by Judith Curry
What does this perception of climate controversy reveal about our own understanding of the relationship between science and society, nature and culture, and more generally about our relationship to modernity? – Lionel Scotto D’Apollonia
Global warming: A trojan horse of modernity?
Lionel Scotto D’Apollonia
Abstract. This paper sets out to untangle the complex issue of global warming controversy. In fact a number of overlapping issues are intertwined: ethical, ideological, political, philosophical and epistemic amongst others. What does this perception of climate controversy reveal about our own understanding of the relationship between science and society, nature and culture, and more generally about our relationship to modernity? Have we achieved Bacon or Descartes’ grand design of mastering and possessing nature? To answer this question several points need to be clarified: firstly, the debate in sociology relating to scientific controversy; secondly the treatment of uncertainty in discourses and the ideological, ethical and political aspects of that controversy. Finally, the paper seeks to demonstrate how the IPCC is built on a strong modern genetic code, and how it in fact reflects complex interrelationships between the West and modern democracies. The paper proposes to use the metaphor of the Trojan Horse as the most effective tool to understand these questions.
Published in Science in Society, link to full paper [here]. Excerpts:
Anthropowarmists is a neologism I have created somewhat in opposition to climate-skeptics. They consider that there is enough tangible proof to attribute the causes of global warming to human activities.
Climate Skeptics refer to the issue of uncertainty as a core element of their argument. [One] kind of sophism maximizes uncertainty as an argument in order to avoid taking any political decisions designed to reduce carbon emissions. Some others skeptics consider that the IPCC itself is a real problem on the grounds that it simultaneously mixes political and scientific issues and that science doesn’t require consensus to move forward but rather uncertainty and controversies. Climate Skeptics have denounced a sort of global warming myth.
It is worth noting that climatologists are happy to address issues relating to controversy and uncertainty. The two groups, anthropowarmists or Climate Skeptics agree on one point if not much else besides; to say that uncertainty exists. They are fully aware that of what scientific points need to be investigated more deeply. It has been interesting to note their opinion of those scientists who delegitimize climate controversy, such as Naomi Oreskes and various others. Even for anthropowarmists and of course for skeptics controversy is entirely natural for science, and there really is an element of uncertainty. Jean Jouzel vice president of the first IPCC panel notes that “we never hide the fact that there is a good deal of uncertainty”. However anthropowarmists consider that uncertainty comes from the complex and chaotic nature of climate, and that we have sufficient proof to engage political decisions to reduce CO2 emissions. Climate Skeptics emphasize uncertainty as a prerequisite in any debate – virtually in all interviews and articles. So overall, it’s possible to consider that the two groups consider uncertainty in the same way. But a more nuanced approach might well be possible. In fact some climatologists don’t speak in the same terms but rather vary their discourse according to the public they are addressing. When talking to their peers they seek not to minimize uncertainty. But when they dialoguing with lay people, they tend to minimize uncertainty.
As one particular climatologist member of IPCC put it: “in general I say that there are three certainties that the composition of the atmosphere is changing, it’s linked to human activity, and that the climate keeps on warming”. Because he supports a political message he considers that it’s vital to communicate clearly without any element of uncertainty.
On the other hand, a large majority of scientists are anthropowarmists but also take the view that there is no uncertainty. They disqualify other scientists who are considered as deniers.
One researcher stated quite clearly that he doesn’t want to use words such as “Climate Skeptics” or “controversy” because there is no scientific controversy. Others take the view that scientific controversy is legitimate within scientific fora, but are more ambiguous when it comes to public debate.
They understate uncertainty because they need to justify their own perception of risk. In fact, science tries to objectify uncertainty, while risk is constructed with social subjectivities. This mechanism of the subjectivities of risk is constructed principally on two inter-related antagonist elements: on the one hand an imaginary scenario and fears associated to technology and the rationalization of future consequences on the other. This perception of risk is built on a subjective dimension in respect to which various actors remain unaware. As Frewer has demonstrated, these actors minimize or erase uncertainty by fear of creating confusion.
In France, a community of geographers is worthy of note: they believe that there are too many “complex and various causality factors”. One particular geographer affirmed that they: “don’t believe in models because there is too much uncertainty”. They prefer to ask questions in terms of human adaptability at local level. Anthropowarmists might well consider that they are skeptics but this is not how geographers see themselves. All of this means that any differing opinions are considered to have come from Climate Skeptics without any additional information or detail.
A clear normative distinction has thus emerged between scientific study scientists who believe in human responsibility, and others who can be characterized as being more moderate. When I say normative, I think they don’t really produce science, but normative or subjective science which depends on their own ideological or political positions, without real reflexive work. So if science studies really do wish to analyze climate controversy they must surely carry out some real reflexive work prior to any investigation, and clearly define their own criteria scientifically. But actors base their discourses not only from a scientific point of view, but also ideologically and politically – issues which this paper will now seek to address.
There are several types of messages contained within their own discourses. Climate Skeptics consider that more pressing problems exist, such as the distribution of water or the issue of hunger in the world, and adopt a position which can be characterized as a “wait and see” approach. They also take the view that progress and technology will provide solutions. Broadly speaking they are in favor of the free market. They maintain the posture of modern man as master of nature, in an anthropocentric way. This would tend to imply that humanity is more important than nature. On the other side, there is a distinct lack of cohesion. In fact an analysis of their arguments reveals political positions against modernity, the liberal market, but also progressive view. A few actors advocate ’negative growth’ in France, meaning reverse economic growth with a Marxist twist thrown in. They consider that humanity would be able to turn off its anthropocentric position and considering Lovelock’s Gaia theory as the solution. Some have become vegetarians as part of the fight against global warming. Others, such as Climate Skeptics think that humanity is a priority but that it’s also vitally important to take good care of nature too. They consider that it’s really urgent to take political decisions against carbon emission. A failure to do so, the argument goes, could lead to the end of the world as we know it. Nevertheless they remain convinced that science can produce solutions for this thoroughly modern predicament.
So the question to be asked is why it is so difficult to have real and informed argumentative debate within the public arena? The usual practice is for democracy to be built on the possibility of the coexistence of all types of discourses. So controversy should really be viewed as a gift to modern democracy.
If we compare the controversy to a Trojan horse entering a besieged modern city, for those who seek delegitimization, it could actually destroy modernity. Because the authorities would be unable to make decisions designed to ensure that we avoid the forecast disasters. Western societies were built on the modern ideal of progress based on reason by the prevalence of science and technology at the expense of morality and ethics. Democracy is built on the possibility of the coexistence of all types of discourses.So promethean man, able both to master and change nature, can heal his guilt with the progress of techno-science and the levers of political action, while giving back a sense of morality and ethics to a new and rather grand modern narrative: the fight against global warming. This is precisely why this metaphor has been put forward: not to answer the question, but to open a debate from an alternative perspective.
JC comments: I received a link to this paper via email from Lionel Scotto d’Apollonia. Lionel is a Professor of Physics and Chemistry (University of Science and Technology Montpellier, France), who is also conducting Ph.D. research in Sociology.
This article provides some interesting insights into the scientific and public debate on climate change. Particularly memorable are ‘anthropowarmist’ and ‘trojan horse.’ We have often discussed taxonomies of actors in the climate debate; for characterizing those on the ‘warm’ side of the debate, i think ‘anthropowarmist’ is the best I’ve seen.
The ‘trojan horse’ metaphor is also very apt, one that I think is worth exploring further in the more general context of super wicked problems and messes.
It’s much simpler than all that. All you have to do is ask if the hypothesis has successfully predicted those effects which would validate the theory.
Tropical tropospheric hotspot: FAIL
Temperatures rising with increased atmospheric co2 at a rate outside the bounds of natural variability: FAIL
Back to the drawing board then…
How about back to the IPCC reports with you, because the tropospheric hotspot is for 2x CO2 and we are not there yet, it’s not the rate of change of temperature that matters, only how warm it gets.
Simple isn’t it when you don’t use straw.
What, the hotspot won’t be visible with 1.5x co2 but it’ll suddenly spring fully formed like Athenea from the forhead of Zeus when we hit 2x co2?
You’re having a laugh: FAIL.
It’s been getting noticeably cooler where I live a for a long time now.
In fact, a large number of the country by country datasets garnered by HADcru showed cooling over the C20th. Not after they’d been put through the adjustment algoreithms though.
Monkeying with the data: MEGAFAIL
So you are bad at math too, we are not at 1.5x CO2 even.
It won’t get warmer everywhere, groupie.
So the TOBS and other adjustments to remove bias were monkeying with the data?
Oh, we’ll just add mega to any argument and we’ll all just fall down.
tallbloke, that is one of the best curb stomps in a while.
Bob, Tallbloke is referring to CO2 equivalent forcing which includes methane, nitrous oxide etc. Since they are shorter lived gases, there should be a shorter term boost to the CO2 equivalent forcing. Most of the Nothing But CO2 (NBC) crowd neglect to mention that that eats into the “pipeline” while they also ignore that “other” forcings would also have a similar ln(2) curve as the system approaches more “near equilibrium” state.
Everyone on the AGW side appears to be placing their thumbs on the scales :)
Bob Droege | October 15, 2013 at 9:52 pm |
So you are bad at math too, we are not at 1.5x CO2 even.
269.6+134.3=404 – Hotspot not found.
Please try reloading your your hypothesis with better data, or click here for more solutions
Captain, he didn’t specify equivalent CO2 forcing.
And I don’t think anyone is ignoring the other non-condensing greenhouse gases on the right side.
Tallbloke,
Where did you get the 269.6 ppm, I notice it wasn’t from UMB.
There wasn’t anything to that post, unless I followed Alice down the rabbit hole, but I would rather the rabett hole.
So do you have any data on what the tropospheric temperatures are doing lately anyway?
No cite, no bottle of yahoo for you!
https://www.google.com/search?q=yoohoo+chocolate+milk&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=x_tdUrnXKqXr2QW9oYHQDg&ved=0CDUQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=559
Bob, since GISS keep on cooling past temperatures, then according to Jim Hansen’s co2 theory, the co2 PPM has to be lowered too. Obvious.
Not obvious Tallbloke,
If our stupid government hadn’t shut down I could post links that show why those adjustments have been made and then we could discuss whether or not they are valid and how they affect the climate sensitivity.
But I know it’s mostly TOBS and that adjustment is valid as it reduces bias.
I actually don’t have a problem with “cooling” past temperatures. It’s an anomaly, not an absolute temperature.
Bob, Since the effect is logarithmic, we would see more than 1.5 times the effect anyway so we are more than 1/2 way to a doubling in that respect.
Bill W
True, but there is also somewhat of a lag between the injection of the greenhouse gas and the temperature response.
And the aliquot winds its worldwound whorls away.
===============
Bob Droege,
Trenberth and others claim they have seen the hotspot over periods up to months.
Now apologize to Tallbloke. That’s a good boy.
Bob Droege,
I am a Denier. I do not deny the adjustments have been supported by papers. Now, why do I agree with tallbloke that the temperature series are corrupt, imaginary artifices??
Because the algorithms that implement those adjustments have NOT been clearly explained and delineated in papers that have been peer reviewed. In fact the adjustments are smeared all over stations that have no reason being adjusted!!!
Now, be a good boy and apologize to Tallbloke and the rest AGAIN!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Kuhnkat, if you follow the link in my name, I’ve does some work with NCDC’s data, that doesn’t involve making “adjustments”.
NCDC makes the adjustments before releasing the data. Try getting the data raw from the sites where it is collected if you can…
While that is true, I don’t work from mean temps, and I don’t make up data for places where it was never measured.
By the way Bob Droege,
as the alarmists themselves tell us the Hot Spot is NOT the fingerprint of Gorebull Warming. it is the fingerprint of WARMING!!!
The Hotspot PLUS Stratospheric Cooling PLUS Tropopause Heightening all make up the IPCC Fingerprint. In fact we should include increasing tropospheric humidity as that is the feedback claimed to create the above!!
Unfortunately all are MIA!!! So sad for you and the rest of the propaganda victims.
Kuhnkat,
you may be right, but do you have any links to support anything you have said?
I didn’t think Trenberth was the tropospheric hotspot guy, but give me a link to prove me wrong.
In light of today’s post, I do apologise to Tallbloke for calling him a groupie.
But I’m not even going waste an insult on you.
Bob Droege:
In light of today’s post, I do apologise to Tallbloke for calling him a groupie.
:-)
Glad to be able to set you straight on this topic.
This is an interactive model I constructed which is part of a more comprehensive semantic web server:
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
The algorithm applies a multiple linear regression fit on the global temperature data against a set of 4 measured noise sources and the log of the CO2 signal. This decomposed the global temperature into a strong signal that contributes close to 100% of the warming trend, and the other 4 terms which are statistically significant in describing the fluctuation but add nothing to the trend.
The FAIL turns into a resounding success when the data is analyzed objectively.
I don’t trust your temperature datasets. Sorry.
GISS changes monthly, and the past always gets cooler as a result.
FAIL
Webster, nice spread sheet. You still have CO2 signal assuming everything is CO2 though you are only removing the short term “noise”
This is longer term solar by regions, no ENSO or volcanic correction.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-81t490IsqmE/Ul19PeOqUbI/AAAAAAAAJ-A/9yI2xF1V0Eo/w851-h503-no/one+solar+15.75+with+southern+ocean.png
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-F73OWTgrFXQ/Ul19QTmXT7I/AAAAAAAAJ-M/eUtc8uxN0xw/w847-h503-no/one+solar+15.75+with+southern+tropical+ocean.png
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-iYz4nszL_is/Ul19PTbSJTI/AAAAAAAAJ98/bUUGwZZQdVE/w853-h501-no/one+solar+15.75+with+northern+tropical+ocean.png
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-0GS3Bi4C648/Ul19PkUHZ7I/AAAAAAAAJ-E/RamWeN5-8YE/w851-h499-no/one+solar+15.75+with+northern+ocean.png
The noise of course gets stronger moving north.
How do you think this just solar works back to say 1750?
Back to 1750? Not bad
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-nG85rYTC3J4/Ul3tLHl0UyI/AAAAAAAAJ_A/0ZeJR9BsUWo/w851-h507-no/one+solar+15.75+with+BEST+1.png
Kinda looks like there is a tad of recovery you are assuming it nothing but CO2.
Web, as someone who works in the medical field I must point out that an excess salt is bad for us, and you are salting every thread.
I am waiting for you to add pixie dust and unicorn tears.
Web,
Do you assume all variation over the Holocene is driven by only CO2 variation, with volcanoes causing short variation? If so whose SUV’s did it it the early part of the Holocene? If not, why was the average temperature of the Holocene close to present (or higher). Why was there large variation up and down, with an extreme down during the LIA (about 1300-1850 AD)? Why is the present temperature not just a recovery from the LIA, caused by a combination of solar variation and long period current variation going in and out of phase (PDO, AMO, etc.)? Your assumption of CO2 as THE sole driver of the warming (that ended about 2002) is without any logical basis or historical support.
tallbloke distrusts scientific data.
What is quite amazing about the multiple linear regression fit is that it will pick out the TSI contribution accurately. For an albedo of 0.3 it should predict a temperature anomaly — relative to TSI power changes — of:
dT = 0.7 /4 * T/(4R) dP = 0.7/4 * 288/(4*240) dP = 0.0525 * dP
And that is accurately what the multiple regression picks out. It is hard to see it based on the noise, but it is there. The multiple regression reduces the noise enough for it to be detected.
For a peak-to-peak dP of 1 watt/m^2 entering the TOA on one hemisphere at any time, the temperature change is about 0.05C which is much less than the shift of 0.8C we have seen in global temperatures.
This gives credence to the ln(CO2) contribution.
Because tallbloke doesn’t “trust your temperature datasets. Sorry.”
Seriously, what can you argue with in the multiple linear regression fit? I have other mechanisms in there besides CO2, which is why it is a multiple regression fit. The plausibility of the CO2 mechanism rests in the parsimony of all current observational data.
I tell you what … you come up with an alternate model and we will take an AIC (Aikake Information Criteria) or BIS (Bayesian Information Criteria) measure of both yours and my model and see which one does better from an objective information theory and statistical perspective.
I bet you can’t do it any better, and are probably unwilling anyways.
(Hint: it is very easy to do an alternative naive model, just take a linear increase of unknown origin and watch how terrible it does compared to the ln(CO2) model).
Wubbie,
your assignment is to write the following phrase in comments 400ppm times.
Models are not observations or evidence, even if they are GOOD models!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Hey Wubbie,
when are you going to tell us about the Hypsithermal??
What? It kills your arguments?? Honest scientific inquiry takes ALL data into account whether it supports or damages ones hypothesis.
