You're still struggling to understand my position. I'm not sure exactly what words are tripping you up, but here it is:
1) The *definition* of a season (regardless of its actual measured temperature value at a specific latitude) is the earth's tilt wrt its orbit. The actual measured temperatures of specific seasons at specific latitudes has more to do with ocean currents (which have changed dramatically over 4 billion years) than the tilt of the earth (which hasn't changed dramatically over 4 billion years. Note the Late Eocene.
Now, if you'd like to continue arguing against your strawman, instead of trying to understand the position I'm laying out, you're more than welcome to:)
2) I believe that geothermal activity is a *likelier* explanation than the minute impact of CO2, for any particular warming, or cooling period for that matter. For cooling, simply see the example of Pinatubo (http://www.wunderground.com/climate/volcanoes.asp). For warming, see the example of Antarctic volcanoes contributing to ice melt (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/22/surprise-theres-an-active-volcano-under-antarctic-ice/).
I'll also further state that any climate models that do not take into account the specific temporal spatial variations in geothermal output cannot *possibly* be accurate.
3) Again, arguing against a strawman. You behave as if showing a 100 year temperature trend, of any sort, bolsters your assertion that CO2 is the primary driver of global average temperature.
My assumption at this point is that you continue to break out straw men to point at because you in fact *do* understand my position, but are loathe to admit it. Which is all good and fine, I appreciate the attention that you're giving me, and greatly enjoy your dancing!
In the end, the assertion that human released CO2 has any significant impact on our climate is laughable at best, and we'll see for sure if we hit a Maunder minimum type event with sunspots over the next 30 years, still increase our CO2 emissions, and see lowering temperatures.
Would that empirical evidence be enough to shake your faith, or have you sharpened your rationalization skills to the point where nothing could convince you of your error?:)
If I put it that way originally, I'd like to make a slight correction:
I believe that geothermal activity is a *likelier* explanation than the minute impact of CO2, for any particular warming, or cooling period for that matter. For cooling, simply see the example of Pinatubo (http://www.wunderground.com/climate/volcanoes.asp). For warming, see the example of Antarctic volcanoes contributing to ice melt (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/22/surprise-theres-an-active-volcano-under-antarctic-ice/).
I'll also further state that any climate models that do not take into account the specific temporal spatial variations in geothermal output cannot *possibly* be accurate.
Do you take umbrage at either of those statements? If so, why?
Your recalcitrance to answer the two simple "agree/disagree" questions is duly noted, and puts a smile on my face:)
Moving on to your other question regarding the effect of geothermal on climate, while your credibility sits at an all time low:
My assertion is that the core heat from the earth is not evenly distributed over time and space. What this means is that its impact upon climate is also not evenly distributed over time and space.
The conclusion I reach is that any model which does not accurately reflect this geothermal temporal/spatial distribution cannot possibly be accurate.
As for my assertion that the core heat from the earth is not evenly distributed over time and space, I believe there is no argument there - our historical observations have shown this to be true, as well as our modern observations. Occam's razor here requires no new assumptions.
As for my conclusion that models which do not deal with geothermal are inaccurate, Occam's razor applies as well -> any model which ignores geothermal is making an unprecedented assumption that geothermal is evenly distributed over time and space and will not have any appreciable affect on climate ever.
Two simple questions, lazyej - two simple questions to answer, and we can move onto whatever you'd like:
1) I believe the temperature differentials between the seasons at specific latitudes are caused by a combination of the axial tilt of the earth, and the transport of heat energy around the globe through ocean and atmospheric currents.
2) I further believe that axial tilt is less dynamic than ocean and atmospheric currents, over the 4 billion year history of the earth.
Agree, or disagree, or concede:)
It seems that you're afraid to answer these two simple questions because either answer will represent a symbolic loss for you - if you agree with my position, then you admit that I wasn't wrong and that your previous reluctance to accept my position was simply because I had not been specific enough with you. If you disagree with my position, then you have to fight against two statements that you know in your heart to be true.
I appreciate you spending so much time with me discussing the matter, and I certainly must admit I enjoy your dancing around my simple request, since it further undermines your credibility, but I feel obligated to at least offer you one more chance to step up to the plate and address my two simple questions. Feel free to ignore them, of course, and we'll let your recalcitrance speak for itself:)
C) No. Occam's razor requires that we take the hypothesis with the fewest novel assumptions. You're conflating my conclusions with my rationale.
D) No, because I do not agree with your synopsis.
Now, your turn:
1) I believe the temperature differentials between the seasons at specific latitudes are caused by a combination of the axial tilt of the earth, and the transport of heat energy around the globe through ocean and atmospheric currents.
2) I further believe that axial tilt is less dynamic than ocean and atmospheric currents, over the 4 billion year history of the earth.
I cheerfully played your "yes or no" game, I think it's just polite for you to do the same:
1) I believe the temperature differentials between the seasons at specific latitudes are caused by a combination of the axial tilt of the earth, and the transport of heat energy around the globe through ocean and atmospheric currents.
2) I further believe that axial tilt is less dynamic than ocean and atmospheric currents, over the 4 billion year history of the earth.
I believe seasons are caused by the fact that axis is tilted wrt orbit. The side tilted towards the sun experiences summer.
Let's finish your sentence..."The side tilted towards the sun always experiences summer temperatures of similar magnitude we've experienced in the 20th century." Now explain 1816:)
Are you going to stand by that?:)
And please, let's hear whether or not you agree or disagree with the following:
1) I believe the temperature differentials between the seasons at specific latitudes are caused by a combination of the axial tilt of the earth, and the transport of heat energy around the globe through ocean and atmospheric currents.
2) I further believe that axial tilt is less dynamic than ocean and atmospheric currents, over the 4 billion year history of the earth.
