Oct 24 2011
Adding to the Consensus on Global Warming
On October 20th Nature News reported on a new analysis of land temperatures by an independent group. They found the same results as previous analyses – since 1950 the earth has warmed by about 0.9 C. The results have yet to be peer-reviewed, but already reports of their analysis are making some waves.
The analysis was designed to be what can be called a consensus study – an independent group is taking a thorough analysis of the data, accounting for prior criticisms, to arrive at a result that everyone can agree on. Prior to announcing the results, in fact, some global warming skeptics stated publicly that they welcome the independent analysis and would stand by the results. PZ Myers reports on Anthony Watts response – initially saying he would accept the study results, but now considering the study to be fatally flawed.
The point of a consensus study is to bring all sides of a scientific controversy together, account for all criticisms of existing data, and then try to specifically address those criticisms so that everyone can agree on the results. This actually does happen at times, although it does seem that there remain holdouts for the view that “loses” when the new data comes out. The consensus data, however, does tend to marginalize the holdouts.
This is the way science is supposed to work – people can argue vehemently about how to interpret the data, with renewed vigor as each new piece of data comes out. But in the end everyone should be basing their opinions on the evidence, or should at least be able to agree that the evidence will ultimately determine the outcome of controversy. Part of the goal of a consensus study is to get all sides to agree on the protocol before hand, that way they cannot legitimately complain once the data comes in. Everyone, in short, has to go all-in and bet their position on the data.
James Randi has learned the value of this procedure – he always gets applicants to the JREF challenge to agree to the protocol prior to obtaining the results. Of course, once the results show they are not psychic, only then do they find flaws in the protocol. We saw the same thing with a large CDC trial on vaccines and adverse neurological outcomes. Sallie Bernard, a believer in the mercury-autism hypothesis, was consulted on the design of the study and agreed to the protocol – until the results came out. When the results were negative (no correlation between vaccines and adverse neurological outcomes) she backpedaled and distanced herself from the study.
Let’s get back to the new climate change data. Prior analysis by NASA, the NOAA, and the UK Climate Research Unit, using different but overlapping data sets, all found the same thing – the famous hockey stick of recent temperature increase. However there has been a lot of criticism of the data – that there are artifacts in the ways in which they adjusted temperatures for time of day and other variables, and accounted for the urban heat island effect – that cities are warmer and are getting bigger. Statistical analysis of the data is complex, creating legitimate concern about the introduction of artifacts into the analysis, but also creating the opportunity to deny the results if you don’t like them.
So a completely independent analysis was in order – part of the replication that is demanding by good science. Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, undertook the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study. They looked at a more complete data set, essentially combining all the data of the three previous analyses, and also devised their own statistical analysis. What they found pretty much exactly matches the prior three studies. They confirmed the hockey stick of temperature rise. As you can see from the chart – the lines overlap almost completely.
This analysis not only confirms that global warming is happening, it confirms the legitimacy of the three prior analyses. Despite all the criticism, the methods used were apparently accurate.
I need to point out that the analysis still has to be peer-reviewed. In addition the researchers are making their methods and data public and more easily accessible than the previous data sets, so we should expect a great of picking over these results. That’s all good. Science needs to be transparent. We will see what the result of peer-review is. If the analysis survives peer-review, then we can also expect that this will strengthen the consensus among scientists that global warming is a real phenomenon.
But we know that this is an ideologically hot topic, and there are those who deny that global warming is happening (while there are others that acknowledge global warming and just deny the degree to which it is man-made, or that current proposals can do anything about it). I don’t expect this data to convert many dissidents – we’ll see. However (again – if it holds up) it will marginalize their view. It will strengthen the consensus. To the degree that science is used to inform political action, a strong consensus on the science is very helpful.
This replication will likely have that effect. How it is translated into political action remains to be seen.
136 Responses to “Adding to the Consensus on Global Warming”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I was under the impression that no reputable climatologists disputed that the Earth has been warming, but that any remnant of controversy was only over whether humans were a significant contributor and whether the consequences would be significantly negative.
I know there are still non-climatologists claiming that the Earth isn’t warming at all, but that doesn’t require more evidence to dispute; it just requires an explanation as to why they’re not qualified to contest the consensus of people in the actual field and why their rebutting evidence is insufficient. Anyway, it seems like those dissidents are marginalized enough.
I’m more interested in seeing scientists engage with the public on the latter two questions, especially the third one. Explaining human involvement really just involves explaining the green house effect and how CO2 and methane interact with the atmosphere. I’ve seen some pretty impressive models of the last question showing that climate disruption can very plausibly lead to extinctions of a number of sea and land animals. People need to know those things.
Banyan
I agree with what you are saying.
Except for the ideologues I though most of the warming debate is over. I though it was CO2 verses deforestation and urbanization are bigger questions. To me, the more burning questions is what can be done about it. Current Fixes are the biggest problem either politically or economically useless. Until we nail down to what can be usefully done about fossil fuels, deforestation, and the lack of a meaningful world government the current solutions are mostly useless.
To quote Asimov if you want people to accept a terrible social problem you have to present them with a solution at the same time.
This study might swing a couple of fence sitters that are reasonable. New evidence does not sway ideologues one bit. In my humble opinion a breakthrough in fusion power, or a drastic increase in Solar/battery efficiency is the only realistic hope to wean us off of fossil fuels.
It’s very good to have the new BEST analysis. It seems that it will dismiss two concerns expressed about the historical temperature record: that the urban heat island effect and poorly sited weather stations resulted in an overstatement of the warming. It seems it was necessary to have this new analysis because those concerns were not being addressed before, or not in a way that gave sceptics any confidence. The eminent BEST team did not undertake their significant project without a good reason. Antony Watts gives his reasons for not liking the study in its current form, but his concerns will no doubt be addressed in good time. Assuming they are, either he’ll accept the result, like he said he would, or he’ll begin to lose his followers.
In the interests of accuracy though (or possibly pedantry), the “hockey stick” refers to the shape of the temperature curve over the last millenium (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy), not the 200 years of the BEST study. i.e. The graph shown by Steven isn’t “the famous hockey stick of recent temperature increase”. It doesn’t even look like a hockey stick. It’s just the head of the stick. This is important because the hockey stick controversy was not primarily about the rise in temperature in recent years, but many broader issues with historical temperature reconstructions over longer terms.
As I said, the BEST results seem well done and, if there are any problems, these will be ironed out in an open peer review process. Also, the algorithms and data are available for all to see and validate. This is great progress in the public presentation of climate science and, had this always been the approach, we might not have had the recent controversies. Let’s hope all future climate science is approached in the same way.
Here is what BEST says–
“What Berkeley Earth has not done is make an independent assessment of how much of the observed warming is due to human actions, Richard Muller acknowledged.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct.pdf
and-
“On the other hand, some of the long-term change in the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index) could be driven by natural variability, e,g, fluctuations in thermohaline flow. In that case the human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.”
http://www.berkeleyEarth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations
Here is a good write up–
http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4161-sceptical-berkeley-scientists-say-human-component-of-global-warming-may-be-somewhat-overstated.html
It seems that bad science reporting isn’t just done about medical science. How about that?
Again, I am always scratching my tiny skeptical brain about this complicated topic..so here I go with a question to the more expert folk here:
What kind of study/data would be able to show that humans are clearly to blame and that the magnitude of our effects are such that “very bad” things are clearly forecasted in the next say 50 years? The charge is by some is that some folks are “alarmists”…will there be data in my lifetime to prove or disprove the “alarmists”?
pharmD28-
You might try these as starting points to discover the failures of predictions thus far–
http://www.Real-Science.com/doubt-temperatures-rising-fast-hansens-emissions
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/10/scientific-case-man-made-climate-change-dead
To the extent that predictions are currently assessable, the predictions haven’t been very good as far as I can tell.
(I keep wondering where all the hurricanes are—)
“What kind of study/data would be able to show that humans are clearly to blame”
There are several such avenues, and they have already been done years ago. Some examples include:
1. Direct observations of the atmospheric absorbance spectra. This can tell us directly whether CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are absoring enough additional energy to account for the change we are seeing. They are.
2. Measurements of carbon isotope ratios. This can tell us whether the CO2 is primarily due to “new” carbon, which at least has the potential to be from natural sources, or “old” carbon, which has to be dug or pumped out of the ground by humans. The latter is the case, the excess carbon is primarily old.
3. Direct measurements of temperature at different altitudes. If external sources of energy are the cause of the warming, then you would expect the atmosphere to warm pretty evenly or even at the higher altitudes first. If surface effects like albedo changes are responsible, then you would expect there to be more warming at lower altitudes but still warming throughout the atmosphere. On the other hand, if greenhouse gasses are responsible, then you would expect the upper layers of the atmosphere to actually cool, since the greenhouse gasses prevent some of the energy that would normally heat the upper layers of the atmosphere from leaving the lower layers. The upper layers of the atmosphere are cooling.
Also, less directly, there are statistical analyses that can tell you how much of a particular change in the output of system is due to each specific input to the system. These tests have been done, and the warming is overwhelmingly attributed to human-released CO2 and methane.
Then there is the fact that so far none of the denialists have been able to come up with any plausible alternative that is actually changing in the right direction. They throw out things like changes in solar output which if anything has been dropping over the period of the warming, or cosmic rays which are far from certain to have an effect and even if they do they have not been changing.
To address sonic,
1. Yes, the models failed to predict changes in solar output. The sun goes through fairly regular cycles of increased and decreased solar output (this is one of the things leading to the regular cycles in the plot). The last decade has seen the deepest and longest solar minimum on record (which goes back about 150 years). Nevertheless, the world has still warmed despite the significant drop in solar energy reaching the Earth. It hasn’t warmed as much as the models predict because the models don’t even attempt to predict things on the single-decade scale specifically because scientists know these sorts of short-term fluctuations take place. The models look at long-term trends. Denialists like to cherry-pick a much shorter time period than anyone has ever claimed the models should be accurate at and then pretend this is a mark against the models. The models do what they were intended to do.
The second article has the same problem. They cherry-pick short-term fluctuations, which no one has ever claimed to be able to accurately predict, and ignore long-term trends, which are actually important. Add to that using misleading information or downright misinformation. For instance it claims that the antarctic ice is increasing. What is actually happening is one small part of antarctica has ice increasing while most of it has it decreasing. The claims about sea ice extent in the arctic are based on cherry-picking one unusally low year (2007) while ignoring the very strong downward trend. As I mentioned before, the claim that temperature is staying steady is an outright lie, the 2000′s were the hottest decade on record, and 2010 and 2005 are tied for the hottest years on record. The article is one long list of lies, omissions, and intentional misrepresentation.
Its nice to know whether humans are affecting it or not. But I seriously doubt if the information will change much even if everyone agrees to that fact. We might pass some laws, but its too large and complex a set of factors to truly control.
It would be better to say – who cares why; its happening and its dangerous. Lets focus on solutions instead of continuing to fight with people who will never look at the evidence with any reality.
Making a smaller carbon foot print is a pretty ideal. But making so many individuals make a change is not, in my opinion, realistic in the short run.
Focusing the effort on interventions that do not require all the billions of individuals to make changes, or even all the large organizations to make changes, would be far more effective than focusing our energy on continued to studies to prove what has already been effectively proven.
@TheBlackCat- Excellent response! And may I add regarding the Antarctic sea ice this recent report funded by NASA:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL046583.shtml
Also reported on in the Reuters article from March of this year:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/idUS239167091120110315
“But in the end everyone should be basing their opinions on the evidence”
Unfortunately many people look to the evidence for imperfections so that they can rationalize the belief that is most compatible with their ideologies.
@PharmD28, Sonic and interested others –
The ‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ is a report that looks at the IPCC AR4 projections and compares them to the observed changes since the model predictions were made. Contrary to what Sonic says and what is said in the links, the scientists are doing pretty well. They are out in a couple of things, but they’re wrong in the wrong direction on those things. Sea-level rise is in the ‘worst-case scenario’ band and Arctic sea-ice melt is much faster than predicted.
