You can hardly expect them to publish Spencer's re-rebuttal before the actual rebuttal.
Wasn't that the prima facie reason for the resignation? That Spencer had not considered his own rebuttal before publishing?
More pointedly though, and you can watch this unfold just as I will, I wonder if Spencer will be given any sort of comparable fast track to Dessler to respond:)
Again, you've failed to define it, so I'm afraid I still can't answer that; we'll have to stick at AGW.
You stated, "I'm happy that the science is sufficiently settled for action to be warranted now."
Why would action be warranted if it's just AGW, rather than it's bigger and badder cousin CAGW? If we have options of CAGW, AGW, and BAGW (beneficial anthropogenic global warming), and you're not willing to assert either CAGW or BAGW, isn't the proper response *no* action?
Even if CO2 were the only climate forcing, there are all kinds of entertaining feedbacks which can exacerbate the effects. That doesn't mean that it isn't an important forcing.
There are also all kinds of entertaining feedbacks which can moderate the effects. "Important" is a term used here without the important quantification necessary to decide how "important" something is in comparison to other drivers.
I live in a temperate climate, for instance; it doesn't turn into a polar climate when the temperature drops below zero for a few days per year.
Are you really arguing that seasons are *weather*? A freak ice storm in the middle of July doesn't turn it into winter, but to assert that the climate of north america doesn't change from July to December is a novel idea indeed.
... and to do that, we need to monitor global temperature.
I disagree. What we need to do is monitor temperature across the globe - the actual averaging of that data into a single number is actually a *loss* of important information. What matters isn't the imaginary statistic of "global average temperature", it's the specific distribution of heat around the globe at any given time.
But if, say, you are a planner, it might help you to put infrastructure in a place where it won't be underwater in 200 years
"For example, over the past 100 years, the rate of sea level rise varies from about an increase of 0.36 inches (9.1 mm) per year along the Louisiana Coast (due to land sinking), to a drop of a few inches per decade in parts of Alaska (due to post-glacial rebound)."
If your infrastructure depends upon an accuracy of 7.2 inches to survive 200 years, you've built something fairly shoddy - tidal changes vary by more than that on a daily basis. On top of that, average global temperature doesn't tell you anything about specific sea level rises and falls around the world due to geographic differences.
if you want a peer-reviewed rebuttal, you'll have to wait (but not much longer) for it to get through GRL's publication pipeline...
Which is actually quite a feat - the warmists seem to have fast tracked a rebuttal without even offering Spencer et. al. a chance to respond to critiques.
I'm happy that the science is sufficiently settled for action to be warranted now.
So, I take it you *do* then subscribe to a belief of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? Or that you're at least of the belief that a warmer world is a worse world than a colder world, and any actions now would not cost more than say, adaptation to a warmer world?
We're already up to CO2 concentrations not seen for 20 million years -- do you really think that's not going to have an effect?
I'm still not sure that I get your meaning (surely large-scale changes in climate -- i.e. the more knowable ones -- are more important to humanity that small-scale ones?).
Let me give an example - we experience large scale climate changes called "seasons". In general, these promise fairly significant changes over periods of months. However, the details of each experienced season can be dramatically different in different places, with some summers starting early, some winters starting late, etc, etc. You could measure the start/stop of each season over say, the past 150 years, averaged across the entire northern hemisphere. Now that information is going to be generally useless to a midwestern farmer, who needs to know what the temperature in his neck of the woods is going to be the day he's planting, not just some average statistic. That information is going to be generally useless to the northeastern sailor, who needs to know if there is a storm coming on the days he has planned to voyage from Maine to Virginia.
Put another way, a large scale flood that devastates a region is not climate, it's weather. A hurricane is not climate, it's weather. A tornado is not climate, it's weather. A drought is not climate, it's weather (put another way, it is the lack of weather).
So far, the spatiotemporal specifics of weather events that actually effect human scale lives have defied prediction beyond the shortest scale (days). Now, one day, perhaps GCMs will be able to predict a storm formation fifteen months, or even fifteen years out, down to the square mile, but as it stands, they are notoriously unable to represent any human important events.