Agree, or disagree, or concede:)
You continue to attempt to frame it in terms of "believing seasons are caused by tilt", when in fact, you're conflating *cause* with *definition*. If you cannot agree or disagree with my two explicitly specific statements, please let me know why - do you have a difficult time understanding my statements?
You're misstating your position again - you don't believe that seasons are *caused* by tilt, you believe they are *defined* by tit. There is a difference. Remember, you started your belief statement on tilt because you were trying to tie it to an Occam's razor example, as a possible hypothesis. Later, you insisted that it was an unassailable position because it was simply a restatement of a definition (rather than a proposed hypothesis) - this made it incompatible with your original rhetorical intent, but I accepted your clarification that you really intended to state it as a tautological definition. Now you want to use the word "caused" again, and pretend like you're talking about a hypothesis rather than a definition? Pray tell, what observation would falsify your hypothesis that "seasons are caused by tilt wrt orbit"? Perhaps the earth tilted in the direction we would call "summer" in the northern hemisphere, but the season actually being experienced as winter temperatures?
You're avoiding my very specific frame of this -> I'm not arguing the definition of a "season", I'm arguing about the actual magnitudes of the seasons, and what causes changes in those magnitudes at specific latitudes.
Try answer either "agree" or "disagree" to the following two statements:
1) I believe the temperature differentials between the seasons at specific latitudes are caused by a combination of the axial tilt of the earth, and the transport of heat energy around the globe through ocean and atmospheric currents.
2) I further believe that axial tilt is less dynamic than ocean and atmospheric currents, over the 4 billion year history of the earth.
My apologies if you're having a difficult time understanding, I'll try to be more concise.
Let's be clear - the *definition* of a season is the particular tilt of the earth's axis with respect to it's place in its orbit. I don't disagree with that definition at all. This definition tells us nothing about what causes the actual temperatures experienced at a given latitude during a given season.
I disagree with is the assertion that it is solely axial tilt that determines the quantifiable *experience* of a season at a specific latitude, in terms of temperature. As we have had axial tilt remain fairly constant over the past 4 billion years, yet have had *wildly* different *experiences* of seasonal temperature variations and ranges, it seems silly to assume that these experiences of seasonal temperature variations are solely determined by axial tilt. Axial tilt may be necessary, but it is not sufficient explanation.
So instead of starting with, "I believe the seasons are caused by...", let's be more specific:
I believe the temperature differentials between the seasons at specific latitudes are caused by a combination of the axial tilt of the earth, and the transport of heat energy around the globe through ocean and atmospheric currents.
I further believe that axial tilt is less dynamic than ocean and atmospheric currents, over the 4 billion year history of the earth.
The earth has a specific axial tilt, which defines our seasons across the hemispheres of the globe (since we never have just "winter" across the globe or "summer" across the globe).
The earth only experiences minor changes in axial tilt, throughout its 4 billion year history. These minor changes have had a generally minor effect on how the various seasons were experienced.
The earth has had major changes in ocean currents in its 4 billion year history. These major changes have had a major effect on how the various seasons were experienced (with year-round tropical climate in some very high latitudes during the Late Eocene, for example).
So given the *bounds of change* of each phenomena, it's fairly obvious that the *changes* in tilt have had a very minor effect - say single digits or less percentage contribution to the width of a seasonal temperature range.
On the other hand, if you want to posit a world where axial tilt changes by say, 120 degrees, you could have a very major effect - say high double digits percentage contribution to the width of a seasonal temperature range. As an example of that, we have night/day sides of the planet that can have a temperature swing greater than is experienced through seasonal differences at certain latitudes. Tilt the earth in such a way that there is permanent night on one side, and permanent day on the other, and you'll have some very extreme seasonality.
At the very least, we can say with certitude that even with the same axial tilt as we had today, we had a much different experience of the seasons during the Late Eocene than as we do today. What we experience today as arctic and temperate regions did not nearly have the same seasonal variation in temperature during the late Eocene.
Our takeaway? One cannot underestimate the roles the ocean play in storing and transferring heat throughout the atmosphere. Their specific heat makes them huge drivers, and it would be odd to think of them as *following* atmospheric temperatures, rather than driving them. Most likely, the biggest contribution of the atmosphere to climate is in cloud formation, which either allows or prevents solar energy from getting to the oceans. Albedo probably means more than actual temperature.
"While there’s been a lot of attention given to the recent NOAA and NASA press releases stating that 2010 was tied for the warmest year globally, it didn’t meet that criteria in the USA by a significant margin according the the data directly available to the public from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center. (NCDC)"
Put simply, the "hottest year ever" metric is a cherry pick of a cherry pick that offers no particular support to any hypothesis, but it makes for great headlines.
Ok, so you agree that the trend over the last century is upward but you feel that selecting all data from all reconstructions is cherry picking
Absolutely. Selecting all data from all reconstructions is still an arbitrary choice. Perhaps if we had all 4 billion years of data, and each reconstruction had all 4 billion years of data, I couldn't make that statement, but the history of climate and weather certainly exceeds our reconstruction history, don't you agree?
IRT to 1934, I may be mistaking claims of "warmest year ever for the US" versus "warmest year ever for the world":
Although honestly, as I look through the press regarding those kinds of claims, they're often blurring the line between the two. Someone may say "hottest year in US ever!" and have it turn into a headline that says "hottest year ever!"
But previously you had said that this was "particularly, how we could possibly apply it to chaotic systems." Are you backing down on that statement?
No, I think you're misunderstanding what I meant. Chaotic systems, by their nature, defy prediction because of sensitivity to starting conditions. Asserting a deterministic hypothesis upon a chaotic system is problematic, and requires a host of novel assumptions to explain deviations from prediction (based on an imperfect knowledge of starting conditions). Any hypothesis which requires a host of novel assumptions fails the test of Occam's razor, which I'll note is a general guideline, but hardly a proof in itself. It is *possible* that a complex hypothesis with a host of assumptions in order to explain arbitrary behavior of CO2 IRT the climate is true, but Occam's razor hints to us that this is unlikely.