Get the report for yourself here:
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/
Here’s a quote from the summary:
Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19°C per decade, in very good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short-term fluctuations are occurring as usual, but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.
The most reliable characteristic to look for in identifiying a climate denialist is:
CHERRY PICKING THE DATA.
I am sorry to say that my friend Sonic is a case in point.
Thanks to The Black Cat for pointing that out.
What’s important is the consensus of the experts in the field of climatology based on:
ALL OF THE DATA.
PharmD28,
“What kind of study/data would be able to show that humans are clearly to blame”
Here is a good introduction to the topic, human fingerprints on climate change:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf
I wonder what it is about certain topics, that makes even skeptics unable to see how their biases color their view? I understand that when particular ideologies conflict with data, confirmation bias is upregulated, which results in cherry picking and rationalizations.
I would think that the more a person identifies with a particular ideology, the more difficult it is to overcome that bias. Religion is the obvious and most understandable example, but this effect seems a bit more surprising to me with topics such as global warming. The main ideology I see that conflicts is libertarianism, and even that is a pretty indirect relationship, yet I see that the effect is pretty strong. I don’t imagine that many people have climate change intertwined with their identity. Why is this one of the polarizing topics for skeptics?
ccbowers- The most obvious thing that comes to mind regarding bias,is that the thought that we might be causing a possible major threat to our comfortable (for some at least) way of life,is an idea that leads to cognitive dissonance. Those of us living in the 1st world countries have huge carbon footprints to maintain our current status quo,and who wants to give that up? It is then better for some to find a way out.Search the internet for opposing views,and cling tenaciously to those contrarian (contrary to consensus science) viewpoints,until reality drags them kicking and screaming back into the real world.
Thanks for the reading recommendations….Ive began to pick through them.
As I have seen you all discuss this on this form and some other science blogs…what is interesting is that I can define some basic common denomintors about agreement, so it seems anyway to me.
Everyone on here seems to agree that there is global warming. Everyone agrees that TO SOME DEGREE it is man made – the amount which is man made is debated, as is the extent of the problem – as in how bad will it get and when.
Having said that, is there something that everyone on this forum could agree to, that is advice to me personally as to how I can personally at my home reduce my “carbon footprint” and make any kind of difference on global warming? Is there consensus that energy efficience windows help the issue, energy eff. lighting, insulation, eff. HVAC, fuel eff vehicles, or even solar power? Is it safe for me to say that such things are helpful interventions for the environment?
ccbowers & tmac57,
There is some political ideology behind this, but the main drive comes from the large corporations that stand to lose by action on climate change. It’s the tobacco companies all over again. These big corporations provide the money, they set up “sceptical” think tanks, and they pay so called climate “sceptics” (deniers) to prance the public stage promoting lies and distortions about climate change. They don’t actually need to make their case, they just have to create doubt. That is sufficient for them to win. Then there are the science-illiterate shock jocks on talk back radio distributing these lies and distortions to their gullible, science-illiterate public.
PharmD28-
Yes it seems clear the earth has warmed since the last little ice age and there is very little doubt that humans burning hydrocarbons have had an impact on this.
And there are ways to minimize your carbon foot print- which is smart because hydrocarbons are a limited resource and using them wisely (not wastefully) is a good idea regardless of the truth of sea level rise or increased temps or ‘forcings’ or whatever.
Where I live the summer temps often get to 100 F. I don’t need an AC because I have grown trees such that my house stays cool enough (under 80 F).
You can insulate– this is a good savings in summer and winter. (I almost never need the heater in winter– good insulation and a sweater work just fine– thank- you.)
Anything that saves on your energy bill will help– and it will save on your energy bill. (My neighbors spend $1000′s per year on energy that I don’t.)
Win- win.
BTW– the most fuel eff. mode of transport is walking. Good for the health too.
I have been a member of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club (probably a lifetime member– so much work I’ve done for them) but right now I think the best bang for the buck on the environment comes from Nature Conservancy.
So if you want to give money to an environmental cause– might I be so bold as to suggest them?
BillyJoe7- Yes I agree. The comment I made earlier speaks more to the mindset of the target of their propaganda, that is, the unsuspecting folks out their that are susceptible to their message. I was trying to suggest what I believe to be, in part, a plausible motivation that a person might have for rejecting the scientific consensus.
I guess a pithier way of saying it is: Denialists are in denial.
BillyJoe7-
Of course when I point out a missed prediction I am cherry picking.
For example– there haven’t been bigger and more numerous hurricanes hiting the Southern US since Katrina.
another example-
The temps haven’t increased since 1998.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998
For example-
England isn’t snow free forever.
You would prefer I cherry pick the evidence that supports the hypothesis?
Doesn’t sound overtly skeptical to me.
Thanks to the commentariat for all this. I have been interested in AGW and was indeed quite skeptical of it for a long while. I am not a climatologist nor have any particular expertise in the necessary fields, so understanding the gestalt of it was difficult for me. When it comes to evolution, medicine, and to a degree basic physics I am fine to have an informed opinion.
So when I went about trying to be able to have a stance on the issue sometime last year I didn’t even know where to start. So I dove in. And basically what I saw was an exact parallel to the evolution/creationism “debate.” Basically a large consortium of scientists agreeing on a fundamental principle, but the edges of the theory being a bit ragged. Then a large group of disparate deniers making claim after claim that I discovered was essentially all cherry picked and completely false. In many cases I saw the exact same tactics used in creationist apologism translated to AGW denial. To me that was enough to feel confident in my stance.
But now I have a bit more data and understanding so I can speak a little more intelligently on the topic – so thank you.
And Sonic – no, cherry picking at all is not the skeptical way to go about things. Whether you are cherry picking to support or refute a hypothesis doesn’t matter one whit. You can always manage to find something to link to to support whatever stance you want – hence why cherry picking is so attractive to denialists. So the point is that you are not actually injecting skepticism or critical thought into the discussion by cherry picking a few contrary studies/findings. At worst you are being a denialist and at best you are simply doing nothing. We’ve had these sorts of discussions when you and I have discussed evolution. Finding a study that demonstrates greater import of epigenetic factors which lead to non-random mutation does not in any way refute evolutionary theory nor that random mutation is the basis of it. It is not a skeptical way of applying critical thought there and it is not in climate science either. That is the point that BillyJoe was trying to make. It is equivalent to me saying that “All boys have penises and girls have vaginas” and you pointing out the pseudohermaphrodites exist and claiming that challenges my theory and injects critical thought and skepticism into the discussion of allocation of genitalia.
“There is some political ideology behind this, but the main drive comes from the large corporations that stand to lose by action on climate change.”
I agree that there is some impact there, but even with intential misinformation that does not change the mechanisms at the point of the individual, which is what I was trying to explore. I was thinking a little bit about the average person, which what tmac seemed to be alluding to. In my comment, however, I was thinking more about the people who identify at skeptics, and who are more likely to fancy themselves as independent thinkers. Many of these people are highly intelligent, and the idea that they are being manipulated by “corporations” should backfire. Perhaps this effect is countered by the misinformation by the other side, which would allow a person to justify their position even more.
On a side note, I find it interesting to see how “green” has become a nearly meaningless marketing term in the US over the past few years. I have seen everything from “energy efficient” electric heaters (really?), which use less electricity to “green” bottled water. Of course these heaters also create less heat in direct proportion to how much less energy they are using, but apparently you can make money from ignorance and creating a warm fuzzy feeling inside (but in a cold room).
@ccbowers:
I think your question can be answered by the atheist who says religion is illogical and then checks their horoscope.
We’ve learned that people can hold ideas in cognitive dissonance with great aplomb. That includes such things as skeptics being rational except for that one thing they aren’t rational about. Why that might be the case for AGW vs vaccines vs quantum consciousness (I just watched Chopra flap his lips for minute) vs religion is a factor of myriad influences throughout life and how data reaches the person in question.
Being a skeptic usually means you have less such dissonant thoughts and ascribe less to an ideology than someone else might. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it is zero. The whole point (for me at least) is that the reason any of this sort of stuff happens is because it is easy to fall into those cognitive traps and easy to hold a dissonance without deep and active introspection.
But maybe I’m getting to “meta” on the topic.
As for the “green” label… yeah, I agree. And I got a good laugh at the idea of a device designed to waste electricty as heat being more efficient…. it makes me wonder what the “less efficient” models accomplish with the extra electricity they use that doesn’t get turned into waste heat.
“We’ve learned that people can hold ideas in cognitive dissonance with great aplomb…But maybe I’m getting to “meta” on the topic.”
I understand all of that, and my question had to do with the “why this particular topics for skeptics,” rather than why any topic in general. Skeptics as a group have little trouble looking at the evidence with with many topics, but a few topics polarize skeptics. Getting “meta” is actually exploring some aspects of the question properly.
“it makes me wonder what the “less efficient” models accomplish with the extra electricity they use that doesn’t get turned into waste heat.”
I tried not to laugh when someone told me that they bought one, but I kept imagining that all the heater I own must be wasting alot of energy with internal lights and sounds that I cannot hear or see in order to prevent the energy from being converted to heat. Of course even much of this would result in heat, and then I realized how hard it would be to imagine an ‘inefficient’ electric heater even sarcastically (while still making it reasonable to call it a heater).
@ccbowers:
Yeah. I guess what I am trying to say is that this isn’t the only one to polarize skeptics – it just has a higher profile and is less robust and accepted than say, evolution. In other words, I’m not sure that there is anything “more” to it than that.
And I’ve figured out the heater thing. Those non-green ones are actually designed by “Big Corpa” to use electricity to power radio waves generated by the heater to make you buy more stuff. That and extra clock cycles on a secret wireless CPU so that they can do their evil Big Corpa machinations on your dime. Thankfully the eco-friendly green versions came out!
@ Sonic: I notice you didn’t address a single thing I said in my post. Why not?
“For example– there haven’t been bigger and more numerous hurricanes hiting the Southern US since Katrina.”
First, the predictions don’t predict more hurricanes, they predict fewer, larger ones. And that isn’t supposed to happen until a bit later one. All along most scientists were saying we couldn’t attribute Katrina to global warming, it was mostly the press blowing this out of proportion.
“The temps haven’t increased since 1998.”
You obviously didn’t even read my post, either, since I pointed out that 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998. This is another long-standing creationist tactic, refusing to abandon claims when they turn out to be false. Just the claim that 1998 was the warmest year on record hasn’t been true since 2006, yet here we are half a decade later and people are still repeating it. That is, of course, ignoring the fact that 1998 was an anomaly, the temperature trend since then has still been upwards, despite the fact that we were in the deepest and longest solar minimum ever recorded..
“England isn’t snow free forever.”
Keep beating that strawman, it\s almost down! You do realize we are talking about things happening on the time scale of decades here, right? Of course these things aren’t going to happen overnight, no one ever claimed they were.
nybgrus-
It would seem my attempt at humor directed at BillyJoe7 misfired and instead upset you.
Oops.
If we run an experiment in a lab we will find a doubling of CO2 would bring about a temperature increase of about 1 degree. The theory of AGW (at least all the IPCC models) are predicated on the notion that the rise in temperature on Earth (as opposed to a lab) would be greater than 1 degree.
There are those who doubt this ‘feedback’ effect. It hasn’t been demonstrated- that much is clear.
What do you think the multiplier should be?
TheBlackCat-
Your claim that the models don’t make projections about near-term isn’t what the IPCC says–
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
“Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections”
How do you get confidence in that which you don’t make?
You seem to have misunderstood my joke directed at BillyJoe7.
I must say– I would prefer to leave out derogatory comments about people’s motivations as much as possible. OK?
@sonic:
Your humor is hard to pick up on sonic. It was clear that your comment:
You would prefer I cherry pick the evidence that supports the hypothesis?
Doesn’t sound overtly skeptical to me.
is obviously a joke, but above it where you say:
Of course when I point out a missed prediction I am cherry picking.
is not.
Also, the way you were presenting your links and comments was commensurate with that first reference being quite true, whether you meant it as a joke or not.
My understanding is that AGW is also predicated on a lot more than just CO2.
I have no idea. I don’t attempt to make definite claims about details when I am far from expert on the topic.
Also, I don’t think that BlackCat has been saying that the IPCC doesn’t make predictions on the near term. It seems clear to me that they speculate on it, but that it is acknowledged that the shorter the time frame the less accurate the data. That seems perfectly in like with you most recent quoted data.
Furthermore I fail to see the point you try to make by citing data demonstrating that the models were fairly spot on. BlackCat’s comment was in response to yours about snow in England which was vague to begin with. I didn’t understand it and I reckon the two of you are talking past each other on a minor point.
But it seems to me that you continue to focus on the noise instead of the signal and that is what I was addressing and what BlackCat most recently addressed as well. Essentially – I am not even sure what point you are trying to make at all.
I’ve seen no particularly derogatory comments. But I might suggest you try and make your humor a bit more clear. Especially during a reasonably serious science based conversation.
sonic,
“The temps haven’t increased since 1998.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998”
Is this part of your joke or actually support the implications.
I posted a long reply but it has not appeared despite two attempts.
I won’t bother to repost it if was just some obscure joke on your part
“In other words, I’m not sure that there is anything “more” to it than that.”
I actually think that there is a bit more to it, but your conclusion could be correct.
I think that there is something that this topic that is different than those others for skeptics. Like most controversial topics it gets conflated or intertwined with other unrelated (or distantly related) topics, and perhaps these conflict with other values found in the skeptics movement. Perhaps it is the robustness of the data combined with the policy implications, and the potential conflict with individual freedoms (particularly for the libertarians out there). I’ve even noticed that some people link the topic with patriotism in a strange way.
Sonic-
There is uncertainty about feedback loops both positive and negative,but the plausibility of the mechanisms are fairly good from what I understand.We know that Earth’s albedo is decreasing.We know what the function of the albedo is.We know that there are vast stores of methane sequestered in the oceans,glaciers,and tundra,and we know that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas (15 to 20 times more potent than CO2). What the exact tipping point of these triggers are,or if they will be mitigated by negative feedbacks introduces the uncertainty,but it is clear that we are flirting with dangerous forces that could plausibly have catastrophic consequences.This is nothing to dismiss lightly.
Who are your ‘doubters’,and what is their reasoning?If they have good science to back them up,then I would be interested in hearing about it.
BillyJoe7-
I was making a joke about cherry picking.
The fact that the HADCRUT3 data supports the statement “There hasn’t been warming since 1998″ is true. (It is also true if you plug in 2001 for the last decade approach. No warming on that graph either.)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001
You can look and see that the sea level rise is nowhere near what has been predicted- in fact the envisat raw data indicates a decline.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/sea-level-decline-during-the-hottest-year-ever-with-record-greenland-melt/
So I think this (temperature and sea level) data disagrees with the predictions. It is possible that the predictions are wrong for reasons that don’t make the theory wrong (short term fuctuations). But if the hypothesis is assumed true (we have a consensus and anyone who doubts is a denier), then any data to the contrary to what the “consensus” claims has to be cherry-picked by definition.
I guess the joke was obscure.
Post your reply.
nybgrus-
What is your understanding of AGW?
What would falsify it?
What sort of evidence would indicate it is correct?
tmac57-
I believe the actual measurements (Earthshine project) indicate that the albedo has increased since 1997. This is in agreement with the halt in temps seen from that time.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/
More recent (from the website of the observatory)
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
Where did you get the idea of a decrease (and who is the ‘we’ that knows this apparently misinformation?)
I’ve removed the links and try posting this again….
sonic,
“The temps haven’t increased since 1998.”
This one is straight out of the climate denialist box of tricks.
We can thank climate denialist, Bob Carter for this one:
[link removed]
And how can we recognise a denialist?
…THEY CHERRY PICK!
Firstly, this is a cherry pick of the hadcrut data.
Secondly, it is a cherry pick of the particular time interval 1998 – present
Thirdly, it completely ignores the El Nino influence.
How to correct this?
USE ALL THE DATA.
Use the data from all the climate research units.
Use the entire time line.
Use the data on other influences on climate.
The El Nino Southern Oscillation caused temperatures to be uncharacteristically high around 1998 and low for the remainder of the record. If you subtract the ENSO infuence form the data, there is indeed an increase in temperature over this period.
[link removed]
If you look at the entire temperature record going back to when records were first kept (late 1800s), the upward trend is clear.
[link removed]
And air temperature is only a small part of the story. If you look at the ocean heat content, the upward trend is even more obvious.
[link removed]
Finally, it’s no longer true! – the most recent data for 2010 now shows an upward trend for the years 1998-present. The problem though is that 10 years is too short an interval to see a trend in the data. According to most climate scientists, it requires at least 30 years.
This is crazy….apparently this blog won’t allow links!!!
BillyJoe7-
Without the links I can’t really know what you are talking about.
Perhaps if you just typed the addresses? (Personally I have not had troubles with links– )
I really would like to follow what you did.
Please try again.
– Maybe break the post into 2 or 3 parts? I’ve heard that helps sometimes (I don’t know for sure)
BTW–
You do realize the odd coincidence that our records begin at the end of a well known very cold period called the “Little Ice Age” right? So warming since the end of the last ice age really isn’t the point– right?
I mean it’s cooler now than when the earth first formed– quite a bit.
You don’t want to include that for a full analysis– do you?
So anyone starting the climate record at 1800 can be seen as a cherry-picking denialist?
Why do I think I’m misunderstanding you?
My understanding is that numerous influences mostly fueled by man are leading to increased trapping of solar energy and a consequent rise in temperature of the earth. These are often described in the form of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels, but in fact is much more complex than that and includes methane both released from man and from nature as a result of man. That is about the extent of my understanding at the moment – as I explained above.
I am not expert enough to answer this question. For me, any single piece of data is not enough to falsify it. Since the expert consensus is based on data which is, for the most part, repeatedly validated I must therefore agree with the expert consensus. Spending some time on google and reading a few blog posts about it does not make me enough of an expert to contradict the consensus and I don’t even have enough in depth knowledge on the topic to state definitively what would falsify it.
What do you think would falsify it?
No single sort of evidence would be enough. Temperature changes (of air and sea), albedo changes, water level changes, weather pattern changes, gas content changes, etc would all need to be evaluated in toto to determine that. There are probably more metrics that are, could, and should be included in that list – once again, I am not expert enough to adequately comment. Furthermore, the direction, type, and magnitude of each change is not something I can comment on (with the obvious exception of temperature, as obviously the question is about warming, but even then, the larger issue is on an increase of energy being trapped on earth which may reasonably manifest itself in ways other than a simple temperature rise). Since I do not have the expert knowledge needed to evaluate most of that data in single, I most certainly do not have the expert knowledge to evaluate it in aggregate.
As I said before – I cannot make such expert opinions, and I do not think that even a year’s worth of intense google-fu would change that terribly much. The point for me was to see that the continued scientific consensus across the world is overwhelmingly agreed upon AGW. Furthermore, that the main detractors and deniers of the consensus use creationist like tactics and clearly cherry pick data to try and prove their point. And lastly, that I now have a couple of talking points about why it is reasonable to assume the consensus correct – both that GW is happening and that it is A in nature. That is as far as I can get without serious personal study, and even after that I wouldn’t be able to get much farther because I am not a climate scientist. My fields of expertise are so far removed from that it would be stupid of me to fancy myself otherwise. But I know how those climate scientists must feel since I get the same from evolution deniers and alt-med cranks.
“I cannot make such expert opinions, and I do not think that even a year’s worth of intense google-fu would change that terribly much.”
If only more people realized this. I’m fairly certain that everyone making up their own minds about real scientific questions is not a good approach. Even the people who turn out to be “right” will be right for the wrong reasons
ccbowers-
Given that position,then what is a non-expert on climate change (or any subject for that matter)to do? Are we to turn our brains off,and wait for them to be filled with revelations from whom ever we select as our experts? Or,are we to use what level of knowledge that we have acquired,along with the critical thinking skills that we have gained through experience,and then try to sort out ,as best we can,what the best state of current knowledge is?
Maybe you have a better way still. If you do,then please tell us what it is.Otherwise,what the hell are we doing here on this blog,trying to sort all of this out?
Sonic- You may be right about a small increase.I am having problems sorting out some inconsistencies with the various methods of measurements.The Earthshine project apparently can only measure 1/3 of the earths surface,and some feel that the NASA CERES satellite does a better job:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm
What I read was that CERES was showing a fairly stable albedo while Earthshine showed an increase.I was being influenced by the decrease in area of the polar ice caps and their loss of albedo,but that is not the entire story.Interestingly,it would seem that if the albedo IS increasing (which implies cooling) then the increase in observed temperature would be above and beyond those mitigating cooling effects.
What about the potential methane feedback?
Prior to my foray into learning about it I had to reserve opinion at all. I really didn’t know whether the pro- or anti- AGW stance was correct. For a while I was anti-AGW myself.
A critical thinking non-expert like myself can, however, sit down and learn enough to decide if:
1) There is actually a scientific consensus
2) How strong that consensus is
3) If the consensus is actually reasonable
Those are all things I have done. But when asked pointed questions like Sonic has, I must say that I am not expert enought to come up with a definitive answer on that. In fact, I don’t feel as if I could passionately and accurately argue the pro-stance beyond saying that I must agree with it based upon the reasons I have given above (probably because I am comparing it to my knowledge of evolutionary theory and how I can argue that).
But that is all I can really say. I can critically analyze whether I agree with the consensus as a whole and then must reserve myself to not belabor the finer aspects in great detail and that is where the deference to expertise must come in. For those that are interested further the academic discussion of the finer points is useful and interesting – and indeed a good way to become more knowledgeable on the topic. But to frame the discussion from the perspective of trying to disprove (or prove) the consensus is a bad tack to take.
Once again I must relate that to evolution, but that is what happens when deniers nit-pick bits of data and try and demonstrate that it disproves the theory as a whole. Much like when Sonic would pick up epigenetic data demonstrating the existence and importance of non-random mutation and use that to try and demonstrate that the basic tenet of random mutation and natural selection is false. It takes someone reasonably expert to take that apart and demonstrate why it is false, since on the surface it reasonably seems to be a sticking point. It is the exact same with climate science. Except that here we have a number of non-experts trying to hash it out from the stance of trying to disprove or add to (depening on your stance) the consensus theory. And that is simply a bad way of going about things.
TheBlackCat-
As a further answer to you–
Regarding the temps at the higher altitudes–
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf
Gee I guess what the models predict and what the observations find don’t match well. Funny, the “… trends from observations are significantly smaller than those from AR4 GCMs…”
So what is found is not what is predicted. Does that matter?
nybgrus-
Thank-you for those answers.
You refer to an expert consensus.
What do you think that consensus is and what do they believe?
If all you can say is “I see no reason not to agree with the consensus,” (and I don’t think that is an unreasonable position) then it is important to say what that consensus is.
(I can answer the question about falsification after i know what you think the theory says)
tmac57-
The notion of methane feedback and runaway heat is terrifying.
But (as I’m sure you can imagine) I have been told that I am going to end up in a very hot place anyway.
Perhaps this is why I want to see models that coincide with reality before I get too concerned.
And I don’t see the models yet.
Full disclosure– It is this attitude (questioning that which must not be questioned) that assures I will end up in a very hot place– or so I’ve been told.
On a more serious note-
As our earlier points out– even with all the wonders of modern science (satellites in space taking measurements and so forth) we can still not know what the albedo is doing. This is true of the temperature readings as well. For example- I think that when a thermometer in the US says it is 65 degrees outside the NASA people “correct” the reading to 65.5 (they add 1/2 a degree to the actual reading.)
