Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
Facefirst said:
I've been mulling the challenge oft repeated here, namely to show a:
'source of credible observational global climate temperature data with a visible human signal that carries established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.'
I was wondering, in all of the historic data that we have, do we have ANY causal signal for ANY drivers of previous changes? I guess I am wondering what such a signal - from any source - might look like. The thing is, I'm not so sure this will ever be shown regardless, due to the complexity of the system. We cannot do a controlled experiment on the Earth, using a 'control' Earth where we have static CO2 for comparison, so where does that leave us? Where does that leave attempts to understand past climate change data?
Comments, as always, most welcome...
Yes. Note that two these examples are given relating to the past i.e. before the satellite record. Disputes over the last decade and reasons for it as in TGGWS have already been dealt with and are not the subject of the above question.'source of credible observational global climate temperature data with a visible human signal that carries established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.'
I was wondering, in all of the historic data that we have, do we have ANY causal signal for ANY drivers of previous changes? I guess I am wondering what such a signal - from any source - might look like. The thing is, I'm not so sure this will ever be shown regardless, due to the complexity of the system. We cannot do a controlled experiment on the Earth, using a 'control' Earth where we have static CO2 for comparison, so where does that leave us? Where does that leave attempts to understand past climate change data?
Comments, as always, most welcome...
Solar (irradiance and eruptivity) over ~450 years with correlation and correct sequence, doing away with the need for variable fudge factors from aerosol effects that the IPCC & Co acknowledge - see previous post - they don't understand:
Click
Volcanism (Mt Pinatubo) and ENSO e.g. El Nino warming in the satellite record:
Also...
Milankovitch cycles in the geological record:
Solar System motion about the galactic centre is also visible e.g. Veizer and Shaviv though there is more controversy about this than Milankovitch forcing.
These have been discussed at length over at least the last 8 years on PH including weak and failed advocacy blog and rentapaper so-called 'rebuttals' so more attrition loops are for those prepared to waste time which isn't me.
The visible causal signal in global climate temperature data from anthropogenic carbon dioxide is what's needed and nobody can post that as it doesn't exist.
Facefirst said:
Blib said:
As the system is so very complex, are you satisfied that the present models are accurate enough to predict future changes in the climate, FF.
If not.........?
Undecided to be honest, I mean it does seem impossible to my limited mind to model such a complex system accurately.If not.........?
EDIT: Not impossible, just difficult.
Yes or no?
turbobloke said:
Yes. Note that two these examples are given relating to the past i.e. before the satellite record. Disputes over the last decade and reasons for it as in TGGWS have already been dealt with and are not the subject of the above question.
Solar (irradiance and eruptivity) over ~450 years with correlation and correct sequence, doing away with the need for variable fudge factors from aerosol effects that the IPCC & Co acknowledge - see previous post - they don't understand:
Click
Volcanism (Mt Pinatubo) and ENSO e.g. El Nino warming in the satellite record:
Also...
Milankovitch cycles in the geological record:
Solar System motion about the galactic centre is also visible e.g. Veizer and Shaviv though there is more controversy about this than Milankovitch forcing.
These have been discussed at length over at least the last 8 years on PH including weak and failed advocacy blog and rentapaper so-called 'rebuttals' so more attrition loops are for those prepared to waste time which isn't me.
The visible causal signal in global climate temperature data from anthropogenic carbon dioxide is what's needed and nobody can post that as it doesn't exist.
Cheers TB, I will read with interest. Solar (irradiance and eruptivity) over ~450 years with correlation and correct sequence, doing away with the need for variable fudge factors from aerosol effects that the IPCC & Co acknowledge - see previous post - they don't understand:
Click
Volcanism (Mt Pinatubo) and ENSO e.g. El Nino warming in the satellite record:
Also...
Milankovitch cycles in the geological record:
Solar System motion about the galactic centre is also visible e.g. Veizer and Shaviv though there is more controversy about this than Milankovitch forcing.
These have been discussed at length over at least the last 8 years on PH including weak and failed advocacy blog and rentapaper so-called 'rebuttals' so more attrition loops are for those prepared to waste time which isn't me.
The visible causal signal in global climate temperature data from anthropogenic carbon dioxide is what's needed and nobody can post that as it doesn't exist.