I'll agree with this statement:
"For climate in specific, we are forced to develop models which contain a host of novel assumptions in order to explain deviations from our predictions, because with any chaotic system (like climate), imperfect knowledge of starting conditions (a guarantee in our case) means more and more uncertainty as time goes on. Any single factor deterministic hypothesis of climate will inevitably fail Occam's razor, because it introduces many, many novel assumptions. It's very likely that even complex, multiple factor deterministic hypotheses of climate will inevitably fail Occam's razor as well, because we simply have an ocean of ignorance of all the factors involved, and only a small island of knowledge for a few of them.
By admitting that our island of knowledge is overwhelmed by our ocean of ignorance in regards to forces that drive climate, we arrive at the simpler explanation, even if it is not as intellectually satisfying."
The problem you had was that your position was *not* what you really meant. You *said*, "I believe that the seasons are caused because the earth's axis is tilted with respect to it's orbit." You argued as if you had said "I believe that the seasons are defined by the earth's axial tilt with respect to it's orbit."
I would summary my position this way:
"I believe that minor changes in axial tilt have some influence on the measured magnitudes of seasonal temperatures experienced at specific latitudes. I further believe that ocean currents have undergone much more dramatic changes in the 4 billion year history of the earth than the axial tilt, and that major changes in ocean currents have had a dramatic effect on the measured magnitudes of seasonal temperatures experienced at specific latitudes."
I'll also note that I believe that a major change in axial tilt (say, +/- 10 degrees or more) would cause significant differences in seasonal temperatures experienced at specific latitudes, but we've never experienced any such major change, AFAIK. The oceans, on the other hand, have been much more dynamic from the Late Eocene to present day, for example.
"So, to summarize, climate researchers have constructed models based on their understanding of the climate, current theories and a series of assumptions. They cannot test their models over the short term, as they acknowledge, because of the chaotic nature of the weather.
They hoped, though, to be able to calibrate, confirm or fix up their models by looking at very long term data, but we now know that’s chaotic too. They don’t, and cannot know, whether their models are too simple, too complex, or just right, because even if they were perfect, if weather is chaotic at this scale, they cannot hope to match up their models to the real world, the slightest errors in initial conditions would create entirely different outcomes."
A) Yes, that specific cherry picked trend is upward.
B) Yes, for that specific cherry picked trend, the five series are in agreement with each other.
C) No, simply seeing agreement does not give us particular reason to believe that the data has not been tampered with, *specifically* because with cherry picking, a slight tamper here and there can become necessary to fulfill the propaganda needs at any particular point in time. Was 1934 the warmest year ever? By what series? Have fun reading this post that shows the kinds of data manipulation made to fit the alarmist agenda:
The more important point, though, regardless of what cherry pick you make, is what does the data, assuming its veracity, tell us? Looking at the graph you present, we see two periods of cooling, and three periods of warming. Some of the cooling actually occurs during some of the most increase in CO2 levels emitted by humans, and some of the warming happens before CO2 levels emitted by humans were of any significance. Logic would dictate that such a pattern would indicate that CO2 is not a very good holistic explanation of the graph we observe.
C) No. Occam's razor requires that we take the hypothesis with the fewest novel assumptions. You're conflating my conclusions with my rationale.
D) No, because I do not agree with your synopsis.
I think the critical fact that you're missing here is that even if we have a complex array of natural forces we have not yet entirely identified, we *have* seen them in action throughout history. Not knowing the exact specifics of natural cycles does not give us any reason not to believe they exist, because we *have* seen natural cycles (by definition) before any possible human influences.
Of course, you don't even want to get me started on the whole futility of saying something is "natural" versus "artificial" - suffice it to say, asserting modern CO2 emitted by humans is the primary driver, rather than allowing that natural cycles that we have observed since before human influence on CO2, requires *more* novel assumptions, and thus fails Occam's razor.
1-3) Occam's razor does not state that we should attribute our observations to the unknown, it states that we should attribute it to the hypothesis with the least number of assumptions baked in. While it is true that our knowledge of natural cycles includes a lot of unknowns, the simplest assumption is that things happen today for the same reasons that they happened for the past 4 billion years. The myriad assumptions necessary to make CO2 the primary driver of warming today, when it has never behaved that way in the past, does not pass the test of Occam's razor.
Ocean current is a major driver of the actual observed temperature differences at specific latitudes that occur during the seasons. You cannot have the observed temperatures that we have today without them.
Core heat, and its specific temporal spatial distribution, is *more* than likely to be driving observed warming and cooling trends we experience.
4) I admit that with cherry picking, you can find an upward trend. I further admit that with cherry picking, you can find a downward trend. I further admit that with cherry picking, you can find a stable trend. The conspiracy is the assertion that a given cherry pick means we *must* believe a specific hypothesis.
Are you ready to admit that our IPCC predictions, regarding CO2 as the primary driver of average global temperature change over the past 30 years, was incorrect?
1) Of course I stand by that. To assume that it is natural variation is simple - we simply assume that things happen the same way today for the same reasons that they did in the past. To assume that it is primarily driven by CO2 requires us to assume all sorts of ad hoc explanations for why the past record does not show CO2 as a driver, and all sorts of assumptions as to how CO2 will leverage water vapor in the atmosphere, etc, etc.
3) My hypothesis simply states that you cannot ignore the internal heat of the earth as a non-trivial driver. A falsification of it would be to observe some large volcanic eruption, and note no significant effect on the weather. How many climate models do you know of actually take into account geothermal activity and distribution?
4) Again, you're fighting a strawman I'm not putting forth. I accept that with cherrypicking, you can show the earth is warming, cooling, or even staying stable. My contention is that no amount of warming trend you can show with your cherry picking, it does not refute the idea that this warming is simply a natural occurrence, nor does it prove that this warming must be driven by CO2.