Oh yeah, you run on dogma!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
WebHubTelescope:
There are issues when the independent variables have errors that you need to explore. These errors can bias in your results, so this is something that you need to quantify, along with uncertainty bounds in the final results.
Linear relationships climate response to your noise sources is overly simplistic. Really you need an estimate of an global mean temperature impulse response function for each input noise type, and fit to the convolution of the impulse response function and the noise, for each noise type. (This still assumes linearity though.)
It’s not clear what you have in the end when you fit to noisy data using a model of uncertain validity other than an overly complicated smoothing algorithm, with no improvement in the uncertainty in the trend (which is what matters). After all, fit to just about any set of random inputs, and you will always reduce the variance in the residual. Reduced variance is not the same thing as increased accuracy though.
Also, why aren’t you fitting to estimates of CO2 + other forcings, rather than just CO2?
This is a terrible forum to try and discuss anything meaningful [redacted], but it’s worth a shot.
Carrick asks why I am not fitting to other forcings rather than just CO2.
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
I fit to CO2, SOI, Aerosols,LOD, and TSI. The CO2 sensitivity includes all the other GHGs as an approximation. I don’t use the Hansen approach of countering GHGs with anthro aerosols, only volcanic.
Carrick needs to regroup and rethink his strategy, because the rest of his commentary is random potshots. It is rather obvious that the logCO2 sensitivity is the major factor and all the natural forcings are randomly producing the noisy pauses. He will have to use something other than rhetoric to better this.
WebHubTelescope
“It is rather obvious that the logCO2 sensitivity is the major factor”
Is it? You have scientific evidence of this do you?
Simulation results aren’t evidence, Surface and Satellite temp records aren’t, lab absorption spectrum’s aren’t.
Now it’s a fine hypothesis, but if you want people to believe you, find us some evidence!
WebHubbleTelescope:
Um no, my comments were pretty specific I’m sorry if it was over your head.
As to
It’s not so much that including anthropogenic aerosols is an approach that counters GHGs, it’s a fact that they do. How much is uncertain, but it’s literally the most possible extreme assumption you can make to assume that GHGs are the only impact of anthropogenic activity on climate.
You seemed to want feedback until you got it. Don’t worry about getting any more from me.
Ciao.
Carrick is looking for something to say but he can’t seem to articulate it.
This is actually a lot of fun to play with.
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
There is one point in the winter of 1943-1944 where a large warming spike occurs and it decays within a couple of years. The agreement overall is so good using this select group of forcing functions that one can indeed use it to find even more interesting features. In this case, the warming spike is not related to SOI and can’t be a volcanic event but may well be due to something peculiar to the NH land temperatures. I can almost guess what it could be.
.
WHT: What is quite amazing about the multiple linear regression fit is that it will pick out the TSI contribution accurately.
But what it doesn’t do is integrate the effect of 70 years of above average solar activity on Ocean Heat Content. To do that you need to integrate the TSI (or SSN as a longer term proxy for TSI) as a cumulative, departing from the ocean equilibrium value at which the oceans neither gain no lose energy.
Here, I already did it, and also fitted the effect of the AMO, SOI and LnCo2 (or temperature ‘adjustments’ look around the same):
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/sst-model1.png
Fancy that, it replicates HADsstV3 to r^2 0.91
Excellent TallBloke, at least you are a believer in GHG theory!
Now just clean up the mistakes that you made and you will have something as good as this model:
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
Webster, the A in SALT is volcanic aerosols right?
http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f?p=519:1:0::::P1_STUDY_ID:14168
1200 years of volcanic aerosols fairly fresh off the press. Now check your fit.
And Webster, this is roughly the hemispheric volcanic aerosol imbalance using the Crowley et al. 2013 data.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Kb7ccx1Xd9A/UmBWDLFKnnI/AAAAAAAAKAk/7RXikZDSAHo/w579-h345-no/volcanic+aerosol+imbalance.png
There are two hemispheres which respond differently to forcing.
Egg production in South Africa is highly correlated with umbrella sales in New York City.
tallbloke,
There are numerous things I could post here in response to your simpleton approach to trying to accurately the anthropogenic effects upon the global climate, but before I shred your perspective completely, I suggest you begin by researching the enhancement of the Brewer-Dobson circulation that has been observed, and its relationship to both the lack of a tropical hotspot as well as a diminished wind speed in the QBO. Your skeptical talking points are oh so last decade…
I suggest you begin by researching the enhancement of the Brewer-Dobson circulation that has been observed,
How has it been “observed”? are there differences in the seasonal modes ( in the accompanying hemisphere)?
R. Gates:
I look forward to your exposition of the up to date ad hockery attempting to save this badly FAILed co2 hypothesis.
Let me know when you read up on the latest BDC research, so we can go on…
R. Gates, you’ll have to try harder to engage my interest in the latest fart-in-the-sky explanations for non-warming, I’m busy polishing my accepted pending minor revisions paper. :)
Can’t you summarise man?
Thanks, TB – every time I read all the wrangling over ‘uncertainty’, I want to ask – at what point do the uncertainties in the testing of a hypothesis amount to its disconfirmation? In climate ‘science’ the answer seems to be ‘none’. Making it the untestable hypothesis many of us believe it to be.
I’m afraid so Tom,
Co2 causes global warming, global cooling, and even global saminess. There is no escape. All your base are belong to Gore.
Rog,
The anthropowarmists are always going back to the drawing board. They go back to the past and cool it. George Orwell had already foreseen this way back when he wrote his great book Nineteen Eighty-four, wherein he wrote:
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
The IPCC and its widespread cabalistic team of anthro-phobes have the control of the present through the power handed to them by the UN and national governments. Through this power to control the present they keep on fiddling with history so that they would remain in power in future.
But their time is up. Scientists are rebelling against the science-murderers.
Mi Cro, re: 1:32, That’s pretty impressive. After I get a better handle on this I may bug ya for some data.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-MSWDM2Uu0XY/Ul7q3UAAqSI/AAAAAAAAJ_w/3uI9nEP9gKE/w881-h487-no/Oppo+and+Solar+with+various+lags.png
This is more of where I am headed. Paleo and instrumental have totally different smoothing. Most of the paleo has natural smoothing of 30 years or more. So taking the solar TSI and using various smoothing on that, I think I can build a bridge between the instrumental and paleo. The blurred line in that chart is roughly a +/- 0.15 anomaly range. Not considering solar as just TSI, but combined energy and mechanical effects I can compare “fits” without getting nuts with over precision. The instrumental is at least +/- 0.125 C and the paleo is up to +/- 0.75 C with timing uncertainty on the order of 50 years. You would be a little bit crazy to expect a perfect fit. Solar at least has a timing advantage even if sun spot numbers are FUBAR. The 31.5 year cumulative solar lag seems to fit both instrumental and paleo, which is what I was looking for.
“anthropowarmists” = Bafflegab
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebrand
There is, of course, next to zero CO2-AGW. The IPCC case for no feedback 1.2 K CO2 climate sensitivity is based on the assumption that the spectral distribution of OLR does not vary with [CO2].
However, it does vary and this has been shown by the AIRS satellite. The problem is that the dorks who inhabit Climate Alchemy are paid not to notice such facts for fear of upsetting the political narrative.
I’ve analyzed NCDC daily min and max temp changes here http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/blog/global_warming_really_recovery_regional_cooling-121820
I didn’t baseline it to some random period, so it starts at zero in 1940.
Mi Cro, The southern mid latitude oceans so a nice recovery as well.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-81t490IsqmE/Ul19PeOqUbI/AAAAAAAAJ-A/9yI2xF1V0Eo/w851-h503-no/one+solar+15.75+with+southern+ocean.png
That use 1880 to 2010 as a baseline and SST appears to be reverting to a longer term solar/orbital inspired trend.
capt, I would like to see that with the 3 oceans separated.
Mi Cro, I will put that on my list. Right now I am just working in latitude bands to tweak the lags. A 30 to 33 year cumulative lag in solar seems to be the best overall fit so far.
“Right now I am just working in latitude bands to tweak the lags. A 30 to 33 year cumulative lag in solar seems to be the best overall fit so far.”
I generated 10 degree lat bands from the NCDC data, but never actually looked at them. Good or bad I can generate more data than I can spend time on.
Mi Cro, with the seasonal cycle or with it removed? With the seasonal cycle it is kind of fun to re-baseline to watch the “Warmest year EVAH” change ;) Doesn’t change the trends but it is illuminating.
Mi Cro, with the seasonal cycle or with it removed? With the seasonal cycle it is kind of fun to re-baseline to watch the “Warmest year EVAH” change ;) Doesn’t change the trends but it is illuminating.
I work with the actual measured daily data, so the seasonal changes are baked into the averages. But I do have code to select stations that meet various data requirements, and I generate a station report so I can see what station and how many records are included for each. For the data I present in the link, for a station to be included it has to have a minimum of 240 days/year for at least 10 years. As it turns out most of the included stations having this restriction (240dx10y) actually has 365 sample/year for a minimum of 10 years.
The 40’s in general don’t have a lot of samples for some locations, the 50’s are much better, after the large dip in station count in 1973 (iirc) the counts are decent most places. But also included are the difference for averages for maximum temps, and for the most part the years average is nearly 0.0 most years.
I also generate Daily averages based on the same selection criteria (or whatever I decided to use)
tallbloke said:
“All you have to do is ask if the hypothesis has successfully predicted those effects which would validate the theory.”
______
Aside from the confusing (or confused) language here regarding “hypothesis” and “theory”, there seems to be a gross misunderstanding on the part of tallbloke as to what the fundamental HYPOTHESIS is related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere. This hypothesis is about as fundamental as you can get, and, despite the best efforts to confuse and obfuscate the issue, the fundamental hypothesis has nothing to do with sensible heat in the troposphere, as that doesn’t come into play until the hypothesis is expounded upon and developed into a full blown theory. Theories are elaborations on the hypothesis, and any hypothesis can therefore have multiple theories to explain the fundamental dynamics behind the hypothesis.
The fundamental hypothesis related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations is about energy in the Earth system and simply states: as you increase greenhouse gas concentrations, Earth’s energy system will retain more energy. That’s it. Nothing about sensible heat in the troposphere or the troposphere getting warmer over some set period of time. The troposphere comes into the play as ONE explanation for the fundamental expectations of the hypothesis. Thus one theory to explain Earth’s system gaining more energy as greenhouse gases increase is simply that more energy is being “trapped” (or more accurately absorbed and re-emitted, absorbed and re-emitted, ad infinitum) by the larger mass of greenhouse gases in that troposphere. This particular troposphere-centric theory would look to the troposphere for the major effects of the increase in energy in the Earth system, and even measure the entire “climate sensitivity” to increased greenhouse gases based on changes to sensible heat in the troposphere. But this in hardly the only theory (simply the most commonly expounded upon). Other theories involve the basic PV=NRT ideal gas law and the increasing pressure and related heat from the added greenhouse gases (the so-called skydragon theory). This theory doesn’t even seem to care that the gases being added absorb and re-emit a certain frequency of radiation at all, but simply the mass itself being added to the atmosphere, adding to overall pressure and therefore heat. This theory has very few (but a very vocal) followers.
Still another theory to explain the expected added energy to the Earth system would be an ocean-centric theory, positing that increased greenhouse gases do indeed allow the Earth system to retain more energy (and at a steadily increasing rate at greenhouse gases increase, without pause) but that energy will be distributed first and foremost to the primary energy sink of the planet based on fundamental thermodynamics—in Earth’s case this energy sink is of course, the oceans. According to this theory, the atmospheric “warming” (as measured by sensible heat) will be far more variable, subject to much greater swings due to natural variability and the atmosphere’s low thermal inertia, and of course, given that over 50% of the energy in the atmosphere comes directly from the ocean, the energy (in all forms) in the atmosphere, is subject to alterations in the net flow of energy from ocean to atmosphere. These changes occur all the time, and so, according to this last theory, the most reliable measure of the validity of the basic hypothesis of greenhouse gas induced changes to Earth’s energy balance is to look the primary energy sink of the planet—which is of course again, the oceans. Thus, according to the ocean-centric theory of greenhouse gas induced alterations to Earth’s energy balance, the greenhouse gases allow the oceans to retain more energy as they reduce the net energy flow from ocean to space. In this way, the greenhouse atmosphere acts as a “governor” or control valve on that flow. Warming of that valve (i.e. sensible heat in the atmosphere) is only an initial causal effect and then a secondary effect of the overall accumulation of energy in the Earth system, as most of that heat will remain in the oceans due to its far greater thermal inertia and heat storage capabilities.
Finally, regarding “global warming” and climate change. Of course, some uneducated may confuse these terms, and even some educated may equate “global warming” with increases in sensible heat in the troposphere. The actual increase of energy in the Earth system may at times be seen as a general increase in sensible heat in the troposphere (certainly on multi-decadal time frames it will be), but it will always be seen (on decadal time frames) as an increase in energy in the oceans. The most certain way to disprove the ocean-centric theory of greenhouse gas induced alterations to Earth’s energy balance would be if (on a decadal basis) the total energy in the oceans decreased. Of course, with our current measurement tools (mainly Argo floats) we can only give an approximate measurement or estimate for total energy gain/loss from the global ocean, however, the next generation of Argo floats will go deeper and be even more extensive, allowing a more definitive proof of the validity of the ocean-centric greenhouse gas theory.
Gates
You outline the basic question or concept of AGW but do you really think that is the real issue where there is disagreement? I do not.
Imo- the basic disagreement has to do with 2 basic issues.
1. How fast will it warm?
2. What other conditions will change where, when and how much as a result of any warming.
Until a person knows within a reasonably small margin of error the answer to # 1 it is not possible to get to a reliable answer for #2. Having an accurate answer to #1 does not mean that you know the answer to #2.
The answer to #2 is what is really important. Many people fail to accept the simple fact that there will be winners and losers (different nations) when it comes to climate change and nobody really knows what will result or when. This is what results in my suggestions about infrastructure. It is the one no regrets policy that everyone should agree makes in virtually all cases.
Rob said:
“1. How fast will it warm?
2. What other conditions will change where, when and how much as a result of any warming.
______
Based on which theory of AGW you subscribe to is going to decide if these two questions are even important or at the least, properly phrased.
Question1, stated in the purest form based on the hypothesis that it is all about energy, would be:
1) How fast will the Earth accumulate energy? Or, put in sensitivity terms- How much energy will the system gain per doubling of CO2?
Question 2, again, stated in the purest form, would be:
2) What are all the various changes to the full climate system that can be expected as a result of the changes to total energy increase to thte system?
r gates : The fundamental hypothesis related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations is about energy in the Earth system and simply states: as you increase greenhouse gas concentrations, Earth’s energy system will retain more energy. That’s it. Nothing about sensible heat in the troposphere or the troposphere getting warmer over some set period of time.
So the greenhouse gasses getting warmed, don’t warm the rest of the troposphere with which is is well-mixed ?
R. Gates: The fundamental hypothesis related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations is about energy in the Earth system and simply states: as you increase greenhouse gas concentrations, Earth’s energy system will retain more energy. That’s it.
But R. Gates, as Miskolczi has shown us, the data says the optical depth of the atmosphere hasn’t changed much at all in the last 60 years. So it would seem that increasing the concentration of co2 from 0.0003 to 0.0004 of the atmosphere has been offset by some tiny change in water vapour.
Unless of course, you have reputable data which says otherwise?
Links please.
Thanks, Roger. We may be starting to understand the AGW problem:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/fuddites/#comment-55802
What does the trojan horse metahor reveal?
A wily and adaptable Odysseus, smarter
than theTrojans shored up behind a wall.
The topless towers fall.
Apology, ‘metaphor.’
I find “meta whore” rather apt actually…
:-)
+ 100. It seems to me that the Lionel simply does not understand physics. When we measure something, the only uncertainty is the accuracy of the measurement, which is known. In the end the issue as to whether CAGW is valid will be decided, not by hypothetical estimations and non-validated models, but by hard, measured empirical data.
The +100 was supposed to go to tallbloke.
Thanks Jim.
You have to wonder why those on the anthropowarmist side find this so hard to grasp. It’s like an act of faith rather than a scientific investigation when you believe you already have the answer and just need to keep making ad hoc adjustments to the hypothesis until you can find validating evidence..
D’Appollonia asks why is the discourse so difficult. One answer is that discourse ‘facts’ seldom are. They are shaded, mis-stated, taken out of context, or just fabricated (Marcott and Mann being examples). Absent some mutually agreed fact basis upon which to proceed, all discourse is futile.
