debate, and I seem to remember only a very few people saying that very very occasionally very slightly.

[final tangent for the day - the several polls which point to 97% of climate scientists, and the most qualified and cited, accepting the reality of AGW, Rohan has ridiculed, saying that the sample is relatively small. It's kind of an embarrssing argument.... a little like UK Politcal Party A being told it has only polled 10% compared UK Political Party B, and responding with "so you only found 1,900 people who support Political Party B? Ha!". That's kind of how polls work... to show that the three polls are questionable, you need an equivalent poll (not a dumb debunked one like the famed Oregon petition) which shows different figures. There is none.]


----------



## Bernard Quatermass (Aug 30, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Aug 30 said:


> Ed, please don't waste any time on George's responses.



I don't know an iota about how climate works or even care, but that stuff about the BBC is quite interesting actually. There' s a very strong lobby, or at least so I hear in my circles, to actually try and get them shut down should a very right wing government ever get in with a big working majority. I don't see that happening, but it wouldn't surprise if it did and they did. I certainly wouldn't miss it. I think that institution is shit fwiw. Just my op. :wink:


----------



## paulcole (Aug 30, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Aug 29 said:


> I have to say Paul's last - which I think prompted Nick's comments - was fairly hair raising too. So incredibly basic in its misunderstanding.



Guy, don't worry yourself about internet babble. Nick is just a poor sad liberal, but that said, I would stand up for him in a bar if I agreed with anything he said. Which probably wouldn't be much. :D


----------



## dpasdernick (Aug 30, 2012)

I recently read a great article in Scientific American that talked about a large Ice Shelf that just went kerplunk. That starts the glacier behind it heading towards the sea. If the larger Ross ice shelf succumbs to this it's "goodbye Florida" or at least the coast of Florida and New Orleans etc...

Still what do you want to do? Stop driving my car? Buy LED light bulbs? Tell China to put scrubbers on their factories? 

There is defintitely a lot of talk and opinion. Eben on music forums...


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 2, 2012)

dpasdernick @ Thu Aug 30 said:


> I recently read a great article in Scientific American that talked about a large Ice Shelf that just went kerplunk. That starts the glacier behind it heading towards the sea. If the larger Ross ice shelf succumbs to this it's "goodbye Florida" or at least the coast of Florida and New Orleans etc...
> 
> Still what do you want to do? Stop driving my car? Buy LED light bulbs? Tell China to put scrubbers on their factories?
> 
> There is defintitely a lot of talk and opinion. Eben on music forums...



Well quite. Sadly 2009 was the watershed year for me where I stopped believing anything would ever be done. It's not technically impossible (probably), but the problem is too big, the solutions too painful and too many politicians are aware they can score too many cheap points by ignoring it.

And as a perfect case in point, witness Mitt Romney's recent ultra-cheap soundbites which ridicule Obama's promises suggesting action. He wasn't ridiculing the lack of action - as he should be - he was ridiculing the promises themselves, as if they were irrlevant or silly. And yet the World Bank has just issued a global hunger warning after this year's disasterous harvests in the USA and Europe - http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-develo ... intcmp=122 . With peer-reviewed attribution studies on such phenomena now in and showing with very high probability the link between recent extreme weather events and climate change, with the northern ice cap melting at a jaw-dropping rate (there are some terrifying projections which suggest the final figure this year might halve the previous low) and the mechanism showing how this affects the jetstream and extreme weather, Romney's remarks are little short of sickening. But they'll play well in Arkansas, and he knows it.

The only realistic hope now really is in large scale techno-fixes, however dodgy they sound. Most seem on paper to do more harm than good, but hopefully ongoing research will come up with something more substantial.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 2, 2012)

Poor and liberal, yes, but I'm not sad, Paul. However I do appreciate your coming to my rescue in the bar.


----------



## stevenson-again (Sep 11, 2012)

> final tangent for the day - the several polls which point to 97% of climate scientists, and the most qualified and cited, accepting the reality of AGW, Rohan has ridiculed, saying that the sample is relatively small. It's kind of an embarrssing argument....



You know what Guy?

If you want to be anxious about this issue (Climate Change) sufficiently to comment on it, and you want to know what can be done, if anything needs to be done you will have to read about it and try to understand what the issues actually are. But you will have to do what I did, and be open minded, or at least try to anticipate what the objections are to your favoured theory. Your conviction is most likely based on a laudable basis of wishing to act responsibly, without selfishness, an outward looking view based on compassion. It is essentially what winds up libertarians who try to defend personal freedom and individual choice. But it is just a 'belief' exactly in the religious dogma sense of the word until you question for yourself, attempt to understand the issues for yourself, and come to a conclusion for yourself.

The 97% of scientists (Doran EoS Survey and Anderegg et al) you are so fond of quoting - you should really check what that survey was all about. If you can bear to visit that viper pit of skepticism:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/a ... consensus/

there is a good write up.

The two questions on the survey:

“When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” 

No skeptic disputes that temperatures have risen.

“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

So what does the word "significant" mean? Sufficient for it to be confidently stated there is an influence? There you might find disagreement amongst skeptics. Some say it is significant but trivial, because feedbacks are overstated by models (and my god there is a lot of supporting evidence for that) and the feared rise in temperature is not going to occur because of CO2 emissions. Some would say it is negligible and impossible to measure, because the scale of human emissions is completely dwarfed by the carbon cycle. But most skeptics would agree that it is true adding CO2 to the atmosphere (whatever the source) will cause more warming. 

So what about those 97% of scientists. They were eliminated down to just 77 respondents, of which 2 answered "No" to question 2. No opportuntity to say "I don't know" or "maybe". It is a crap survey, and it proves absolutely nothing. Science doesn't work by consensus. Something isn't true because lots of people believe it, it's true because it is true, even if only one person believes it.

Personally, I am liberal in my politics and believe in social democracy. I say this because everyone (at least too many) these days thinks along political lines wrt to this issue and it p*sses me off something chronic. I appreciate that for libertarians, the idea that further governmental regulation would go against their general inclinations, which may motivate their skepticism. That doesn't mean they are wrong, just that they are not right for the right reasons. If there really was the possibility we were drastically altering the climate because of our emissions, then government coordinated internationally would be the only way it could be tackled. Nor is concern for the economy a reason not to do anything at all.

But damaging our economy - or our ability to get things done - would be bad for us whether the climate change was caused by us or not. The climate will change - it has always changed - what we have to do is adapt, and adapt BOTH ways. A 100 year weather event, will eventually happen. I went to see Steve McIntyre speak at the Royal Institute just a few weeks ago, and he made a very interesting point: 75% of the damage caused by cyclones/hurricanes occur in a place that only gets 15% of the worlds cyclones and hurricanes. Can you guess where that is?

If you are not prepared to actually do the research, and check for yourself what the real issues that excise skeptics and alarmists, then you are not qualified to even pass comment in judgment on those who do. Don't argue on appeals to authority - that is a logical fallacy known for 1000s of years. Argue with facts. If you only go to skepticalscience to form your views, you are only going to get a very very skewed version of things, as would you if you only went to WUWT - which I have to say - often posts very savage critiques on fellow skeptics, not just alarmists. Do what I did when I was in your position arguing from an alarmist position with my skeptical Father. My father is an engineer and would not be impressed with "'all these other institutions think blah blah". He'd simply say "They're wrong." You actually have to delve a little deeper and check what the arguments are.

Once you do, you realize just how uncertain and massively complex the earths climate system is, the extraordinary hubris surrounding over-confident assumptions in the absence of very little empirical evidence, and what skeptics (not nut job or politically motivated skeptics - the science based skeptics) actually are objecting to.


----------



## stevenson-again (Sep 11, 2012)

> The second major clue might seem minor, but in fact leaves me speechless as to just how utterly ridiculous it is. Rohans not a stupid guy, yet I was floored and still am that he actually spent more than a moment thinking the following argument was a good one. So on Page 5 Guy posts a list of some science institution's that accept AGW, in response to this (and maybe there's some dumb joke Im not getting) Rohan actually lists INDIVIDUAL skeptics, then says he has listed more INDIVIDUALS than Guy's list so concludes, "I believe I win. LOL...." Individuals are the equivalent of an official position of an entire INSTITUTION? Really?? This is truly one of the most stupidest arguments I've ever seen from anyone trying to argue that their position is not as fringe as it is, and Ive seen a lot of attempted rationalisations. Even if Rohan were right and it isnt as fringe as I have been saying, this would still be a laughable and embarrassing argument for it.



Okay - this should be commented on.

You are right Ed - it is an extremely stupid argument - and that is the point I was trying to make.

So do you think that because these were institutions rather than individuals, and institutions are made out of lots of scientists, they are therefore more powerful and can smack those puny individual scientists down with a nonchalant marbled greek column?

Is that seriously how you think it works? Do you think that members of these mighty institutions get together and sit around with solemn looks on there faces, open their craniums and pull out their brains and put it into a big machine in the middle of the room and come up with - the answer?

Or perhaps these institutions, who are chummy with mates on the 'team' or afraid of the political intrigue that will undoubtedly follow a break from the ranks are just saying whatever to keep the peace?

Seriously you and Guy seem to think scientists are some kind of supermen, and that the stuff they study is the equivalent of a deep mysterious magic potion brewed by graduates from Hogwarts.

Of course my list of individual scientists is no more a measure of truth than Guy's list of institutions. It's a ridiculous argument and the point I was trying to make. What you need is *evidence*. You need evidence that CO2 is going to cause warming that is worth concerning us - and there is very little, in fact the evidence suggests there is net negative feedback not positive.

*Sea Ice*

The low sea ice extent is associated with natural variability:

Apportioning Natural and Forced Components in Sea Ice Variability

and it has happened many times before:

Historic Variations in Arctic Sea Ice

(and actually there is an interesting new paper out discussing the evidence that during the medieval period, sea ice disappeared almost entirely. I can't find it for the moment though.)

The most recent loss of ice is due to a major storm in the region which has had the effect of breaking up and pushing up the sea ice which has reduced its coverage more than usual. Judith Curry is an expert in Arctic Sea Ice and is one of her main areas of expertise. I hate to appeal to authority, so I'll just politely suggest you check out her thoughts on the subject.


----------



## Ed (Sep 11, 2012)

Actually yes it does make a big difference listing individuals as if they are the equivalent of institution's. This is exactly the point I was making in that post. You use the EXACT and i really do mean EXACT same arguments that any other fringe group uses that I have made reference to in the past which you and your skeptic buddies get upset at me for doing. Why do i bring them up? Because you use the arguments that are so similar it could almost be verbatim, just change the subject. Its not valid when they do it and its not valid when you do it. It is completely absurd when (for example) 911 Truthers (_but take your pick of crazy_) claim that their individual contrarian "expert" trumps the opinion of entire institutions and their members they represent. For example, 911 Truthers will make a big deal out of 1.7k architects and engineers that have signed their petition. This they say is a lot, ignoring the official positions of all expert institution's everywhere and the amount of A+E worldwide, which shows their figure is actually a tiny irrelevant fraction no one should care about. If you give them an example, such as ASCE which represents nearly 150,000 members worldwide, they will tell you with the same argument that you just used, that it is not actually the opinion of any of those 150,000 members, that its merely a few guys in a room and they're probably in on the conspiracy as well and therefore their list trumps it. Another way to see it, if you're looking for medical treatment, finding a single doctor or even a group of doctors that propose a very different stance on medical principles or procedures in such things as cancer treatment, vaccines or AIDS (for example) it does not compare to official positions of medical institutions and does not mean theirs is not a fringe opinion anymore. In regards to GW you have to believe a massive conspiracy everywhere and you have to believe the scientists they are representing just dont care to speak up. This is of course the same road you go down when debating someone like a 911 truther, who will probably then tell you they dont speak up for fear of losing their jobs or funding. That line of reasoning ought to sound familiar too. 

Bottom line is if you use the same arguments these guys use then it either means we should be taking *their *claims more seriously, or its actually just a bad argument for you as well. The point I was making in my last post was that the warning signs you are talking to someone that may well be giving you misleading or false information includes someone that makes the exact same faulty arguments these other fringe groups do that even you would probably not take seriously. But with GW you have to lower your standard of argument in order to defend your position, which is why you end up using the same arguments these other groups had previously used to argue all kinds of crazy things, but with the serial numbers rubbed off.

No comment on your lie? I find it interesting that you didnt comment on that, but not surprising. Its really quite simple. _Did Phil Jones believe what you said he believes? _No. _You said you knew he didnt before you said it_. Therefore you lied, by definition. You use words like evidence, but these are just words you're throwing out and no one has any reason whatsoever to take you seriously until you show you actually give a crap about what is actually true. If you did, upon realising your error, you would have immediately apologised about misrepresenting Phil Jones and questioned how and why you got that idea. You cant talk about evidence in a very complex subject with someone that cant even admit something as simple as this. Instead you do not seem to feel there is anything wrong with what you said about Phil Jones, which is exactly my point and exactly why your position is completely devoid of intellectual honesty. You would prefer to defend a lie about your opponents position because you cannot admit you are wrong and they do not hold it, pretending rather they said or believe something they do not because its more convenient for your argument when talking to people that don't know any better, and perhaps most of all because admitting you were wrong means dragging your sources through the mud as you'd have to face up to the fact that they are the ones that mislead you to begin with. Some people might see this as a minor issue, they can let it slide, but Ive been arguing with people on the internet about crazy things for too long to not see what this behaviour means. No one has any good reason to believe your dishonesty stops here and does not spill over into anything else you're talking about so there's really no point at all getting into anything more complex with you unless someone just likes wasting their time. 

I'd ask what makes Curry an authority on sea ice as opposed to actual experts in sea ice that dont agree with her (such as Dr. David Barber or Dr Richard Alley), but I'd be falling into the trap again. Cant get very far with someone that that lies, cant get very far with someone that that admits they lied and then doesnt even seem to think it matters.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 11, 2012)

All the while Rome burns.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 12, 2012)

Rohan, as ever you are starting from a faulty premise and faulty suppositions. The false premise is that the partisan layman can just research the internet on any issue and arrive at a sound conclusion (the reality is that the scientific method is a better way to proceed), and the faulty supposition in this case is that my own beliefs (yes, that's what I'd call them too) are based on compassion / concern for the state of the planet. I'd hope I am concerned, but my beliefs are 100% based on the scientific method. I have - sadly - absolutely no record of interest in environmental politics / action, it was only as I realised what the overwhelming consensus of those best qualified was that I rather begrudgingly realised I couldn't have any intellectual credibility in my world view without listening to them. If I just listened to the cranks, the lone voices and the ideolgically obsessed, I may as well become a Creationist and be done with it.

And so we have - as predicted, sadly - the usual links to Watts Up With That and Judith Curry, the lone voices who tell people what they want to hear. We ignore the ovewhelming, massive mainstream position, who are all in on the conspiracy. And, as Nick says, meanwhile Rome burns.

Unless of course there IS a conspiracy. Is the claim that 97-98% of climate scientists bogus? (forgive me if you're falling asleep already - this thread would to a tremendous services to insomniac composers the world over). In a word, no. The denial community - as well summarised at Watts Up With That - will say look at the numbers who filled in one survey (while offering no peer reviewed alternative, of course) and spin you a nice little line... but it's nothing more than a line.

This particular issue shares much with the rest of the denial argument - the wilful ability to ignore the obvious, the huge, the staring-you-in-the-face, and to focus on the minutiae and / or steer away with a specious argument. When it comes to the issue of "is there a consensus", you first have to ignore every significant scientific institution in the world. That, right there, should be your first pause for thought - are all these guys and gals in those august institutions that gave the world it's scientific knowledge for the past few centuries REALLY stupid / mad / ideologically obsessed? But if you have a strong need to believe in a conspiracy, of course you'll answer "yes" to that pretty much by definition, so with a weary sigh, onwards we trudge.

So next you look at the papers that has been published in the science. You quickly find the famous Oreskes study - http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full - which found 0% of published papers between '93 and '03 which backed a contrarian view... oooh dear that looks like a problem. But - ah ha - thanks to the internet, you find what you're looking for - a 2nd study by Benny Peiser that refutes the first, and actually finds 34 papers that DO question it. For the denier, that's all you need to know, and you certainly don't need to know that all 34 claims have been rejected... even by Peiser, who went on to write - as a sceptic - "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact". But no matter - we have a link on the internet now that says that the study is bunk, and - on the internet - that's every bit as powerful as peer review. This is how denial works in practice.

So let's now turn to the views of the individuals. How can 97-98% of climate scientists believe, as claimed, that AGW is real if you can print a list of scores who DON'T believe this? The first, and most obvious answer is that this is how surveys work - they sample. How many climate scientists are in the world? Hard to say - anywhere between 30,000 and 100,000 it seems, depending on your definition (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 526AAwf7X1 ). Let's pick the lower figure. If there are 30,000 climate scientists, and 3% of those do not accept AGW for whatever reason, there are nearly 1,000 names that you can print. WOW! 1,000 qualified climatologists who don't accept AGW! WOW! The final nail in the coffin. Or, to put it another way, 3%. (tangent - look here http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... tists.html for the impressive list of scientists who believe in creationism).

But back to the study for a moment - http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf . It asked Earth Scientists, of which climatologists were a minority. 82% of all earth scientists accepted AGW, and the more qualified in the field they were, that figure rose to 97%. If you are ideologically inclined to not accept these conclusions, you can spin it of course "only 77 people who responded are climatologists" - using the same cheap trick as above. Hey, maybe it's only those 77 noisy people who believe all this laughable stuff?

Well, no. In a 2010 peer reviewed study - http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.abstract) Anderegg studied "an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers". Finding both exactly the same figure as the Doran study, but also the identical conclusion that the more qualified you were, the more likely you are to accept it, rising to the overwhelming figure of 97-98%.

And on and on it goes.

Ed is spot on when he reminds us of Truthers / Birthers / Mooners (that's what they are called, right?). It is the difference between a belief system, an ideology, being used to base your own views, or the scientific method. If you are driven by ideology, you will seek out only the lone voices, the Judith Curry's of the world who somehow in your mind are the only few to represent the truth, independence and that most debased of all phrases, "sound science". You ignore the deafening and most qualified majority, who tell you that the melting of the arctic ice is happening far, far faster than pretty much any model has predicted (though similarly all predicted it... just slower), that all historical precedents are far less in reality and cannot remotely explain what is currently occuring, causing alarm to scientists across the world. (We should, in short, be cooling and not warming at all - http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/po ... QSR_10.pdf )

In short, and as ever, it's sadly just as simple as saying "people believe whatever they want to believe". That said, perhaps I am a shade too cyncial on this point. For the die hard, it is unquestioningly true. But others can be convinced, sadly not by scientitic rationality, but by the (often flawed) evidence of their own eyes. USA public disbelief in AGW dropped from 22% to 15% this year in the wake of the record heatwaves - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-1 ... o-70-.html . Sad to reflect that a) only when really bad things happen personally to them that people will believe it, and when it is too late, and b) next year if we have a lower temperature year (in the noise of annual fluctuations, quite possible) that figure might well go up again. We've had a pretty crappy weather year in the UK involving rain not heat, and as this thread proved recently the public doesn't make a connection.. it's called Global WARMING, right? I'd be very surprised if our opinion poll figures have changed much.


----------



## PMortise (Sep 12, 2012)

What I don't get are the folks that seem more concerned with proving that human activity is a significant contributing factor or not (i.e. _assigning blame_) before admitting that the situation is real and needs to be acted upon. Where in history has anyone seen the ice caps shrink to the levels they have recently, and how can anyone think that isn't a big deal to our climate?

If it were an asteroid capable of screwing up life as we know it heading our way, would we sit around arguing the odds of it breaking up in the atmosphere and landing in the ocean before we decide to act on it?


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 12, 2012)

PMortise @ Wed Sep 12 said:


> What I don't get are the folks that seem more concerned with proving that human activity is a significant contributing factor or not (i.e. _assigning blame_) before admitting that the situation is real and needs to be acted upon. Where in history has anyone seen the ice caps shrink to the levels they have recently, and how can anyone think that isn't a big deal to our climate?
> 
> If it were an asteroid capable of screwing up life as we know it heading our way, would we sit around arguing the odds of it breaking up in the atmosphere and landing in the ocean before we decide to act on it?



Well, as Rohan shows above, for the expert denier there is absolutely nothing to worry about. Everything is normal, and has happened before. Even when, in another few hundred / thousand years, sea levels have risen by 50m, there will be a few rich souls left who can point out "it's nothing, it was once 250m". Actually, they might argue the same thing with an asteroid ("it's scaremongering" / "well, it's happened before...")

The denial of attribution is important to the denier. The moment you accept the cause, then that demands action which is incredibly awkward as it might ultimately impinge on lifestyle changes (that's the bogeyman, anyway). All the while you are on the scale of "it's not happening" / "it's not us", you don't need to concern yourself about that (though the final resting place of "there's nothing we can do" isn't so bad as a get-out, actually).

And, to be fair, it is actually important. Much of the current denial thinking says that we're in a relatively short term cycle - a couple of years back, many deniers were confidently saying that we're now in a cooling phase, and indeed Rohan says we've flatlined even now I think (we haven't of course, but no need to retread another 3 pages of this thread). If it WERE cooling, everyone would be fussing over nothing, because it would all even out. Shame it isn't, really.


----------



## stevenson-again (Sep 13, 2012)

> No comment on your lie? I find it interesting that you didnt comment on that, but not surprising. Its really quite simple. Did Phil Jones believe what you said he believes? No. You said you knew he didnt before you said it.



I did not lie - don't be ridiculous. I was pointing out that even Phil Jones had to admit that there was no statistically significant warming in a trivial sideshow about the well known and acknowledged reality that warming has stopped over the last decade or longer. He later came out with a press conference as soon as he could show some statistical significance, only he got his sums wrong, and wasn't right anyway. If you want to argue an alarmist point of view on why this is (the lack of warming), there are two: aerosols and the 1997-98 climate shift and the extremely high El Nino that year.

This link from RealClimate: Warming Interrupted gives a possible plausible explanation as to why the warming has stopped, and why they think it will continue from 2020. 

The first, aerosols, has been pretty much discounted, largely because atmospheric circulation does not mix well between the hemispheres and the southern hemisphere which has seen slight cooling, compared to the northern where most of the aerosols (blamed on China) are in the atmosphere have had the greatest impact on sunlight. The second, is more plausible, but you would need to check the sums to see if the assumption - that the climate has stopped warming as the significant added heat from the 1997-98 El Nino diffuses through the climate system - actually adds up and takes account of other factors such as ocean circulation, cloudiness, etc. I am pretty sure you would have find a hearty debate amongst climatologists on this point.



> I'd ask what makes Curry an authority on sea ice as opposed to actual experts in sea ice that dont agree with her (such as Dr. David Barber or Dr Richard Alley), but I'd be falling into the trap again. Cant get very far with someone that that lies, cant get very far with someone that that admits they lied and then doesnt even seem to think it matters.



Someone isn't lying if they don't agree with you. I didn't lie - and well you know it. Read what I wrote. It was a mistake to bring up Phil Jones and the "no statistical warming" comment, because I should have realized you wouldn't understand the significance of it, and it would be a distraction (and was) to try and explain it.

Judith Curry made her name in climatology through her arctic climatological research. She has co-written an important text -"Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans". She is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology (that would be an institution!!!). Here is an interesting paper with regard to reduction of sea ice she co-authored. It got a rough ride from skeptics because the empirical evidence underlying it is not solid, but as a hypotheses it is fair enough:

Low Arctic Ice - High Winter Snow. 

So if the sea ice extent in the arctic remains low, there should be greater chance high winter snowfall. Which would be a negative feedback.


----------



## stevenson-again (Sep 13, 2012)

> The false premise is that the partisan layman can just research the internet on any issue and arrive at a sound conclusion (the reality is that the scientific method is a better way to proceed)



Mate this really made me laugh. It is not a false premise that a layman cannot research on the interent and arrive at a sound conclusion about what they have read and its worthiness. You can download scientific papers and read them, and I have, and you can download publicly available data sets and analyse them, and I have done that too. When you don't understand something, you can ask for help from people who know - who are 'qualified'. It takes time, but you chip away and your understanding grows. A bit like anything really - including this place. The internet is the reason why you have no excuse to be so ignorant - rather than simply slavishly fashioning your opinion to match what the mainstream media tell you what the "Institutions" think. 

It would be one thing for you to say, "well these guys reckon CAGW is a big problem and they ought to know", and for me to say, "actually they have gotten a bit of it wrong for these very good reasons, and fair few other people think so too", and then for you to say, "Yeah? Well I don't really know too much about it. I hope they sort it out soon." It's entirely another thing for you to insist that simply because the institutions say so they must be right, or that so many of them say the same thing they must be right. Science doesn't work that way.

Your comment about the scientific method suggests to me that you have no understanding of what the scientific method is at all. Here is a fantastic Youtube clip from one of the most celebrated scientists of all time, Richard Feynmann which is as simple to understand as you could possibly hope for and really well presented:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

You only need to watch for a minute. Please grock this.



> Anderegg studied "an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers



It's a shame this keep coming up, because it is just not an argument. You have no idea of the internal politics of climate science of the IPCC because you haven't done the research. but no matter. The Anderegg survey did much the same thing as the Doran and of the 1,372 only a fraction remained that met the criteria to be included in the final result. 



> f you are driven by ideology, you will seek out only the lone voices, the Judith Curry's of the world who somehow in your mind are the only few to represent the truth, independence and that most debased of all phrases, "sound science". You ignore the deafening and most qualified majority, who tell you that the melting of the arctic ice is happening far, far faster than pretty much any model has predicted (though similarly all predicted it... just slower), that all historical precedents are far less in reality and cannot remotely explain what is currently occuring, causing alarm to scientists across the world. (We should, in short, be cooling and not warming at all



I would rather listen to just one voice and the strength of their arguments, than many voices clamouring to agree with one another. This is why you don't understand the scientific method. Science does not work by consensus. Something is right or it isn't, not because lots of people think it is so. I have done my research from the basis of trying to disprove my father who was skeptical. I couldn't argue with him without knowing what his arguments were and I got drawn in that way. It took about 18 months or so and I started to have my doubts. I would literally take an argument that a skeptic made and tried to find the countervailing argument on the alarmist side. If I didn't find one I would post about it. In short guy, I did my *homework*.

It staggers me you cannot see your hypocrisy; on the one hand you are accusing me of being ideological and on the other you are simply following edict from the high church of 'science' that their judgement is too great and mighty for the legions of unwashed to have the effrontery to attempt to understand, and they must therefore accept without question their wisdom. You seem to think it is ideological to 'seek out the lone voice'. Good god man! I am seeking out the arguments and the evidence supporting them, but if that comes from a lone voice, so be it! And I have to say, there are many more voices than just one. But I don't care how many or few, I care about their arguments and the evidence supporting them.

Have you not noticed, you never actually argue about the evidence for or against climate change, only that the Institutions must be believed, because we are too puny to understand?

For god's sakes guy - take 1 minute out of your life and watch the Feynmann video.


----------



## stevenson-again (Sep 13, 2012)

> What I don't get are the folks that seem more concerned with proving that human activity is a significant contributing factor or not (i.e. assigning blame) before admitting that the situation is real and needs to be acted upon. Where in history has anyone seen the ice caps shrink to the levels they have recently, and how can anyone think that isn't a big deal to our climate?



Hi PMortise. 

The issue is that vexes the critics of the IPCC, is that we don't know enough to be able to say how much of the warming, if any is caused by us. If the climate is getting hotter *anyway*, it doesn't make sense spending money on preventing our influence on it, it makes more sense to spend money adapting to it.

The other issue is between advocacy and scientific impartiality. The criticism is that many climate scientists have behaved as advocates, when the science is not certain enough to warrant the policies they are advocating. It's political naivety on the part of the scientists, and a good measure of hubris too, as getting mixed up in poltics lead them to being challenged on their science. They then 'circled the wagons' and started to protect one another and objectivity was lost and some research suffered from confirmation bias.

The ice caps *have* shrunk to *much* less than they are now, and within recorded history. I posted a link to a climate historian who discusses this including the evidence. recently a paper came out showing that driftwood from Alaska had made it to Greenland during the medieval warm period - very hard evidence that the summer sea ice had reduced to less than anything in modern history.

You should also bear in mind that Antarctic sea ice has been growing. Global sea ice has pretty much not gone anywhere - up or down. So we shouldn't obsess over the Arctic too much. But we should looks at the climatological significance of lower sea ice extent in the Arctic, because that might tell us something useful.



> If it were an asteroid capable of screwing up life as we know it heading our way, would we sit around arguing the odds of it breaking up in the atmosphere and landing in the ocean before we decide to act on it?



Well, put it this way, if a scientist came rushing out of a building and said an asteroid was going to hit the earth, would you not want to check? Just to make sure that he hadn't messed up some sums, or just had a smudge on his telescope - especially before spending billions and terrorizing the population trying to deal with it?

It might surprised you to know that no-one has actually ever checked the scientists work - except for a handful of skeptics such as Steve McIntyre, who weren't paid anything for it. The IPCC is just an assessment of the work, by the scientists who did it themselves, academics who have never had to have their work tested as is customary in the commercial world. But most of the auditing has really only been on paleo-climatology.

A final point, it is often assumed that a warming climate is a bad thing - an asteroid about to impact the earth. It is NOT necessarily a bad thing. In fact, when temperatures where higher than today - the medieval warm period, Roman optimum for example - things were very comfortable for humans and life in general. Changing climate patterns are important to understand so that people can adapt, but we shouldn't assume that all effects will be bad.


----------



## Ed (Sep 13, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu Sep 13 said:


> I did not lie - don't be ridiculous. I was pointing out that even Phil Jones had to admit that there was no statistically significant warming


How did you present Phil Jones to us? Here's a quote from page 2, remember it? 



> . Even Phil Jones admitted there was no statistically significant warming since 1995:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm



So we must gather from this that Phil Jones holds the opinion that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and that this shows that its not controversial what you are saying about the warming having stopped and not being significant. Except what Jones actually said was that it was very close to that level, it turned out it was 93% rather than 95%. So instead of 95% confidence (required to say statistically significant) he was honest to say no, but it was close, at 93% confidence. As Jones alluded to in his interview if you pick two dates close together you can make them say whatever you want, 1995 was chosen because it was the earliest date with which he could get Jones to agree to his statement. The following question was even stupider, asking if it had been significant cooling since 2002, and Jones had to again remind him that this was an even shorter time period.

But its much worse than that, because a year later Jones DID say that since 1995 the data was now statistically significant. Its now been over 2 years since that original interview you quoted, but where is any of this or this follow up mentioned in your posts so that people know that Jones actually believes that between 1995 and 2010 the warming *has *been statistically significant? You dont mention it because otherwise you couldnt possibly use him as an example of a pro-AGW climate scientist that finds it non-controversial that the warming has stopped, because... he doesn't really think that.

To recap then, Jones does not believe that the warming is not statistically significant since 1995, and specifically said it _was _ significant a year ago and only 2% off significant the year before. You quote-mine an interview in 2009 that was already misrepresented in the first place. When I showed you the quote from a year later where Jones said that the data is now significant you said you knew about it. Therefore what you originally said about Jones you KNEW wasnt true before you said it. That is the definition of a lie.




> in a trivial sideshow about the well known and acknowledged reality that warming has stopped over the last decade or longer.



This is what I mean about lying. Jones never said the warming had stopped, not even implied it and even pointed this out in the interview you originally quoted! Then a year later said the opposite of what you were trying to demonstrate with quoting him in the first place, that it was "non-controversial"! In fact not only did you lie about Jones to try and make this point, you also ignore all the places that specifically disagree that "warming has stopped" and you even tried to give me Judith Curry as an example of a climate scientist that accepts AGW that believes this (_when shes a well known and heavily criticised "skeptic"_)




> This link from RealClimate: Warming Interrupted gives a possible plausible explanation as to why the warming has stopped, and why they think it will continue from 2020.



Very nice, posting a a article written mid-2009, 3 years ago. After the 1998 warming from El Nino, we have had the warmest years on record, then in 2007 we had a cooling phase driven by La Nina. The time period he is talking about is far too short to be making any kind of conclusion about a real pause (in GW) is occurring, and he notes this in the article you posted. What you did is quotemine (oh he said "pause" yeyz!!!!) . You even post from realclimate when they have discussed this so-called "pause" you're refering to many times, such as here, or hereor here,and , here. Here they respond to the distortion of Phil Jones' quote you used, in the way I have described. But yet you will still persist with this fantasy that what you're talking about is "non-controversial". 



> Someone isn't lying if they don't agree with you. I didn't lie - and well you know it. Read what I wrote. It was a mistake to bring up Phil Jones and the "no statistical warming" comment, because I should have realized you wouldn't understand the significance of it, and it would be a distraction (and was) to try and explain it.



Figure this out Rohan. You distorted Phil Jones' position from a quote in an interview about 2 and half years go. Then you said you knew about the quote I showed you where about a year later Jones said in no uncertain terms there _has _now been statistically significant warming since 1995, and you said you knew about it. Therefore when you made the initial claim about what Phil Jones said and believes, it was a lie. Saying somethin you know aint true is a lie, Rohan. But now you still appear to be arguing that its not controversial the warming has stopped and what Jones says still supports that, despite the fact that he doesnt believe what you said he believed and never did. Are you really this stubborn you have to continue to lie to get yourself out of admitting you should not have trusted your sources when you posted your initial quote-mine?


Regarding Curry, I was asking why she is an authority in sea ice OVER other working experts that dont agree with her. In your other post here you ask if 1 scientist says an asteroid is going to crash into the earth should we not pay attention. I think this is very revealing as to your mental process. NO WE SHOULDN'T CARE, not if the majority of scientists look at it and say his maths is wrong. This is your whole problem, you trust the fringe minority and follow them, but you dont do this equally, but have cherry picked climate science as the field to do that. If you opened your eyes you'd realise there are fringe qualified people in every science but you probably dont believe AIDS is a myth or vaccines cause autism, that the twin towers were demolished or that there are simple cures to cancer being suppressed by the government and pharmaceutical companies. You also make the mistake of believing that YOU, YOU an unqualified composer can understand all this to the same degree a climate expert can. Which means the majority of experts are either in on a vast conspiracy or are just too stupid to figure out something any unqualified person can figure out just by reading a few articles on the internet. The simpler and more obvious you think it is that AGW is not true, the more unlikely your claims are for this exact reason. At no time do you question that maybe a qualified, but incorrect person could put an argument across that can sound convincing to someone that doesnt have the expertise to really understand, you do of course, but you think this doesnt apply to your fringe experts. You dont realise that your position requires massive untenable conspiracies, very much like the 911 truther requires. They will tell you that its just a small group of men, but debate them long enough and you see how many people they will implicate by necessity, its the same for you but you cant see it.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 14, 2012)

Ed @ Fri Sep 14 said:


> You also make the mistake of believing that YOU, YOU an unqualified composer can understand all this to the same degree a climate expert can. Which means the majority of experts are either in on a vast conspiracy or are just too stupid to figure out something any unqualified person can figure out just by reading a few articles on the internet. The simpler and more obvious you think it is that AGW is not true, the more unlikely your claims are for this exact reason. At no time do you question that maybe a qualified, but incorrect person could put an argument across that can sound convincing to someone that doesnt have the expertise to really understand, you do of course, but you think this doesnt apply to your fringe experts. You dont realise that your position requires massive untenable conspiracies, very much like the 911 truther requires.



I've admired many of Ed's posts, but this little passage here is absolutely magnificent.

Rohan, you are simply superb composer. But there is a reason why I value the views of Gavin Schmidt, Stefan Rahmstorf and those hundreds of others who are constantly publishing new research in per reviewed journals above yours, at least when it comes to climate science. To give you some more mirth - it's because of that scientific method I hilariously don't understand. But perhaps I really am confused with my facts. How many peer reviewed papers have you published with your research, Rohan? Of those, how many then got further cited by others?

Assuming I haven't missed anything there... of the genuine scientists you do support, some have published papers, and you have glowingly quoted them. Never mind that Richard Lindzen's paper he admits were "full of stupid mistakes", or that Judith Curry's own theories have also been debunked. Never mind that 97% of published authors all supports the AGW position. I get what you're saying - you have done your homework and decided that all those people are wrong, and you appear to sincerely believe that if we looked too, with an open mind, we'd all agree with you. Just as we'd see The Truth behind 9/11, moon landings, homeopathy etc. Just as you get your kicks from my hysterically funny misunderstanding of what the scientific method is, it's only fair to say I have a little chortle when I read denailsts referring to scientists who publish dozens of papers in peer reviewed journals as "high priests". Over-compensatiing, perchance?

Well, I've followed many of your links, and found them usually absurdly unconvincing. And that's no surprise, because I support the scientific method (cue more mirth!). I have that funny and terribly hypocritical view that the major institutes of scientific learning and knowledge are devoted to that same method, and that peer reviewed science is designed to weed out the unverifiable, the crackpots, the ideologically or corporately motivated and the lunatic fringe, be that in evolutionary biology, medicine or climate science. And when a position is supported by every major institution in the world, then there's a pretty good chance there is substance behind it. But there's me and my blind faith again.

I dunno. Maybe if I was a better composer, I'd be able to asses climate science more independently, less hypocritically and with far more intelligence.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 14, 2012)

Meanwhile, back at the data in the real world, it looks like we may have just passed the annual minimum of sea ice extent - seems to be we'll get the official figure early next week, but if we have already passed it it'll be 3.421 sq km, down from the previous low of 4.17 sq km in 2007. This is a very good quote by Michael Mann:



> “It’s an example of how uncertainty is not our friend when it comes to climate-change risk,” said Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University. “In this case, the models were almost certainly too conservative in the changes they were projecting, probably because of important missing physics.”



There's always an assumption that things won't be as bad as the so-called doom-sayers suggest, that all the uncertainties in the science will mean it'll be ok. But uncertainties are just that - they can go either way.

The original IPCC forecasts for ice-free summers were at the end of the century. The general view now seems to be in the next 20-30 years, and some are even suggesting it could be as soon as 2015. The melt this summer has freaked out some scientists working on it. In the same NY Times article as the Mann quote:



> “It’s hard even for people like me to believe, to see that climate change is actually doing what our worst fears dictated,” said Jennifer A. Francis, a Rutgers University scientist who studies the effect of sea ice on weather patterns. “It’s starting to give me chills, to tell you the truth.”



Walt Meier at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, adds:



> "We expected that sooner or later we would go below 2007,” he said. “But even this year, it's a little surprising. We didn't just streak by the record, we blew right past it over two weeks ago. It's really pretty surprising.”



Oddly enough, mindful of the headlines and the predictions of some terrible UK winters as a result, our right wing Climate Change minister is saying all the right things today...



> “These findings highlight the urgency for the international community to act. We understand that Arctic sea-ice decline has accelerated over recent years as global warming continues to increase Arctic temperatures at a faster rate than the global average.
> 
> “This Government is working hard to tackle climate change and we are working closely with our international partners not to exceed 2 degrees above pre industrial levels. I am calling for the EU to increase its emission target from 20% to 30% and will be taking an active lead at the UNFCCC Climate change talks in Doha later this year, where I will push for further progress towards a new global deal on climate change and for more mitigation action now. The fact is that we cannot afford to wait”



...while the government tries to get rid of the renewables targets, back gas and seems most keen to use the ice-free arctic to drill for more oil. Waiting, or more accurately stalling, seems to be the game plan, no matter how fine the words.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Sep 17, 2012)

PMortise @ Wed Sep 12 said:


> What I don't get are the folks that seem more concerned with proving that human activity is a significant contributing factor or not (i.e. _assigning blame_) before admitting that the situation is real and needs to be acted upon. Where in history has anyone seen the ice caps shrink to the levels they have recently, and how can anyone think that isn't a big deal to our climate?



Really? 

http://tinyurl.com/8afu29r

http://tinyurl.com/8mtpw7a


----------



## Ed (Sep 17, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Mon Sep 17 said:


> Really?
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/8afu29r
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/8mtpw7a



You missed the part where he said "shrink to the levels they have *recently*,"


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Sep 17, 2012)

Ed @ Mon Sep 17 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Mon Sep 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Really?
> ...



And you missed the significant, epistemological point - the part about the fact that we have no way of knowing whether these levels reported by the Royal Sorcery in 1817 and again by others in 1922 were lower or higher than today's meaningless alarmist claptrap.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 17, 2012)

Just in case anyone is actually interested in actic sea ice history, as opposed to throwing a few cheap shots to reinforce what they want to hear, Wikipedia makes a good launching off point - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea ... nd_history . For some more detail, here's a relatively recent peer reviewed paper - http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/po ... QSR_10.pdf . Quoting from their abstract:



> The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few
> thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.



(so Steven's quotes above seem perfectly accurate, even if they say the exact opposite of what he thinks they are saying).

There have been studies focusing on this period, the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM), such as here - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9103002956 . It finds paralells - less ice - but also important differences:



> The spatial asymmetry of warming during the HTM resembles the pattern of warming observed in the Arctic over the last several decades. Although the two warmings are described at different temporal scales, and the HTM was additionally affected by the residual Laurentide ice, the similarities suggest there might be a preferred mode of variability in the atmospheric circulation that generates a recurrent pattern of warming under positive radiative forcing. Unlike the HTM, however, future warming will not be counterbalanced by the cooling effect of a residual North American ice sheet.



The reason for the warming was orbital variation (unlike today) and there was a cooling effect which counterbalanced - again, unlike today.

But that's the tip of the iceberg (if you will). The last time before then that the arctic had ice this low - or absent - in summer, the regional temperature and sea level were higher than today, and CO2 levels lower. The National Snow and Ice Data Centre has a useful FAQ which covers this area, among many others - http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#summer_ice



> The next earliest era when the Arctic was quite possibly free of summertime ice was 125,000 years ago, during the height of the last major interglacial period, known as the Eemian. Temperatures in the Arctic were higher than now and sea level was also 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) higher than it is today because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets had partly melted. Because of the burning of fossil fuels, global averaged temperatures today are getting close to the maximum warmth seen during the Eemian. Carbon dioxide levels now are far above the highest levels during the Eemian, indicating there is still warming to come.



_(note - sources above are peer-reviewed and not blogs, except for the FAQ of the researchers who are studying the arctic, the NDSIC, which "distributes more than 500 cryospheric data sets for researchers, from both satellite and ground observations.")_


----------



## Ed (Sep 17, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Mon Sep 17 said:


> And you missed the significant, epistemological point - the part about the fact that we have no way of knowing whether these levels reported by the Royal Sorcery in 1817 and again by others in 1922 were lower or higher than today's meaningless alarmist claptrap.



Except for sea ice experts that measure ice cores and such, but no you're probably right, these scientists are just idiots and you Stephen know more than they do and can discount their lifes works and expertise with a wave of your hand with nothing but a few newspaper clippings. If only they knew what you knew!!!


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Sep 17, 2012)

Ed @ Mon Sep 17 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Mon Sep 17 said:
> 
> 
> > And you missed the significant, epistemological point - the part about the fact that we have no way of knowing whether these levels reported by the Royal Sorcery in 1817 and again by others in 1922 were lower or higher than today's meaningless alarmist claptrap.
> ...



Absolutely Ed - just sidestep the issue with an ad hom. There's obviously no official guidance available on that particular lacunae on skeptical science blog yet.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 17, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Mon Sep 17 said:


> just sidestep the issue



Well... ahem... speaking of sidestepping the issue - three posts up. If you're interested...


----------



## Ed (Sep 17, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Mon Sep 17 said:


> Absolutely Ed - just sidestep the issue with an ad hom. There's obviously no official guidance available on that particular lacunae on skeptical science blog yet.



What issue did I sidestep? All you did is say you dont know the state of sea ice back then, therefore we cannot know if the state of sea ice is bad now, therefore we should assume it is today the same as it was then and therefore its nothing to worry about. And why bother choosing that time period? We know its been hotter in earths history, so what? Do you really have such a poor grasp on the issue that you dont understand why thats not the point?

But as I said sea ice experts must not have thought of something so simple, if only you could get some of these newspaper clippings to them, maybe they would understand, right? Why is it you think that these people who study this stuff all their lives have somehow missed something so simple? 

As I said to Rohan, the more you make out that your side is so obviously correct a child could understand it the more unlikely it is because it requires even more absurd scenarios like this where any unqualified person on the internet can read a few articles, or like you pick a couple of newspaper clippings, and decide those silly climate scientists don't know what they're talking about because obviously if they thought sea ice was in trouble back then it cant be so bad now. Maybe the ice experts are able to look at ice cores and other such measurements and work out what it was like in the past, maybe they can also work out what could have caused climate shifts in the past and what is most likely causing it today. Maybe you just dont know what you're talking about and they're not all the morons that you require them to be. EDIT: I see Guy gave you a nice little response on this, but instead you choose to ignore it, of course you did.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Sep 17, 2012)

Ed @ Mon Sep 17 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Mon Sep 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely Ed - just sidestep the issue with an ad hom. There's obviously no official guidance available on that particular lacunae on skeptical science blog yet.
> ...



Maybe Ed.


----------



## Ed (Sep 17, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Mon Sep 17 said:


> Maybe Ed.



And there we are back to the one line hand waves we're all used to from you Stephen. Good job.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Sep 17, 2012)

Ed @ Mon Sep 17 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Mon Sep 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe Ed.
> ...



Indeed.


