Buying a climatologist just ain't what it used to be

[Jeff7]

well, to be fair:

the assumption that science begins with a hypothesis is cooked up by people that don't do science.

I'm pretty sure it's starts by some guy looking at something and asking, "Dude...what the hell is that?" I think the next step involves some beer? My recollection of the scientific method is a bit hazy now.

To some degree, long term statistical average climate prediction is a bit easier than day-to-day weather.

And the top local station in my town has some pretty damned accurate weather predictions. So...

Exactly.
It's possible for municipalities to predict traffic flow patterns rather well, and make it so that the traffic signals work in a manner that keeps traffic flowing efficiently. But they can't predict where my car is going to be at a specific time. They can, perhaps, perform a statistical analysis of my normal locations at certain times, but the forecasts won't always be accurate.

 

[MrMuppet]

In general, it must be all too easy for people not to have to argue for their position, instead getting away with ad populum.

MrMuppet do you expect the percentage change in temperature to be somewhere remotely close to the same scale as the percentage change in CO2 if global warming is real?

If CO2 is the cause (the main factor at play), I expect the change in temperature to correlate much better with CO2 levels than solar activity. Apparently, it does not.

Moreover, if the cause of the warming is anthropogenic (man-made and not due to, say, solar activity), I expect the warming to be confined to the earth. Apparently, it is not.

(I even expect temperatures to increase way more than one or two tenths of a percent, if CO2 is so important and CO2 levels increase by 24%. However, that is not necessarily the case. And there are other green house gases. In fact, "water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere".)

 

[MrMuppet]

That's almost an entire degree Fahrenheit, in approx 50 years.

If you don't understand how drastic that actually is, and, if that trend were continue, what effects it will produce, then you don't understand the data that is staring you straight in the face.

You're missing the point. None's questioning global warming or "climate change". (Some) people question anthropogenic global warming or AGW.

 

[MrMuppet]

From the conclusion:

"The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).”"

That conclusion is an opinion piece (a save face one, dare I say), the actual finding was that no warming has coccured since 1998 even though it was predicted to occur. That is a very interesting way of putting it: "...is very likely..." In other words, they might just have easily have said that their interpretation of the data suggests that most of the observed increase in global average temperature isn't necessarily due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

Also, it's pretty interesting to note that global cooling apparently is perfectly natural, while global warming couldn't possibly be...

 

[foghorn67]

If "Global Warming" wasn't bundled with bullshit politics and socialists agendas, it would be more received.

 

[MrMuppet]

And what was the date Kevin said that? Um, October 2009. You realize that modeling software is light years ahead of 2009's in climatology? Also, Trenberth left the IPCC in 2007 IIRC so why even put that in your quote?

NASA's study from last December that uses the lates IPCC model says:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111218221321.htm

http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/12/111218221321-large.jpg
Predicted percentage of ecological landscape being driven toward changes in plant species as a result of projected human-induced climate change by 2100. (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech)

Sorry to break it to you, but the latest peer reviewed published studies in the past year show that global warming is occurring and at a faster pace than we thought. Your information (such as Trenberth's quote from October 2009) is outdated; I would suggest following breaking scientific news such as physorg or sciencedaily to stay more informed.

Kaufman et al 2011 (which stated that no warming has occured since 1998) is from 2011.

Trenberth was a lead author of the IPCC's latest Assessment Report ("AR4", the fourth). Climategate exposed a few things about what goes on behind the scenes and what mindset they have. (Uh-oh, we can't explain the results, what a travesty. Instead of something akin to, interesting our hypothesis may be incorrect after all. We don't really know, but in science transparency is important so let's take this public for everyone to scrutinize since it's an issue important enough that governments (and enterprises) make extensive policy decisions based on our findings.)

Since you apparently have already done that, why not share your results with the rest of us?

My chart was based on the latest data from climate.gov (retrieved 2012). Perhaps climate.gov is outdated? Anyway, according to climate.gov:

Temperature 1998: +0.6189 C

Temperature 2011: +0.5129 C

Warming occuring at a faster pace than we thought, huh.

 

[MrMuppet]

Muppet is strawmanning us to death by trying to have you falsely believe that CO2 is the prime indicator of global warming when it is one variable in the mix of climate change, everything from NOX gases to oceanic conveyor belt systems (affected by arctic melting) are affecting climate change. To believe that one variable among hundreds is the cause of global climate change and then trying to conclusively show evidence for such a cause = a fool's errand. If it was that easy we wouldn't need computer modeling.

Strawmanning? You mean my unbiased charts, or?

So, anyway, are you trying to say that CO2 is not that important after all, or? CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming? What does "indicator" mean in this case?

Am I wrong about CO2 being the independent variable posited as the primary cause for the warming? That's a relief, no carbon taxes or "cap-and-trade" then. I guess Swedish mainstream media is even more misleading than I thought.

