Slashdot Mirror
Followup: Anti-Global Warming Story Itself Flawed
The Bad Astronomer writes "As posted earlier on Slashdot, a Forbes Op/Ed claims there is a 'gaping hole in global warming' theories, based on a recent paper. However, both the Forbes article and the paper on which it's based are themselves seriously flawed. The paper has been excoriated by climate scientists, saying the model used is 'unrealistic' and 'incorrect,' and the author has a track record of using bad models to make incorrect conclusions."
What else did you expect them to say?
You know, whether or not the original article is BS, why is the very first point that the rebuttal piece linked above makes the fact that the original article uses the word 'alarmist' umpteen times? This is like counting the number of times the word 'denier' appears in the rebuttal. Both sides call each other names.
If you really believe that humans are not responsible for climate change in a significant capacity, and you see people running around talking about mass extinction and migration, then you'd probably call them alarmists.
If you really believe that humans are responsible for climate change in a significant capacity, and you see people running around dismissing climate change as nothing more than politics or researchers looking for more grants to keep their jobs in spite of the massive threat to, well, everything we know, love, and take for granted, then 'denier' is probably not even the meanest term you could come up with for them.
But talking about either one hasn't got anything to do with science, just like most schoolyard name-calling hasn't got anything to do with the science. There are industrial interests on both sides and not that many people who both care about solving the problem rather than calling a halt to civilization while also demonstrating the capacity and civility to talk about the issue without resorting to this kind of thing. Consequently, I can't help but wonder how many interested, semi-educated, but very-far-from-climate-experts like me there are out there who look at all this stuff and just scratch their heads.
If you actually read the paper and not the incredibly hyped press releases, the paper basically disclaims the validity of its own results. Note the following paragraph, immediately before the conclusions:
Our preliminary work on this issue suggests no simple answer to the question. We conclude that the fundamental obstacle to feedback diagnosis remains the same, no matter what time lag is addressed: without knowledge of time-varying radiative forcing components in the satellite radiative flux measurements, feedback cannot be accurately diagnosed from the co-variations between radiative flux and temperature.
The entire paper is about to trying to analyze the feedback from the co-variation between radiative flux and temperature-- this sentence basically says that, in their analysis, the analysis cannot be done accurately.
Basically, the paper does not "blow holes in global warming"-- what it does is say that this particular technique is not able to accurately discriminate the feedback function.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You have fudged data from the last century or so and think you've got a model that shows anything whatsoever? This is not to say AGW proponents are right or wrong- just that they haven't the foggiest as they've not honestly done any science with the subject yet.
Sigh... citation needed.
A real citation too. Not just speculation, potential for bias, alleged scientific misconduct. Show me the proof that the entire field is "fudging the data". And when I say proof, I do not mean other researchers trash talking, I mean actual data of fudged data. Because I suspect you are fudging it more than they are.
This guy is a professor at the (not very rigorous*) institution I did my undergraduate work at. (This is the "University of Alabama in Huntsville", not the larger and better-known University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.) I don't remember him specifically, but I know there was a cadre of anti-global-warming "climate scientists" there with a politico-religious axe to grind and who were pretty clearly not doing science for knowledge's sake.
It's notable that if you google this guy's (Spencer's) name, the first couple hits are to "www.drroyspencer.com/".
Nobody that I know who is actually a prominent scientist tries to pimp their public persona to this degree, or (tellingly) makes a big deal about the title "Dr."
*They really do have shitty academic standards. I graduated summa cum laude with a BS in physics, yet had never written $\vec x$ (we never did formal vector algebra), and wound up having to take four "remedial" undergrad classes at the Univ of Arizona where I am finishing up grad school.
Two Wrongs don't make a Right...
This is like counting the number of times the word 'denier' appears in the rebuttal. Both sides call each other names.
But I didn't see the word 'denier' in the rebuttal. All I saw was the footnote:
* Mind you, of course, I use the word "denier" quite a bit when discussing this topic, but in this case the shoe fits. When you deny overwhelming evidence, you’re a denier. Scientists trying to tell people what the science is telling them aren’t alarmists. They’re scientists. And as you can see from what other climate scientists are saying, what the Forbes article is based on apparently isn’t good science.
This two labels are equally dangerous in addressing global warming. This isn't a problem that half the world can solve without the help of the other half. By using either of these two terms, you're invoking a with-us-or-against-us mentality that is dangerous. Since these two labels are diametrically opposed, it does nobody any good to use them. Dismissing studies on global warming as 'alarmist' doesn't allow any information to be garnered from these reports which is really sad. Dismissing opponents as 'denialist' doesn't allow you to differentiate between people who acknowledge climate change but don't think it's man made and people who deny any climate change at all. Which is also very sad, there's people that want to do something about climate change but aren't sold that we're the cause of it. Why shut them out?