If we can’t even look to a thermometer to get the temp…
And an even more serious note–
I know we can use much less hydrocarbons than we do now and live very comfortably. It seems we should just start without all the threat and BS. I’m concerned that if/when it is learned that this AGW isn’t accurate it will be viewed as reason to continue to waste our resources.
But I think peace is a viable alternative too.
Go figure…
Belief doesn’t factor into this. I don’t believe in evolution. I understand it.
As for the consensus, I thought I had been pretty darned clear. Anthropogenic factors are acting in concert to raise the average temperature/energy state of the earth above and beyond any normal/expected fluctuations. The ramifications include ecosystem change and destruction, rising sea levels, increased arid and desert areas, decreased ability for farming, recession of glaciers and polar ice caps, and changed weather patterns (and probably more). The extent, severity, quantity, and timing of each are not something I can comment on. This is something that should be actioned upon though what that action should be is also not something I can currently comment on (beyond obvious things like decreasing carbon footprints and increased renewable energy sources and efficiency of said sources).
That is about all I can say without getting into nearly pure speculation on my part. I am content that I have critically analyzed the major arguments on both sides and that the scientific consensus as outlined above is a reasonable (though obviously not 100% certain) conclusion. I also recognize that for factors outside the ability of scientists to currently ascertain it may turn out that the data is not descriptive of AGW. I have not heard of any other explanation that would account for the data. It is a conclusion that is significant enough, and robust enough, to be taken as a valid conclusion and actioned upon. Note that I say enough. There is always the very distinct chance that the conclusions are incorrect, especially since the data is nowhere near as robust as evolutionary theory. However, the likelihood seems low (though how low, once again I am not expert enough to comment), and if it is wrong it would not be from incorrect data. In other words the earth is warming. That is highly unlikely to be proven wrong. It is slightly less robust, IMO, that it is anthropogenic in nature. It is also possible that a 3rd completely unrecognized explanation may account for all the data. That also seems reasonably unlikely.
And that is it. There is not much more I can say on the topic. And I think that something along those lines is what any intelligent person should conclude when discussing a large and complex theory outside of their field of expertise. So when you say:
Unless you are a climate scientist, I don’t think you can.
Oh, and I’ll add – your tack for discussing and attempting to disprove AGW is strikingly similar to the tack you have taken in the past with me and evolution. But I know enough about evolution to comment quite adequately. I don’t on climatology. However, based on my knowledge and experience (both in general and with you specifically), my money is that you aren’t really proving much at all – same as with evolution.
And that is not meant as a personal dig. It is an observation and statement of fact.
I’ll try again in a series of posts…
sonic,
“The temps haven’t increased since 1998.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998“
This one is straight out of the climate denialist box of tricks.
We can thank climate denialist, Bob Carter for this one:
[My comment won't appear if I include this link, sorry]
And how can we recognise a denialist?
…THEY CHERRY PICK!
Firstly, this is a cherry pick of the hadcrut data.
Secondly, it is a cherry pick of the particular time interval 1998 – present
Thirdly, it completely ignores the El Nino influence.
How to correct this?
USE ALL THE DATA.
Use the data from all the climate research units.
Use the entire time line.
Use the data on other influences on climate.
The El Nino Southern Oscillation caused temperatures to be uncharacteristically high around 1998 and low for the remainder of the record. If you subtract the ENSO infuence form the data, there is indeed an increase in temperature over this period.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/fawcett_no_enso.gif
If you look at the entire temperature record going back to when records were first kept (late 1800s), the upward trend is clear.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/fawcett_11yr_avg.gif
And air temperature is only a small part of the story. If you look at the ocean heat content, the upward trend is even more obvious.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif
Finally, it’s no longer true! – adding the most recent data for 2010 now shows an upward trend for the years 1998-present. The real problem though is that 10 years is too short an interval to see a trend in the data. According to most climate scientists, it requires at least 30 years.
I’ll try the link to Bob Carter’s piece separately:
comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming…-it-stopped-in-1998.html
[okay, you'll have to put he usual prefix plus "telegraph.co.uk/"to the above]
I work at a VA medical center…there is an employee today at a booth from the engineering department – it is some form of booth to promote “green living” – turn the lights out, etc etc…I stopped to shoot the breeze with this guy…and after talking with him a bit…he informed me that the whole global warming thing is a hoax.
I asked him if he thought the earth is warming…no, but if it is, it is just a normal cycle.
I asked him then why a “green lifestyle” is important at all…he replied honestly I dont think it does…”we need C02 to allow plants to grow”.
He went on to tell me how the liberals are just using mis-information…he quoted climategate, some stuff about solar flares and volcanoes….
So even if sonic agrees that there is global warming and that what we do as human beings at some level matters to the environment….a huge swath of this country would even view sonic, who doesnt use an AC, cares about fuel efficiency, emmisions, etc….even sonic is a liberal pushing an agenda…..
Look, I am just a non-expert in this area…but even my recogntition of what a “denier” on this blog believes about AGW is considered liberal propaganda in the general populace…we got a real problem on our hands right?
Hell, if everyone believed in AGW to the extent that even sonic did, I would call it a massive victory for the environment at this point….
It is crazy where we are at with this conversation with the public…absolutely it is a topic that has been flushed down the toilet, retrieved, chewed up, spit out, and crusified over and over it seems….now what is left is some really bad media reputation…and now people dont even know why “green” matters or they refuse to care at all.
Having said that, I am not sure this idea that if people became more concerned about a positive feedback loop and it didnt happen and that this could spell worse for a “greener world” – I just have a hard time understanding this concern, because…how does it get worse than the status quo?
PharmD28-
Thank-you for the kind words.
I was a member of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club before AGW.
Like Patrick Moore (one of the founders of Greenpeace) I am not pleased with the changes in the movement and organizations. No doubt it fuels distrust in me.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/greenpeace-founder-questions-man-made-global-warming/
I do think burning hydrocarbons increases CO2 levels and that this will impact temps. I don’t know how much…
(Does anyone really think the ‘Hockey Stick’ is an accurate depiction of the past? I don’t).
One of the problems of AGW is this–
(Quotes from Edenhofer- co-chair IPCC working group III)
“one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”…
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy
I prefer to have climate policy that has something to do with an improved environment– what can I say?
Have you checked out the Nature Conservancy yet? (Shameless plug)
BillyJoe7-
You got through– congrats!
To your comments-
I like the graphs, but I don’t see any attribution or comparison with prediction.
It did get me looking more closely at the ocean data– and I have far to go on that.
So thanks for pointing me in a slightly new direction (I’ve looked at the ocean stuff before– but it seems the data might be reliable enough now to make some conclusions– it wasn’t before when I looked.)
Here is what I found so far–
http://climexp.knmi.nl/get_index.cgi
(This is one cool site BTW– it allows all sorts of interaction. I’m loving it!
Thanks again for kicking me in the butt about this ocean data– really cool)
When I plugged in the heat content from the NODC data I get a graph that looks like it is rising to about 2003 and then flattens.
In another graph that shows up using the NODC data I see the last two years are flat.
This seems to be in conflict with the unattributed graph you linked to.
(I’m not suggesting this is an end to warming or any such thing– just trying to figure how the graph you linked to was made.) Do you know why the graph you linked to is different from the NODC graph? Am I missing something?
sonic,
It was that damn link to Bob Carter’s article!
But now it’s your turn – your link doesn’t work.
“I don’t see any attribution ”
The attributes are there but do not appear when you link to the graph. I’m not sure why.
I will add them manually from now on.
“I get a graph that looks like it is rising to about 2003 and then flattens.”
The original link I gave above stops at about year 2004:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif
Source: Total Earth Heat Content from Murphy 2009. Ocean data taken from Domingues et al. 2008.
(Sorry, both are behind pay walls)
I can’t find your graph and you don;t provide a link but here is one that continues beyond 2004. It indeed shows a flattening beyond 2004:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ocean_heat_content.gif
Source: http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2009/2008GL037155.shtml
(Sorry, this is also behind a pay wall)
However, I’m sure you can pick at least another three portions of the graph that flatten as well.
Yet the overall trend is up.
Because of natural fluctuations, you cannot see trends unless you look at time intervals greater than 30 years. But I believe I already mentioned that in my previous post.
“I don’t see any…comparison with prediction.”
I wasn’t answering the question about the accuracy of the models.
But here are a couple:
Annual global mean surface temperatures:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/IPCC_model_vs_obs.gif
Global surface temperature computed for scenarios A, B, and C, compared with two analyses of observational data:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Hansen_2005_Model.gif
Sea level rise:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif
This prediction about Arctic sea ice extent was much too conservative:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif
Sonic – now my response is awaiting moderation.
Too many links I think!
Sonic, if you want to be a skeptic, you can’t have opinions or beliefs that are not backed up by a chain of logic connecting facts to those beliefs. If you arrive at a belief any other way, then you are not a skeptic.
Believing the “hockey stick” graph is wrong without having facts and logic that demonstrate it is wrong is not a skeptical position. Everyone that has looked at the data and made a graph gets a graph of the same shape. There was a very recent effort, done by AGW deniers and funded in part by AGW deniers, who came up with a graph essentially identical to the hockey stick graph.
http://scienceblogs.com/classm/2011/10/best_paper_in_urban_heat_islan.php#more
Redistribution of the world’s wealth via climate policy is a matter of perspective. The people of Bangladesh have a certain wealth by virtue of the land that they live on and farm. If that land is flooded by rising sea level, that wealth has been destroyed. If the flooding is caused by CO2 release from fossil fuel combustion, isn’t the destruction of their land (wealth) a cost of burning that fossil fuel? Isn’t the lack of payment by the fossil fuel consumer who derived the benefit from burning the fuel to the land owner who lost the land (wealth) a redistribution of wealth?
“Given that position,then what is a non-expert on climate change (or any subject for that matter)to do? Are we to turn our brains off,and wait for them to be filled with revelations from whom ever we select as our experts?”
First of all, we don’t select the experts, they are simply the people with enough education and understanding to assess the subject. Also, we are talking about consensus here, not just any scientific question. No one is saying to turn your brain off, but the process of science should take care of the concerns you have, unless you don’t value the area of study (or if it is not a legitimate are of study, like ‘astrology expert’). Meaningful criticisms of consensus do come from within fields, rarely if ever from the general public, when concerning scientific questions. Of course experts from related fields often aid in this process (e.g. statisticians). If you doubt that this perspective is correct, give me examples in which a well developed consensus was overturned, not from within a field, but from without.
nybgrus had a reasonable response:
“1) There is actually a scientific consensus
2) How strong that consensus is
3) If the consensus is actually reasonable”
Except that #3 can get people into trouble. Perhaps if a person can point out an obvious logical flaw (which should not happen in a well developed consensus, but does happen in science), one would need to have some expertise to evaluate this question. Errors in logic do happen, but these are pointed out in the process of science.
ccbowers- I think that you and I are pretty much in agreement given your last comment. My previous comment of: “Are we to turn our brains off,and wait for them to be filled with revelations from whom ever we select as our experts?”
was actually meant to rhetorically point out that that is what deniers are doing,namely picking their ‘experts’ and blindly (without critical evaluation) accepting and then regurgitating those opinions.
I guess what I was reacting to,was the sense that your statement
struck me as implying that we should have no opinion (i.e. making up your mind) about real scientific questions. It’s a fine point,but if we are to engage in our world,we have to do the best we can with what we know (form an opinion),and for me,and apparently for you,it is best to go with what recognized consensus experts say in a particular field (Ex:I have made up my mind that these are the most plausible experts,because they agree with what multiple lines of evidence show). The critical thing here,is whom do you look to as being an expert.We have to use our accumulated learning,critical thought process,and appropriately defer to those more learned than ourselves. But obviously,given the intense arguments and debates on this subject especially,there are those out there who have come to the conclusion that people like Anthony Watts and lord Monckton are experts.They select them as their own experts.See what I mean? I didn’t mean that I would personally determine what the scientific realties of climate science are,but that I would still have to use my brain and critical thought processes to evaluate the situation.