"The Dutch researcher reports that "most of the 22 studies have not found a trend in disaster losses, after normalization for changes in population and wealth." In fact, he says that "all 22 studies show that increases in exposure and wealth are by far the most important drivers for growing disaster losses," a conclusion that has also been reached by Changnon et al. (2000), Pielke et al. (2005) and Bouwer et al. (2007). And he adds that "no study identified changes in extreme weather due to anthropogenic climate change as the main driver for any remaining trend."...Reiterating these observations in his paper's concluding paragraph, Bouwer says that although "economic losses from various weather-related natural hazards, such as storms, tropical cyclones, floods, and small-scale weather events (e.g., wildfires and hailstorms), have increased around the globe," the 22 studies he analyzed "show no trends in losses, corrected for changes (increases) in population and capital at risk, that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change."" [Laurens M. Bouwer 2011: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society]
1) Actually, it directly contradicts your understanding of my earlier statements:) Glad to see your understanding has changed:)
2) Currents are required for the actual observed temperature differences between seasons. Without currents (or an atmosphere of the type we have), an axial tilt may create, by definition, different seasons, but they will not have the same magnitude of difference they do today (Late Eocene as an example, where seasonal differences in what is today temperate regions were nearly non existent). Again, you've chosen to compare your faulty rhetoric regarding the tautological definition of "season", rather than the actual experience of seasonal changes at specific latitudes on the earth. The straw man you're fighting isn't one I created.
3) 0.075 W/m^2, varied in space and time, can easily beat a steady 2W/m^2 at specific points in time. Imagine a 1000 year period, where 0.075 W/m^2 is the *average*, but actually, that entire energy release happened in a single year. 0.075 x 1000 = 75W/m^2 for that one year. A specific variation of an average, varied in space and time, can dramatically overwhelm a steady 2W/m^2 for specific time periods. As a further thought experiment, imagine the *same* average global temperature, with the equator at 200C, and all other areas sufficiently cold to bring the average back to the observed value. You cannot simply take an average and make the conclusions you're making.
4) I can read the graph, but I understand that any determination of a linear trend depends greatly on its endpoints. The question is "given any given cherry picked graph, what should we believe?" Any cherry picked graph really doesn't give me any reason to believe any particular hypothesis, and certainly both a cooling, warming, or even a stable trend doesn't give us any reason to doubt that these changes are simply natural cycles.
1) Occam's razor dictates that we should not favor a hypothesis which requires more assumptions (http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=44). Your hypothesis that a trace gas measured in ppm is the primary driver of temperature requires all kinds of assumptions regarding amplification of effect by water vapor, and ad hoc explanations to deal with the historical record which shows CO2 lagging temperatures, not leading them.
2) Seasonal temperature differences *require* more than just an axial tilt - your original statement, while attempting to relate to Occam's razor, was simply "seasons are defined by the axial tilt of the earth" - a tautology, not a cause/effect relationship. Your poor rhetoric and misunderstanding of *definition* versus *cause and effect* clouds your argument here.
3) The heat from the earth's core is not evenly distributed in either time or space - it's specific distribution certainly can effect weather patterns, on all number of scales.
"Consider the earth 14,000 years ago. CO2 levels were around 200 ppm and temperatures, at 6C below present values, were rising fast. Now consider 30,000 years ago. CO2 levels were also around 200 ppm and temperatures were also about 6C below current levels, yet at that time the earth was cooling. Exactly the same CO2 and temperature levels as 14,000 years ago, but the opposite direction of temperature change. CO2 was not the driver."
CO2 at 200ppm behaves the same way as CO2 at 200ppm. It does not care whether or not the jump from 180-200ppm came from a volcano, outgassing from oceans, or through forest fires. Asserting that it does is a special pleading that requires ad hoc additions and assumptions to explain past climactic variation.
None of those models matches up against our observations, however. AGW may assert that the climate is changing (as it always does), but weather patterns are not becoming more extreme, despite changes in CO2 and temperature (whatever their cause). See the real data:
We we say "sustainable" it can mean *anything*. It could mean killing off people until you've got a comfortable 20 million left on the planet, to "sustain" the environment in the way it is. It could mean developing advanced technology and exploiting every available resource, regardless of the changes made to the environment, to "sustain" population growth.
When a single word can mean "kill humans until the world is wild again" *and* "pave the earth so everyone can have ten grandkids each", it's pretty much a useless word.
Would we end up having the same kinds of problems we did during, say, the Medieval Warm Period, or the Holocene Optimum?
Average temperatures don't mean squat, and a +6C difference in average temperature gives you no predictive capacity for the *weather* that actually matters to humans.
That being said, you drive CO2 levels below 150ppm, and all plant life dies. *That* would cause major problems. 1500ppm, on the other hand, would mean a rapidly expanding biosphere due to increased plant growth.
CAGW is grounded in the same Malthusian impulses that cause people to declare doomsday is right around the corner.
Slashdot Mirror
You're still struggling to understand my position. I'm not sure exactly what words are tripping you up, but here it is:
1) The *definition* of a season (regardless of its actual measured temperature value at a specific latitude) is the earth's tilt wrt its orbit. The actual measured temperatures of specific seasons at specific latitudes has more to do with ocean currents (which have changed dramatically over 4 billion years) than the tilt of the earth (which hasn't changed dramatically over 4 billion years. Note the Late Eocene.
Now, if you'd like to continue arguing against your strawman, instead of trying to understand the position I'm laying out, you're more than welcome to :)
2) I believe that geothermal activity is a *likelier* explanation than the minute impact of CO2, for any particular warming, or cooling period for that matter. For cooling, simply see the example of Pinatubo (http://www.wunderground.com/climate/volcanoes.asp). For warming, see the example of Antarctic volcanoes contributing to ice melt (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/22/surprise-theres-an-active-volcano-under-antarctic-ice/).