... I thought he had made an effective point without resorting to name-calling.
Like most things in life, this isn't black and white. By polarizing everyone involved, you halt the flow of information and push back the date where we can work together to solve this problem. There is a whole spectrum of solutions that lie in front of us, using the terms 'denialist' or 'alarmist' prevents us from selecting one of them as a cohesive group looking to move forward.
I applaud The Bad Astronomer from refraining from using the label 'denialist' as often as the original article used 'alarmist' (easily once per paragraph). I don't know why he included that footnote
My work here is dung.
The only people saying "We have to tax anyone heavily to fight global warming" are people who are opposed to doing anything about global warming. If you're opposed to legislative action, an effective tactic is to paint it in the most extreme terms possible, but doing so is pretty scummy and shameless. "You want to reform patent law? Well you're just going to do away with all patents and all products and we're going to be living in CAVES!!!"
Carbon taxes are necessarily going to be a part of the solution, yes, but the effect could and would be offset by tax breaks elsewhere. Hell, for some reason tax breaks are a part of the debt reduction plans, to think that businesses would fail miserably under a mountain of taxes because we're trying to reduce pollution is nonsense and not backed up by history.
Nice of you to speak up for those poor widdle corporations though against those big, mean treehuggers, by the way.
Also, if you read the article -really closely- (IE, with your eyes) you'll notice that the reasons they give have nothing to do with dogmatic beliefs.
I noticed the same point being brought up in the recent feed page when the first story was submitted, yet the editors didn't seem to pay any attention to it. Then a day or two later a different story gets posted with the same information.
Uncharitable interpretation: The editors aren't doing their job.
Charitable interpretation #1: A large group of people voted for the first submission, while a different large group of people voted for the second submission. The editors are just being agnostic and giving us what we (collectively) ask for.
Charitable(?) interpretation #2: The editors know that climate stories get lots of discussion, so they figured two different stories on the subject means we get to have twice as much "fun" yelling at each other about it.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
The point is that we're using way too much energy and food and pollute our own habitat and nobody cares. :)
Oh well. Evolution will find a way after we're gone
Privacy is terrorism.
I've done a meta-analysis and found that since the number of people using the word "denier" outnumbers the number of people using the word "alarmist" by a significant factor (p<0.05), the deniers must be touching a nerve, and therefore are right (p<pi/e).
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
Now, perhaps this fudging of the data wasn't malicious (in fact, I'll argue that it was done with the best of intentions), and perhaps some of the fudges actually have a reasonable rationale that we can agree upon - but let's not pretend that there is a magical thermometer we can stick in the air, and get the current Global Average Temperature (much less a magical thermometer we can read from 1000 years ago to do the same thing). At best, this is a field over-reliant on proxy data, and *everyone* should be skeptical of that sort of weak science.
Let's conveniently ignore the following:
The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" (http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/)
Until it says "most scientists agree that we needn't worry about AGW" I'll keep worrying about AGW.
My UID is prime. Hah!
Here is the beginning of that paragraph, which you so conveniently left out:
"Determination of whether regression coefficients at various non-zero time lags might provide a more accurate estimate of feedback has been recently explored by [14], but is beyond the scope of this paper. Our preliminary work on this issue suggests no simple answer to the question. ..."
There, fixed that for ya. The first sentence you quoted is clearly referring to the immediately preceding sentence, not to the conclusions that follow.
Further, what the entire paper is about, is how well the climate models being shoved at us reflect reality. Their conclusions are that the climate models cannot predict this phenomenon, as they claim to. These are not the authors' own climate models, they are models taken from the IPCC reports. So there is no contradiction there.
So their conclusion is perfectly valid: if there is no way to "accurately diagnose" the effects of feedback, then the models we are told to believe in are deeply flawed. And that is what this paper shows.
Siding with the evidence is not the same as being biased. Developing an intelligent opinion does not make one biased. Even believing GW doesn't exist isn't biased in and of itself. Getting paid by ExxonMobil introduces a conflict of interest and thereby bias, however.
You know, whether or not the original article is BS, why is the very first point that the rebuttal piece linked above makes the fact that the original article uses the word 'alarmist' umpteen times? This is like counting the number of times the word 'denier' appears in the rebuttal. Both sides call each other names.
Because a journalist isn't supposed to take sides. The journalists job is to take the science and communicate what it actually says to the general public. It is not their job to spin science or make it conform to talking points.
The repeated use of the phrase "alarmist computer models" shows that this is not a work of journalism, but one of propaganda.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I'm not defending the article in question, but this one is just a big a pile of crap as the other.
Granted, the original had a sensationalist headline and the article was distinctly written from a skeptic's perspective.
However - shouldn't we be looking at the raw data and either confirming or debunking it?
To Paraphrase this article: "You don't to need to see the data because people who stand the most to lose if this research is right are telling you it is bull. And you shouldn't ask any questions because the guy who did the research doesn't agree with the people this research doesn't support. Oh, and did we mention he thinks there's a creator? So it's only an *IF* he's right, and we've already explained that we don't need to verify this because, as you can see, he's just some crazy bastard who took funding from an energy company. We don't see any reason to go beyond the *if* and neither should you. Yeah, he's a corrupt, quack job for sure.. nothing to see here..."
I want to see the scientific proof, not the "he doesn't think like most of us so this article is flawed" bullshit.
Give me *real* scientific process.
Seriously - WTF happened to the scientific process? By this measuring stick, both articles are flawed. Can we get back to the real question now?
The goal is to scientifically understand our environment so we can make better predictions and protect it. Nobody I know wants dirty air or polluted water; climate change proponent or skeptic. So can we kindly STFU with that kind of crap and focus on finding the truth instead of trying to gain political points and power?
*sigh* - rant over-
/me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
.
Fair enough. Here you go.
taking the words of people whose careers depend on it
Phil is an astronomer. And methinks you are a troll.
mt
I disagree with your premises. Why would we need any carbon tax if global warming is beneficial to the biosphere and humanity as a whole (see: Medieval Warm Period).
Put another way, how would you feel if I demanded that all governments around the world provide massive carbon *subsidies* (on the level of what they put, per MW, to say, solar and wind), because I believe that a warm world is a good world, and that CO2 helps warm the planet?
Frankly, the libertarian position of "leave me alone" works either way - the government intervention position has to be *completely correct* in order for it to be beneficial (and let's take a wild guess about how often that happens).
Obviously someone on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, someone with a history of bullshit claims, someone who discredited himself a scientist by endorsing "intelligent design", however, has a reputation of being unbiased and can be believed. No, the bad astronomer has the burden of proof. Sure.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
the model used is 'unrealistic' and 'incorrect,' and the author has a track record of using bad models to make incorrect conclusions
...yeah, just about everybody on either side of the Global Warming debate says that about just about everybody they disagree with.
(And very rarely does anyone say why a model is unrealistic or incorrect.)
Most climate science on both sides of the argument is on shaky ground. I totally agree with Freeman Dyson.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
The true believers on both sides are way too confident in their beliefs. They (both sides) are closer to religion than they are to real science. There is way too much ad hominem and way too little real science.
If I had to pick a side in the debate, I would tend to side with Henrik_Svensmark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark His theory about cosmic rays modulating cloud formation has, at least, the advantage of being falsifiable. That stands in stark contrast with Al Gore who takes absolutely anything as proof of anthropogenic global warming. ;-)
You act like it's a complex issue, when it's actually rather simple.
______________
"Is it the sun?"
Sometimes but definently not for the past 40 years or so.
http://i.imgur.com/TSxqy.png
"Are we certain that less and less infrared radiation is exiting out into space, almost entirely in the wavelength we'd expect CO2 and CH4 to block?"
Yes
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
Is the rate of warming significant?
Yeah, I'd say 100x faster than you'd expect from changes in earth's orbit alone is significant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bftcWQiZPPg
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-to-explain-Milankovitch-cycles-to-a-hostile-Congressman-in-30-seconds.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU#t=5s
"Do we know that the CO2 is from fossil fuels. i.e. "Manmade CO2"
Yes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dj2yv1T53o
DONE. That's all you need to know.
With absolute certainty, we can say that "manmade CO2" is the main cause the recent increase in heat on earth.
___
Any other questions that aren't on this list of common strawman arguments?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Roy Spencer, the co-author of the "gaping hole" study, is on the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
These folk believe, among other things, that God will not allow the Earth to be harmed by Global Warming:
"The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels to provide affordable, abundant energy is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use of fossil fuels, no matter the cost. Is that idea true? We believe not. We believe that idea – we'll call it "global warming alarmism" – fails the tests of theology, science, and economics."
This is not science.
If you do harm to others, even without intent, you should pick up the tab for the damages. Anything less is a handout to *you* from everyone you've harmed, or from those on whom the costs fall. (Usually taxpayers.)
I'm not yet certain of the amount of harm done, nor of how the costs should be apportioned. I do, however, see a great many people trying to avoid responsibility for their own actions, and hoping that if the axe does fall, it will fall on someone else.
I've been driving gasoline and diesel burning vehicles for >25 years, and consuming products and services that require the emission of pollution to produce for longer than that, and having few options will continue to do so for now. When the axe falls, I will pay my share, because I have contributed to this mess. I would like to see more choices available to me to reduce the damage I will cause, and thereby the damages I should pay.
