"This right here should be enough for a retraction from the Journal. If different surveys were sent to different bloggers, and no mention of it was made in the paper or justified in the methodology, then this amounts to purposely biased data from the beginning. UWA may also find grounds for academic misconduct if Lewandowsky purposefully sent different sets of questions based on the type of blog he was inviting.
And then we have the fact that Lewandowsky was discussing preliminary results at a seminar, while the surveys were still open and he had not heard back from the skeptic blogs yet, such as the follow up invitation to Steve McIntyre. Having an open discussion of the survey is highly irregular, because attendees/viewers are free to take the survey, possibly biasing the results."
The fact of the matter is that the paper did *not* observe what it claims to observe, and was so shoddy and filled with methodological errors, it shouldn't have gotten past the first glance of peer review.
A black stain, once again, on the soul of warmists.
lots of evidence that such a God cares about taking care of the weak and sick.
Wouldn't an all powerful being, that is asserted to be "good", simply provide for the weak and sick by making them not weak and sick through their supernatural powers? Heck, even if you're not talking about omnipotence, but just oh, say power over most of the physical nature of the universe, don't you think even a minor deity could choose to cure all ills and infirmities?
a hypothetical God might want a process, not an outcome.
My point exactly. And thus far, the evidence shows that the process God has chosen is the ultimate in laissez faire economics.
So, you've really got two choices:
1) God is good, but impotent
2) God is omnipotent, but not good
Seeing as most folk would argue that God must be good, I guess the real question is about just how impotent our resident deity is.
All depends on the cost, and whether or not it is voluntary. First, I'd assert that any sort of charity for schizophrenics should be voluntary, not involuntary taxes. Second, if the charity for schizophrenics made their gainful employment profitable, I'd support that, but if it was cheaper to simply have them stay at home, I'd argue that the charity should simply provide them with food and shelter.
The two take home points -> 1) do what is efficient, 2) forced charity is false charity
So eliminating gender discrimination is equivalent to forcing companies to employ people in permanent vegetative states, or to otherwise employ people that force them to fire a dozen other employees due to cost?
I'm not sure if I follow. If I were to be judged by some supernatural master of the universe, I'd hope that they'd understand the free market, and the idea that making unreasonable accommodations simply destroys wealth and well being.
In fact, I'd bet that any supernatural master of the universe already understands that, otherwise they'd have used their omnipotence to simply make everyone equal in outcome already.
Frankly, any omnipotent being who presides over a universe like our own, what with the pain and innocent suffering that does exist, should be worried that *we* will judge *them* when we finally meet up. I mean, what does the master of the universe say to the spirit soul of a young child who was raped, tortured and killed by some marauding band of child soldiers in africa? Or to some baby who dies some horrible death of vitamin deficiency thanks to vegan parents?
Why should someone who has a lack of motivation disability get a job over a person who doesn't have that disability?
Asserting that we should sacrifice the able-minded because of sympathy for those who suffer from motivation disability should not be acceptable in a modern society. One might as well insist that the U.S. Olympic sprinting team include a 500 pound diabetic, and kick off someone who can actually run.
What's the limit? Say, you have an allergy to anything more than 1 hour of work per week. Or a neurochemical disorder that means that without a constant pedicure and massage chair, you can't do any work? Or what about a permanent vegetative state? At what point can a company reasonably say, "sorry, but we just don't have a position for you?"
If the costs of the accommodations affect the bottom line in any significant way, it's irresponsible to hire someone who needs those accommodations, versus someone who doesn't. Now, if you're some rock start quadriplegic programmer, the cost/benefit might make sense for a personal assistant during work hours. But honestly, the case needs to be made that despite all the required accommodations, there is profit to be had by the company.
There's a more accurate description of that: Strawman
Sorta like "denier", huh?:)
But the deniers *never* follow up with "oh, sorry, then what was your point again?"
