DescentBB

Posted: **Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:19 am**

Floyd wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:However he didn't even come close to proving there is nothing to be concerned about coming from the "consensus-of-respected-scientists" team and he merely blew smoke over a few examples.
how about watching the other five videos worth of 50 minutes as i asked y'all thrice before ...

I clicked on the link and it was Kirk Cameron debating some guy about God etc.
If you have a point to make about that in the context of this discussion I'm waiting....

Posted: **Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:58 am**

ok, i'll post the link for the third time now in this thread: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... 4AFB057BB8

Posted: **Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:09 am**

Floyd, in as much that you believe this stuff; Will in an equal manner Does Not. Reposting and reposting will not help.

Posted: **Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:23 am**

he asked for it, and i reposted because he clicked the wrong link.

Posted: **Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:53 am**

woodchip wrote:Now Pandora, while you posted your Mauna Loa CO2 graph as your proof, please explain the temperature rises during the last 10k year when man had no influence and why those same temperature driving forces may not be occurring now.

Nobody is saying that CO2 is the only driver of climate. It is one of many causes, and the climate changes in the past were, of course, not initially triggered by changes by CO2, but it seems clear that it played a positive feedback role (initial temperature change -> CO2 is released from oceans -> even more warming). The point is that all of the previous forcings do not occur now (i.e. changes due to incoming sunlight), and/or are an order of magnitude too small to account for the present warming.

Moreover, there is a distinct "fingerprint" to warming due to greenhouse gases: one of the most important ones is, AFAIK, a warming of the lower athmosphere while the stratosphere cools. This is predicted from the idea that CO2 etc. act as greenhouse and contain the energy below the stratosphere, leading to a cooling further up. This is exactly what we are seeing now.

Note, for instance, that warming due to increased solar irradiation would not predict this effect. It would predict warming through all levels of the athmosphere, but certainly not a cooling.

But maybe there is a forcing that everybody has overlooked in the last 100+ years that is causing it right now and has the same fingerprint. Of course, that is a possibility, but it is exceedingly slim.

Posted: **Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:18 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:I get the impression that the MWP is central enough to cause the alarmists on the other side to go way out of their way to make it go away.

I think any attempts - of which I have yet to see a convincing one - are more founded in an attempt to protect one's career. For some researchers, the absence of a MWP was a career defining moment, or has been made one (a large part because of the sceptic uproar about the matter).

Somebody stating that the presence of the WMP would be a nail in the coffin of the AGW theory is usually a dead giveaway that they have not read enough about the matter, or get their information only from denier sites (here, the term "denier" is quite appropriate --- for the website, not the person doing the reading that is). The reason is that you can always go back far enough and see larger temperature variation than those that we are seeing now. It would not change the distinct fingerprint of the current warming.

There are two reasons why the MWP might be relevant for a theory of AGW;
1) A very large MWP would imply that there is a natural forcing that happened in this time that (a) nobody has considered yet (very unlikely given the 10000+ researchers working on this topic), or (b) that is not well recorded in the reconstructions (more likely).
2) This mystery forcing would have to have been very subtle for researchers to miss it till now. This does not suggest very good things for the current warming. This means that the climate system is much more sensitive to small variations than thought so far, and can be brought out of balance quite easily.

What the MWP would NOT change, however, is our knowledge about how CO2 affects warming. This knowledge about how much CO2 is necessary for a temperature increase is derived from basic physics, and from (independent) calibrations of both the reliably recent temperature record, or using the drastic changes in the ice ages.

Posted: **Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:44 pm**

To me, this whole importance attached to the MWP is quite a clever denier \"trick\". It goes something like this:
1) find a weak spot in climate research (the MWP climate reconstructions are indeed subject to lot ifs and buts --- read Mann's original papers, or the IPCC, they lay them out quite clearly, contrary to what the skeptics claim).
2) Paint this spot as central to the theory (even though it is not).
3) Draw public attention to all the weaknesses.
4) Bingo: doubt in the whole theory is created!
So, long story short, the whole MWP thing is a red-herring and efficient strawman.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:02 am**

Pandora wrote:To me, this whole importance attached to the MWP is quite a clever denier "trick". It goes something like this:
1) find a weak spot in climate research (the MWP climate reconstructions are indeed subject to lot ifs and buts --- read Mann's original papers, or the IPCC, they lay them out quite clearly, contrary to what the skeptics claim).
2) Paint this spot as central to the theory (even though it is not).
3) Draw public attention to all the weaknesses.
4) Bingo: doubt in the whole theory is created!
So, long story short, the whole MWP thing is a red-herring and efficient strawman.