I would also like to see accurate measurements of the damages, with reliable data and unbiased analysis. I do not think I will get that from anyone with ties to corporations, which are motivated solely by profit, and will benefit by shifting the costs to someone else. Nor do I think I will get that from anyone trying to sell popular bestselling books or films, with a different sort of profit motive.
I do think that over time, the science will improve and become more reliable. In the meantime I do what I can to reduce my liabilities, not by blame-shifting, but by riding a bicycle to work when I can, choosing local products when I can (to reduce transportation pollution), using more efficient appliances, recycling and reusing things, and generally doing the best I can and accepting that I will have to pay for the rest.
WALSTIB!
People get so worked up over this shit. This isn't science - the "science" is pretty inconclusive otherwise there wouldn't be so much name calling. Nah, this is politics. And politics has absolutely nothing to do with science.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Still no statement of a falsifiable hypothesis, although it seems like you're asserting a lesser form of AGW, rather than CAGW (the difference being, AGW could very well be benign, and something we should *encourage*).
Even if we cannot discern any other single factor that would "explain" observed warming does *not* mean that the default explanation *must* be CO2, nor does it prove that the results of warming (any warming) would be catastrophic. Tell me what observations would possibly shake your "absolute certainty" (either about AGW or CAGW) - don't just make four assertions and demand that the simple existence of those four assertions means that you're guaranteed to be right.
No, you see...
When it's a new article against Global Warming, it's ok to use fallacies like "the author has a track record of using bad models"
Either facts stand for themselves or they don't.
It worries me how many legitimate articles on climate change may be hiding because they are against current predictions and models, and researchers are fearing public lynching . It's truly worrying.
Of course by that I don't mean every loony financed by oil companies (such as this case seems to be).
How about we wait for the NASA data, I guess I can trust that.
how long until
Here ya go: http://www.realclimate.org/
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
I'd gladly leave you libertarians alone - somewhere where you only can fuck up your own life without dragging down everyone else. But for some reason, you won't move to Somalia. Besides, enjoy the heat and dust in the southwest. It's a sign of more to come, consistent with all models. Fun with the warmer climate.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
All I see there is a giant train of thought log from a scientist trying to get a dataset and a program to play nice.
This happens in science. I have a friend who's just completed a Phd in Psychology. She found it necessary to learn how to code in Perl in order to get the datasets she was working with in a useful form. Now, bear in mind this is someone who, whilst very clever, has no prior experience writing code beyond the odd Excel macro. Can you imagine how much of a hack those Perl scripts must be?
Unfortunately, most scientists aren't software engineers. This actually presents a more profound problem in general for any science that relies in large datasets because it introduces a source of random error.
Thankfully AGW models from lots of different sources match up with each other and historical data to a large degree, so overall AGW is good science.
Nick
Frankly, the libertarian position of "leave me alone" works either way - the government intervention position has to be *completely correct* in order for it to be beneficial (and let's take a wild guess about how often that happens).
Wait - why does the libertarian position work either way? Also: one complaint I've had about libertarians in the past is their unwillingness to allow for government regulation of anything ("the market will sort it all out"). When I mention things like pollution, libertarians say that air is a common resource, therefore, the government has to be allowed to regulate it. Then, other times, libertarians want to play the "government never knows best" card and deny government regulation (in this case, of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). So, if your argument is correct (" the government intervention position has to be *completely correct* in order for it to be beneficial (and let's take a wild guess about how often that happens)"), then how would the government regulate *anything* under a libertarian system? I'm thinking specifically of the regulation of pollution (both air pollusion, sulfur emissions in the air, heavy metals into water, regulation of fishing and hunting to prevent over-fishing and over-hunting, regulation of cancer-causing agents like asbestos, etc)?
Should I read the libertarian position as "the government should be allowed to regulate our common resources, but when you're not looking, we're going to complain that the government never does anything right, so they shouldn't be allowed to regulate anything, have fun playing in our industrial pollution!"?
If there was a Satan and he did buy souls, I'd wager a good chunk of the population of this planet would probably sell it to him for an iPhone 5. The fact of the matter is that people never do the sensible thing, they never consider long-term consequences. Even without well-funded oil-friendly groups like the Heartland Institute, it would be damned hard to convince people that puking hundreds of millions of years worth of CO2 into the atmosphere in the space of a few centuries was a bad thing, and even getting them to that point it would be even harder to convince them that they needed to change their behaviors.