What were you saying about strawmen?:)
Let's face it, the whole rhetorical game of arguing talking points is alive, well, and kicking, with a lot of people from both sides. For actual, constructive discussion to happen about a scientific topic, you really need to start with the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. "ZOMG, you're gonna kill the planet" and "Al Gore is a liar who assaults massage specialists" are part of the party play, not about really understanding the root of any disagreement.
Fundamentally, it all comes down to disagreeing on the premises, but ignoring that and simply fighting about the conclusions.
If by "alarmists" you mean those who are researching the problem, and not those working on solutions.
Well, I'm not sure anyone has actually identified a real problem yet, although there are lots of proposed solutions. By "alarmist" I mean those people who have bought into an unfalsifiable hypothesis of doom, and have no room in their minds that their hypothesis could possibly be wrong, to the point where they cannot even express a potential refutation of their beliefs.
But the "deniers" all seem to argue the points that the person they aren't speaking to make.
I think that's kinda a cop out. Alarmists make these broad, ambiguous statements, leave important issues unaddressed and unspoken, and then when someone tries to nail them down to something explicit, they simply say "oh, that wasn't my point".
Of course, the *real* solution to that meta-problem is to start with a clearly stated, necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement:)
Argue the science with the scientists, and solutions with the solution proposers, and it'll work out better for everyone.
Interesting. It seems like "solution proposers" get a free ride on actually having to defend the existence of an actual *problem*. In fact, it might be better to call them "problem proposers", to focus them further on the fact that they haven't yet established their premises as true:)
I don't quite see it that way. The circle of poo is dynamic, adapting, and ever changing. The take away from the circle of poo is to realize that arbitrarily deriding something as "bad" and requiring limitation fails to see the big picture.
if we didn't eat so much we wouldn't need to shit so much.
And if we didn't exist so much, we also wouldn't need to shit so much...but I kinda like the whole existing thing:)
You: "Never do I see a hypothesis presented that shows a good counter example, just complaints about one small piece of someone else's collection, followed by sweeping generalizations about the implications."
Me: "Here's a credible hypothesis for you - CO2 is buffered by the oceans."
You: "That's a conclusion, not a hypothesis."
Funny, considering "Human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of 20th century warming" is also a conclusion, not a hypothesis, but I digress:)
Also You: "I was just complaining about the lack of answers by the nay sayers, as if lack of proof is proof of falsehood."
Me: "Are you trying to say that lack of proof is proof of truth?"
You: "I siad I was complaing about those who assert " lack of proof is proof of falsehood" "
But apparently you want us to come to the conclusion that not only is a lack of proof *not* proof of falsehood, but by implication, it must be a proof of truth. I don't think you completely got that one, so let me be explicit.
You're sort of paraphrasing the idea that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" -> i.e., just because I don't have proof of God doesn't mean that he must *not* exist. The problem with that concept is that it is also true that "absence of evidence is not evidence of presence" either. So while you complain that naysayers somehow assert the "absence of evidence" proves you wrong, you're not addressing the complementary issue - "absence of evidence" doesn't prove you right either. You're still back at square one with the null hypothesis.
I put forth no "evidence"
Indeed, you haven't. Yet, you seem to think we should share your point of view nonetheless:)
In a situation where there was a balance between the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere and the CO2 dissolved in the oceans it would be governed by ocean temperature. Right now there is an imbalance with the atmosphere containing the excess. That's easily shown with simple with simple chemistry.
Take my simple chemistry example of a buffer, and apply it to the oceans. Buffer solutions will neutralize both bases and acids, just as the oceans will either absorb excess, or emit when there is a deficit.
I'm not sure your assertion that the ocean may be a buffer solution that neutralizes acids and bases is warranted.
To be clear, I'm not saying that the ocean is a pH buffer solution - I'm saying that it *acts* like a buffer solution in regards to CO2.
The observation that heat waves are becoming more common and affecting more of the Earth's surface over the past 50 years is a simple statistical analysis. It's an expected effect of global warming.