----------



## stevenson-again (Sep 18, 2012)

> So we must gather from this that Phil Jones holds the opinion that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and that this shows that its not controversial what you are saying about the warming having stopped and not being significant. Except what Jones actually said was that it was very close to that level, it turned out it was 93% rather than 95%. So instead of 95% confidence (required to say statistically significant) he was honest to say no, but it was close, at 93% confidence



Ed - I wrote what he said. Unfortunately what you are continuing to miss is not that he said that the warming was not significant statistically (but only just), but that the warming is nothing like the near 0.3 degree rise per decade predicted by the IPCC central estimate of 3 degrees/century warming for a doubling of CO2. I was making that point in the context of explaining that the lack of warming, or the "hiatus" if you want to believe that it's only a pause, was uncontroversially true. The article is as relevant today as it was then - even more so, since the trend over the last decade from the UAH satellite data - is absolutely flat - and flatter now than had you taken 1999 to 2009.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/fr ... 2012/trend

The Real Climate article offers I think the best most plausible explanation for this lack of warming from the warmist/alarmist perspective - that I have heard anyway.



> NO WE SHOULDN'T CARE, not if the majority of scientists look at it and say his maths is wrong. This is your whole problem, you trust the fringe minority and follow them, but you dont do this equally, but have cherry picked climate science as the field to do that.



Again with the consensus arguments. Ed, I have MET and talked to climate scientists. I have followed blogs of every variety on this subject. Just like other fields in human endeavour, what you consider to be a consensus is nothing like it on examination. Those self-same climate scientists - the ones working in the IPCC that you so admire, express in private the same objections and concerns skeptics have been making in public. Individual climate scientists have very nuanced views. However, it is a complex politically charged field to be involved in and they keep their cards close to their chests. It's the scientists from closely related fields who often say things like "Well I don't know about the rest of the science, but this particular aspect that intersects my field is absolute rubbish". In particular, climate scientists (notably but not limited to paleo-climatology) have been found wanting applying novel, un-peer reviewed statistical techniques inappropriately.

The problem with the surveys, is that they do not actually capture what climate scientists think and are skewed in a way to reveal the surveyors bias. Judith Curry pointed out that in the Anderegg survey, the cliimate scientists who said yes to the AGW question where not experts in attribution, which is the area that separates natural variability from anthropogenic and much else besides. And that's part of the problem with making a sweeping statement like "97% of climate scientists think such and such" because the science is broken into many smaller disciplines all with a different perspective on the climate.

What you have to understand Ed, is that I don't "trust" a fringe minority. I listen to what the critics have to say, and what those who defend what you might call "the orthodox line" say. I look at the figures and I can assess for myself what makes the most sense. It is not true that I have not done this equally - I started out trying to gather arguments in order to argue the warmist/alarmist case. It's only after a good long while of back and forth, asking questions and reading books on the subject I realized that the orthodox position is untenable. The IPCC has over-sold a far too high estimate of climate sensitivity. What it means is that the Climate Scientists don't know as much about the Earths climate as they thought they did.



> You also make the mistake of believing that YOU, YOU an unqualified composer can understand all this to the same degree a climate expert can. Which means the majority of experts are either in on a vast conspiracy or are just too stupid to figure out something any unqualified person can figure out just by reading a few articles on the internet. The simpler and more obvious you think it is that AGW is not true, the more unlikely your claims are for this exact reason. At no time do you question that maybe a qualified, but incorrect person could put an argument across that can sound convincing to someone that doesnt have the expertise to really understand, you do of course, but you think this doesnt apply to your fringe experts. You dont realise that your position requires massive untenable conspiracies, very much like the 911 truther requires. They will tell you that its just a small group of men, but debate them long enough and you see how many people they will implicate by necessity, its the same for you but you cant see it.



Ed and Guy, it is YOU who are making the mistake of thinking that you CAN'T understand this sufficiently to *make up your own mind.* I'm sorry, but the credibility and the arguments of those who object to the IPCC conclusions and the way they made the conclusions are not affected by your protestations that so many more climate scientists think otherwise. I listen to their arguments because they *are* credible, but I assess their arguments in exactly the same way I assess everyone else's. I look at the evidence they present and weigh that against arguments to the contrary. Plus, they are not so few in number - but they do have one thing in common: tenure. Being tenured gives them the luxury of being able to speak more openly about their objections. Getting tenured is quite an honour and a privilege and much sought after by academics. Ad homs against the likes of Richard Lindzen or Judith Curry or the Pielkes is a failure to engage with their arguments and makes those doing the ad homming look very facile and pathetic. I have avoided going after Mann or Phil Jones who you have both quoted, but believe me, the pickings there are extremely ripe. 

Furthermore, climate-gate was extremely revealing. It served to undermine the credibility of the "consensus" scientists, who turned out to be a fairly small organized team with wider connections they. I also have studied enough physics at University to be able to parse the physical aspects and some of the Maths in the more technical blog posts. But you don't even need that - you simply need an open mind, willing to learn. 

It's you guys - YOU - who refuse to do the hard yards and look this stuff up. It's ridiculous, absolutely absurd to ask me why I haven't had peer-review of my 'research' to come to a different conclusion than "climate scientists". That's like saying there is no point looking at the stars and trying to understand them because I am *unqualified*. Or when I get ill, there is no point looking up the symptoms and trying to figure out what might be wrong because I am *not qualified*. Or if i was pregnant and wheeled in to the room with the machine that goes *PING*, on asking what I should do, you would tell me "Nothing dear, *YOUR NOT QUALIFIED*".

It's an absurd argument. Of course you can understand enough to sufficiently build a picture in your mind. And you can most certainly weigh up the pros and cons of an argument and assess the evidence. This is science NOT religion! Climate scientists are not high priests whose authority on truth cannot be questioned. Science works by proposing a hypotheses, making predictions based on the hypotheses, and then testing to see if the prediction is right in experiment or measurement. If the measurements don't stack up, then your hypotheses is wrong. Since the warming predicted by the IPCC as a result of the didn't occur, their hypotheses is wrong.


----------



## stevenson-again (Sep 18, 2012)

*Sea Ice*

I realize there is a lot of hand wringing about this. It is worth bearing in mind that there are peer-reviewed articles regarding low sea ice extent in the last 1000 years. In particular the medieval period, where drift wood from canada can be found as far away as greenland from that period. That can only have happened during periods of low sea ice extent in the arctic. Arctic sea ice heavily influenced by changes in the halocine layers, and changes in warm ocean currents. In the case of this years low extent it was also helped along by break up caused by a severe arctic storm.

Here is Judith Curry's take on it in two parts. You can just read the 2nd part which sums it up pretty well:

Arctic Sea Ice Part 1

Arctic Sea Ice Part 2

Edit: I forgot to mention an interesting new paper talking about evidence for a warm arctic during the little ice age. Counter intuitive, but it supports another paper Lui 2012 that suggests the reason for snowy NH winters is because of lack of sea ice in the autumn in the Arctic.:

http://www.geo.su.se/index.php/news/544 ... -age-times

Should be a good test of that theory this winter. If we have buckets of snow or a winter like last winter it would support both papers.


----------



## stevenson-again (Sep 18, 2012)

> I have that funny and terribly hypocritical view that the major institutes of scientific learning and knowledge are devoted to that same method, and that peer reviewed science is designed to weed out the unverifiable, the crackpots, the ideologically or corporately motivated and the lunatic fringe, be that in evolutionary biology, medicine or climate science. And when a position is supported by every major institution in the world, then there's a pretty good chance there is substance behind it. But there's me and my blind faith again.



It's blind faith and hypocrisy because you don't look critically at the assessments you presume those institutions to have made with the same critical and skeptical eye that they themselves would espouse. Those institutions do not carry out rigorous climatology or auditing of the science of climatology from institutions that do. It's a terribly naive viewpoint that you think that these guys have applied any sort of scientific process to the evidence at all, before making these politically motivated statements, and it really is exactly to impress people like yourself that they do it. There is a great deal of money riding on CAGW meme, and many institutions are heavily invested in it. Additionally, any critical look at the science is professional suicide for any junior trying to make a name for themselves, who were most likely co-opted to write a statement on behalf of the institution. 

It is up to independent heretics, those who can afford to speak their minds to look at the evidence again and challenge some orthodox assumptions. It has ever so been in science - without them important advances such as our understanding of evolution, or hygiene in childbirth would never have happened.

But just because they challenge the orthodoxy doesn't mean they are right. But history should teach you to listen to what they say and don't believe something just because everyone else does, or because someone you thought was important says so. Judge for yourself.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 18, 2012)

Read Revelations written by John of Pathos, it explains everything in there.
The Mayans and Hopis also explain the Sea Ice melting and politicians beach homes going underwater too. 

The End Is Near Unless We Pay More Taxes,.....and Soon.


----------



## Udo (Sep 18, 2012)

I believe that humans have a significant impact on the climate, but I also believe that, ultimately, "nature looks after itself". Guess what's going to happen when things go too far .... 

I'd really like to be around at that time, if only to say: "I told you so ....". :wink:


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 18, 2012)

I can only speak for myself, Rohan, but this is my whole problem with your approach. You take a couple of seemingly related things, throw them together and say "look it's not happening", and voila - down comes the whole charade like a deck of cards that should be obvious to a 5 year old. Ed has pointed out many times - rightly - why we should be suspicious of such claims in general, but let's for one moment look at the specific.

It looks like pretty much the entire basis of your view is that observation hasn't followed preditiction. Specifically, we should see approx a 3 degree rise for a doubling of CO2. In fact, it's been 0.8 degrees. Yikes - must be a crock, right? Well, no - it's because looking at it like that COULD be done by a five year old. A basic wikipedia search - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity reveals the elements you need to begin a calculation, including all the forcings before and against, and then you have figures, from multiple sources, within the error bars of prediction. You quoted Real Climate - their recent post on this suggest we're running around 10% below prediction. 10% seems like a very small figure to me, especially given the infancy of the science when the original predictions were made - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... mparisons/

So I see not only no basis for the core of your argument, I see the opposite. I see arctic sea ice melting faster than ANY model prediction. I see extreme weather events rising faster than prediction, I see peer-reviewed attribution directly linking those events to anthropogenic climate change. I wonder - if things were three times worse, as you seem to want before you'll believe any of it, what state would the world be in right now? If global temperatures had risen by three times the amount, the ice had melted 3 times faster, and we had 3 times the level of extreme weather events? What would that world look like I wonder? Whether you ever believe any of it or not, it looks like my kids will be finding out. And I just bet there will still be people saying "it's all natural, things were worse 14 billion years ago".

And so we're back. Back to the same old "believe me fellas, no-one in academia seriously believes this stuff". Back to the same old conspiracy theory that 97% of published climate science authors are in denial / are lying / are stupid. Back to the notion that the opposite view from Lindzen / Curry et al are noble and independent and any refutation of that is just ad hominem, not that they have failed to come up with any science to back any of it up that has withstood. Back to ignoring Lindzen says his own last paper, which you cite, is "full of stupid mistakes" by his own words. Back to the endless quoting of Curry's highly partisan blog. Back to simply being unable to comprehend how ludicrous it is that not a single significant academic institution in the entire world backs what to you think is obvious. Back to the black=white world with which we are all extremely familiar, and back to the judgement that because I don't go along with this jaundiced view, I haven't done my homework and am a hypocrite. And yet, from post one, all I've ever said is "the day any institution changes its view, I'll look again at the whole thing". In my own strange deluded little head, this seems consistent and non-hypocritical to me, but what do I know?


----------



## stevenson-again (Sep 19, 2012)

> I can only speak for myself, Rohan, but this is my whole problem with your approach. You take a couple of seemingly related things, throw them together and say "look it's not happening", and voila - down comes the whole charade like a deck of cards that should be obvious to a 5 year old. Ed has pointed out many times - rightly - why we should be suspicious of such claims in general, but let's for one moment look at the specific.



Guy, I'll find time at some point to write out clearly how you can go about assessing the science yourself. It is NOT obvious to 5 year old, it takes a little intelligence, a little time and patience, an open mind and objectivity.

- Start from the view point, that all the scientists or notable commentators have some credibility. Not all skeptical scientists can be cranks, nor even the alarmist scientists.

- Next, take a specific point from one side or the other and try to look for any weaknesses. You have to do this both arguments - for and against. You have to characterise correctly what the concerns and objections are. So far, it is very clear that you don't understand the skeptic objections, but have just been repeating what you have been fed from the alarmist side.

- Equally, if you are skeptical (suppose for a moment you are) you have to do the same thing. 'Global warming isn't happening because it is bad for the economy' - just isn't going to fly and is patent nonsense. A lot of skeptical commentators ARE politically motivated. If you are of a libertarian disposition, the thought of government, and even worse WORLD government having to take steps to regulate the life blood of modern society - energy - is going to motivate you to see flaws in anything that supports that idea. You have to reject all political reasoning - at least for the time being - and only concentrate on the evidence.

- Having characterised correctly (and it has to be reasonable - no skepticalscience.com nonsense) what the arguments are, play them off one another. Try to find arguments against each point. Post questions on blogs - not opinions - and see what the response is. In my experience, biased commentators will often link you to a raft of papers that they say supports their viewpoint, but after creafully reading them, I find that they either did no such thing, or were unrelated or irrelevant to the question.

- When you post be very very careful not to give away your bias's - which we know to be alarmist. Say (repeatedly) that you are new to this and trying to understand the issues from both sides. Carefully scrutinize what you write for anything leading. Make sure you repeat the questions on blogs of both sides - if you post at ClimateEtc, you should get a fair balance of replies as it is fairly evenly split between both sides of the debate. You should get some informative help - I've been lucky enough to have responses from actual climate scientists.

- You will get links to scientific literature. Read them. It's hard at first, but you soon get used to looking for take away points. In the abstract and the conclusions scan them for bias - all papers have a bias - and not just in climate science. Very often, papers make some mention of support for AGW, whilst the real body of the study and its conclusions have little or nothing to do it, or even don't really support an AGW conclusion at all. Be sensitive to this, and discern the science from the politics. You don't need to wade through mountains of scary looking equations - don't worry - the Peers of the scientist reviewing the paper don't either. Just look at the conclusion the maths supports. Check for error bars and acknowledged uncertainty.

- Uncertainty and self-skepticism. The best science and the best papers are the ones that acknowledge uncertainty, possible errors or bias (of the scientific variety), possible other conclusions, outliers (you MUST acknowledge any experimental result that does not fit into an expected pattern and be able to explain them), and areas of ignorance. This is the area that draws the most criticism from scientists outside of climate science. Over-confident statements, especially in a complex, multi-facetted, immature field such as climate science, is a big red flag.

- The golden rule is: if it sounds too good to be true (and the corollary, too bad to be true) it probably isn't. 

- Things to ignore: 'Shills for Big Oil' (alarmist) and 'Watermelons'(politically motivated skeptics). Anyone that starts using the language of motivations needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. I normally don't bother.



> And so we're back. Back to the same old "believe me fellas, no-one in academia seriously believes this stuff". Back to the same old conspiracy theory that 97% of published climate science authors are in denial / are lying / are stupid.



Be careful of using the word "conspiracy theory" - since you like to quote skepticalscience - John Cook has gotten himself into hot water over that. If you want to see absolute alarmist moonbats in action you only have to read about the Lewandowsky fiasco.

No Guy - i don't want you to believe me - believe me. I want you to THINK FOR YOURSELF. You are not even questioning the 97% rubbish. Turns out if you investigate that, examine the issues that critics have of it, that number evaporates really fast. You think that the issue is so simple that it boils down to an "either or". It's like your living in a cartoon world - the issue is far more complex than that and these surveys are entirely designed to discourage reasonable skepticism and the checks and balances that are vital to stop mankind in all its endeavours from hurtling over a precipice. you need to presume that guys like Richard Lindzen got where they are because they know a thing or two, and take seriously their objections. You don't have to agree, just listen to them, understand them, and see if there are reasonable rebuttals to those points. Then, see if there are reasonable rebuttals to those rebuttals. After a while someone ius going to start making more sense.