 

[MrMuppet]

Not a planet.

And screw global warming, I have no catalytic converters on my car.

True. But in all fairness, Pluto was considered one at the time.

 

[MrMuppet]

Here's what I find amusing.

A bunch of totally unqualified "internet" scientists are trying to prove "scientifically" that the work of thousands of real scientists on the issue of climate change is wrong.

I would be ROFLMAO except that these non scientists really believe that knowing nothing about the climate except what they read on the internet makes their opinion as valid as real scientists who went to school for many years and worked in the field for many years.

I guess the next time one of the "internet" scientists gets sick they will just take out their own appendix with an x-acto knife.

Who exactly? I'm just questioning mainstream truths and doing some critical thinking (isn't that what they always say they want and encourage?), while exercising what free speech I have left. And I'm taking flak for it. I'm sure others are doing the same.

Anyway, what you written is just ad hominem, not an argument. The important thing is what is said, not who says it. This applies in general, that's why I'm even bothering. You should judge a statement or an argument on its own merits. Besides, the work of "real scientists" has been cited in this thread.

 

[MrMuppet]

Far more scientists have abandoned the idea of man made climate change then the other way around. I guess that is what makes this newsworthy? One finally went in the other direction?

-KeithP

Source, please.

 

[jjzelinski]

I posted it in off topic because it is a science thread.

Ah but you see science is the enemey, the counterpart to faith and rightwing politics, and is therefor political in nature. Have fun in P&N!

 

[MrMuppet]

move this to P&N and watch the deniers fly off the handle

/pulls up chair

- Don't be a denier, the Science is in!

(In the morning!)

 

[Pr0d1gy]

If we could just learn how to harvest farts and feed everyone Taco Bell like in Demolition Man then we could have an endless supply of fuel. We could be like space age Flintstones, sticking our asses out of the sunroof to power our cars down the road. Imagine the wonder of it all!!!

 

[sourceninja]

I don't plan on having kids, so honestly the future of mankind isn't of any interest to me. I just want cheap toys.

 

[SP33Demon]

Strawmanning? You mean my unbiased charts, or?

So, anyway, are you trying to say that CO2 is not that important after all, or? CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming? What does "indicator" mean in this case?

Am I wrong about CO2 being the independent variable posited as the primary cause for the warming? That's a relief, no carbon taxes or "cap-and-trade" then. I guess Swedish mainstream media is even more misleading than I thought.

CO2 is not the primary cause, it's one variable like I said. The reason it gets so much press is because it's the easiest scapegoat that the public will be able to understand (without going into climatology/meteorology), i.e. dumbing it down. It's also an easy way to try to win votes (i.e. cap n trade will save the environment! rhetoric) for politicians. The fact of the matter is that there are a host of other emissions that contribute to the warming effect.

 

[SP33Demon]

Kaufman et al 2011 (which stated that no warming has occured since 1998) is from 2011.

Trenberth was a lead author of the IPCC's latest Assessment Report ("AR4", the fourth). Climategate exposed a few things about what goes on behind the scenes and what mindset they have. (Uh-oh, we can't explain the results, what a travesty. Instead of something akin to, interesting our hypothesis may be incorrect after all. We don't really know, but in science transparency is important so let's take this public for everyone to scrutinize since it's an issue important enough that governments (and enterprises) make extensive policy decisions based on our findings.)

Since you apparently have already done that, why not share your results with the rest of us?

My chart was based on the latest data from climate.gov (retrieved 2012). Perhaps climate.gov is outdated? Anyway, according to climate.gov:

Temperature 1998: +0.6189 C

Temperature 2011: +0.5129 C

Warming occuring at a faster pace than we thought, huh.

Climategate was in 2009 and so was your quote. You were referencing something that happened almost 3 years ago.

Comparing temperatures from 1998 - 2011 is silly. Any model that only focused on 13 years of data when forecasting climate regions in 2100 would be laughed at. If you cannot understand why NASA said we are warming at rate 100X faster than during the Last Glacial Maximum 20,000 years ago, then reread the study.

 

[Ichinisan]

CO2 is not the primary cause, it's one variable like I said. The reason it gets so much press is because it's the easiest scapegoat that the public will be able to understand (without going into climatology/meteorology), i.e. dumbing it down. It's also an easy way to try to win votes (i.e. cap n trade will save the environment! rhetoric) for politicians. The fact of the matter is that there are a host of other emissions that contribute to the warming effect.

So MrMuppet contradicts the notion that CO2 is the primary driver and you agree...so why are you pretending to argue against him? You seem really confused / conflicted in this thread.

 

[NeoV]

MR Muppet - you are an idiot, please get a clue before reposting "anti-GW" talking points that have been disproved dozens of times.

 

[Paul98]

That conclusion is an opinion piece (a save face one, dare I say), the actual finding was that no warming has coccured since 1998 even though it was predicted to occur. That is a very interesting way of putting it: "...is very likely..." In other words, they might just have easily have said that their interpretation of the data suggests that most of the observed increase in global average temperature isn't necessarily due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

Also, it's pretty interesting to note that global cooling apparently is perfectly natural, while global warming couldn't possibly be...

These are the kind of comments that make deniers look like idiots. You have zero understanding of the science, what climate change means, and what sort of things are expected from it.

 

[unokitty]

Global warming promoters have been selling their global catastrophe stick for several decades now. But the polar bears haven't died. Florida hasn't been submerged. And the Himalayan glaciers haven't disappeared.

And according to this BBC poll, as time goes on, fewer people are buying into the global catastrophe stick.

Of course, the politicians support this, after all, doesn't the Kyoto Protocol "reaffirm the principle that developed countries have to pay billions of dollars, and supply technology to other countries for climate-related studies and projects."

Politicians, like Al Gore, seem to be pretty fond of giving away other peoples money. And of course, they also like to reward the people that contribute to their political campaigns so why not let politically connected bankers set up a carbon trading system?

Let me see if I understand this correctly. The weather models -- They don't work. The hurricane models -- They don't work. But the climate models, they work?

And anyone that doesn't agree with us we will call a denier (You know like a holocaust denier. Nice political trick there.) Or, we will just call them ignorant.

If you want to believe that letting the President give a half billion dollars to one of his political supporters, the Solyndra alternate energy company, is going to save us from the coming global warming catastrophe. That's your business.

If you want to believe that allowing first world politicians to use the Kyoto protocol to transfer billions of dollars to third world politicians is going to save us from the global warming catastrophe. That's your business as well.

If you want me to believe it, then you are likely to be disappointed.

News flash.
Throughout history there have been climate cycles. This is not new. These weren't discovered by global warming alarmists.

Now, you want me to believe that we are at a 'tiping point' and if I don't let Al Gore and his fellow politicians redistribute my wealth to the third world that we are going to have a global catastrophe?

This isn't science. This is politics.

And according to Telegraph:

Climate scientists are losing the public debate on global warming

As the article states:
"People have become bored by some of the rhetoric from the green movement as they have other things to worry about.

"In reality the backlash against climate change has very little to do with the sceptics. ...
"James Hensen has been making predictions about climate change since the 1980s. When people are comparing what is happening now to those predictions, they can see they fail to match up."

Best of luck,
Uno

 

[MrMuppet]

Guys... if you don't want an honest discussion, why even bother to post the disingenuous snide remarks? Somehow, I have a growing suspicion this may be what those other dozens of threads may have looked like.

MR Muppet - you are an idiot, please get a clue before reposting "anti-GW" talking points that have been disproved dozens of times.

Clearly, I have No Agenda.

Ad hominem, unless you thought the topic was a MR Muppet popularity contest.

Surely, you must be the proverbial gentleman and a scholar, my good sir!

These are the kind of comments that make deniers look like idiots. You have zero understanding of the science, what climate change means, and what sort of things are expected from it.

No, please! I don't want to be a denier!

Again, you're missing the point, none's denying "climate change". I am open to logic, so why not be constructive instead, enlighten me and make me see the errors of my ways?

 

[NeoV]

Well how about the fact that your reasons are a bunch of crap - like "it isn't just our planet warming up" - as if you are the only person who considered that perhaps the sun is playing a role in the warming trend we are in the midst of.

Or your "there is no warming since 1998" bullshit.

Shall I continue?

 

[MrMuppet]

Well how about the fact that your reasons are a bunch of crap - like "it isn't just our planet warming up" - as if you are the only person who considered that perhaps the sun is playing a role in the warming trend we are in the midst of.

Or your "there is no warming since 1998" bullshit.

Shall I continue?

Not if you're gonna keep it at that level, no, please, don't.

 

[NeoV]

here's a tip Mr. Muppet

Look at a temperature graph of the planet - not "since" 1998, but since...err..how about 1800?

Read any of the conclusions/reports about the Berkeley (sp?) project - run by people much smarter than any of us about this stuff.

 

[MrMuppet]

I'm not looking for a tip, I want you to present your case convincingly, if you have one.

As for a temperature graph of the planet, global warming hasn't been on people's mind for that long. "The Hadley Centre’s data is the longest available instrumental record of temperature in the world. Its first records were taken in 1659."

I've already posted it (corrected for urban warming) in the thread:

I'm not sure how credible zfacts.com is, but right now looks like 1700 but inverse:

I'm not sure if this one has been adjusted for urban warming, but it's an official one:

From: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/41077.aspx

Again, today is pretty much the inverse of 1700-ish. The 1740s were hotter than ~1990 even. It suggests to me that natural fluctuations is a sufficient explanation.