The problem was summed up by Stephen Cobert when he introduced the idea of truthiness: you are entitled to your own conclusions, but not to your own facts.
Hockey sticks, missing heat, pause doesn’t exist/matter, 95% certain, 97% consensus, … Are all truthiness. Of course discourse is difficult at lunch when the sun is overhead but your discussion partner swears it is night and that orb is the moon–while continuing to eat lunch.
Wrote a book about the way ‘true’ facts are distorted. Long chapter using climate change as the penultimate illustration.
That saying came from Daniel Patrick Moynihan but was actually written before he uttered it by a New Mexico newspaper who attributed it to Bernard M. Baruch:
http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/18/there-are-opinions-and-then-there-are-facts/
James R. Schlesinger, United States Secretary of Defense from 1973 to 1975
“Each of us is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
But what the facts are is a matter of opinion.
@ Rud “Absent some mutually agreed fact basis upon which to proceed, all discourse is futile.”
+1
Speaking of facts, when it comes to climate, many are yet to be determined. That’s one of the core issues.
Pinky and the Brain syndrome. ” What are we going to do tomorrow night? “Same thing we do every night Pinky, try to take over the world!”
” What are we going to do tomorrow night? “Same thing we do every night Pinky, try to take over the world!”
Best quote ever!
If discourse is futile why are we here?
To assimilate or be assimilated. There is no individual thought, only the collective, deniers will be assimilated once who the real deniers may be, is determined.
It’s called mental masturbation. It stimulates our neurons and pleasure centers.
Captain… I will not comply. :)
D’Apollonia states that “Western societies were built on the modern ideal of progress based on reason by the prevalence of science and technology at the expense of morality and ethics.” He makes that sound axiomatic; I wonder if it is true. I have no difficulty in reconciling scientific and technological advance with maintenance of moral and ethical standards. It might be difficult to have a dialogue with those who separate the two.
Yeah that’s a little crazy why the qualifier? He should have ended the sentence with a period after technology. Maybe he was watching porn at the time he wrote that and had a freudian slip.
” … why the qualifier? ”
That’s simple
He’s opening up the applied guilt in “What about your grandchildren, or the polar bear pups, or …”
Yes, I had a sharp intake of breath at that statement, too. Where is his evidence for that proposition? I would have thought that curing disease and increasing human lifespan is both moral and ethical, for example.
It seems to reveal an anti-science bias, unless he thinks that morality and ethics are unimportant.
“I would have thought that curing disease and increasing human lifespan is both moral and ethical, for example.”
I agree. However, there are ethical frameworks which could argue that an expected lifespan of 70 is a good thing when the vast majority of those over 70 contribute little. One dystopian future is when the population of the publicly supported retired exceeds the carrying capacity of the supporting population.
RobertInAz commented on Global warming: a trojan horse of modernity?.
in response to johanna:
“However, there are ethical frameworks which could argue that an expected lifespan of 70 is a good thing when the vast majority of those over 70 contribute little.”
Of course when we can truly unwind the aging clock, those 70 year old’s will still be productive.
RobertInAz: “there are ethical frameworks which could argue that an expected lifespan of 70 is a good thing when the vast majority of those over 70 contribute little.”
Such ethicists have that covered; no problem. The solution is Law, supported by the Supreme Court. The “Affordable Care Act” (ACA) contains a section on the National Payment Advisory Board (NPAB). The role of the NPAB is to set the maximum allowed payment for (unspecified) procedures. Their dictate can be over-ruled by 2/3 of the Congress. Good luck on that.
Recent squaring of the survival curve suggests that the wonderful one hoss shay reaches eighty-five, not the century.
==============
As far as I can tell, it damn well isn’t true, but you can expect woolly-minded drivel from people who use “dialogue” as a verb and toss the terms “modernity” and “discourse” around.
The ideal of progress has always been the use of reason for the betterment of human life, and that involves moral reasoning to improve the shape of society and to ensure that science and technology are used for moral ends.
There has been no shortage of moral debate or moral activism in the last few hundred years, and a fair amount of moral progress, too.
Tallbloke is right … it’s much simpler than all that.
Three steps to climate-change clarity:
• We can be reasonably confident (along with Roy Spencer) that Nature will resume land-temp warming and accelerate ice-mass loss and sea-level rise, in consequence of Earth’s sustained energy imbalance. `Cuz that’s how Nature works, eh? And she makes no secret of it.
• That’s Nature’s stern way of telling us “heed the sages by embracing foresighted sustainment programs“
• Meanwhile, lt ignorant denialists continue their march toward political extinction … `cuz extinction of ignorance is part of Nature’s plan too.
Nature’s plan is mighty sobering, but it’s not hard to understand, eh Climate Etc readers?
Anthropowarmists amuse me. They say sceptical argument isn’t valid becuase it’s not peer reviewed, then post unreviewed twaddle by anthrowarmer-activist Jim Hansen to support their argument. – Priceless!
Like Dr. Roy Spencer reminds us
That scientific law is something to think soberly about, eh tallbloke?
Read Pielke Sr’s note on Levitus 2012 leaving out the ARGO buoy data he didn’t like.
The ‘missing heat’ is somewhere past alpha Centauri by now.
Read and understand this post:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-goes-part-2-peter-berenyi/
Fan’s like the genie in the bottle. Just incant “Hansen”, and ~poof~.
Anthropomorphists make me despair;
“Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do”
tallbloke, have you ever notice the huge change in climate between 1997 and 2009?
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/1997and2009_zpsc79b5968.png
that 3.7 W/m2 from 2x[CO2] terrifies me.
Nice work with the graphic Doc M.
Theoretical absorption of incoming solar by clouds is still up sh1t creek though. Empirical measurement found 25W/m^2 more being absorbed by cloud in one test than predictied by theory. The Mie scattering equations can’t handle the cloud optical microphysics. Ad hoc adjustments have been made to models.
FAIL
“The ‘missing heat’ is somewhere past alpha Centauri by now.” Nicely put, Tallbloke! 4 light years away!
Fan, We can be reasonably confident that Nature will resume land-temp warming and accelerate ice-mass loss and sea-level rise,
You didn’t say when, so you will of course be right eventually – in about a hundred thousand years.
Get your crayon set out and give us a date for the recommencement of warming and a rate of warming.
“Less energy leaving the climate system means warming under almost any scenario you can think of.”
Yep! But there is no actual real data that verifies that less energy is leaving the climate system. Only climate models that have showed no skill for two decades show this is what is happening. Actual Temperature data shows this is not happening. Temperature is a measure of what is happening. Climate Model output is not a measure of anything.
People, look at actual data. Computer Model Output is Computer Model Output and nothing else.
Fan, We can be reasonably confident that Nature will resume land-temp warming and accelerate ice-mass loss and sea-level rise,
Because Computer Models with no skill in forecasting anything tell us so?
Fan,
I agree with the long memory and the many votes but the sense of justice? Wanna swing that one by me again? So Nature can plot her revenge against the human race as a whole, but fail to ensure equity amongst humans while she’s getting even, compensating for the sins of gas-guzzling-SUV-driving suburbanite Americans by whacking a bunch of poor folks in developing countries?
Bill_C, admitting the inarguable harshness of Nature’s justice leads us to ponder Lincoln’s question:
That question is too tough for FOMD. Yet when Nature speaks plainly and warmly to us, surely we had best pay heed.
Fan
Example: Past decade or more, when human GHG emissions have continued unabated and atmospheric concentrations have reached record levels, yet Nature has simply turned the thermostat down.
Yep. Nature speaks plainly to us, Fanny.
She’s telling us : “I’m in charge here – not you.”
Max
Max
Climate-change reality Energy-balance analysis tells us that global warming will end when the seas stop rising and the ice stops melting.
Manacker, when will that happen?
The world wonders!
Fan
Never within the timeframe important to humans. The system will continue to go through phases. There easy- I hope that helped you.
“Whether we and our politicians know it or not, Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do.”
This view of nature as an old testament style. vengeful god who must be appeased is deeply primitive, if not downright nuts. It’s also quite dangerous.
“Yet when Nature speaks plainly and warmly to us, surely we had best pay heed.”
More hallucinations. Careful Fan, sanity can be a slippery thing.
That’s why I prefer “Eco-misanthrope” to Anthropowarmist.” It covers all of the arguments that will be taken up once we all start freezing in summertime. It covers scary-massive extinctions and ocean acidification and all of the other crises-du-jour. It even covers God’s wrath in the Old Testament.
+99 billion
I hate this characterization of Nature as a person or being. When Nature wiped out the dinosaurs was she punishing them for something? If a large deer population starves during a harsh winter is it because they’ve been bad? Couldn’t the exponential increase of the human population be seen as Nature rewarding us?
Gaia worshippers make me want to vomit.
And Wendell Berry fears a feminine Nature because he knows how quickly his life (and narrative) would fall apart if his wife decided to stop doing his typing, cooking, laundry, etc.
Thank you for your question Tamara!
A better question is “”When humans were wiping out Nature’s ozone layer, was Ronald Reagan right to stop them?”
The verdict of history of course is “Reagan-style market-guided EPA policies are wise! Thank you Ronald Reagan!”
The Montreal Protocols were a *tremendous* victory for foresighted science-respecting conservatism, eh Tamara?
And for sure, conservatism nowadays *needs* some Reagan-style victories!
So now let’s embrace foresighted Reagan-style practical fixes for climate change!
LOL … Berry-the-poet answers!
Conclusion Denialism that lowers itself to marriage-smearing ain’t worth much!
Fan, you are impressed by poesy and mythology. Your twisted logic matches the hypocrisy of your hero.
Fan
How do we know whether or not there used to be ozone holes before the 1950’s when we first acquired the instruments to do the measuring?
The Max Plank institute and Cambridge University agree they don’t know as I asked them the question.
tonyb
Tamara, without triggering Godwin’s law, who else was fascinated with mythology? Hark! I hear the Valkyries!
Harold, it is a pleasure to answer your question: Rep. Michelle Bachman! And Ms Bachman proudly evanglizes her denialist view of climate-change too!
Truly, Ms. Bachman is a high-profile spokesman for denialist cognition and policies!
Thank you for your many though-provoking questions Harold!
Was the Montreal Protocol a good solution to the problem from Nature’s point of view? Well, let’s see. If we stipulate that without it we would have destroyed the ozone layer entirely, Nature might finally have been able to rid herself of these pesky, non-conformist, dirty, messy human beings. Sure, she would have lost some of the other species that she apparently likes better. But, hey, she’s weathered mass-extinctions before. With humans out of the way, who knows, she might even get some honest-to-goodness unicorns, dragons, pixies…the possibilities are endless!
No, the Montreal Protocol was merely another example of human beings avoiding the wrath of Mother Nature in their sly, underhanded way. And, really, she only had about a 50/50 chance with the whole ozone layer thing. I mean, what if we all moved underground, and ate food we grew using hydroponics? Now, if we dodge the CO2 warming bullet, what will she have in store for us? It’s hard to say, since I don’t know her motivation. Did she prefer us as cavemen, or does she want to get rid of us entirely? Does she want us to be healthy, vibrant and creative. Or does she prefer that we live more like scattered packs of hard-scrabble savages. If only she would send us a prophet…
Tamara, it is a pleasure to assist you in finding answers to your questions.
A better knowledge of ozone-destroying atmospheric chemistry will help you to an better appreciation of Ronald Reagan’s foresighted market-regulating environment-protecting wise conservatism.
Similarly, a better knowledge of Earth-warming CO2-regulated atmospheric heat transport will help you to an better appreciation of Pope Francis’s foresighted concern for global conservation and sustainment.
Your awakening thirst for knowledge is commendable, Tamara!
Ok, Fanny. Show me Michelle Bachman dressed up in Wagnerian getup with a Viking helmet with horns and a brass bra on her horse with a sword and a shield. Either that, or retract that comment.
Besides, she’s not heavy enough. Brunhilde was the basis of the saying “it’s not over till the fat lady sings”.
Thanks, Fan. I’m always amused by your ability to create castles of straw. As to Michelle Bachman, I’ll leave you and she to argue about who has the better religion.
I’m an agnostic.
Harold and Tamara, at least have the common-sense to admit that Michelle Bachman’s anti-science positions on climate-change are robustly OK … from a denialist perspective, that is!
Fan, truly your religion imbues you with amazing powers to be able to read what has not been written. I said nothing about Ms. Bachman’s opinion, or even my own concerning climate change. I’m pretty sure you brought her into the conversation thinking that her evangelism is a mirror of my own (oops!). For what it’s worth, I watched the video you linked. I’d say her scientific understanding is about as poor as most politicians, not the worst (no capsizing islands). The information was clearly fed to her, not internal knowledge. She did a pretty poor job of getting her point across. The comments on that site revealed that the people who hate her are even more ignorant than she is. She isn’t someone I pay much attention to or revere, so you can attack her all you want. I won’t feel the prick of those needles. I can agree with her on some things, just as I can agree with Wendell Berry on some things. They share a religion, but differ on the practicing of it.
What I know of you, I can only observe. You make a habit of assuming things not in evidence. You favor misdirection, and use it to pretend your arguments hold water. Your childish use of emoticons is a weak attempt to disguise your ill-will towards your audience.
The fencing term “touche” is a term of honor, used to indicate that you admit your opponent’s point. I wonder if you would ever use it?
The energy balance arguments are great. Except that we don’t know that we have all the terms included. We probably don’t need imaginary ones (pixie dust, etc.) as any theory could be doubted by just saying there may be something we left out. On the other hand, this is how science works, we never say we understand things completely or that we may not discover other things in future that have an effect under certain conditions.
But there are a few terms that have been proposed that are still under study. But the main problem with the energy balance arguments is that a number of the errors are larger than the proposed effect and the final net term has very large uncertainties itself.
Fan,
Good points but we also have glacial and interglacial periods? Those shades of grey are difficult for both sides.
Thanks GarryD!
One of the great triumphs of climate science is the energy-balance linking of astronomical cycles (of insolation to northern high latitudes) to climate cycles (of alternating glacial and interglacial periods). This is the justly-renowned key mechanism of Milutin Milankovitch’s glacial cycle theory.
Of course, Milankovitch’s analysis requires that climate-change forcings are large, such that small changes in energy-balance drive large changes in climate. That is why paleo-calibrations of AGW sensitivity imply long-term warming that is far more alarming than too-timid short-term IPCC5 projections.
Conclusion If Milutin Milankovitch’s scientific ideas are right, then in the long run, the IPCC5 projections have grossly underestimated the magnitude of anthropogenic climate change.
Thank you for your thought-provoking question, GarryD!
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/16/oreos-more-addictive-than-cocaine/
Betcha can’t eat just one.
===========
Gee, thanks Fan for spreading the ignorance:
http://www.teaparty.org/senator-obama-quietly-handing-over-billions-to-un-in-name-of-global-warming-16856/
Three years ago, President Obama helped create a United Nations Green Slush Fund that would redistribute over $100 billion from developed countries to developing countries. While he has been racking up huge deficits and talking up tax increases, the President has already sent billions of American taxpayer dollars to the United Nations – and he’s managed to do it quietly so that no one will notice.
How many billions have already been handed over in the last three years? It’s hard to tell. There appears to be little in the way of transparency. Bloomberg reports that the European Union, the United States, Japan and other developed nations paid out in the range of $23 to $34 billion.
Of course, this is just the beginning. United Nations Climate Chief Christiana Figueres explained her job this way: “It is the most inspiring job in the world because what we are doing here is we are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science. So it’s a very, very different transformation and one that is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.” This is the top UN Climate chief: she sees herself as the overseer of “transforming” the lives of everyone on the planet.
At the global warming conference in Milan, I asked an African delegate who I knew why he had attended and he said, “It has nothing to do with the science; it’s because it’s the biggest party of the year.” It’s time to put an end to these lavish, absurd global warming parties and focus on the real problems that we face.
hahaha, Now I know your a closet tea party member!
a fan of *MORE* discourse: We can be reasonably confident (along with Roy Spencer) that Nature will resume land-temp warming and accelerate ice-mass loss and sea-level rise, in consequence of Earth’s sustained energy imbalance.
Well, first there is the question of whether the energy imbalance you write of is sustained.
Second there is the question of where the hypothesized warming occurs.
Ignorant denialists might be heading toward political extinction, but it seems to me that the ranks of well-informed CO2-skeptics are increasing.
Anthropowarmists: Ninth Circle, Fourth Ring.
“So the question to be asked is why it is so difficult to have real and informed argumentative debate within the public arena?”
Because the “anthropowarmists” won’t allow it. Simple as a pimple.
In the UK, the biased BBC make n bones about this. They convened a group of activists, NGO’s and associated money-grubbers in 2006 to tell them not to listen to sceptics, and then refused to divulge their identities to the public, describing them as ‘world experts’ on climate change.
Liars extorting money from the public via the TV license fee. MEGAFAIL
I find this question strange: “So the question to be asked is why it is so difficult to have real and informed argumentative debate within the public arena?”
It is not difficult at all. Just here we have 400,000 comments of real and informed debate. Plus there are hundreds of other ongoing debate sites and hundreds of thousands of mini debates in comment streams of newspapers, etc . What more does he want?
What more d we want?
Direct debate with certain ‘scentists’ and politicians in a venue where they can’t duck the questions please. Preferably on oath.
Preferably in a courtroom. With TV cameras.
…and with the heat turned up ala Hansen’s congressional appearance.
Current data would put skeptics to AGW at a huge disadvantage.
“Current data would put skeptics to AGW at a huge disadvantage.”
Which is of course why virtually no climate scientist will agree to such a debate. Even the poster boy for CAGW Gavin Schmidt stalking off the stage on Stossel’s show rather than engage in another debate where he doesn’t control the message.
You would just get the same debate we have here. It is not a matter of ducking questions. The debate is real.
I get the feeling that even though the English is grammatical, that something isn’t quite making it through the language barrier.
I read through this macedoine of meaning, and get the idea that someone thinks the globe is warming.
=========================
I think it’s the languish barrier, sceptics are left to wait in the ante-room.
i regret getting serious after such a great joke, F, but don’t want to miss this point. The argument languished for years because of a lack of information, or rather because of the promulgation of false information, i.e. the science is settled. It has only been because Nature failed to follow the Narrative, that the deficiency of information became apparent, and now with more and more true information, the argument rears its ugly head, ah, the beautiful beast.
===========
Thanks, Kim, I almost added a comment that my 11.41 comment was almost in the Kim class. At least it elicited your more profound response.
It was in the kim class, faustino. ‘Langish barrier’ captures
ante room aptly.
The shartist distance leaps the langist barrier.
==========
A point is the shartist distance between two lines of argument.
I think they have missed out a key element, the usage of computing power to replace experimental design. The people in charge didn’t grow up with computers and appear to believe in the inherent ‘truthfulness’ of outputs and also believe that they can probe the natural world by thinking, really, really hard. They have not faced the weely kick in the teeth that is the common experience of expirementalists nor have they ever had to throw away a quite beautiful hypothesis in the face of quite horrid data.
It took me 18 months to work out that the ‘natural variability’ in the B-cell growth was due to the levels of hormones in the fetal calf serum I was growing them in. This was altering their reaction to both Atrazine and DDE (a metabolite of DDT). The effects I expected there pesticides to have was quite different from what I had expected. After three years work, and a lot of reading and thinking, I still do not know what is going on, but I have achieved a higher level of ignorance, I now know that I am even more ignorant that I had previously believed, and that I find very comforting.
Bingo. And our anthopowarmist friends are, with the pause, confronting a similar problem.
Definitely… it comes with success–i.e., the seeds of destruction:
Hot World Syndrome is a phenomenon where the global warming apocalyptic content of mass media imbues viewers with the notion that the world is a hotter and more intimidating place to live than it actually is, and prompts a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat. Hot World Syndrome is one of the main conclusions of the anti-humanism movement of the United Nations. Additionally, murderous examples of failed socialism — as witnessed by large segments of Leftist-lib society from the safety and comfort of Western civilization — has created a global psychosis, causing people to turn on the morals, principals and ethics that otherwise would sustain their spirits and prevent them from succumbing to moral decline and mental helplessness. Individuals who do not rely on the mainstream media and who understand the floccinaucinihilipilification of the cabinets and cabinets full of worthless global warming research, have a far more accurate view of the real world than those who do not, are able to more accurately assess their vulnerability to present and future weather conditions, and all the myriad vagaries of life over which they have no control. The global warming realists do not fear the hand of man and tend to be nicer people with a life and have a wider and healthier variety of beliefs, attitudes, behaviors and lifestyles. Towing a boat to the river with the family in the back of a SUV is not evil, no matter what the liberal fascists may wish to believe today.
Huh
“So the question to be asked is why it is so difficult to have real and informed argumentative debate within the public arena?”
Its easy to have a debate in the public arena. we have debate all over the place about climate science in the public arena.
Then again, science isnt debate and debate isnt science.
I once proved in a debate that 1 =2. That is, the audience said I won.
Therefore, 1 = 2.
I always find it odd that people who have never done science lecture those who have on the importance of testing hypothesis, are the first to demand a debate, an exchange of words. As if words had anything whatsoever to do with the world. Words are about controlling and modifying other peoples behavior. Nothing of scientific value ever comes from exchanging words with other people. ( hehe, people will now exchange words with me about that about that and prove my point )
“Nothing of scientific value ever comes from exchanging words with other people.”
Sure Mosh. It’s all one way traffic with you.
Mosh pontificates, and departs.
You might want to follow his lead if you ever had a point.
I’m chatting while I wait for valid responses to my opening comment. Could be here a while…
Somethin’ contradictery about these ” langwidge
is so-o-o-o inadequate.” statemints by Nietzche,
Foucault, Steve Mosher et al, all the while usin’
langwidge ter argue their case. Shouldn’t they
jest sign or somethin’ ?
tallbloke.
notice how your words did nothing scientific. notice how they explained nothing about how the physical world operates. Notice they did nothing to propose or test a hypothesis.
A debate isnt data. A debate isnt hypothesis testing. a debate isnt explanation. A debate isnt repeatable. A debate is theatre.
I find it odd that people who lecture folks about the scientific method
are the same folks demanding theatre to settle issues.
Somebody needs to have Feynman walk on stage and say
” If you don’t publically debate your scientific theory, the theory is wrong”
I hope my hyperbole about the uselessness of words makes people think and defend words. And in defending it one can hope that they come to an practical understanding of the limits and uncertainty associated with words and dialogue. an understanding of what we DO with words and what we dont do with words. Debate is doing something with words. Its not science.
:
Barbar.
=====
Mosh, its petty simple really. Science isn’t just data.
It’s a debate about what the data is telling us, whether the data is any good, whether the data was tampered with, whether one way of interpreting the data is better than another, and etc.
Unless of course you have a numbers only way of determining these facets of the scientific process?
Didn’t think so.
Easy, TB; Fourteen times three! See? Numerate as need be.
=============
People don’t debate gravity. The UN doesn’t lie about it. The government does not fund an agenda using gravity as an excuse to take over the economy. But, Al Gore is a good example of why the debate: hypocritical back-stabbing Leftists will never admit the truth of any fact if it conflicts with their ideologically-motivated objectives.
The debate is about policy, but the masterdebaters fantasize that they are engaged in science. Climate scientists are errand boys… sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill.
> the masterdebaters fantasize that they are engaged in science.
Could be a decoy.
Better yet: a rhetorical worm.
Wow. Narrow role for words. I thought scientific papers were written with words. Silly me.
Interesting phrase : “written with words”. Makes me wonder what else we could write with, .lol. .. and reminds me of this saying :-
*You can make words say anything you want them to say*
I once thought that was a saying by C.S. Lewis, but now I can’t prove that.
> Makes me wonder what else we could write with […]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideogram
papers are advertisements for the science. they are not the science itself.
What’s the alternative to words? Emoticons?
And all this time I thought Fanny was a crackpot. He’s just ahead of the Mosher curve.
Papers are not the science, but they are more than just advertisement. Science is a cumulative process for extending and improving knowledge. As a cumulative process it’s dependent on both communicating and storing results. Papers are the main tool for communication and storage of scientific information.
“storage of scientific information”
This is the first time I’ve ever agreed with Pekka. Worthy of a comment.
Andrew
For those of you who think Mosher ever had a clue, his above comment should rid you of such illusions.
Andrew
I think he was seen with a crossword once …
Mosher might be correct, if CAGW were a scientific debate. Warmists aren’t “doing science” when they are advocating policy. There are certainly scientific aspects of the debate, but at its core, CAGW is a political debate. And in that world, words (and pictures of dead polar bears) are the currency of the realm.
“First, catch your hare…” That’s the old French joke about the recipe which omits to tell you how to do the one really hard thing.
It may be that degrees, computational skills and a geeky confidence in mechanistic and literal thought processes are not quite enough to make one an expert on something as fantastically complex, vast and variable as climate. In which case, I’d say to those looking for a truly scientific resolution of the current climate controversies…
First catch your scientist!
Actually, moso, that is from Mrs Beeton’s famous cookbook. Implicitly, only fresh hare would do. (I’m sure there’s a carbon pollution joke in there waiting to get out.)
Faustino, some claim it was first said by an English lady, Hannah Glasse, in the 1700s. But a good line, right?
> if CAGW were a scientific debate.
GaryM adds a C to AGW and then complains that AGW ain’t scientific anymore.
There may be a subtle distinction between politics and policy, but when they put the policy report out first, and then “harmonize” the “science” with the policy report, they’re doing politics with their pants down at noon in the middle of Broadway.
Puttin’ on the Ritz.
==========
Oh, no, now I can’t get the rhythm out. Ghostbusters! Need some new Ritz.
=================
mosomo, a Hungarian friend tells me that the version in his country is “First, steal your chicken.”
Next, split your hare.
Steven Mosher:
“Nothing of scientific value ever comes from exchanging words with other people.”
Perhaps what you said has scientific value.
I once proved in a debate that 1 =2. That is, the audience said I won.
Therefore, 1 = 2.
Must be proud. Just another big debate to you isn’t it. Mosher, you let your cat out of the bag finally. I now see why you so insisted to me a ways back that you see there is no such thing as “true” or “truth”.
I’ve seen such a proof, if it’s the same one Mosher used. It involved dividing by 0. Not that clever to a mathematically literate audience.
All Mosher proves with that anecdote is that his audience was innumerate.
The “I once proved in a debate that 1 =2. That is, the audience said I won.
Therefore, 1 = 2.” were Mosher’s words, not mine. The blockquote tag malfunctioned for some reason and I sure don’t what them associated with me.
Steven, The issue is does the increase in Co2 actually cause the measured increase in temps,
I’m still waiting for some sort of physical evidence other than absorption spectrum done in a lab, shaky temperature reconstructions, and the simulation results from people who are convinced its all from Co2.
I think this can be answered by analyzing the daily response to night fall in the data we have, and there’s no evidence in this data it’s Co2.
“Words are about controlling and modifying other peoples behavior.”
Words are about expressing facts, analyzing facts, expressing uncertainty, analyzing uncertainty.
The debate is less about the facts and uncertainties and more about which are the most relevant facts and uncertainties.
The challenge for the anthropowamists is their most important supporting facts derive from a computer model of the world. As the measured facts increasingly diverge, we see them becoming more strident.
One of the ironies is 10-12 years ago, the skeptics challenged the measurements. Now they more or less embrace the satellite monitored measurements. We all saw the topping pattern emerging years ago and that is the basis for our wait and see attitude.
I believe a little warmer is better and a lot warmer is not bad (I think seeing the great coastal cities inundated and rebuilt over a period of centuries would be a good thing). I fear we will see neither. When we see the seas stop rising and the ice stop melting, we will be heading for bad times.
1) Nice attempt to erase 60 years of science studies. Read some David Hull or Harry Collins. Debate is, in practice, central to the course of science. It just isn’t written down in the official literature. It occurs in hallways and conference rooms and peope’s offices.
2) Mosher’s channeling of the Scientific Revolution ethos that “nature will decide” and that experiments, not the disputations of logic-choppers and sophists, determine what we should believe, has much truth on its side. But as someone who is pretty up on post-modernism and other critiques of simplistic Modernism (see his comments about measurement and the Quine-Duhem thesis, for example), he is probably just having fun with some ironic provocation here. Tomorrow he might come back and say that experiments don’t prove anything because they must be interpreted, and interpretation always come down to words and conversations and debates.
3) This post isn’t supposed to be science, it’s philosophy and rhetorical analysis of the discourse of science. So Mosher’s attempt at preemptive recursive critique of these comments doesn’t apply.
Meh, a pig in a poke.
===============
Sweated grease on this cannibal sow.
===============
> [One] kind of sophism maximizes uncertainty as an argument in order to avoid taking any political decisions designed to reduce carbon emissions.
Fancy that.
> We have often discussed taxonomies of actors in the climate debate; for characterizing those on the ‘warm’ side of the debate, i think ‘anthropowarmist’ is the best I’ve seen.
Indeed, it is so much more precise than “warmist”.
I guess he means t exclude all the natural variability warmists. If there is such a thing.
I guess he means lump anthropowarmists and catastrophoanthropowarmists together, if they exist.
The lumpenwarmatariat.
Now THERE is a great new label for the debate.
Yep, I’m jealous.
==========
And that’s notwithstanding the progressivocatastrophoanthropowarmists, if they exist.
Maybe it could be abbreviated to pissantowarmists
Perhaps even ‘warmophants’, since they keep pissing them.
These could be shortened to the affectionate “warmists”.
Even shorter: “warmies” (h/t Shub):
https://twitter.com/shubclimate/status/387537791707402240
“So the question to be asked is why it is so difficult to have real and informed argumentative debate within the public arena? The usual practice is for democracy to be built on the possibility of the coexistence of all types of discourses. So controversy should really be viewed as a gift to modern democracy.
If we compare the controversy to a Trojan horse entering a besieged modern city, for those who seek delegitimization, it could actually destroy modernity.”
The is simply confused writing. The writer is trying too hard to justify the catchy “trojan horse” metaphor, and thus contradicts himself within 3 sentences.
“Controversy should really be viewed as a gift to modern democracy,” but this climate controversy “could actually destroy modernity.” No it couldn’t (whatever the author means by “modernity” in this context). It is a sign that democracy is working. If we were back to pre-Copenhagen, pre-climategate, pre-Climate Audit/WUWT/Climate Etc., one sided debate, there wouldn’t be all the acrimony, but we would be in deep trouble.
All types of discourses ARE coexisting in this debate. They are all being aired. I think the warmists’ (and in the climate debate, as that term is commonly used, anthropowarmist strikes me as redundant) plans are potentially disastrous economically. Just as warmists think skeptics’ refusal to implement decarbonization is potentially disastrous ecologically. I think there has been a lot of dishonesty in the presentation of the “science” in many cases, but I do not see any reason to believe they are dishonest in their belief that CAGW really is C.
The discourse is difficult, because the stakes are huge.We are talking about potentially trillions in taxes and lost economic growth, or potentially trillions of dollars in costs from catastrophes as a result of unrestrained global warming. Now if by the author’s call for “coexistence”, he means kumbaya, can’t we all get along, Oxford debate style discourse, that has never been the norm in democracies when the stakes are so high. Nor is there any reason it should be.
And I’m sorry, some may feel comfortable claiming that the warmists are wrong, so decarbonization is a bad idea, but skeptics are wrong too, so massive government programs of another kind are called for. But they are in a small minority, with no chance of prevailing in the debate. Lukewarmers, “moderates” and independents” can swing an election in one direction or another. But they cannot win an election.
Lukewarmers are as likely to end up setting energy policy as the Chinese, Russians and Indians are of buying into any decarbonization scheme. The debate is raging. Warmists (despite delusions of the imminent collapse of the CAGW movement to the contrary) are in control of virtually all western polities. Skeptics have been able to slow the implementation of full decarbonization ala Copenhagen, but the warmists continue their drive in every western country to enact their policy.
But the only way to change that is through elections. And the only way to win elections is through debate. Broad, open, cantankerous debate.
So I believe the author is completely wrong This wide open debate that bothers so many is the best chance the west has of coming to the right policy decision. It sure as hell beats getting a few “scientists” together in a back room with a mediator and a pot of tea to decide the issue for all humanity.
+ 185
I’ll add fifteen cents change and call that a silver-backed, gold plated two dollar comment.
================
Works for me too. Who says you can’t do science and be politically active? Bring it on – no holds barred.
Ever read Against Method by Feyerabend?
I must admit that I became suspicious of this article when I read the words ” … It has been interesting to note their opinion of those scientists who delegitimize climate controversy, such as Naomi Oreskes …”
Oreskes is a scientist? Who knew?
And yeah, Gary, the Trojan Horse thing doesn’t work for me either. Unless we are talking post-modern mythology here, my recollection is that it was a device to get into the enemy’s camp so as to smite them to blazes. Mind you, the metaphor works quite well for a lot of CAGW alarmist activity, but somehow I don’t think that is what he means.
Yes, I’ve been carping about the grotesque language and forgotten to mention the absurdity of the metaphor.
Keep in mind that the whole thing could be a Derrida-bashing satire by The Onion. Don’t bite too hard on this one.
Just give me a little snakey lick.
=====================
but don’t you put none of your juice in it!
(I can speak classic Cos)
Gary M
I’ll add my +100.
Open debate in a democratic society (and not a handful of “scientists” in their ivory towers, supporting the desires for more power of a political ruling class) will ultimately lead to the correct answers.
And it’s very fitting that Mother Nature has also helped out in the debate by turning down the thermostat and showing us all who is really in charge of the climate.
Abe Lincoln had it right: you can’t fool all the people all the time.
Max
“However anthropowarmists consider that uncertainty comes from the complex and chaotic nature of climate, and that we have sufficient proof to engage political decisions to reduce CO2 emissions.”
That’s an excellent point:
A)Why should forced climate change be favored over unforced climate change? Because there is great certainty that humans COULD be causing significant climate change. Much less certain the cause is simply random behavior.
If we are to accept A), how can the uncertainty ever be reduced if the alternative is unattributable “chaos”? Doubtful if it could ever be.
Perhaps this is why “internal variability” is never considered a likely alternative explanation. It’s entirely possible that “internal processes” are indeed random. However, as Ed Lorenz might say, there certainty isn’t any evidence to suggest that internal variability is not random.
And that’s why I don’t except A). I think if you put all the misinformation /disinformation from the skeptic side of the argument (and there has been quite a fair bit), and piled it all together, it would not come even close to the garbage we have to put up with from the likes of Oreskes.
“So the question to be asked is why it is so difficult to have real and informed argumentative debate within the public arena? The usual practice is for democracy to be built on the possibility of the coexistence of all types of discourses. So controversy should really be viewed as a gift to modern democracy. ”
Debate is fine and good. The problem is what is being debated.
Anthropowarmistas want to increase government control over another sector of society, and not in the simple way they have already done so (ever look at your utility bill and see “tiered” usage? What’s that all about?)
They want to control the entire world’s energy production. If they weren’t, they would have pushed for Nuclear ten years ago when Al Gore was saying it would take ten years to make an al electric fleet. Yes, Nuclear is more expensive than coal, but it’s a lot cheaper than Solar.
Or they would have pushed for more Fracking and conversion of coal plants to natural gas.
The problem is that’s not what these people are after. I want to see the Warmista that is pro Fracking, since it’s pragmatic. I want to see the Anthropowarmista that is pro Nuclear.
The problem is Skeptics think it’s about Science. Science has nothing to do with it. It’s all about advancing eco-religion. And there is no arguing with religion.
yes, I’m a bit more upset by this than usual. I just discovered that it would actually be economically beneficial for me to spend $40,000 on Solar panels for my home (I live in CA). Yet, that makes zero sense. If the goal really were to reduce carbon, it would be better for CA to allow that money to be invested in a Nuclear plant, or even in plants outside of CA to convert to natural gas. But see, that’s not the goal.
Climate chaos is for people too lazy to look for the underlying interacting cyclic phenomena. And also for those with a vested interest in masking it with sophistry and bent data.
tallbloke: Climate chaos is for people too lazy to look for the underlying interacting cyclic phenomena.
I think that’s unsupportable. The cyclic phenomena do not have perfect periods, and non-perfect periodicity is one of the characteristics called “chaotic”. I have mentioned already two books by Henk Dijkstra that address chaotic models in physical oceanography and climate dynamics. Chief Hydrologist has also posted links to papers by M. Ghil and others. Prof Curry recently linked to a workshop of which Ghil was one of the organizers.
I expect to settle this dilemma momentarily.
Yep, I had it; now it’s gone again.
=================
Ah well, now you’re talking Matthew. I readily accept that the periodicities are non-stationary, but even this isn’t necessarily chaotic. It’s a matter of patiently investigating the phenomena, tracing their causes, and seeing how those causes interact in terms of phasing etc.
I was referring to the modellers who just shrug and say natural variation is chaotic. No wonder their unrealistic model outputs don’t display the periodicities nature does, They don’t include celestial motion for a start. Not that they understand how it affects their parameters.
The elusive mechanism haunts the forests of the mind;
Lightning trembles, through charged clouds thunder winds.
====================
You know: Twas a dark and stormy night’.
=============
Prof Curry: for characterizing those on the ‘warm’ side of the debate, i think ‘anthropowarmist’ is the best I’ve seen.
Other human actions are land use changes such as deforestation, particulate pollution and aerosols, and urbanization. The principle debate that we are caught up in focuses on anthropogenic CO2, CH4 and others that absorb long wave infrared radiation. So I prefer something with “CO2” in it, like “CO2 zealot”, but that’s not a large fraction of the people who think that the recent warming is mostly due to anthro-CO2. Perhaps “CO2-disciple” or “CO2-apostle”. Maybe the “Carbon Dioxides”, like a ship’s crew or music group. There is a prima facie case that Anthro CO2 is important, so perhaps the “CO2 Prima Facies”.
Likewise for “climate skeptics” — people so-called are usually to be found asserting that the prima facie case for CO2 in warming is weak, especially too weak to justify alarm. For myself I prefer “CO2 skeptic” because I do not dispute claims of climate change, only claims that what has changed is known accurately..
I was struck by his observation that the anthropowarmists acknowledge uncertainty when communication among themselves but not when speaking to others. It isn’t a new observation, but I hope that it spreads more.
Beware of French intellectuals bearing gifts of new jargon. Taxonomise me if you like, but I think we’ve had quite enough of the trivial expressed as profound via some new buzz word or froggified theory.
No surprise that, after you pull away all their sticky, conciliatory verbiage, most of these sages are just slightly cooled down warmies. Also, I’m finding it a touch patronising when they award me a “place” at the table of debate, and my very own label (usually a piece of hideously mangled English).
Sorry, but away from his test tubes I’d say Lionel is another French po-mo saying next to nothing. And saying it rather too patronisingly.
I’ve just come across a gift from a Roman, Terence, which must be relevant to something here:
If you think that uncertain things can be made certain by reason, you’ll accomplish nothing more than if you strived to go insane by sanity.
I didn’t know Terry Venables played for Lazio, but I really like what he said there!
moso, since we’ve strayed a little off topic, but morality and ethics are under discussion below, here’s my letter to the Aus:
The proposed addition of 15 to 25 years gaol to the sentences of bikie gang members who commit serious crimes in Queensland is horrific, inhumane, incomprehensible and unacceptable. (“Bleijie ups plan to ‘destroy’ bikes,” 16/10). Whatever threat bikies pose, the Queensland Government’s proposed response is totally disproportionate, something which might prevail in a brutal military dictatorship but has no place in any civilized democracy.
[I think that the proposed legislation was rushed through today. Note that the 15-25 years is added to the “normal” sentence for the crime.]
> Taxonomize me if you like
The Author unabbreviated AGW and confused it with CAGW!
Hiding the C was deemed accurate.
Fancy that.
“Western societies were built on the modern ideal of progress based on reason by the prevalence of science and technology at the expense of morality and ethics.”
Not true though one has to argue it for the premise of the article.
Morality and ethics and the lack of them at times are what build all societies and science and technology are prevalent but incidental. One could even argue that technology has advanced morality to the point where we are drowning in “political and anthropogenic correctness”.
Western societies were not built on exclusion of morality
or ethics. Rule of law was about the protection of basic
rights of citizens including freedom of speech. Political
correctness is about authoritarian controls on robust
debate, ‘thou shalt not … tsk, tsk, and tsk again children
of the nanny state! We will tell yer how ter think and what
you are allowed to say’.
“Western societies were built on the modern ideal of progress based on reason by the prevalence of science and technology at the expense of morality and ethics.”
Some Western academic cliques were built on the post-modern ideal of regress based on careerism by the prevalence of jargon and posturing at the expense of morality and ethics.
Yes, Beth, that is hardly “advancing morality.” Indeed, political correctness involves adherence to certain things/views/attitudes deemed to be of value by a particular group. Of course, the same can be said of other groups, e.g. Islamists and indeed most religions. Though in some cases what is deemed to be of value does, indeed, have lasting relevance and value. As you may recall, I believe that morality has to be innate, embodied in each individual, rather than mere adherence to an external code. And that morality would of necessity permeate your whole life. If you are involved with science and technology, it will affect how you behave, which, if truly moral, would be with honesty, integrity and openness. There is no dichotomy.
Where once grand themes of comedy and tragedy :) : (
now post – modern banality and farce.
Yes, Faustino,’ bringing to’. .But also, isn’t scientific
methodology, while non-normative, in itself an honest
process, truth ter data, testing and refutation of yr theory
if it clashes with the real world data?
( Despite how some scientists may attempt ter
inoculate their theories?)
Yes, Beth, the methodology as prescribed requires honesty and integrity to function properly.
The Trojan Horse?
Like ancient Troy, the “city of anthropogenic warming” was slowly built up by billions of taxpayer-funded dollars and various powerful vested interests into a mighty citadel: Anthropothermopopolis!
The foundation was human fear and guilt and an innate fascination for doomsday predictions.
The underlying motive of the mighty, who ruled the city, was greed and lust for more power.
The impenetrable walls were “science” itself. Learned scholars, sitting in the ivory towers of the mighty citadel, who were in the pay of the powerful rulers, informed the populace: we – humanity – are in charge of our climate! We can warm it up! We can unleash hurricanes, floods and droughts. But, through our wasteful way of life, we have all sinned in unleashing these forces – so, in order to appease them, we must all pay a heavy tax to those in power, so they can control them for us and protect us from them.
But, outside the walls, Truth waited patiently to defeat the powerful citadel and free the populace. Then Nature offered her help, in the form of a “Trojan Horse” called “Pause”.
We all know the end of the story (and of Anthropothermopopolis).
But there is a happy ending for the enlightened people, once they were freed from their powerful rulers.
For they flourished in the sunshine and lived happily ever after.
Fellow serf,
Luved yer story, er, narrative, of the city of Anthroopothermoplois.
‘Something there is that doesn’t love a wall.
That sends the frozen-ground swell under it.’
Robert Frost.
Thanks, Beth
Yer fellow serf
I nominate Beth for the role of Helen.
Shucks, Faustino :)
Helen the serf.
The role of Paris needs to be allocated too. Any takers?
+1
“Others, such as Climate Skeptics think that humanity is a priority but that it’s also vitally important to take good care of nature too. They consider that it’s really urgent to take political decisions against carbon emission. A failure to do so, the argument goes, could lead to the end of the world as we know it.”
That’s an alarmist view, sceptics don’t think that way.
“In fact an analysis of their arguments reveals political positions against modernity, the liberal market, but also progressive view. A few actors advocate ’negative growth’”
Sounds like Greenpeace.
“If we compare the controversy to a Trojan horse entering a besieged modern city, for those who seek delegitimization, it could actually destroy modernity. Because the authorities would be unable to make decisions designed to ensure that we avoid the forecast disasters.”
The forecast disasters are political hype. With a lack of certainty of what the climate will be doing coupled with poor knowledge of regional impacts, they don’t have a forecast, it’s a bluff.
“So promethean man, able both to master and change nature, can heal his guilt with the progress of techno-science and the levers of political action, while giving back a sense of morality and ethics to a new and rather grand modern narrative: the fight against global warming.”
The righteous fight is against global warming based policies, urgently, as our real priority is dealing with the impacts of weaker solar conditions through the next ~20yrs. Then there will surely be praying for Promethean man to steal fire from the heavens.
We don’t have to go back to an ancient Greek myth to find an analogy that fits the modern preoccupation with global warming. Just look at the UN itse4lf, it is a monument to socialist theory, Typically it supports 20 models, none of which is validated. It does not matter that they are all useless, what matters is that it has spread the work among its members They then pretend that the mean and SD of their invalid outputs constitutes a valid projection of climate!, All they needed was one good validated model .
A Trojan horse, or Trojan, is a hacking program that is a non-self-replicating type of malware which gains privileged access to the operating system while appearing to perform a desirable function but instead drops a malicious payload.
Trojan horses employ a form of “social engineering,” presenting themselves as harmless, useful gifts, in order to persuade victims to install them on their computers [brains].
IPCC malware.
Global warming: A trojan horse of modernity?
I see global warming as a trojan horse for the left has wanted for decades:
1) Global government
2) Redistribution of wealth both within and between nations.
3) Heavy control over the world population.
4) End of capitalism.
5) Control of natural resources so that they are distributed in a fair and equitable manner.
Is there a term for those who promote the kind of sophism that maximizes uncertainty as an argument in order to avoid taking any political decisions designed to reduce carbon emissions?
Dibs on ‘realist’!
===========
Willard,
It is not clear what the uncertainty is referring to
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8551/x23.gif
The ocean is warming at a TCR of 1.5 C, while the land is warming at a TCR of 3C, with a pro-rated global average TCR of 2C. The actual ECS is based on eliminating ocean heat-sinking feedbacks, so that an ECS=3C is highly likely, and hasn’t changed since 1979 according to the figure above
That gives the 1.5C to 3C on the bottom end as a geospatial uncertainty, which goes higher the further one goes in latitude.
The high end of the range 3C to 4.5C is due to the unknown slow-feedbacks that may kick in should we be patient enough to wait. As it is, the observational evidence in modern instrumental records isn’t long enough to be able to detect this.
> It is not clear what the uncertainty is referring to […]
Monstrous.
” The actual ECS is based on eliminating ocean heat-sinking feedbacks, so that an ECS=3C”
Incoming radiation is absorbed and is either converted to either sensible or latent heat. The S/L fraction will differ with local, with the highest S/L in the deserts and the lowest over open water.
Latent heat in the form of water vapour is transported between locals and can then be converted to sensible heat.
Some fraction of ocean generated latent heat is transported over land and there is converted to sensible heat; we know this because changes in sea surface temperature of the Southern oceans cause a change in land temperatures of the northern hemisphere, see 1998.
Thus, the system is coupled, and so the assumption that the change in land temperature is an ‘equilibrium’ response to radiative flux, but that the temperature change of the oceans is not, is an invalid assumption.
DocMartyn,
Land is getting warmer faster than the ocean, maybe twice as fast. It is not like heat has an amplification mechanism so the thinking is that the land will reflect the eventual ECS well before the ocean does. The land is indeed headed for 3C as an ECS.
Whatever the term is, it applies to progressive’s approach to GMO, fracking and nuclear power. Yet they reject the notion that anyone else is allowed to apply the same hurdle to their demands.
Who opposes a shift to gas and nukes- both of which would be policy decisions to reduce carbon emissions – and GMO, which would mitigate the impact of warming whether it’s natural or not?
Too busy dreaming of monsters, missing the fine day out.
========
A progressive approach is to understand the data. For fracking, that means understanding what the technology can provide us.
For fracking oil in the Bakken , a progressive approach is to model the production data provided by our government, who in turn have required the well operators to release their data.
Then it is up to citizens like you and me to figure out what it means:
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/06/bakken-projections/
> Whatever the term is […]
But discussing variations on “progressivocatastrophoanthropowarmism” was so much fun!
“Then it is up to citizens like you and me to figure out what it means:”
No offense intended, but citizens would do well to read up on the reliability of peak oil projections and note that they should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
I note you didn’t bother to address the points made, so I’ll make them even more clear: progressives (the political movement) battle proven mitigation and adaptation policy choices (natural gas, nuclear and GMO) using fake uncertainty. Yet progressives feign indignation and claim scientific superiority over those who battle idiotic mitigation and adaptation policy choices (let’s build millions of windmills and double the price of energy!) by using real uncertainty.
For you see, Web, jeffn is an antiprogressivouncertainrealist citizenskeptic.
Willard, the term is pragmatist. But your effort to invent a new word that’s lengthy, distracting, unlikely to be used by anyone, and incoherent is a fitting analogy. :)
Actually, jeffn, pragmatists might have no business appealing to “real” uncertainties, since it entails some kind of realism toward uncertainty.
All you do is to pat yourself in the back with the connotation of being pragmatic, jeffn.
I don’t find patting oneself on one’s back very pragmatic.
***
Besides, “pragmatist” would be incorrect if you’re appealing to Junior’s usage:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/8998076735
***
As Very Tall would observe, all this is identity politics all over again.
So much of the discussion gets reduced, basically, to defining identity. The identity of “us” and the identity of “the other” (and vindicating a sense of victimization of “us” at the hands of “them” – on both sides).
This is one reason why the names used gets so much focus.
> So much of the discussion gets reduced, basically, to defining identity.
That and typicality:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/14/ironic-impact-of-activists/
All this for labels and stereotypes.
“Actually, jeffn, pragmatists might have no business appealing to “real” uncertainties, since it entails some kind of realism toward uncertainty.”