There are a few fields where the consensus is wrong, but these are not fields where the consensus was arrived at via scientific methods.
For example the “genetic basis of intelligence” field has been hijacked by ideologues and is no longer science based (if it ever was). The “leaders” of that field are actively suppressing ideas counter to their false consensus. It is pseudoscience or cargo cult science now.
The wrong idea is that there is a primary and unitary measure of intelligence called ‘g’, that ‘g’ can be measured, and that differences in ‘g’ relate to what is called intelligence and that differences in ‘g’ or intelligence are primarily due to differential genetics. This is wrong in many ways. There is no data that unambiguously supports this view and a lot that refutes it. But because the “leaders” are also the gatekeepers of the scientific literature in that field, the field has been destroyed as a scientific enterprise. It is no better than homeopathy, acupuncture or reiki now.
There are some others. A lot of the genetic studies are showing that genetics are not the be-all and end-all that the gene sequencers promised us they would be. They haven’t quite gotten to the point of being pseudoscience, but deciding when that line has been crossed is tricky. A field I am most familiar with is autism, where very large multi-thousand cohort genome wide association studies have found no gene with more than a few percent influence on the incidence of autism. There have been single genes deletions and duplications, but those are all sporadic. The highly heritable type of autism, the type that runs in families, is the type where no genes can be found.
@sonic
What is your expertise in the area of climate science? I am not sure the answer to this question is necessarily completely relevant…that seems to be being debated as we speak…but I was just curious really…are you a climate scientist or something like that?
nybgrus-
I would falsify (or validate) the hypothesis by comparing the predicted (projected) changes with the actual changes.
Given the difficulty (impossiblity?) of running an experiment on the actual system in question this seems the only reasonable way to go.
Right?
dadalus2u-
Re: the hockey stick–
I think using tree ring proxies to remove the medieval warming period from history is questionable.
Call it cherry picking if you like.
At this point I think the evidence is strong that the MWP did in fact occur and was a worldwide phenomena.
Dergachev, V.A., Raspopov, O.M. 2010a. Reconstruction of the Earth’s surface temperature based on data of deep boreholes, global warming in the last millenium, and long-term solar cyclicity. Part 1. Experimental data. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 50: 383-392.
Or if you want lots of references with a cool interactive feature–
http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html
I could go on but-
Is that the kind of logical chain you refer to?
sonic,
This is hopeless.
After 24 hours, my repsonse is still awaiting moderation.
——————————————————————–
“At this point I think the evidence is strong that the MWP did in fact occur and was a worldwide phenomena.”
That is not correct. The MWP was a local phenomenon. During the MWP, parts of the world were actually colder than the Little Ice Age.
Compare the following:
Reconstructed surface temperature anomaly for Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 A.D.), relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif
Surface temperature anomaly for period 1999 to 2008, relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable (NOAA).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temp_Pattern_1999_2008_NOAA.jpg
Globally the MWP was cooler than today.
The hockey stick aint broke.
sonic,
“I would falsify (or validate) the hypothesis by comparing the predicted (projected) changes with the actual changes.”
Generally speaking, the observed changes are actually worse than predicted by the models.
I have some links in the post under moderation.
…it will be at 28 Oct 2011 at 6:45 am
PharmD28-
I am not a climate scientist.
I have taken graduate courses in statistical analysis (including time series) so I am aware of the difficulties that are involved in much of what the climate people are doing. So that part of the information isn’t as intimidating to me as it is to some– perhaps.
I read piles of stuff and try to figure out what it all means.
I am not an expert.
Sonic, the tree ring data has nothing to do with the “hockey stick” part of the curve. The presence or absence of the MWP has no influence on the “hockey stick”.
The “hockey stick” part is all instrumental measurements. The denialist objections to the “hockey stick” have all been refuted. The most recent refutation was by a denialist group that was funded by a denialist organization.
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/analysis.php
The curve is indistinguishable from the “hockey stick” curve.
@ccbowers:
Yes it can. I meant that in a more broad sense – i.e. is the consensus at all remotely plausible (so homeopathy is out) and is the consensus based on a lot of equivocal data (so acupuncture is out). To me, it seems, AGW is both (CO2 and greenhouse gasses can theoretically raise temperature and most of the data out there seems to support that GW is happening), so the consensus is reasonable.
@tmac57:
I agree. I think ccbowers’ wording wasn’t the best in that regard, but I think we all agree and understand what we mean at this point.
Interestingly enough I was asked by a classmate yesterday what it takes for one to call themselves “expert.” She asked in the context of my knowledge of evolution, since I speak about evolution frequently in the context of the medicine we are learning. She asked me if I consider myself an expert on it. I said that depends – I feel much more expert than the vast majority of people, and certainly expert enough to address the topic competently. But if I compare myself to PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins I feel very inexpert indeed. So my answer was that you can never consider yourself an “expert” and can only gain that moniker when others bestow it upon you.
And that was exactly my issue when I was first broaching the AGW issue. There seemed to be very passionate and science based discourse on both sides of the issue (much like I imagine it seems to complete outsiders looking in on the evolution “debate.”) So my first step was to pick the biggest and best voices of the anti-AGW camp as well as the most serious accusations they make and evaluate them. Consistently, I found that they were cherry picking, using data out of context, quote mining, contradicting themselves, making mis-representations about their qualifications, and otherwise using very creationist like tactics. On the flip side, the scientific consensus was laid out and many of the scientific blogging minds that had previously earned my respect also lent support to AGW. That is how I critically evaluated the state of the consensus and the arguments against it.
From there, nit-picking specific data sets and predictions is so far out of my expertise that I am not inclined to learn enough to competently do so and this is where I surrender myself to the consensus.
@sonic:
Perhaps I’ll just re-post that lost post…
sonic,
It was that damn link to Bob Carter’s article!
But now it’s your turn – your link doesn’t work.
“I don’t see any attribution ”
The attributes are there but do not appear when you link to the graph. I’m not sure why.
I will add them manually from now on.
“I get a graph that looks like it is rising to about 2003 and then flattens.”
The original link I gave above stops at about year 2004:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif
Source: Total Earth Heat Content from Murphy 2009. Ocean data taken from Domingues et al. 2008.
(Sorry, both are behind pay walls)
I can’t find your graph and you don;t provide a link but here is one that continues beyond 2004. It indeed shows a flattening beyond 2004:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ocean_heat_content.gif
Source: http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2009/2008GL037155.shtml
(Sorry, this is also behind a pay wall)
However, I’m sure you can pick at least another three portions of the graph that flatten as well.
Yet the overall trend is up.
Because of natural fluctuations, you cannot see trends unless you look at time intervals greater than 30 years. But I believe I already mentioned that in my previous post.
sonic (continued)
“I don’t see any…comparison with prediction.”
I wasn’t answering the question about the accuracy of the models.
But here are a couple of answers:
Annual global mean surface temperatures:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/IPCC_model_vs_obs.gif
Global surface temperature computed for scenarios A, B, and C, compared with two analyses of observational data:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Hansen_2005_Model.gif
Sea level rise:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif
This prediction about Arctic sea ice extent was much too conservative:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif
sonic (continued)
“I don’t see any…comparison with prediction.”
I wasn’t answering the question about the accuracy of the models.
But here are a couple:
Annual global mean surface temperatures:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/IPCC_model_vs_obs.gif
Global surface temperature computed for scenarios A, B, and C, compared with two analyses of observational data:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Hansen_2005_Model.gif
sonic (continued)
Sea level rise:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif
This prediction about Arctic sea ice extent was much too conservative:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif
It looks like two links per post is the maximum allowable.
“So my answer was that you can never consider yourself an “expert” and can only gain that moniker when others bestow it upon you.”
Yeah, calling oneself an expert sounds pompous, but another point is that a person does not have to be an expert to meaningfully talk about a topic… especially those topics which are considered basic or mainstream concepts in a given field.
With this winter storm coming and all this talk about global warming reminds me that we are about due for another Drudgereport sarcastic reference to global warming, likely juxtaposed with an image of the snow storm.
ccbowers,
My brother-in-law, whilst otherwise being an excellent human being, is a climate denier. On one occasion I asked him if he knew the difference between climate and weather (because it seemed obvious that he didn’t). And of course he did not. In fact, he didn’t even grasp the point of my question.
sonic,
“even with all the wonders of modern science (satellites in space taking measurements and so forth) we can still not know what the albedo is doing.”
Satellite data before 2000 showed a downward trend but did not include all causes of albedo. After 2000, earthshine data shows increasing albedo but this does not cover the entire Earth surface. However data from 4 independant satellites – which do cover the entire Earth surface – all agree that albedo has not changed since 2000.
“Modern science”, it seems, has caught up.
sonic,
“I believe the actual measurements (Earthshine project) indicate that the albedo has increased since 1997. This is in agreement with the halt in temps seen from that time.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/”
You are misreading this graph.
The blue line is the Earthshine data. It begins in 2000. The black line is satellite data.
The blue line Earthshine data do indeed show increasing albedo. However compare that graph to the graph at your second link:
“More recent (from the website of the observatory)
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/”
This “more recent” data is actually a correction of erroneous Earthshine data (blue line in both graphs) contained in the first graph. The error was due to undersampling. This occurred in 2003 and, if you look at the graph, the increase in albedo is almost entirely due to the result for that year. What you see in this corrected data is only a slight increase in albedo.
And, remember, this data does not include the entire Earth surface.
The black and the blue lines are satellite data. One of them is CERES. This is one of the 4 satellites mentioned on my previous post which all agree that albedo is not increasing. The other is ISCCP (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project), the old satellite in operation before 2000 (and beyond) which does not measure all contributions to albedo.
continued….
Finally, the first graph you linked to is incomplete.
Here is an updated graph which includes the year 2004.
http://www.realclimate.org/palle_et_al06.jpg
Notice how the blue line has dipped sharply back towards the trend of no increase in albedo, bringing it almost into line with the satellite data.
BTW, the WattsUpWithThat site is an obvious climate denier site.
Notice that the article was written (by Andrew Watts himself) in 2007 so he should have had access to the updated graph that includes the year 2004.
daedalus2u-
A hockey stick has two aspects- the long flat handle and the hyperbolic- like curve at the end.
BEST only deals with the end. (1850- present)
The MWP (recognized for decades by consensus science) occurred around 1000.
Compare IPCC 1990 figure 7c. to hockey stick.
If the handle isn’t flat (includes a camels hump) then the curve suddenly transforms from a hyperbolic up to a series of camel’s humps.
The erasure of the MWP made the graph go from “camel’s humps” to “hockey stick”.
To say BEST has anything to do with MWP is to misunderstand entirely.
Here is a link to the studies that indicate MWP was an earth wide phenomena–
http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html
I have looked at a number of these studies and they seem legit.
Am I missing something about them?
nybgrus-
Exactly- one can change a theory without throwing out the whole thing.
For the sake of argument- suppose the measurements taken were to indicate that the multiplier for the feedbacks was less than 1, In that case it is possible to imagine that it could mean man’s actions do and will alter the environment (warmer) but that the net result of this alteration will be minimal or positive -plants do love the CO2, for example.
We have not discarded the theory – we have only altered it to fit the ‘for the sake of argument’ postulated data.
If it turned out that burning hydrocarbons caused the earth to cool off–
and it turned out that pigs really can fly…
And if 6 turned out to be 9…
BillyJoe7-
Re: albedo-from here-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm
“earthshine data shows increasing albedo from 1999 to 2003 but little to no trend from 2003. Satellites show little to no trend since 2000.”
The graph you show indicates a change in data for 2004.
The paper you linked to was recieved for publication in Nov. 2003 and accepted for publication 21 April 2004.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/304/5675/1299.abstract
Um–how did they know the point when that was published?– somethings not kosher here…
Darn- my link fails.