A few problems though - the observational period is incredibly short, the historical record is of lower quality, and whether or not it is an effect of global warming, doesn't imply any *cause* for that warming.
But more importantly, if next year heat waves are *less* common, does that necessarily mean that the globe is not warming? Can I take a graph of heat wave frequency, and assert that it is a proxy for global temperature?
Watts has no credibility for me.
I'll try avoiding quoting Watts then, but WUWT does have posts by other people besides Anthony:)
The year to year increase in atmospheric CO2 is only about 43% of the total CO2 emitted by humans. Most of the other 57% is being absorbed by the oceans presently. All of that is evident in the observations we make.
Which (to use a familiar term), is *consistent* with the idea that the oceans buffer CO2, and that ocean temperature is what drives CO2 levels. If we eliminated humanity tomorrow, the oceans would fill the partial pressure vacuum and become a *source* rather than a *sink*.
It seems more reasonable to assert the causality chain *from* the oceans *to* the atmosphere, rather than the other way around.
I would propose this experiment - take a proportional amount of sea water, and a proportional amount of air, and put it in a sealed chamber. (The atmosphere has a mass of about 5×10^18 kg, and the hydrosphere has a mass of about 1.4×10^21 kg - so about 280 times more sea water than air). Assuming 1 kg of air (0.8562m^3), 280 kg of water (about 74 gallons) - so about a meter cube of air, on top of say, two barrels of water. CO2 partial pressure will stabilize between the two. Assume it hits say, 300ppm. Add another three grams of CO2 into the air. CO2 partial pressure will again stabilize between the two.
What is your prediction for the second stabilization point?
Um, where's the regional specificity there? Hansen pretty much said "the world is warming" (pretty obvious coming out of a little ice age), had huge error bars, and actually, *none* of his model sensitivities got it right. Now, perhaps what he meant was "if we see this, it means that our model sensitivity should be X", but that presupposes the model is correct. He's finding a fudge factor there, not making a prediction:)
Assuming Hansen got better over time, here's his 1988 predictions:
I don't remember from my school history books that the world was "a colder, darker place, with less plant life, less arable land, and a diminished biosphere"
Well, we know the Little Ice Age was colder...we know that lower CO2 levels mean less plant life on the planet...and tractors or not, we know that the range of crops is diminished when upper latitudes become too cold for them.
"During the height of the Little Ice Age general, it was about 1 degree Celsius colder than at present. The Baltic Sea froze over, as did most of the rivers in Europe. Winters were bitterly cold and prolonged, reducing the growing season with several weeks. These conditions led to widespread crop failure, famine, and in some regions population decline.
The prices of grain increased and wine became difficult to produce in many areas and commercial vineyards vanished in England. Fishing also was bad as the cod migrated south to find warmer water. Storminess and flooding increased. In mountainous regions the tree line and snowline dropped. In addition glaciers advanced in the Alps and Northern Europe, overrunning towns and farms in the process.
Iceland was one of the hardest hit areas. Sea ice, which today is far to the north, came down around Iceland. In some years, it was difficult to bring a ship ashore anywhere along the coast. Grain became impossible to grow and even hay crops failed. Volcanic eruptions made life even harder. Iceland lost half of its population during the Little Ice Age.
Scandinavia was also hard hit by the colder conditions of the Little Ice Age. Tax records show many farms were destroyed by advancing ice and by melt water streams. Travellers in Scotland reported permanent snow cover over the Cairgorms in Scotland at an altitude of about 1200 metres. In the Alps, the glaciers advanced and bulldozed over towns. Ice-dammed lakes burst periodically, destroying hundreds of buildings and killing many people. As late as 1930 the French Government commissioned a report to investigate the threat of the glaciers. They could not have foreseen that human induced global warming was to deal more effective with this problem than any committee ever could."