Yankee Rose said:
Globs said:
Yes, but I'll have a go as Yankee Rose is still here, and his questions are easy:
Ahem. “Her” questions. Yes, women exist on the internet, even on car forums.Globs said:
I don't think they do get the modelling right, Trenberth himself says that. Additionally none of the IPCC models allow for clouds or solar events, they are modelled in 2D not 3D and none get the mean temperature of 14deg either.
Yet without modelling “in 3D” (whatever that means), they did get it right. Perhaps you have a hard time reading the graphs? The dashed lines are their predictions from 1990, the solid lines are the actual average temperature between 1990 and 2007.Globs said:
Despite 100 years of exponentially increasing CO2 output there is no sign of any warming.
Aaaah, you’re one of those people who don’t even believe the earth is warming. I’ve given up on discussing whether the earth is actually warming or not. If we can’t agree that temperature can be accurately measured, you don’t have anything to base this discussion on – we wouldn’t know if it’s 1 degree warmer than 100 years ago or 5 degrees colder. It’s like trying to discuss whether vaccines prevent epidemics with someone who doesn’t think viruses cause diseases (yes, people like that do exist).The graphs you show from the models only seem to tally with some GISS data, CRU, UHA and RSS would suggest that reality is however heading in the other direction.
http://blog.godfreybloommep.co.uk/blog/47-a-coolin...
Also your models show warming, whereas Dr Phil Jones himself says no statistically significant warming has occurred since 1995. Additionally it doesn't feel warmer, I think your measurements say it's warmer because all of the rural and high altitude weather stations have been abandoned so we are actually looking at a smaller dataset with urban heat island effect - not actual warming.
As to believing the earth is warming - on what evidence? AGW believers tell me it has warmed over the last 100 years by 0.6C or 0.8C, depending upon who you ask. That suggests a 0.2C uncertainty. To clear this up could you explain how they measured the global temperature in 1910 to within 0.2C to absolute accuracy comparable to todays (urban heat islanded) weather stations?
You may also bear in mind that there was a thermometer switch-over which added 0.5C to the measured readings of modern weather stations, so your actual rise may be 0.1 - 0.3C, which means we need an accuracy in 1910 of 0.1C.
Personally I doubt you'll find a thermometer anyway, least of all in a weather station in 1910 that could measure to 0.1C. Maps of the weather station placement and technical details would be great - thanks!
Finally I think that the graphs show the 'hockey stick' graph of Mann's is dead (not that one tree's rings from a siberian peninsula should have been extrapolated to the AGW theory), and effectively we are at the same temperature as 100 years sgo despite enormous amounts of CO2 being emitted - which falsifies the AGW theory entirely.
Blib said:
You didn't answer my question. Are you satisfied that the present models are accurate enough to predict future changes in the climate?
Yes or no?
I honestly don't know. There have been some pretty robust criticisms of the current state of modelling, and although they improve all the time, I honestly couldn't say one way or the other.Yes or no?
However, the Rahmstorf (2007) paper (article, actually, and pretty short at that) compares prediction to observations and concludes that the IPPC prediction was actually too low. I guess you could argue that this undermines that accuracy of models too, but there you go.
Guam said:
The problem one finds when you start digging under the hood, is that the criticisms are wide and varied, from the pure Science standpoint of not fully undertanding the varibles and their interactions, the issues with understanding the nature of chaotic systems and where "equilibrium" is in the sytem and what would trigger a change at at what point ot a new "State".
There are all manner of issues with Data collection and collation, From UHIE to, to built in error in the Satellite systems which renders the claimed results questionable. Within the various models alone there have been numerous criticisims over the years voiced by atatisticians regardint the relatively low order techniques being used and whether something even as basic as utilising the "Mean" is appropriate to assess what the climate is doing.
There have been suggestions from some quarters that we need a better understanding of the quantum aspects of the climate, before we can even suggest that we are close to understanding that which we are trying to model.
After years of following this, the only thing anyone can say with certainty is that the models output is relevant only to the parameters within the model, it does not reflect reality, indeed one model could hit replicability in terms of forecasting, by pure coincidence alone, this would not become evident until reality departed from the forecasted trend.
Most of this of course could be identified and isolated by other scientists if full access to the data had been provided.