As it stands, neither average global temperature nor CO2 levels provide any sort of useful information on specific regional climate. I will, however, give a caveat that many of the ocean oscillations (ENSO, PDO, etc), which have been modeled and used by forecasters for important generalizations such as regional drought/precipitation conditions, provide some useful information on a scale greater than an individual weather event. The predictive capability of these large scale ocean oscillations are on an order of magnitude greater than any predictive capability of CO2 or average global temperature though.
If you truly believe that average global temperature has no relevance, why on earth are we discussing a paper about it?
This paper is about whether or not you can judge CO2 as a forcing or a feedback (and when).
If you truly believe that average global temperature has any relevance, please let me know any practical action any human can take based on knowing that this year's average global temperature w
The problem is that the warmist critique of Spencer doesn't address the core question he's asking - how do you design a falsifiable hypothesis that will discern between a forcing, and a feedback. If the CAGW (and AGW) hypothesis requires as a given that CO2 is a forcing, rather than a feedback (or when it is one versus the other), then it cannot take that as a given, it must be subjected to strict scrutiny.
What did you think of Spencer's post? Could you follow it?
Put another way, I could make the bold statement that "Tyndall gases having a very specific range of wavelengths are consistent with them being a following rather than a forcing, and if those ranges were different, I'd be wrong" - why is that hypothesis statement any less reasonable than yours?
So basically anything other than exactly what we are seeing would be consistent with Tyndall gas not being a forcing.
That doesn't follow at all. If the very specific range of wavelengths was say, off to the right by +1 nm, suddenly Tyndall gases wouldn't be a forcing by your hypothesis? That's like asserting "the atomic weight of carbon being 12.011 is consistent with my hypothesis, and any other atomic weight of carbon would refute me". A single static constant is hardly enough to prove anything interesting.
Af for further evidence and correct predictions, let's get a real falsifiable hypothesis statement for Tyndall gases being forcings rather than followings -> if you can only state that "because certain wavelengths are absorbed, it must be a forcing", you've got a pretty unjustifiable hypothesis, don't you think?
Put another way, I could make the bold statement that "Tyndall gases having a very specific range of wavelengths are consistent with them being a following rather than a forcing, and if those ranges were different, I'd be wrong" - why is that hypothesis statement any less reasonable than yours?
No such assumption is made: Spectral radiance emitted to space consistent with Tyndall gas concentrations (confirms ability to calculate radiative forcing);
At best correlation shown, not causality. "Consistent with" is hand waving, not proof. Any flip of a coin is "consistent with" the hypothesis, "a flipped coin will turn up heads or tails". The definition of a "forcing" or a "feedback" (or creatively, both at different times) is an assertion.
Put another way, what spectral radiance emitted to space would be consistent with Tyndall gas *not* being a forcing? What is the falsifiable hypothesis statement regarding when a Tyndall gas is considered a forcing rather than a feedback?
So, insofar as further evidence or predictions, I'll ask the following:
1) falsifiable hypothesis statement that could discern between gas concentrations being a cause rather than an effect;
2) falsifiable hypothesis statement that could discern between a warming world being a good thing, or a bad thing.
Originally your argument was "nobody has explained what's wrong with this paper";
And I stand by that - an argument that the model was too simple is, in general, disingenuous - although I'll concede that Trenberth has in fact made critiques on other models that warmists generally don't seem to pay attention to:)
Clouds are a hot research topic now precisely because scientists are aware that they are poorly handled by existing models.
And yet, with such incredibly flawed (read: simplistic) models, we're still asked to attribute a level of certainty to these predictions that would end the debate on whether or not humans have a significant impact, or whether or not that impact would be generally positive or negative (by any definition). You seem like a reasonable person, and perhaps you've never stated that the "science is settled", but that has been the mainstream argument for a while. It just isn't reasonable to have your cake and eat it too.
To summarize: climate is unknowable, but fortunately you happen to know that humans have nothing to do with it.
To summarize: climate is unknowable to any level of detail important to humanity, and while humans certainly affect their surroundings (as all living beings do), the level of that effect is on the boundary of undetectable.
To clarify: average global temperature has zero relevance for anything experienced by humans - perhaps it is an interesting artificial statistic, but because we are affected by specific distributions of temperatures, not some imaginary average, it provides little functional use. Imagine the utility of say, the average U.S. phone number - would that tell you *anything* practical?
You're perfectly aware, but unable to acknowledge, that a series of separate, independent hypotheses which may be *necessary* for AGW (or CAGW) do not necessarily mean they are *sufficient* for it.
If you feel like you can handle it, you're more than welcome to restrain your tourette's syndrome, and concisely explain what you understand as a falsifiable hypothesis of CAGW (or even the lesser AGW if you can't find a decent definition of "catastrophic"). My guess is that such a feat is beyond your capacity (either mental or emotional), but I could be surprised. I welcome any falsification of the "Mindcontrolled is too childish and uninformed to make a clear statement of a falsifiable AGW hypothesis" hypothesis:)
Interesting theory of slime molds there - I can only assume that insulting others is an enjoyable past time for you, and encourage you to continue working it as well as you can! Happiness can be found in the most unusual of places!
As for the merits of the issue, which you seem unable to address, we'll leave them as an exercise for the reader, shall we?:)
If we cannot discuss falsifiability when talking about science, we've left the realm of science.
Now, if you'd like to continue calling names, and avoiding argument on the merits (as perhaps is useful to do as a lawyer), please feel free. If you'd like to learn more about the disturbing political nature of the resignation, you can read here:
A model without an ocean does seem rather over-simplified to me.
My rejoinder is that a model without clouds does seem rather over-simplified to me as well, but you never see that kind of critique against models that promise extreme warming trends.
As for the hard coded parameters for cloud modeling, I'll argue that they've never shown any sort of accuracy for predicting cloud cover distribution.
In either case, we are presented with a system that is disturbingly simple no matter how complex we make it - natural climate systems are well beyond the complexity we could simulate (especially when you consider extra-terrestrial influences, such as the sun, cosmic rays, etc).
The authorities were named at the top of the article I linked to; Drs. Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo.
Pardon my misunderstanding - I kept your two paragraphs disjointed rather than considering them together.
Unfortunately, I don't know of any standard definition of "Catastrophic", but it is implied by those AGW believers who insist that we *must act now*, and that without CO2 emissions restrictions, we face some sort of unnamed doom (or named doom, like more hurricanes, floods, fires, droughts, 10m sea level rises, earthquakes, mental illness, etc, etc).
I was assuming that the person holding the hypothesis would have a specific criteria.
By the way, since you appended the "Catastrophic", I take it that you regard the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming (sans "Catastrophic") to be adequately proven?
That begs the question of magnitude - I would take it as adequately proven that humans have a vanishingly small impact on global temperature, primarily through the UHI effect, but even with say, contrails from airplanes. Since we haven't paved the entire earth (yet), our impact is significantly lower than natural climate change drivers. To put another way, the hypothesis of "Any Anthropogenic Global Warming" is as true as "Any Land Animal Global Warming" or even "Any Sea Animal Global Warming" - of course biological organisms have an impact, and arguably the impact is always at least a bit positive, but I would imagine that the effect is beyond our current capacity to detect.
I would further posit a hypothesis of "Beneficial Anthropogenic Global Warming" - if it can possibly become significant compared to natural climate drivers, it would be a good thing for us to pursue as a goal. Cold kills more than heat.
I'm neither lying nor distorting facts - what I'm doing is challenging you to recognize the cognitive dissonance you experience by holding contradictory positions in your head simultaneously.
I understand that to be a scientist is to be skeptical, even of my own strongly held beliefs. I understand that in order to be scientific, a hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. I understand that computer model runs are not experiments, and that data trumps theory.
As a lawyer, you've had to develop a skill and talent for ignoring the truth and arguing the case to the best of your ability. This skill is on full display when I read your comments on/.:)
You've got several separate hypotheses here, that cannot be chained together casually.
Yes, we have a long term warming trend (possibly inflecting since 1998), but there's nothing that precludes that from being natural.
Yes, we have "Tyndall gas" concentrations increasing in the atmosphere, but there's nothing that precludes that from being natural, or even a natural response to a natural temperature change (rather than its cause).
As for the hypothesis of "rate of increase of Tyndall gases is sufficient to cause a temperature increase of several increase of several degrees by 2050", there are a few problems there - 1) you assume that gas concentrations are a *cause* rather than an *effect* - you need to have a falsifiable hypothesis that can distinguish between the two. 2) you've missed the part where any anthropogenic warming is catastrophic.
I welcome you to add the necessary steps to your hypothesis chain to further develop it:)
Realclimate is difficult to take seriously - simply asserting that a model is too simple seems a critique that should be heeded by the various climate modelers out there who don't have any sort of realistic cloud modeling at all. It's not an identification of a flaw, it's hand waving.
I certainly can tell that Realclimate wishes to interpret the results in a different light than Spencer, but they haven't addressed the central questions regarding the flaws of the models we currently have. It seems less of a rebuttal than simply a denial.
The difference here is that Anthony Watts is not only not a respected climate scientist but not in fact a climate scientist at all.
Appeal to unnamed authorities. "Respected climate scientist" is not a title which is required to falsify a hypothesis, or critically examine a scientific proposition. Speaking of which, how would you concisely state a falsifiable hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?
I did the research, and didn't find any flaws. Now do you want to enumerate the flaws you've found, or do you simply expect people to take it on faith?
That seems to be a significant gloss that loses some important points. Of course climate change is happening - natural climate change has always happened. The politically correct version asserts that there is no longer natural climate change, insofar as it is overwhelmed by anthropogenic climate change. Calling out Spencer on doubts on the temperature record begs the question as to whatever the cause for changes is.
That all being said, I'd argue that your assertions of cross-checks and consistency of the "mainstream results" are grossly overstated - consistency formed by error bars many times larger than any effect being discerned isn't very impressive.
I'll further note that there are a very small number of warmist scientists (the same ones, nearly always, Mann, Briffa, Hansen) as opposed to the thousands of other rationally skeptical scientists whose names you don't know:)
For sake of playing the science game, though, could you concisely state your understanding of a falsifiable hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?
For all the drama of the editor's resignation letter, he seems to be awfully vague about any actual flaws in the paper. Citing argument against it somewhere on the intarwebs as a reason not to publish it is like asserting that no pro-AGW papers should ever be printed because of wattsupwiththat.com.
Any relatively intelligent warmists want to break down for us specific flaws in the paper?
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't that the prima facie reason for the resignation? That Spencer had not considered his own rebuttal before publishing?
More pointedly though, and you can watch this unfold just as I will, I wonder if Spencer will be given any sort of comparable fast track to Dessler to respond :)
You stated, "I'm happy that the science is sufficiently settled for action to be warranted now."
Why would action be warranted if it's just AGW, rather than it's bigger and badder cousin CAGW? If we have options of CAGW, AGW, and BAGW (beneficial anthropogenic global warming), and you're not willing to assert either CAGW or BAGW, isn't the proper response *no* action?
There are also all kinds of entertaining feedbacks which can moderate the effects. "Important" is a term used here without the important quantification necessary to decide how "important" something is in comparison to other drivers.
Are you really arguing that seasons are *weather*? A freak ice storm in the middle of July doesn't turn it into winter, but to assert that the climate of north america doesn't change from July to December is a novel idea indeed.
I disagree. What we need to do is monitor temperature across the globe - the actual averaging of that data into a single number is actually a *loss* of important information. What matters isn't the imaginary statistic of "global average temperature", it's the specific distribution of heat around the globe at any given time.
"For example, over the past 100 years, the rate of sea level rise varies from about an increase of 0.36 inches (9.1 mm) per year along the Louisiana Coast (due to land sinking), to a drop of a few inches per decade in parts of Alaska (due to post-glacial rebound)."
If your infrastructure depends upon an accuracy of 7.2 inches to survive 200 years, you've built something fairly shoddy - tidal changes vary by more than that on a daily basis. On top of that, average global temperature doesn't tell you anything about specific sea level rises and falls around the world due to geographic differences.
Which is actually quite a feat - the warmists seem to have fast tracked a rebuttal without even offering Spencer et. al. a chance to respond to critiques.
So, I take it you *do* then subscribe to a belief of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? Or that you're at least of the belief that a warmer world is a worse world than a colder world, and any actions now would not cost more than say, adaptation to a warmer world?
Any gas measured in parts per million will have a very minor effect. Furthermore, there is no clear correlation of CO2 to temp (over the 20 million year time scale) - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/09/co2-report-estimated-to-be-highest-in-15-million-years/
Let me give an example - we experience large scale climate changes called "seasons". In general, these promise fairly significant changes over periods of months. However, the details of each experienced season can be dramatically different in different places, with some summers starting early, some winters starting late, etc, etc. You could measure the start/stop of each season over say, the past 150 years, averaged across the entire northern hemisphere. Now that information is going to be generally useless to a midwestern farmer, who needs to know what the temperature in his neck of the woods is going to be the day he's planting, not just some average statistic. That information is going to be generally useless to the northeastern sailor, who needs to know if there is a storm coming on the days he has planned to voyage from Maine to Virginia.
Put another way, a large scale flood that devastates a region is not climate, it's weather. A hurricane is not climate, it's weather. A tornado is not climate, it's weather. A drought is not climate, it's weather (put another way, it is the lack of weather).
So far, the spatiotemporal specifics of weather events that actually effect human scale lives have defied prediction beyond the shortest scale (days). Now, one day, perhaps GCMs will be able to predict a storm formation fifteen months, or even fifteen years out, down to the square mile, but as it stands, they are notoriously unable to represent any human important events.
As it stands, neither average global temperature nor CO2 levels provide any sort of useful information on specific regional climate. I will, however, give a caveat that many of the ocean oscillations (ENSO, PDO, etc), which have been modeled and used by forecasters for important generalizations such as regional drought/precipitation conditions, provide some useful information on a scale greater than an individual weather event. The predictive capability of these large scale ocean oscillations are on an order of magnitude greater than any predictive capability of CO2 or average global temperature though.
This paper is about whether or not you can judge CO2 as a forcing or a feedback (and when).
If you truly believe that average global temperature has any relevance, please let me know any practical action any human can take based on knowing that this year's average global temperature w
I do appreciate it :)
The problem is that the warmist critique of Spencer doesn't address the core question he's asking - how do you design a falsifiable hypothesis that will discern between a forcing, and a feedback. If the CAGW (and AGW) hypothesis requires as a given that CO2 is a forcing, rather than a feedback (or when it is one versus the other), then it cannot take that as a given, it must be subjected to strict scrutiny.
What did you think of Spencer's post? Could you follow it?
You skipped the pertinent question:
Put another way, I could make the bold statement that "Tyndall gases having a very specific range of wavelengths are consistent with them being a following rather than a forcing, and if those ranges were different, I'd be wrong" - why is that hypothesis statement any less reasonable than yours?
For example, we might take a look at the question of when or whether clouds are feedbacks or forcings:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/a-primer-on-our-claim-that-clouds-cause-temperature-change/
Spencer does a great job of laying out the case.
That doesn't follow at all. If the very specific range of wavelengths was say, off to the right by +1 nm, suddenly Tyndall gases wouldn't be a forcing by your hypothesis? That's like asserting "the atomic weight of carbon being 12.011 is consistent with my hypothesis, and any other atomic weight of carbon would refute me". A single static constant is hardly enough to prove anything interesting.
Af for further evidence and correct predictions, let's get a real falsifiable hypothesis statement for Tyndall gases being forcings rather than followings -> if you can only state that "because certain wavelengths are absorbed, it must be a forcing", you've got a pretty unjustifiable hypothesis, don't you think?
Put another way, I could make the bold statement that "Tyndall gases having a very specific range of wavelengths are consistent with them being a following rather than a forcing, and if those ranges were different, I'd be wrong" - why is that hypothesis statement any less reasonable than yours?
At best correlation shown, not causality. "Consistent with" is hand waving, not proof. Any flip of a coin is "consistent with" the hypothesis, "a flipped coin will turn up heads or tails". The definition of a "forcing" or a "feedback" (or creatively, both at different times) is an assertion.
Put another way, what spectral radiance emitted to space would be consistent with Tyndall gas *not* being a forcing? What is the falsifiable hypothesis statement regarding when a Tyndall gas is considered a forcing rather than a feedback?
So, insofar as further evidence or predictions, I'll ask the following:
1) falsifiable hypothesis statement that could discern between gas concentrations being a cause rather than an effect;
2) falsifiable hypothesis statement that could discern between a warming world being a good thing, or a bad thing.