But hey, let's take a look at it another way - we jumped what,.7C over the last century, and look towards the same in the next century. We call this "drastic", but the world in 2000 seems like a better place than the world in 1900.
You are aware that GCMs are gridded and do in fact predict distributions?
Peer reviewed literature:
"Current climate change experiments, however, are limited by the inability of the models to produce accurate simulations of the regional climate."
Let's assume that you thought I was unaware of gridded regional predictions of GCMs. You corrected me on that point quite astutely.
Of course, now the problem is, the inaccuracy of those predictions. In the science game, when your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong - Feynman does a great job of illustrating this in his lectures. Your predictions are wrong. Are you ready to abandon your hypothesis?
Nope. I'm saying that it's insane to disagree without evidence because you don't like the implications of the conclusion, or have issues with those championing it.
My issue is that without a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, the "evidence" you put forth simply isn't compelling. If you would be specific about what evidence would falsify your belief system, then we could play the science game. As it stands, it doesn't seem like any observation of CO2 and global average temperature, on any time scale, past, present or future, would falsify your belief.
Again, you cannot assert that "lack of proof" is "proof of truth". Show me your falsifiability:)
CO2 concentration in water is governed by temperature but it is also governed by the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is a balance between the two.
Why can't you turn that in reverse, if there's a balance? Why can't you assert that the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is governed by the temperature of the ocean?
That is why despite ocean temperatures rising the oceans are still sinking CO2 from the atmosphere.
If ocean temperatures determine atmospheric CO2 levels (as there is a balance), then adding a *surplus* of CO2 will be adjusted to by sinking it into the ocean (AFAIK, there's no assertion here that CO2 levels in the ocean cause a temperature increase). Similarly, removing CO2 from the atmosphere (say, through plant growth), will be adjusted by further outgassing of the ocean.
So whether or not the ocean is a source or sink depends on what it is buffering, just as a buffer solution can neutralize both acids and bases.
Weather statistics show that heat waves like we've had this past year in the US and like Russia had in 2010 and Europe in 2003 have become more common over the past half century.
That's a (doubtful) observation that doesn't imply a causality. There's no reason for us to believe that if we had eliminated mankind in WWI with some super virus, that those heat waves wouldn't have happened.
I don't even bother to give Watts the page views any more. It's a waste of my time.
Well, sorry you had such a bad experience. Honestly, understanding how those people who disagree with you think requires observation and listening. Heck, I still listen to NPR, read the NYTimes, despite their completely insular and echo chamber liberal bias:)
Oceans can't drive warming overall because they have no internal source of heat energy.
Well, assume the internal heat of the earth is negligible. The external source of ocean warming is solar - moderated by cloud albedo (which, we've been unable to model very well at this point).
Despite the fact that oceans are warming they are still absorbing CO2 because we've increased the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% over the past ~200 years.
You're assuming that *we've* increased it - it could just as easily be that ocean outgassing has been pushing a 40% increase in partial pressure, and that if our CO2 emissions were to disappear tomorrow, the buffer of the ocean CO2 would simply fill that void to make up for the missing pressure (that is to say, CO2 is buffered in the atmosphere by the ocean, much like a buffer solution which will maintain its pH whether you add acid or base to it).
Ocean acidification is direct evidence of that.
Not quite sure about that. First, getting terms right, oceans are becoming less alkaline -> they're nowhere near becoming acidic. A tiny point, but important to be clear about what we mean.
"Current climate change experiments, however, are limited by the inability of the models to produce accurate simulations of the regional climate."
Perhaps you have a GCM regional prediction from say, a 1990 model for 2012 actuals that you'd like to cite as being particularly accurate? Heck, maybe you have a cite for a 2010 model that predicted 2012 regional actuals accurately?
When there's only one plausible theory, it is insane to believe it's wrong because you don't like the conclusion or the people supporting the conclusion.
Almost, but not quite. The problem is that you're *really* saying, "When there's only one plausible theory, it is insane to believe it *can* be wrong."