I'll also further state that any climate models that do not take into account the specific temporal spatial variations in geothermal output cannot *possibly* be accurate.
3) Again, arguing against a strawman. You behave as if showing a 100 year temperature trend, of any sort, bolsters your assertion that CO2 is the primary driver of global average temperature.
My assumption at this point is that you continue to break out straw men to point at because you in fact *do* understand my position, but are loathe to admit it. Which is all good and fine, I appreciate the attention that you're giving me, and greatly enjoy your dancing!
In the end, the assertion that human released CO2 has any significant impact on our climate is laughable at best, and we'll see for sure if we hit a Maunder minimum type event with sunspots over the next 30 years, still increase our CO2 emissions, and see lowering temperatures.
Would that empirical evidence be enough to shake your faith, or have you sharpened your rationalization skills to the point where nothing could convince you of your error? :)
If I put it that way originally, I'd like to make a slight correction:
I believe that geothermal activity is a *likelier* explanation than the minute impact of CO2, for any particular warming, or cooling period for that matter. For cooling, simply see the example of Pinatubo (http://www.wunderground.com/climate/volcanoes.asp). For warming, see the example of Antarctic volcanoes contributing to ice melt (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/22/surprise-theres-an-active-volcano-under-antarctic-ice/).
I'll also further state that any climate models that do not take into account the specific temporal spatial variations in geothermal output cannot *possibly* be accurate.
Do you take umbrage at either of those statements? If so, why?
Your recalcitrance to answer the two simple "agree/disagree" questions is duly noted, and puts a smile on my face :)
Moving on to your other question regarding the effect of geothermal on climate, while your credibility sits at an all time low:
My assertion is that the core heat from the earth is not evenly distributed over time and space. What this means is that its impact upon climate is also not evenly distributed over time and space.
The conclusion I reach is that any model which does not accurately reflect this geothermal temporal/spatial distribution cannot possibly be accurate.
As for my assertion that the core heat from the earth is not evenly distributed over time and space, I believe there is no argument there - our historical observations have shown this to be true, as well as our modern observations. Occam's razor here requires no new assumptions.
As for my conclusion that models which do not deal with geothermal are inaccurate, Occam's razor applies as well -> any model which ignores geothermal is making an unprecedented assumption that geothermal is evenly distributed over time and space and will not have any appreciable affect on climate ever.
How would you apply Occam's razor in this case?
Two simple questions, lazyej - two simple questions to answer, and we can move onto whatever you'd like:
1) I believe the temperature differentials between the seasons at specific latitudes are caused by a combination of the axial tilt of the earth, and the transport of heat energy around the globe through ocean and atmospheric currents.
2) I further believe that axial tilt is less dynamic than ocean and atmospheric currents, over the 4 billion year history of the earth.
Agree, or disagree, or concede :)
It seems that you're afraid to answer these two simple questions because either answer will represent a symbolic loss for you - if you agree with my position, then you admit that I wasn't wrong and that your previous reluctance to accept my position was simply because I had not been specific enough with you. If you disagree with my position, then you have to fight against two statements that you know in your heart to be true.
I appreciate you spending so much time with me discussing the matter, and I certainly must admit I enjoy your dancing around my simple request, since it further undermines your credibility, but I feel obligated to at least offer you one more chance to step up to the plate and address my two simple questions. Feel free to ignore them, of course, and we'll let your recalcitrance speak for itself :)
Actually, I did:
You asked me four questions here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2223172&cid=36409936
My answers were:
A) Of course I do.
B) Yes, of course.
C) No. Occam's razor requires that we take the hypothesis with the fewest novel assumptions. You're conflating my conclusions with my rationale.
D) No, because I do not agree with your synopsis.
Now, your turn:
1) I believe the temperature differentials between the seasons at specific latitudes are caused by a combination of the axial tilt of the earth, and the transport of heat energy around the globe through ocean and atmospheric currents.
2) I further believe that axial tilt is less dynamic than ocean and atmospheric currents, over the 4 billion year history of the earth.
Agree, or disagree, or concede :)
I cheerfully played your "yes or no" game, I think it's just polite for you to do the same:
1) I believe the temperature differentials between the seasons at specific latitudes are caused by a combination of the axial tilt of the earth, and the transport of heat energy around the globe through ocean and atmospheric currents.
2) I further believe that axial tilt is less dynamic than ocean and atmospheric currents, over the 4 billion year history of the earth.
Agree, or disagree, or concede :)
Let's finish your sentence..."The side tilted towards the sun always experiences summer temperatures of similar magnitude we've experienced in the 20th century." Now explain 1816 :)
Are you going to stand by that? :)
And please, let's hear whether or not you agree or disagree with the following:
1) I believe the temperature differentials between the seasons at specific latitudes are caused by a combination of the axial tilt of the earth, and the transport of heat energy around the globe through ocean and atmospheric currents.
2) I further believe that axial tilt is less dynamic than ocean and atmospheric currents, over the 4 billion year history of the earth.
Agree, or disagree, or concede :)
You continue to attempt to frame it in terms of "believing seasons are caused by tilt", when in fact, you're conflating *cause* with *definition*. If you cannot agree or disagree with my two explicitly specific statements, please let me know why - do you have a difficult time understanding my statements?
You're misstating your position again - you don't believe that seasons are *caused* by tilt, you believe they are *defined* by tit. There is a difference. Remember, you started your belief statement on tilt because you were trying to tie it to an Occam's razor example, as a possible hypothesis. Later, you insisted that it was an unassailable position because it was simply a restatement of a definition (rather than a proposed hypothesis) - this made it incompatible with your original rhetorical intent, but I accepted your clarification that you really intended to state it as a tautological definition. Now you want to use the word "caused" again, and pretend like you're talking about a hypothesis rather than a definition? Pray tell, what observation would falsify your hypothesis that "seasons are caused by tilt wrt orbit"? Perhaps the earth tilted in the direction we would call "summer" in the northern hemisphere, but the season actually being experienced as winter temperatures?
You're avoiding my very specific frame of this -> I'm not arguing the definition of a "season", I'm arguing about the actual magnitudes of the seasons, and what causes changes in those magnitudes at specific latitudes.
Try answer either "agree" or "disagree" to the following two statements:
1) I believe the temperature differentials between the seasons at specific latitudes are caused by a combination of the axial tilt of the earth, and the transport of heat energy around the globe through ocean and atmospheric currents.
2) I further believe that axial tilt is less dynamic than ocean and atmospheric currents, over the 4 billion year history of the earth.
My apologies if you're having a difficult time understanding, I'll try to be more concise.
Let's be clear - the *definition* of a season is the particular tilt of the earth's axis with respect to it's place in its orbit. I don't disagree with that definition at all. This definition tells us nothing about what causes the actual temperatures experienced at a given latitude during a given season.
I disagree with is the assertion that it is solely axial tilt that determines the quantifiable *experience* of a season at a specific latitude, in terms of temperature. As we have had axial tilt remain fairly constant over the past 4 billion years, yet have had *wildly* different *experiences* of seasonal temperature variations and ranges, it seems silly to assume that these experiences of seasonal temperature variations are solely determined by axial tilt. Axial tilt may be necessary, but it is not sufficient explanation.
So instead of starting with, "I believe the seasons are caused by...", let's be more specific:
I believe the temperature differentials between the seasons at specific latitudes are caused by a combination of the axial tilt of the earth, and the transport of heat energy around the globe through ocean and atmospheric currents.
I further believe that axial tilt is less dynamic than ocean and atmospheric currents, over the 4 billion year history of the earth.
Do you disagree with either of those statements?
Let me rephrase for you:
The earth has a specific axial tilt, which defines our seasons across the hemispheres of the globe (since we never have just "winter" across the globe or "summer" across the globe).
The earth only experiences minor changes in axial tilt, throughout its 4 billion year history. These minor changes have had a generally minor effect on how the various seasons were experienced.
The earth has had major changes in ocean currents in its 4 billion year history. These major changes have had a major effect on how the various seasons were experienced (with year-round tropical climate in some very high latitudes during the Late Eocene, for example).
So given the *bounds of change* of each phenomena, it's fairly obvious that the *changes* in tilt have had a very minor effect - say single digits or less percentage contribution to the width of a seasonal temperature range.
On the other hand, if you want to posit a world where axial tilt changes by say, 120 degrees, you could have a very major effect - say high double digits percentage contribution to the width of a seasonal temperature range. As an example of that, we have night/day sides of the planet that can have a temperature swing greater than is experienced through seasonal differences at certain latitudes. Tilt the earth in such a way that there is permanent night on one side, and permanent day on the other, and you'll have some very extreme seasonality.
At the very least, we can say with certitude that even with the same axial tilt as we had today, we had a much different experience of the seasons during the Late Eocene than as we do today. What we experience today as arctic and temperate regions did not nearly have the same seasonal variation in temperature during the late Eocene.
Our takeaway? One cannot underestimate the roles the ocean play in storing and transferring heat throughout the atmosphere. Their specific heat makes them huge drivers, and it would be odd to think of them as *following* atmospheric temperatures, rather than driving them. Most likely, the biggest contribution of the atmosphere to climate is in cloud formation, which either allows or prevents solar energy from getting to the oceans. Albedo probably means more than actual temperature.
More food for thought about "hottest year ever":
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/14/according-to-ncdcs-own-data-2010-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-usa-nor-even-a-tie/
"While there’s been a lot of attention given to the recent NOAA and NASA press releases stating that 2010 was tied for the warmest year globally, it didn’t meet that criteria in the USA by a significant margin according the the data directly available to the public from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center. (NCDC)"
Of course, the US != the whole world, but when they make alarmist claims, they'll use whichever one is convenient...for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901949.html
Put simply, the "hottest year ever" metric is a cherry pick of a cherry pick that offers no particular support to any hypothesis, but it makes for great headlines.
Absolutely. Selecting all data from all reconstructions is still an arbitrary choice. Perhaps if we had all 4 billion years of data, and each reconstruction had all 4 billion years of data, I couldn't make that statement, but the history of climate and weather certainly exceeds our reconstruction history, don't you agree?
IRT to 1934, I may be mistaking claims of "warmest year ever for the US" versus "warmest year ever for the world":
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm
Although honestly, as I look through the press regarding those kinds of claims, they're often blurring the line between the two. Someone may say "hottest year in US ever!" and have it turn into a headline that says "hottest year ever!"
And again, I refer you to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/16/the-past-is-not-what-it-used-to-be-gw-tiger-tale/ and look forward to your ad hoc explanation of the adjustments they made to make the alarmist position more tenable :)
No, I think you're misunderstanding what I meant. Chaotic systems, by their nature, defy prediction because of sensitivity to starting conditions. Asserting a deterministic hypothesis upon a chaotic system is problematic, and requires a host of novel assumptions to explain deviations from prediction (based on an imperfect knowledge of starting conditions). Any hypothesis which requires a host of novel assumptions fails the test of Occam's razor, which I'll note is a general guideline, but hardly a proof in itself. It is *possible* that a complex hypothesis with a host of assumptions in order to explain arbitrary behavior of CO2 IRT the climate is true, but Occam's razor hints to us that this is unlikely.
I'll agree with this statement:
"For climate in specific, we are forced to develop models which contain a host of novel assumptions in order to explain deviations from our predictions, because with any chaotic system (like climate), imperfect knowledge of starting conditions (a guarantee in our case) means more and more uncertainty as time goes on. Any single factor deterministic hypothesis of climate will inevitably fail Occam's razor, because it introduces many, many novel assumptions. It's very likely that even complex, multiple factor deterministic hypotheses of climate will inevitably fail Occam's razor as well, because we simply have an ocean of ignorance of all the factors involved, and only a small island of knowledge for a few of them.