And I stand by that - an argument that the model was too simple is, in general, disingenuous - although I'll concede that Trenberth has in fact made critiques on other models that warmists generally don't seem to pay attention to :)
And yet, with such incredibly flawed (read: simplistic) models, we're still asked to attribute a level of certainty to these predictions that would end the debate on whether or not humans have a significant impact, or whether or not that impact would be generally positive or negative (by any definition). You seem like a reasonable person, and perhaps you've never stated that the "science is settled", but that has been the mainstream argument for a while. It just isn't reasonable to have your cake and eat it too.
To summarize: climate is unknowable to any level of detail important to humanity, and while humans certainly affect their surroundings (as all living beings do), the level of that effect is on the boundary of undetectable.
To clarify: average global temperature has zero relevance for anything experienced by humans - perhaps it is an interesting artificial statistic, but because we are affected by specific distributions of temperatures, not some imaginary average, it provides little functional use. Imagine the utility of say, the average U.S. phone number - would that tell you *anything* practical?
You're perfectly aware, but unable to acknowledge, that a series of separate, independent hypotheses which may be *necessary* for AGW (or CAGW) do not necessarily mean they are *sufficient* for it.
If you feel like you can handle it, you're more than welcome to restrain your tourette's syndrome, and concisely explain what you understand as a falsifiable hypothesis of CAGW (or even the lesser AGW if you can't find a decent definition of "catastrophic"). My guess is that such a feat is beyond your capacity (either mental or emotional), but I could be surprised. I welcome any falsification of the "Mindcontrolled is too childish and uninformed to make a clear statement of a falsifiable AGW hypothesis" hypothesis :)
Interesting theory of slime molds there - I can only assume that insulting others is an enjoyable past time for you, and encourage you to continue working it as well as you can! Happiness can be found in the most unusual of places!
As for the merits of the issue, which you seem unable to address, we'll leave them as an exercise for the reader, shall we? :)
Fair enough, you aren't making an ad hominem attack because you're really not making an argument at all - you're simply calling people names.
How's that working out for you? Does it make you feel more sure of your faith? Does it inure you to challenges to your world view?
As a representative of the natural climate change denier movement, you do a bang up job of providing an interesting case study :)
If we cannot discuss falsifiability when talking about science, we've left the realm of science.
Now, if you'd like to continue calling names, and avoiding argument on the merits (as perhaps is useful to do as a lawyer), please feel free. If you'd like to learn more about the disturbing political nature of the resignation, you can read here:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/comment-on-the-resignation-of-wolfgang-wagner-as-editor-in-chief-of-the-journal-remote-sensing-in-response-to-the-publication-of-spencer-and-braswell-2011/
My rejoinder is that a model without clouds does seem rather over-simplified to me as well, but you never see that kind of critique against models that promise extreme warming trends.
As for the hard coded parameters for cloud modeling, I'll argue that they've never shown any sort of accuracy for predicting cloud cover distribution.
In either case, we are presented with a system that is disturbingly simple no matter how complex we make it - natural climate systems are well beyond the complexity we could simulate (especially when you consider extra-terrestrial influences, such as the sun, cosmic rays, etc).
Pardon my misunderstanding - I kept your two paragraphs disjointed rather than considering them together.
Trenberth has made some interesting waves recently, and shows consistency in his critique of models:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/07/major-ipcc-climate-scientist-publishes-paper-listing-significant-failures-of-climate-models.html
Unfortunately, I don't know of any standard definition of "Catastrophic", but it is implied by those AGW believers who insist that we *must act now*, and that without CO2 emissions restrictions, we face some sort of unnamed doom (or named doom, like more hurricanes, floods, fires, droughts, 10m sea level rises, earthquakes, mental illness, etc, etc).
I was assuming that the person holding the hypothesis would have a specific criteria.
That begs the question of magnitude - I would take it as adequately proven that humans have a vanishingly small impact on global temperature, primarily through the UHI effect, but even with say, contrails from airplanes. Since we haven't paved the entire earth (yet), our impact is significantly lower than natural climate change drivers. To put another way, the hypothesis of "Any Anthropogenic Global Warming" is as true as "Any Land Animal Global Warming" or even "Any Sea Animal Global Warming" - of course biological organisms have an impact, and arguably the impact is always at least a bit positive, but I would imagine that the effect is beyond our current capacity to detect.
I would further posit a hypothesis of "Beneficial Anthropogenic Global Warming" - if it can possibly become significant compared to natural climate drivers, it would be a good thing for us to pursue as a goal. Cold kills more than heat.
So, Mindcontrolled, are you asserting that God-believing intellectual scientists should be exempt from rocket rancher's rather strict criteria?
As for the natural climate change deniers, calling them "lying scumbag denier assholes" is a bit extreme, even if apt.
I'm neither lying nor distorting facts - what I'm doing is challenging you to recognize the cognitive dissonance you experience by holding contradictory positions in your head simultaneously.
I understand that to be a scientist is to be skeptical, even of my own strongly held beliefs. I understand that in order to be scientific, a hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. I understand that computer model runs are not experiments, and that data trumps theory.
As a lawyer, you've had to develop a skill and talent for ignoring the truth and arguing the case to the best of your ability. This skill is on full display when I read your comments on /. :)
Such childish ad hominem trolling is common from you, but disappointing nonetheless.
The problem here is that no contrary evidence will convince you - and yet you still see yourself as a rational thinker, rather than a believer.
You've got several separate hypotheses here, that cannot be chained together casually.
Yes, we have a long term warming trend (possibly inflecting since 1998), but there's nothing that precludes that from being natural.
Yes, we have "Tyndall gas" concentrations increasing in the atmosphere, but there's nothing that precludes that from being natural, or even a natural response to a natural temperature change (rather than its cause).
As for the hypothesis of "rate of increase of Tyndall gases is sufficient to cause a temperature increase of several increase of several degrees by 2050", there are a few problems there - 1) you assume that gas concentrations are a *cause* rather than an *effect* - you need to have a falsifiable hypothesis that can distinguish between the two. 2) you've missed the part where any anthropogenic warming is catastrophic.
I welcome you to add the necessary steps to your hypothesis chain to further develop it :)
Realclimate is difficult to take seriously - simply asserting that a model is too simple seems a critique that should be heeded by the various climate modelers out there who don't have any sort of realistic cloud modeling at all. It's not an identification of a flaw, it's hand waving.
I certainly can tell that Realclimate wishes to interpret the results in a different light than Spencer, but they haven't addressed the central questions regarding the flaws of the models we currently have. It seems less of a rebuttal than simply a denial.
Appeal to unnamed authorities. "Respected climate scientist" is not a title which is required to falsify a hypothesis, or critically examine a scientific proposition. Speaking of which, how would you concisely state a falsifiable hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?
I did the research, and didn't find any flaws. Now do you want to enumerate the flaws you've found, or do you simply expect people to take it on faith?
An extreme position to take, but I can respect your vehemence in taking it.
I'll sadly note that we have precious few atheist scientists in the historical record - and somehow, we've still had science progress :)
I'll further note that CAGW, without a concise statement of a falsifiable hypothesis, is simply intellectualized faith :)
That seems to be a significant gloss that loses some important points. Of course climate change is happening - natural climate change has always happened. The politically correct version asserts that there is no longer natural climate change, insofar as it is overwhelmed by anthropogenic climate change. Calling out Spencer on doubts on the temperature record begs the question as to whatever the cause for changes is.
That all being said, I'd argue that your assertions of cross-checks and consistency of the "mainstream results" are grossly overstated - consistency formed by error bars many times larger than any effect being discerned isn't very impressive.
I'll further note that there are a very small number of warmist scientists (the same ones, nearly always, Mann, Briffa, Hansen) as opposed to the thousands of other rationally skeptical scientists whose names you don't know :)
For sake of playing the science game, though, could you concisely state your understanding of a falsifiable hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Isn't that what makes an CAGW believer a denier of natural climate change as well? :)
And we should use that as a litmus test for deciding whether or not someone could possibly be rational about any science topic?
Shall we leave the science only to strict atheists?
So we've gotten straight to the point of ad hominem?
That was quick :)
Please, MM, cite a single flaw in the Spencer paper.
For all the drama of the editor's resignation letter, he seems to be awfully vague about any actual flaws in the paper. Citing argument against it somewhere on the intarwebs as a reason not to publish it is like asserting that no pro-AGW papers should ever be printed because of wattsupwiththat.com.
Any relatively intelligent warmists want to break down for us specific flaws in the paper?