If you can't imagine a falsification of your theory, then you're not playing the science game, you're playing religion.
A warm ocean will sustain more CO2 than a cold one
Not quite sure if I understand what you mean - a warm ocean holds *less* CO2. Open up a coke can in a 0C room, and open up a coke can in a room temperature room, and see which one outgasses more.
I was just complaining about the lack of answers by the nay sayers, as if lack of proof is proof of falsehood.
Are you trying to say that lack of proof is proof of truth? Isn't that something worthy of complaint too?
Slashdot Mirror
Additional information on this train wreck of a paper: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/stephan-lewandowskys-slow-motion-social-science-train-wreck/
"This right here should be enough for a retraction from the Journal. If different surveys were sent to different bloggers, and no mention of it was made in the paper or justified in the methodology, then this amounts to purposely biased data from the beginning. UWA may also find grounds for academic misconduct if Lewandowsky purposefully sent different sets of questions based on the type of blog he was inviting.
And then we have the fact that Lewandowsky was discussing preliminary results at a seminar, while the surveys were still open and he had not heard back from the skeptic blogs yet, such as the follow up invitation to Steve McIntyre. Having an open discussion of the survey is highly irregular, because attendees/viewers are free to take the survey, possibly biasing the results."
Yet another warmist attempt to educate the masses, regardless of the data.
The paper is based on an amalgamation of several different surveys, that weren't sent to the people he claimed they were sent to - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/07/lewandowsky-thinks-failure-to-get-or-find-email-is-conspiracy-theory/
The fact of the matter is that the paper did *not* observe what it claims to observe, and was so shoddy and filled with methodological errors, it shouldn't have gotten past the first glance of peer review.
A black stain, once again, on the soul of warmists.
Wouldn't an all powerful being, that is asserted to be "good", simply provide for the weak and sick by making them not weak and sick through their supernatural powers? Heck, even if you're not talking about omnipotence, but just oh, say power over most of the physical nature of the universe, don't you think even a minor deity could choose to cure all ills and infirmities?
My point exactly. And thus far, the evidence shows that the process God has chosen is the ultimate in laissez faire economics.
So, you've really got two choices:
1) God is good, but impotent
2) God is omnipotent, but not good
Seeing as most folk would argue that God must be good, I guess the real question is about just how impotent our resident deity is.
All depends on the cost, and whether or not it is voluntary. First, I'd assert that any sort of charity for schizophrenics should be voluntary, not involuntary taxes. Second, if the charity for schizophrenics made their gainful employment profitable, I'd support that, but if it was cheaper to simply have them stay at home, I'd argue that the charity should simply provide them with food and shelter.
The two take home points -> 1) do what is efficient, 2) forced charity is false charity
So eliminating gender discrimination is equivalent to forcing companies to employ people in permanent vegetative states, or to otherwise employ people that force them to fire a dozen other employees due to cost?
The law has its limits too, doesn't it?
I'm not sure if I follow. If I were to be judged by some supernatural master of the universe, I'd hope that they'd understand the free market, and the idea that making unreasonable accommodations simply destroys wealth and well being.
In fact, I'd bet that any supernatural master of the universe already understands that, otherwise they'd have used their omnipotence to simply make everyone equal in outcome already.
Frankly, any omnipotent being who presides over a universe like our own, what with the pain and innocent suffering that does exist, should be worried that *we* will judge *them* when we finally meet up. I mean, what does the master of the universe say to the spirit soul of a young child who was raped, tortured and killed by some marauding band of child soldiers in africa? Or to some baby who dies some horrible death of vitamin deficiency thanks to vegan parents?
Why should someone who has a lack of motivation disability get a job over a person who doesn't have that disability?
Asserting that we should sacrifice the able-minded because of sympathy for those who suffer from motivation disability should not be acceptable in a modern society. One might as well insist that the U.S. Olympic sprinting team include a 500 pound diabetic, and kick off someone who can actually run.
What's the limit? Say, you have an allergy to anything more than 1 hour of work per week. Or a neurochemical disorder that means that without a constant pedicure and massage chair, you can't do any work? Or what about a permanent vegetative state? At what point can a company reasonably say, "sorry, but we just don't have a position for you?"
If the costs of the accommodations affect the bottom line in any significant way, it's irresponsible to hire someone who needs those accommodations, versus someone who doesn't. Now, if you're some rock start quadriplegic programmer, the cost/benefit might make sense for a personal assistant during work hours. But honestly, the case needs to be made that despite all the required accommodations, there is profit to be had by the company.
Never asked your opinion on what? AGW?
Ahem, hey AK Marc, what is your opinion on AGW?
Have I disproved your point now, or shall you come up with an ad hoc special pleading to maintain your hypothesis? :)
Sorta like "denier", huh? :)
What were you saying about strawmen? :)
Let's face it, the whole rhetorical game of arguing talking points is alive, well, and kicking, with a lot of people from both sides. For actual, constructive discussion to happen about a scientific topic, you really need to start with the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. "ZOMG, you're gonna kill the planet" and "Al Gore is a liar who assaults massage specialists" are part of the party play, not about really understanding the root of any disagreement.
Fundamentally, it all comes down to disagreeing on the premises, but ignoring that and simply fighting about the conclusions.
Well, I'm not sure anyone has actually identified a real problem yet, although there are lots of proposed solutions. By "alarmist" I mean those people who have bought into an unfalsifiable hypothesis of doom, and have no room in their minds that their hypothesis could possibly be wrong, to the point where they cannot even express a potential refutation of their beliefs.
I think that's kinda a cop out. Alarmists make these broad, ambiguous statements, leave important issues unaddressed and unspoken, and then when someone tries to nail them down to something explicit, they simply say "oh, that wasn't my point".
Of course, the *real* solution to that meta-problem is to start with a clearly stated, necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement :)
Interesting. It seems like "solution proposers" get a free ride on actually having to defend the existence of an actual *problem*. In fact, it might be better to call them "problem proposers", to focus them further on the fact that they haven't yet established their premises as true :)
I don't quite see it that way. The circle of poo is dynamic, adapting, and ever changing. The take away from the circle of poo is to realize that arbitrarily deriding something as "bad" and requiring limitation fails to see the big picture.
And if we didn't exist so much, we also wouldn't need to shit so much...but I kinda like the whole existing thing :)
Fair enough, you've got your point of view, and neither the truth, nor I care :)
Do you see these rhetorical games any different when used by alarmists? Or is it just your prerogative to critique the people you disagree with? :)
You're not following the thread, are you?
You: "Never do I see a hypothesis presented that shows a good counter example, just complaints about one small piece of someone else's collection, followed by sweeping generalizations about the implications."
Me: "Here's a credible hypothesis for you - CO2 is buffered by the oceans."
You: "That's a conclusion, not a hypothesis."
Funny, considering "Human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of 20th century warming" is also a conclusion, not a hypothesis, but I digress :)
Also You: "I was just complaining about the lack of answers by the nay sayers, as if lack of proof is proof of falsehood."
Me: "Are you trying to say that lack of proof is proof of truth?"
You: "I siad I was complaing about those who assert " lack of proof is proof of falsehood" "
But apparently you want us to come to the conclusion that not only is a lack of proof *not* proof of falsehood, but by implication, it must be a proof of truth. I don't think you completely got that one, so let me be explicit.
You're sort of paraphrasing the idea that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" -> i.e., just because I don't have proof of God doesn't mean that he must *not* exist. The problem with that concept is that it is also true that "absence of evidence is not evidence of presence" either. So while you complain that naysayers somehow assert the "absence of evidence" proves you wrong, you're not addressing the complementary issue - "absence of evidence" doesn't prove you right either. You're still back at square one with the null hypothesis.
Indeed, you haven't. Yet, you seem to think we should share your point of view nonetheless :)
Sorry, missed a decimal point - not 3 grams of additional CO2, 0.3 grams of additional CO2.
But my bet is even with 3 grams of additional CO2 you'd see something you wouldn't expect :)
Take my simple chemistry example of a buffer, and apply it to the oceans. Buffer solutions will neutralize both bases and acids, just as the oceans will either absorb excess, or emit when there is a deficit.
To be clear, I'm not saying that the ocean is a pH buffer solution - I'm saying that it *acts* like a buffer solution in regards to CO2.
A few problems though - the observational period is incredibly short, the historical record is of lower quality, and whether or not it is an effect of global warming, doesn't imply any *cause* for that warming.
But more importantly, if next year heat waves are *less* common, does that necessarily mean that the globe is not warming? Can I take a graph of heat wave frequency, and assert that it is a proxy for global temperature?
I'll try avoiding quoting Watts then, but WUWT does have posts by other people besides Anthony :)
Which (to use a familiar term), is *consistent* with the idea that the oceans buffer CO2, and that ocean temperature is what drives CO2 levels. If we eliminated humanity tomorrow, the oceans would fill the partial pressure vacuum and become a *source* rather than a *sink*.
It seems more reasonable to assert the causality chain *from* the oceans *to* the atmosphere, rather than the other way around.
I would propose this experiment - take a proportional amount of sea water, and a proportional amount of air, and put it in a sealed chamber. (The atmosphere has a mass of about 5×10^18 kg, and the hydrosphere has a mass of about 1.4×10^21 kg - so about 280 times more sea water than air). Assuming 1 kg of air (0.8562m^3), 280 kg of water (about 74 gallons) - so about a meter cube of air, on top of say, two barrels of water. CO2 partial pressure will stabilize between the two. Assume it hits say, 300ppm. Add another three grams of CO2 into the air. CO2 partial pressure will again stabilize between the two.
What is your prediction for the second stabilization point?
Um, where's the regional specificity there? Hansen pretty much said "the world is warming" (pretty obvious coming out of a little ice age), had huge error bars, and actually, *none* of his model sensitivities got it right. Now, perhaps what he meant was "if we see this, it means that our model sensitivity should be X", but that presupposes the model is correct. He's finding a fudge factor there, not making a prediction :)
Assuming Hansen got better over time, here's his 1988 predictions:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/
Well, we know the Little Ice Age was colder...we know that lower CO2 levels mean less plant life on the planet...and tractors or not, we know that the range of crops is diminished when upper latitudes become too cold for them.
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html
"During the height of the Little Ice Age general, it was about 1 degree Celsius colder than at present. The Baltic Sea froze over, as did most of the rivers in Europe. Winters were bitterly cold and prolonged, reducing the growing season with several weeks. These conditions led to widespread crop failure, famine, and in some regions population decline.
The prices of grain increased and wine became difficult to produce in many areas and commercial vineyards vanished in England. Fishing also was bad as the cod migrated south to find warmer water. Storminess and flooding increased. In mountainous regions the tree line and snowline dropped. In addition glaciers advanced in the Alps and Northern Europe, overrunning towns and farms in the process.
Iceland was one of the hardest hit areas. Sea ice, which today is far to the north, came down around Iceland. In some years, it was difficult to bring a ship ashore anywhere along the coast. Grain became impossible to grow and even hay crops failed. Volcanic eruptions made life even harder. Iceland lost half of its population during the Little Ice Age.
Scandinavia was also hard hit by the colder conditions of the Little Ice Age. Tax records show many farms were destroyed by advancing ice and by melt water streams. Travellers in Scotland reported permanent snow cover over the Cairgorms in Scotland at an altitude of about 1200 metres. In the Alps, the glaciers advanced and bulldozed over towns. Ice-dammed lakes burst periodically, destroying hundreds of buildings and killing many people. As late as 1930 the French Government commissioned a report to investigate the threat of the glaciers. They could not have foreseen that human induced global warming was to deal more effective with this problem than any committee ever could."
