Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[micky g]

durbster said:

There are three kinds of men:
He who is knowledgeable and knows he is knowledgeable. He is wise, learn from him.
He who is ignorant and knows that he's ignorant. Teach him.
And he who is ignorant but doesn't know that he's ignorant. This one is stupid, avoid him.
- Arabic proverb

I prefer: -

'A wise man can learn more from a foolish question, than a fool can learn from a wise man's answer.'

Which I find rather apt.

[plunker]

Jinx said:

plunker said:

I haven't read much into Tol's claims about bad practice by Cook & co - doesn't seem worth the effort given he hasn't made any claim about their conclusion being wildy wrong, and I can see where the consensus is without Cook & co stating the bleeding obvious.

And that is why you will never make a good scientist. And why most of the climate science papers are guff. When you get the answer you want it is very easy to ignore the process that got you there and very easy to ignore any errors. The paper should have been withdrawn due to the amount of errors in the methodology and in the conclusions drawn from poorly generated results - but because it got the answer it wanted and matched the prejudices of the reviewers it got published. A fine example of pal review.
Bad science is bad science and needs to be destroyed as it poisons all the subsequent science that references it!

It's just a time/interest thing. It became briefly interesting for a while when you claimed 'there is no consensus" "it's a lie" etc but that soon passed when I read your reference.

[turbobloke]

plunker said:

Jinx said:

plunker said:

I haven't read much into Tol's claims about bad practice by Cook & co - doesn't seem worth the effort given he hasn't made any claim about their conclusion being wildy wrong, and I can see where the consensus is without Cook & co stating the bleeding obvious.

And that is why you will never make a good scientist. And why most of the climate science papers are guff. When you get the answer you want it is very easy to ignore the process that got you there and very easy to ignore any errors. The paper should have been withdrawn due to the amount of errors in the methodology and in the conclusions drawn from poorly generated results - but because it got the answer it wanted and matched the prejudices of the reviewers it got published. A fine example of pal review.
Bad science is bad science and needs to be destroyed as it poisons all the subsequent science that references it!

It's just a time/interest thing. It became briefly interesting for a while when you claimed 'there is no consensus" "it's a lie" etc but that soon passed when I read your reference.

What consensus?

[Gandahar]

Antarctic ice sheet extent compared to last year and average over several years. Antarctic ice extent has been extending up to last 2 years, for various reasons pro and against AGW depending what you read, ie your world viewpoint.......

This year



Last year comparison into the melt season, red line in bold.



Compared to last few years with biggest gain.



So there is a bit of a sea change down there and well worth monitoring

Edited by Gandahar on Tuesday 4th April 23:27

[Gandahar]

durbster said:

There are three kinds of men:
He who is knowledgeable and knows he is knowledgeable. He is wise, learn from him.
He who is ignorant and knows that he's ignorant. Teach him.
And he who is ignorant but doesn't know that he's ignorant. This one is stupid, avoid him.
- Arabic proverb

Not true

There is a fourth type of man that quotes from websites, which are usually american, and when you actually ask the scientist involved what he thinks of the post from one of these crappy websites he replies --

"Thanks for your email and making me aware about this online news citing our study not in a correct way. The author has even changed one of our main figures by adding .... "

"Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly"

Original tinfoil hat article is here

http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indic...


Full response to my email below


thanks for your email and making me aware about this online news citing our study not in a correct way. The author has even changed one of our main figures by adding „20th Century“ and „Little Ice Age (LIA)“. In our paper we say no word about the most recent past as our age model is not good enough to identify specific warm or cold periods (e.g., the Medieval Warm Period and theLIA) are the 20th Century. Looking at the original figure in our paper (see attachment) we clearly indicate that out last exact age fix point is about 3500 years BP and that above it’s simply inter-(extra-)polation. The last couple of hundred of years might even be missing in our record!! In other words, our paper is dealing with the long-term Holocene cooling and increase of sea ice observed in many circum-Arctic sediment cores, a change that coincided with the decrease in solar insolation. In addition, the inflow of Pacific Water is important for the local/regional sea-ice formation in the Chukchi Sea. Main focus of our study was to get more insight into the processes influencing the natural variability of past sea ice changes. This knowledge of natural climate variability is certainly important for distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic processes controlling the most recent climate change. In my understanding, the recent extreme increase in man-driven CO2 is certainly a main factor controlling the recent global warming.

Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly, I have to say that I should have mention in the introduction of our last article more clearly the influence of CO2 on climate change as we have done in several other articles of our work. In one of our most recent work dealing with past Arctic sea ice in the Miocene, for example, we have shown that ice-free summers were only possible under quite high CO2 concentrations of about 450 ppm (a value that we may reach in the near future). This article I have also attached to my email.

How damning is that? Just read a scientific paper and put your own spin on it ... yeah great.

Both AGW pro and con people are to blame in equal measure unfortunately.

Edited by Gandahar on Tuesday 4th April 23:45

[LongQ]

Gandahar said:

durbster said:

There are three kinds of men:
He who is knowledgeable and knows he is knowledgeable. He is wise, learn from him.
He who is ignorant and knows that he's ignorant. Teach him.
And he who is ignorant but doesn't know that he's ignorant. This one is stupid, avoid him.
- Arabic proverb

Not true

There is a fourth type of man that quotes from websites, which are usually american, and when you actually ask the scientist involved what he thinks of the post from one of these crappy websites he replies --

"Thanks for your email and making me aware about this online news citing our study not in a correct way. The author has even changed one of our main figures by adding .... "

"Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly"

Original tinfoil hat article is here

http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indic...


Full response to my email below


thanks for your email and making me aware about this online news citing our study not in a correct way. The author has even changed one of our main figures by adding „20th Century“ and „Little Ice Age (LIA)“. In our paper we say no word about the most recent past as our age model is not good enough to identify specific warm or cold periods (e.g., the Medieval Warm Period and theLIA) are the 20th Century. Looking at the original figure in our paper (see attachment) we clearly indicate that out last exact age fix point is about 3500 years BP and that above it’s simply inter-(extra-)polation. The last couple of hundred of years might even be missing in our record!! In other words, our paper is dealing with the long-term Holocene cooling and increase of sea ice observed in many circum-Arctic sediment cores, a change that coincided with the decrease in solar insolation. In addition, the inflow of Pacific Water is important for the local/regional sea-ice formation in the Chukchi Sea. Main focus of our study was to get more insight into the processes influencing the natural variability of past sea ice changes. This knowledge of natural climate variability is certainly important for distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic processes controlling the most recent climate change. In my understanding, the recent extreme increase in man-driven CO2 is certainly a main factor controlling the recent global warming.

Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly, I have to say that I should have mention in the introduction of our last article more clearly the influence of CO2 on climate change as we have done in several other articles of our work. In one of our most recent work dealing with past Arctic sea ice in the Miocene, for example, we have shown that ice-free summers were only possible under quite high CO2 concentrations of about 450 ppm (a value that we may reach in the near future). This article I have also attached to my email.

How damning is that? Just read a scientific paper and put your own spin on it ... yeah great.

Both AGW pro and con people are to blame in equal measure unfortunately.

Edited by Gandahar on Tuesday 4th April 23:45

I have a sense of déja vu ....

[Gandahar]

LongQ said:

Gandahar said:

durbster said:

There are three kinds of men:
He who is knowledgeable and knows he is knowledgeable. He is wise, learn from him.
He who is ignorant and knows that he's ignorant. Teach him.
And he who is ignorant but doesn't know that he's ignorant. This one is stupid, avoid him.
- Arabic proverb

Not true

There is a fourth type of man that quotes from websites, which are usually american, and when you actually ask the scientist involved what he thinks of the post from one of these crappy websites he replies --

"Thanks for your email and making me aware about this online news citing our study not in a correct way. The author has even changed one of our main figures by adding .... "

"Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly"

Original tinfoil hat article is here

http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indic...


Full response to my email below


thanks for your email and making me aware about this online news citing our study not in a correct way. The author has even changed one of our main figures by adding „20th Century“ and „Little Ice Age (LIA)“. In our paper we say no word about the most recent past as our age model is not good enough to identify specific warm or cold periods (e.g., the Medieval Warm Period and theLIA) are the 20th Century. Looking at the original figure in our paper (see attachment) we clearly indicate that out last exact age fix point is about 3500 years BP and that above it’s simply inter-(extra-)polation. The last couple of hundred of years might even be missing in our record!! In other words, our paper is dealing with the long-term Holocene cooling and increase of sea ice observed in many circum-Arctic sediment cores, a change that coincided with the decrease in solar insolation. In addition, the inflow of Pacific Water is important for the local/regional sea-ice formation in the Chukchi Sea. Main focus of our study was to get more insight into the processes influencing the natural variability of past sea ice changes. This knowledge of natural climate variability is certainly important for distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic processes controlling the most recent climate change. In my understanding, the recent extreme increase in man-driven CO2 is certainly a main factor controlling the recent global warming.

Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly, I have to say that I should have mention in the introduction of our last article more clearly the influence of CO2 on climate change as we have done in several other articles of our work. In one of our most recent work dealing with past Arctic sea ice in the Miocene, for example, we have shown that ice-free summers were only possible under quite high CO2 concentrations of about 450 ppm (a value that we may reach in the near future). This article I have also attached to my email.

How damning is that? Just read a scientific paper and put your own spin on it ... yeah great.

Both AGW pro and con people are to blame in equal measure unfortunately.

Edited by Gandahar on Tuesday 4th April 23:45

I have a sense of déja vu ....

I have a sense of nothing of worth being added to the conversation from LongQ again.

So we're quits.

PS I wish I was your keyboard, with so few key presses .. easy life !

Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 5th April 00:04

[Gandahar]

deeen said:

In other words, because they can devise a model that retrospectively fits the data, they choose to dismiss other explanations. Not impressed!

Edited by deeen on Saturday 1st April 21:27

Just as an aside you did rather sound like Donald Trump there.

[LongQ]

Gandahar said:

LongQ said:

Gandahar said:

durbster said:

There are three kinds of men:
He who is knowledgeable and knows he is knowledgeable. He is wise, learn from him.
He who is ignorant and knows that he's ignorant. Teach him.
And he who is ignorant but doesn't know that he's ignorant. This one is stupid, avoid him.
- Arabic proverb

Not true

There is a fourth type of man that quotes from websites, which are usually american, and when you actually ask the scientist involved what he thinks of the post from one of these crappy websites he replies --

"Thanks for your email and making me aware about this online news citing our study not in a correct way. The author has even changed one of our main figures by adding .... "

"Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly"

Original tinfoil hat article is here

http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indic...


Full response to my email below


thanks for your email and making me aware about this online news citing our study not in a correct way. The author has even changed one of our main figures by adding „20th Century“ and „Little Ice Age (LIA)“. In our paper we say no word about the most recent past as our age model is not good enough to identify specific warm or cold periods (e.g., the Medieval Warm Period and theLIA) are the 20th Century. Looking at the original figure in our paper (see attachment) we clearly indicate that out last exact age fix point is about 3500 years BP and that above it’s simply inter-(extra-)polation. The last couple of hundred of years might even be missing in our record!! In other words, our paper is dealing with the long-term Holocene cooling and increase of sea ice observed in many circum-Arctic sediment cores, a change that coincided with the decrease in solar insolation. In addition, the inflow of Pacific Water is important for the local/regional sea-ice formation in the Chukchi Sea. Main focus of our study was to get more insight into the processes influencing the natural variability of past sea ice changes. This knowledge of natural climate variability is certainly important for distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic processes controlling the most recent climate change. In my understanding, the recent extreme increase in man-driven CO2 is certainly a main factor controlling the recent global warming.

Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly, I have to say that I should have mention in the introduction of our last article more clearly the influence of CO2 on climate change as we have done in several other articles of our work. In one of our most recent work dealing with past Arctic sea ice in the Miocene, for example, we have shown that ice-free summers were only possible under quite high CO2 concentrations of about 450 ppm (a value that we may reach in the near future). This article I have also attached to my email.

How damning is that? Just read a scientific paper and put your own spin on it ... yeah great.

Both AGW pro and con people are to blame in equal measure unfortunately.

Edited by Gandahar on Tuesday 4th April 23:45

I have a sense of déja vu ....

I have a sense of nothing of worth being added to the conversation from LongQ again.

So we're quits.

PS I wish I was your keyboard, with so few key presses .. easy life !

Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 5th April 00:04

Easier than a cut and paste for additional spam?

You're right. I have nothing to add.

On the basis of the evidence in the post that applies to both of us.

[Jinx]

plunker said:

It's just a time/interest thing. It became briefly interesting for a while when you claimed 'there is no consensus" "it's a lie" etc but that soon passed when I read your reference.

There is no consensus the warming is dangerous. Read the whole of the sentences and understanding becomes so much simpler.

[Lotus 50]

deeen said:

I've just read this.

Here's a quote from their summary: "Thus, for this very simple model,
solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global
warming of the past 250 years; the entire change can be modeled
by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic proxy"

In other words, because they can devise a model that retrospectively fits the data, they choose to dismiss other explanations. Not impressed!

Edited by deeen on Saturday 1st April 21:27

That interpretation is wrong - the modelling is a relatively simple statistical analysis rather than a detailed climate model retrospectively applied to the data. It basically says that the factors explaining the temp change are volcanoes and CO2 emissions, the influence of solar forcing is too small to show in the analysis. Read the discussion not just the summary.

Have you looked at the other papers as well?

[Globs]

Climate modelling is bunk.
I notice Hairy has stayed away since I pointed out the obvious first-year algebra problem for AGW:

Globs said:

The incoming solar energy is entirely controlled by the earth's albedo. Two thirds of that albedo is due to clouds. So we know that cloud cover controls incoming heat energy from the sun. How much do we know about the clouds and albedo? AR4 contains a series of estimates for the current value that range from 0.30 to 0.33, an error of 10%. So we don't even know the current albedo very well. A 1% difference wipes out the AR4 'forcings' BTW. So how are predictions for cloud cover, affected as they are by everything from space weather to volcanos and their nonlinear chaotic motion, ENSO etc?

Because we can't predict the clouds at all, so this means one side of the equation remains unknown.
This unknown albedo and variation makes any conclusion from the radiative equations a complete guess.

This means that ALL climate models are a GUESS.
What don't people understand about this?

[durbster]

Globs said:

This means that ALL climate models are a GUESS.
What don't people understand about this?

An educated guess.

But so what? Everyone knows the models aren't perfect and never will be. Your devastating revelation is already acknowledged and considered, and always has been.

If computer modelling isn't the best way of forecasting atmospheric conditions, what's your alternative solution?

[robinessex]

durbster said:

Globs said:

This means that ALL climate models are a GUESS.
What don't people understand about this?

An educated guess.

But so what? Everyone knows the models aren't perfect and never will be. Your devastating revelation is already acknowledged and considered, and always has been.

If computer modelling isn't the best way of forecasting atmospheric conditions, what's your alternative solution?

You can't forecast future atmospheric conditions no more than you can give me the 6 winning numbers for this weeks lottery. The first is a mathematical chaotic system (effectively random), and the later is random. And why do we need to do that anyway? Can’t you find something more useful to concentrate on? There are millions starving in the African continent, along with also drought condition. I’m sure the majority would rather the $trillions being wasted on a fruitless effort to stop the planet warming up a minute amount of fk all (not that that has been defined as a problem anyway), and be spent on that.

[Globs]

durbster said:

An educated guess.

No, a total guess.

We can't even estimate the CURRENT albedo to better than 10x the entire forcing predicted in IPCC's AR4.
That means the current ERROR is TEN TIMES the whole AGW theory.
Let alone predicting future changes.

Duh.

[Toltec]

Globs said:

No, a total guess.

We can't even estimate the CURRENT albedo to better than 10x the entire forcing predicted in IPCC's AR4.
That means the current ERROR is TEN TIMES the whole AGW theory.
Let alone predicting future changes.

Duh.

I have been meaning to try to find some papers on CO2 forcing, they are probably going to be fairly old, most modern ones just quote numbers without the calculations. That the atmosphere has significant transmission windows in the IR ranges that peak at the surface temperatures seen on this planet and that CO2 is present in low concentrations in comparison to other greenhouse gases does make me wonder how much effect it can have. I'll add investigating the estimates for albedo to that, now where did I leave my 1982 lab notes on Rayleigh scattering?

It would be much easier if I could just trust the 'science' unfortunately experience has taught me that most scare stories are just that, eggs, burgers, avian flu, vaccines etc. I believe there is solid evidence to show that the Earth's climate does change over time and that humans can affect the environment on a global scale is also evident, how much we are affecting climate change and if we can control it I am still unconvinced about.

I am open to being convinced, just because I have not personally experienced any significant change in temperature/climate/sea levels in the last fifty years does not mean it isn't happening. Slowly. At least that means I can take my time, a decade or so hopefully, to see if what I can learn will convince me.

ETA: It does not much matter whether I believe in CC or not, it's not like I personally can have an effect on it, this is purely an intellectual exercise. Governments will continue to use whatever causes they like to control the population, if it was not CC it would be some other excuse.

Edited by Toltec on Friday 7th April 12:56

[hairykrishna]

Globs said:

I notice Hairy has stayed away since I pointed out the obvious first-year algebra problem for AGW:

Sorry globs; you've not scared me away. I rarely visit this thread these days. I spent (literally) years trying to address peoples misunderstandings on here and came to the conclusion that most of the time it's not worth the effort. I sometimes still dip in when I'm bored.

[hairykrishna]

Toltec said:

I have been meaning to try to find some papers on CO2 forcing, they are probably going to be fairly old, most modern ones just quote numbers without the calculations. That the atmosphere has significant transmission windows in the IR ranges that peak at the surface temperatures seen on this planet and that CO2 is present in low concentrations in comparison to other greenhouse gases does make me wonder how much effect it can have. I'll add investigating the estimates for albedo to that, now where did I leave my 1982 lab notes on Rayleigh scattering?

If you've got some hard science background it's worth checking out "principles of planetary climate" by Pierrehumbert. It's a textbook that walks through a lot of the science basis at a university undergraduate level, More useful than most of the recent papers if you're trying to get up to speed on the actual theory. Most of it's available as a pdf from the Berkeley website.

[Toltec]

hairykrishna said:

If you've got some hard science background it's worth checking out "principles of planetary climate" by Pierrehumbert. It's a textbook that walks through a lot of the science basis at a university undergraduate level, More useful than most of the recent papers if you're trying to get up to speed on the actual theory. Most of it's available as a pdf from the Berkeley website.

Got it, thank you.

[Globs]

Toltec said:

I have been meaning to try to find some papers on CO2 forcing

CO2 forcing is well documented in AR4, IPCCs paper. It's online, have a read. It is on the 'radiated heat to space' side of the equation though, as we have no idea of the 'heat received from the sun' side of the equation it unfortunately doesn't tell us anything.

It's a bit like this equation:

A = B

Solve for A.
Well, it's B. But what is B? Ah - it's A. Not really very much use is it...?