All of that being said, even if the warming postulated (happening or not in the "real world" some could argue lately), it would still need to be shown why this was anything other than natural variability within the system.
Just because you can produce a theoretical construct that produces reasonable correlation pointing to a factor (or factors), does not make the relationship causal (the correlation caan be spurious but still to a high order, think of my Ulcer example here).
This is a small part of the panoply of problems surrounding this issue and the only way to get a handle on this, is time and research (lots of it) and make your own mind up, on the stregth of the case you feel has the most plausability.
In this debate on either side take NO ones word for this, a good example is Dean his pronouncements should be treat with suspicion as a review of his background reveals he is a hardened activist with possibly his own "vested interest in play"
And he is certainly no more knowledgeable than any on here (less so I would suggest in many cases).
TB is the only one who has ever been on this thread with a credible background education and practice in the specific (climate) issues that arise ( I checked him out years ago)
The remainder on here are a very good cross section of various disciplines, qualified to comment on specific aspects of the debate. Few of us would claim competence in every aspect of the debate which is why you will see different players dropping in and out of the discussion as it progresses.
Hope that lot helps
Cheers
Cheers for that Guan, very clear. My education continues apace.There are all manner of issues with Data collection and collation, From UHIE to, to built in error in the Satellite systems which renders the claimed results questionable. Within the various models alone there have been numerous criticisims over the years voiced by atatisticians regardint the relatively low order techniques being used and whether something even as basic as utilising the "Mean" is appropriate to assess what the climate is doing.
There have been suggestions from some quarters that we need a better understanding of the quantum aspects of the climate, before we can even suggest that we are close to understanding that which we are trying to model.
After years of following this, the only thing anyone can say with certainty is that the models output is relevant only to the parameters within the model, it does not reflect reality, indeed one model could hit replicability in terms of forecasting, by pure coincidence alone, this would not become evident until reality departed from the forecasted trend.
Most of this of course could be identified and isolated by other scientists if full access to the data had been provided.
All of that being said, even if the warming postulated (happening or not in the "real world" some could argue lately), it would still need to be shown why this was anything other than natural variability within the system.
Just because you can produce a theoretical construct that produces reasonable correlation pointing to a factor (or factors), does not make the relationship causal (the correlation caan be spurious but still to a high order, think of my Ulcer example here).
This is a small part of the panoply of problems surrounding this issue and the only way to get a handle on this, is time and research (lots of it) and make your own mind up, on the stregth of the case you feel has the most plausability.
In this debate on either side take NO ones word for this, a good example is Dean his pronouncements should be treat with suspicion as a review of his background reveals he is a hardened activist with possibly his own "vested interest in play"
And he is certainly no more knowledgeable than any on here (less so I would suggest in many cases).
TB is the only one who has ever been on this thread with a credible background education and practice in the specific (climate) issues that arise ( I checked him out years ago)
The remainder on here are a very good cross section of various disciplines, qualified to comment on specific aspects of the debate. Few of us would claim competence in every aspect of the debate which is why you will see different players dropping in and out of the discussion as it progresses.Hope that lot helps
Cheers
Edited by Guam on Monday 14th February 10:31
Facefirst said:
I've been mulling the challenge oft repeated here, namely to show a:
'source of credible observational global climate temperature data with a visible human signal that carries established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.'
I was wondering, in all of the historic data that we have, do we have ANY causal signal for ANY drivers of previous changes? I guess I am wondering what such a signal - from any source - might look like. The thing is, I'm not so sure this will ever be shown regardless, due to the complexity of the system. We cannot do a controlled experiment on the Earth, using a 'control' Earth where we have static CO2 for comparison, so where does that leave us? Where does that leave attempts to understand past climate change data?
Comments, as always, most welcome - I bloody love it, see.
There have been clearly attributed, with cause-and-effect, coolings - I'm thinking specifically from large volcanic eruptions that have had measured impact and fall in line with expected results.'source of credible observational global climate temperature data with a visible human signal that carries established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.'
I was wondering, in all of the historic data that we have, do we have ANY causal signal for ANY drivers of previous changes? I guess I am wondering what such a signal - from any source - might look like. The thing is, I'm not so sure this will ever be shown regardless, due to the complexity of the system. We cannot do a controlled experiment on the Earth, using a 'control' Earth where we have static CO2 for comparison, so where does that leave us? Where does that leave attempts to understand past climate change data?