Pandora, if you know anything about science then you would know this is not a "trick". Good science demands you take a hypothesis, find its weak spots and try to disprove the theory or in this case the model. As to public attention, I think we have seen quite enough attention being drawn to global warming by such as Algore for promotional purposes and to line the promoters pockets.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:13 am**

Pandora wrote:

But maybe there is a forcing that everybody has overlooked in the last 100+ years that is causing it right now and has the same fingerprint. Of course, that is a possibility, but it is exceedingly slim.

Slim or not, I would say we need to know before we impose any economic hardships on whole groups of people. Perhaps we now need to step back and take a new look at all the data and not try to muzzle those who do not agree. After all, we still need to understand why the last 10 years temperatures have "flatlined" and not followed the trend of the previous 40. In short, the predictive model as it is, does not seem to be working.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:28 am**

The alarmists have declared themselves the authority on the subject with great arrogance and declared anyone who doubts their theory as \"deniers\".
They are assuming the role of parents who for lack of a better explanation answer a questioning child with a stern 'Because I said so!'.

Well that kind of declaration didn't work then and it still doesn't work! If the science supports their theory they shouldn't hide their work/data or refuse the debate. But they do and their work/data is used to extort billions of dollars from the wealthy and distributed to the needy without anyone being able to show how this redistribution will alter the warming trend.

So, yea, the earth is warming, yea, pollution adds to it...so what?!?
You haven't tried to stop the warming you just used the theory to try and pick our pockets and give yourselves world police powers!

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:41 am**

woodchip wrote:[andora, if you know anything about science then you would know this is not a "trick". Good science demands you take a hypothesis, find its weak spots and try to disprove the theory or in this case the model.

It is a trick if you attack a theory by proxy of something that is NOT central to it. This was the main point of my post. As I said, the presence/absence of the MWP only slightly affects the theory of AGW.

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:17 am**

Sorry, I couldn't resist. xD

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:42 am**

have you read through the emails? I have them if you like.

It's bogus by their own admission. nuff said.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:29 am**

Which email was that?

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:55 pm**

woodchip wrote:After all, we still need to understand why the last 10 years temperatures have "flatlined" and not followed the trend of the previous 40. In short, the predictive model as it is, does not seem to be working.

hmm, interesting that the science has moved on since Trenberth's email. There is some new data from fraudsters in France that the heat is captured in the deep oceans (0 - 2000 meters).

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2 ... 5237.shtml
Something similar from their co-conspirators in Australia (but only goes till 2003-2004 or so):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 07080.html

So, the warming is still happening, just not at the surface. And the system is able to detect it. Sorry!

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:03 pm**

Pandora wrote:
woodchip wrote:After all, we still need to understand why the last 10 years temperatures have "flatlined" and not followed the trend of the previous 40. In short, the predictive model as it is, does not seem to be working.
hmm, interesting that the science has Ignored Trenberth's email. There is some new data from fraudsters in France that the heat is captured in the deep oceans (0 - 2000 meters).

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2 ... 5237.shtml
Something similar from their co-conspirators in Australia (but only goes till 2003-2004 or so):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 07080.html

So, the Lying is still happening, just not at the surface. And the system is able to detect it. Sorry!

fixed that for ya.

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:17 pm**

So if other science data does not agree with the climate warming hoax, it must be fraudulent? Would you care to refute the science with counter balancing data?

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:34 am**

Woody, my use of 'fraudulent' was being sarcastic. Just showing that even though you don't see the warming in the air temperature, you still see it in the deep oceans.

Oh, and NASA has 2009 as the hottest year on record with regard to sea temperatures.

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:21 am**

I'm not convinced that problems relating to confirmation bias are not happening.
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernande ... ocket-man/

from comment to Megan McCardle wrote: Megan,

With respect, you’re setting up a strawman. None of the scientists who have “come out” as climate skeptics allege a massive conspiracy by scientists, any more than there is a massive liberal conspiracy in Hollywood. What you have is a self-emergent, self-organizing bias. I hope I can illustrate it briefly.

I work in academic science (check my IP address if you wish). Scientists are, in general, uncompromising idealists for objective, physical truth. But occasionally, politics encroaches. Most of my work is funded by DoE, DoD, ONR, and a few big companies. We get the grants, because we are simply the best in the field. But we don’t work in isolation. We work as part of a department, which has equipment, lab space, and maintenance staff, IT, et cetera. We have a system for the strict partition of unclassified/classified research through collaboration with government labs. The department had set a research policy and infrastructure goal to attract defense funding, and it worked.

The same is true in climate science. Universities and departments have set policies to attract climate science funding. Climate science centers don’t spontaneously spring into existence – they were created, in increasingly rapid numbers, to partake in the funding bonanza that is AGW. This by itself is not political – currently, universities are scrambling to set up “clean energy” and “sustainable technology” centers. Before it was bio-tech and nanotechnology. But because AGW-funding is politically motivated, departments have adroitly set their research goals to match the political goals of their funding sources. Just look at the mission statements of these climate research institutes – they don’t seek to investigate the scientific validity or soundness of AGW-theory, they assume that it is true, and seek to research the implications or consequences of it.

This filters through every level. Having created such a department, they must fill it with faculty that will carry out their mission statement. The department will hire professors who already believe in AGW and conduct research based on that premise. Those professors will hire students that will conduct their research without much fuss about AGW. And honestly, if you know anything about my generation, we will do or say whatever it is we think we’re supposed to do or say. There is no conspiracy, just a slightly cozy, unthinking myopia. Don’t rock the boat.

The former editor of the New Scientist, Nigel Calder, said it best – if you want funding to study the feeding habits of squirrels, you won’t get it. If you wants to study the effects of climate change on the feeding habits of squirrels, you will. And so in these subtle ways, there is a gravitational pull towards the AGW monolith.

I think it the most damning evidence for this soft tyranny is in the work of climate scientists whose scientific integrity has led them to publish results that clearly contradict basic assumptions in AGW modeling. Yet, in their papers, they are very careful to skirt around the issue, keeping their heads down, describing their results in a way obfuscates the contradiction. They will describe their results as an individual case, with no greater implications, and issue reassuring boilerplate statements about how AGW is true anyways.

For the field as a whole, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s the unfortunate consequence of having a field totally dominated by politically-motivated, strings-attached money. In the case of the CRU email group, well, the emails speak for themselves. Call it whatever you want.

I think the potential corrupting influence of the money trail cannot reasonably be denied. I'm going to be suspicious of anyone who will not at least acknowledge it.

edit: climatologists need porches too!

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:52 am**

Dissent, I am not denying any potential confirmation bias ; what I have trouble believing is a worldwide conspiracy between leftist politicians and scientists all around the world to establish a new world order.

Also, the confirmation bias is IMHO more than counterbalanced by the science being extremely competitive. Scientists make their careers by disproving others' work --- the rewards for challenging others' work are extremely high. I am a scientist. When I see a paper for which I think \"oh come on guys, you can't be serious\" I immediately think of experiments to disprove them. I can't believe that climate science would be any different.

Also, the journals, the big ones in particular, make their money out of controversies. If they can get a paper that successfully challenges the consensus they are more than happy to publish. It will drive up their citation index and this is what they are all going for. I've seen this recently, where one of my colleagues wrote such a paper slaughtering a holly cow and got it published with no problems in Nature Neuroscience (some even say with too few problems). So, if there was this mystery forcing that Woody is thinking, you can be sure that this would not be held back. After all, the worry would be that somebody else would publish it before you, and get all the citations. Scientists simply can't afford to sit on their discoveries.

edited for clarity.

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:55 am**

with regard to your edit:
you know that none of that grant money is seen by the scientists? It only goes into research, or pays for your underlings. Irrespective how much grant money you get, you will still get your typical scientists' salary (although you will probably be promoted more quickly).

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:23 am**

Well it would seem, as I have contended in the past that vulcanism may be one of those elements that helped raise earths temperature:

\"The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) has been attributed to a sudden release of carbon dioxide and/or methane.\"

\"These correlations support the view that the PETM was triggered by greenhouse gas release during magma interaction with basin-filling carbon-rich sedimentary rocks proximal to the embryonic plate boundary between Greenland and Europe.\"

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... 6/5824/587

\"The period of most rapid warming between 15 and 8 Ka is clearly contemporaneous with highest rates of volcanism (red sulfate per layer, blue eruptions per century after Zielinski et al, 1996).\"

http://www.tetontectonics.org/Climate/W ... Poster.pdf

Then we have the Gakkel Ridge incident that occured in 1999 but wasn't discovered until about 2007 which leads one to wonder what else is going on along the plate spreading ridges underseas:

\"What they saw was unmistakable evidence of explosive eruptions rather than the gradual secretion of lava bubbling up from Earth's mantle onto the ocean floor.

Previous research had concluded that this kind of so-called pyroclastic eruption could not happen at such depths due to the crushing pressure of the water.\"

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2058 ... cean-floor

So the question is begged, \"What else do we not know and how does it affect the climate model\". Has anyone tracked and gotten good data for how much undersea vulcanism heats the oceans? Is there any good data to compare ocean floor vulcanism from present to past So we can relate present day oceanic warming to periods in our history? Does undersea vulcanism have any affect on El Nino or El Nina? If not then I suggest we have more work to do before we start making predictions on climate change.

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:40 am**

You do know that over 500 years ago scientific consensus was that the earth was flat. Just because it is popular doesn't make the science right.

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:52 am**

Volcanism is but a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of energy the earth absorbs from sunlight.

Just look at the moon which has neither volcanic activity or an atmosphere. The daytime surface temperature rises to over 100C, enough to boil water and the nighttime temperature drops to less than -150C.

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:29 pm**

Not sure how to reply to this, Woody, because I don't really understand what your claim is:

a) volcanoes erupt, interact with sedimentary rock, release CO2, this leads to the current warming we see in the surface temperatures? This is what your first link is talking about.
or b) deep see volcanoes erupt and cause the heating of the deep see only (but this obviously can't explain the heating in the surface record).

Or c) both?

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:53 pm**

Insurrectionist wrote:You do know that over 500 years ago scientific consensus was that the earth was flat. Just because it is popular doesn't make the science right.

Actually, that's a myth

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:02 pm**

Learning is fun.

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:32 pm**

dissent wrote:edit: climatologists need porches too!

LOL. I just noticed - "porches". Can't type to save my life.

Posted: **Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:11 pm**

Pandora wrote:Also, the confirmation bias is IMHO more than counterbalanced by the science being extremely competitive. Scientists make their careers by disproving others' work --- the rewards for challenging others' work are extremely high. I am a scientist. When I see a paper for which I think "oh come on guys, you can't be serious" I immediately think of experiments to disprove them. I can't believe that climate science would be any different.

Also, the journals, the big ones in particular, make their money out of controversies. If they can get a paper that successfully challenges the consensus they are more than happy to publish. It will drive up their citation index and this is what they are all going for. I've seen this recently, where one of my colleagues wrote such a paper slaughtering a holly cow and got it published with no problems in Nature Neuroscience (some even say with too few problems). So, if there was this mystery forcing that Woody is thinking, you can be sure that this would not be held back. After all, the worry would be that somebody else would publish it before you, and get all the citations. Scientists simply can't afford to sit on their discoveries.

I don't think scientific discourse always works quite that well. Consider this guy's story.

Posted: **Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:33 pm**

...wow....

fail.

That's just nuts...

Posted: **Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:51 pm**

OMG, now I have a headache.

Posted: **Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:56 pm**

Pandora wrote:Dissent, I am not denying any potential confirmation bias ; what I have trouble believing is a worldwide conspiracy between leftist politicians and scientists all around the world to establish a new world order.

Agreed. I don't think there is any massive conspiracy to deceive; whether a small group of people are up to no good is, however, still a possibility.

Also, the confirmation bias is IMHO more than counterbalanced by the science being extremely competitive. Scientists make their careers by disproving others' work --- the rewards for challenging others' work are extremely high.

Scientists also put bread on the table just by going out and discovering new stuff. There's also the very human propensity to want to get onto the bandwagon du jour if it might make you popular, or famous, or just give you access to more research money and/or facilities. Taking potshots at a favored theory doesn't necessarily set too well with everyone; for an interesting read on early tussles over quantum theory, I recommend "Faust in Copenhagen" by Gino Segré. The rewards for challenging a theory can be high, but they are not without risks. Any new data coming out of the pipeline later can sink you.

Scientists simply can't afford to sit on their discoveries.

Yet aren't there numerous examples of just that, where a scientist had some contrary datum or observation and just sat on it because they thought it must be wrong - this is just what confirmation bias is.

Posted: **Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:56 pm**

Drakona wrote:..

I don't think scientific discourse always works quite that well. Consider this guy's story.

Wow! After reading that I'll always understand when I hear about a scientist randomly killing people he supposedly didn't have any connection too....or himself...

Posted: **Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:46 pm**

Thanks Drakona, that was an incredible link!

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:10 am**

The story was published on Sept. 18, 2009. As an amusing bit of prophecy (and to steer the thread back toward the main topic), the author of the article cautions (in his second addendum, item 12)

Problems like those that I encountered are a proverbial ticking time bomb for science. What if those opposed to taking action against global warming were to make the claim that science shouldn't be believed in this matter because its process is so rife with poor ethics that it can't be trusted?

Of course, it was only a couple months later that exactly that happened.

It's worth mentioning that ethical lapses -- in science in general or climate science in particular -- don't make people wrong. Just specific people less trustworthy. It should give you some pause if you're inclined to trust a result simply because it's published in a prestigious journal, or to trust the opinion of a scientist simply because he's a scientist. But it doesn't mean you should actively distrust those things, either. Nothing matters except whether the arguments are good and whether the data is good. There is no epistemic substitute for reading and critiquing core arguments.

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:57 pm**

and it just keeps on getting better:

\"A surge in sunshine more than 60 years ago helped Swiss mountain glaciers melt faster than today, even though warmer average temperatures are being recorded now, Swiss researchers said Monday.

Their study into the impact of solar radiation on Alpine glaciers made the \"surprising discovery\" that in the 1940s, and especially summer 1947, the ice floes lost the most ice since measurements begin 95 years ago, according to Zurich's Federal Institute of Technology (ETHZ). \"

\"The researchers found from historic data on three Swiss glaciers, as well as radiation recordings from the eastern Alpine town of Davos, that the level of sunshine in the 1940s was eight percent higher than average and significantly higher than now.\"

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

So just goes to show that until all the data is in, no real climate model can be taken seriously enough to start making cost prohibitive changes to the worlds economy. For all we know, what man is pumping into the air is staving off another ice age.

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:02 pm**

I highly doubt we will be able to stop the next ice age whenever it begins. Most likely we will be powerless before a slow but relentless march of glaciers that will consume everything in their path.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:48 am**

..what if we do hands across America and sing \"We are the World..\"???

no??

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:10 pm**

Krom wrote:I highly doubt we will be able to stop the next ice age whenever it begins. Most likely we will be powerless before a slow but relentless march of glaciers that will consume everything in their path.

just cover the snow and ice with dirt, so warmth doesn't get reflected as much, thus heating earth again, or at least keep it at level. in 20000 years from now, as it is currently estimated.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:44 pm**

Woody, what about this study? Again, it just shows that ONE REGION had stronger glacier retreat now than today. You're mistaking again phenomena on a global and local level --- unless there is a more subtle point in there that you are trying to make.

DescentBB

In the End

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: