Man Based Global Warming....

If that is the case then that is what I would bet we will end up with. I feel like an army of Bernie Madoffs are lurking behind the scenes with the AGW movement. there is the group of environmentalists that are init with their heart and a huge group that just see dollar signs.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Whatt Tennikes is crowing about is the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), which was previously discussed in another thread here last July.

And the people who actualy study the PDO, including Steven Hare, who named it, make no such claims as to PDO causing Global Warming. Saying PDO can mask climate change IS NOT the same as saying it causes it.
Pacific decadal oscillation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.iphc.washington.edu/Staff...pers/ei/ei.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/...7/fulltext.pdf

To the contrary, Mr. Hare is co-author of a report on how AGW will affect coastal systems:
Coastal and Marine Ecosystems & Global Climate Change
Since life began on earth, changes in the global climate have affected the distribution of organisms as well as their interactions. However, human-induced increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are expected to cause much more rapid changes in the earth’s climate than have been experienced for millennia. If this happens, such high rates of change will probably result in local if not total extinction of some species, the alteration of species distributions in ways that may lead to major changes in their interactions with other species, and modifications in the flow of energy and cycling of materials within ecosystems.
​

And as you note Alric, if Tennikes has something really worth saying about this, let him write it up and publish it in a scientific journal.

The fact remains, most contrarians publish on blogs or in newspaper opinion columns because the science of their argument is not strong enough to actually get published in a scientific journal. That fact that some many of them are TV weathermen, or retired, with no history of recent publication (other than editorials) doesn't really help me find them convincing.

And as for Tim's accusation that we smeared Lindzen, Lindzen himself brags about how great Exxon is and how great their science is:

And Exxon Mobil has been accused of backing groups that support the minority opinion, against what is seen as the main consensus. It confirms it backs the Heartland Institute, for example, which describes global warming science as a "fraud."

In 2005 Exxon Mobil's chairman and chief executive, Rex Tillerson defended funding such groups.

"We're going to continue to support groups that we think have good scientists involved," he said.

"The fact that they take a contrary view I don't view to be bad."
This attitude has strong backing from Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who describes Exxon Mobil as "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US."

"They have a CEO who is not going to be bamboozled by nonsense," he adds.
Professor Lindzen wants the debate on global warming kept alive.
​

Again, if Lindzen were actually "proving" (and the verb prove is important) anything in his scientific writings, it would be one thing. What he tends to do instead is then inflate the claims of his papers in the popular media once they are published. What is proven about Lindzen is his backing from Exxon. What is proven about big oil is that they have planned and executed a media campaign to recruit a handful of scientists to inject doubt into the media about global warming, using the same strategy and some of the same people (Steven Milroy) that big tobacco used when trying to inject doubt into the public debate about the dangers of tobacco. This has been thoroughly documented. And Exxon's been setting record profits most of these past few years, and just today announced another record profit for 2008: $45.22 billion. Don't try to tell me there's more money in Climate Science.

And the science/religion straw man argument misses one crucial point. Religion is based around belief. Science is based around skepticism. Religions says "believe me." Science says "prove it to me with an experiement that can be repeated." The scientific consensus about global warming accrued slowly, like grains of sand slowly being added to a stack, as paper after paper looked at different aspects of it and concluded the same likely cause (and this is a simplification made for argument, but that's the jist). No one planned the consensus. It happened through years of research. On one hand, you have most of the scientists who study climate finding AGW to be true. One the other, you have a very few scientists, a very lot of retirees, a very lot of media people. I'll stick with the scientists.

 

I'll have to doubt your professional judgement as well then. I say the 2000 year trend is down, post a chart (with admittedly rough data) that shows a downward trend line. You say no it's up based on the last 200 years and completely ignore the 2000 year trend. You then post UCL and LCL based on this chart and say look, that last point is out of the control limits but completely ignore that everything since ~ 1400 has been out of your control limits and the majority of the time out of control is when the data is under the LCL.

If you recall I admitted my mistake once the official documentation was posted. I had also provided links to reviews of the car that matched my understand and said those panels were painted not foamed.

Likewise, I will reassess my views if someone can show good link between global temperature and CO2 concentrations. The two only seem to be well related for 200 out of the last 10,000 years. Data from 1880 to 2008 is not going to do it for me.

Yes, first principals support AGW. If you introduce CO2 into a control experiment and change nothing else the temperature goes up. The world is not a controlled experiment.

Yes, the trend for the last 150 to 200 years matches the theory. The 10,000 year trend does not.

Models are not evidence they are predictions based on our limited knowledge of the system. We already know for a fact that we don't know enough about the system to predict short term events. To believe the predictions of 100 year models as fact is at this point the same as religious belief.

Now AGW believers think our failure to be able to model short term climate and weather has no effect on our ability to model long term. I think Richard had the best analogy: If you put a lid on a pot we know the water temperature will go up and you don't need to know what each part of the pot is doing. Nice analogy, the pot is the world and CO2 is the lid. If we add CO2, the world's temperature will go up. Except in the case of the world we have added CO2 steadily for the past 150 years. 2/3rds of the time the temperature when up, 1/3rd of the time it went down.

If the result only matched the input 66% of the time would you claim conclusively that the lid is what controls water temperature in the pot?

This reminds me of the very first place I worked. In May we started to see a spike in scrap at our injection presses. Something had to be done, this was costing the company a fortune. The process guy looked into it and declared the cause of the increase scrap was the fans mounted on the presses to cool the operators. After all the problem started in May when the workers started using the fans and got worse as more and more operators used their fans. So the management team banned the use of fans and the operators got to sweat it out standing between a 250 F press and a 700 F annealing oven.

The result? Nothing, the scrap problem just got worse and discontinuing the use of fans had no noticeable effect of quality. It did cost the company hundreds of thousands in scrap, tens of thousands in bottled water, and created unrest among the workforce. What was the real cause? Humidity. The plant had some work done on the HVAC over the winter due to an addition and the HVAC system was no longer adequately controlling the humidity level. It wasn't a problem in the winter but Tennessee gets humid in the spring and summer.

The process guy got fired. He was a good guy and was responsible for some excellent process improvements in the past. However, under pressure from the management team to "do something" to fix the problem he followed a hunch instead of studying the problem in depth and paid the price when he was wrong.

Does that sound familiar? I hear that we have to do something about climate change and we have to do it NOW. If we wait even 10 years it will be too late and we will have 1,000 years of apocalypse. Fibb tells me we are going to have world climate wars.

Either / Or's? I was laughed at when I voiced my concern that CARB was starting to shift focus away from SMOG and pollutants harmful to our health. I was told that if we don't fix CO2 then none of the rest matters. That is my chief concern about the current focus on CO2, that it is diverting funds from research and projects that we know 100% are helpful.

I guess it is like the stock market. I'll pay off a debt with a 8% APR instead of paying the minimum and putting the difference in the market hoping for 12%. People say I'm stupid for doing that too and I should be "using other people's money".

I'm the one being conservative and erring on side of caution. (Focused on particulates, SOx, NOx, HC, food, water, healthcare.)

The AGW folks are putting it all on red 21 at the roulette table hoping that CO2 is going to fix the rest of the world's problems.

That is were you are very wrong. I did have a kneejerk reaction to An Inconvenient Truth. I said, "holy crap, how could I have missed this. The world as we know it is going to end if we don't do something quick." Then I started looking into the research and data behind the movie and AGW movement. Then I started to shift my opinions from Alarm -> Concern -> Skepticism. Two years ago I was a big CO2 = AGW fanboy. Today I'm interested in the subject but not convinced that CO2 is the controlling variable.

 

Scott -

What Tennikes is arguing is that ocean data are not well represented in climate models, because reliable long term ocean data do not yet exist. Further, Tennikes points out that this is important data for accurate climate projections because the ocean has a major effect on climate.

I'm not really sure how you can dispute these points, regardless of your (and Alric's) religious beliefs on the matter.

If you have evidence that what Tennikes is arguing is untrue, why don't you provide it?

 

The point is that if Tennikes has a contribution to make to the science of climate change he should write it up and submit it for scientific publication. Otherwise, he's essentially saying "Wait, the climate models aren't perfect." Well no one is claiming the climate models are perfect. They're undergoing continual improvement and revision. If his point is that it is impossible to make any prediction about future climate, he should prove it in a scientific journal, not a blog post.

And my belief here is not religious. Believing unreviewed blog posts is far more "religious" than trusting peer-reviewed scientific articles.

 

This argument of yours along with all others is easily dismissable with any of the following arguments.

1) It's a guy on a blog. Discuss a paper and then you would have earned a response.

2) Even if one model is wrong that does not dismiss AGW. It would have to be improved. Much like what McIntyre did with Mann's paper after it was shown his correction was minimal and unnecessary in light of further data.

3) The people making models are not dumb. I am sure no matter what Tennikes argued they have or will incorporate Ocean temp data.

As much as I enjoy the use of religion to vilify a point of view (is there a name for that? Usually its nazism and there is a name for that). I am afraid you are the one grasping for straws. Have you noticed denialists have not produced a coherent argument? You are all over the place desperately trying to show that if there is a crack there is no wall.

 

Tim, Give it up man. Alric's blog is better than your blog. Why can't you see than? In your blog; stupid, corrupt, pseudo-scientists misinterpret or intentionally distort the data to enrich corporations. In his blog very smart and honest scientist present the truth for the betterment of the world. It doesn't matter if his blog is also just people interpreting data and giving their opinions. This is a battle between good and evil and you are on the side of evil.

Really Alric, almost everything you present is from RealClimate.org. Very little of it is actual journal articles. The majority is an author giving his interpretation of journal articles or giving us an opinion on why a media story is wrong. I've gone to RealClimate.org. It is not a library of journal articles, it is a list of talking points and opinions.

 

Actually JSH the people on RealClimate are in fact the ones regularly publishing in peer-reviewed literature. The blog is an attempt to clarify scientific articles for the lay public.

 

I don't dispute that the authors of RealClimate.org are scientists that publish peer-reviewed literature. I do dispute that RealClimate.org is more than opinion.

Alric has consistantly said he will only reply when someone shows him data. Opinion doesn't matter, it is only the data. This data must be from peer-reviewed articles printed in respected scientific journals. That is his level of proof for anything that doesn't support his belief. Then he points us to RealClimate.org as proof of his beliefs.

Far is far. If the level of proof is a peer-reviewed paper then he should limit his reference material to peer-reviewed papers. RealClimate.org is not peer-reviewed nor is it a scientific journal. It is not even a library of peer-reviewed articles. It is a blog of opinions.

 

When did I point to an unreferenced source in realclimate.org?

I may point out to interesting opinion but then I clearly label it as such.

 

Probably the best temperature record of a large area there is and what does it show you? A climate catastrophe is upon us?

 

Looks scary enough to me!

 

Amen, JSH. And speaking of Amen, here is a prayer for Alric and Scott:

Our father, who art in Algore, hollowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom warms on earth as it does in models.
Give us this day, our daily Terrapass,
As we forgive those who Terrapass against us.
Lead us not into carbon sequestration.
But deliver us from carbon footprints.
For thine is the kingdom of models, the power of CO2, and the glory of Algore, that lasts forever and ever.

Amen.

 

Post #487. You dismiss other's arguments and refer them to RealClimate.org. Your link is the first entry from RealClimate's Wiki page.

When you look at the reference material for "How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic" it varies from excerpts of actual papers, to wikipedia, to newspaper articles.

That is a far cry from your requirement for peer-reviewed journal articles.

 

This is very interesting, JSH. I read a National Geo article several years back that was very doom and gloom about AGW. Then I read about the Vostok ice core and the fact that CO2 increases lagged temperature -- the opposite of what the National Geo article implied. Then I carefully re-read the whole article and checked facts found a slew of errors and implied statements that were not supported by research. So, I pretty muched viewed the whole thing as a "scam".

As I researched it more, I came to conclude that it's not so much a "scam" - of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas and as such is likely to warm the atmosphere some over the long term to some degree, all else being equal. However, all else is not equal. So I have been unable to become alarmed at the prospect because during periods of rapidly increasing CO2 (1940s - 1970s; 2001 - 2009) there have also been temperature declines. So clearly - something else beyond CO2 is driving temps on the downside -- and therefore likely on the upside (1990s) as well. So CO2's role is likely overstated -- a position with which quite a few scientists would agree. Scientists like Schwartz, Spencer, and Lindzen have estimated an insensitive climate system, meaning effectively that CO2's impact, while not "zero", are substantially below those of the scarier IPCC models.

Furthermore, the models are clearly lacking in a wide range of areas and their predictions do not match well with reality (for instance, lack of troposphere warming). And of course, the models lack well measured historical values for key inputs (aerosols, ocean temps & salinity, water vapor, etc).

So they can call me a "skeptic" or "denier". The only thing I am skeptical of is that we as of yet have a firm grasp on the science of CO2's effects on climate. Anybody who claims otherwise is a liar or ill-informed.

 

Try again. Each of the points of "how to talk to a Climate sceptic have references to published work. I have not seen an instance where a newspaper article was the basis for a point. Unless it was to point out how the reporter misinterpreted the published data.

 

Or a climatologist..

 

Going back to this graph, if you were to graph the amount of man-made carbon being released into the atmosphere since 1895, i would think the line would be at very steep trend up. So what exactly is the relationship if the graphs are not close?

 

My limits? Heck, I could have taken the whole set but wanted to break it down to give some different ways of looking at it...and to give you some rope. Unlike you I don't cherry pick and distort. I gave you the rope, and you set about hanging yourself, just as I expected. (Thanks for not disappointing me. )

I've not said there were no underlying natural cycles or even that there was no underlying trend before man began changing it--at least not intentionally. In fact if the trend is mildly lower, this sort of massive reversal in a short time span should set off alarms for a sharp engineer, rather than provide comfort. You are zigging when you should be zagging. It actually has trended out, and very rapidly. Yet you are oblivious, want statistical proof that it is out of control (which was rather easy to do) and STILL dispute it when that is provided. This is standard denial, just keep moving the goal posts.

If you recalled accurately you would realize that no, you did not. You said you were going to the dealership, then after a few hours reported there were 12 cars on the lot (reporting "today") and that Patrick's document (which he posted after you said you were leaving) was correct. Now perhaps you didn't go to the dealership and instead waited for Patrick's post of the U.S. specific sheet, but it does not appear that way from your posts. Problem is you should have cut your losses when I told you that your assumption about the soft paint in the U.S. was wrong. I described it in enough detail, but your skepticism exceeded good judgement. (This seems to be a trend.)It's not like there was any incentive for me to lie about it, (or that even if you assumed the worst of me that deception would have worked since hundreds of thousands have the same vehicle.) But you didn't think it through, were too stubborn, and looked foolish as a result.

And it wasn't a mistake, it was mistakes, plural. The first was that you assumed to know something about models that had changed, but that you had not inspected. Then a person posted info for their market indicating that it was a worldwide change, and you told them they were wrong. Then I posted that I had inspected my 2008 and a 2009 and you were wrong, yet you persisted. That's willful dismissal of the data based on the arrogant assumption that you were smarter than the rest of us. You've been going on about the dash as part of your main thesis about the Prius interior since I started reading this board. Yet your thesis did not apply to the 2006 and newer.

The data is in front of you, yet you willfully ignore it. It's the same pattern as the dash. People can show you the links, but they cannot make you think. It's up to you.

Considering the big rise in CO2 corresponds with the time period, just as one would expect, and that this also corresponds with the temperature rise, I can't find any basis for dismissing the correlation as you have done. It could prove to be coincidental with some other cycle and/or have less impact than it presently appears, but that's more wishful thinking than probable at this point.

Which is exactly why you should be more concerned rather than less so. We ARE conducting a worldwide experiment without controls, remaking our atmosphere without understanding the potential consequences. We don't know where we are in any/all underlying cycles.

??? It matches very well. CO2 would not have been the primary controller in the past. I don't know what "theory" you are talking about, this really sounds like the Prius dash all over again. Why does that not compute with you? Humans haven't been able to manipulate the global CO2 concentration until recent times. One would EXPECT a departure from previous trends. What is providing positive evidence for a AGW you dismiss as a negative result.

Not really. I've never worked in an environment where operators, staff, and management were THAT far apart. Geez, talk to your operators, they will tell you if they are getting overheated and give you some ideas about why. That management would approve such a change borders on the criminally stupid. Was nobody sharp enough to even mention that humidity could be a factor? Doesn't sound like you had any competent troubleshooters there.

Well by your own admission you weren't even listening 10 or 15 years ago. Taking action then would have been better and meant less severe consequences. This is still true today, although it is increasingly difficult to reduce the consequences with about 2 ppm CO2 going into the atmosphere each year. The more base of CO2 intensive equipment exists on this planet, the harder it will be to reverse it. That much is economic and scientific fact.

If we were spewing growing quantities of certain radioisotopes into the atmosphere and highly dependent on them the concern would be the same. The problem could be very long lived depending on isotope, so even though you are stuck with the consequences of past actions, you need to begin addressing the emissions immediately.

No, you are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic so that the passengers will be more comfortable/have a better view on the way down. You will still hit the iceberg and claim you did all you could, but it would have been too expensive to change course around the iceberg (afterall, it's a big ship, and there are other things you could do with your time, who's going to rearrange the deck chairs.) The focus should be on the biggest problems that have greater long term consequences. That you remained blissfully ignorant all this time is not a good reflection of your risk assessment abilities.

No, they are not, but your demonstrated capability of self delusion blinds you. You've swallowed the obstructionist drivel hook, line, and sinker. And your denialist brethren will do NOTHING about those other matters.