|
Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist — This has been waiting to get posted. I thought everyone was in agreement? Hmmm.
In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.
#96 – Guyver,
Here’s a Junk Science link that cites the same Nature article
Junk Science? Please.
Do you even know what this site is? Do you know anything about its history? That you can post anything from it as if it is credible is testimony to your ignorance about the disinformation that surrounds you.
http://tinyurl.com/ykxdlmn
Presumably, your next post will cite the CATO Institute.
#97 – Guyver,
Yes. Mainstream media does a terrible job of reporting science. I’ve seen that article too. Seems that neither you nor the BBC can read a graph. Perhaps they too need to read my Mississippi River post.
Lyin’ Mike,
We’ve talked about the hockey stick. Find me something peer reviewed that references the current version of the paper. Last time, you found an article that attempted to dispute the 2003 version of the paper in 2009, with the minor problem that they ignored the 2008 version that already addressed all of those concerns. Find me a recent paper citing the most recent hockey stick.
Until then, the hockey stick is vindicated.
And, if you don’t like proxy data, don’t try to show that the little warm period was warmer than today. It wasn’t. Only the far north was warmer than the far north is today. The planetary average was lower. Besides, according to you, we can’t know the temp before sometime in the 1800s when thermometers were in common use around the world. For that to be false, you’d need to use proxies.
MikeN,
Check Pielke Jr’s list of publications again. Read the titles carefully. Planning for adaptation to climate change fits very well with his qualifications (M.A. in public policy (1992), and a Ph.D. in political science) and has nothing to do with actual climate predictions. So, it seems he understands that we need to adapt to climate change. That’s very good. I’m impressed. He’s still not a climate scientist. However, perhaps he’s a good political scientist. I’ll have to read more of his work.
If you say so:
http://drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
2nd link in Google when you type Lindzen Choi 2009 just like I said. Are you getting something different?
I got the name of the paper from the link in this post, and presumably also in the editorial.
One of the graphs says Lindzen & Choi 2009.
>So, it seems he understands that we need to adapt to climate change. That’s very good. I’m
Yet he still gets labeled a skeptic or denier. Warning, Joe Romm says people should ignore him.
>impressed. He’s still not a climate scientist. However, perhaps he’s a good political scientist. I’ll have to read more of his work.
One of his complaints is that the IPCC has ignored his peer-reviewed work on hurricanes that says they have become more frequent and that global warming will not cause more damage from hurricanes. Instead they used non-peer-reviewed work that fit their agenda.
You are always talking about peer-reviewed science that goes against the consensus. A good start is to look at the webpage of his father.
>Only the far north was warmer than the far north is today.
Are you disputing the results of Kaufman 09 that says the Arctic cooled for 2000 years until the last century’s unprecedented high temperatures?
#107 – MikeN,
2nd link in Google when you type Lindzen Choi 2009 just like I said. Are you getting something different?
Thanks Mike. See how easy that was? I probably ignored that link because I was looking for the URL of a peer reviewed publication and instead saw Roy Spencer’s blog.
However, you are correct. This is a peer-reviewed letter. It will be interesting to see the changes when this gets incorporated into models.
I’ll keep an eye out for this. Most of what I’ve read thus far shows that the observed climate change and sea level rise and ice melt and some other observations have all been near or above the worst case predictions of the IPCC so far.
So, I’m not sure how incorporating a negative feedback into the models will affect things. I suspect that if there is a stronger negative feedback, there must also be some strong positive feedbacks that have been ignored.
I say this simply because thus far, the models have consistently underestimated the problem.
No one had forecast that we would already be seeing the clathrates melt and burp forth their methane, but they are doing so. No one had forecast the dramatic reduction in arctic sea ice or the rapid rate of glacial melt that is already being observed.
So, we’ll see how the models evolve as they get ever closer to reality.
#108 – MikeN,
How does the son’s adaptation bent give credibility to the weatherman father or his blog?
#109 – MikeN,
I’m not contradicting anything. I was referring to a paper you posted on the last thread that showed the arctic being warmer during the little warm period. I generally don’t pay attention to local studies like that one so was not aware of the local study you posted last time or the one to which you refer now.
When I look at global temperatures, I see that the earth today is already warmer than at any time in the last 650,000 years.
That scares the living shit out of me.
It scares me more because of the strong correlation between very warm periods (5-6 degrees warmer than our pre-industrial baseline, well within current predictions) and mass extinction. It helps to know that large, warm-blooded species fare very poorly (i.e. tend to go extinct) during mass extinction events. It helps to know that we are in the top 1% by size and are warm-blooded.
What really scares me though is what we will do to the other, more beautiful species with whom we share this planet as stupid humans go extinct. It appears that we may be on track for another P/T level extinction event. That is what I would like to avoid. That is why I do what I can to mitigate climate change. That is why I sound like chicken little.
This time, the sky really may be falling.
#97 – Guyver,
Statisticians respond to the cherry picking of authors like that BBC climate correspondent.
http://tinyurl.com/yzjr5ak
Note that the statisticians were merely looking for trends in numbers. They didn’t even know what the numbers represented. So, it doesn’t matter what their opinion is on climate change.
102, Awwwwwwwwwwww. You can’t find ANYTHING which concludes scientifically that global warming is man-made? But you feel it is? Sadly, you’re not very persuasive.
My current position on NATURAL global warming is that I don’t care and there’s nothing you or I could do about it if it’s true (despite our recent “cold” spell). If you want to insist that global warming is caused by mankind, then I ask you provide some sliver of scientific proof in order to persuade me.
The fact that this volley has went on for so long is pretty clear cut that you don’t have a shred of proof and the only thing you’re clinging to is faith that sooner or later someone will come up with proof for your universal conclusion. That’s hardly science.
But I get it…. you consider yourself well-informed on the topic despite a gaping wide hole in your “scientific” theory. LOL.
BTW, is there any reason why you’ve scientifically concluded sun spots cannot be the cause of warming on the Earth (since you’re whining that global warming is due to man and not the sun)?
As for Christy, you must be very proud of yourself for being a “Master of the Obvious”. Of course the Christy piece is an editorial. Was there any deception on my part or Christy’s? Duh. What makes his piece noteworthy is that he has been a lead author for the IPCC Global Warming Reports. He has been intimately involved in their process. So what he says has a lot of merit. The IPCC is what people are referring to when they cite a “scientific” consensus. HINT: There is no consensus and it’s more political than it is scientific. Dissenting scientific opinions have been editorialized out of the IPCC’s report.
103, So aside from your genetic fallacy with Junk Science or scientists with dissenting opinions, do you have a problem with what was presented? (Not that IPCC bureaucrats who make a living off of pushing MAN-MADE global warming as a living would make you question their objectivity).
104, The BBC for the most part has supported Man-Made global warming theories. Sounds like you have sour grapes.
Basic Greenhouse Equations “Totally Wrong”: http://tinyurl.com/2foo2k
Overweight? You’re a Climate Problem. LOL: http://tinyurl.com/cford8
111, Trends mean nothing if you don’t know what your variables are that cause them.
Likewise for computer simulations.
What is clear is that there is no scientific consensus.
#112 – Guyver,
102, Awwwwwwwwwwww. You can’t find ANYTHING which concludes scientifically that global warming is man-made? But you feel it is? Sadly, you’re not very persuasive.
You’re not very bright are you? You set up the rules so that you cannot be persuaded. You are religious too, I bet. Similar mind set.
If you cannot define what would convince you, then you are holding an unfalsifiable belief based on faith.
So, what would convince you? Hypothetically. Give specifics.
From the linked article:
Nothing that makes such absolute statements is in any way scientific. I quit reading at that point. Might as well post about the racism of the color force between quarks and gluons, with protests from the Purple Brigade: “Red, Green and Blue unfair to Purples, Mauves and Puces!” Or “There is no Color Force and no Strong Force — nuclei just suck!”
114, I just told you a number of times what would convince me. You’re just too dense. And no, I’m not religious.
If you want to make a scientific conclusion of what is causing global warming, then where are your facts that prove global warming is man-made? Asking for scientific facts is not setting up rules so that I cannot be persuaded.
The reason why you’re saying that it seems is because you have nothing conclusive to support your theory.
114, Since you are reading-challenged but you love looking at pretty pictures of the Mississippi, here’s a rehash of what I’ve defined as what would convince me:
Post 79: “I have yet to see anything conclusive that global warming is in fact man-made.”
Post 81: “Until I see conclusive evidence that the “problem” is man-made, then I’ll just chalk it up into the same group of alarmists who thought the hole in our ozone was man-made (until we discovered Mars had the same thing).”
Post 88: “As for my “belief system”, it sounds like this is your admission that you have no scientific proof that your crisis is man-made?”
Post 93: “Good grief. I’m not denying global-warming. I’m asking you to prove that it’s man made. You don’t understand English very well do you?”
Post 112: “Awwwwwwwwwwww. You can’t find ANYTHING which concludes scientifically that global warming is man-made? But you feel it is? Sadly, you’re not very persuasive.”
Hopefully whatever scientific conclusion you dish out can rule out other possibilities. I won’t hold my breath. I’m sure you’ll say my request is unreasonable or that it allows me “an unfalsifiable belief based on faith”. 🙂
#116 – Guyver,
114, I just told you a number of times what would convince me.
False.
You stated that you wanted scientific proof. Proof is for mathematics. Science doesn’t work that way. Theories hold up by not being disproved. If you drop a ball and it fails to hit the ground, it would disprove our current theory of gravity. That said, there is no scientific proof that if you drop a ball it will hit the ground.
So, what specifically would convince you?
Here are a few things you could show me to make your point:
1) Evidence that the increased levels of CO2 do not come from humans.
2) Reliable fossil evidence of tropical species at high latitudes during periods when reliable ice or lake core records show low CO2 concentrations.
3) Reliable fossil evidence of polar species at low latitudes during periods when reliable ice or lake core records show high CO2 concentrations.
See? That’s what a falsifiable theory sounds like.
I didn’t say “prove that all warming is caused by solar cycles.” I gave specifics. What specifics would you consider strong enough to falsify your own hypothesis? Think hard. This is what critical and veridical thinking is all about.
There is much to support the theory that global warming is human caused. We know that we have increased CO2 concentrations by 70%. We know that CO2 traps heat. Actually, those two alone would probably make a good case for a reasonable human.
But, we’ve got more. We know that warming has been observed since the introduction of the extra CO2 (over half a celsius degree and counting). We know that sea levels are rising (200mm and counting). We know that the cryosphere, both polar and mountaintop, is melting.
We know all of these things beyond any reasonable doubt at this point.
To read this any other way is denial.
But, if you claim that some proof might convince you, I state that I do not see any evidence in any of your posts that this is the case. Tell me some hypothetical specific piece of evidence that would convince you. Else, you are indeed religious, a religious anti-climate-change cultist.
#117:
Post 79: “I have yet to see anything conclusive that global warming is in fact man-made.”
And, what would you consider conclusive. The facts as I state above are obviously not doing it on their own since you know them as well as I do.
Post 81: “Until I see conclusive evidence that the “problem” is man-made, then I’ll just chalk it up into the same group of alarmists who thought the hole in our ozone was man-made (until we discovered Mars had the same thing).”
What would you consider to be proof of this? Is there anything at all that might convince you?
Post 88: “As for my “belief system”, it sounds like this is your admission that you have no scientific proof that your crisis is man-made?”
Another case of vague references to proof. Tell me what your pre-cambrian rabbit would look like. Perhaps I can produce him.
Post 93: “Good grief. I’m not denying global-warming. I’m asking you to prove that it’s man made. You don’t understand English very well do you?”
I understand it perfectly. Repeating the same crap again and again and again does not change the fact that there is nothing that could convince you. You do not stipulate what would constitute proof.
Post 112: “Awwwwwwwwwwww. You can’t find ANYTHING which concludes scientifically that global warming is man-made? But you feel it is? Sadly, you’re not very persuasive.”
I have found a tremendous amount. You have not stated what you would consider proof.
What would you consider to be proof that a dropped ball will hit the floor? Science is not mathematics.
>peer-reviewed letter. It will be interesting to see the changes when this gets incorporated into models.
I wonder if it will be incorporated at all, but we’ll see.
>climate change and sea level rise and ice melt and some other observations have all been near or above the worst case predictions of
The last few years have changed the situation. This is usually covered up with some fuzzy math, playing around with smoothing.
The Copenhagen Report had a caption by Rahmstorf changed from 11 year smoothing to 15 years, which conveniently took away a downturn in temperatures. When asked about it at RealClimate, they deleted the question, but eventually came back and admitted it. They then issued a correction of the caption, which was still labelled as 11 years.
>So, I’m not sure how incorporating a negative feedback into the models will affect things. I suspect that if there is a stronger negative feedback, there must also be some strong positive feedbacks that have been ignored.
Not my interpretation of the paper. Looks like they are looking at net feedback. Also, they complain that the models are completely off in the nature of the feedback, shortwave radiation vs longwave radiation. I don’t understand these details very well, so maybe you have it right.
>I say this simply because thus far, the models have consistently underestimated the problem.
Lucia at The Blackboard has been showing how the model ensembles have been overstating temperatures.
>No one had forecast the dramatic reduction in arctic sea ice or the rapid rate of glacial melt that is already being observed.
They forecast much lower levels of Arctic ice in 2009 than actually happened. And this was with just a few months away from the end date.
>How does the son’s adaptation bent give credibility to the weatherman father or his blog?
He’s more than a weatherman, and is a legitimate climate scientist. If you could follow his science, I suspect you would agree with him quite a bit. My understanding is that he thinks global warming is caused more by consumerism than CO2, specifically land use change.
What makes you say Pielke Jr is an adaptationist? He is always talking about decarbonizing the economy.
>don’t pay attention to local studies like that one so was not aware of the local study you posted last time or the one to which you refer now.
OK. It is the latest hockey stick paper, generally given with the headline of ‘unprecedented Arctic temperatures’ or ‘two millenia of Arctic cooling reversed in the last century.’
You use the word “cabal”. You use it to refer to 98% of all climate scientists in the world.
I do not think you know what this word means.