Bring in groups like the Heartland Institute and its small number of well-paid "researchers", and it becomes well-nigh impossible. In a hundred years I guarantee you our great-great grandchildren will be asking "What in the fuck was wrong with people?" By then, it will be too late, of course, on several fronts; not just AGW but peak oil and trying desperately after we've stuck it all in our collective gas tanks to try to find new techniques to overcome our inability to wean ourselves of cheap complex hydrocarbons.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You see, this isn't a matter of belief. We're not talking about the premise of your religion here. All of the range of scientific projections on what the planet will be like if warmed a few degrees, or more, are of a far less comfortable place to live, with far less carrying capacity, leading to a whole lot of death and dislocation for human populations. You may believe that human life is evil, and so all this would please whatever beings you worship. Yes, we have sociopaths among humanity who have no compassion for other human beings. But it's not the majority of us, even if it's a large subset of the self-identified "libertarians" who like to go all Pollyanna about what a few degrees C in rise in average temperature will do to the quality of life - particularly human life.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
You have fudged data from the last century or so and think you've got a model that shows anything whatsoever? This is not to say AGW proponents are right or wrong- just that they haven't the foggiest as they've not honestly done any science with the subject yet.
Sigh... citation needed.
A real citation too. Not just speculation, potential for bias, alleged scientific misconduct. Show me the proof that the entire field is "fudging the data". And when I say proof, I do not mean other researchers trash talking, I mean actual data of fudged data. Because I suspect you are fudging it more than they are.
How about YOU cite a source where there is an actual hypothesis and repeatable experiment?
How about YOU verify the accuracy and methodology of temperature measurements and estimates throughout Earth's history?
How about YOU certify current temperature measurements?
The claim is that we need to live like hippies and give all our money to Al Gore and friends or THE ENTIRE EARTH WILL BE RUINED FOREVER.
The very foundation of that claim, that the Earth is undergoing any sort of damaging change, needs to proven before you can even discuss what, if anything, can or should be done to stop it. But global warming isn't a scientific issue - it's a political issue, so you've picked your side (democrat) and decided to brand anyone who dares question the base claim as a retarded, selfish, greedy, narrow-minded republican.
The people who realize that the entire fucking thing is all political bullshit are most likely NOT republicans OR democrats, because people with brains hate both parties. They hate both parties because they're filled with mindless morons like you. Morons who want everything to be black or white, right or wrong, and are willing to determine such based on what side they've already chosen, instead of actually deciding on the merits of the issue.
Basically: It's all bullshit, and you'll continue to cry "citation needed" despite plenty of valid citations having been given, and despite the severe lack of valid citations supporting your view. People like you are enabling and encouraging the morons in government. People like you are ruining western countries right and left.
Why would we need any carbon tax if global warming is beneficial to the biosphere and humanity as a whole (see: Medieval Warm Period).
In skimming the wiki article on the medival warm period I came across a graph that made it look like the Earth had already warmed more than the medieval warm period. And another source pointed that out though I'm not sure how serious to take that website.
At any rate, you seem to be saying that "The weather being warm was good for Vikings hundreds of years ago" and taking that to imply that temperatures going up is always "beneficial to the biosphere and humanity as a whole" which doesn't seem like a sound conclusion. It sounds like mild warming was better for a small subset of people who had to deal with ice more often than tropical diseases, flooding, or droughts.
how would you feel if I demanded that all governments around the world provide massive carbon *subsidies* because I believe that a warm world is a good world, and that CO2 helps warm the planet?
There's nothing really hypothetical about your scenario. That's the situation we have NOW. We're already producing a ton of carbon and doing little about it besides talking about reducing it. We're already getting artificially cheap gas thanks to government subsidies, so I don't see anything really changing.
So I feel that you're wrong and irresponsible. Wear a sweater if you feel the earth isn't warm enough.
Frankly, the libertarian position of "leave me alone" works either way - the government intervention position has to be *completely correct* in order for it to be beneficial
And naturally you just happen to think that government non-intervention is the completely correct position to take. My opinion on environmental matters is "Better safe than sorry."
Okay, Prof. A says the world is a sphere. Prof. B says the world if flat. Prof. A has a extensive list of evidence coalescing on a coherent picture. Prof. B has a large collection of counterarguments against various specific pieces of Prof. A's list. Prof. A believes that, as a society, we'd be best off in working out how to best prosper in a spherical world. Prof. B believes it would be premature to go ahead with that before we've had a debate and opened our minds to the reinterpretation of all of Prof. A's evidence. Indeed, Prof. B cites as further evidence of the wrongness of Prof. A's analysis that so many other scientists agree with Prof. A. How, after all, could so many scientists agree, despite all the counterarguments collected by Prof. B, unless those scientists were conspiring to foist their "spherical earth" interpretation on society?
Ya know, sometimes you've just got to take what the majority of your best scientists suggest is the most successful set of theories and best collected sets of observations and go with that. This is despite that everything and anything is always open to doubt. We're doubt monkeys. That aspect of us is integral to our capacity to do science. But it's not the whole game. And treating it like it's the whole game is as incapacitating as if we lacked all doubt to begin with.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
What observations would falsify your hypothesis that human emitted CO2 is causing warming of the earth that will have catastrophic consequences for humanity, assuming you exclude all proxy data?
Say, 15 years of no statistically significant warming, but continuously rising CO2 levels?
That's easy. Higher CO2 and lower global temperatures without any other factor (such as increased aerosols) that could explain the discrepancy. I'm sure you could have thought of that yourself.
I verified these things for myself, to my own satisfaction. (I have a background in the hard sciences, but not climate science.)
This 10 min clip speaks to that questions you bring up. I dare you to sit all the way through it.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I've done an analysis and determined that the more the terms "denier" and "alarmist" are used the more there is an increase in hot air.
as we all know hot air leads to global warming.
It worries me how many legitimate articles on climate change may be hiding because they are against current predictions and models, and researchers are fearing public lynching . It's truly worrying.
There is no need to worry. Anti-consensus articles have no trouble seeing the light of day even when they are chock full of specious reasoning. Anti-consensus scientists have no trouble getting funding (e.g. Soon, Baliunas, Spencer, Chritie, McIntyre, McKitrick). These articles are thoroughly examined and debunked every time. (See here for an example of scientific discourse on these issues.)
You can verify all of this YOURSELF, with minimal effort.
The only people who receive death threats are legitimate climate scientists, such as Michael Mann.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
15 years may not be enough. It all depends on the data, and its noise and trend. A weak trend combined with a lot of noise may not be statistically significant over a 15 year period.
Current warming trend is about 0.017 deg C, which means a .26 degree warming in 15 years. Year to year variation (noise) can be 0.4 degrees, so it's easy to see how the noise can swamp the data in such a short period.
Also, if the rising CO2 is combined with other factors, such as increased aerosols, La-Nina effects, or a less active sun, the warming may be less. In order to falsify AGW due to CO2, those effects must not be present at the same time in an amount that would be sufficient to counteract the CO2.
While both parties certainly have huge corrupt elements, people like you are part of an informal, equally dangerous party: the "It's All Bullshit" party. People like you disbelieve everything you hear from any person who might have a political affiliation because none of them could possibly know anything. While you are right to take a politician's words with a grain of salt, people like you take the complete opposite position and assume that any opinion on any important issue cannot be right.
I can't be an expert on everything, so I have to defer to experts on other subjects. When economists say that x is how we fix the economy, I believe them. When a structural engineer says that a bridge is not soundly constructed, I believe him. When climate scientists agree that climate change is happening, I believe them. I don't take it completely blindly, of course--I'll read some of the papers and investigate differing opinions (after all, I'm a scientist too)--but I can't claim to know the reality of the situation any better than those who devote their careers to it.
To say that you know better than an expert is not only profoundly arrogant, but it's how progress in the world is impeded. I am frustrated every time a development occurs in my field and I read the opinions of average people who have no understanding of how it really works. People panic about it, question its utility, or just consider it bunk. Remember Watson (the Jeopardy-playing system)? It was a very impressive achievement in question answering and yet maybe 1 in 10 of of the comments demonstrated any understanding of it. I tried to explain things to the lay folk who thought it was bunk or that it was in some way "fixed", but they just wouldn't believe it. To these people, the accountant or even the burger flipper knows more about question answering than the information retrieval expert.
Indeed. I prefer the religion of Roy Spencer (co-author of the study and research scientist), who signed a document stating:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
There's nothing the least bit scary about the religious view that we don't need to take care of anything because God will take care of it for us. Sometimes, I feel like a passenger in a car being driven by a religious nut who's speeding towards a cliff while telling me that "everything is going to be okay" because God will save us.
Reproduce the results? The bulk of it is observational data. This is precisely the kind of ill-informed science illiterate claptrap that pisses me off. You don't know how science works. The data is the data, the explanations of that data certainly can be debated. This is no different than saying "I don't see a videotape of apes evolving into man, so therefore, it isn't falsifiable."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Frankly, the libertarian position of "leave me alone" works either way
Your right to wave your fist around ends at my nose.
You can burn as much fossil fuel as you want if you don't put the waste into the atmosphere.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I disagree with your premises. Why would we need any carbon tax if global warming is beneficial to the biosphere and humanity as a whole (see: Medieval Warm Period).
A carbon tax need not be revenue positive (like the proposed Australian model), and thus is not a way for the government to raise money, but rather to bias the economy towards new technology.
/lot/ of arguments.
As for the medieval warm period, that is a well known debunked denialist canard, but for some reason it just keeps coming up over and over again, like someone isn't listening.