I have re-entered by way of this-
http://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi?someone@somewhere
It looks like the heat content as indicated on the NOAA graphs has leveled since around 2003– similar to the HADCRUT3 land temps. I would note that I know that the measurements taken more recently are much more reliably accurate than those taken years ago. (Cans from ships at sea? You know how they did that?)
Anyway– I find it interesting that the most reliable measurements are the ones showing a flat.
I agree that this is a short term thing- if it is a thing at all.
I saw the article you linked to in the JGR (Murphy et al.)
I don’t know how reliable the ocean data is before 2003 when they fixed the system. It seems odd that all the heating was going into the ocean right before we got our measurement system in place and then– it stopped going into the ocean.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Actually this might be one of the cooler things the earth has done lately…
Anyway–
The graphs you linked to here–
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/IPCC_model_vs_obs.gif
indicate the models have been making predictions since 1860.
You might want to consider how misleading that is.
Anyway–
If you continue the graph here-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Hansen_2005_Model.gif
with the Hadcrut3 data-I believe you will find we are below scenario c.
Given that scenario c is “No emissions” and that we have had an increasing amount of emissions since the prediction was made– well you see what I mean?
If we look at the part most likely to be misleading we have a lot more trouble than if we look at the part most likely accurate.
BillyJoe7-
Re: albedo-from here-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm
“earthshine data shows increasing albedo from 1999 to 2003 but little to no trend from 2003. Satellites show little to no trend since 2000.”
The graph you show indicates a change in data for 2004.
The paper you linked to was recieved for publication in Nov. 2003 and accepted for publication 21 April 2004.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/304/5675/1299.abstract
Um–how did they know the point when that was published?– somethings not kosher here…
BillyJoe7-
Darn- my link fails.
I have re-entered by way of this-
http://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi?someone@somewhere
It looks like the heat content as indicated on the NOAA graphs has leveled since around 2003– similar to the HADCRUT3 land temps. I would note that I know that the measurements taken more recently are much more reliably accurate than those taken years ago. (Cans from ships at sea? You know how they did that?)
Anyway– I find it interesting that the most reliable measurements are the ones showing a flat.
I agree that this is a short term thing- if it is a thing at all.
I saw the article you linked to in the JGR (Murphy et al.)
I don’t know how reliable the ocean data is before 2003 when they fixed the system. It seems odd that all the heating was going into the ocean right before we got our measurement system in place and then– it stopped going into the ocean.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Actually this might be one of the cooler things the earth has done lately…
BillyJoe7-
Anyway–
The graphs you linked to here–
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/IPCC_model_vs_obs.gif
indicate the models have been making predictions since 1860.
You might want to consider how misleading that is.
Anyway–
If you continue the graph here-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Hansen_2005_Model.gif
with the Hadcrut3 data-I believe you will find we are below scenario c.
Given that scenario c is “No emissions” and that we have had an increasing amount of emissions since the prediction was made– well you see what I mean?
@sonic:
I’m not following this very closely, both since I don’t know it well enough and it would take me ages to get through it all and because I am in my last week before final exams and am cranking hard on medicine.
However, in looking at one of your posts for all of 3 minutes:
If you count the little hash marks on the x-axis, you will notice that the right side y-axis of the para is the year 2004 and that there is no data point there. The data clearly ends before 2004. This is what I am talking about when I say that whenever I do check on stuff I find creationist style denialist tactics. Furthermore, even if there HAD been data from 2004 that STILL wouldn’t validate your point.
When it was submitted for publication it was reviewed and asked to be changed – that is standard for every scientific paper. Clearly they changed quite a few things since it wasn’t actually accepted in its final and current form for 5 months. During that time they could have easily updated the graph with newest data in 2004.
But as I said – that isn’t even the case. So now, I question all of your data presented without even looking at it, because you can’t seem to count hash marks on a graph and thus try and find fraud that doesn’t exist to make your point.
I don’t even know what this means. The “data” you are presenting is a hodge podge of what I would have granted you were small inconsistencies before I caught you not able to count lines on an abscissa. You are taking a theory and trying to twist it into a particular data set “for the sake of argument?” I don’t get that in the slightest.
And if the data becomes more robust and indicates to us that all is good and plants love CO2… then that’s great. But so far it hasn’t, and making a mistake on that is not something that is a good idea.
That would be like me having a patient with an atypical MI and saying, “Well, what if it turns out he isn’t having a heart attack? Why don’t we just spare ourselves the trouble and resources since there are plenty of bits of data that are consistent with him not having an MI.”
sonic,
“Here is a link to the studies that indicate MWP was an earth wide phenomena–”
The consensus is that the MWP was not an Earth-wide phenomenon. I haven’t bothered to muck around with your link because the data is presented very clearly in the following graph:
Reconstructed surface temperature anomaly for Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 A.D.), relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period obtained by using tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres.
Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif
Clearly the MWP was a local phenomenon in the Northern Hemisphere.
“It seems odd that all the heating was going into the ocean right before we got our measurement system in place and then– it stopped going into the ocean.”
It depends on what depth you measure to.
If you measure the temperature down to 700 meters, there is a leveling off or a slight cooling beyond 2003. But, if you measure down to 1500 meters, there is continued warming. If you measure down to abyssal depths there is even more warming. It seems the heat in the top 700 meters somehow redistributed to lower levels. Fancy that! Maybe there are ocean currents or some other weird phenomenon that can explain that.
Like always, you must look at all the data, not cherry pick what supports your view.
And, again, 5 years is too short a time interval to see a trend. It takes at least 30 years. Over the past thirty years there is a clear upward trend in TOTAL ocean heat content.
sonic,
You have yet to make a meaningful reply to my response to the albedo question.
nybrus-
Actually I got the paper referred to wrong (as did BJ7 apparently.). It was linked to Palle 2004 when it should have been linked to Palle 2008.
The graph BJ7 gave me has a point clearly labeled 2004 with a dot there. I’m sorry if you couldn’t find the correct graph at the site linked to.
The actual error in this case was the idea that the graph in question came from Palle 2004 when in fact it came from Palle 2008.
The phrase “for the sake of argument” means that one accepts a premise without question– for the sake of argument. In this case I ask that you accept that the data show a multiplier below 1.
Apparently this phrase is unknown to you?
I thought it was common. Sorry.
Good luck with your finals!
BillyJoe7-
I see your point about the albedo. I was distracted by the misappropriation that was given to the graph (should have been Palle 2008- not Palle 2004).
Given the info available I would agree with this assessment-
“As for recent albedo trends, earthshine data shows increasing albedo from 1999 to 2003 but little to no trend from 2003. Satellites show little to no trend since 2000. The radiative forcing from albedo changes in recent years appears to be minimal.”
From the blog post ‘skepticalscience.co/earth-albedo-effect’ updated 2010.
Which is to say that tmac was incorrect to say, “We know that Earth’s albedo is decreasing.” Because there has been an increase followed by a flat (no trend). Overall that is an increase or flat– not a decrease.
Re:MWP
I give you hundreds of studies that indicate the scientific consensus was in fact correct (see IPCC 1990 figure 7) and you give me an unattributed gif. to rebut. You then say you won’t look at the evidence from the actual studies I link to. This is not very convincing to me.
Re: ocean warming-
I give you NOAA data from their website.
You make claims about deep sea heat. Where is the data from actual measurements, please. I really would like to see that.
Sonic-I think that I acknowledged that you were probably right about the albedo overall not decreasing.What I was thinking about when I misspoke,was the decrease in albedo from the shrinking ice cover.Clearly that is only part of the effect,but not something to be dismissed as not significant either.
tmac57-
Yes, I think we did get this albedo thing worked out. I’m sorry if that quote was inappropriate– I was just trying to remind BJ7 of what the actual discussion was and how it came about.
I must say– the discussion did get interesting though.
At this point I think the albedo thing is really hard to determine accurately enough to say much about minor ups and downs- the earthshine measurements are cool, for example, but I don’t think they are definitive.
I would agree that if the ice cover is reduced it would likely lead to a lowered albedo– so at least we can agree on that, but it seems that there are other factors (if the ice becomes clouds– is that a plus or minus for albedo?) that are unknown and- as I say- the measurements aren’t good enough yet to determine.
I keep looking for the settled science here– ah, now you know I’m joking…
@sonic:
Sorry sonic – I was going off the links in your comment. I’m not about to search out all the comments to find all the references. The point is that however you slice it, the data was there. Whether it was a labeling error or crossed up websites or whatever – unless you have an example of the graph containing data that could not have existed at the time and was actually different from data later on. But I doubt that. So focusing on such possible mistakes is a standard denialist tactic and uninteresting. It doesn’t further discussion and understanding.
“For the sake of argument” is indeed known to me. I re-read your post and still don’t get what you mean in that specific instance. Probably the larger context is unknown to me. As I said, I am not expert enough on climate science nor all the data, and thus cannot extrapolate what an outcome might be based on a stipulated hypothetical premise. So I just can’t comment on anything here “for the sake of argument.” I can only point out what the scientific consensus is and what the potential ramifications may be.
And thanks for the well wishes on finals. Thankfully I am not particularly concerned over them. I am extremely well prepared for my med school exams. I am, however, stressing and going full bore for my USMLE that I will be taking in 48 days. That exam is extremely difficult, and my goal is not to pass but to do extremely well. I am already testing at almost a full standard deviation above the mean for US trained medical students, but that is not good enough for me. Call me a perfectionist, but I want at least two SDs under my belt when I get my score back. Besides my own self-induced pressure, I also feel external pressure. I actually designed, proposed, and implemented the USMLE study prep curriculum for my school of medicine. Obviously I had help and what I proposed is not exactly what the school will be doing, but I did most of the work myself and essentially everything I asked for and proposed has been accepted as the standard for 2 years of curriculum. So if I don’t do well on the exam…. lol
Yeah,I’m not really comfortable with the ‘science is settled’ way of stating one’s certainty on the AGW issue.I prefer ‘The consensus shows that multiple lines of evidence indicate a warming trend for the last 150 years,and that there is good evidence that most of that is caused by human activity’ (doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue though).
Interestingly,one of the most often used arguments against AGW consensus is that the motive for scientists to fudge,lie,cheat,defraud,etc.,is that they do it so that they can get that gravy train of high dollar research money (picture Scrooge McDuck showering himself in gold coins).But how would this make sense in the ‘science is settled’ paradigm? Wouldn’t that mean that there is less to study,not more? And who is leading the charge for more and different studies?Why, it’s the climate change skeptics! It’s almost as if they are trying to drum up a controversy, so that they can get research grants to prove their position
tmac,
“Yeah,I’m not really comfortable with the ‘science is settled’ way of stating one’s certainty on the AGW issue.”
On some things the science IS settled.
- The greenhouse effect is real.
- The planet is warming.
- The increase in CO2 is largely responsible for that warming.
- The increase in CO2 is anthropogenic.
- The positive feedback means it’s going to get a lot hotter.
- The sea levels are rising.
What we don’t know is largely quantitative.
We don’t know the rate and extent of these changes.
Climate denialists use the phrase “the science is not settled” to delay action on climate change.
sonic,
“Given the info available I would agree with this assessment-
I agree that the above is an accurate summary of albedo trends.
However, a trend is not necessarily a meaningful trend….
“Which is to say that tmac was incorrect to say, “We know that Earth’s albedo is decreasing.” Because there has been an increase followed by a flat (no trend). Overall that is an increase or flat– not a decrease.”
If you accept the view that, because of natural variability, 5-10 year trends are not meaningful and that it takes at least 30 years to see a meaningful trend, tmac is correct but for the wrong reason.
…continued
Regarding the MWP:
“I give you hundreds of studies that indicate the scientific consensus was in fact correct (see IPCC 1990 figure 7) and you give me an unattributed gif. to rebut. You then say you won’t look at the evidence from the actual studies I link to. This is not very convincing to me.”
I couldn’t make head or tail of your link, sorry.
But, why look at hundreds of studies and then try to come to your own inexpert conclusion when you have panels of experts who can look at those hundreds of studies with experienced eyes and come to a consensus based on them.
From RealClimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/medieval-warm-period-mwp/
Defintion of the MWP: Period of relative warmth in some regions of the Northern Hemisphere in comparison with the subsequent several centuries.
From IPCC:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html
The relevant graph is the middle graph and it clearly shows the MWP was cooler than the present.
(As an aside, note also: “All series have been smoothed with a Gaussian-weighted filter to remove fluctuations on time scales less than 30 years
…continued
Regarding ocean warming:
“I give you NOAA data from their website.
You make claims about deep sea heat. Where is the data from actual measurements, please. I really would like to see that.”
I rely on summaries from reliable sources of original sources rather than the original sources themselves.
But if you want the original sources why don’t you google for it.
Here is one:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JC006601.shtml
Unfortunately this is behind a paywall, but here is their summary:
Here is another:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3682.1
Sorry, paywall again! But here is the summary:
Regarding ocean warming continued:
It is true that deep dea measurements are sparse, especially abyssal depths – because it’s hard to get our instruments there.
However there are plenty of hints that the deep ocean heat is increasing.
For example, sea level rise is a good proxy for ocean heat content, but the observed sea level rise is only 2/3 accounted for by expansion of heated surface water (700m).
There is also evidence from water circulation that provides a mechanism whereby surface and deep water mix. Here is a diagram demonstrating this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/lumpkin-speercirculation.jpg
We also know that there is an energy imbalance and that most of this extra energy (93.4%) is going into the oceans (because it’s not in the air or land). The surface water is not heating, ergo…
…sorry, the third paragraph posted incompletely (how does that happen?)
Here is the complete paragraph:
For example, sea level rise is a good proxy for ocean heat content, but the observed sea level rise is only 2/3 accounted for by expansion of heated surface water (700m).
It still won’t post???
Try again. Add the following to the third paragraph above
plus water added by melting terrestrial ice. The remaining 1/3 must therefore be due to expansion of heated deep water (>700m).
BillyJoe7-I agree with you on how denialists are misusing the ‘science is not settled’ argument to delay action. But because there are many details to be worked out about the dynamics of Earth’s climate system,it is really easy to get a legitimate climate scientist to admit that there are unanswered questions.And every time that happens,the denialists crow “See there, even the ‘warmist’ Hansen (or whomever) agrees that the science is NOT settled,so they are all lying through their teeth!”
I just don’t like giving them this easy strawman to burn down,but your points were well taken.
@tmac57:
That is yet another fine example of the humbleness of science as our undoing.
“But you’re not certain about this minute detail?”
“Well, no… we think that…. and it really doesn’t change the overall…”
“Oh well, I’m glad you think. We need answers and until we get a sure one, I don’t see any reason to do believe your ‘theory’!”
I see a lot of ties with that and religious thinking – people want definite answers at all costs. They don’t care if they are right or wrong answers – they just want it to be certain.
BillyJoe7-
On topic of this post–
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
Re: MWP–
The site linked to here links to numerous studies that indicate the MWP was warmer than it is now.
http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html
Just click on one of the dots– it gives you the study associated with that area of the planet. You can see the dots are all over the planet- not just in the North.
The link you provided to the IPCC data indicates many fewer studies used at that time for the year 1000 (figure 6.11) for the analysis.
I would be willing to update my opinion based on more and newer studies.
Re: deep sea temps–
Since the land temps have not gone up for over a decade –
(See Best data)- then we need the ocean heat to explain things.
Unfortunately the heat is in the place that has no means of getting reliable readings
now and no really reliable readings in the past.
Or is that fortunate? Sometimes I can’t tell.
continued…
Re: sea level rise–
The actual data shows no sea level rise. We get sea level rise after applying the ‘glacial isostatic adjustment’ (GIA) to the data to account for the ‘fact’ that the oceans are getting bigger and the land is rising.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/faq#faq-expand-all-link
So either-
1) the sea really isn’t rising or
2) it is rising at exactly the same rate as the oceans are getting bigger and the landmass is rising.
Apparently we are very fortunate in that many of the countries that are supposed to be underwater aren’t-
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/article2538017.ece
At this point I hope it is clear that one need not be insane or driven by anti-environmental agenda to question the AGW hypothesis- that the questions actually are data driven.
If I haven’t made that point yet- I’m not going to be able to.
Either way is OK with me.
If I have made that point– well that’s the point.
The science of climate change really is settled. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, if you increase the CO2 level in the atmosphere the temperature at the Earth’s surface will go up. That is settled science and has been settled for over a century.
What is unsettled is the timing. To some extent the timing isn’t really an issue. If the temperature gets 10 degrees hotter, does it matter if it happens in 20 years, 50 years, 100 years or even 500 years? A 10 degree increase would be catastrophic. Does it matter who the catastrophe falls on? Don’t we owe future generations a catastrophe-free future? Does it matter of those future generations are 50 or 500 years in the future?
CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than it has been in the last 10 million years or so. The last time it was this high, there was no ice in Greenland. When Greenland melts it will add 7 meters to sea level. Does it matter when that 7 meters occurs? Is it ok if it happens in 500 years but not ok if it happens in 50? To me, it is unacceptable if it happens in 50 years or 500 years.
Sonic,
The point is that a climate denier will find contrary data somewhere if he looks long and hard enough. Science is like that. Not every piece of data supports the conclusion that the large bulk of the data reaches.
Your problem is that you are too ready to accept what the climate deniers have dredged up.
It is called cherry picking and you have yet to come to grasp with that concept in my opinion.
A case in point is that first link of yours from the Daily Mail.
It is total bullshit.
I mean look at the so-called “suppressed” graph. Do you really think that that graph could possibly reflect reality?. There is no way that could be correct. And it isn’t. The value for April 2010 is an obvious error. No such change in temperature can be found in any other surface temperature record.
There’s the cherry pick!
The errors bars for April 2010 is 2.9 degrees. The next largest error bar is 0.21 and the average is 0.1 degrees. And the reason for this? For April, 47 stations were sampled compared with an average of about 1400.
Was there really a link to the Daily Mail to a science article that wasn’t being used sarcastically? I like the title “the graph that fooled the world.” I think I remember reading something like that from The Onion.
ccbowers,
I think he was serious.
But sonic seems to have disappeared from the blog so maybe we’ll never know for sure.
Maybe he was serious but forgot about this article from the same source:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fcPvboXA
Or, maybe it was one of his incomprehensible jokes.
Notice the date of the Daily Mail piece.They were obviously sending a Valentine’s Day gift to their regular readers (most of them apparently).
The most amusing thing to me was the comments,and how they were rated in regards to their content.You can filter for best and worst rated,and it’s like filtering for science literacy.(The worst rated=more literate in general)
ccbowers-
Did you have some question about the factualness of the article I linked to? You could read what Judith Curry has to say about it here–
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/
You could read what she has to say about Muller and her talks with him–
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller/
Note-From the first link– I was glad the article quoted her correctly and agree that the caption was over the top.
From the second– It seems Muller wasn’t so happy about the WSJ headline either.
I liked this part too-
“The publicity is so that the IPCC can’t ignore BEST. Muller shares my concerns about the IPCC process, and gatekeeping in the peer review process.”
I was glad to see that- I understand better what Muller is doing (I wasn’t too happy about the pre-release bit– now I see why).
sonic- I read both pieces on Judith Curry’s blog. My impression is that she is still rejecting BEST’s preliminary conclusions while trying to maintain the ‘appearance’ of being open minded. The comments on her blog are pure denialism for the most part,but I did like one commenter,which led me to this post on his blog,which I hope you will read:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/934/#more-934
Contrast that with what you typically see on the climate skeptic sites.
tmac57-
Thank-you for that article.
There is much I can agree with– but it also points to some of my biggest difficulties.
Perhaps you can help me here.
For example–
He says-
“Even to the extent that climate sensitivity is low, CO2 can still triple or quadruple eventually and so it’s tough to see an alternative to not causing a large degree of warming in the future if fossil fuels aren’t cut down.”
But if the climate sensitivity is low then a triple or more of CO2 would not cause much warming. That is the definition of low sensitivity. After misstating the science he makes a claim (a large degree of warming) that is theoretical– not fact.
I think he is mouthing dogma and misstating the science while doing so.
His quote from Pierrehumbert about Earth turning into Venus is another example of dogma over science.
He says–
“A petroleum geologist telling you to look for oil here and not over there is not dogma; it’s education and advising. A doctor telling you what a bad vs. a good diet looks like is not him pushing his dogma of health science. Expertise is valuable and it matters, and people treating climate science differently is just absurdly odd.”
We trust the geologist and the doctor because they have long track records of success. There is no such record for climate science. His demand that they be treated as equal is not based on merit but on authority.
He is being authoritarian and he doesn’t even recognize it.
You see what I’m looking at or should I spell it out further?
@sonic:
I have only been cursorialy following this.
No, we trust them because they have they education and experience in the relevant sciences. We trust them even more because they have good track records.
Climate scientists have the training and experience in the relevant sciences. They may not have the track record as you assert, but I’ll take training in the relevant sciences with no track record over Dr. Google anyday. And that is the entire point.
BTW, having a track record without the relevant training is only second from bottom. Anyone can get lucky. I’ll put my bets on the guys that have the most likelihood and best reasons for being consistently right.
None of that is an appeal to authority. It is a deference to expertise. Just because that expertise isn’t “good enough” for you, doesn’t mean anything. It is still vastly more than your expertise or mine and more than anyone else out there. You don’t need to be “the expert” (whatever that means) to have deference like that – in some cases, like climate science, you have to take whoever is the most expert. And that is still these same scientists.
Sonic- regarding climate sensitivity:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
Yes, I am willing to accept acknowledged experts in climate science as a guide to what I consider the current understanding of climate trends. You on the other hand, seem willing to accept sources that are not climate scientists Ex: Marc Morano, Dr. David Whitehouse (retired astrophysicist),and Steve Goddard (if that is his real name),and questionable blogs such as Climate Depot,Real Science,and The Global Warming Policy Foundation (funding of which is secret). What’ up with that?
Yeah,I can see clearly what you are looking at,and frankly,I could not be less impressed.Take a close look at all of the people and science agencies around the globe that are involved in investigating our climate,and what they have come to see as consensus.
Ex:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.php
Then compare that to the small but vocal,and well funded denialist camp.Look at who those people are,what their funding is,what their science qualifications are (or lack of),and the words and tactics they use. There just is no comparison
nybgrus-
I was under the impression that a scientific theory was as good as it explained our current observations and made accurate, testable predictions about future observations.
I don’t think that climate science as currently formulated does either well.
You can see my confusion.
tmac57-
I don’t accept what is said– that is why I link to the sites that have the actual data as often as I do. (Note- I was originally talking about MWP and linked to the site that has the studies. I haven’t had anyone get back on that yet)
I recognize the Moreno name– I wrote to him sometime ago. He wrote back. He is funny. He is a political hack- not a scientist. I think he does understand how this stuff is abused by the politicians and media, but I don’t think he is an expert on he science aspects. (A friend of mine is a lobbyist for the chemical industry- science and politics and media are different beasts entirely…)
BTW–
If you read the article you linked to and update with the knowledge that we are running cooler than Hansen’s zero emissions scenario, then by the logic they use we would find a climate sensitivity of near zero (negative?).
Perhaps it is a good thing the science was settled before these measurements were taken.
I would be interested in discussing the studies re MWP, but that’s on the assumption that the science isn’t settled.
sonic,you said
Then why did you reference a piece by Marc Morano to PharmD28 up thread:
Note:The Real Science blog is also a poor source.
Sonic-Regarding Hansen’s 1988 predictions and climate sensitivity:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm
That is a sensitivity of 3.4°C for 2xCO2…not zero.