But hey, let's take a look at it another way - we jumped what, .7C over the last century, and look towards the same in the next century. We call this "drastic", but the world in 2000 seems like a better place than the world in 1900.
You:
Peer reviewed literature:
"Current climate change experiments, however, are limited by the inability of the models to produce accurate simulations of the regional climate."
Let's assume that you thought I was unaware of gridded regional predictions of GCMs. You corrected me on that point quite astutely.
Of course, now the problem is, the inaccuracy of those predictions. In the science game, when your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong - Feynman does a great job of illustrating this in his lectures. Your predictions are wrong. Are you ready to abandon your hypothesis?
My issue is that without a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, the "evidence" you put forth simply isn't compelling. If you would be specific about what evidence would falsify your belief system, then we could play the science game. As it stands, it doesn't seem like any observation of CO2 and global average temperature, on any time scale, past, present or future, would falsify your belief.
Again, you cannot assert that "lack of proof" is "proof of truth". Show me your falsifiability :)
Why can't you turn that in reverse, if there's a balance? Why can't you assert that the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is governed by the temperature of the ocean?
If ocean temperatures determine atmospheric CO2 levels (as there is a balance), then adding a *surplus* of CO2 will be adjusted to by sinking it into the ocean (AFAIK, there's no assertion here that CO2 levels in the ocean cause a temperature increase). Similarly, removing CO2 from the atmosphere (say, through plant growth), will be adjusted by further outgassing of the ocean.
So whether or not the ocean is a source or sink depends on what it is buffering, just as a buffer solution can neutralize both acids and bases.
That's a (doubtful) observation that doesn't imply a causality. There's no reason for us to believe that if we had eliminated mankind in WWI with some super virus, that those heat waves wouldn't have happened.
Well, sorry you had such a bad experience. Honestly, understanding how those people who disagree with you think requires observation and listening. Heck, I still listen to NPR, read the NYTimes, despite their completely insular and echo chamber liberal bias :)
Well, assume the internal heat of the earth is negligible. The external source of ocean warming is solar - moderated by cloud albedo (which, we've been unable to model very well at this point).
You're assuming that *we've* increased it - it could just as easily be that ocean outgassing has been pushing a 40% increase in partial pressure, and that if our CO2 emissions were to disappear tomorrow, the buffer of the ocean CO2 would simply fill that void to make up for the missing pressure (that is to say, CO2 is buffered in the atmosphere by the ocean, much like a buffer solution which will maintain its pH whether you add acid or base to it).
Not quite sure about that. First, getting terms right, oceans are becoming less alkaline -> they're nowhere near becoming acidic. A tiny point, but important to be clear about what we mean.
Second, the variation of ocean pH is well above any proposed impact atmospheric CO2 (of any source) - there's no evidence that we can see any signal there in the noise - http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/scripps-blockbuster-ocean-acidification-happens-all-the-time-naturally/
You are aware that GCMs distribution predictions are completely unreliable, right?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0921818192900142
"Current climate change experiments, however, are limited by the inability of the models to produce accurate simulations of the regional climate."
Perhaps you have a GCM regional prediction from say, a 1990 model for 2012 actuals that you'd like to cite as being particularly accurate? Heck, maybe you have a cite for a 2010 model that predicted 2012 regional actuals accurately?
{/crickets}
Almost, but not quite. The problem is that you're *really* saying, "When there's only one plausible theory, it is insane to believe it *can* be wrong."
If you can't imagine a falsification of your theory, then you're not playing the science game, you're playing religion.
Not quite sure if I understand what you mean - a warm ocean holds *less* CO2. Open up a coke can in a 0C room, and open up a coke can in a room temperature room, and see which one outgasses more.
Are you trying to say that lack of proof is proof of truth? Isn't that something worthy of complaint too?