Realism toward uncertainty would certainly include a review of how successful (from a carbon reduction POV) the switch to solar in Germany and wind in the UK are compared to the ongoing switch to gas in the US. It might even entail comparing electricity costs in France to those anywhere else in Europe.
Yes?
As for back-patting, I’m not the one claiming I’m saving the world. I’m auditing your claim to be a world savior- which for the last 20 years appears to entail hand-waving while you wait around for policy choices that are demonstrably ineffective and clearly losing politically yet appealing to a subset of the left. Good luck to you. Seriously. I think you have plenty of time to wait and I’m not worried about you winning.
Seriously, consider the odds; mild beneficial warming vs severe devastating cold. We, as an earth, a human culture, and the entire ecosystem have a much greater chance of busting out to the low side in temperature than to the high side. The consequences of each vary by an order or two of magnitude, also.
Alarming? Not yet. The crystal still clarifies.
=============
> Realism toward uncertainty would certainly include a review of how successful […]
Perhaps, but the problem lies when you look the other way around: if you endorse pragmatism, why would you need such realism toward uncertainty?
Start here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/
Does it sound very realist to you, jeffn?
***
> As for back-patting, I’m not the one claiming I’m saving the world.
Of course not, you’re just the one who uses “pragmatist” to qualify your own stance.
That straw men eating red herrings claim to save the world is quite independent from your own back-patting, you know.
jeez.
for pragmatism and uncertainty see Knight.
for Knight’s sources see Nietzsche, genealogy of morals–perspectivism.
yes Knight was a student of german philosophy.
that is all.
We can believe in qualitative subjectiveness of a jeffn or we can objectively evaluate models of the Bakken
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/06/bakken-projections
http://entroplet.com/context_bakken/navigate
The latter simulation is incredibly useful for making accurate projections.
Wubbie say,
“The latter simulation is incredibly useful for making accurate projections.”
And we should just take your, Great Peak Orl Guru’s, word for it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Is there a term for those who promote the kind of sophism that minimizes uncertainty as an argument in order to convince voters to make political decisions designed to reduce carbon emissions?
“Actually, jeffn, pragmatists might have no business appealing to “real” uncertainties, since it entails some kind of realism toward uncertainty.
All you do is to pat yourself in the back with the connotation of being pragmatic, jeffn.”
This is incoherent.
I don’t find patting oneself on one’s back very pragmatic.
My computer models say the planet is warming at an alarming rate.
My data says it is not.
If you are a Warmista you ignore reality and claim the sky is falling.
If you are a realist, you accept that your theory is wrong.
AGW. . . What passes for “science” in the mind of progressives.
> If you are a Warmista […]
That’s Mr. Anthropowarmista to you.
OK. . . But I reserve the right to use the name Mr. Warmonger as well.
‘Warmonger’ is so good I’m sure I’ve thought of it before. Or should have.
===============
Judy,
The impression I get from the last paragraph before your comment (on the trojan-horse) is different than most comments and even yours seem to indicate. I get the impression that the author implies that the skeptics getting into the argument prevent correct action being taken by introducing doubt. That in general scientific discussion, skeptics are a valid part of the issue, but in critical cases, skeptics muddy the clear issue and are detrimental. If I misunderstood, please say so.
The article is pretty sympathetic to skeptical perspectives, as I read it and as per my email discussions with Lionel
How dare you sympathize!
==============
My first reading gave me a similar impression to Lionel’s. D’Apollonia suggests that “the authorities would be unable to make decisions designed to ensure that we avoid the forecast disasters,” implying that the casting of doubt means that emissions-reduction measures might not be taken. He seems to see that as a problem. In any event, he is wrong, many governments (notably EU and Australia, to a lesser extent the US) have taken economically-severe measures to reduce emissions, and tend to decry sceptics rather than be swayed by them.
cf Gail’s comments below.
Those who would be kings ask not the consent of the governed, rather, through macroaggression, demand the capitulation of the governed.
=================
The skeptics are transforming the IPCC uncertainty of ECS of between 1.5C to 4.5C into doubt. see this figure
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8551/x23.gif
which hasn’t changed much since 1979.
But let us deconstruct this IPCC “uncertainty”. According to current evidence, the ocean surface is warming at a TCR of 1.5 C, while the land is warming at a TCR of 3C, with a pro-rated global average TCR of 2C. The actual ECS is based on eliminating ocean heat-sinking feedbacks, so that an ECS=3C is highly likely, and this also hasn’t changed since 1979 according to the figure above
That gives the 1.5C to 3C on the bottom end as a geospatial uncertainty, which goes higher the further one goes in latitude.
The high end of the range 3C to 4.5C is due to the unknown slow-feedbacks that may kick in should we be patient enough to wait. As it is, the observational evidence in modern instrumental records isn’t long enough to be able to detect this.
Again this uncertainty is more of a range of what we will expect if we can wait long enough. With a doubling of CO2, the oceans will warm at least 1.5C and the land will warm at least 3C, with the possibility of 4.5C if any slow feedbacks kick in.
Ocean surface warming? http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadSST2%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif looks pretty flat over the last decade.
Webby
You are still citing the out-of-date info of a mean ECS of ~3C. That’s old stuff.
Check:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/15/bigger-coal/#comment-399651
which I’ll repeat for you here:
How about:
Recent studies on 2xCO2 ECS
Lewis (2013): 1.0-3.0
Berntsen (2013): 0.9-3.2
Lindzen (2011): 0.6-1.0
Schmittner (2011):1.4-2.8
van Hateren (2012): 1.5-2.5
Schlesinger (2012): 1.45-2.01
Masters (2013): 1.5-2.9
average: 1.2-2.5
The average range of these recent studies is 1.2°C to 2.5°C, with a mean value of 1.8°C, or well below the earlier model-based predictions you cite.
You need to get up-to-date, Webby.
Max
‘the ocean surface is warming at a TCR of 1.5 C, while the land is warming at a TCR of 3C’
On a 70% water and 30% land world that gives.
0.7*1.5 + 0.3*3 = 1.95 C.
Again this uncertainty is more of a range of what we will expect if we can wait long enough. With a doubling of CO2, the oceans will warm at least 1.5C and the land will warm at least 3C, with the possibility of 4.5C if any slow feedbacks kick in.
And, all this based on climate models that have shown no skill whatsoever.
For sure, don’t do stupid things to energy production and the economy before this gets understood better.
We know more CO2 does good things to how green things grow while using less water.
The jury is still out on the warming thing.
Less CO2 would most likely just unnecessarily kill green things and use up our water resources faster and kill things that depend on water and green things that grow.
If what you are after is population control by starvation, less CO2 can provide that.
But let us deconstruct this IPCC “uncertainty”. According to current evidence, the ocean surface is warming at a TCR of 1.5 C, while the land is warming at a TCR of 3C, with a pro-rated global average TCR of 2C.
According to CURRENT EVIDENCE there has been NO warming since 1998.
Chicken Little is in charge of the IPCC and it needs to be abolished.
And DocMartyn is learning. Yes that is the current TCR for the earth
TCR = 2C
You can see how this works here on my model server
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
Pick GISS or HadCrut and the log sensitivity comes out at around TCR=2C
Webby, that’s all fine and good, but explain why “global” warming warms and cools different areas of the globe at different times?
Sure you can average all of the continents together, but that destroys information.
‘Recent studies on 2xCO2 ECS
Lewis (2013): 1.0-3.0
Berntsen (2013): 0.9-3.2
Lindzen (2011): 0.6-1.0
Schmittner (2011):1.4-2.8
van Hateren (2012): 1.5-2.5
Schlesinger (2012): 1.45-2.01
Masters (2013): 1.5-2.9
average: 1.2-2.5″
dont forget cripwell who has told us 1000 times that its not distingishable from 0 !!!!
average in his work and we have no problemo
funny when people object to taking the mean of models turn around and take the mean of papers.
Mosh
While I personally agree with Jim Cripwell’s position that there is no empirical evidence to support the notion that the impact of increased CO2 in our climate system leads to perceptible global warming, I can provisionally accept the conclusions of the many recent, independent (at least partially) observation-based, studies, which I cited to Webby, until something better, based totally on actual observations comes along.
These recent studies have shown that the previous model-predicted estimates for the mean 2xCO2 ECS cited by IPCC were exaggerated by a factor of around two.
Since our friend, Webby, is still convince that the old estimates and paradigm are still the best available data, I simply thought I’d give him the advantage of the latest info on this subject.
Climate science, despite all its politically tainted warts and blemishes, marches on. New observations are incorporated into the knowledge base and paradigms shift.
You are a smart guy, so I’m sure you have also seen all these studies, and have been able to make up your mind as to what they really mean, especially for IPCC’s CAGW premise (as outlined specifically in AR4 and repeated in principle in AR5).
My conclusion is that they have totally upset the CAGW applecart, even if IPCC has been unwilling to accept this as yet.
Max
@max: The average range of these recent studies is 1.2°C to 2.5°C
[Foreman of the jury]; Your honour, the average range of the counsel for defense and the prosecution is midway between guilty and not guilty. We the jury therefore find the defendant half innocent and half guilty.
Vaughan Pratt.
I hate to welcome you back by pointing out that in Scottish Law the verdict would be ‘not proven’ so your analogy doesn’t really stand (amusing as it was)
tonyb
Vaughan, the wisdom of Solomon.
Max, I have no idea what you PRECISELY mean by “observation-based”, and I suspect the expression is meaningless. We cannot do controlled experiments on the earth’s atmosphere, so it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever prove that any additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes any rise in global temperatures. Unless and until a CO2 signal has been MEASURED in a modern temperature/timer graph, any hypothetical estimates of the climate sensitivity of CO2 are little more than guesses.
I would also like to point out that no CO2 signal has yet been observed. The FAR said we should see one in 2002. Until global temperatures start rising at a rate significantly faster than the background rate observed since 1850, there is no evidence whatsoever that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has any effect on temperatures at all.
Jim Cripwell
It actually stated that we should see this signal (it called it the “enhanced greenhouse effect”) at the earliest by 2002 and at the latest by 2047.
And it (arbitrarily?) defined when this effect is seen as the point when the global temperature anomaly exceeds the 1990 value by 0.5C.
It is now 2013 and that point has not been reached. 1990 temp anomaly was ~0.25C and we are now at ~0.45C, so there are still ~0.3C warming needed before the “magic number” is reached.
If warming resumes at the post 1990 rate next year, we should reach this level by 2041, or still (barely) within the range of the FAR prediction.
If the current period of slight cooling continues for another 15 years, we will not see an “enhanced greenhouse effect” (according to the IPCC criteria) until some time after mid-century (and outside the range as predicted in IPCC’s FAR).
I personally do not consider this arbitrary “magic number” as any evidence of an enhanced greenhouse effect (or CO2 signal). Do you?
The point is simply that even according to the criteria set by IPCC we have not yet seen a definitive enhanced greenhouse signal.
Yet, despite this uncertainty, we are talking about curtailing CO2 emissions.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Max
Vaughan Pratt
Welcome back!
IPCC cites the “mean” value of several model simulations for 2xCO2 ECS at 3.2C (in AR4) – and a bit lower, at 3C (in AR5)
The several recent partially observation-based studies I cited suggest an average value of around 1.8C, or quite a bit lower.
IPCC has essentially swept these new data “under the rug” (as our hostess put it on an earlier thread) and simply hung in there with its old estimates, very likely in an attempt to keep the fear factor alive.
Will it work?
Max
@Max: Will it work?
Max, my sympathies lie entirely with the observation-based approaches, if not necessarily with the specific numbers any given approach obtains.
My main two complaints about model-based estimation of climate sensitivity are
(i) I don’t see any modelers trying to reconcile their estimates with those obtained by actual observation of rising CO2 and rising temperature; and
(ii) where is the transparency in modeling? I haven’t a clue what happens in a model, so why should I as a scientist take the word of the modeler that their simulation reasonably accurately captures the important features of what’s going on? The more complex the model, the harder it becomes for anyone including the modeler to judge whether it has incorporated some of the modeler’s biases.
1.8 was the first number I came up with when I first started trying to trend temperature against CO2. This rose to 2.1 when I used multiple regression in order to get the CO2-induced warming and the natural signals to fit together more precisely. Taking the delaying action of ocean warming into account further raised it to 2.66 (it was 2.83 in my AGU poster last year but on closer examination I realized I’d overestimated the ocean delay by about 4 years, and that too might still be off by a significant amount). Then there’s aerosols, which no observation-based approach I’m aware of including mine has handled satisfactorily.
To answer your question “will it work?”, I’d say it won’t until the modelers and the observers get together in order to work out why their estimates of climate sensitivity are so far apart. From a scientific standpoint it’s embarrassing to have the theoreticians and the experimentalists making contradictory assertions about nature. The usual default is that the theoretician is to blame for any such discrepancy, but one cannot rule out inadequacies in observational approaches such as bad experimental method, neglect of important phenomena (including as-yet-undiscovered geophysics), etc.
Yes this is the Bureau of Wicked Problems, how can I help you?
No sorry, we don’t accept problems from the public.
Why? Because formulating and processing wicked problems
can only be done within the organised confines of a highly
sophisticated government department like ours.
You need to understand that only the WP Bureau has the
necessary coordinating departments to be effective.
Look, let me explain. We have a ‘Framing and Enhancement
Department,’ (FED) on the second floor, there’s ‘Implications,
Assessments and Outcomes,’ (IAOD) on the third floor and
‘Public Awareness and Hype Department (PAHD) on the
top floor.
What did you say?
There’s no need to be rude.
They (…climate skeptics ..) maintain the posture of modern man as master of nature, in an anthropocentric way.
This is a bit too far. There are all too many dissidents who believe that natural variability trumps any influence man might have had with a trace gas, that earth climate is too complex for models to simulate and even if CO2 emissions are a problem, you can’t do anything about it anyway.
The global warming argument is of course most of all a trojan horse for totalitarianism. Funded by the state, directly serving the interests of the state.
And in the arena of the general public, the two basic sides to the controversy are:-
* The politically motivated – the alarmists – and the credulous.
Those who see global warming as an excellent tool for forcing up taxes and levels of state regulation, and prefer +not+ to examine matters too closely, for fear there might be holes in the DAGW case.
And they string along a sub-group of the more credulous types.
* The cautious and more thoughtful – skeptics.
Those who want something approaching an honest argument before accepting such a drastic increase in energy costs and taxes, and an even Bigger Brother, and who +are+ disposed to examine the issues more closely, the dominant political motivation of the alarmist group, as well as the science.
“Climate Skeptics refer to the issue of uncertainty as a core element of their argument”
And let us not sweep under the carpet the endemic chicanery that characterizes the IPCC – from Climategate onwards – committed in pursuit of its overriding political agenda.
Frankly, with that degree of torquing an extremely slippery argument, what are the chances they could get it right?
======================
The IPCC’s utterly unrepentant chicanery, to be sure.
“Finally, the paper seeks to demonstrate how the IPCC is built on a strong modern genetic code, and how it in fact reflects complex interrelationships between the West and modern democracies.”
That doesn’t say much for West and modern democracies, oh dear!
Leonard Weistein says:
> I get the impression that the author implies that the skeptics getting into the argument prevent correct action being taken by introducing doubt.
I disagree:
The author asserts it.
http://www.thenation.com/article/weight-poor-strategy-end-poverty#
Dr. Curry — Very nice post.
Those who wish to delegitimatize any questioning of the anthropowarmist consensus position are frantic whenever it appears that the Trojan Horse of “controversy” is allowed to enter the public discourse. For evidence of this one can simply read the comment section at Dot Earth in the NY Times or any other popular Climate Science blog. One finds anthropowarmists (some there by assignment, some by self-appointment) who message is almost solely “There is no controversy, the science is settled”.
Various movements exist to “improve communication of Climate Science” which use the same approach – first and foremost, kill the idea that there is any controversy.
This leaves Dr. Curry in a tough spot, as she is not afraid to speak of uncertainty and does not avoid controversial.
The interesting point is that the just idea that there is a controversy, and not necessarily the controversy itself, will act as a Trojan Horse for the “strict consensus-ites” — it is filled with a deadly force that will tear down the walls of their citadel and allow in the light of science without politics. Go Greeks!
Concerning issues that are, and epistemic amongst others,, we should add the psyche of the creators and prognosticators of AGW theory–i.e., the hubris, sense of entitlement and delusions of grandeur they government scientists of global warming alarmism share without a shred of scientific validation of the beliefs they hold.
“Finally, the paper seeks to demonstrate how the IPCC is built on a strong modern genetic code…”
More accurately CAGW, of which the IPCC is an orthodox core, is built on a strong *memetic* code, and only modern in details. The basic form is likely millennia old at least, and possibly very many millennia…
Andy West
Semper Sci Fi.
===========
essentially, yes :)
When talking to their peers they seek not to minimize uncertainty. But when they dialoguing with lay people, they tend to minimize uncertainty.
In other words, they flat out lie to us.
As it is, the observational evidence in modern instrumental records isn’t long enough to be able to detect this.
Of course not. Ice Core data for the past ten thousand years should be used to make forecasts for the next ten thousand years and modern data that started being measured during a warm period should not be extrapolated beyond reasonable bounds that we know is in the past data.
The modern temperature cycle has been in force for ten thousand years and it is not like the cycles before ten thousand years ago.
People, look at actual data!
Pingback: The WUWT Hotsheet for Wednesday October 16th 2013 | Watts Up With That?
http://theunboundedspirit.com/the-meaning-of-anarchism/
So anarchism is the seventh drum circle of hell. Inside of which reside the college know-it-all hippies.
Does this Typhoon have any effect on ocean oscillation or visa versa cause, or is it not known?
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/16/20979072-once-in-a-decade-typhoon-closes-in-on-japan?lite
It sounds almost like a harbinger.
Judith
For those with relevant science and who sit at the more warmer end I think I prefer
Since the heart of the passion in this debate is over What We Should Do, I prefer to use the neutral term Urgent Mitigationists to characterize the group that favors immediate and aggressive political action to restrain or reduce the emission of GHGs. It is true that there may be some Plan for Adaptation Now types who also believe in man’s imminent parboiling of the world, but at least in terms of vocal advocacy the PANs are dwarfed by the UMs. And there are even fewer Plan for Geoengineering advocates, so I feel pretty comfortable using UMs as stand-ins for the whole “anthropowarming” crowd. Also, there are some with “anthropowarmist” beliefs who purport to believe that warming would be a good thing, so that makes the term potentially confusing in terms of public debate.
Maybe we should have a Myers-Briggs style classification based on each separate sub-part of the issue. Then everyone could identify with his individual five or six letter characterization and we wouldn’t waste so much energy on nomenclature.
“UM” has the advantage of implying uncertainty: um-, err-ing in the face of legitimate inquiry.
Anthropowarmism as potentially being consistent with the laws of physics, is more likly to be true under a different theory.
Within a closed system, converting chemical potential energy and nuclear energy to heat is exceedingly likely to cause warming.
The physical fantasy of the greenhouse gas is that an IR absorbing/emitting gas can make any difference at all to the temperature of an absorbing/emitting body in space by somehow asymmetrically affecting absorbtion from sunlight and emission to space.
The trojan horse is that global warming is an attempt to control to flow of wealth to developing economies, by making energy more expensive.
How about “Warmista”? It’s much shorter. The “-ista” suffix means a person beguiled by something, as in “fashionista.”
I tried that once, got hammered because of the allusion to ‘sandinistas’ (this from people that claims of the associations with the word ‘denier’ with Holocaust deniers are irrelevant)
“sandinistas” wouldn’t resonate in most of the world, while “deniers” does.
So the question to be asked is why it is so difficult to have real and informed argumentative debate within the public arena?
Because it is politics, not science. Lysenko. Government funding. Production of results required to support a policy.
rogerknights
I use warmista; it is a fitting noun which works in many languages.
Gail | October 16, 2013 at 9:17 am
The global warming argument is of course most of all a Trojan horse for totalitarianism. Funded by the state, directly serving the interests of the state.
No, allow me to correct that last sentence:
directly serving the interests of those who control the state
Correction endorsed; but includes those who wish to control the state and hopefully will not succeed under the light shone by the scepo-warriors.
The evil Anthropowarmists and warmista versus the brave and noble scepto-warriors doing battle over the truth behind a nasty wicked problem involving frequent skirmishes with that terrible Uncertainty Monster. What ultimate weapon shall these skepto-warriors wield to forever wash away those nasty Anthropowarmista old-boy-istas? Enter…the magical curve fitted all-girl-powered Stadium Wave. Sounds like the beginnings of a nice little fairy tale or at least a bit of Blog Theatre.
Good thing that there’s such a distinction between “scientific debate” on blogs like this one, and those fantasy, comic book, “science fiction” battles between caricatures of good and evil, eh?
Gentlemen, most amusing. Thank you.
Robert of Ottawa’s ‘correction’ :
The global warming argument is of course most of all a Trojan horse for totalitarianism. Funded by the state, directly serving the interests of those who control the state.
And who do you imagine the mighty state is at the back and call of ?
And how is this control exercised ?
And who other than the state would benefit from carbon taxes and more bureaucracies and suchlike ?
“Anthropowarmists is a neologism I have created somewhat in opposition to climate-skeptics. They consider that there is enough tangible proof to attribute the causes of global warming to human activities.”
Isn’t it time that all serious participants in the climate debates insist on a minimum of clarity in all of our statements? OK, how about we insist on eliminating terminal ambiguity, the kind of ambiguity that renders statements meaningless?
For example, the statement quoted above is literally meaningless because the phrase “global warming” could refer to a harmless amount of warming, a very dangerous amount of warming, or anything in between. His new term, “anthropowarmists,” shares in this multiple ambiguity. The same fault of ambiguity is pervasive throughout the article. For that reason, the article makes no unambiguous claim and is worthless.
I propose that we treat authors who engage in such ambiguity as the moral equivalent of con men (con persons).
Theo, I think that almost all of the non-climate scientist authors drawn on for head-posts here seem to take the CAGW case as a given. In that sense there is no ambiguity. There have been many instances when that view has coloured their analyses.
It seems bizarre that so many of them don’t realize that not only do they not understand the answers they freely accept ex-cathedra, but they don’t even understand what the questions are either.
GaryM | October 16, 2013 at 1:10 am |
“The lumpenwarmatariat.”
Armies of debt ridden, unemployed Phds marching through the fog.
They are the intellectual Walking Dead of the CAGW movement – endlessly feeding off sentient blog comments; mindlessly regurgitating what they have read on Skeptical Science and Think Progress; defending anything and everything done in the name of “global warming”.
By chance this comment names no one.
Wait.
If I named anybody, I’d probably end up as a defendant on the cyber bullying thread. Members of the lumpenwarmatariat have no sense of humor.
I am touched by Gary’s disdain for bullying and name-calling.
You posted this on the wrong thread, Gary. You should post it upstairs, in response to Judith’s discussion of the bullying she has received and observed. Maybe Judith just needs to get a sense of humor, eh?
Aha.
See?
I spend a lot of my professional time dealing with bullies, with relish. But I don’t give a rat’s ass about name calling. Any adult male so offended by a snide remark like lumpenwarmatariat deserves to have his panties in a bunch. I have never once whined about being called a denier. If Mosher doesn’t call me stupid at least once a week I figure I must be doing something wrong. This is a blog not a cotillion.
I’m not offended by it either, Gary.
But it is informative. Not about the recipient of the name-calling, but about the name-caller.
Particularly when they are so confused as to think that the name calling has any relevance to the scientific debate.
And particularly when they characterize large and diverse groups of people with demeaning terms that fail to allow for any differentiation. It’s the kind of thing I call “skepticism,” Gary,
Do you know what I mean?
May your stereotyping help you win your culture war, GaryM.
Willard,
In the immortal words of Bartles and James…Thank you for your support.
That would be “the unwarm”.
Warmbies? Children of the Warm?
Or would that be “the unterwarmen”?
“Kalt” ist klar. Wie die Nacht.
If you liked this thread, you might also like:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/16/microagressions-on-social-media
Fascinating juxtaposition, eh?
It’s almost as if Judith were making a point to our much beloved “skeptics” by following up this thread with the next one upstairs.
You have no humor.
Joshua,
I am a little confused by your use of the word “eh”.
Would you be so good as to provide a definition of the word as you use it. Are you really seeking agreement to a statement, or are you inserting a nonsense word to imply sarcasm?
Thank you.
Live well and prosper.
Mike Flynn.
Mike –
Think of it as being like “aye?” or “don’t ya’ think?”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-gm-got-bailout-now-ships-jobs-to-china/article/2537323
Joshua,
Thank you for telling me what to think. Would you mind expressing yourself in such a way that the words communicate your thoughts clearly, concisely and correctly?
I apologise if you suffer from a disability that prevents you from expressing yourself clearly. If so, you have my sympathy. In future I will ask you what you meant to say, rather than what you said, if that is your desire.
Thank you for your explanation.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
R Gates wrote about fundamentals to the hypothesis –
“as you increase greenhouse gas concentrations, Earth’s energy system will retain more energy.”
Do we deduce from this that a cooling of the globe cannot occur until there is a prior, appropriate reduction in GHG?
If so, by what mechanisms did GHG reduce, before past cooling periods?
I think that’s a fail of a fundamental.
Geoff S., says:
“Geoff Sherrington | October 17, 2013 at 2:50 am | Reply
R Gates wrote about fundamentals to the hypothesis –
“as you increase greenhouse gas concentrations, Earth’s energy system will retain more energy.”
Do we deduce from this that a cooling of the globe cannot occur until there is a prior, appropriate reduction in GHG?
If so, by what mechanisms did GHG reduce, before past cooling periods?
I think that’s a fail of a fundamental.”
_____
We should be careful not to simplify a something too much, or to try and make a complex system with multiple forcings and complex feedbacks into a system driven by only one forcing. To understand the dynamics of such a complex system, we often hold all variables except for one as “constant” and see what happens. In the case of CO2, with ALL OTHER THINGS HELD CONSTANT, as you increase it in concentration the Earth’s atmosphere, the climate system will retain more of the solar derived energy in the system. Moreover, the natural heat sink of the planet, the ocean, would be expected, under basic principles of thermodynamics, to receive the bulk of that additional energy. In the Earth’s system, with the hydrological cycle playing such a key role in the distribution of energy and being so integral to nearly all weather and climate processes, a natural negative feedback to increasing CO2 must be considered. This is critical, for without a natural negative feedback to increasing CO2, you’d have a true run-away greenhouse situation. For Earth, that is the rock-carbon cycle and the increased weathering of rock that comes with an enhanced hydrological cycle. This weathering of the rock, sequestered CO2 from the atmosphere into the runoff water that eventually finds its way to limestone at the bottom of the ocean.
” To understand the dynamics of such a complex system, we often hold all variables except for one as “constant” and see what happens. In the case of CO2, with ALL OTHER THINGS HELD CONSTANT, as you increase it in concentration the Earth’s atmosphere, the climate system will retain more of the solar derived energy in the system. ”
I should hope so, that’s how they wrote the Models.
The Alarmistas ?
Geoff Sherrington,
R Gates does not seem to appreciate that any energy absorbed by CO2 (or anything else, for that matter), when exposed to a source of radiation, will promptly lose that absorbed radiation (and more), when the CO2 is no longer exposed to the radiative source.
And so it happens on Earth. CO2, other gases (none are totally transparent), the surface, and so on, heat up when exposed to the Sun, and cool at night.
The Earth has managed to cool in excess of 4,000 K over the last few billion years, in spite of the Sun, and in spite of the remnant heat of creation, and in spite of the massive conversion of matter into energy as radioactive decay occurred.
The manic adherence by GHG warmistas to the supposed asymmetrical energy transmission characteristics ascribed to GHGs baffles me. Do none of these supposed “scientists” ever wonder why this effect cannot be demonstrated?
I suppose that education and intelligence are no bulwark against gullibility, delusion, or both.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn
@MF: R Gates does not seem to appreciate that any energy absorbed by CO2 (or anything else, for that matter), when exposed to a source of radiation, will promptly lose that absorbed radiation (and more), when the CO2 is no longer exposed to the radiative source.
Excellent point, Mike. This really gets to the heart of the matter.
CO2 indeed loses the radiation it absorbs. Exactly how promptly it does depends on its temperature. Low-altitude CO2 loses it faster than high-altitude CO2 because the atmosphere is colder at high altitudes. Planck’s Law for thermal radiation governs the rate as a function of temperature (and also wavelength).
That’s one half of the story. The other half is that energy radiated quickly from low-altitude CO2 is more likely to be recaptured by higher-altitude CO2 than the energy radiated slowly from high-altitude CO2. This is because there is more CO2 above low altitudes than above high.
The upshot is that CO2 acts like a blanket that slows down the rate of radiation of energy from the atmosphere to space. More CO2 means a warmer surface for the planet. That’s really all there is to the greenhouse effect.
Oh, Gawd, anything but ‘blanket’. ‘Filter’, ‘screen’, anything! Please.
===================
Does ‘quilt’ work for you?
Maybe an Afghan with constantly changing character of the wool, of the diameter of the yarn, and of the size of the holes.
===============
Vaughan Pratt,
And, of course, like any blanket (or indeed any insulator, or anything at all), the transfer of radiant energy is affected equally in both directions.
A blanket, indeed – and one that prevents quite a lot of energy from the Sun reaching the surface during the day. I give you the Moon as an example of achieving higher surface temperatures by not having CO2 to get in the way.
The Earth temperatures at night are prevented from dropping as low as the Moon due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere. However, this is not warming, any more wrapping a corpse in a blanket will cause it to warm.
Nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of anything lacking an internal heat source by surrounding it with the finest insulating blanket known to man. Should you manage to achieve this outstanding feat, let me know, and I will support your nomination for the Nobel prize.
But a nice try – pity it’s nonsense physically.
Live well and prosper.
Mike Flynn
Some support for the “blanket” statement:
Yabbut DWLIR over the ocean drives evaporation rate higher which results in what’s called lapse rate feedback. It’s a negative feedback and recent observation show it’s been underestimated. What happens is that the lapse rate is reduced and water vapor must rise higher before it adiabatically cools and condenses into a cloud. The warm cloud, at a higher altitude than before but the same temperature, has less CO2 above it to restrict radiation to space while at the same time having more CO2 below it to restrict radiation back towards the ground.
Mike Flynn said:
” I give you the Moon as an example of achieving higher surface temperatures by not having CO2 to get in the way.”
____
Respectfully…this is crazy talk. Pure unscientific nonsense. If you recently recieved any education on this subject, proceed forewith to the business office of that institution and demand a full refund (and potential personal damages to undo all the nonsense that will have to be undone).
The lack of CO2 on the moon is not why the surface heats up– literally the surface here, not the atmosphere 2 meters above, as there is no atmosphere to heat. The surface rocks and soil of the moon heat up during the day because there is no intervening atmosphere to reflect or absorb the full onslaught of solar radiation. On Earth, CO2 absorbs only a very very small amount of direct solar radiation. Simply not in CO2’s absorption spectrum.
That’s Mike’s story, and he’s sticking to it. ;)
R Gates,
You will no doubt be able to explain to me, simply, why the maximum temperature on the surface of the Earth that can be induced by the unconcentrated rays of the Sun is less than 100C, and the maximum measured temperature on the surface of the Moon is well in excess of this figure.
The lack of atmosphere on the Moon is precisely why more energy from the Sun impinges on the surface, compared with the Earth, and its significant atmosphere. Maximum radiant energy transfer occurs in a vacuum, as far as I know. I may be wrong, and I am sure you can point me to experimental evidence (no analogies or computer models, please), that contradicts this, if I am.
Live well and prosper.
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn said:
“R Gates,
You will no doubt be able to explain to me, simply, why the maximum temperature on the surface of the Earth that can be induced by the unconcentrated rays of the Sun is less than 100C, and the maximum measured temperature on the surface of the Moon is well in excess of this figure.”
_____
That’s too easy Mike. What the catch? MUCH more solar radiation strikes the surface of the Moon than the Earth. But CO2 is not much of a factor in blocking the incoming radiaiton. It is in the outbound long-wave that CO2 comes into play.
R Gates,
I assume you can show that the CO2 which, if I understand you correctly, is only warmed by specific wavelengths of radiation emanating from the surface of the Earth, and not as a result of being subject to the laws of thermodynamics in general, is prevented from cooling when surrounded by matter at a lower temperature – i.e. the particles of gas and particulate matter surrounding the CO2, for example at night.
I fear you cannot, but I am willing to learn aspects of the New Physics as practiced by Warmistas.
Believe what you will, but don’t expect me to pay for your fantasies, if such they be. I don’t ask you to pay for mine, and I would be grateful if you could return the favour.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Mike F.,
CO2 Molecules are subject to all the same forces as every other molecule, and like every other molecule they have a unique absorption spectral fingerprint, as they absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths. If you put a quantity of CO2 molecules in a confined space, and increase the pressure and reduce the volume, the average kinetic energy of those molecules per unit volume increases, thereby raising the temperature in that unit volume of space.
R. Gates, I do not understand exactly, what “confined space”? Are you speaking of the atmosphere as being confined? Are you equating increased pressure therefore temperature in a container via thermodynamics to be equivalent to raising co2’s concentration in the atmosphere for the same reason? Seems as if you are or it leaves that impression.
R Gates,
What relevance does your response have?
I assumed, rightly as it appears, that you cannot show that CO2 does not follow the same laws of thermodynamics as other matter does.
“Heat trapping”? Rubbish. It warms, it cools.
“Blocks outgoing long wave IR”? Absolute tosh. The atmosphere cools at night (as a general rule). According to your interesting scenario, CO2 at night would presumably get even hotter, as it would not have to concern itself with avoiding radiation from the Sun.
However, once again, if you can point me to an instance of increasing the energy content of anything by surrounding it with CO2, please do so.
I know I’m wasting my time asking, because, of course, you can’t. Unadulterated nonsense. The heat you generate by waving your hands far exceeds anything produced by all the supposed “greenhouse” gases in the Universe.
I won’t challenge you to “put up or shut up”, because you are probably incapable of doing either.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Mike F,
I too find nightly cooling a great foil to the effect of GHGs, and have spent time digging into the temperature record looking for its secrets. Take a look at the link, you might enjoy it.
I find the fixation on global average annual temps a curious slight of hand.
http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/blog/global_warming_really_recovery_regional_cooling-121820
You would think a scientist with telescope in their username, would actually spend time outside at night with a telescope.
Sigh!
@Mike Flynn
A blanket, indeed – and one that prevents quite a lot of energy from the Sun reaching the surface during the day. I give you the Moon as an example of achieving higher surface temperatures by not having CO2 to get in the way.
So you’re saying CO2 absorbs incoming shortwave?
The Earth temperatures at night are prevented from dropping as low as the Moon due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere. However, this is not warming, any more wrapping a corpse in a blanket will cause it to warm.
Nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of anything lacking an internal heat source by surrounding it with the finest insulating blanket known to man.
Well the atmosphere isn’t just a plain insulating blanket, is it? It’s like an electric blanket – with the sun taking the part electricity does in an electric blanket; the “internal heat source” you mention.
Gail,
I don’t recollect saying that CO2 absorbs incoming shortwave, specifically. You might care to re read what I said, in case you saw what you wanted to see, rather than what I wrote.
In response to your second comment, I believe you have neglected to consider the case where your electric blanket has been turned off. This occurs at precisely the time when you expect your blanket to emit heat – at night. Analogies such as “blankets” are not useful, if misused as your are attempting to do.
Live well and prosper.
Mike Flynn.
@Mike Flynn
The manic adherence by GHG warmistas to the supposed asymmetrical energy transmission characteristics ascribed to GHGs baffles me.
So you claim there’s no such thing as a GHG Mike?
ie, gasses that are relatively transparent to (don’t absorb) the incoming shortwave, but relatively opaque to (do absorb) the outgoing longwave?
Gail,
I would suggest you might care to read what I said, rather than what a Warmista might like to think I said.
If you care to give a careful definition of a “GHG”, we can discuss it.
The “definition” that you provide is somewhat, shall we agree, indefinite.
Relative to what? How short? How long? Are you assuming there is no particulate matter in the atmosphere? How does the gas determine the direction from which the radiation is perceived?
It is not so simple.
But yes, there is no “Greenhouse Effect” due to CO2. if this doesn’t suit you, fair enough – you obviously think there is, even though it has never been demonstrated in the history of the Universe. I merely ask that you keep your hands out of my pocket, and ask that politicians waste the money of the Warmistas, rather than that of the realists.
Nature will do what comes Naturally. All your handwaving and unfounded assertions will not sway Nature one iota.
I am reminded of King Canute, the tide, and Canute’s sycophantic advisors. Nature ignored the advice, and the King beat a hasty retreat.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
To a geologist that has studied the arguments in some depth, the problem can be boiled to one of ignore-ance (which may also entail ignorance). This can be summed up into a few simple questions:
1: When do we live? Based on the end of the Younger Dryas cold interval, the Holocene Epoch is presently 11,716 years old, or a few centuries change longer than half a precession cycle. Only one post-MPT warming has lasted longer than about half a precession cycle and that was MIS-11. A good analysis of this may be found here: http://www.clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf It is rare indeed to find any mention at all of what should be a very obvious issue and that is just how long the present interglaciation will last. http://www.personal.kent.edu/~jortiz/paleoceanography/broecker.pdf
2: Therefore question 1 may be restated as: Why do most anthropowarmists ignore the very real possibility that the Holocene might very well be winding-up to wind-down? Boettger et al (2009 http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf ) abstract it thusly:
“The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages.”
In looking at what is known about the ends of post-MPT interglacials one is immediately struck by just how unstable climate becomes during the transitions to the next glacial. What is it about the end of the Holocene that would cancel-out this well-noted climate instability? Is all we have noted thus far at the half-precessional old Holocene the normal wild climate roller-coaster ride into the next glacial?
3: Which brings into play a well-established, and dare I say obvious, issue known as Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR). IPCC AR4 WG1 figure 10.33 charts the worst case anthropowarmist :signal” at the upper error bar of A1F1 at +0.59M amsl by 2099. This, one must presume. is “alarming”. This catastrophic anthropogenic global warming clocks in at less than 10% of the lowest estimate of sea level (+6.0M amsl) achieved at the last end extreme interglacial. Or signal less than 10% of the noise. And that is comparing apples (AR4) to oranges (low-end highstand at the end-Eemian). But it might be worse than we thought. A single paper http://business.uow.edu.au/sydney-bschool/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow045009.pdf summing up a dozen estimates of the end-Eemian highstand runs up to +45M amsl for the noise side of SNR. Want more noise? Go to http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf for up to +52M amsl. That would be comparing apples to apples, or high end estimate to high end estimate. The problem in comparing a +0.59M amsl anthropogenic “signal” to a +52M amsl natural end extreme interglacial “noise” level is that SNR drops to 0.011, or a hair over 1%. The question in all of this is why should I be scared of an anthropogenic worst case signal that comes in at slightly over 1% to just less than 10% of the normal end extreme interglacial natural climate noise?
For a more thorough analysis of SNR go to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-%E2%80%9Ctrap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/
AnthroGloWarmists, ignore these questions at your peril.
William, There are at least two papers which have looked for, and failed to find, a measured CO2 signal in modern temperature/time graphs: namely Beenstock et al, and Mora et al. With the absence of any measured CO2 signal, the only conclusion I can come to, is that the climate sensitivity
of CO2, however defined, is indistinguishable from zero.
Jim. Good to hear from you again. I always enjoy your considered responses. I agree with your comment, I have only found one indication that CO2 might, repeat might, have anything at all to do with climate. Here is the paper http://einstein.iec.cat/jellebot/documents/articles/Phis.Lett.A_2007.pdf
It is in relation to Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations. It is interesting how they put it:
“We have observed some correlation between B and C cycles and CO2 concentration, but of the opposite sign to the one expected: maxima in atmospheric CO2 concentration tend to correspond to the middle part or the end the cooling period. The role of CO2 in the oscillation phenomena seems to be more related to extend the duration of the cooling phase than to trigger warming.”
Jim, I failed to note one other thing, and that is you do not even have to go anywhere near the heathen devil gas CO2 to nullify AGW/CAGW arguments, which is what my comment was meant to convey from the paleoclimate records. Only Hansen’s and Gore’s wildest predictions of AGW/CAGW even get close to the lower-end estimates of what actually has happened anyway, and those events occurred with no anthropogenic influence, even though we were present as our stone-age selves.
I was afraid you’d find that. That and the desiccating bit.
====================
Thank you for your kind words, William, but now we get to the tough part. You and I, and a lot of other scientists who have a lot more influence than I have, agree that there is a negligible effect on global temperatures when more CO2 is added to the atmosphere from current levels. But the people who matter, the Royal Society, the American Physical Society, and just about every other learned society, have all endorsed CAGW: the RS AFTER the publication of the AR5. No action is going to be taken by our elected officials, unless and until this support is abrogated. I suggest this is unlikely to occur any time in the near future, unless something other than posting speculation on blogs happens.
So, I ask my question. “Who is going to bell the cat?”.
Jim C., said:
“You and I, and a lot of other scientists…”
___
Jim, you said “other” scientists. Are you a scientist?
R. Gates. I hold a bachelor’s degree in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University (M.A. Cantab), and I spent my whole career using this degree to earn a living. So, yes, I am a scientist.
Jim C.,
Not to slight your B.A. in Natural Sciences, but that does not qualify you as a scientist, even if you work in the “natural sciences” field. Generally speaking, a PhD in the science field from an accredited insitution would be considered as a qualified “scientist”. Thus, when a newspaper or magazine article has the line, “scientists say…” they would then go on to quote a PhD who is an expert in the area in question.
Jim,
Unfortunately, I think the cat is going to be belled, and perhaps quite soon, maybe even abruptly, by two factors: (1) no one has provided a credible reason why the Holocene (MIS-1) could last more than about half a precession cycle, like MIS-11 did. Sure, we were at an eccentricity minimum in MIS-11 and we are at another one now, so the possibility does indeed exist. The paper cited above by Tzedakis covers this in exquisite detail. (2) The sun has gone all quite on us, immediately after a grand solar maxima, and right at the half-precession old Holocene. The PDO went negative in 2009, the AMDO is trending towards its negative mode right now.
My question here is what else would one need as a tipping point into the next glacial?
But the answer to your inferred question is quite severe. As it turns out, intellectual capacity is actually driven by climate change:
“An examination of the fossil record indicates that the key junctures in hominin evolution reported nowadays at 2.6, 1.8 and 1 Ma coincide with 400 kyr eccentricity maxima, which suggests that periods with enhanced speciation and extinction events coincided with periods of maximum climate variability on high moisture levels.”
state Trauth et al in Quaternary Science Reviews 28 (2009) 399–411.
Perhaps what is needed, maybe desperately for the swollen human species, is actually the next, and now due, ice age. Coming to incorrect conclusions about climate change in such a climate change, might be the very best chlorine that could be added to the gene pool……..
R. Gates, you write ” Generally speaking, a PhD in the science field from an accredited institution would be considered as a qualified “scientist.”
I have read some unmitigated nonsense on blogs, but this statement must surely qualify as the most stupid, inaccurate statement of all time.
Just one word. GARBAGE.
APS dont matter.
Royal society matters even less.
as it should be.
Jim C.,
When I dissected frogs in 7th grade and drew diagrams of their various internal organs I was being a “scientist”, but such a 7th grader would not be the one quoted in newspapers, as in, “scientists have confirmed that frog’s have hearts with three chambers…”
Gates
It is disappointing that you define a scientist so narrowly. What are engineering fellows? Are they not scientists?
R. Gates, From my personal knowledge, Harold Larnder did not hold a PhD, but he was one of 6 who won the Radar Award, contributed enormously to the winning of the Battle of Britain, and “invented” Operations Research. Flowers was not a Ph D, but he invented the first computer. One could go on reciting whole lists of non-PhDs who have made enormous contributions to science. Are you going to claim that NONE of these eminent individuals qualify as a scientist?
Jim et al.,
There are many quite knowledgable, citizen scientists, non-PhD, who have certainly added to the body of real scientific knowledge. You misunderstood my point– I was talking about what it typically referred to as a scientist in the media. A non-PhD citizen scientist might be called an “enthusiast”, or avid “hobbyist” etc. But usually the term “scientist” in the media is reserved for those with advanced degrees in an area of specialized scientific knowledge.
R. Gates. You wrote of me “Not to slight your B.A. in Natural Sciences, but that does not qualify you as a scientist, even if you work in the “natural sciences” field.” No mention of the media. Naturally I resented that. I suggest you watch how you insult those of us who use our real names, while you hide behind a cowardly alias.
Jim C.,
Nice of you to truncate my full comment, where I went on to give a specific example of what I was talking about to help clarify my point.
As to your qualfications as a “scientist” in a more general sense of the word– again, I was in 7th grade when I dissected a frog, so I guess the bar is pretty low.
Beenstock is an economist. Do you really expect Beenstock to be able to find a measured CO2 signal any better than an atmospheric physicist or climate scientist?
Hypocrisy reigns.
WHT, you write “Beenstock is an economist. Do you really expect Beenstock to be able to find a measured CO2 signal any better than an atmospheric physicist or climate scientist?”
IF, and it is a might big IF, but if there is a CO2 signal, I expect SOMEONE to find it. I don’t really care what expertise that person has. The fact of the matter is that there is no CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. Which is why no “atmospheric physicist or climate scientist” has been able to find it.
Sorry, WHT, such little empirical data as we have strongly, suggests that the climate sensitivity of CO2, however defined, is indistinguishable from zero
R Gates,
By your definition, is a mathematician a scientist? I ask because Gavin Schmidt has a PhD in mathematics, not anything which includes the normal scientific process.
Or do you use a “climatological” definition of a scientist?
In your view, would someone such as Isaac Newton qualify as a scientist? How about Benjamin Franklin? Volta? Joule? Lord Kelvin?
I feel constrained to point out that more PhDs have papers retracted for data manipulation, plagiarism, falsification of results and so on, than non PhDs.
Whilst I admire your uncritical worship of those who posses a PhD qualification, I do not share it. A PhD confers no special protection against human foibles and fallibilities, as far as I know.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn
Mike Flynn
The old saw:
BS (we all know that one)
MS (more s…)
PhD (piled higher and deeper)
Max
WHT, Further to your post. Of course Beenstock et al were economists. They used the recently developed statistical techniques designed to look for a signal in economic data, and applied those techniques to global temperatures. The question is, do these techniques apply? The answer to that is a resounding YES. The warmists have tried to find problems with the paper, and failed.
Just more signs the warmists are getting desperate. R. Gates wants an excuse to ignore the science I write, so he persuades himself that a bachelor’s degree in science dose not make me a scientist. You don’t like Beenstock et al, so you cry hypocrisy. The good ship CAGW is sinking.
William McC: Elegantly and eloquently put. The ignorance seems willful. I hope the tabu is from an avoidance mechanism; fear of the devastating consequences of glaciation.
Present succor and relief from that fear is not helpful to succeeding generations. It’s a short term cure, the drug, denial.
=============
Kim. Thank you for the kind complement. On the dessicating bit you might find the following paper of some interest:
http://www.particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf
William McClenney – “It is rare indeed to find any mention at all of what should be a very obvious issue and that is just how long the present interglaciation will last.”
Uncommon, perhaps, but not rare. See this discussion by Berger and Loutre, and references therein.
Yes Biddle, this was and has indeed been well considered. Loutre and Berger published several pieces on the subject of their astronomical modeling, the more oft-cited one being http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818102001868 (paywalled). In each they indicate that their modeling suggested the Holocene had another 50,000 years to run, which would make it the longest interglacial-style warm period in the past 5 million years or so.
Loutre and Berger’s 2003 paper was soon followed by another landmark paper by Lisieki and Raymo (Paleoceanography, 2005), an exhaustive look at 57 globally distributed deep Ocean Drilling Project (and other) cores (Figure 1), which stated:
“Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA community members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with 18O values below 3.6o/oo for 20 kyr, from 398-418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6o/oo for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398-418 ka as from 250-650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.”
Aside from Lisiecki and Raymo’s 2005 conclusions, this might have been obvious since 1978 as regards stagility of the solar system http://www.math.harvard.edu/archive/118r_spring_05/docs/moser.pdf
This was updated recently in Scaffeta 2013 http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/p7n531161076t3p6/?genre=article&id=doi:10.1260/0958-305X.24.3-4.455
I await something with less falsifiable meat on it.
“My question here is what else would one need as a tipping point into the next glacial?”
Or, put another way, How can a glacial inception be predicted?
Biddle | October 17, 2013 at 4:02 pm |
“My question here is what else would one need as a tipping point into the next glacial?”
“Or, put another way, How can a glacial inception be predicted?”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/02/can-we-predict-the-duration-of-an-interglacial/
Yes, this too has been considered……a year ago.
This analysis may also be of some interest:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/
William McClenney said (at WUWT)
We live today possibly near the end of the most recent interglacial, the Holocene, or the 11,715 years since we melted our way out of the last glacial.
Now wouldn’t it be something if, after 11,715 years, the Holocene ends just in time to confuse folks like of Wally Broecker and Jim Hansen.
Ah but life is full of coincidents.
…coincidences.
That looks better.
Shiver me coincidimbers.
===================
GLOBAL warming is Trojan donkey, Trojan skunk more appropriately: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/unavoidable-two-hurdles-to-cross/
Pingback: Risky Business | al fin next level