By admitting that our island of knowledge is overwhelmed by our ocean of ignorance in regards to forces that drive climate, we arrive at the simpler explanation, even if it is not as intellectually satisfying."
The problem you had was that your position was *not* what you really meant. You *said*, "I believe that the seasons are caused because the earth's axis is tilted with respect to it's orbit." You argued as if you had said "I believe that the seasons are defined by the earth's axial tilt with respect to it's orbit."
I would summary my position this way:
"I believe that minor changes in axial tilt have some influence on the measured magnitudes of seasonal temperatures experienced at specific latitudes. I further believe that ocean currents have undergone much more dramatic changes in the 4 billion year history of the earth than the axial tilt, and that major changes in ocean currents have had a dramatic effect on the measured magnitudes of seasonal temperatures experienced at specific latitudes."
I'll also note that I believe that a major change in axial tilt (say, +/- 10 degrees or more) would cause significant differences in seasonal temperatures experienced at specific latitudes, but we've never experienced any such major change, AFAIK. The oceans, on the other hand, have been much more dynamic from the Late Eocene to present day, for example.
Here's a good article explaining the problem with attempting to model chaotic systems:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/13/the-chaos-theoretic-argument-that-undermines-climate-change-modelling/
"So, to summarize, climate researchers have constructed models based on their understanding of the climate, current theories and a series of assumptions. They cannot test their models over the short term, as they acknowledge, because of the chaotic nature of the weather.
They hoped, though, to be able to calibrate, confirm or fix up their models by looking at very long term data, but we now know that’s chaotic too. They don’t, and cannot know, whether their models are too simple, too complex, or just right, because even if they were perfect, if weather is chaotic at this scale, they cannot hope to match up their models to the real world, the slightest errors in initial conditions would create entirely different outcomes."
A) Yes, that specific cherry picked trend is upward.
B) Yes, for that specific cherry picked trend, the five series are in agreement with each other.
C) No, simply seeing agreement does not give us particular reason to believe that the data has not been tampered with, *specifically* because with cherry picking, a slight tamper here and there can become necessary to fulfill the propaganda needs at any particular point in time. Was 1934 the warmest year ever? By what series? Have fun reading this post that shows the kinds of data manipulation made to fit the alarmist agenda:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/16/the-past-is-not-what-it-used-to-be-gw-tiger-tale/
The more important point, though, regardless of what cherry pick you make, is what does the data, assuming its veracity, tell us? Looking at the graph you present, we see two periods of cooling, and three periods of warming. Some of the cooling actually occurs during some of the most increase in CO2 levels emitted by humans, and some of the warming happens before CO2 levels emitted by humans were of any significance. Logic would dictate that such a pattern would indicate that CO2 is not a very good holistic explanation of the graph we observe.
A) Of course I do.
B) Yes, of course.
C) No. Occam's razor requires that we take the hypothesis with the fewest novel assumptions. You're conflating my conclusions with my rationale.
D) No, because I do not agree with your synopsis.
I think the critical fact that you're missing here is that even if we have a complex array of natural forces we have not yet entirely identified, we *have* seen them in action throughout history. Not knowing the exact specifics of natural cycles does not give us any reason not to believe they exist, because we *have* seen natural cycles (by definition) before any possible human influences.
Of course, you don't even want to get me started on the whole futility of saying something is "natural" versus "artificial" - suffice it to say, asserting modern CO2 emitted by humans is the primary driver, rather than allowing that natural cycles that we have observed since before human influence on CO2, requires *more* novel assumptions, and thus fails Occam's razor.
1-3) Occam's razor does not state that we should attribute our observations to the unknown, it states that we should attribute it to the hypothesis with the least number of assumptions baked in. While it is true that our knowledge of natural cycles includes a lot of unknowns, the simplest assumption is that things happen today for the same reasons that they happened for the past 4 billion years. The myriad assumptions necessary to make CO2 the primary driver of warming today, when it has never behaved that way in the past, does not pass the test of Occam's razor.
Ocean current is a major driver of the actual observed temperature differences at specific latitudes that occur during the seasons. You cannot have the observed temperatures that we have today without them.
Core heat, and its specific temporal spatial distribution, is *more* than likely to be driving observed warming and cooling trends we experience.
4) I admit that with cherry picking, you can find an upward trend. I further admit that with cherry picking, you can find a downward trend. I further admit that with cherry picking, you can find a stable trend. The conspiracy is the assertion that a given cherry pick means we *must* believe a specific hypothesis.
Are you ready to admit that our IPCC predictions, regarding CO2 as the primary driver of average global temperature change over the past 30 years, was incorrect?
1) Of course I stand by that. To assume that it is natural variation is simple - we simply assume that things happen the same way today for the same reasons that they did in the past. To assume that it is primarily driven by CO2 requires us to assume all sorts of ad hoc explanations for why the past record does not show CO2 as a driver, and all sorts of assumptions as to how CO2 will leverage water vapor in the atmosphere, etc, etc.
2) The reason why we have the kinds of temperature differentials we do during the seasons is because of the complex interactions of oceans and atmosphere, in addition to the tilt of the earth's axis. See: http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Oceans_played_critical_role_in_ancient_global_cooling_999.html
3) My hypothesis simply states that you cannot ignore the internal heat of the earth as a non-trivial driver. A falsification of it would be to observe some large volcanic eruption, and note no significant effect on the weather. How many climate models do you know of actually take into account geothermal activity and distribution?
4) Again, you're fighting a strawman I'm not putting forth. I accept that with cherrypicking, you can show the earth is warming, cooling, or even staying stable. My contention is that no amount of warming trend you can show with your cherry picking, it does not refute the idea that this warming is simply a natural occurrence, nor does it prove that this warming must be driven by CO2.