This is on the Portland Examiner. Check out SF’s Environmental Policy Examiner, Thomas Fuller.
http://examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m10d26-By-requestmy-beliefs-on-global-warming#comments
>No one had forecast that we would already be seeing the clathrates melt and burp forth their methane, but they are doing so.
I think this is more alarmism getting ahead of science. The Copenhagen Synthesis Report makes no mention of clathrates, clathrate, methane ice, or methane hydrates.
If this is such a serious issue, that is going to accelerate global warming, I would think that report would have had this crucial update.
#119 – MikeN,
>climate change and sea level rise and ice melt and some other observations have all been near or above the worst case predictions of
The last few years have changed the situation. This is usually covered up with some fuzzy math, playing around with smoothing.
The last few years have changed nothing, except for those who do not know how to read a graph.
http://tinyurl.com/yzjr5ak
Note that these statisticians did not know they were looking at global temperatures. They were just looking for trends in the numbers. So there’s no bias on their part.
>I say this simply because thus far, the models have consistently underestimated the problem.
Lucia at The Blackboard has been showing how the model ensembles have been overstating temperatures.
Now this is the definition of bias. The models are overstating the numbers, but the actual numbers are worse than the models predicted. So Lucia is obviously biased and wrong.
>No one had forecast the dramatic reduction in arctic sea ice or the rapid rate of glacial melt that is already being observed.
They forecast much lower levels of Arctic ice in 2009 than actually happened. And this was with just a few months away from the end date.
Beware of the dangers of looking at small datasets. One year does not a trend make. 2009 was still the third lowest arctic ice year on record. And the glaciers are still melting.
http://tinyurl.com/39ohkv
>How does the son’s adaptation bent give credibility to the weatherman father or his blog?
He’s more than a weatherman, and is a legitimate climate scientist. If you could follow his science, I suspect you would agree with him quite a bit. My understanding is that he thinks global warming is caused more by consumerism than CO2, specifically land use change.
His formal training is in meteorology. Perhaps he has expanded his scope, but still has no training in any science related to climatology. Well, certainly consumerism causes burning of fossil fuels. It also causes deforestation, which releases more carbon, etc. So, on that point, I would say they’re both causes. So is overpopulation (the root of all of our problems).
What makes you say Pielke Jr is an adaptationist? He is always talking about decarbonizing the economy.
The publications on the list you gave were mostly about adapting to climate change. I don’t mean to minimize the importance of that. However, it starts from the assumption that the climatologists know what they are talking about.
>don’t pay attention to local studies like that one so was not aware of the local study you posted last time or the one to which you refer now.
OK. It is the latest hockey stick paper, generally given with the headline of ‘unprecedented Arctic temperatures’ or ‘two millenia of Arctic cooling reversed in the last century.’
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
#122 – MikeN,
>No one had forecast that we would already be seeing the clathrates melt and burp forth their methane, but they are doing so.
I think this is more alarmism getting ahead of science. The Copenhagen Synthesis Report makes no mention of clathrates, clathrate, methane ice, or methane hydrates.
If this is such a serious issue, that is going to accelerate global warming, I would think that report would have had this crucial update.
Well, there are a lot of politics in the IPCC and other international organizations. Most of the politics keeps toning down the actual science to make it sound less bad than it really is. How else would you get the U.S., Saudi Arabia, China, and Australia to agree on anything related to climate change? Remember, these are the largest oil importer, oil exporter, coal burner, and coal exporter, respectively.
http://tinyurl.com/bzh6dy
Regardless of whether it’s mentioned, it’s happening.
>The models are overstating the numbers, but the actual numbers are worse than the models predicted. So Lucia is obviously biased and wrong.
Take a look at Fig 3 of the Copenhagen Synthesis Report. They show temperatures to be well within the error margins of the IPCC models. With Hadley temperatures below 4 of 6 black lines, and GISS below 2 of 6. And this is after changing the smoothing to make temperature look higher.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/source-of-fishy-odor-confirmed-rahmstorf-did-change-smoothing/
So I guess we are in agreement, the IPCC is biased and wrong.
Here’s the latest from Lucia comparing models to actual temperatures. As for bias, keep in mind that Lucia believes global warming is happening, just not at the higher levels being predicted. Even those higher levels of predictions are on the sidelines. Try to find a model run at The Climate Explorer that predicts more than 4C of warming for this century.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/model-mean-trend-rejecting-since-2001-for-a-year/
I’m out of this thread.
MikeN,
Perfect example of looking at an insufficient sample size. People would have said the same in 1960 about the temperature leveling off or getting cooler, despite the fact that it was at least 0.2 degrees warmer than earlier in the century. People saying the same now are ignoring that it is 0.6 degrees warmer than 100 years ago. Small sample size. And, again, you’re citing a fucking blog.
Nice exit strategy though. I wish we had the same for Iraq.