Indeed. And where that is lacking, an expert opinion of someone with relevant expertise is a good surrogate. The further corollary to that is you don’t think that climate science…. you also seemed to have issue with evolutionary theory, as per our previous conversations. you are not an expert to make such conclusions. As has been pointed out by others in this case regarding climate science and by myself regarding evolution, you take poor sources, denialist “data,” and smalls bits of actual data that don’t quite fit (and often it is that they don’t seem to fit) and then decide that is enough to challenge the consensus view. The point I am trying to make is that it is NOT sufficient.
There is no confusion to be had. You are asking too much of the theory and when it doesn’t live up to your idea of what it should do, you decide it is no good. You also ask the wrong questions and in the wrong way(at least you did oftenly in our evolution discussions and it seems you are doing the same here).
I don’t recall exactly where I got the link, but I suggest you read this article for a good primer on why such cogitations against the scientific consensus are simply unproductive. It is about physics and not written about denialists, but I think the points in it a very good and easily applicable here.
BillyJoe7-
Sorry for the delay in response- but I’ve had to think a bit.
First off it is clear that you have done some reading about this and you have presented an interesting series of graphs to make your point.
Well done.
But I must say– the discussion tends to derail when ‘denialism’ or ‘cherry-picking’ come into the picture.
Oh certainly there are people who are out to decieve and there are those who really are looney tunes– but—
Let me give an example– A person could say- the temps haven’t risen for 13 years. Another person could say- but that doesn’t change the overall trend.
At this point it is possible to have a rational discussion about what the importance and meaning of these two factual statements is. For example– We could discuss the possiblity of this being a pause in an otherwise relentless rise– or we might see it as the signal that we are on the new phase of a long term cycle. This leads to a discussion of evidence for and against such points.
But accusations of ‘cherry-picking’ and ‘denialism’ aren’t designed to engage the intellect. They are about anger.
(The person calling the other person a denialist is invariably pissed off and the person being called the name invariably gets pissed.)
I’m not saying the description never fits.
I’m just saying it is the last thing to talk about– as it ends all rational discussion– not the first.
What say you about that?
I’m going to guess that was at least partially directed my way. I am not upset or angry at all sonic. Unlike evolution, I have very little vested in this one.
I am just commenting on the rhetoric that I have been seeing on both sides and the sources you have picked. As I said, I am only cursorially following this so I am primarily commenting on the way in which data has been presented and the way questions have been asked and answered. Secondarily the sources are an important point as well.
You may not be actively or consciously trying to be a denialist, but you are asking questions the same way one would, and using denialist sources for the evidence to back up your claims. Bear that in mind.
tmac57-
I referenced those articles because PharmD28 wanted to know about evidence based questions about the theory. I believe they point to such– not a bad summary. In retrospect I could have found better examples— OK, I should have found better examples- No doubt.
But it is clear that GISStemp data overlaid on Hansen’s 1988 forecasts indicate we are currently cooler than his ‘zero emissions after 2000′ prediction –despite higher emissions. Since the prediction was made- the evidence has not followed.
I don’t think this disproves the assumptions that the model that produced those predictions is based on. It is most certainly not proof of the accuracy of the model.
What I find odd is that people who know nothing about the theory will jump down my throat for having a question about what the implications for the estimation of the multiplier given this information might be.
It is weird– no?
SNAFU?
nybrus-
Did I not make it clear that I am not an expert?
I am not an expert in this field of climate science.
If you are saying you will not use my opinion as the arbiter of truth regarding what the climate is doing– I am relieved.
I have no idea what is going to happen next.
Sonic,
I agree with you that climate denialists are not a common breed. But the blind followers of these denialist probably greatly outnumber those who take the trouble to read the consensus opinions of actual climate scientists.
But denialism is denialism and cherry picking is cherry picking whether deliberate or blind.
The solar cycle is 11 years and the ENSO cycle is 7-10 years on average. Therefore 13 years is never going to be long anough to see a meaningly (long term) trend in the raw data. If you subtract out those short term influences, however, you will still see the long term upward trend.
Both of these cylces are coming out of their troughs at present, so I guess we’ll actually start to see an exaggerated upward trend pretty soon.
Denialists only ever see the downward trends by cherry picking periods of time mostly shorter than 10 years. The minimal period to overcome the effect of the “noise” of the short term cycles mentioned above is about 17 years (though 30 years is considered ideal).
Take a look at this graphic as a really good illustration of this point:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif
“But accusations of ‘cherry-picking’ and ‘denialism’ aren’t designed to engage the intellect.”
If the terms are being used appropriately, there is no intellect interested in being engaged… so in these cases there is no loss. The rational discussion ended with the cherry picking and denials, not the use of those terms. There is a risk in using those terms: they can be thrown about when it doesn’t apply.
sonic- I don’t think you fully understood the link I gave above about Hansen’s projections. The conclusion is that the observed GISS temps are consistent with a 3.4 c rise for a doubling of CO2 not a zero degree sensitivity. That means unless we stop adding CO2,and we get to that doubling,we are likely to be in big doo doo.
And I would finally like to leave you with this one link to NASA that I think combines the data in such a way as to best illustrate the global trend of warming:
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#globalTemp
BillyJoe7-
A team makes predictions based on a model that is based on certain assumptions.
These models are at least 29 years old
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha05900x.html
The predictions based on those models are not a good match to our observations.
The earth might be warming or not– but it is the claim that the models can correctly predict the changes that is in question.
And they objectively have not made correct predictions. (See my note to tmac57 below).
I know that a pencil will fall to earth if I drop it.
This does not mean that Aristotle’s explanation (everything has it’s place) is correct.
But Aristotle’s explanation being wrong doesn’t mean that the pencil won’t drop.
You see what I mean?
The earth might be warming– that isn’t to say that current explanations of the phenomena are correct. I would judge the explanation based on if it makes correct predictions about future observations.
How anti-science of me
ccbowers-
I agree with much of what you say.
I just don’t think the ‘shoot first- ask questions later’ approach is appropriate.
It is often difficult for a person who has accused another of heinous crimes against humanity to admit they were wrong to make such accusations.
It is often difficult for the accused to forgive the accuser in such situations.
Rationality often takes the lose in such circumstances…
Go figure
tmac57-
I am not questioning the phenomena. The earth started warming about 1850– the end of the ‘little ice age’. I am questioning the models that are used to predict the future.
If you would be so kind as to compare the actual temperature record to the predictions given by Hansen in 1988– that’s 23 years ago– and based on models that are at least 29 years old (see link above)–
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
(that’s the temp data from NASA)
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
(that’s where you can find the predictions)-
Please note those are NASA websites–
Or you can get the comparison at with the graph presented at the site I linked to earlier(I don’t have another source for that– sorry)
It is obvious that the predictions don’t match the observations. You might say the test has been running for 22 years (the date of publication) or 29 years (They specifically state they are using a model II from the 1983 paper)
Either way– it’s a pretty long test and– oops the model predictions don’t match the observations.
“But the earth has warmed” is a red-herring, bait and switch–
The claim was they knew why it was warming and had a model that could predict future warming. The claim has not proved out.
What is the big deal?
sonic- I see that once again you have failed to understand the significance of the link to the skeptical science article that I referred to above. Please read it again (but I suspect that you never looked at it at all).
Sonic,
I didn’t present models, I presented data.
In any case you are wrong:
Here are some models v observations:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/IPCC_model_vs_obs.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Hansen_2005_Model.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif
I believe I have posted them before.
Sonic,
I didn’t present models, I presented data.
In any case…
Here are some models v observations:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/IPCC_model_vs_obs.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Hansen_2005_Model.gif
(reply to sonic continued)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif
I believe I have posted them before.
tmac57-
Of course I looked at your link.
And I have attempted to continue the analysis given the most recent data.
If you would be so kind as to check to see if I am correct– that the newest data indicate we are in fact running below the scenario c prediction of Hansen 1988.
Am I wrong about that?
Perhaps it doesn’t matter. It would be nice for an acknowledgement of the fact one way or the other- I realize it might be a small point, but—
Have you looked at any of the studies I linked to re: MWP?
Do you know why that matters?
BillyJoe7-
Umm- I commented directly on those graphs earlier.
Have you looked at the studies about MWP I linked to?
Sonic, where is the theory or data that predicts that dumping CO2 in the atmosphere will have no adverse effects?
Shouldn’t the people who are dumping billions upon billions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere be required to show it won’t have an adverse effect? All the known theory predices it will make the Earth warmer. The last time there was this much CO2 in the atmosphere, there was no ice on Greenland.
There is no theory that predicts the Earth won’t warm. You seem to be quibbling about the timing. There is a gigantic amount of lag in the system. By the time it does warm, it will be too late to stop it.
Over what time scale is the melting of Greenland acceptable?
sonic- Hansen’s scenario C was modeled on the climate sensitivity being 4.2C for a doubling of CO2.That was too high,but that was the best that could be determined in 1988 . However,the observed levels of CO2 were consistent with the scenario B,and the actual temps were consistent with C.The difference is due to the assumption in 1988 that the sensitivity would be at 4.2C ,but analysis of the actual radiative forcings work out to show a climate sensitivity of 3.4 C for 2XCO2 to arrive at the scenario C observed temps.
See that…3.4C sensitivity for scenario C…not zero as you were asserting.That is what the article that I referred you to states,and that is what you have repeatedly misunderstood. Yes, Hansen was wrong using a 4.2C sensitivity back in 1988,that is hardly surprising since this is an evolving science,but that is why the long term data is important,and the data accumulated since 1988 STILL shows an increase of warming,and that the refined model of scenario C is on track for a 3.4C rise in temp if we continue to add CO2 until it doubles.Also that figure could end up being low if the potential positive feed back scenarios are triggered.
I am not sure what the data about the MWP shows globally,there seems to be some disagreement,but I do know that we can see what is happening now with CO2,we are at 392ppm I believe.We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,we know we are adding to it daily,we know that it persists in the atmosphere well beyond the time it is introduced (maybe 1000 years),so there is no quick fix known for it,and we know that we are at a level now that hasn’t been seen for perhaps 400,000 years or so (that would include the MWP right?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
So just do the math,or just continue to muddy the waters,if that makes you feel good about yourself.
daedalus2u-
I have no theory that says dumping CO2 into the atmosphere will have no adverse effects.
In fact, I agree that using fossil fuels will have consequences– not only on the environment but on the social and political levels as well. What happens as we run out? Mad Max anyone?
I also have no theory that says we haven’t passed the ‘tipping point’ at 350 ppm (350.org) and that mankind isn’t doomed all ready. How could I know that we aren’t doomed all ready?
Perhaps this extreme change of environment will lead to another ‘cambrian explosion’ and what will evolve are creatures that are smarter than us who can live on the planet in such a way that they don’t kill themselves. I certainly have no theory to contradict that notion.
I hope you can understand why I don’t base my decisions on what I don’t have a theory for.
Joking aside– I don’t know why anyone would need a theory about climate to know we should use our resources as efficiently and effectively as possible.
As far as tipping points and endless sea rise– it might happen– it might not- I recently read we have 52 days until the methane starts to off gas and that will be the end of that…
Anyway we might as well figure out how to do what we want using less fossil fuels.
Right?
tmac57-
I’m sorry– I’m not communicating well–
I agree with the analysis that was presented in the article you linked to– one of the main questions is “What is the sensitivity/ multiplier?”
As noted in the article- Hansen’s original estimate appears high because of the actual measurements up to 2009- but it seems if he had lowered his estimate of the multiplier just a bit (actually close to 20%– 4.2 to 3.4) his graph would fit better with the actual observations. This is an excellent point because 3.4 is in agreement with many other estimates.
We have more recent data. (the article quoted is a blog entry from 2009).
What would happen if we extend the analysis given the new info? That’s the question I was asking. I’m asserting that the new estimate would even be lower (emissions running near scenario a- temps below scenario c)– So, I’m not disagreeing with the article– I’m trying to update it.
Sorry for the confusion. It’s probably not a big deal.