More people end up becoming skeptical after examining the evidence thoroughly than are converted the other way. Look up Burt Ruttan, a legendary NASA scientist and engineer. Even better - look up Richard Mueller who authored the BEST study of land temps. He has a fantastic interview here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOfsSYsvQnI

It's an hour but a really good hour. I - and I think most moderate skeptics - agree with about 97% of what he has to say. The only thing we disagree on is the question of attribution which he absolutely does not know anything about. Skeptics don't question the warming, but how to attribute it to anthropogenic causes is very tricky, and there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding it. Regardless - this guys is being touted as a reformed skeptic. Yet a vast amount of what he has to say is agreed with by those skeptical contrarians that are so denying the science.



> I see arctic sea ice melting faster than ANY model prediction. I see extreme weather events rising faster than prediction, I see peer-reviewed attribution directly linking those events to anthropogenic climate change.



Guy - for god's sake - there is no evidence extreme weather has been increasing. In fact just the opposite. Until hurricane Isaac, there had the longest period of no hurricanes in history. In the US at least, tornadoes counts are increasing, because there are more people around to observe and record them, but the intensities have been decreasing:

http://www.ustornadoes.com/2012/08/24/s ... ed-states/

There is no evidence that global cyclones have increased in intensity either (although globally frequency may have increased also due to better observations):

http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg

confirmed by this paper here

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~kossin/articles/Kossin_Camargo_CCL_2009.pdf (http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~kossin/articl ... L_2009.pdf)

discussed here:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index ... ncreasing/

and from the IPCC:

_There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones._

Which is appropriately cautious.

And the reason why extreme weather is likely to decline in a warming world is because the poles - most especially the Arctic warm faster than the tropics, reducing the temperature differential that power the trade winds and hadley cells:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell

That the world is, or has been warming is not disputed. The *reason* for the warming is. Attributing it to CO2 much less anthropogenic CO2 is extremely difficult for many reasons I have pointed out earlier in the thread, that are known to climate scientists, and are the objections skeptics have. This then impacts policy - since we don't know enough to be taking the wasteful and ultimately pointless policy decisions we have - all because we didn't allow the scientific process to occur normally.


----------



## stevenson-again (Sep 19, 2012)

More on Sea-Ice:

The paper I mentioned that points to greater variability of Arctic Sea-Ice extent using driftwood as a proxy, is discussed by Judy Curry here:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/07/arctic-update/

Where she predicted weather effects on the sea-ice pretty well. From the abstract on the article in question:

_“Our studies show that there are great natural variations in the amount of Arctic sea ice. The bad news is that there is a clear connection between temperature and the amount of sea ice. And there is no doubt that continued global warming will lead to a reduction in the amount of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. The good news is that even with a reduction to less than 50% of the current amount of sea ice the ice will not reach a point of no return: a level where the ice no longer can regenerate itself even if the climate was to return to cooler temperatures. Finally, our studies show that the changes to a large degree are caused by the effect that temperature has on the prevailing wind systems. This has not been sufficiently taken into account when forecasting the imminent disappearance of the ice, as often portrayed in the media,” Funder says._

The link to the article is here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2011/08/03/333.6043.747.DC1/Funder.SOM.pdf (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl ... er.SOM.pdf)

Al this simply means is that the arctic sea ice extent is highly variable, which was known about through historical anecdotal records, but does not refute the paper Guy linked to here:

http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/po ... QSR_10.pdf

other than to say that the extent is more variable at multi-decadal levels than Polyak et al article suggested.


----------



## mverta (Sep 19, 2012)

There are two main reasons why "no-one" really cares:

1) Math. Considering what the planet has been through in 4.5 billion years, humans' entire existence and impact on the planet is so utterly insignificant as to be virtually non-existent, and it becomes hard to sustain the idea that we matter in any way.

2) Fucking. Whatever minor bumps in the 4.5 billion-year rollercoaster of climate changes we _are_ responsible for can be primarily attributed to overpopulation. Overpopulation is the #1 contributor to whatever "climate crisis" we've created, and nobody talks about it because nobody's going to do anything about it. But that's okay, because we don't have to do anything about it. The planet is a self-correcting, self-healing organism operating on a temporal and causal scale which is essentially beyond human conception.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 19, 2012)

Rohan - those are terrifyingly long posts that will take far, far too long to reply too right now. But as to extreme weather this year:

USA - over 40,000 warm weather records broken or tied
7 European heatwaves costing over $1.2bn in agricultural damage
Record low arctic ice melt
Wettest UK Summer in 100 years
Worst monsoon in India in 60 years
Over 100 dead in the Phillipines from extreme rainfall
26 US states declare natural disaster in heatwave
South Africa - warmest winter record
Australia - 2nd warmest August on record
World Bank declare issue warning after world food prices rise 10% in a month

Sitll, at least not too many deadly hurricanes and typhoons this year. Except Asia.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Sep 20, 2012)

It's all just 'weather' Guy. Just the same weather it was a year or so back when 'record' low temperatures were set across the globe.

Still, don't worry about the arctic, as the antartic is at a record high. (Records are BS of course though).


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 20, 2012)

OK, a fuller reply, but trying to keep it as brief as posssible – our combined services to insomniacs are laudible, but I fear we might be pushing things too far these days.

Speaking of laudible, your methodology sounds most impressive – except I'm not impressed, and still have no desire to follow you down that particular rabbit hole.

I've lost count of the number of times I've quoted Richard Lindzen's comments about his own paper, but let's do it one more time for fun – the paper is, by his own words, “full of stupid mistakes”. All credit to him for saying it. I've quoted this many times, and yet curiously you haven't picked up on it. In fact, he has a record of such mistakes, which I believe I've posted at length before, so let's spare the insomnia cures. But I do read what he says, including the “stupid” quote. I do read all the rebuttals, and therefore I weigh his science accordingly. Ditto the endlessly quoted Judith Curry (who really does seem to fit the high priest bill – seriously, can we have a moritoriam on the relentless Curry quotes), whose arguments are similarly unpersuasive. I don't have to quote from the same handful of dubious sources – there are thousands – and when I do quote, they are quality sources that are much cited because their work. Unlike Curry and Lindzen, the work of countless others has stood the test of time.

I'll also save printing all the world's major institutions again, but the point absolutely stands. That is the scientific reputation of the world, basically, who publicly back the AGW horse. Which logically means that in order to believe the opposite, all of whom are either a) very stupid; b) in denial or c) institutionally corrupt and serial liars. It would essentially be the greatest failure of scientific understanding, and the scientific method, in human history. I have never believed my own intellect surpasses the sum total of the world's scientific knowledge, and that appears to be the difference between us – you do, I don't.

The World Meteorological Society produced a little booklet addressing the issue of extreme weather - https://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/documents/1075_en.pdf (https://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/n ... 075_en.pdf) - which basically says what everyone else does, that the increase in extreme weather events is exactly what we'd expect to see as the world warms (the wild speculative opposite conclusion as a result of the Hadley Cell confirms my suspicion that, no matter what you say, do simply believe what you want to believe and listen only to the fringe voices). Peer reviewed studies agree on both extreme events rising in frequency, and their link to AGW (eg Nature here - http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=34448 (http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN ... &amp;RCN=34448) - note too that cyclones and hurricanes are pretty much the least likely to be affected of the extreme weather events, something that bears out the last few years of research). Here's a good summary of the views of climatologists and institutions - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... al-warming - the loaded dice analogy in general applies. Insurers believe it too – uber-conservative Earnst & Young said in 2008 that climate change was the number 1 risk to their industry http://www.climateneeds.umd.edu/reports ... limate.pdf . 

You talk often of error bars and the limitations of models, with the implication that mainstream science is therefore “alarmist” / “warmist” - to get the taunt labels, mainstream science has to always side with an extreme probability of a warming scenario, and is therefore institutionally biased in its conclusions. And yet observations are frequently found to exceed the models. Arctic sea ice, of course, is shrinking faster than all model predictions, but that's not all. This paper from Nature - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 09763.html – says “Changes in extreme precipitation projected by models, and thus the impacts of future changes in extreme precipitation, may be underestimated because models seem to underestimate the observed increase in heavy precipitation with warming”.

In summary, here's my problem with your approach:

1.You have to believe that your own intellect is superior to the sum total of global scientific knowledge, as represented in statements by all of the world's major scientific institutions.
2.You consistiently quote only sources that have poor credibility in the field, sometimes even by their own admission, and reject all other sources.
3.Observable data disagrees with your conclusions.

If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it. But it makes logical sense to me.

PS - yes, Stephen, the most predictable of responses. Of course it is weather, and see above sources for specifics on how the weather has changed due to climate.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Sep 20, 2012)

How do you explain the Antarctic ice situation Guy - which is at a 'record' high at the moment? Was that predicted (sorry projected) by the models? 

There is, of course, one aspect of both these 'records' that you are crucially overlooking and that aspect is exactly what Ed (and Nick) couldn't understand about the graphs they were citing earlier.


----------



## SergeD (Sep 20, 2012)

mverta @ Wed Sep 19 said:


> There are two main reasons why "no-one" really cares:
> 
> 2)... Overpopulation is the #1 contributor to whatever "climate crisis" we've created...



Overpopulation is the subject that should be discussed seriously. But growing population is the foundation of the economic system, so...


----------



## stevenson-again (Sep 20, 2012)

> Rohan - those are terrifyingly long posts that will take far, far too long to reply too right now. But as to extreme weather this year:



Guy, Nature has only just put up an article about why extreme whether can't be attributed to climate change/global warming - especially any anthropgenic forcing:

http://www.nature.com/news/extreme-weather-1.11428

Read it Guy - these are one of your 'institutions' are they not?

I'll respond to other things a bit later.



Edit: 



> Guy, Nature has only just put up an article about why extreme whether *can't* be attributed to climate change/global warming - especially any anthropgenic forcing:



I'll just add some clarification since that was written in haste. I mean 'can't' in the sense 'can't yet'. Models simply aren't sensitive enough to determine climate anomalies (weather) and attribution of these events to a warmer atmosphere is doubtful in itself, let alone being able to attribute what part of that warming was man made.


----------



## stevenson-again (Sep 20, 2012)

> 2) Fucking. Whatever minor bumps in the 4.5 billion-year rollercoaster of climate changes we are responsible for can be primarily attributed to overpopulation. Overpopulation is the #1 contributor to whatever "climate crisis" we've created, and nobody talks about it because nobody's going to do anything about it. But that's okay, because we don't have to do anything about it. The planet is a self-correcting, self-healing organism operating on a temporal and causal scale which is essentially beyond human conception.



Mike, while that is quite true, there is one way to prevent the earths human population from going to far:

Make everyone wealthy and educated - especially women.

There is a strong correlation between education and birthrates and its even stronger with women. Educated women have fewer children, starting later, have fuller healthier and more productive (in a general sense) lives. 

incidentally.... It was a prime motivation for FOI (according to him/her) who was responsible for releasing the hacked 'climategate' emails.

As far as 'over-population' goes - it is not so much over population but how much demand there is on limited resources. If you can be efficient about the resources then you can support a greater population. Sustainability is the key word. As a further point, there are som notable climate skeptics who make the point that changes in land use has a much greater impact on local climates than does CO2 emissions. It's one of those really important issues that gets completely over-looked amongst the ridiculous hand-wringing over CO2 and polar bears.


----------



## stevenson-again (Sep 20, 2012)

> USA - over 40,000 warm weather records broken or tied
> 7 European heatwaves costing over $1.2bn in agricultural damage
> Record low arctic ice melt
> Wettest UK Summer in 100 years
> ...



Guy read again the Nature article.

1. Warm weather being the cause of records broken is hardly significant. If you were in the 1930's, you could also say they the same thing - that records were being broken regularly. Since the world has warmed since records began, how is it surprising the that records are being broken? Don't forget - those are merely temperature *averages* . Tmax has not being rising - or rising significantly.

2. Heatwaves have occurred in the past. Heatwaves are nothing new. History is full of droughts and heatwaves for much longer than CO2 from Man's emissions can be to blame. There aren't any more or any fewer, and they aren't any more severe. What has changed is man's *exposure* to extremes of weather. That is a much more important consequence for policy making.

3. Wettest UK in 100 years - which, I have to tell you was predicted by some skeptics who believe that we could be heading toward a Dalton-like or even a Maunder-like little ice age, which weather like we have seen could become the norm for the next 20 to 30 years. Not everyone agrees, but there is evidence (the low arctic sea-ice extent is one of them) and it's plausible. From the point of view of policy, it makes sense not to bet the house on one outcome.

4. Worst Monsoon in 60 years? Come on Guy - get a grip. Trying to attribute every vagary of weather to man-made climate change is absolutely preposterous. How often is india supposed to see a bad monsoon given that it saw one 60 years ago? 100 year weather events will happen every 100 years - 60 year events will happen every 60 years. Even the IPCC couldn't bring itself to attribute extreme weather events to AGW, and its up to alarmist whack-jobs to see global warming or ManBearPig in every corner.

5. 100 dead from extreme rainfall. See above.

6. The 1930s US drought was worse.

7. South Africa warmest winter. Lucky them. Perth (WA we're I am from) has had one of the coldest. In fact it got so cold it got below freezing in Jandakot Airport. Pretty unheard of. Australia generally has been much cooler over the last few years. Cheery pick another location and you could find one that was warmer, and I could cherry pick one that is cooler.

8. World Bank declare issue warning after world food prices rise 10% in a month....and you want to blame this on man made global warming? How in gods name does this prove that CO2 man has been emitting is causing a change in climate? For goodness sake, extra CO2 in the atmosphere is GOOD for plants. CO2 is the limiting factor in plant growth usually, provided they have plenty of water. Crops have failed plenty of times throughout history, usually (in fact almost exclusively) when the world is cooler.

Seriously man, you have to think about this seriously. I do honestly worry that people stumble about with their eyes closed and take up a 'cause' and miss the real issues that they should be worrying about. Societal resilience is one of them. The climate will change. It has always changed. It has changed abruptly and it has changed slowly, all on its own. What we need to do is be sure that we can adapt, and ensure that those living in the developing world are able to grow their means to be able to afford to be resilient too.

*What is a Catastrophe?*

One of the things that gets missed in all the hullabaloo about the science, is what the cost versus benefits are in relation realistic expectations of what the future may hold, even and especially if you accept the premise of AGW.

There are in fact gains to be made from extra Co2 in the atmosphere, and extra warming generally. One of the biggest concerns is that if the world were to warm too much more, landbound icesheets could melt and thermal expansion could cause sea levels to rise. Forgetting for the moment that global warming is primarily ocean warming, and that CO2 has very little effect on SST on human timescales because of the thermal inertia and heat capacity of water (a point for a different discussion) sea levels won't rise as a great tsunami that washes everything away before us, nor will it rise by the IPCC estimates more than 59cm in its most extreme and doom laden scenario. Therefore there will be some cost in order to adapt, but it has to be balanced against the cost of acting to do things we really are not certain about now.

The other thing that could worry us is if the climate changes really fast. This is Transient Climate sensitivity as opposed to climate sensitivity which just balances out all the feedbacks and forcings. Since models predicted a midrange estimate of 0.3 per decade and we have had barely anything measurable of 0.0 during the last decade, it is reasonable to surmise that the hypotheses regarding climate sensitivity is wrong, or that there is something within the climate system not fully understood, or they got their sums wrong. I have been following this issue for a long time and my assessment based on filtering everything I have read and discussed is that it is probably a subtle blend of all three.

How ever you cut it, the climate just isn't changing as fast as they thought it would, and for every year it doesn't, we know that the climate isn't so sensitive to our emissions, therefore we can be more realistic and pragmatic in our approach to weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, and developing realistic alternative forms of energy.


----------



## stevenson-again (Sep 20, 2012)

> I've lost count of the number of times I've quoted Richard Lindzen's comments about his own paper, but let's do it one more time for fun – the paper is, by his own words, “full of stupid mistakes”



Richard Lindzen has published dozens of papers. If you are going to pull him up fro admitting mistakes how about you turn the same cynicism on Michael Mann whose hockey stick graph is an absolute joke and is one of the things that kicked skepticism in to high gear! Honestly, do you know anything about how he produced that most iconic of graphs that was the poster child for the IPCC TAR? We aren't just talking some 'stupid mistakes' here, we are talking absolute rubbish - boarding on scientific fraud. Using novel un-peer reviewed and ultimately bogus statistical techniques - his PCA short-centring, his truncation of data, his turning data up-side down, use of contaminated bristlecone pines - just one data series that turned out to be contaminated that he used to dominate the entire result.

And then trying to prevent replication of his results (replication is an absolute scientific mainstay) obfuscation, hiding of data, lying and bullying. Oh I forgot to mention inappropriately splicing data. You want to talk about bias, have you really not read the climategate emails? He talked with his colleagues about trying to get 'rid' of the medieval warm period and the little ice age, and about Judith Curry, that she was not helping the 'cause'.

Come on!

And mate I could go on and on. Eric Steig and his bullshit attempts to show that the entire antarctic was warming using just 3 station readings, all from pretty much the same spot geographically speaking. Don't get me started on Trenberth...At least James Hansen isn't trying to hide being a moron.

The latest big laugh is the Lewandowsky affair. Jesus it's just incredible. Here just look at this dude. At first I thought it was a piss take - but note the language he is using. Surely something in my arguments stirs your conscience enough to find this particularly creepy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s4GUMMx4sK8 (Lewandowsky)

Here is Glenn Tamblyn (Skeptical Science author/moderator) secretly conversing with his SkS pals on their off limits forum and saying “we need a conspiracy to save humanity”. The Viet Cong comparison is a nice touch too. There’s talk of convening a “war council” too.

_And this isn’t about science or personal careers and reputations any more. This is a fight for survival. Our civilisations survival. .. We need our own anonymous (or not so anonymous) donors, our own think tanks…. Our Monckton’s … Our assassins.

Anyone got Bill Gates’ private number, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson? Our ‘side’ has got to get professional, ASAP. We don’t need to blog. We need to network. Every single blog, organisation, movement is like a platoon in an army. ..This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War….And the skeptics are the Viet Cong… Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.

..So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity._




> Ditto the endlessly quoted Judith Curry (who really does seem to fit the high priest bill – seriously, can we have a moritoriam on the relentless Curry quotes),



Judith Curry's place is where I splend the most time, where I have been able to read and ask questions of actual climate scientists although they rarely post. She is well known in the climate science community, was involved in the BEST project and at an *institution*. She ticks all your credibility boxes. She isn't a mad nutter skeptic, but she has listened to some of the reasonable voices criticising the orthodoxy and come around to see a lot of things differently and is being outspoken about it. Her blog is widely read in the scientific community and has received a lot of private support from colleagues for what she is trying to accomplish. Most of the comments are squabbling, often nut jobs from both sides, but very often you can sift out a really interesting nugget from a scientist who really further your understanding. 





> 1.You have to believe that your own intellect is superior to the sum total of global scientific knowledge, as represented in statements by all of the world's major scientific institutions.
> 2.You consistiently quote only sources that have poor credibility in the field, sometimes even by their own admission, and reject all other sources.
> 3.Observable data disagrees with your conclusions.
> 
> If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it. But it makes logical sense to me.



1. What absolute rubbish. What complete rubbish. It's hard to know where to start. First are you really that naive to think that I am questioning the 'sum total of global scientific knowledge' as if such a thing existed? Do you seriously think that the statements made by your beloved institutions really represent the diverse opinions and experiences of those within them? Do you really believe it matters a single jot what institutions make a statement about? Can you not see the irony of say the Royal Society saying what you think they say and then have as their long standing motto 'take no ones word for it'?

The difference between the people that wrote those statements for the institutions which is completely a political ploy in any case, and myself, is that I have indeed very likely read a great deal more about this subject and looked at it far more critically than they have. You should talk to some actual scientists. It's just like any other walk of life; they read journals which have largely been pressurized (as revealed in climategate) to be biased toward publishing alarmist viewpoints, which are in any case a small section of a magazine. I know because I read these mags too! They certainly don't read the actual scientific papers, or get into some of the nitty gritty of the issues - they just have passing acquaintance with the subject. They also largely trust their colleagues to be doing the right thing and doing their work properly. This is one of the big objections to peer review, because at least in climate science, it has been deficient in weeding out bad maths, faulty data. It is sometimes referred to disparagingly as 'Pal review'.

2. Oh really? Who has poor credibility? According to who? Oh are you talking about Richard Lindzen again? Jesus Guy, you are going to have to deal with the fact that he his head of atmospheric sciences at MIT, has a long and distinguished career and simply disagrees on a few key areas with some of his colleagues. In any other discipline that would not be of any consequence - that would happen all the time. He disagrees with very very little of the IPCC working group 1, merely the over-confident statements on sensitivity. Deal with the fact that he is perfectly credible and has some points to consider.

Secondly, I absolutely do not reject 'all other sources'. Just think about the hypocrisy in your statement. What 'sources' have I rejected? I spent absolutely ages examining many sources I no longer regard as credible, but I still look at what they have to say if it is anything new.

3. On the contrary - the observed data does not agree with YOUR conclusions. Empirical evidence is something of a mantra amongst skeptics - almost to the point of being ludicrous. The insistence on empirical data - because none exists to support CAGW at all - can be taken too far since I do believe that some inference and work with models is of some value. What really gets up the nose of skeptics is when the results from models is taken as *evidence*. It's NOT evidence - it's prediction, and the models have failed dismally. Which is why skepticism is healthy and growing.

Just show me how exactly what observations have matched IPCC expectations based on their understanding of the science as represented by the models? Sea temps have declined over the past decade, land sea surface temps have not gone up, sea level rise has not only not accelerated it is even slowing somewhat. Sea-ice globally has not changed - antarctic sea ice has increased while the arctic has declined (though the impact for climate for the next few years as a result of low artic sea ice extent is likely to be much more pronounced than any increase or decrease in antarctic sea ice).

Sure the world is warming, but that does not constitute proof that it is mans emissions, only that the world has warmed. And it hasn't warmed radically fast either and not showing any signs of it. It's all rather boring. There have not been any climate refugees as predicted, or highways in new york flooded. We have had what we have always had - weather and a gradually changing climate.

Come on mate, look at the evidence, don't just tell me it says something it clearly doesn't.


----------



## Ed (Sep 20, 2012)

stevenson-again @ Thu Sep 20 said:


> Come on mate, look at the evidence, don't just tell me it says something it* clearly doesn't*.



Good lord such a lot more since I last posted. Where on earth do I begin?

Rohan, as Ive said many times now if its so "clear" to you the evidence doesnt exist for AGW then why is your views such a minority? Why do most experts not agree with your position? Either they are incompetent or dishonest, you always ignore this question. No wait, thats not quite right, because just in the last post alone you've posted some more ridiculous conspiracy allegations and insinuations. There are groups secretly trying to undermine skeptics, keeping them out of journals, institutions in with the government that believes they can get more money from a carbon tax than revenue from oil or uh something... *get your tin foil out*.... You're a conspiracy theorist Rohan, and you have to be, because I think you realise the absurdity of trusting the fringe opinion more than the majority of experts and thats why you *have *to come up with a rationale for *why *most experts dont agree with what you believe. 

On the previous page you actually defended the idea that we should take seriously a lone scientist that says an asteroid is going to hit the earth, even if the vast majority of scientists had looked at his calculations and say he is wrong. You believe you have the ability to review the evidence and determine if he is correct or not, even though you are not an expert yourself. I am willing to bet that if one of your children had cancer you would not look at the fringe few doctors who dont agree with traditional medicine and treatments and propose instead (for example) to take vitamin supplements. Ah, but you believe you have the ability to look at the fringe arguments and determine that they are right or not! But what if it was the other way around? Would you be prepared to gamble on your children's life because you trust your own knowledge and skill good enough to determine that the majority of experts are wrong, but you and the fringe are right? You'd believe the evidence is "clear" and therefore have to believe in conspiracies everywhere to coverup the truth, because why else would it not be mainstream? Its so "clear", after all. My guess is you would not have that much faith in your own expertise and you would go with the majority, but when it comes to GW however up come the blinkers and you feel its different.

As I say, the more you claim the fact of your position is clear and obvious and anyone with no training in the subject can understand you are correct, the more absurd a scenario you have to create and believe to explain the lack of support for it. This isnt just some small irrelevence you can handwave, its absolutely critical to why conspiracy theorists fall further and further down this rabbit hole. Its the exact same for ANY other conspiracy theorist you can think of. Its the reason why they can come up with more and more wild exaggerated claims and not immediately dismiss then as absurd because they rationalise away why the majority of experts dont see something they really do believe to be obvious. Its the SAME thing I tell 911 truthers, they want me to believe that its extremely obvious the towers were demolished, you only need to watch the collapses to understand that, but one of the reasons this sounds absurd is that if it really were the case then why is it the majority of experts do not agree with them? Just like 911 truthers you made the claim that its "just a small cabal of scientists", but just like them, the more you talk about it the conspiracy gets wider and wider exponentially as you casually implicate directly and indirectly more and more people. Truthers have the NIST report and FEMA and you have the IPCC and the CRU. One of your problems here is that to defend your position you have to create an argument that can also be used to defend theirs.

My problem with you Rohan isnt just the Phil Jones thing and yes you are completely utterly wrong about it, and are defending a wholly dishonest indefensible shocking misrepresentation of what he said no matter how you look at it and no matter how much you twist your own words and pretend otherwise. The problem is also your attitude, you have this pseudo intellectual writing style which I know could sound impressive to anyone that doesnt know any better. You talk the talk, but I say pseudo because you then litter it with claims so utterly debunked, so facepalm worthy, its the equivalent of a Creationist saying something like " evolution is only a theory" ...or ..."if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?". Such as the often repeated canards as the Phil Jones quote-mine, such as claiming Co2 follows temperature in the ice cores implying claim Co2 doesnt really cause warming, such as acting like the "medieval warming period" was global, such as the claims that climategate proves conspiracy and have quoted various well known quote-mines from it and you endorse a book that proposes the "hockey-stick" is a fabrication of Michael Mann, and so on. You also let slide all manor of similar stupidness from your supporters here such as Mike Verta, who on this page actually claimed that we *cannot *affect the worlds climate. Why? Because he believes the earth is a "self-correcting, self-healing organism" :| but not only that, we cant study it anyway because its ... "essentially beyond human conception". I wonder if you agree with any of that, or maybe you just saw that he basically agreed with you so why bother correcting this weird anti-science new age nonsense. But as always you post what you post in your typical pseudo intellectual style while ignoring absurdities of your supporters while dropping in various long debunked howlers yourself.

This I firmly believe is an ego thing for you. You have made it clear many times you like bucking authority, you like the idea that you and your fringe experts know something the rest of the world doesnt, it makes you feel smart. And what better way to make yourself feel even smarter than debating people that really are in no position to truly critic your claims in any real depth, but because you're well versed in the contrarian talking points you're free to carry on and make yourself feel important, earlier in this thread you were even trying to give a series of mini lectures on this subject! This IS a complex and intellectually demanding subject that requires deep knowledge of a lot of data and a lot of information, if you came here saying you need to understand a great deal to understand why AGW is not the best theory I would have had a lot more respect for that, this would explain why so many have misconceptions and why so many well meaning scientists have got it wrong. But that doesnt happen because you're just like the rest of these "skeptics", its all "clear" and obvious to anyone that spends 30 mins or so looking at a few graphs or a couple of articles on the internet with no training or experience in the subject can understand the science behind AGW is wrong. You're here debating with composers who no experience to make yourself feel better about yourself, how about you go debate with people on such places as Real Climate? When I still believed in various 911 Truth claims I didnt know just how wrong I was until I went on the James Randi Forum and tried to debate them and they destroyed every argument I had, intentionally debating people that dont really know enough to really deeply understand the subjects you bring up is nothing more than intellectual masturbation. I would be very interested to see a debate between you and someone who has a deep enough interest in this subject to take you to task as deeply as required. Even just seeing you debate AGW on the James Randi forums would be interesting, even though there's less chance of you actually debating a real climatologist. Im sure you'll say you have done something like this, but going by some of your more atrocious claims you've made in this thread you couldnt possibly have done so and then honestly said some of things you've said here.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 20, 2012)

Good gravy. this is getting beyond parody - it would be a full time job to keep up with this thread. There's a thought.... a full time job in climatology.... wonder if anyone does that? I think we've all done absolutely brilliantly in our services to our insomnia-suffering brothers and sisters, but I do feel we've at the point of diminishing returns. I have a feeling that some here would love nothing more than to write this stuff all day, but I am not one of them, what with work and life and all - this will be a three paragraph post maximum.

First, the nature article is an op ed piece, not research, and broadly says "it's a developing area", but there has been plenty of peer-reveiwed beginnings that all point one way. Second, Stephen and the Antarctic - this is pretty basic stuff, all models and observations point to the arctic experiencing the most warming, it'll be quite some time until the Antarctic catches up. Thirdly, the point about extreme weather is that it is on the increase (as some of the links show).

But in my final paragraph, and to avoid the full time job, let's bring it right back to the basics. All the world's major scientific institutions back the AGW casse, and denialists only ever listen to the tiny minority of sources they agree with. All the rest, in the light of this, is irrelevant.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Sep 21, 2012)

I'm scared of methane. Can you say 'feedback loop'?:

http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/arctic-methane-concentration-for-august-2012-much-higher-than-august-2011/ (http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/20 ... gust-2011/)


----------



## paulcole (Sep 21, 2012)

mverta @ Wed Sep 19 said:


> 2) Whatever minor bumps in the 4.5 billion-year rollercoaster of climate changes we _are_ responsible for can be primarily attributed to overpopulation. Overpopulation is the #1 contributor to whatever "climate crisis" we've created, and nobody talks about it because nobody's going to do anything about it.



Very true but you can't tell liberals that. They don't understand.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 21, 2012)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri Sep 21 said:


> I'm scared of methane. Can you say 'feedback loop'?:
> 
> http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/arctic-methane-concentration-for-august-2012-much-higher-than-august-2011/ (http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/20 ... gust-2011/)



Yeah, pretty alarming, and pretty much as predicted. The good news about methane is that it doesn't hang around for long in the atmosphere, unlike CO2. The bad news is that it is far more potent, and there is potentially unimaginably large amounts of it that might get released as a result of arctic warming.

Still, no doubt - along with all observational data of any kind whatsoever, according to some - there's actually nothing to worry about and its all just warmist nonsense.



paulcole @ Fri Sep 21 said:


> mverta @ Wed Sep 19 said:
> 
> 
> > 2) Whatever minor bumps in the 4.5 billion-year rollercoaster of climate changes we _are_ responsible for can be primarily attributed to overpopulation. Overpopulation is the #1 contributor to whatever "climate crisis" we've created, and nobody talks about it because nobody's going to do anything about it.
> ...



Population is a big deal, but not as big as economic growth - http://articles.cnn.com/1999-10-12/us/9910_12_population.cosumption_1_global-population-worlds-scientists?_s=PM (http://articles.cnn.com/1999-10-12/us/9 ... s?_s=PM:US) . The wealthiest 16 percent of the world use 80 percent of the world's natural resources. So we have more to fear from more of the world getting richer than we do from more poor people on the planet. Damn the developing world for its aspiration.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 21, 2012)

Hey, it's another day and I'm allowing myself another couple of paragraphs, especially since the topics have been so varied. A little more reflection on the business of attribution for extreme weather - the blog by hysterical political warmists / eminent mainstream climate scientists (take your pick) Real Climate follows up that rather negative Nature op-ed piece - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... me-events/ . It was the (one voice?) who suggested that the whole endeavour was pointless that seemed odd to me... there evidently seems to be a point to it, and this post expands on why, and also the progress made in this emerging field.

Perhaps most interesting is comment #6, from someone actually at the conference, who suggested that the Nature editorial isn't really an accurate reflection on what took place. It reminded me of something - one denialist meme still doing the rounds is that all scientists in the 70s predicted global cooling. In reality, there were very few pieces of actual peer-reviewed work suggesting this - only 10%, compared to over 60% suggesting warming, despite this being at a time when global temperatures were in a bit of a dip - http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf . However (and I'm finally getting to my point) - almost all the mainstream media's take on it WAS about cooling. Moral of the story - editorials, even in journals, aren't peer reviewed.

A final interesting (to me, anyway) post script to that little saga is to reflect that actually those papers in the 70s that did predict cooling were kinda right. They were talking about very long timescales, and that over thousands of years, the natural direction of the world's temperatures would be downwards. Looking at the science of the 70s is actually really instructive - how despite falling temperatures, the increasing majority of science was still saying that we would be experiencing warming, and also how careful they were to say "we're not sure yet". 20 years later, they were pretty damn sure, and the consensus was born.

I'm well over my daily paragraph limit, I realise, but there's been lots of interesting reading this morning before I start work. Another blog post I'm afraid, but a supremely entertaining one, looking at the reaction to the sea ice minimum (now being called). Among many highlights, a look at Judith Curry that made me laugh out loud! I know it's only a blog post from a source that denialists hate (well, they would since it just summaries peer reviewed literature), but jeepers the number of absurd blog posts from denailists quote and ask me to trawl through means I'm alowed a couple once in a while. Essential weekend reading - http://www.skepticalscience.com/silly-season-2012.html - and of course there's plenty of serious points amid the humour. The 2nd graph from the bottom is pretty hair-raising)


----------



## stevenson-again (Oct 2, 2012)

Ok Guys, since you are so interested and informed about climate change there is a fantastic opportunity to go and talk to some climate scientists at the Royal Society this week:

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/R ... hedule.pdf

Judith Curry is going to giving a talk and is chairing the first session. So is Peter Webster who she often collaborates with on papers. The only other speaker I know or have heard of is Paul Hardaker. But there are speakers from the MetOffice

The main theme is going to be uncertainty, which is one of Dr Curry's main areas of interest within climate science. And while I would probably learn more from the other speakers being very familiar with the subject of Dr Curry's talk - I am going to try get along to that one. The one following is also of great interest to me: "Climate Adaptation", since regardless what causes it, the climate always changes. It will be interesting to know what thoughts the speaker has on this in the face of the debate.

You will have to request an invitation, but attendance is free. You can request and invite here: [email protected]

As to the previous comments from Ed and Guy, all I can say is that if you want to understand what all the fuss is about come down and take an hour or two out of your day and actually talk to the scientists. They aren't film stars, and most are really happy to talk about their subjects of expertise provided you don't come with an agenda or an attitude.

A final thought on consensus I came across the other day and thought was apt:

*“A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”*

- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat (1915-2002)

I will find some time over the coming days to respond to some of the comments posted recently. But for the time being, hope to see you down at the Royal Society on Thurs/Friday.


----------



## Ed (Oct 2, 2012)

I never said I was an expert, I said you arent and all you've done this whole time is stroke your own ego and intellectually masturbate to how much you can regurgitate from your contrarian blogs to a forum of people that arent trained or nerdy enough in the subject to rebut every single little doozy you bring up. 

_"Talk to actual scientists"_

When you only talk to those that agree with you, remember, the fringe. Thats why you make so many claims that are just as wrong for the same reasons as the best examples of fails from Young Earth Creationists or 911 Truthers and as if no ones ever heard it before.

Care to debate the experts that dont agree with you? Or even just those well read in the subject? Maybe then you wouldnt make so many ridiculous errors and have such amazing misconceptions about simple subjects and wouldnt bring up claims as if they havent already been dealt with a thousand times but also act like no ones ever heard any of it before. You have a broken sense of how to know who is the most credible people to listen to. 

Your response doesnt sound like you even read my post all the way through, but Im pretty used to that by now. Is your position "clearly" correct or not? You claim it is, so why is it your position is still so fringe? Conspiracies, conspiracies everywhere. Thats your only answer because there is no other option besides everyone but your experts being stupid or unbelievably incompetent they cant understand something so "clearly" obvious any unqualified person on the internet can understand just from looking at a graph or two or at a couple of blog posts on the internet. This is the crux of exactly why your position is bankrupt, it relies on this absurd line of reasoning and as I said a page or so ago a great indication that you should not to be trusted for any credible information about anything to do with this subject.


----------



## stevenson-again (Oct 2, 2012)

> Care to debate the experts that dont agree with you?



Yes Ed, I do and I have. But what you understand as what they think and what they in reality think are completely different. There are those experts for sure who are hard-wired into the CAGW meme, but they are much fewer than you might think. But they have been extremely vocal and behaved as advocates. Advocacy is shakey ground for scientists and something they debate a great deal amongst themselves.



> Or even just those well read in the subject? Maybe then you wouldnt make so many ridiculous errors and have such amazing misconceptions about simple subjects and wouldnt bring up claims as if they havent already been dealt with a thousand times but also act like no ones ever heard any of it before. You have a broken sense of how to know who is the most credible people to listen to.



Pretty much everything you are writing can directed at yourself Ed. I am not making 'ridiculous errors' or have 'amazing misconceptions'. You really do resemble an ardent religious zealot taking personal umbrage at my non-belief. Everything I have said can be found in peer-reviewed literature, is commonly discussed amongst climate scientists and even discussed amongst climate scientists who are the most fervent supporters of AGW.

Here is a fervent (according to him) non-skeptic climate scientist:

From an article in the New Scientist by Fred Pearce, written in Sept 2009 *before* climategate broke:

_One of the world’s top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.

“*I am not one of the sceptics*,” insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. “However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it.”


Some additional excerpts from the article:

Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. “But how much? The jury is still out,” he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase.

Latif said NAO cycles also explained the recent recovery of the Sahel region of Africa from the droughts of the 1970s and 1980s. James Murphy, head of climate prediction at the Met Office, agreed and linked the NAO to Indian monsoons, Atlantic hurricanes and sea ice in the Arctic. “The oceans are key to decadal natural variability,” he said.

Another favourite climate nostrum was upturned when Pope warned that the dramatic Arctic ice loss in recent summers was partly a product of natural cycles rather than global warming. _

He claims not to be one of the skeptics, but this is precisely the core of skeptics argument - that natural variability and other yet to be fully understood factors account for most if not all of the warming in the late 20th century. The reason climate scientists think that warming could be dangerous is due to feedbacks, from water vapour primarily, which are down to assumptions made in the structure of climate models. What gets up skeptics noses's is that the results of the climate models is passed as *evidence*, that manmade global warming is occurring and could be dangerous. It's NOT evidence, it's *prognostication* based on current understanding of an incredibly complex system which is self-evidently to be incomplete. Models are useful, but only if they *test* our understanding, not *define* it. You need empirical evidence for that. Empirical evidence is evidence that you have measured out in the real world.

If you were to add up all the CO2 and CO2 equivalent gasses over the last century, you get very nearly the equivalent of a doubling of CO2. The result of that is 0.8 degrees C warming. That is a lot less than the 3 degrees assumed to be the case because of positive feedbacks, and barely the 1.1 degree predicted by radiative transfer (the forcing CO2 amounts to when no other feedbacks are taken into account).

But don't believe me! Go and talk to the scientists! What are you afraid of? That you might learn something?

These aren't contrarian scientists after all - its being hosted by the Royal Society. I thought they were on board with all this CAGW stuff.


----------



## stevenson-again (Oct 2, 2012)

Oh and btw:



> Your response doesnt sound like you even read my post all the way through, but Im pretty used to that by now.



Ed I did read your post all the way through. If I was start on it it would take several pages and I would at last start ripping into skepticalscience and the buffonery surrounding your 'conspiracy theory' meme and where that is coming from.

I figured the best use for the space is to encourage you to actually talk to some scientists about what they *really* think. There is a great opportunity this week - if you are interest enough to write all the rubbish you have, you should be interested enough to hear it from the horses mouth. It's not some side-show fringe although you might dearly like to believe that.

Tim Palmer, who organized it, is president of the *Royal Meteorological Society*. I thought that was one of those fancy institutions you guys quote as being part of your 97% or something?

With regards to my 'ego' - mate - you are going to have to deal with the fact that I am seriously interested in this stuff. I read about it daily - not just blogs but scientific papers, books, and anything that gets into the sexy areas - of which believe it or not, there are quite a few. What you are basically advocating is that I shouldn't think for myself, or listen to alternative points of view, and that I should accept the dogma from the high priests of AGW without having the temerity to check whether what they say stacks up. What you'd really like to do is pat yourself and any one who agrees with you on the back by denigrating these mad people asking all these impertinent questions and making these awkward observations.

At no stage did you say 'well, maybe this fellow has a point - I should check that out.' Since you can't argue with me on facts you go for the age old fallacious argument - ad hominem. Everything I say is rubbish because I am just massaging my ego.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 2, 2012)

Since I follow the money I look forward to Judith Curry and Big Oil/ Coal versus government funded Scientists who dont even get their hands dirty but play with data and make models.
I like the University of Ohios largest Ice Core collection in the world and the intesting work they do. They are privately funded, the University also kicks in and the Federal Grants are earned. Unlike the IPCC/UN based Scientists who are paid for results.

I'll be looking for the links.

I wouldn't expect anyone to go there as they might hear something to make them froth and get all red faced. Much easier to cherry pick comments out of context for further condescending blatherings..

Thanks for the notice, several people there I admire and would love to meet, they should be speaking over here, since this is where thier funding comes from.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 3, 2012)

Sadly there's no way I can make the Royal Society thing - work work work.

It's interesting to me you're all over Judith Curry and her collaborator, and yet you haven't even heard of Tim Palmer, who is leading the first session. As a primer, here he is discussing uncertainty in Climate Change, and how it isn't any excuse to delay any action:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/c ... ncertainty

Will you come out of this conference heeding his words, Rohan? Or will it be all about Curry again? You always want us all to believe that there is no consensus (or if there is, that this is somehow a bad thing), despite every scientific institution in the world backing it in public statements (including both the Royal Society and Met Office by the way, as I think we've discussed at length).

I'm sure there will be lots of interesting stuff at the conference. All climate scientists will agree that there are uncertainties. The difference between the hardcore like Curry, Lindzen, Pielke et al and pretty much everyone else is that the former appear to believe that uncertainty equates with "no need to do anything" (and typically only favours a more conservative outcome). The latter don't.


----------



## stevenson-again (Oct 4, 2012)

> The difference between the hardcore like Curry, Lindzen, Pielke et al and pretty much everyone else is that the former appear to believe that uncertainty equates with "no need to do anything" (and typically only favours a more conservative outcome). The latter don't.



Waaaay too simplisitic assessment Guy. This is the problem if you don't look deeply at the issue. It is extremely nuanced. Dr Curry does not suggest "no need to do anything". What she does suggest is extremely interesintg, highly nuanced, and has a lot to do with decision making under deep uncertainty. Likewise Pielke who makes extremely interesting points - for example that anthropogenic climate change much more about changing land use than about CO2. I regard him as a far more staunch environmentalist than say Al Gore.

And I have heard of Tim Palmer before - just not the other speakers save Dr Curry and Peter Webster and Hardaker. It's a big old community and nearly everyone has a different perspective.

As a further note, look up what Dr Curry says about Climate Change being 'a wicked mess'. don't interpret the words literally - it used to describe a certain type of problem and how it pertains to policy.

Also, I have settled on Dr Curry after years on various climate blogs - so her point of view is the most familiar to me, but she is certainly not the only one saying the things she does. It's just that I reject just as sharply the overly-ridiculing stance of some skeptics as not being a way forward. Often skeptics are right but not for the right reasons - and that annoys me. Dr curry on the other hand is as even-handed on the issue as it is possible to objectively be. She is widely read within the climate science community, and often attracts well known scientists to her blog. And although 90% of the chatter on the blog is unrestrained garbage, you can filter out a proper debate between the proponents and the critics.

As it happens I may have to pass - it is up in Newport rather than in London as I was expecting. I might have to settle for the youtube clips instead - I have to work as well. I think Milton Keynes might be a bit too far to go at the late stage of the project I am in. Shame.

I popped on here to let you guys know not to go to the society in London.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 31, 2012)

Excellent op-ed piece by Bill McKibben. When even Bloomberg begrudgingly admits something, it gives me the tiniest chink of optimism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... s-election

The title of this thread is finally looking slightly ironic.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 31, 2012)

Why are the US media trying to sweep the biggest issue humanity has ever faced under a rug that's blowing away in the hurricane?


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 31, 2012)

Bill alludes to it in his piece - the oil lobby is now terrifyingly powerful. It's massively skewed the political landscape - even the democrats are scared to mention it. The media follows. It would be one good thing to come out of the heatwave and Sandy if ordinary people started bugging their senators about it.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 31, 2012)

The 20 City plan is a great idea, but in all honesty, you go for the throat by making every politician in DC drop investments in Fossil Fuels, along with their real bosses.

That means OXY @ NYSE where Al Gore loves Petroleum Refinement and Diesel.
Then Mr. Enviromentalist himself George Soros withdraw his investments in offshore drilling in Brazil, estimated 2 billion there, and Mexico, where taxpayers of the USA are helping to fund that through our leaders in DC that really care about the little people.

Those are just 2 people off the top of my head, I can imagine the other wealthy Liberals, and Conservatives who sell loopholes to big energy while giving speeches of the evils of Big Oil and Polar Ice Caps disappearing.

It's really nice when they create the problem, then ride in like Crusaders to help fix what they already fucked up.

Now this will kill the economy, but boy I'll be alleviated of my guilt.
So we will let China, India and Brazil burn as much as they like, and we can say " so what if we have no growth and massive unemployment", at least we know our guilt has been overcome....

It's brilliant, I can't believe we never thought of this before..... =o


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 31, 2012)

BTW, here's a good look at what's changed, politically, between 2008 and 2012 from PBS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XMTVGBGs_40 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... MTVGBGs_40)


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 1, 2012)

Wow... so is this, in fact, a watershed moment? (excuse the pun...) Bloomberg not only publicly backs Obama with days to go before polling day. but cites Climate Change as a principal reason. Combine that with more recent polls showing the percentage of Americans who believe in it actually growing 20% (up to 70%), and it's a very rare cause of optimism. (though The Onion's report that only Julia Roberts dying in a Hurricane will convince Americans is my top read of the week - http://www.theonion.com/articles/report ... ima,30192/ )

All this said, I think it's literally true that public opinion shifts with the weather. This year, in the US in particular, has seen a rash of extreme / unusual weather events, and it is true that many / all of which might be caused at least in part by climate change. Maybe next year the US will have a partial reprieve and another part of the globe will get the focus... in which case I'd expect the figures to go down again, albeit temporarily.

But I have been saying for several years now that only extreme weather will actually have any effect on opinion, and it does seem to be borne out. The problem is that it is too late for just CO2 reduction to stop the relentless upward trend (arguably it was too in 2009, but there's really little doubt now). So we really do have to look at geo-engineering solutions, however fraught with danger that is. That's where my research money would go, anyway.

In the meantime, Obama winning next week is a very important step. He needs to then seize this opportunity to get the issue back on the political agenda. It will be extremely tough (see that PBS documentary linked above), but if this really is a time of broad popular support, then it can't be squandered.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Nov 2, 2012)

Guy, 

There's no correlation between Sandy and or any other hurricane and gloopal wombling. None. Even the IPCC says so. You might wish to read what a highly respected scientist actually argues in the public arena: 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 52702.html 

Moreover, there has been no warming at all for the past 15 years.

I'm still not quite sure why you want the Governments to waste monumental amounts of tax payer's money on a non existant problem...


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 2, 2012)

I can answer that. 
Without Big Government, the citizens are lost and can't survive, so new revenue streams like the Repeallable Health Care Act that all politicians, their freinds, Unions, and in San Francisco a certain Congressional members' favorite restaraunts have been exempted. 
Well thankfully Scoma's and Spinnachers on the Pier made the list. Those are old well estabilshed restaraunts from the 1920'-30's and are historical. For them to close would be a crime IMHO, so I'm OK with those choices since nobody can afford this increase in such a lame economy.
But we owe China, Japan and Germany so much money, if we discover how to save Earth, we can use the engineering successes, market it, and sell to our debters.

Then suddenly the Atlantic will cool off and the Artic Polar Ice Cap will grow, Bears won't have to swim as far for a fat Sea Lion or Walrus.
And no matter what these Polls say, Obama has already been chosen, just follow the money and it's easy to see.
Besides, God created Pollsters to make sure Palm Readers or Priesthood could still be a legitimate gig.

Here in the states we worship the wealthy Liberal shareholders of Big Oil and Energy.
Knowing they are hedged with the costs of Petroleum, and in Green Energy, their guarantee of self enrichment benfits us.
Even though they hate Reagan, I think they were just envious, as they themselves definately believe in trickle down economics....
Even Speaker Pelosi hires Non Union VIneyard workers to save a buck, so not only do her and other wealthy Chinese investors of the "left" believe in trickle down economics, we see they truly believe in capitalism and conservatism....But for the shell games and camers's sake they can't outright let the sheep who send them back to DC every year know that.

Most importantly I wasted 1000 bucks last summer fishing in Paris and the Cumberland River east of Nashville as it was 106 degrees and even at the Redneck Riviera ( wooden pier/bar/restaraunt with baerly clothed chicks) the Blue Cats usually hang there to be fed as people throw pieces to the schools of giant fish, and they wouldn't dare come to the surface, we fished at 50-60 feet deep and after 3 days, 8 hours a day, we ended up eating Buffalo Steaks and Louisianna Crab and Shrimp, got the last Buffalo Steaks as they were all gone as the supply is very limited.

So I want the Planet saved, and tempuratures brought down, and as soon as Big Al starts a new fundraiser, which he is sure to do, I will invest in Petroleum and Diesel at OXY, and give the rest to Al knowing only he can stem the rising tempuratures.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Nov 2, 2012)

Chimelo - it was a rhetorical question :mrgreen:


----------



## JohnG (Nov 2, 2012)

While I don't think any particular storm was caused by global warming, land and ocean temperature graphs since 1880, according to NOAA, both show rises:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/g ... 201209.gif

Also, according to NOAA:

The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for September 2012 tied with 2005 as the warmest September on record, at 0.67°C (1.21°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F). Records began in 1880.

The globally-averaged land surface temperature for September 2012 was the third warmest September on record, at 1.02°C (1.84°F) above average. The globally-averaged ocean surface temperature tied with 1997 as the second warmest September on record, at 0.54°C (0.97°F) above average.

The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January–September 2012 was the eighth warmest such period on record, at 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average.

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/9


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 2, 2012)

And yet there are still people like Stephen who will remain unswayed by that, preferring instead to believe junk science.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 2, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Fri Nov 02 said:


> Guy,
> 
> There's no correlation between Sandy and or any other hurricane and gloopal wombling. None. Even the IPCC says so. You might wish to read what a highly respected scientist actually argues in the public arena:
> 
> ...



No point in replying to this - all been covered in the previous (many) pages.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 2, 2012)

It's basically down to the usual 2 culprits and their propoganda machines.

Big Coal and Oil, which all politicians are vested heavily in, or Green Energy and Computer Models w/ graphs, which politicians are also heavily vested in.
Who said evil Wall Street CEOs were the only ones into Hedge bets...?

With Cap and Trade, vested individuals will make cash as investments in Clean Coal technology is where the shakedowns are taking us.
If nothing gets done, having your money in Petroleum and Deisel is just as good as offshore investments for other nations Oil exploitation.

Then there's the peasants, who love to discuss the topic with such passion as they drive vehicles that burn fossil fuels, and use mulitple DAWs as one just isn't ever enough... o[])


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 2, 2012)

chimuelo @ Fri Nov 02 said:


> It's basically down to the usual 2 culprits and their propoganda machines.
> 
> Big Coal and Oil, which all politicians are vested heavily in, or Green Energy and Computer Models w/ graphs, which politicians are also heavily vested in.



???????

Anyway.

In many many ways, the past 8 pages - and my thread before that - are a total waste of time. Whether its interminable debates on the same old temperature records, climategate or the transportation preferences of individual senators, it's been completely pointless. AFAIK, despite what must be many hundreds of man hours researching, theorising and posting, not one single member of VI-C has remotely adjusted their views, whatever they may be, as a result of the debate. And yet, curiously, the public at large (in the USA it seems), HAS changed its views. And that really is something of note.

I think there's a new simple truth at work here. With elections, as we know, "it's the economy, stupid". With belief in climate change, "it's the weather, stupid".

The USA has had one helluva year. It's actually pointless sadly to debate if any of it has anything to do with climate change. It's sad because there's been a lot of work on attribution over the past couple of years - some extreme weather is natural, but an awful lot is, statistically, highly likely to have been caused, at least in part, by climate change. None of that matters. What matters is perception - based on the weather. Republican Bloomberg believes it is getting worse in NY, and has said so. Is he right? That would take a lot of research to answer with any kind of authority. But, it seems, research doesn't really matter - the majority of the public is with him. Yet 2 or 3 years ago, it was 20% less. What's changed? The weather. After a quiet year or two after Katrina in the US, nothing it seems hath so much fury as the weather scorned.

And its all the more striking given the hugely effective lobbying campaign which has shut down pretty much all discussion among politicians. To me, this looks awfully like ordinary people saying "gee, this weather is awful, and its getting worse" - it's not led by any vested interest group or political party.

I have mixed feelings about all this. Weather is not climate ("climate is what you expect, weather is what you get"). We've had a run of crappy summers in the UK, so no-one here gives a stuff really. No matter how much scientists explain that increased precipitation / winter droughts (we've had both) are other typical symptoms of extreme weather, it doesn't make the same connection somehow.

And yet of course there IS a connection between general climate change and an increase in extreme weather events (the famous loaded dice analogy - you get 6's with regular dice, but a lot more with loaded ones). If extreme events really are increasing, then public opinion is likely to only go in one direction. What I personally find encouraging is that all that money, all that power and influence bought by the lobbyists isn't going to stop that.

However, at this time it's very fragile. There is increasing concern and acceptance of the problem, but we're a long, long way from any kind of solution. Few are prepared to make sacrifices, be that individual or nation. Should Obama (please please please) get re-elected, one of the greatest challenges of his next term will be to translate that latent belief and concern into something more concrete. And that, sadly, stretches my own credulity to the limit.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Nov 3, 2012)

JohnG @ Fri Nov 02 said:


> While I don't think any particular storm was caused by global warming, land and ocean temperature graphs since 1880, according to NOAA, both show rises:
> 
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/g ... 201209.gif
> 
> ...



Our Government's Met Office, using HADCRUT4 which has been recently updated to 2012, is currently wriggling on a stick trying to claim that 0.05 degrees per decade over the past 15 years still represents warming. This is of course, both statistically insignificant and engulfed by an order of magnitude larger margin of error. Moreover this lack of warming bears no relation to what their models have been predicting (0.1 degrees per decade).


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 3, 2012)

Oy vey, the temperature thing really has been done to death on this thread. Choose your starting date with care, and you can make the temperature flatline or even decline. It's called "going up the down escalator" - there's a good new piece on the latest on this at Real Climate - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... oxy-fight/ . But please... can we let this canard go? We just go back and forth endlessly - it's way less time consuming to just go back over this thread and re-read the argument the first ten times around than do it all over again another ten.

But on a broader point, to the "there's no warming" brigade - is it a bit galling that despite a barrage of well funded PR and US politicians scared to even mention climate change unless its a gag, that 20% more Americans believe this stuff than a couple of years ago? Why is it that the title of this thread now looks rather foolish?

BTW - there was an interesting factoid in that PBS documentary linked above that was new to me. Because the fossil fuel industry thinks it looks bad to be openly funding all the political lobby groups such as the Heartland Institute, they've started covertly funding them instead, mostly through an organisation that allows for anonymous giving....


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Nov 4, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Sat Nov 03 said:


> Oy vey, the temperature thing really has been done to death on this thread. Choose your starting date with care, and you can make the temperature flatline or even decline. It's called "going up the down escalator" - there's a good new piece on the latest on this at Real Climate - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... oxy-fight/ . But please... can we let this canard go? We just go back and forth endlessly - it's way less time consuming to just go back over this thread and re-read the argument the first ten times around than do it all over again another ten.
> 
> But on a broader point, to the "there's no warming" brigade - is it a bit galling that despite a barrage of well funded PR and US politicians scared to even mention climate change unless its a gag, that 20% more Americans believe this stuff than a couple of years ago? Why is it that the title of this thread now looks rather foolish?
> 
> BTW - there was an interesting factoid in that PBS documentary linked above that was new to me. Because the fossil fuel industry thinks it looks bad to be openly funding all the political lobby groups such as the Heartland Institute, they've started covertly funding them instead, mostly through an organisation that allows for anonymous giving....




What does that Hadcrut 4 graph show in that 'article' from RC Guy?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 4, 2012)

Ten years from now there will be no doubt and people who insist upon believing utter crap will be (or should be) embarrassed.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 4, 2012)

Ten years from now I will be enjoying my life in Kawai, Fiji, Lake Tahoe and look forward to seeing the dry docks in Rotterdam, and massive Cement/Concret dykes in the Nederlands.
Will visit old friends in Croatia, France and Germany.

And I am sure the weather will be just fine.

We still have lots of time, it says so in the Bible, which so far is more accurate than the IPCC.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 4, 2012)

chimuelo @ Sun Nov 04 said:


> We still have lots of time, it says so in the Bible, which so far is more accurate than the IPCC.



Wowzers - the Bible must be STAGGERINGLY accurate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons ... c-far.html

(dammit, getting involved in another temperature discussion. Bedtime.)


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 4, 2012)

The Human Gods will save Earth, they just need people who work for a living that cover all of their other wasteful programs to pay their fair share.
Only then can we become one with the Universe and reverse Earths History through taxation....


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Nov 5, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Nov 04 said:


> Ten years from now there will be no doubt and people who insist upon believing utter crap will be (or should be) embarrassed.



Indeed, I agree! Although I think the house of cards will tumble a little sooner than that though.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 5, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Mon Nov 05 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Nov 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Ten years from now there will be no doubt and people who insist upon believing utter crap will be (or should be) embarrassed.
> ...



Based on past posts, I think you're talking about different things you know...


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Nov 5, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Mon Nov 05 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Mon Nov 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Nov 04 said:
> ...



No, really? :mrgreen:


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 5, 2012)

That's the trouble with forum posts - you can't always tell if people are being clever / sarcastic or not....


----------



## JohnG (Nov 5, 2012)

I'm surprised that 130 years of data don't convince, but the next 10 (or last 15, or what have you) will somehow be decisive? At least that warming is taking place, leaving aside for a moment the reasons.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 5, 2012)

John - quite. Rohan and the others here shake their heads sadly while the US has experienced an extraordinary year of extreme weather - and there's plenty of science to demonstrate that the connection in this case is perfectly reasonable. Ideology trumps real life - I shouldn't be a bit surprised if we're all much worse off in another 10 years (possibly an ice-free Arctic as soon as then, playing even greater havoc with the jetstream etc), and Rohan, Stephen, Judith Curry et al will still be here telling us it's all a figment of our imagination and will have the cherry picked graphs to prove it.



Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 31 said:


> Why are the US media trying to sweep the biggest issue humanity has ever faced under a rug that's blowing away in the hurricane?



Here's a good op ed piece looking at how, even after Sandy, both Obama and Romney have been virtually silent on the issue - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ate-change . I don't think either want to mention in, in part because then the media might talk about it.

It's all, I suspect, a pretty good indicator of how we're all going forward with this. More and more extreme weather, greater and greater losses (both human and financial) but no discussion on the root causes as the vested interests will throw all the bile, money and vitriol at anyone who dares to speak. Might be a good time to invest in companies involved in large scale mitigation engineering projects which will happen (China's huge water engineering projects, US coastal defenses etc), there will be modest efficiency gains and slow increases in clean energy, but I highly doubt that there will be any major effort to stop CO2 emissions - not while public discussion is so toxic.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 7, 2012)

Bloody hell

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 145436.htm


----------



## Ed (Nov 7, 2012)

But Guy! CO2 is plant food, it cant be bad!!!!!!111!!


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 7, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Nov 07 said:


> But Guy! CO2 is plant food, it cant be bad!!!!!!111!!



We call it life, indeed...


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Nov 10, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Tue Nov 06 said:


> John - quite. Rohan and the others here shake their heads sadly while the US has experienced an extraordinary year of extreme weather - and there's plenty of science to demonstrate that the connection in this case is perfectly reasonable. Ideology trumps real life - I shouldn't be a bit surprised if we're all much worse off in another 10 years (possibly an ice-free Arctic as soon as then, playing even greater havoc with the jetstream etc), and Rohan, Stephen, Judith Curry et al will still be here telling us it's all a figment of our imagination and will have the cherry picked graphs to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Guy, you really need to acknowledge (as the UN IPCC does) that there is no connection between warming and hurricanes - in fact the US is in a hurricane drought at the moment. That is why not many have tried to make political capital out the dreadful aftermath of Sandy (because there's no scientific evidence to support the assertion). But then again, there has been no warming in the past 15 years either...


----------