That all being said, enjoy this retrospective on IPCC predictions of temperature: http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208
30 years of data, which by your estimate should be enough to validate predictions, right? :)
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/02/nasa-climate-scientist-global-warming-does-not-cause-extreme-weather-events.html
"That last sentence is verified by a statement from Gavin Schmidt, a very prominent NASA climate scientist:
"There is no theory or result that indicates that climate change increases extremes in general.""
Show me the data that proves there is an increasing trend in extreme weather events due to increasing average global temperature.
http://www.c3headlines.com/are-droughts-floods-more-frequent/
"The Dutch researcher reports that "most of the 22 studies have not found a trend in disaster losses, after normalization for changes in population and wealth." In fact, he says that "all 22 studies show that increases in exposure and wealth are by far the most important drivers for growing disaster losses ," a conclusion that has also been reached by Changnon et al. (2000), Pielke et al. (2005) and Bouwer et al. (2007). And he adds that "no study identified changes in extreme weather due to anthropogenic climate change as the main driver for any remaining trend."...Reiterating these observations in his paper's concluding paragraph, Bouwer says that although "economic losses from various weather-related natural hazards, such as storms, tropical cyclones, floods, and small-scale weather events (e.g., wildfires and hailstorms), have increased around the globe," the 22 studies he analyzed "show no trends in losses, corrected for changes (increases) in population and capital at risk, that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change."" [Laurens M. Bouwer 2011: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society]
1) Actually, it directly contradicts your understanding of my earlier statements :) Glad to see your understanding has changed :)
2) Currents are required for the actual observed temperature differences between seasons. Without currents (or an atmosphere of the type we have), an axial tilt may create, by definition, different seasons, but they will not have the same magnitude of difference they do today (Late Eocene as an example, where seasonal differences in what is today temperate regions were nearly non existent). Again, you've chosen to compare your faulty rhetoric regarding the tautological definition of "season", rather than the actual experience of seasonal changes at specific latitudes on the earth. The straw man you're fighting isn't one I created.
3) 0.075 W/m^2, varied in space and time, can easily beat a steady 2W/m^2 at specific points in time. Imagine a 1000 year period, where 0.075 W/m^2 is the *average*, but actually, that entire energy release happened in a single year. 0.075 x 1000 = 75W/m^2 for that one year. A specific variation of an average, varied in space and time, can dramatically overwhelm a steady 2W/m^2 for specific time periods. As a further thought experiment, imagine the *same* average global temperature, with the equator at 200C, and all other areas sufficiently cold to bring the average back to the observed value. You cannot simply take an average and make the conclusions you're making.
4) I can read the graph, but I understand that any determination of a linear trend depends greatly on its endpoints. The question is "given any given cherry picked graph, what should we believe?" Any cherry picked graph really doesn't give me any reason to believe any particular hypothesis, and certainly both a cooling, warming, or even a stable trend doesn't give us any reason to doubt that these changes are simply natural cycles.
Hey lazyej :)
Let's correct some of your misperceptions:
1) Occam's razor dictates that we should not favor a hypothesis which requires more assumptions (http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=44). Your hypothesis that a trace gas measured in ppm is the primary driver of temperature requires all kinds of assumptions regarding amplification of effect by water vapor, and ad hoc explanations to deal with the historical record which shows CO2 lagging temperatures, not leading them.
2) Seasonal temperature differences *require* more than just an axial tilt - your original statement, while attempting to relate to Occam's razor, was simply "seasons are defined by the axial tilt of the earth" - a tautology, not a cause/effect relationship. Your poor rhetoric and misunderstanding of *definition* versus *cause and effect* clouds your argument here.
3) The heat from the earth's core is not evenly distributed in either time or space - it's specific distribution certainly can effect weather patterns, on all number of scales.
4) Lazyej misunderstands that the slope you get is highly dependent on what endpoints you pick: http://www.masterresource.org/2009/10/a-cherry-pickers-guide-to-temperature-trends/
Another conundrum for the CO2 is responsible for all theory:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/21/co2-does-not-drive-glacial-cycles/
"Consider the earth 14,000 years ago. CO2 levels were around 200 ppm and temperatures, at 6C below present values, were rising fast. Now consider 30,000 years ago. CO2 levels were also around 200 ppm and temperatures were also about 6C below current levels, yet at that time the earth was cooling. Exactly the same CO2 and temperature levels as 14,000 years ago, but the opposite direction of temperature change. CO2 was not the driver."
CO2 at 200ppm behaves the same way as CO2 at 200ppm. It does not care whether or not the jump from 180-200ppm came from a volcano, outgassing from oceans, or through forest fires. Asserting that it does is a special pleading that requires ad hoc additions and assumptions to explain past climactic variation.
None of those models matches up against our observations, however. AGW may assert that the climate is changing (as it always does), but weather patterns are not becoming more extreme, despite changes in CO2 and temperature (whatever their cause). See the real data:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/todays-tornado-outlook-high-risk-of-global-warming-hype/
We we say "sustainable" it can mean *anything*. It could mean killing off people until you've got a comfortable 20 million left on the planet, to "sustain" the environment in the way it is. It could mean developing advanced technology and exploiting every available resource, regardless of the changes made to the environment, to "sustain" population growth.
When a single word can mean "kill humans until the world is wild again" *and* "pave the earth so everyone can have ten grandkids each", it's pretty much a useless word.
Would we end up having the same kinds of problems we did during, say, the Medieval Warm Period, or the Holocene Optimum?
Average temperatures don't mean squat, and a +6C difference in average temperature gives you no predictive capacity for the *weather* that actually matters to humans.
That being said, you drive CO2 levels below 150ppm, and all plant life dies. *That* would cause major problems. 1500ppm, on the other hand, would mean a rapidly expanding biosphere due to increased plant growth.
CAGW is grounded in the same Malthusian impulses that cause people to declare doomsday is right around the corner.