There is actually no known denialist argument that has not been resounded debunked, and we are talking about a
The libertarian position does not work in situations where there is going to be a tragedy of the commons -- such as climate change. Pure and simple.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
What's the worst that could happen if global warming is real and we do nothing?
What's the worst the could happen if global warming is not true and we do something?
Which outcome is the worst? Avoid doing that one. The precautionary principle.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
It's because everyone's operational default mode is set to "I am right all of the time". As in, there is no cognition of error at all. Every single one of us on Earth at this exact moment operates under the assumption that everything we see, think, and believe in is "right". No one lives in a state of perpetual error, because error is a reversion of thinking, of being. And it's not a pleasant state to be in.
When you prove someone wrong, from your perspective, you are correcting someone's interpretation of the fact in question. From their perspective, you are rebuking their very existence because up until that moment, they thought they were right. Then they realize that their entire life up until that point was in error. And thus reversion of thinking, and cognitive dissonance.
What you are describing is the attempt of a person who may be wrong to protect his/her ego against the actual accusation of being wrong, by removing the question of whether he/she is wrong to begin with. They will not recognize the authority or the basis of the person making the statement, and like you said, will believe whatever contradictory evidence is offered by someone else regardless of qualification, because they can then retain the belief and thus the existence of being "right".
the problem with the entire AGW argument is that you have two sides motivated to extreme ideological opposition with each other over scientifically gathered factual evidence that is so convoluted and complex that it can sustain multiple different interpretations (much like the competing multiverse hypotheses), and adherents to the different interpretations cannot accept the "Other interpretation" because to do so would mean that their entire invested belief structure, and therefore who they perceive themselves to be, is wrong. And the more you beat down on them, the more fiercely they cling to their beliefs--developing a martyr complex.
Much like how the Millerites of the 1850s watched the repeated failures of their apocalyptic predictions of Judgment day, and then decided to cling to their convictions regardless (becoming the Seventh Day Adventists), we will see further retrenchment of pro- and anti-AGW believers. This has progressed well past the point where anyone can admit their wrong. Now it's dogmatic religion, on both sides. And once it's a religion, it's here to stay.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
(And very rarely does anyone say why a model is unrealistic or incorrect.)
On the contrary, climate scientists say *exactly* why the model is wrong. (Not that discussion is published on Roy Spencer's website.) Unfortunately the details don't fit between two commercials, and many simply don't want to hear it anyway.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Both sides call each other names.
The argument of the relative middle ground is *precisely* how astro-turf organisations like Heartland and Marshall spread FUD. They take an extreme position, drum up a lot of noise, and then watch as "reasonable" people say "the truth must be somewhere in-between". This has been documented in history time and time again, and is orchestrated by the same people. It is really fascinating to learn about how this part of the public discourse works.
One of the interesting things about all of this is that key people, such as Frank Luntz freely admit that they are manipulating the discourse on climate change, and it simply makes no difference.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Here they are, but I doubt you will try to understand them:
First you need to understand this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longwave_radiation
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123222295/PDFSTART
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
"The claim is that we need to live like hippies and give all our money to Al Gore and friends or THE ENTIRE EARTH WILL BE RUINED FOREVER."
no one claims that. Only people claiming that people claim that.
" But global warming isn't a scientific issue - it's a political issue, "
No, it's a scientific issue, what to do about it is a political issue.
" so you've picked your side (democrat) "
hahaha, now your boiling it down to the side of the Aisle?
democrats like:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Jon Huntsman
Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
Chris Smith
Tim Pawlenty
Bob Inglis
oh, wait those are all republicans, my mistake.
In order to support their religious base, The POLITICAL stance of the republicans has been 'no global warming' however if yo look at many of them and there votes, you can see a different picture.
But hey, I actually pay attention to these details, and like researching what different representatives vote for,.
What I don't understand is people like you, who are provably wrong, that keep on spouting your lies. Why?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Let me set your worry aside: None.
Science does not work that way in general, and specifically in this case if you could show the enormous amount of data we have is wrong, you would get a ton of money, and probably a Nobel Prize.
NASA Data:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/ [nasa.gov]
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html [nasa.gov]
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html [nasa.gov]
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Why can't peopel get that there is a FUCKING RANGE of optimal habitability? And that we are going ABOVE that range. If you want to see an example of run away greenouse event, look at Venus.
well, this soup tastes good at 100 degrees, therefore it must be better at 200 degrees. THAT is the line of reasoning you are using.
Falsify? easy, a lowering of temps while in increase in greenhouse gases. Sadly* when other natural cycles are such that the temperature should go down, they don't return to where you would expect them, they stay higher. .11C per decade. Even when other event would indicate a cooling.
Look at the constant increase trend in the last 15 years.
*and I mean the literally
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And guess why I being me, a scientist by education, don't give a flying fuck about your Al Gore propaganda? What is it with you guys? Did he scare you when you were young? Touch you inappropriately? Over here, we discuss science, not propaganda crap like that. Much to learn you have, young denialist.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Am I the only one who misses the old days when a post like this would reliably contain an obfuscated Goatse link within the first three comments?
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Trenberth takes it on further on RealClimate.
mt
Nevertheless, a simple test is to keep emitting lots of CO2 and measure the effects on a much longer timescale (say 40 years from now, compare a 15 year average temperature with one from the 20th century). If no warmer, there's a problem with the theory. So it's definitely falsifiable by any reasonable definition. Of course, if AGW is right, by then it'll be too late to do anything.
Actually, no. You didn't take into account additional factors. No matter how much CO2 we pump into atmosphere, a big enough drop in energy inputs will cause cooling anyway.
which they cannot come close to proving
Climate science was pretty much proven in 1979 by any reasonable objective scientific standard. You can learn learn about the history of the "debate" here. This is a short 10 minute clip on what we know about climate change.
It is easy to see anti-AGW arguments fall flat on their face when you look into the history of each claim, and read the sources of each claim and the responses. It is surprisingly little work.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Wouldn't it be the other way around? People tend to use more extreme, inflammatory and aggressive dialogues when they are losing the debate.
The people who tend to remain calm and balanced are usually more credible.
It looks to me like they're looking at other results to compare the output of their programmes for correctness and trying their best to discard junk data (i.e. fields with no sane values, etc).
Basically, from scanning it I got:
1. Run programme
2. Encounter error
3. Resolve error in programme / dataset / system
4. Repeat
So basically the classic shotgun debugging pattern of amateur developers.
A lot of it is discussion about how to process secondary data files, so presumably some datasets that were generated from original sources and would be a giant pain to recompile. Other stuff is talking about how hard it is to merge certain datasets. Mainly it seems to be about trying to keep datasets in sync across various runs of programmes.
When they're talking about their programmes producing crazy outputs, it seems fairly clear they're saying that they're getting garbage and not simply results they don't like.
These guys could clearly do with a professional developer and a better workflow, but that doesn't invalidate the basic science they're doing.
Nick
Thankfully AGW models from lots of different sources match up with each other and historical data to a large degree, so overall AGW is good science.
maybe that's because of code like this, ;
function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
actually Climatologists should left real programmers do the programming, real statisticians do the statistics, and real librarians keep the original data cataloged and stored.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I'm not going make a statement one way or the other on fudged data. If his actions were clearly inappropriate there are plenty of scientific bodies whose only reason for existence is managing scientific professional integrity. If he has done something truly inappropriate, he will be dealt with.
What I will respond to is THE VAST body of work pointing to dramatic changes in global climate. I ask those with an ideological position to defend, to stop for just a moment look at the remarkable amount of indisputable evidence that is now available. Its positively mind numbing.
Your comment about temperature is both uninformed and ludicrous. Scientists have taken wood samples from redwoods and bristlecone pines and with that information they can give you precise climatic information for specific areas including annual rainfall, temperature, and occurrence of catastrophic events. By analyzing human dwelling all over the world we can accurately determine climate through fauna and flora for those regions, spores, seeds and pollen. They tell us precisely what grew, and tell what the climatic conditions were there and when. We have antarctic ice cores with trapped atmospheric samples, we have ocean cores with samples of everything from diatoms to volcanic ash, we have fossils and minerals with trapped air and water going back millions of years, we have rock cores which elegantly give us clear records of temperature over centuries. The body of evidence is overwhelming and rich. Thousands of different sources from hundred of different fields of study, all forming a clear and cohesive picture. Whatever you've been reading, its inaccurate, incomplete, and puts ideology before simple fact and truth. You can absolutely criticize one or two individuals for their poor performance, but that doesn't even begin to indict the work of tens of thousands of scientist all over the world who work in vastly different fields but have all come to the same inescapable conclusion.
The models and theories make specific predictions. Many of those predictions have come to pass. Here are just a few recent facts which are completely incontestable:
"According to a report in the British Medical Journal, use of DDT in Mozambique "was stopped several decades ago, because 80% of the country's health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT." Roger Bate asserts, "many countries have been coming under pressure from international health and environment agencies to give up DDT or face losing aid grants: Belize and Bolivia are on record admitting they gave in to pressure on this issue from [USAID].""
As for resistance: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/79127.php
"A study published by the Public Library of Science (PloS) One found that three out of five DDT-resistant Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, carriers of human diseases like dengue and urban yellow fever, avoided huts sprayed with DDT. The chemical's unique spatial repellent action, combined with its moderate irritant and toxic properties, reduced the risk of disease transmission by nearly three-quarters. "
Care to alter your reality to fit the real world a bit? :)