Comments, as always, most welcome - I bloody love it, see.
We have natural pertubations that we understand pull climate in one direction or the other that are masked in other noise (El Nino, La Nina).
We have indications that CO2 lags temperature by (from memory) *00 years +-400 years although there is some dispute from the pro-camp that this is the case.
What we don't have is any indication that CO2 actively drives temps nor that the fraction of CO2 we produce has any significant impact on global temps. If we had a few hundred years of quality measurements then we would have ourselves an answer but we don't.
Of all the discussion here the most reasonable voices hold the view that there needs to be more time and more evidence gathered. An open and unguided scientific debate needs to be allowed.
Where it breaks down is what we do now about 'it'. I, and most on this thread, refute that there is an 'it' to do anything about whereas the pro lobby hold to the precautionary principle saying that, even in the face of massive uncertainty, we must take action.
If many of us skeptics were to address this as though it were an argument with merit we would probably respond: No, we don't. A warmer planet is a happy planet. Actively cooling the planet (as some loons suggest) will lead to lower crop production and greater deaths due to cold. Most species thrive in a warmer world with higher CO2 levels.
Guam said:
Given the recent "heating" up of the Debate on IR absorption etc there is a post on Watts that makes interesting reading.
Thread here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/a-conversati...
Btw TB unless I am misreading this guy, he seems to come down on your side rather than Hairy's
As far as I cans see he says bugger all about saturation of CO2 absorption. He just says that the number's look big to him. Thread here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/a-conversati...
Edited by Guam on Monday 14th February 10:56
Btw TB unless I am misreading this guy, he seems to come down on your side rather than Hairy's
Edited by Guam on Monday 14th February 10:58
Dean Morrison said:
Can anyone point me to a credible source of information on the science behind 'climate scepticism'?
Who are the scientists working in this field and where?
Is there anyone in Britain working in this field?
Is there anyone publishing any scientific papers?
Where do these scientists get their data? Do they have any satellite programmes? Are they drilling ice cores in Antarctica, or from marine sediments?
Where are there labs, and where do they share their data and code?
How are the 'top ten' climate sceptics that are scientists active in research, as opposed to commentators?
Five will do if ten is too much to ask for.
As you can see I'm a bit sceptical about whether any such 'sceptic scientists' actually exist. Who are the scientists working in this field and where?
Is there anyone in Britain working in this field?
Is there anyone publishing any scientific papers?
Where do these scientists get their data? Do they have any satellite programmes? Are they drilling ice cores in Antarctica, or from marine sediments?
Where are there labs, and where do they share their data and code?
How are the 'top ten' climate sceptics that are scientists active in research, as opposed to commentators?
Five will do if ten is too much to ask for.
Guam said:
Strangely TB neither can I , I dont recall in general on the thread many if any posters claiming "Global Conspiracy" in the Tin Foil hat sense. I remember plenty indicating collusion between politicians and Climate Scientists, I recall people indicating uncomfortability with the CRU and Giss data sets showing the same flaws and sharing the same corrupt data sources, etc.
The term I would have used is international bandwagon of vested interests.
Funny I remember one of your guys claiming it was al a global conspiracy orchestrated by Al Gore to enrich himself.The term I would have used is international bandwagon of vested interests.
Funny that - as he must have a time machine to have put the idea into a Swedish scientists head a hundred years ago, you'd think it would just be easier to go back on stick some money on some winning lottery numbers.
Of course if any of you had a sceptic bone in your body you'd be sceptical of the actions of vested interests such as Oil and Coal companies, for which there is rather more actual evidence than 'global collusion between politicians and scientists'.
I hate to tell you this but you've been duped.
Dean Morrison said:
Funny I remember one of your guys claiming it was al a global conspiracy orchestrated by Al Gore to enrich himself.
Go back, re-read... I sugested it was a set of perople with very different motivations - ranging from wealth generation to welth re-distribution. Clearly not a conspiracy in the tin-foil 9/11 context but pulling in the same direction.TB worded it much better with his 'confluence of vested interests'.
Apart from the science and people's views, is there anythign else you'd like to misrepresent?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff