House of Eratosthenes

As I pointed out over on Professor Mondo’s place, I’m having a problem with my observation of the scientific method being applied to the question of an approaching climate-change cataclysm. I characterized my problem as a “Clark Kent and Superman” problem, by which I mean, I’m seeing these two components but never in the same room at the same time. I see people applying the scientific method to figuring out what’s going on with the climate, and I’m seeing prognostications of doom. But the scientific method and the doomsaying are never in the same room at the same time.

Thought I would explore my thinking more exhaustively over here. There exist, within the universe, simple environments which are “primer cap” in nature and other environments which are more like “heavy pendulum.” The former, should it be warmed to some certain level, could be expected to kick off some kind of chain reaction. Things get a little exciting, then they get really exciting. Such an environment has, to coin a phrase, a “tipping point.” A heavy pendulum, on the other hand, tends toward mediocrity. A force may be applied to it so that it shows an abnormally high or low metric, but this will kick off a different cause-and-effect loop…the conclusion of which will be, that the metric is pressured toward the nominal. And if the force is applied in a strategic effort to create as great an abundance or deficiency in that metric as can possibly be managed, as is the case with the heavy pendulum, greater energy (effort) will be required to register only a little bit of ancillary change.

Example of a heavy-pendulum environment: All massive moving objects. Like your car on a freeway entrance ramp. You’ll need to burn up, approximately, four times as much gasoline to reach ninety miles an hour as you need to burn to reach forty-five. If you run out of gas, the car will eventually reach zero miles an hour.

So a question arises. And it’s not a complicated one, nor is it an open one in this “settled” science. Rather, it is an unaddressed one, for if it were to be addressed, some sacred cows would be slaughtered. What kind of environment is the Earth? If it is a “primer cap” environment, then consider that C much carbon in the atmosphere produces M mean temperature, and C+1 carbon yields a mean of M+1. What happens if the carbon content is C+2, what do we get? M+4, M+5, M+6? Oh noes, we’ve crossed the tipping point! We could cut C all the way to absolute zero, and it’ll be too late. We’re ants under the magnifying glass! Tell your kids you love them, and fry eggs on the sidewalk! Aiiieee!

Balderdash, I say. Not because I claim to second-guess the scientists, but because unlike those who crave drama, I remember physics from the tenth grade. Assuming carbon is the most potent of all greenhouse gases and it is a red herring to consider any of the others, or any external forces acting upon this mean temperature — which is not the case — C+2 would yield something like M+1.414. I say “something like” because my comment is limited to what shape of curve we’re talking about here, not where any of the actual points are upon it. Our ecosystem has many natural devices in it which act to regulate the temperature, and other parts of the climate, toward a norm. It’s not much discussed, but you know what, that’s part of the “settled science” as well.

The big factor involved is water. It is an amazing substance. It weighs a lot, absorbs a fair amount of heat, cleanly boils away at a tepid 212 and freezes solid at a balmy 32. Remember what your beleaguered high school physics teacher was trying to show you…evaporation is a cooling process and condensation is a warming process. Self-regulating. In fact, much of this “greenhouse gas effect,” to which we owe our ability to survive for any length of time in relative comfort, is due to water vapor.

Water is so remarkable, that “devices” incorporating it can be astonishingly simple, almost atomically simple, and still successfully implement this property of self-regulation. A saucepan sitting on your stove has it, if it has water. Actually, if the climate-change doomsaying were to be more universally accepted and we were to reach greater consensus that something must be done — and we were to reach such an agreement on a waterless planet — that would be, by far, the most scientifically credible and effective way to put off the apocalypse: Find a way to saturate it with water. About 68 percent of the surface, or so.

Many among those who continue to cling to the climate-cataclysm religion, base it on selected bits and pieces of this “settled science.” They claim — accurately — that carbon is a greenhouse gas and greenhouse gases affect the climate. They fail to take note of the fact, though, that this by itself does not portend doom…and, to a man, they all stop discussing scientific things and scientific processes at this exact point, wandering into a tall grass of unsubstantiated “ifs,” so they can talk about our upcoming last-days and feel smug & superior.

Their scientific sin is to keep in mind directions of cause-and-effect, while they entirely jettison contemplations of proportion. Using their Tinker Toy brand of “science,” you could “prove” that a mouse fart will make a hurricane smell like stale cheese. Yes, the forces are at work and the directions are all correct, but the situation is all askew when one starts to consider proportions, along with the nature of the environment that is being subjected to the influence.

… the scientific method being applied to the question of an approaching climate-change cataclysm.
Um..does the whole independent reproduction-of-the-data thing go out the window
if the alleged “parameters” and data to be reproduced are kept sealed in a #10 mayonnaise jar underneath Funk & Wagnalls’ porch since noon today.
- CaptDMO | 04/14/2012 @ 20:44
Primer caps?
Atomic detonation igniting the um…entire atmosphere. Now THAT was “science”.
(In a mouse-fart kind of way)
I remember this cool film from grade school with a room full of mousetraps and ping pong balls.
- CaptDMO | 04/14/2012 @ 20:52
the scientific method being applied to the question of an approaching climate-change cataclysm.

An entire Logic 101 course could be written just on the fallacies contained in the typical “climate change” “argument.”

It’s been a while since my college days, but I can find at least five of them in this here post (NOT made by Morgan, I hasten to add, but present in his presentation of a typical “climate change” “argument”). To wit:

They claim — accurately — that carbon is a greenhouse gas and greenhouse gases affect the climate. They fail to take note of the fact, though, that [A] this by itself does not portend doom…and, to a man, they all [B] stop discussing scientific things and scientific processes at this exact point, wandering into a tall grass of [C] unsubstantiated “ifs,” so they can talk about [D] our upcoming last-days and [E] feel smug & superior.

Forgive me if I misremember the names, but I think [A] is an invalid inference. Yes, it’s a greenhouse gas and yes, greenhouse gasses affect climate, but it’s far from a straight-line, one-to-one relationship. A similar analogy would be me arguing that I can commit suicide by chugging a bottle of soy sauce — soy sauce has a truckload of salt, salt affects blood pressure, hypertension causes heart attacks, and so the La Choy company has blood on its hands.

[B] is argument from authority. Repeat after me: The. Science. Is. Settled!!!1!!1!!eleventy!!!

[C] is argument from ignorance. It might well be phlogiston, or luminiforous aether, or the Ghost of Christmas Past causing all these readings.

[D] is a teleological argument, also known as “whig history,” also known in fundamentalist circles as “historicism,” aka the worst thing in the world, because Christians suck. Somehow the argument “the world will end in 2014 because gays can get married” is the height of ignorance and bigotry, but “the world will end in 2014 because frat boys are using underarm deodorant sprays” is — all together now — science!!!!!!!

[E] is what I would call the “enabling fantasy of liberalism” if I were a logician and allowed to name stuff. One might also call it the “stripper-pole fallacy” — though it might make you feel good to believe that Diamond is only private dancing for the money to put herself through med school, and that furthermore she really, really likes you, this is factually suspect. Just because it feels good doesn’t make it true, in other words, in the same way that the moral character of the speaker is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of his propositions (2+2 is still 4 even if Hitler says so; 2+2 is not 5 even if Mother Theresa or Barack Obama says so).

“Climate change” will someday show up in the history books alongside the Dutch Tulip Bulb Craze.
- Severian | 04/15/2012 @ 11:09
This NOAA chart might help clarify matters. It shows data from a variety of sources, including satellite, balloon and ground-based instrumentation.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

In particular, note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming.
- Zachriel | 04/16/2012 @ 06:19
Doesn’t address the problem I’m calling out.
- mkfreeberg | 04/16/2012 @ 07:38
Climate change doesn’t have a tipping point in the sense of runaway global warming. Rather, a doubling of CO2 will cause an increase in surface temperatures of about 1°C. This will result in an increase in atmospheric water vapor. The scientific question is the sensitivity of the climate system to this increased water vapor. Studies point to 2-5°C with 3°C the most likely value.
- Zachriel | 04/16/2012 @ 08:22
The scientific question is the sensitivity of the climate system to this increased water vapor.

Which is effectively abandoned anytime anyone relies on this purely anti-scientific cliche of “the trajectory of climate change…”

Think of the saucepan on the stove, it’s about the simplest analogy I can find that still fits. It’s immediately obvious how nonsensical it would be to measure the temperature change of the water in the first two minutes after it’s been placed on a hot coil, and use that “trajectory” to predict anything. You could easily net an increase of 50 or 60 Fahrenheit…so…what happens if we leave the saucepan on eight to ten minutes? Do we get to compute along a linear trajectory? Of course not. And yet, that is how these alarmists, who claim to be scientific about it, insist we ponder the consequences of global climate change.

If we really do believe a threat to our global environment is imminent, we don’t have loopholes for developing nations. Can’t afford them. The human race has got no place else to go.

And if the concern is over acreage of cultivatable land, we should want more carbon in the atmosphere, not less.

Honest concerned environmentalists shouldn’t care about internationalist authorities being put in charge of greater shares of the world’s produced wealth. And yet, across the decades, ever since Earth Day that has always been the constant and consistent proposal. Truly conscientious and skeptical minds should have some alarm bells rung over just that.
- mkfreeberg | 04/16/2012 @ 08:43
mkfreeberg: Which is effectively abandoned anytime anyone relies on this purely anti-scientific cliche of “the trajectory of climate change…”

The science of climate change is not based on a naïve extrapolation, but causative models.

mkfreeberg: If we really do believe a threat to our global environment is imminent, we don’t have loopholes for developing nations. Can’t afford them. The human race has got no place else to go.

Each has an individual economic incentive to burn carbon, but it leads to catastrophe for everyone. It’s a tragedy of the commons. Specifically, developing nations believe they have the right to burn as much carbon as the West has burned on their road to industrialization.

mkfreeberg: And if the concern is over acreage of cultivatable land, we should want more carbon in the atmosphere, not less.

Rising sea levels and increased storm energy will lead to inundation and salinization of coastal lands that are home to a large portion of humanity, and produce much of their food.
- Zachriel | 04/16/2012 @ 08:56
The science of climate change is not based on a naïve extrapolation, but causative models.

The so-called “awareness” of it is based on exactly the naive extrapolation I have identified here.
- mkfreeberg | 04/16/2012 @ 09:10
Atomic detonation igniting the um…entire atmosphere.

You laugh, but there were a number of scientists who thought that this was one possible outcome of above ground nuclear tests back during the Manhattan Project. Turns out that they were -thankfully- incorrect, but that doesn’t mean the idea should be mocked. The proper application of scientific theory includes the step where you revise or discard your theory when experimental evidence shows you to be wrong. Sadly, the AGW alarmists seem to skip over this step. Every. Single. Time.
- Physics Geek | 04/16/2012 @ 09:27
I love how –right on cue– this Zachriel fellow shows up to prove my point.

My point was NOT to assert “the world is not getting hotter.” Rather, I sought to demonstrate that AGW alarmists use the (debatable) proposition “the world is getting hotter” to argue for…. all sorts of things, none of which is in the least scientific.

To see how specious these “arguments” are, just flip the politics.

For instance, I can show you data from a variety of sources, including satellite, balloon and ground-based instrumentation that Iran is developing nuclear weapons — indeed, these are the *signature* of nuclear-weapon development. From this, I conclude that we must launch a preemptive strike on Tehran. Indeed, I do so on environmental grounds — huge fallout clouds over the remains of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beersheba, etc. must have adverse effects on Mother Gaia, and the spike in oil prices that will inevitably result from a full-on Middle East war will have the side-beneficial effects of forcing more of us gas-guzzling Americans onto public transport, raising taxes to fund projects like Solyndra, etc.

In other words: Global political prescriptions based on one (debatable, for those Iranian nuclear sites might be as peaceful as the regime claims, no?) data set are NOT “science” in any commonly-accepted use of the term. They are, as I’ve pointed out, the worst kind of strawman fallacies … as should be obvious to anyone capable of truly scientific thinking.
- Severian | 04/16/2012 @ 16:22
Oooo…far from mocking. Just a little BAM…kick it up a notch, in terms of simile.
Even with that whole self-supporting oxygen, nitrogen, and C/CO/CO2 abundant in the atmosphere being virtually unextinguishable if unintentionally ignited, perhaps
under a college sports stadium wasn’t the best place for hey fellas….watch THIS.

But the relative sureity of the primer cap resulting in a relatively limited
(on MY blackboard) big bang example is up there with Dr. Evil threatening to send an atomic bomb at the sun unless he got …..”a MILLion dollars”. (What’s the emoticon for that twisting pinky bit?) ()-= ?

Here’s a thought. Anyone looked at the effect of fairly thick cloud of really shiny space garbage belting the planet like an atomic isotope’s electron shell? Just add enough energy (um… photons) for a (simile)quantum leap!
Fairly implausable I suspect. But, like personal vs. “world” economics, and “intellectual” socio-philosophy vs. The Brothers Grimm, it’s all about simply moving the decimal point to me.
- CaptDMO | 04/16/2012 @ 16:23
mkfreeberg: The so-called “awareness” of it is based on exactly the naive extrapolation I have identified here.

Do you mean popular awareness? Your original post was about whether there was sufficient damping or whether there would be runaway warming. The current science indicates that there will be no runaway effect, however, there will be significant warming with a strong flywheel effect.

Physics Geek: You laugh, but there were a number of scientists who thought that this was one possible outcome of above ground nuclear tests back during the Manhattan Project.

The possibility was considered and rejected as extremely improbable.

Physics Geek: My point was NOT to assert “the world is not getting hotter.”

Not only is the Earth’s surface warming, but the science indicates that the warming is largely due to anthropogenic changes to the atmosphere, and is therefore largely preventable.

Physics Geek: For instance, I can show you data from a variety of sources, including satellite, balloon and ground-based instrumentation that Iran is developing nuclear weapons — indeed, these are the *signature* of nuclear-weapon development.

The signature of a warming lower tropospheric and surface accompanied by a cooling stratosphere is a strong indicator of greenhouse warming, as opposed to other sources of warming, such as changes in solar irradiance or natural variations.
- Zachriel | 04/16/2012 @ 17:19
Your original post was about whether there was sufficient damping or whether there would be runaway warming.

My original post was about the Clark Kent Superman effect, as in, two components never being in the same place at the same time…namely, pondering the worst-case consequences, and scientific rigor. As the above conversation illustrates vividly, this continues to be a problem.

Want to discuss the insulatory effects of carbon dioxide? The alarmists will be all too happy to adhere to old-fashioned Francis Bacon scientific discipline. Anything beyond that? It’s all rhetoric and showmanship and a bunch of “the scientists say.”

Flywheel effect? You mean momentum? That’s precisely my point; temperature doesn’t work that way.
- mkfreeberg | 04/16/2012 @ 17:56
The signature of a warming lower tropospheric and surface accompanied by a cooling stratosphere is a strong indicator of greenhouse warming, as opposed to other sources of warming, such as changes in solar irradiance or natural variations.

See, this is why liberals “win” “arguments” — they’re ready, willing, and able to devote soooooo much more time and effort to missing the point than we are.

Let’s stipulate, for the sake of argument, that the bolded stuff up there is true, every blessed word. Let’s even say that — all together now — The ! Science! Is! Settled!!!

This STILL does not prove that:

a) we can do anything at all to repair the damage;
b) the current solutions proposed by leftists will repair said damage;
c) those solutions, even if true, can repair the damage if undertaken only by Western democracies (leaving China, the world’s #1 polluter, unchanged, etc); and / or
d) we have the moral/ethical obligation to undertake those remedies.

Indeed, I could argue that, given the bolded assertion above and using the “logic” of the AGW alarmists, we’re obligated to detonate a nuke in Chinese airspace. After all, China is a bigger polluter than we are, has no intention of signing the Kyoto Protocols, and is in fact increasing its industrial footprint as fast as it can. It’ll be ugly, sure, but the resulting EMP blast will stop Chinese industrial production in its tracks, giving Mother Gaia some much-needed time to recover….

Lest anyone be tempted to miss the point yet again — and if my ridiculously over-the-top satire weren’t enough to convey this — “science,” properly understood, cannot be used to make moral / ethical / political prescriptions, because it deals with phenomena too large and complex to be boiled down to simple, point-to-point programs.
- Severian | 04/16/2012 @ 18:30
In particular, note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming.
Zachriel

Except that this is not happening or cannot be shown to be happening. Indeed, the more actual information we have the less AGW looks like science and the more it looks like pantheism – a really perverted and goofy form pantheism at that. For a better explanation of the scientific lapses of the Warmist than I could ever give please see the link below:

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/18269

- Fai.Mao | 04/17/2012 @ 01:26
mkfreeberg: My original post was about the Clark Kent Superman effect, as in, two components never being in the same place at the same time…namely, pondering the worst-case consequences, and scientific rigor.

Yes, but to discuss the effects of climate change, you have to understand how scientists have arrived at the conclusion that the Earth’s surface is warming. The effects of warming are a subject of intensive scientific study, as well.

mkfreeberg: Want to discuss the insulatory effects of carbon dioxide? The alarmists will be all too happy to adhere to old-fashioned Francis Bacon scientific discipline. Anything beyond that? It’s all rhetoric and showmanship and a bunch of “the scientists say.”

There is substantial and recent literature on climate sensitivity. And there are a variety of different methods that have reached similar conclusions.

Volcanic forcing
Wigley et al., Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research 2005.

Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
Forster & Gregory, The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data, Journal of Climate 2006.

Paleoclimatic constraints
Schmittner et al., Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science 2011.

Bayesian probability
Annan & Hargreaves, On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity, Climate Change 2008.

Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s
temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.

mkfreeberg: Flywheel effect? You mean momentum?

The flywheel is primarily due to the time it takes to modify human industrial infrastructure while accommodating growth. (There is also a latent greenhouse effect being covered by high particulate emissions in the developing world.)
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futuretc.html
- Zachriel | 04/17/2012 @ 04:43
Severian: Let’s stipulate, for the sake of argument, that the bolded stuff up there is true, every blessed word. Let’s even say that — all together now — The ! Science! Is! Settled!!!

Okay.

Severian: This STILL does not prove that:
a) we can do anything at all to repair the damage;

As warming is due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, the damage can certainly be minimized by reducing the emission of those gases.

Severian: b) the current solutions proposed by leftists will repair said damage;

Well, you would have to be specific, but the most direct solution would be to internalize the externality of atmospheric carbon production.

Severian: c) those solutions, even if true, can repair the damage if undertaken only by Western democracies (leaving China, the world’s #1 polluter, unchanged, etc);

China’s per capita emissions are still much less than the U.S.
http://forum.eastwestcenter.org/files/2008/05/toufiqpresslideapr2008_450p.jpg

China has only emitted a fraction of what Western countries have up until now.
http://photos.mongabay.com/09/historical_emissions.jpg
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/co2-emissions-historical

Yet, it’s the tragedy of the commons. At some point, China will also have to control their carbon emissions. Reaching such an agreement will be difficult. Their position is that they have a right to emit as much as Western nations have in their own process of industrialization, and should be measured in per capita terms.

Severian: d) we have the moral/ethical obligation to undertake those remedies.

You are welcome to your own morality, but most people believe that causing avoidable human suffering and loss of humanity’s natural inheritance should be avoided.

Severian: After all, China is a bigger polluter than we are,

As already mentioned, China emits far less per capita than the U.S.

Severian: Lest anyone be tempted to miss the point yet again — and if my ridiculously over-the-top satire weren’t enough to convey this — “science,” properly understood, cannot be used to make moral / ethical / political prescriptions, because it deals with phenomena too large and complex to be boiled down to simple, point-to-point programs.

Science doesn’t make moral prescriptions. However, as humans are warming the globe, and this warming will cause disruption of agriculture, inundation and salinization of arable lands, increased desertification, mass extinction, human migration with its attendant political destablization, and as this is avoidable, most people would combine these scientific findings with their personal morality to try and find solutions, especially as those solutions are readily available, and have many other salubrious effects. But that’s just ourselves. We happen to be rather fond of the little apes you call humans. Call it a peccadillo.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2012 @ 05:04
Zachriel: In particular, note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming.

Fai.Mao: Except that this is not happening or cannot be shown to be happening.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
- Zachriel | 04/17/2012 @ 05:06
Note to moderator: we have a comment in the moderation queue.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2012 @ 05:06
As already mentioned, China emits far less per capita than the U.S.

Irrelevant.

Unless, that is, the objective of the discussion is different from what we’ve been led to believe…are we trying to figure out which nationality of people is morally superior?

I note that many of the solutions proposed are consistent with this. Developed nations must be stopped from doing this-or-that, developing nations can go right on ahead…
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2012 @ 06:36
However, as humans are a) warming the globe, and b) this warming will cause disruption of agriculture, c) inundation and salinization of arable lands, d) increased desertification, e) mass extinction, f) human migration with g) its attendant political destablization, and as h) this is avoidable, most people would combine these scientific findings with i) their personal morality to try and find solutions, especially as those solutions are j) readily available, and have many other salubrious effects. But that’s just ourselves. k) We happen to be rather fond of the little apes l) you call humans. Call it a peccadillo.

So, let’s see… let me count…. carry the one….. ok: 7 arguments by assertion / instances of question-begging (a-h), one unsupported assertion of moral authority (i), another begged question (j), another snotty assertion of moral superiority (k), followed by (l) an interesting zoological non sequitur (yes, I call humans humans; what do you call them?).

The POINT, comrade — which you continue to devote an amazing amount of sophistry to missing — is that even if we grant a), b-g do NOT follow (if anything, the reverse seems to happen, unless you count the dramatic population growth and attendant cultural flourishing of the Medieval Warm Period as tragedies…. which, with your loudly-trumpeted fondness for “little apes,” I’d have to assume you don’t). H certainly does not follow — it is not at all apparent that the “damage” is reversible by political or technological means — and neither does J), as it is logically linked with the unprovable assertion at H.

To make it even simpler: Even if we granted ALL of your “scientific” assertions, the “solutions” you claim are so obvious and readily available are all necessarily POLITICAL. You are claiming that “science” requires us to do X, Y, and Z, all of which can only be achieved by the massive intervention of nearly limitless state power. THIS is what most of us object to about AGW hysteria — our “personal morality,” combined with our fondness for real, actual human beings (not abstract “little apes”), balk at the idea of making James Hanson the de facto dictator of the world — which, when it’s all said and done, is what you claim “science” logically requires.

Which leaves only those snotty, unsupported assertions of moral superiority… which, one suspects, were and remain the entire point of the exercise all along.
- Severian | 04/17/2012 @ 07:29
Zachriel: As already mentioned, China emits far less per capita than the U.S.

mkfreeberg: Irrelevant.

Of course it’s relevant to any policy discussion.

mkfreeberg: Unless, that is, the objective of the discussion is different from what we’ve been led to believe…are we trying to figure out which nationality of people is morally superior?

Huh? Assuming each person is equally entitle to a fair share of shared resources, then per capita is the correct measure.

mkfreeberg: I note that many of the solutions proposed are consistent with this. Developed nations must be stopped from doing this-or-that, developing nations can go right on ahead…

As we also mentioned, developing nations will have to learn to control their emissions too. Ignoring the legitimate concerns of each nation will never lead to joint agreement. The obvious solution is for the developed nations to develop and export new technologies to the developing world. And that is what is going to happen. However, the longer the delay, the more expensive the solutions, and the more damage done to the environment.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2012 @ 07:37
Huh? Assuming each person is equally entitle to a fair share of shared resources, then per capita is the correct measure.

Read back. The context was Severian’s deliberately ludicrous solution: “we’re obligated to detonate a nuke in Chinese airspace.” Were this to be carried out, you’ll agree with me, I’m sure, that per capita wouldn’t have a lot to do with anything.

But I hope the conversation examines this connection next, it’s interested me for a long time: The watermelon movement. Green on the outside, red on the inside. Enviros say the environment is pristine and wonderful until such time as you add the pestilence that is these “little apes” and then it’s spoiled…we, evidently, are not part of nature. That’s an enigma all by itself. But then the commies come along and say, everyone gets an equal portion of the resources. One says there is an untenable ripple in the moral pond if people consume unequally, the other says that’s the case if there’s any consumption at all because the species is undeserving of it.

Somehow…these two sides gel together rather nicely…which doesn’t seem natural, to me. You’ve let it slip before that “Zachriel” is not an actual individual, but a conglomeration of people…maybe the explanation is there, somewhere, some among you are reddies and some among you are greenies. Any other secrets involved in getting everyone to get along and play nice, when they clearly feel superior to others who don’t believe the things they do, and they themselves don’t believe in the same things?
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2012 @ 08:13
mkfreeberg: Were this to be carried out, you’ll agree with me, I’m sure, that per capita wouldn’t have a lot to do with anything.

Sorry, but your point is still unclear. The nuclear udicrous for all sorts of reasons. But China’s per capita emissions are far less than in the U.S., and their historical contribution even more so.

mkfreeberg: Enviros say the environment is pristine and wonderful until such time as you add the pestilence that is these “little apes” and then it’s spoiled…

Gross overgeneralization. The vast majority of environmentalists are environmentalists because they care about humanity and future generations.

mkfreeberg: we, evidently, are not part of nature.

By definition, industrial emissions are artificial.

The balance of your comment is incoherent.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2012 @ 09:47
The balance of your comment is incoherent.

Try reading with a little bit of retention of conceptual content across time…not much time. But you seem to be having some trouble with this and, frankly, it’s not a little bit of trouble you’re having — I’m not much bothered when you decree that my comments are hard to understand, given the other things you can’t understand. Severian said, taking the AGW argument seriously, defining morality according to science produces problems because it produces a dictum that we have a moral obligation to bomb China, which emits more than the United States does. You pointed out that on a per capita basis, they don’t, and then I correctly noted that in the context this is entirely irrelevant.

In fact, you’ve been making a rather regular habit out of this catch-all tactic you’ve got: “I can’t understand what you’re saying, so I win.” Destructive pursuits are a natural refuge for people who cannot understand complex things…takes less comprehension effort & finesse to destroy, than it does to build…so if your intent is to paint a picture of the kind of people sympathetic with the global warming political movement, the picture you’re painting is one of simple-minded, destructive people. This would appear to be at odds with what you’re trying to show, judging from your comments.

But a truly creative type isn’t given to passing final judgment on ideas that are not fully understood. Creative types can’t afford to do this. That’s why people like me, continue to labor to understand what’s going on, and people like you continue to find excuses to dismiss whoever doesn’t agree with them about everything.

Now then, to my question. How do you reconcile people who think all humans are entitled to an equal share of the resources, no more no less, with others who would strenuously deny that the “little apes” are entitled to anything at all?
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2012 @ 09:59
Ok, let’s try this one more time:

For the purposes of argument, I’m willing to grant that:

A) the earth is warming;
B) human industrial output is the sole cause of this warming;
C) this warming is an unqualified evil;
D) there are obvious solutions to the problem, agreed upon by all competent persons, that
E) will solve this problem if implemented.

Given all that, Zachriel, please answer the following:

1) Who will implement these solutions?
2) On what authority?
3) What happens when those solutions come into conflict with basic individual freedoms?

Please note that “the solutions won’t come into conflict with basic individual freedoms” is invalid, because that’s not how we little apes operate. There are individuals (biker gangs, say) who will refuse to obey out of sheer cussedness — when two-gallon-per-flush toilets are outlawed, only outlaws will flush. Ditto for several large, important collectives — pretty much every professor I had in college, for instance, would express serious reservations about a bunch of rich, white first-worlders telling a bunch of poor, brown third-worlders what to do for their own good… you know, cultural imperialism and all that. And, of course, there are several nations that won’t comply just to stick it in America’s eye (China almost certainly among them).

So what do we do then? Sounds to me like we’re back to nuking Beijing for Gaia’s sake…..
- Severian | 04/17/2012 @ 10:10
mkfreeberg: Severian said, taking the AGW argument seriously, defining morality according to science produces problems because it produces a dictum that we have a moral obligation to bomb China, which emits more than the United States does.

And we addressed that point. Science does not determine morality, but informs it. In this case, we balance the desire of people for a better life, and the costs associated with climate change, and responses to climate change.

mkfreeberg: You pointed out that on a per capita basis, they don’t, and then I correctly noted that in the context this is entirely irrelevant.

Of course it’s relevant to the vast majority of people. It’s not a scientific question, but whether or not you believe people have inherent worth. If you reject that moral precept, then sure, start a nuclear war. But it has nothing to do with global warming.

mkfreeberg: Destructive pursuits are a natural refuge for people who cannot understand complex thing {snip balance of personal comments}

–

mkfreeberg: How do you reconcile people who think all humans are entitled to an equal share of the resources, no more no less, with others who would strenuously deny that the “little apes” are entitled to anything at all?

Most people share common beliefs on morality, but as with most political contentions, people have to determine that it is in their own best, long term self-interest to cooperate. This is commonly studied in game theory. Should you cooperate or cheat? Why shouldn’t a great power simply take from the weak? Once upon a time, that was the norm. Today, most countries have discovered that peaceful cooperation with their neighbors results in the greatest long term benefit. But such cooperation is not a given, and will require a great deal of work and compromise.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2012 @ 10:14
mkfreeberg: For the purposes of argument, I’m willing to grant that:

A) the earth is warming;
B) human industrial output is the sole cause of this warming;
C) this warming is an unqualified evil;
D) there are obvious solutions to the problem, agreed upon by all competent persons, that
E) will solve this problem if implemented.

The Earth is warming. Human industrial output is an important cause. Warming will have winners and losers, at least in the short term. General outlines of the solutions are known, but not every specific. While new technologies may be required, most of them are already near development.

mkfreeberg: 1) Who will implement these solutions?

Nations.

mkfreeberg: 2) On what authority?

According to treaty. The U.S. Constitution, for instance, has provisions for making treaties.

mkfreeberg: 3) What happens when those solutions come into conflict with basic individual freedoms?

As the solutions are technical and economic, they shouldn’t come into conflict with individual freedoms, of speech, petition, religion; unless you don’t think people should be forced to stop when the light turns red. For instance, a simple solution would be to internalize externalities, that is, to put a price on carbon emissions.

mkfreeberg: And, of course, there are several nations that won’t comply just to stick it in America’s eye (China almost certainly among them). So what do we do then?

That’s the crux of the matter. China certainly will have to be part of any solution, and while they are quite aware of the problems of climate change, they also have to provide a better life for more than a billion people. It is quite possible that no political solution is possible in the short run, but it is likely, as the problem becomes more and more evident, that nations will begin to work towards agreements that are in their own long term self-interest. Again, as with all political dialogues, you have to recognize the concerns of your negotiating partners to find agreeable steps forward.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2012 @ 10:35
Sorry, the last comment should have been directed at Severian.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2012 @ 10:36
China certainly will have to be part of any solution, and while they are quite aware of the problems of climate change, they also have to provide a better life for more than a billion people. It is quite possible that no political solution is possible in the short run, but it is likely, as the problem becomes more and more evident, that nations will begin to work towards agreements that are in their own long term self-interest.

So in other words, China can do as it pleases “in the short run,” since they ” have to provide a better life for more than a billion people.” Then:

1) Why does only China get to do this? What about all the poor and underprivileged right here in the good ol’ U.S. of A.? Surely those forced to endure the hell of America’s inner cities should get some kind of carbon emissions credit or something, no? If not, why not?

2) If “nations will begin to work towards agreements that are in their own long term self-interest” once the problem gets bad enough, what are we arguing about? Why not let both China and the United States pollute as much as they want “in the short run”? That would be both more efficient and more socially just, since both Chinese kids and inner-city kids would get to pollute their way to a better life. Unless you don’t actually care all that much about the plight of inner-city youth….. 🙂

As the solutions are technical and economic, they shouldn’t come into conflict with individual freedoms, of speech, petition, religion; unless you don’t think people should be forced to stop when the light turns red.

And see, that right there is the real “crux” of the problem. For while I am perfectly willing to take a three-flush dump by candlelight in order to save precious resources– anything for Gaia! — I’m not so sure my Chinese counterpart is. If I run a red light in San Francisco, the cop gives me a ticket; how do I know they roll the same way in Shanghai? More to the point, what happens if we find out they don’t hand out tickets, or that People’s Victory Coal Refinery #7 isn’t paying its fair share of the internalized externalities? Treaties have an enforcement mechanism; it’s baked right into the definition of the word “treaty.” If China abrogates its treaty responsibilities — which, as you note, it almost has to, since it has to provide (your words) a better life for those 1 billion folks… well, what then? Do we send them a bitchy note? Click “don’t like” a billion times on their Facebook page? Hit ’em with some vicious down-twinkles?

Looks like we’re back to the nukes…..
- Severian | 04/17/2012 @ 11:10
[PS: they shouldn’t come into conflict with individual freedoms, of speech, petition, religion; Those are the only freedoms you can think of, champ? Seems to me there are a few pretty crucial amendments missing there….]
- Severian | 04/17/2012 @ 11:13
Severian: 1) Why does only China get to do this?

Because they haven’t agreed to do otherwise. Not sure your point.

Severian: What about all the poor and underprivileged right here in the good ol’ U.S. of A.? Surely those forced to endure the hell of America’s inner cities should get some kind of carbon emissions credit or something, no? If not, why not?

There’s simply not enough information to respond. Let’s assume there is a tax on carbon. The U.S. could, at its option, provide fuel subsidies for the poor, as they already do.

Severian: 2) If “nations will begin to work towards agreements that are in their own long term self-interest” once the problem gets bad enough, what are we arguing about?

Have no idea your point. Of note, though, the sooner people address the problem, the cheaper the transition and the less the damage to the environment.

Severian: Why not let both China and the United States pollute as much as they want “in the short run”?

The accumulation of carbon currently in the atmosphere is primarily from the U.S. and other industrialized countries, not China. China is emitting much less than the U.S. per capita.
However, all countries need to begin making the transition as soon as practical.

Severian: For while I am perfectly willing to take a three-flush dump by candlelight in order to save precious resources– anything for Gaia! — I’m not so sure my Chinese counterpart is.

That’s called the tragedy of the commons. Individuals gain a short term advantage by cheating. This means that any voluntary individual action is doomed to fail. It will require binding agreements.

Severian: If China abrogates its treaty responsibilities — which, as you note, it almost has to, since it has to provide (your words) a better life for those 1 billion folks… well, what then?

The U.S. already has binding treaties with China, including with the WTO. Those who want to profit from international trade have to abide by those agreements. It’s because they would have to conform that China has so far resisted signing on to climate treaties. When they do, they will have to begin to take actions necessary to meet their obligations.

Severian: Those are the only freedoms you can think of, champ? Seems to me there are a few pretty crucial amendments missing there….

Do you mean the U.S. Bill of Rights? It’s pretty clear the list wasn’t meant to be exhaustive. You may want to be more specific.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2012 @ 11:41
Zachriel,

I’m seeing from you a highly cumulative repetition, resulting in vast quantity, of not much material. It seems to all boil down to:

1. Cherry-picking of the “science” paying attention only to the studies that say the earth is warming lately, ignoring the studies that say it is not, including Phil Jones’ famous confession that there’s been no significant warming for fifteen years;
2. The weird creepy thing lefties do when they start waxing lyrically about what’s going to happen, with regard to these treaties, as if it’s already happened;
3. Lots of impractical and impertinent reminders that carbon acts as a greenhouse gas…leaving unmentioned the many other agents in our atmosphere that also act as greenhouse gases;
4. “Tragedy of the commons” makes it necessary that we lose our freedoms to act as individuals;
5. And my personal favorite, the “I don’t understand what you just said so I win” argument that proggies use when they’re cornered.

Frankly, you haven’t done anything to address my original point, which is that as soon as the global warming alarmists start talking about truly dire consequences, they stop being scientific, even superficially. If anything, you’ve provided support for what I said. Hope that’s coherent.

By the way, China is a bigger carbon polluter than the United States, as of 2008 and their emissions are growing at a much faster clip; 23% of the global total as opposed to 18%.

I’m really not sure why you think “per capita” is the only reasonable way to read this, or why it’s reasonable at all…you say everyone’s supposed to have the same share of the resources, and I’m not clear on how you got there. I would expect the kilowatts-per-hour-per-capita reading to be much higher in a residential district close to a thriving metropolis, like a low-rent urban setting on the outskirts of downtown, compared to in a rural setting where neighbors are spaced the better part of a mile apart. Wouldn’t you? Shouldn’t countries be expected to work the same way, if some are producing goods for export and others are not?
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2012 @ 12:15
mkfreeberg: 1. Cherry-picking of the “science” paying attention only to the studies that say the earth is warming lately, ignoring the studies that say it is not, including Phil Jones’ famous confession that there’s been no significant warming for fifteen years;

You complain of cherry-picking, but while we provided studies, you provide an out-of-context quote.

mkfreeberg: 2. The weird creepy thing lefties do when they start waxing lyrically about what’s going to happen, with regard to these treaties, as if it’s already happened;

Huh? There is no global carbon treaty. We were asked about possible policy implications of climate change.

mkfreeberg: 3. Lots of impractical and impertinent reminders that carbon acts as a greenhouse gas…leaving unmentioned the many other agents in our atmosphere that also act as greenhouse gases;

As we discussed above, the issue is climate sensitivity, which is primarily due to water vapor.

mkfreeberg: 4. “Tragedy of the commons” makes it necessary that we lose our freedoms to act as individuals;

Who said that? Indeed, we said just the opposite.

mkfreeberg: 5. And my personal favorite, the “I don’t understand what you just said so I win” argument that proggies use when they’re cornered.

When we point out that your arguments are incoherent, you might take that as an invitation to clarify your remarks.

mkfreeberg: Frankly, you haven’t done anything to address my original point, which is that as soon as the global warming alarmists start talking about truly dire consequences, they stop being scientific, even superficially.

Your comment refers to disembodied “alarmists”; however, there is substantial scientific literature on the effects of climate change. These studies are often cross-discipline, everything from forestry to epidemiological.

mkfreeberg: By the way, China is a bigger carbon polluter than the United States, as of 2008 and their emissions are growing at a much faster clip; 23% of the global total as opposed to 18%.

Yes, but produce much less per capita, and their total historical emissions are still far less then that of developed countries. The growth is alarming, though.

mkfreeberg: I’m really not sure why you think “per capita” is the only reasonable way to read this, or why it’s reasonable at all…you say everyone’s supposed to have the same share of the resources, and I’m not clear on how you got there.

Ah, the Chinese are only worth 3/5 of an American. Why should they be limited to less in terms of accumulated carbon wealth than Americans? Why should the Chinese pay for the excesses of wealthy nations? But whether you agree or not, that is the concern that most influences their position on limiting carbon emissions. To reach an agreement requires understanding that concern and finding some balance. Fortunately, conserving resources, more efficient use of energy, and other aspects of limiting anthropogenic climate change are simply good long term policy. The West can help in the development of this technology, which they can then export to developing nations. America can lead—if it chooses to—or follow.

mkfreeberg: I would expect the kilowatts-per-hour-per-capita reading to be much higher in a residential district close to a thriving metropolis, like a low-rent urban setting on the outskirts of downtown, compared to in a rural setting where neighbors are spaced the better part of a mile apart. Wouldn’t you? Shouldn’t countries be expected to work the same way, if some are producing goods for export and others are not?

Actually, urban dwellers generally expend less energy per capita for a given level of personal prosperity (though rural dwellers often have lower levels of prosperity). Another measure is energy per unit of GDP, and the U.S. does very well by this measure. But remember, it has to scale up to 7 billion people to be a viable long term plan.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2012 @ 12:53
And so, again:

1) you “don’t understand” fairly simple, straightforward points, expressed in clear English. I’m noticing a trend here….

2) According to you, China won’t sign binding climate treaties because those would force it to change its industrial practices. But someday they will sign those binding treaties — and abide by them! — as soon as their current practices force them to via the horrors of climate change. In other words, China can continue to pollute as much as it wants to, so long as it’s making a profit from pollution (and doesn’t sign the Kyoto Protocol).

You know what? This is exactly what I want the United States to do! I never thought I’d say this, but it appears you and I are on the exact same page — I want us to pollute the everloving bejaysus out of the world until it ceases to be profitable, and then sign up for Kyoto. Glad we’re finally seeing eye-to-eye.

[2a — of course, this would require the United States to actually sign on to the Kyoto Protocols, which, you know, it hasn’t. Which means — again, using your very own words — that the US is under no obligation to stop polluting either. Who knew we were of such like minds? 🙂 ]

3) I do admire your touching faith in the power of “binding agreements.” For instance, here: “When they [China] do [sign on to Kyoto], they will have to begin to take actions necessary to meet their obligations.” Brings a tear to my eye, it does, since we know that a sovereign nation would never go back on a treaty. Which is why there hasn’t been a war since 1928 — I mean, Hitler did want to invade Czechoslovakia, but the Kellogg-Briand Pact was a binding agreement. A Binding. Agreement. And since the entire Bush clan are worse than Hitler, I shudder to think what might happen to the US’s climate-treaty obligations should another one of them ever win the presidency.

But wait….

4) Individuals gain a short term advantage by cheating. This means that any voluntary individual action is doomed to fail. It will require binding agreements. Now I’m beginning to see it. If voluntary individual action fails by definition, I guess the only effective thing would be…. coerced collective action. Your inner Kommissar is showing, comrade.

5) All of which circles back to the question I posed before: How does one enforce a binding agreement? In other words, how do you make a “binding agreement” truly binding? And since I’ve been perhaps unduly harsh on the Chinese of late, let’s flip the script: It’s 2013, and President Romney has signed us up for one of these climate change treaties. But since he’s an eeeeevil Republican, he’s going to direct the EPA to look the other way when it comes to PolluteCo, in which he has a large silent interest. The People’s Minister of Binding Agreement Compliance suspects this, and asks the US to open PolluteCo’s books. Romney, being an eeevil Republican (and a silent partner of PolluteCo), refuses. What’s a noble, virtuous Politburo member to do? Even if Romney eventually caves and lets the Minister get a look at PolluteCo’s books, can he trust them? I mean, any party capable of lying us into war with that WMD business can surely fudge a few EPA compliance statements, amirite?

Nukes. It’s the only way to be sure.
- Severian | 04/17/2012 @ 13:05
When we point out that your arguments are incoherent, you might take that as an invitation to clarify your remarks.

I don’t. You would probably be surprised, at least most of you would, how little it comes across that way. Looks much more like a simple evasiveness tactic. In fact, it looks a whole lot like that; I don’t spend a good deal of time wondering about it.

(The weird creepy thing lefties do when they start waxing lyrically about what’s going to happen, with regard to these treaties, as if it’s already happened;)

Huh? There is no global carbon treaty. We were asked about possible policy implications of climate change.

How do I put this as coherently as possible. I know: You rely overly much on the process-of-elimination method, and once you embark on that road you’re much too free and easy with eliminating the other possibilities, which means the possibility you end up selecting as a certainty is anything-but. But that much is just a simple logical error. The thing that really discredits your conclusions is that, from your continued loquaciousness on the subject, it seems you’re entirely oblivious to the error you’ve made, and now you’re filing something away as a “definite” or a “certain” or a “proven” when, in reality, it isn’t even a “probable.”

…developing nations will have to learn to control their emissions too. Ignoring the legitimate concerns of each nation will never lead to joint agreement. The obvious solution is for the developed nations to develop and export new technologies to the developing world. And that is what is going to happen. However, the longer the delay, the more expensive the solutions, and the more damage done to the environment.

That’s just one paragraph I picked at random, and it’s chock-full-silly of examples because you don’t know any of this.
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2012 @ 14:00
Severian: 2) According to you, China won’t sign binding climate treaties because those would force it to change its industrial practices.

Most countries have the same problem; political pressures for short term profits from industry and commerce overwhelm the abstract and far off prospect of climate change.

Severian: This is exactly what I want the United States to do! I never thought I’d say this, but it appears you and I are on the exact same page — I want us to pollute the everloving bejaysus out of the world until it ceases to be profitable, and then sign up for Kyoto.

Not sure why you would want to “pollute the everloving bejaysus out of your world”. You may very well succeed, but it is not foreordained.

Severian: Now I’m beginning to see it. If voluntary individual action fails by definition, I guess the only effective thing would be…. coerced collective action.

Nations voluntarily enter into treaties all the time. Some of those treaties are global in scope.

Severian: NowHow does one enforce a binding agreement?

The same way all treaties are enforced, through mechanisms of verification and accountability. For instance, if China wants to sell their products to the U.S., they have to abide by their treaty obligations. There are all sorts of treaties that regulate international matters. Of course there’s cheating, just like some people run red lights. But that doesn’t mean laws concerning traffic lights are without any effectiveness at all.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2012 @ 16:39
Zachriel: …developing nations will have to learn to control their emissions too. Ignoring the legitimate concerns of each nation will never lead to joint agreement. The obvious solution is for the developed nations to develop and export new technologies to the developing world. And that is what is going to happen. However, the longer the delay, the more expensive the solutions, and the more damage done to the environment.

mkfreeberg: That’s just one paragraph I picked at random, and it’s chock-full-silly of examples because you don’t know any of this.

Handwaving is not an argument.

Zachriel: … developing nations will have to learn to control their emissions too.

If humans are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

Zachriel: Ignoring the legitimate concerns of each nation will never lead to joint agreement.

Basic political science.

Zachriel: The obvious solution is for the developed nations to develop and export new technologies to the developing world.

The developed nations have the economic and scientific infrastructure for creating new technologies. Those nations that develop green technology will have a competitive advantage.

Zachriel: However, the longer the delay, the more expensive the solutions, and the more damage done to the environment.

The damage to the environment is a direct result of global warming. For instance, oceans will rise due to the expansion of water. The cost of the solutions will increase due to the damage: more people will be dislocated, more arable land will be lost, and more carbon will remain in the atmosphere. Also, a lot of countries will have invested in ‘last year’s’ technology, and will be faced with upgrading much of their infrastructure.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2012 @ 16:55
Handwaving is not an argument.

It’s meant to be something less than an argument…more like an observation. And, it’s something more than hand-waving. Call it a thoughtful observation.

Specifically, the concrete knowledge that supports the things you have to say, is thin, whereas the certainty with which you proffer these notions, is thick. Knowledge-to-certainty ratio is very, very low. It’s got to do with humility. Maybe it’s because you’re actually a multitude, but the lack of humility you show is pretty dazzling.

Historically, that is a sign of extraordinarily great expertise, or extraordinarily threadbare experience. The expert and the inexperienced both have been known to show this lack of curiosity. I’m inclined to think it’s the latter…lack of experience. Everything’s gonna go exactly the way you say it will, there’s no point even wondering about it — until it happens, and things do indeed go differently, and then that can only mean you’ve been somehow cheated. Seldom correct, never in doubt.
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2012 @ 18:56
I should probably state on the record, for whoever is given to read this far down:

Zachriel is not a sock puppet, conjured up in an effort to make my observation look more credible. At least, if the user is a sock puppet, it isn’t mine…I do not have control over this personality. I know it must look like it, since I pointed out the way these things are being argued, and here comes Z with all these examples of exactly what I’m talking about. That’s partly because this individual inspired my comments in the first place…but the other part of it is, my comment is right on the money. This is just the way it is.
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2012 @ 19:00
It does seem a bit suspicious, doesn’t it, that this Zachriel collective comes in here and does a note-perfect rendition of a strawman leftist tediously repeating talking points? 🙂

In all seriousness, though, I can’t think of a better illustration of an increasingly prevalent trend in liberal “argumentation.” It’s not dodging the question, exactly, or deliberate obtuseness, or doubleplusgood crimestop — although it resembles all those things to some degree, and contains elements of all of them — but rather a donkey-like (pun intended) determination to have things this exact way and no other, evidence and logic be damned, and a dogged determination not to cede an inch of rhetorical ground to an opponent, even when one’s own argument suffers seriously thereby.

For instance, consider this exchange:

Zachriel: As the solutions are technical and economic, they shouldn’t come into conflict with individual freedoms, of speech, petition, religion; unless you don’t think people should be forced to stop when the light turns red.

Severian: And see, that right there is the real “crux” of the problem. For while I am perfectly willing to take a three-flush dump by candlelight in order to save precious resources– anything for Gaia! — I’m not so sure my Chinese counterpart is.

Zachriel: That’s called the tragedy of the commons. Individuals gain a short term advantage by cheating. This means that any voluntary individual action is doomed to fail. It will require binding agreements.

Severian: Now I’m beginning to see it. If voluntary individual action fails by definition, I guess the only effective thing would be…. coerced collective action. Your inner Kommissar is showing, comrade.

Zachriel: Nations voluntarily enter into treaties all the time. Some of those treaties are global in scope.

Those are direct replies; you can check the transcript (ellipses in original). Some infelicitous hyperbole aside, I’m clearly talking about the conflict between individual freedom and the coercive power of the state– any “binding agreement” on climate change would necessarily entail empowering some government to intrude on the intimate lives of citizens, on a global scale. Zachriel all but admits this (“the tragedy of the commons”), but when called on the the linguistic fact that the opposite of “voluntary individual action” is “coerced collective action,” he retreats into… some platitude about nations voluntarily entering into treaties, “some of which” are global.

As if a treaty empowering the Chinese Politburo to monitor my carbon emissions here in Anytown USA — which is the only way the kind of “binding agreements” Zachriel insists upon would work — is exactly equivalent to a three-nation accord on cod-fishing rights in the North Atlantic.

And the saddest part is, I would actually respect a good-faith argument that we should have some kind of International Climate Police who can kick in your door in the dead of night and haul you off to Gaia-reeducation camp for using two-ply toilet paper. I think this is monstrous, of course, but if you start from the premise that “climate change” really is an extinction-level catastrophe waiting to happen, then maybe global fascism IS a logical outcome of that — if that’s premise A, in other words, you can probably walk me through steps B, C, D, and E to get me to conclusion F (James Hansen as world dictator, with the Zachriel collective as his hemp-shirted stormtroopers).

But no — Instead you get premise A, asserted ex cathedra (“the science is settled!”), a very obvious preference for outcome F (“voluntary individual action always fails”), and a whole lot of circumlocution in between that does nothing but dump you back at A, thousands of words and dozens of wasted hours later. Looking back over the chat transcript, I can’t find a single instance where Zachriel entertained — let alone conceded– any of my points, even though I was literally arguing entirely on his turf (having stipulated all of his points but one for the purposes of debate).

Other than peacocking one’s superior virtue, what the hell is the point of this type of argument? I seem to see it everywhere these days. What caused the leftist hive-mind to start debating this way? What possible purpose does it serve?
- Severian | 04/17/2012 @ 19:52
mkfreeberg: It’s meant to be something less than an argument…more like an observation. And, it’s something more than hand-waving. Call it a thoughtful observation.

Yes, we understand, but it would have been helpful to provide a bit more relevant content. Nonetheless, we responded in detail. Notably, you didn’t.
- Zachriel | 04/18/2012 @ 06:14
Severian: I’m clearly talking about the conflict between individual freedom and the coercive power of the state– any “binding agreement” on climate change would necessarily entail empowering some government to intrude on the intimate lives of citizens, on a global scale.

Okay, though you weren’t always clear on this. All governments intrude on the lives of citizens. For instance, all governments tax. In modern societies, that’s often an income tax, meaning people have to report their income in detail, and surrender part of that income to the government. They also have to stop when the light is red.

Severian: Zachriel all but admits this (”the tragedy of the commons”), but when called on the the linguistic fact that the opposite of “voluntary individual action” is “coerced collective action,” he retreats into… some platitude about nations voluntarily entering into treaties, “some of which” are global.

While the ‘opposite’ of “voluntary individual action” may be “coerced collective action,” they are not dichotomous. A simple counterexample is voluntary collective action.

Severian: And the saddest part is, I would actually respect a good-faith argument that we should have some kind of International Climate Police who can kick in your door in the dead of night and haul you off to Gaia-reeducation camp for using two-ply toilet paper.

Strawman. There is a broad middle ground between anarchy and totalitarianism.

Severian: Looking back over the chat transcript, I can’t find a single instance where Zachriel entertained — let alone conceded– any of my points, even though I was literally arguing entirely on his turf (having stipulated all of his points but one for the purposes of debate).

Which point should we have conceded?
- Zachriel | 04/18/2012 @ 06:18
Nonetheless, we responded in detail.

But not scientifically. By which I mean, not that you failed to cite studies or sources or the like…but like all your other responses, your definition of belief is definition-only, for benefit of the like-minded. Maybe I’ve missed it, at this point I’m only skimming, but at no place do I see you doing anything like what Severian’s done a few times: Step 1, assume the opposition is correct, Step 2, find problems, Step 3, attempt to reconcile those problems, Step 4, fail to do so. I don’t see you even reaching Step 1.

Bottom-lining it: You have proven the disastrous consequences that await us due to man-caused climate change, the same way a Hindu might “prove” reincarnation or a Christian might “prove” the Trinity, which is to say, you have opened up for public inspection your system of beliefs, in progressively greater detail. You haven’t done anything beyond that, that I’ve seen, in achievement or in effort. Now, go back to my first few words in this post. I see some science-y stuff going on when we discuss how CO2 can trap heat in the atmosphere…and readings of mean temperature (which have problems, but they’re not worth discussing here). Beyond that, it’s discussed in much the same way you might discuss a theology. Which was my observation all along.

That’s why I felt the need to state for the record that I don’t have control over you. You have proven the original point I was making, remarkably well.
- mkfreeberg | 04/18/2012 @ 07:40
mkfreeberg: But not scientifically.

Oh gee whiz.

Given the science of climate change, for which we have already provided scientific citations, avoiding climate change will mean controlling emissions. As developing nations are rapidly increasing their emssions, and as the greenhouse effect is due to total greenhouse gases, we can reasonably say “developing nations will have to learn to control their emissions too. ”

mkfreeberg: You have proven the disastrous consequences that await us due to man-caused climate change, the same way a Hindu might “prove” reincarnation or a Christian might “prove” the Trinity, which is to say, you have opened up for public inspection your system of beliefs, in progressively greater detail.

We already mentioned sea level rise, which is an inevitable result of global warming. Many countries independently measure sea level, such as the Japan Meteorological Agency.

NASA: Effects of Climate Change
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

There is a vast literature on the effects of climate change. If you want something more specific:

Economic
Tol, The economic effects of climate change, The Journal of Economic Perspectives 2009.

Agriculture
Schlenker & Roberts, Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to US crop yields under climate change, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Human migration
Ehrhart, et al., In search of shelter: mapping the effects of climate change on human migration and displacement, Care International 2009

Oceanic acidification
Orr et al., Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms, Nature 2005

Biodiversity
Bellard, et al., Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity, Ecology 2012

Not to mention a number of studies that concern regional effects, among these being decreasing snowpack in North America, loss of tropical forests in South America, water stress and desertification in Africa, and coastal flooding in Asia.
- Zachriel | 04/18/2012 @ 08:51
Now please cite the specific passages in those that say how doomed we are if we don’t do anything, why, how, and (approximately) when.

And this is what Sev’s been talking about. The contrary argument is pretty easy to define: “No danger,” or, “If there’s danger, nothing we can do about it.” Okay, there, it’s defined…but it’s like you won’t even contaminate yourself with it by coming into contact with it. You won’t grant any part of it, even for sake of argument, you won’t specifically confront any of it.
- mkfreeberg | 04/18/2012 @ 08:57
“Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.”

There, that’s what it has to say at the page you just linked, that’s their climactic statement. NO abrupt end to humanity there, no apocalypse, no measurable danger. A committee of internationalist policy wonks got together specifically to put out some paperwork that says “costs” are “likely to be significant”…and then they did it. You read the specific “damage,” and you end up reading about weather. Hot days and cold nights. Golly.

Where science is involved, it all seems to come down to: Weather presents problems, versus, we somehow got the thought going in our heads that it isn’t supposed to…that it’s all supposed to stay static. Well no duh. It’s not static. That’s why the most recent renaming is appropriate: Climate change. Right. It changes. Mankind will have to learn to deal with it, just like he always has.

Where does your science complicate things beyond this, specifically? In fact, where within your citations is it scientifically demonstrated that human activity has a significant effect on it? Are you under the impression the science is settled there? If you are, you’re simply wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 04/18/2012 @ 09:05
mkfreeberg: Now please cite the specific passages in those that say how doomed we are if we don’t do anything, why, how, and (approximately) when.

Doomed to what? We already stated that humans will adapt to climate change. The question is the degree of damage to the environment.

mkfreeberg: In fact, where within your citations is it scientifically demonstrated that human activity has a significant effect on it?

That’s been the problem with the discussion thus far; the constant shifting of position. First, we are asked whether humans were causing global warming. When we answer that, we are asked about the effects of global warming. When we answer that, we are asked about the effects of various responses to global warming. Then when we answer that, we are asked about whether human activities are warming the globe.

mkfreeberg: In fact, where within your citations is it scientifically demonstrated that human activity has a significant effect on it?

Let’s start here: The signature of greenhouse warming is a warming lower troposphere and surface, and a cooling stratosphere. And that is what we observe.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
- Zachriel | 04/18/2012 @ 10:12
Ok, Morgan, seriously — stop sockpuppeting! The joke has gone on long enough! 🙂

For those of you without the patience to follow our little joke out for 40+ comments (and who does?), I’ll summarize:

I wrote a big, long, probably semi-drunk meta-post about this new “debate” tactic the left has developed, in which they paper over obvious flaws, contradictions, etc. in their arguments by…. releasing a lot of verbal squid ink, basically, and then plowing forward with the exact same arguments, in the same exact sequence, leading to the exact same conclusion. Call it circular reasoning MC Escher-style, or Head-Trauma Tautologies, or something.

Anyway, along comes Morgan, writing as “Zachriel,” and pens the following:

Severian: I’m clearly talking about the conflict between individual freedom and the coercive power of the state– any “binding agreement” on climate change would necessarily entail empowering some government to intrude on the intimate lives of citizens, on a global scale.

Okay, though you weren’t always clear on this. All governments intrude on the lives of citizens. For instance, all governments tax. In modern societies, that’s often an income tax, meaning people have to report their income in detail, and surrender part of that income to the government. They also have to stop when the light is red.

Ain’t that just too cute? 🙂

It’s obvious — because it’s baked into the firmware of the word “treaty” — that all treaties have enforcement mechanisms, which require transparency on the part of the signatories. Transparency, in the context of a “binding agreement” between the US and China on climate change, would require either:

A) Nearly unlimited freedom of inspection for US compliance specialists; or

B) For the US simply to trust the Chinese government. In other words, Beijing would be required to submit quarterly compliance reports, and if they claim that those huge billowing clouds of black smoke coming out of People’s Liberation Coal Smelter #17 are fairy dust, well, they must actually be fairy dust, because why would the ChiComs lie?

Now, it’s clear that A) would fairly quickly lead to conflicts with individual freedoms, while B) is the kind of pie-in-the-sky naivete that seriously undermines the left’s claims to be all about facts and reason and reality and stuff.

And here’s where it gets really funny (and for those of you who have followed me this far, here’s the payoff): There are simple ways to address either of those objections and keep the argument’s conclusion — that we can make binding agreements on climate change with the People’s Republic of China — perfectly intact.

Instead, ~~Morgan~~ –excuse me, “Zachriel” — starts going off about…. income tax.

And hey, I can understand why somebody wouldn’t take the easy way out of the little dilemma I posed up there. After all, the obvious response to A) is that “climate change” is such a serious danger that, should the remedies for it come into conflict with basic individual rights, well, that’s just too bad for basic individual rights. Which, in addition to contradicting all that stuff “Zachriel” said about the solutions not conflicting, sounds uncomfortably fascist. Similarly, the obvious response to B) (“we really can trust the ChiComs”) sets up a very interesting conversation about which governments are trustworthy and which aren’t, since the same sorts of folks who are rabid about climate change tend to be all “Bush lied/people died,” know what I mean?

But, dude…. income tax? That’s just a bridge too far.

The only way somebody would go there would be if they were so desperate to change the subject, so mule-headedly determined to hang on to all their propositions, no matter how logically incompatible, that….. you know what? I can’t even conceive of it. And then to end it all with “Which point should we have conceded?” I mean, not even a Democratic Underground poster or a Kos diarist is that stupid, bro. 🙂
- Severian | 04/18/2012 @ 10:23
mkfreeberg: There, that’s what it has to say at the page you just linked, that’s their climactic statement. NO abrupt end to humanity there, no apocalypse, no measurable danger. A committee of internationalist policy wonks got together specifically to put out some paperwork that says “costs” are “likely to be significant”…and then they did it. You read the specific “damage,” and you end up reading about weather. Hot days and cold nights. Golly.

Unchecked anthropogenic climate change will result in rising sea levels, inundation and salination of arable lands, reduction in icepacks and threats to fresh water, acidification of the oceans, desertification, and this will cause human suffering and migration and resultant political instability.

Of course, many of these problems can be minimized by reasonable actions to reduce greenhouse emissions. Many such changes also have the additional benefit of increased efficiency in the use of limited resources.
- Zachriel | 04/18/2012 @ 10:23
First, we are asked whether humans were causing global warming. When we answer that, we are asked about the effects of global warming. When we answer that, we are asked about the effects of various responses to global warming. Then when we answer that, we are asked about whether human activities are warming the globe.

Yeah. So unfair, isn’t it? Here you are saying we have to sacrifice our standard of living, along with much of what remains of our national sovereignty, because we’re causing destruction to the environment…you claim the science is settled on this, and what comes flying your way? A request for you to show what you’re talking about. Gosh.

Perhaps it’s the alarmists who are creating this problem, for themselves, by mixing scientific efforts up with political ones. Climate change has become a political effort. Once that happens, it is inevitable that you’ll have some “bedfellows” who see nothing wrong with lying about the evidence to advance the cause. When the alarmist political effort fails to police its own, it becomes less credible and more widely doubted.

That is what should happen. Correct?
- mkfreeberg | 04/18/2012 @ 10:25
mkfreeberg: Here you are saying we have to sacrifice our standard of living, along with much of what remains of our national sovereignty, because we’re causing destruction to the environment…you claim the science is settled on this, and what comes flying your way?

It doesn’t require sacrificing your standard of living or national sovereignty, any more than other internationals treaties.

mkfreeberg: A request for you to show what you’re talking about. Gosh.

We’re more than happy to support our position and provide scientific references, but what has happened is that we’re asked about one thing then have complaints because we haven’t answered some other question. These are the basic points:

* The Earth’s surface is warming.
* Human greenhouse emissions are are primary cause of this warming.
* Global warming will causes significant changes in the climate, such as changes in rainfall patterns.
* Reasonable policies are available to address these issues, both as a preventative of the worst aspects of global warming, and as adaptations to the changes that will occur.

We would be happy to address any or all of these points, but you have to start with the scientific facts before addressing various policy responses.
- Zachriel | 04/18/2012 @ 10:43
Human greenhouse emissions are are primary cause of this warming.

The citations you’ve already chosen to provide, to the best I can see, simply rely on the IPCC’s findings. And these findings do not conclusively prove in any scientific way the truth of this statement. In fact “primary cause” is particularly problematic, I’ve seen a number of real live scientists place this into a new locus of doubt.

Global warming will causes significant changes in the climate, such as changes in rainfall patterns.

Yeah, like I said. Same thing I say about Safeway not carrying St. Pauli Girl. I’ll find a way to deal. It’s one of the benefits of evolution; humans are tough like that.

Reasonable policies are available to address these issues, both as a preventative of the worst aspects of global warming, and as adaptations to the changes that will occur.

Frankly, your brand of “science” seems to be nothing more than a willful denial against anyone being in charge, EVER, who would disagree with you about what the word “reasonable” might entail.
- mkfreeberg | 04/18/2012 @ 11:15
mkfreeberg: The citations you’ve already chosen to provide, to the best I can see, simply rely on the IPCC’s findings.

The IPCC is just an aggregator. We provided original source citations. We can provide many more if you like. The vast majority of studies in climatology and related fields strongly support anthropogenic global warming.

More specifically, we provided a signature test of greenhouse warming, which you have repeatedly ignored; a warming lower troposphere and surface, and a cooling stratosphere.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

We can also remove many sources of noise, such as variations in solar irradiance, volcanism and ENSO.
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f5_online.jpg
Foster & Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010, Environmental Research Letters 2011.

mkfreeberg: It’s one of the benefits of evolution; humans are tough like that.

Yes, they are. But one reason they are tough is because they have large brains and can anticipate the future. The scientific method increases this capability many-fold.
- Zachriel | 04/18/2012 @ 12:37
More specifically, we provided a signature test of greenhouse warming, which you have repeatedly ignored; a warming lower troposphere and surface, and a cooling stratosphere.

The very first time you posted that I replied with,

Doesn’t address the problem I’m calling out.

Which is, to re-state yet again, by the time the discussion turns to the dire consequences in store for us should we ignore the so-called “science,” the minimal steps necessary for us to avert the dire consequences, and approximately when it’s gonna happen, the alarmists stop relying on science or anything even close to it and start stomping around in the tall-grass of unsubstantiated “ifs.”

It is detrimental to your own argument that you refuse to grapple with opposing premises, even for purpose of tangibly confronting them, or entertaining them merely for argument’s sake. Because of this, you are disclaiming a vital and fundamental aspect to all knowledge. We only know what we know, through our preponderance of opposites. A basic building-block term like “supporting evidence” can only be defined in a meaningful way, as something that reduces the probability of an opposite. “Proof,” in turn, can only be defined as something that entirely eliminates the possibility of an opposite. Without considering opposites, and what happens to them, such rudimentary concepts cannot be measured.

As Severian has pointed out, clinging to your chosen methodology as you do, you can’t even follow the conversation. This necessity for us to act is supposed to be made urgent because of the dire consequences; we say, show us the scientific proof of these dire consequences and you do this crazy tap-dance of “well nobody’s saying it’s the end or anything like that” and then you continue to act like the urgency is indeed there. Pressed again to provide evidence or proof, you provide the same citations you’ve already provided, chide us for not having read them, apparently failing to recognize that what your “proof” proves, and what you are asserting, are entirely different things.

You’ve stated — just to cite as an example of one thing that you’re taking on blind faith — that human activity is a primary cause of this climate change, through the emission of carbon dioxide. Which one of your graphic images provides evidence for this? Consider the opposite in answering this question: Where, if anywhere, do you have hard data that would eliminate “human activity is a secondary cause” or “human activity is not a cause” as possibilities, or at least, make them less likely? If the evidence you’re offering doesn’t do one of those things, the evidence is not useful to what you are trying to support. And thus far, it hasn’t done either of those things.
- mkfreeberg | 04/18/2012 @ 14:11
mkfreeberg: It is detrimental to your own argument that you refuse to grapple with opposing premises, even for purpose of tangibly confronting them, or entertaining them merely for argument’s sake.

Please state the opposing premise, because frankly, your position isn’t clear.

mkfreeberg: This necessity for us to act is supposed to be made urgent because of the dire consequences; we say, show us the scientific proof of these dire consequences and you do this crazy tap-dance of “well nobody’s saying it’s the end or anything like that” and then you continue to act like the urgency is indeed there.

Um, saying that it’s not the end of life on Earth doesn’t mean the threat to human well-being isn’t real.

mkfreeberg: Pressed again to provide evidence or proof, you provide the same citations you’ve already provided, chide us for not having read them, apparently failing to recognize that what your “proof” proves, and what you are asserting, are entirely different things.

Um, we provided a new set of citations today, a few of the many studies that concern the consequences of climate change. Damage to crop yields, coastal flooding, desertification, and human displacement are certainly calamities that should be avoided if avoidable.

mkfreeberg: You’ve stated — just to cite as an example of one thing that you’re taking on blind faith — that human activity is a primary cause of this climate change, through the emission of carbon dioxide.

It has nothing to do with “blind faith”. As we stated repeatedly, the signature of greenhouse warming is a warming lower troposphere and surface and a cooling stratosphere. Start there. The same place we suggested you start with regards to the evidence for climate change in our first comment on the thread.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
- Zachriel | 04/18/2012 @ 16:29
I started there, and finished there. I concluded that your little graphic doesn’t support the point you’re trying to make.

In fact, the point you’re trying to make doesn’t support the point you’re trying to make. Is there a “threat to human well-being” or is there not one? If you think there is one, and you can provide support for it, then do so. Otherwise, just admit you can’t provide support for it. It isn’t that complicated…
- mkfreeberg | 04/18/2012 @ 16:33
mkfreeberg: I started there, and finished there. I concluded that your little graphic doesn’t support the point you’re trying to make.

How did you ‘conclude’ the NOAA graph does not support greenhouse warming?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

mkfreeberg: Is there a “threat to human well-being” or is there not one?

You had said, “You’ve stated — just to cite as an example of one thing that you’re taking on blind faith — that human activity is a primary cause of this climate change, through the emission of carbon dioxide.” We answered that concern.

We have provided scientific support for anthropogenic climate change. We would be happy to discuss this in detail. If you want to discuss the implications of climate change, we can do that too. Then you can change the subject, then back again.

A = anthropogenic climate change
B = implications of climate change.

m: What about A?
Z: A stuff.
m: No, what about B?!
Z: B stuff.
m: No, what about A?!!
Z: More A stuff.
m: You never answer the question! What about B!?!!
Z: More B stuff.
…
- Zachriel | 04/18/2012 @ 16:53
But you’re not discussing it. You’re simply settling on the conclusion you like by excluding all others.

You have repeatedly “provided scientific support for anthropogenic climate change” by attaching and reattaching ar4-fig-3-17.gif. Assuming this provided support for human-provided factors leading to the change, and it doesn’t, it will still fall short of your supposition that said human factors are the primary cause of this change.

Had someone been accused of committing a criminal act, and you were to provide “proof” of that party’s guilt the same way you’ve “proven” your case here, any subsequent conviction would be easily challenged and thrown out. So no, nobody’s switching back-and-forth here…I’m looking to you to provide support for the things you’ve said, and you’ve said many things. It’s not my problem that there’s a plurality of such points yet to be substantiated in a logical way. That’s on you.
- mkfreeberg | 04/18/2012 @ 17:01
mkfreeberg: It’s not my problem that there’s a plurality of such points yet to be substantiated in a logical way.

The case for anthropogenic climate change is complex, but so far, you’ve refused to engage the issue. Meanwhile, if you ask about the implications of global warming, then that presupposes global warming.

mkfreeberg: Assuming this provided support for human-provided factors leading to the change, and it doesn’t, it will still fall short of your supposition that said human factors are the primary cause of this change.

You said that you “concluded that your little graphic doesn’t support the point you’re trying to make.” How did you reach that ‘conclusion’?
- Zachriel | 04/18/2012 @ 17:07
I started out assuming against the thing you’re trying to prove, much as a court is obliged to presume a defendant’s innocence. Then I looked at your graph, to see if there was something there that would logically contradict it. My starting premise, and the evidence you brought, co-existed with each other. In fact, they did so rather harmoniously.

Did I overlook something?
- mkfreeberg | 04/18/2012 @ 17:34
Please state the opposing premise, because frankly, your position isn’t clear.

mkfreeberg: I started out assuming against the thing you’re trying to prove, much as a court is obliged to presume a defendant’s innocence. Then I looked at your graph, to see if there was something there that would logically contradict it. My starting premise, and the evidence you brought, co-existed with each other. In fact, they did so rather harmoniously.

Answering the question means actually relating your remarks to the data depicted in the graph. Try it this way: If the greenhouse effect increase, what would we expect with regards to temperature? What if solar irradiance increased instead?
- Zachriel | 04/18/2012 @ 17:43
The correct answer is: I don’t know. The effects being plotted on your graphs are subject to many different variables.

We seem to be struggling here, as I’ve noted already, with a disagreement about basic concepts involving not climate but philosophy. Fundamental building-blocks to known truth, and our understanding of nature; facts; theories; evidence; proof.

The nature of the evidence you have brought to the argument thus far, is that it is weak. I don’t mean that as an insult against it. What I mean by that is, it is incapable of surmounting a personal bias in the opposite direction. It is incapable of making a receiving audience say, “darn it, I just want so badly to think Zachriel is wrong, but in the face of this compelling evidence I must admit, against my most intense desires, that he/she/they/it must be correct because there simply isn’t any logical alternative.”

You would agree with me I think, that the nature of your little graph is that it isn’t supposed to provoke such a response.

What you have brought, in fact, is supposed to work by reprogramming the bias. In fact, it’s become clear now that this bit of argumentation has already worked that way on you, and now you’re just trying to hand it to the next person on down the line, getting frustrated that it isn’t working. In Aristotle’s terms, you are putting on a good show of arguing from logos but you’re really just arguing from pathos, attempting to inspire an emotional attachment, which you already have, to the idea that the man-made global warming theory is correct.

But that’s the only way the MMGW theory achieves currency now, by pathos instead of logos. Which, all by itself, ought to tell you something.

No, I like my way better. If you have some compelling evidence…it should…compel. I should be able to presume against it, and be logically forced to change my mind. Your little graph doesn’t do that, so…seeing that it isn’t having the desired effect, you just — weirdly — keep posting it again.

A nervous tic is not an argument!
- mkfreeberg | 04/18/2012 @ 17:52
mkfreeberg: We seem to be struggling here, as I’ve noted already, with a disagreement about basic concepts involving not climate but philosophy. Fundamental building-blocks to known truth, and our understanding of nature; facts; theories; evidence; proof.

We use the scientific method to reach scientific conclusions.

mkfreeberg: In Aristotle’s terms, you are putting on a good show of arguing from logos but you’re really just arguing from pathos, attempting to inspire an emotional attachment, which you already have, to the idea that the man-made global warming theory is correct.

Not at all. It’s based on scientific evidence.

mkfreeberg: Your little graph doesn’t do that, so…seeing that it isn’t having the desired effect, you just — weirdly — keep posting it again.

Because you keep asking the same question, we keep providing the same data, often adding a bit more at each juncture. At some point, you might actually take a look.

mkfreeberg: The correct answer is: I don’t know. The effects being plotted on your graphs are subject to many different variables.

Well, you can point to undefined ‘variables’ or make up magical causes, but if the Earth’s atmosphere were being warmed by increases in solar irradiance, for instance, then the entire atmosphere would warm. The reason we know it is due to the greenhouse effect is because the upper atmosphere is *cooling* just as the lower atmosphere is warming — the heat is becoming increasingly trapped close to the Earth’s surface. Now, it’s only a matter of taking a close look at the atmosphere to determine what has changed over the last few decades which has increased the greenhouse effect. Turns out that anthropogenic CO2 and the resultant rise in water vapor explains the data.

Of course, this is just one piece of evidence. Climate is a complex dynamical system. The question of interest to scientists is climate sensitivity, which is related to increases in water vapor in the atmosphere.
- Zachriel | 04/18/2012 @ 18:07
At some point, you might actually take a look.

As I’ve said already, I looked at it, and found it is doing very little to prove any kind of dire consequence in the near or distant future; in fact, it isn’t doing anything to strengthen such an argument.

The point here, which Severian has criticized you for missing a number of times, is that “science” is being used to prove things that aren’t really subject to dispute, such as carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas. And then the thesis is carried beyond that, to say, it must be human emissions that are causing a climate change that is irreversible and disastrous. By which time, the science no longer applies. You respond to this critique by re-linking the same image over and over again, arguing that you’re using the “scientific method” to prove carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas…thereby showing you haven’t been paying attention.

Where do we get to the part where you use this scientific method to prove we’re approaching a tipping point, a man-caused, preventable one, that erode the planet’s ability to sustain life, outside of our ability to adapt to the change? My point from the very beginning has been that, by the time you get to that sexy stuff, you’re no longer using the scientific method.

You respond by proving what you like to prove, again…that carbon is an insulatory agent. Well okay, we can keep having the same circular conversation as long as you like. Don’t blame me.
- mkfreeberg | 04/18/2012 @ 20:43
mkfreeberg: Where do we get to the part where you use this scientific method to prove we’re approaching a tipping point, a man-caused, preventable one, that erode the planet’s ability to sustain life, outside of our ability to adapt to the change?

Why would you ask us to defend a position we do not hold? And you wonder why we repeat ourselves.

Zachriel: Climate change doesn’t have a tipping point in the sense of runaway global warming. Rather, a doubling of CO2 will cause an increase in surface temperatures of about 1°C. This will result in an increase in atmospheric water vapor. The scientific question is the sensitivity of the climate system to this increased water vapor. Studies point to 2-5°C with 3°C the most likely value.

Zachriel: The current science indicates that there will be no runaway effect

Zachriel: one reason {humans} are tough is because they have large brains and can anticipate the future. The scientific method increases this capability many-fold.

Zachriel: We already stated that humans will adapt to climate change. The question is the degree of damage to the environment.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2012 @ 05:07
mkfreeberg: As I’ve said already, I looked at it, and found it is doing very little to prove any kind of dire consequence in the near or distant future; in fact, it isn’t doing anything to strengthen such an argument.

Um, you still haven’t responded substantively. You simply wave your hands and say it doesn’t support the claim, which is that the Earth is warming due to increases in greenhouse gases.

mkfreeberg: The point here, which Severian has criticized you for missing a number of times, is that “science” is being used to prove things that aren’t really subject to dispute, such as carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas.

Here is our first claim:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
Note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming. You then say you “concluded that your little graphic doesn’t support the point you’re trying to make.” Now, why would you constantly return to disputing something you say is not “subject to dispute”?

mkfreeberg: And then the thesis is carried beyond that, to say, it must be human emissions that are causing a climate change …

One step at a time. The NOAA chart indicates a clear signature of greenhouse warming, an effect predicted generations ago. We know humans are the source of changes to the atmosphere that have increased the greenhouse effect, hence humans are the cause of the current warming trend. Are we in agreement? We have to resolve this before discussing the implications of that warming trend.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2012 @ 05:07
Ok, ‘fess up, Zachriel: You’re a computer, aren’t you? You’re one of those new “overcoming the uncanny valley” linguistics programs they use to test language acquisition –ELIZA or something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA). Somebody really ought to check your programming, because even a computer should be able to understand the basic structure of an argument — hell, I’ve contributed like twenty posts to this little tete-a-tete and I still can’t figure out exactly what it is you’re trying to achieve.

Near as I can tell, this discussion has three parts:

I) The Zachriel-Morgan debate over whether or not human carbon emissions are the primary cause of global warming (it’s my understanding that Morgan has stipulated, for purposes of argument, that there is global warming). Your sole piece of evidence in this part, Zachriel, seems to be this here graph: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif.

Morgan asserts that this chart doesn’t show human activity to be the primary cause of global warming. You assert that it does. When Morgan asks for evidence that it does, you…. re-link the exact same .gif. When Morgan asks for other supporting evidence, you…. re-link the exact same .gif.

A human being (as opposed to a language-acquisition computer) would immediately spot the huge flaws in this line of debate. If, for instance, I wanted to argue that Babe Ruth was the greatest hitter of all time, I might could post a graph of his batting average season-by-season. If someone were to dispute the validity of this — and here’s the key part, so pay attention — I’d explain the graph to my interlocutor. “See how Ruth’s average is way up here in the 1929 season — it’s the line in red — while the rest of the league’s average is way down there? Look at all the seasons where the red line tops the blue line — not just 1929, but over the whole period 1920-1930. Every single year, he beats the league average by at least 20 points.”

And if somebody were to dispute the validity of that — arguing, say, that RBI or on-base percentage is the true measure of greatness in a hitter — I’d whip out some other graph showing Ruth’s superiority in those categories too.

Let me make it as plain as I possibly can: EVEN IF that graph you keep linking was the knockout punch you seem to think it is, a real human being — as opposed to a language-acquisition computer — would sigh, conclude that he’s dealing with a particularly obtuse bunch of little apes, and link some other graph. Or chart. Or coloring book. Or an episode of Bill Nye the Science Guy. He wouldn’t keep pointing to the same chart over and over like it’s some kind of mantra.

You say: We know humans are the source of changes to the atmosphere that have increased the greenhouse effect, hence humans are the cause of the current warming trend. Are we in agreement? The answer, of course, is NO, we are NOT in agreement, a statement Morgan has made, in those words, about seventeen times already. Morgan explicitly argues — right here, when he says “As I’ve said already, I looked at it, and found it is doing very little to prove any kind of dire consequence in the near or distant future; in fact, it isn’t doing anything to strengthen such an argument” — that he does NOT agree with either your evidence or your logic. What’s so hard about that?

Here again, a human — as opposed to a language-acquisition computer — would take this as an invitation to discuss evidence, logic, and method, in order to further understanding and thus win the debate. A language-acquisition computer, on the other hand, would keep linking the exact same !@#%# chart over and over and over again, because that’s all it has in its data banks.

[And before you start cutting and pasting that same tired list of citations as “other evidence,” realize that a human being — as opposed to a language-acquisition computer — would realize that most folks posting in blog comments aren’t sitting in the periodicals reading room of their local university library, and hence don’t have the 2008 issue of Geoscience at their fingertips. As would be obvious to a human by now — but not to…. oh, fuck it — I am NOT going to simply take your word for it that Ehrhart, et al., In search of shelter: mapping the effects of climate change on human migration and displacement, Care International 2009, knocks all my arguments into a cocked hat. And if you don’t believe me, I refer you to this study: http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/team.cgi?id=0e8a331e. Look at the chart!!! Look at the chart!!!!]

II) The Zachriel-Morgan-Severian debate about the relationship between science (description) and politics (prescription). I believe that Morgan has stipulated for the sake of argument that a doubling of CO2 will cause an increase in surface temperatures of about 1°C. This will result in an increase in atmospheric water vapor. The scientific question is the sensitivity of the climate system to this increased water vapor. Studies point to 2-5°C with 3°C the most likely value.

From this, Zachriel concludes that certain catastrophic effects will follow, as a matter of scientific fact.

Morgan disputes the scientific bases of these conclusions. Severian is willing to stipulate them for purposes of argument.

From that, Zachriel concludes that certain “voluntary collective action” must follow — again, as a matter of scientific fact — in order to avert catastrophe. Both Morgan and Severian dispute this, arguing that whatever the science says — and remember, I’ve stipulated my agreement to the warmist catastrophe — any action taken on the basis of those “scientific” conclusions are, necessarily, not science but POLITICS. We both argue that one does not get to invoke “the ironclad laws of science” when ordering human populations around, since this removes the “voluntary” part from “voluntary collective action.”

III) The Zachriel-Severian debate about the nature of political action. Severian maintains that Zachriel is mistaken about the nature of political agreements; that he continually misinterprets the definitions of some pretty basic words; that he…. you know what? I honestly don’t know what you’re arguing for in some of our back-and-forth, Zachriel. And to top it all off, you concluded our last exchange with Which point should we have conceded? Any “debate” in which one party concedes NO points to the opposition — doesn’t even acknowledge that the other side has made any — isn’t a debate, it’s a lecture.

Apologies for the long post, Morgan, but I’m trying to perform a public service here. I’m bowing out — I’ve become convinced I’m “arguing” with a rather shoddy artificial language program — but if anyone else wants to keep fighting the good fight, maybe they can use my numbering system to help keep the “debate” on some kind of track.

Cheers.
- Severian | 04/19/2012 @ 06:17
Your claim, as I read it — well, actually, as I block-copy it:

* The Earth’s surface is warming.
* Human greenhouse emissions are are primary cause of this warming.
* Global warming will causes significant changes in the climate, such as changes in rainfall patterns.
* Reasonable policies are available to address these issues, both as a preventative of the worst aspects of global warming, and as adaptations to the changes that will occur.

These are not supported by the graphic.

Are you going to respond by linking to the same graphic yet again?
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2012 @ 08:37
mkfreeberg: These are not supported by the graphic.

The NOAA graph only supports that the Earth is warming due to greenhouse gases. Are we okay with that?
- Zachriel | 04/19/2012 @ 08:46
Warming, or kept warm. That much certainly is settled.
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2012 @ 08:57
mkfreeberg: Warming, or kept warm. That much certainly is settled.

Warming lower troposphere and surface, cooling stratosphere. Here’s the data again:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
- Zachriel | 04/19/2012 @ 09:19
Why?

Here’s a link to Severian’s comment about you repeatedly posting the same graphic. Maybe I should put up a link to that whenever you put up yours.

Much of what passes for global warming “science,” today, is nothing more than prose & poetry about how sluggish/recalcitrant/stubborn the skeptics are. Mixing in large quantities of more-of-the-same, with your presentation of what is supposed to be the hard science, doesn’t help your cause. It feeds the stereotype that the alarmists just like the feeling of pretending to be scientific, while really just doing nothing more than being smug.
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2012 @ 09:36
mkfreeberg: Much of what passes for global warming “science,” today, is nothing more than prose & poetry about how sluggish/recalcitrant/stubborn the skeptics are.

Um, we are pointing to NOAA data. The graph shows that the lower troposphere and surface temperatures have increased over the last few decades, while the stratosphere has cooled. Is that correct?
- Zachriel | 04/19/2012 @ 09:51
The graph shows that the lower troposphere and surface temperatures have increased over the last few decades, while the stratosphere has cooled. Is that correct?

Ok, stipulated. In fact, I’m pretty sure I stipulated the living shit out of this proposition some 60-odd comments ago.

Now: where in the chart — which we have seen you post (no hyperbole) NINE times already — does it say that “troposphere temperature up, stratosphere temperature down” is caused solely by human activity?

[Yeah, I know, I’m trying to walk a computer program through the basics of logical reasoning. But what can I say? Such inelegant engineering offends me. You’d think that a bare-minimum requirement for a ScienceBot 6000 would be the understanding that you can’t simply assert “A, therefore Z.” Logicians call this “begging the question” (or “just pulling random stuff out of your ass,” depending on the vocabulary and sobriety of the logician in question).
- Severian | 04/19/2012 @ 10:27
Severian: Ok, stipulated.

Yes, you had previously stipulated anthropogenic global warming. Your concern seemed to be how to get other countries to agree to limitations on carbon emissions, and your thinking that any such international agreement would be tantamount to a tyranny of ” International Climate Police who can kick in your door in the dead of night and haul you off to Gaia-reeducation camp for using two-ply toilet paper.” The issue with your position, as we pointed out, is the inability to realize a middle ground, that people and countries can voluntarily come to agreements on matters of mutual interest. However, you are correct in pointing out the difficulty of reaching such an agreement, even though nearly every country understands the necessity of action.

(Meanwhile, mkfreeberg has bounced between the discussion of whether humans are changing the climate and what the implications of those changes will be.)

Severian: Now: where in the chart — which we have seen you post (no hyperbole) NINE times already — does it say that “troposphere temperature up, stratosphere temperature down” is caused solely by human activity?

Thought you stipulated anthropogenic climate change? Anyway, it is obvious from the chart that heat is being trapped near the surface due to the greenhouse effect. We can study the atmosphere and determine what has changed in the atmosphere to cause this increased greenhouse effect. Turns out it is primarily (not solely) due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases and associated increases in water vapor. Okay so far?
- Zachriel | 04/19/2012 @ 10:49
Here’s a sciencey link of my own which actually includes, and builds on, the NOAA greenhouse-gas-warming-signature data/argument.

Summary paragraph:

“Earth’s Temperature” appears to have increased during the last several decades, but there does not appear to be any evidence of “rapid warming”.

Here, I point to what I was saying in the post, above, before the comment thread ever got started: This is a water-based ecosystem, and as a result of that, it’s a heavy-pendulum environment just like the saucepan on the stove before the water boils away. (A likely event with the saucepan, all you have to do is fall asleep with the knob set to medium-high or higher; not so likely with the Earth.)

There’s nothing here to indicate anything, anywhere, is approaching some out-of-control status, excepting the obvious fact that the climate is out of our control in the first place…

I would say, Zachriel, that if you can see fit in any way to post that graph with the unreadable lettering yet one more time in response to this, it would imply rather compellingly that Severian is correct and you are an incompetently coded web robot.
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2012 @ 10:50
Anyway, it is obvious from the chart that heat is being trapped near the surface due to the greenhouse effect.

See, there you go again. NO, it is NOT obvious, because that’s NOT what your chart shows.

Your chart shows temperatures over time. That is ALL it shows. Those are facts.

[D]ue to the greenhouse effect, on the other hand, is a hypothesis. You think that’s the case; you desperately want for it to be the case; you believe with every silicon atom of your microprocessor heart that it is the case; but your chart does not prove that it is the case, because all your chart shows is temperatures and time.

Facts are not hypotheses. Hypotheses are not facts. Science 101, champ.
- Severian | 04/19/2012 @ 10:57
mkfreeberg (quoting sciency website): “Earth’s Temperature” appears to have increased during the last several decades, but there does not appear to be any evidence of “rapid warming”.

Scientific estimates are for global warming of 2-5°C with 3°C the most likely value for a doubling of CO2.

mkfreeberg: This is a water-based ecosystem, and as a result of that, it’s a heavy-pendulum environment just like the saucepan on the stove before the water boils away.

The current warming trend is not a natural variation, and it not a pendulum as the greenhouse gases are increasing monotonically. There are some dampenings as well as forcings, but the best estimates are of about 2-5°C warming per doubling of CO2. We halve already provided citations. If you are still unsure of this after looking at the citations, please explain why.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2012 @ 11:04
Severian: Anyway, it is obvious from the chart that heat is being trapped near the surface due to the greenhouse effect.

Appreciate you taking each step in turn.

What other explanation do you offer for what is trapping heat in the lower atmosphere? There’s not many plausible mechanisms besides greenhouse gases. Magic?
- Zachriel | 04/19/2012 @ 11:07
Messed up the attribution in the previous comment. Should be

Severian: See, there you go again. NO, it is NOT obvious, because that’s NOT what your chart shows.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2012 @ 11:08
And again:

mkfreeberg (quoting sciency website): “Earth’s Temperature” appears to have increased during the last several decades, but there does not appear to be any evidence of “rapid warming”.

Scientific estimates are for global warming of 2-5°C with 3°C the most likely value for a doubling of CO2.

Morgan cites something that has happened in the past, i.e. a fact (“appears to have increased during the last several decades”); Zachriel throws out a hypothesis — “Scientific estimates are for global warming of 2-5°C with 3°C the most likely value for a doubling of CO2.”

Past, future. Fact, speculation. My estimate is for Zachriel re-posting these same exact phrases, word for word, 2-5 more times, with 3 times as the most likely value for a doubling of CO2. Woohooo!!! I can do “science” too!!!

Sloppy programming, boys…. very, very sloppy.
- Severian | 04/19/2012 @ 11:09
Severian: Morgan cites something that has happened in the past, i.e. a fact (“Earth’s Temperature” appears to have increased during the last several decades, but there does not appear to be any evidence of “rapid warming”.); iel throws out a hypothesis — “Scientific estimates are for global warming of 2-5°C with 3°C the most likely value for a doubling of CO2.”

“Rapid” is not a clearly defined term. We provided multiple citations each using different methodologists that reached similar conclusions concerning the quantitization of climate sensitivity. By the way, “the Earth moves” may be a hypothesis, yet it moves.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2012 @ 11:14
Ah, but we’re not arguing the 3’C, we’re arguing…quoting you, and note the bold…

* The Earth’s surface is warming.
* Human greenhouse emissions are are primary cause of this warming.
* Global warming will causes significant changes in the climate, such as changes in rainfall patterns.
* Reasonable policies are available to address these issues, both as a preventative of the worst aspects of global warming, and as adaptations to the changes that will occur.

Here, I’ll state the opposite, that might be useful. I think all of what is being measured here, is a blip. Earth is not a polished ball-bearing that’s supposed to pass a laser test for surface consistency or anything of the like; nobody has promised any such thing. A big variable that has changed over the last several decades, certainly relevant here, is our ability to measure small changes. And what has happened is we’ve gotten freaked out over a small change. Yeah, maybe the mean global temperature can go up by 2 or 3 degrees. Celcius. Maybe 4 or 5. That’s just fine. Sure, there are some models that say no that isn’t fine…they’re just wrong. I doubt them because they’re put together by people whose careers are affected by the outcome of the tests they’re running. If that isn’t enough to make you skeptical of what they’re doing, you aren’t looking at it right.

But as Anthony Watts pointed out, there is data (not shown in your graph) that suggests a zenith may have been passed. In which case, this is all useless arguing, and your “3’C most likely” is nothing more than a speculation about future events that won’t be realized. But if it is, then what of it.

As far as humans being the cause, through the carbon…we do contribute to it, in that a tiny percentage of the carbon in the atmosphere is put there by human activity. So it makes people feel dramatic and science-y to say, humans are damaging their own environment. As I wrote, above, they are simply not taking proportion into account. Proportion is hard. The mouse fart in the hurricane.

Yeah, it feels like we’re shifting around, like there’s an unfair burden placed on you to provide support for what you’ve said. Well you’ve said multiple things. Your citations are non-specific, and where it can be pinpointed what you’re using to bolster your arguments, they don’t support all of them.
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2012 @ 11:15
mkfreeberg: Ah, but we’re not arguing the 3′C, we’re arguing…quoting you, and note the bold… * Human greenhouse emissions are are primary cause of this warming.

Good. One step at a time.

mkfreeberg: But as Anthony Watts pointed out, there is data (not shown in your graph) that suggests a zenith may have been passed. In which case, this is all useless arguing, and your “3′C most likely” is nothing more than a speculation about future events that won’t be realized. But if it is, then what of it.

Sorry, but cyclical variation does not explain why the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming. That particular effect due to heat being trapped near the surface by increasing amounts of greenhouse gases.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2012 @ 11:18
mkfreeberg: As far as humans being the cause, through the carbon…we do contribute to it, in that a tiny percentage of the carbon in the atmosphere is put there by human activity.

That is incorrect. About 40% of atmospheric carbon is anthropogenic in origin. It would be higher, but a large percentage is absorbed by the oceans, leading to oceanic acidification.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2012 @ 11:21
What other explanation do you offer for what is trapping heat in the lower atmosphere? There’s not many plausible mechanisms besides greenhouse gases. Magic?

Jeeeeezus, who programmed this thing, Krusty the Klown?

My post said nothing about mechanisms, plausible or otherwise. My post said — and this is a direct quote — Your chart shows temperatures over time. That is ALL it shows.

It’s your job to link the observed facts to a plausible mechanism, since you’re the one who is arguing that your little graph proves the end is nigh. That’s the next step in what we little apes like to call “logical argumentation.” Your citations thus far consist of — as I have noted roughly 2-5 thousand times (with 3 thousand times being the most likely value) — a .gif that shows nothing but temperatures and time, and an unannotated bibliography.

So, NO, you haven’t already provided the citations, since I couldn’t read Knutti & Hegerl’s article on “The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes” even if I wanted to — I cancelled my subscription to Nature Geoscience when they stopped including centerfolds, and I’m not currently sitting in a university’s periodicals reading room.

You know, I’ve heard that ITT Tech offers computer programming classes. Maybe y’all should stop in for a refresher course.
- Severian | 04/19/2012 @ 11:25
Severian: My post said nothing about mechanisms, plausible or otherwise. My post said — and this is a direct quote — Your chart shows temperatures over time. That is ALL it shows.

It seems to show heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere. How else would you read it? Fairies dragging heat down to the surface? Do you have something besides handwaving?

Severian: So, NO, you haven’t already provided the citations, since I couldn’t read Knutti & Hegerl’s article on “The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes” even if I wanted to — I cancelled my subscription to Nature Geoscience

It’s hard to imagine why you would reject the strong consensus of the scientists in the field without having read their research. Anyway, email angelmail at zachriel.com, and we’ll send you the Knutti & Hegerl review. It’s a good place to start on climate sensitivity.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2012 @ 11:40
It’s hard to imagine why you would reject the strong consensus of the scientists in the field without having read their research.

And AGAIN, you entirely miss the @#$% point.

I did not say “I reject the research” in that post.
I did not say “I refuse to read the research” in that post.

What I DID say was that can’t read the research — I don’t have a subscription to Nature Geoscience, and I don’t have an all-access pass to the reading room down at the local U.

Which means — and watch the logical inference here; this is how it’s done — that 1) since you seem to consider articles like these to be your knockout punch; and 2) since you seem to base the few factual assertions you do make on articles like these; then 3) it is your responsibility to make us privy to the information contained therein. That’s how an argument in good faith works.

I know your microprocessor doesn’t handle analogies very well, but do please try to comprehend this one:

You saying “the catastrophic consequences of global warming, which is totally happening, are scientific facts; see Knutti and Hegerl (2009)

is the exact equivalent of me saying

“the rise in the team batting average of the Greenville Braves over the period 1982-1987 proves that Ronald Reagan’s tax policies are the best way to increase GDP (see Fallacious, Inference, and Badfaith, “The Reciprocal Relationship of Batting Averages and Corporate Capital Gains Taxes,” The Journal of Made-Up Bullshit, Fall 2006).

And if you don’t believe me, go look it up! Any Ivy League university’s periodical stacks will have the complete run of The Journal of Made-Up Bullshit, I assure you.
- Severian | 04/19/2012 @ 12:11
Severian: You saying “the catastrophic consequences of global warming, which is totally happening, are scientific facts; see Knutti and Hegerl (2009)

The claim was “There is substantial and recent literature on climate sensitivity. And there are a variety of different methods that have reached similar conclusions.” Not sure how you misread that.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2012 @ 12:22
What, specifically, should we be looking at within Knutti and Hegerl (2009) that proves or substantiates the notions that humans are the primary cause of detected changes in the climate?

Also, do you have a citation that addresses the well-documented problems with the temperature stations? Not trying to shift the discussion or anything, but it seems to me that until you can adequately resolve that, you don’t even have any valid surface temperature readings to offer.
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2012 @ 12:50
mkfreeberg: What, specifically, should we be looking at within Knutti and Hegerl (2009) that proves or substantiates the notions that humans are the primary cause of detected changes in the climate?

Actually, it’s a review article, so for primary science, you would look at the footnotes. The article reviews the current state (as of 2008) of the science surrounding climate sensitivity. You might start with the abstract:

The Earth’s climate is changing rapidly as a result of anthropogenic carbon emissions, and damaging impacts are expected to increase with warming. To prevent these and limit long-term global surface warming to, for example, 2 °C, a level of stabilization or of peak atmospheric CO2 concentrations needs to be set. Climate sensitivity, the global equilibrium surface warming after a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, can help with the translation of atmospheric CO2 levels to warming. Various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2–4.5 °C. However, the physics of the response and uncertainties in forcing lead to fundamental difficulties in ruling out higher values. The quest to determine climate sensitivity has now been going on for decades, with disturbingly little progress in narrowing the large uncertainty range. However, in the process, fascinating new insights into the climate system and into policy aspects regarding mitigation have been gained. The well-constrained lower limit of climate sensitivity and the transient rate of warming already provide useful information for policy makers. But the upper limit of climate sensitivity will be more difficult to quantify.

mkfreeberg: Also, do you have a citation that addresses the well-documented problems with the temperature stations?

A recent study by the The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project found that problems with temperature stations have been properly accounted for by previous analyses, and that the Earth’s mean surface temperature has risen 0.9°C over the last 50 years. Also, this is consistent with satellite data measuring temperature spectrum of the atmosphere, as shown in the NOAA graph above.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2012 @ 13:43
The Earth’s climate is changing rapidly as a result of anthropogenic carbon emissions, and damaging impacts are expected to increase with warming. To prevent these and limit long-term global surface warming to, for example, 2 °C, a level of stabilization or of peak atmospheric CO2 concentrations needs to be set.

Great. So it’s a political manifesto masquerading as scientific research.

Hey, I posit that the global warming alarmism community is guilty of mixing politics with science. Although this is hardly mind-blowing news at this point in the wake of the UAE e-mail scandal, I cite Knutti and Hegerl.

A recent study by the The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project found that problems with temperature stations have been properly accounted for by previous analyses, and that the Earth’s mean surface temperature has risen 0.9°C over the last 50 years.

I’m not sure how a recent study by BEST can correct five decades of unreliable temperature readings from stations placed like this.

In the spirit of conducting good science and not bad science, they did throw out the fifty years of data didn’t they?
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2012 @ 14:07
The claim was “There is substantial and recent literature on climate sensitivity. And there are a variety of different methods that have reached similar conclusions.” Not sure how you misread that.

Oh for Pete’s sake. Yes, this is one of your claims. I know this because you cut-and-pasted it, word for word, from you comment here: 04/17/2012 @ 04:43.

However: The entire @#$$% point of this entire @#$@#$% discussion has been that you use this claim — which is, in itself, so vaguely phrased as to be nearly meaningless — to advocate for all kinds of things, all of which are specifically political (and many of which have obvious consequences that are explicitly totalitarian).

My point — the point I’m making right here, when I say that I “can’t read the research [because] I don’t have a subscription to Nature Geoscience, and I don’t have an all-access pass to the reading room down at the local U” — is that I cannot know what the recent literature says, because I don’t have access to it. I don’t have $152 per year to spend on Nature Geoscience (https://secure.nature.com/subscribe/ngeo), much less the several thousand dollars I’d need to take enough classes at the local U to get access to their library.

In other words: I. CANNOT. INDEPENDENTLY. VERIFY. YOUR. CLAIMS. I do not know what Knutti and Hegerl (2009) say, because I cannot know what Knutti and Hegerl (2009) say.

You are using Knutti and Hegerl (2009) to argue for all kinds of sweeping, explicitly political solutions to a problem that Morgan, at least, claims — with at least as much hyperlinked evidence — doesn’t exist at all. If you want to run my life, it needs to be based on a whole hell of a lot more than a bibliographic citation. Especially when I, too, can produce a “substantial and recent literature on climate sensitivity” with “a variety of different methods” that all reach a far different conclusion — namely, that “global warming” is a sham cooked up by power-hungry leftists like Al Gore and abetted by folks like yourself, who seem far more interested in patting themselves on the back for their superior moral virtue than actually educating those “little apes” they claim to care eversofuckinmuch about.
- Severian | 04/19/2012 @ 14:39
mkfreeberg: Great. So it’s a political manifesto masquerading as scientific research.

It’s an if-then. If you want to prevent damaging impacts, a level of stabilization needs to be set. If you don’t care about damaging impacts—perhaps you are from Alpha Centauri—, then no action need to be taken.

mkfreeberg: I’m not sure how a recent study by BEST can correct five decades of unreliable temperature readings from stations placed like this.

Probably because of you haven’t bothered to learn how scientists deal with necessary imprecision and biases in measurement. Worse, you think your ignorance is evidence concerning the reliability of their work.

Even if some of the stations are erroneous, the more measurements that are made, the more reliable will be the result. The warming trend is seen in both urban and rural stations. The urban heat island effect is reduced at night or on windy days, and the warming trend is still seen during those periods. Data from independent sources, satellite, balloon, ocean water, confirm the warming trend.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2012 @ 16:41
Severian: However: The entire @#$$% point of this entire @#$@#$% discussion has been that you use this claim — which is, in itself, so vaguely phrased as to be nearly meaningless — to advocate for all kinds of things, all of which are specifically political (and many of which have obvious consequences that are explicitly totalitarian).

Um, no. The data concerning climate sensitivity does not in itself imply any particular policy. Rather, it is one of the findings that help define the extent of the problem.

Severian: In other words: I. CANNOT. INDEPENDENTLY. VERIFY. YOUR. CLAIMS. I do not know what Knutti and Hegerl (2009) say, because I cannot know what Knutti and Hegerl (2009) say.

We offered to email you the review article. Not sure how else to help you.

Severian: You are using Knutti and Hegerl (2009) to argue for all kinds of sweeping, explicitly political solutions to a problem that Morgan, at least, claims — with at least as much hyperlinked evidence — doesn’t exist at all.

Um, no. We cited Knutti and Hegerl to substantiate the claim that climate sensitivity is probably in the range of 2-5°C but with the upper limit still very uncertain.

Severian: Especially when I, too, can produce a “substantial and recent literature on climate sensitivity” with “a variety of different methods” that all reach a far different conclusion

We would be happy to consider any such citation to the scientific literature.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2012 @ 16:49
Probably because of you haven’t bothered to learn how scientists deal with necessary imprecision and biases in measurement. Worse, you think your ignorance is evidence concerning the reliability of their work.

Now, you are referring to things as the opposite of what they are, using the term “ignorance” to refer to “knowledge”…specifically, knowledge that temperature reading stations were positioned improperly, which contaminates the data from which your theories are projected. Please note, these are surface temperature readings.

No matter how you want to cut it, if these stations are positioned improperly, the data they read are contaminated.

And no matter how you want to cut it, if the data are contaminated, and not thrown out and replaced with more reliable data, than any ruminations based on that data are just as contaminated as the data upon which they rely. This is like science 101 stuff here…why are you neglecting it? What other bad scientific decisions could you be making, if you make this one?

And why is it not important to you, and other alarmists? Are you really missing this understanding of how valid science is supposed to work, or do you just not care?
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2012 @ 18:32
mkfreeberg: Now, you are referring to things as the opposite of what they are, using the term “ignorance” to refer to “knowledge”…specifically, knowledge that temperature reading stations were positioned improperly, which contaminates the data from which your theories are projected. Please note, these are surface temperature readings.

That wasn’t your question, but “how a recent study by BEST can correct five decades of unreliable temperature readings from stations placed like this.” Yet, even though you are ignorant of how scientists in all fields can and do correct for problems in their measuring apparatus, and even though there are multiple cross-checks from independent measures which we have repeatedly pointed out, you continue to wave your hands at pesky facts. This is like science 101 stuff here.
- Zachriel | 04/20/2012 @ 04:09
[…] for a wallowing; an unproductive, circular conversation about, essentially, nothing. I’ve had one such cyclonic examination this week already and I have no patience for another. But I do take note of a consistency between these two […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 04/20/2012 @ 04:22
Yet, even though you are ignorant of how scientists in all fields can and do correct for problems in their measuring apparatus, and even though there are multiple cross-checks from independent measures which we have repeatedly pointed out, you continue to wave your hands at pesky facts. This is like science 101 stuff here.

What does science 101 say about contaminated measurements?

Anything based on them, is just as contaminated, right? Isn’t everything you’ve presented here, based on surface temperature readings? Isn’t that graph you’ve posted several times, based on surface temperature readings? Are you denying there’s any impact upon these bits of evidence, if the integrity of the temperature readings is compromised?

Who’s waving away pesky facts here? You seem to have lost track of this.
- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2012 @ 04:25
Great guns of Navaronne… this is STILL going on? 😮
- nightfly | 04/20/2012 @ 09:00
mkfreeberg: What does science 101 say about contaminated measurements?

Science 101 teaches that *all* empirical measurements have inaccuracies and biases. Multiple measurements reduce statistical errors. Multiple methodologies limit bias.

mkfreeberg: Isn’t everything you’ve presented here, based on surface temperature readings?

No! Perhaps this would be a good time for you to finally look at the NOAA graph we provided in our first comment on this thread.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

Note how the satellite and radiosonde data show the same general warming trend in the troposphere as the surface measurements. Scientists use many methods to improve the quality of their measurements, some of which we have already discussed above.
- Zachriel | 04/20/2012 @ 09:13
I agree, no, that is if by “no” you mean “yes.” The graph contains, and the point you’re making with the graph relies on, surface temperature readings. Unreliable surface temperature readings.

Quick question: How many “How Not To Measure Temperature” posts are at Watts Up With That? Complete with pictures, and authoritative, credible descriptions of why a scientifically accurate measurement can not be taken from this station. Do you know? Thus far, you haven’t presented yourself as very knowledgeable about the problems with the science. Repeating the same information over and over, and presenting an incorrect answer about the data & measurements upon which it does & doesn’t rely, does little to change this.

Z: I lost an inch on my waist this week!
M: Hey, that measuring tape is made out of rubber.
Z: Ha ha! You don’t know about science!

No, multiple measurements do not fix this. They could have the potential to do so; but if they’re all made with the same error, and with the same reckless disregard for the integrity of the measurements — which seems to apply here — then you’re not fixing anything, you’re just making the same mistake multiple times.
- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2012 @ 09:20
mkfreeberg: The graph contains, and the point you’re making with the graph relies on, surface temperature readings. Unreliable surface temperature readings.

The satellite and radiosonde measurements confirm the same general warming trend as the surface measurements. Furthermore, independent studies have shown that the problems with surface measurements have been properly accounted for.

However, even if you disregard the surface measurements, the graph still shows that the lower troposphere warming while the stratosphere is cooling, the signature of greenhouse warming.
- Zachriel | 04/20/2012 @ 09:32
Which, as has been explained to you many times, does nothing to substantiate that “Human greenhouse emissions are are primary cause of this warming” nor does it portend any kind of doom, disaster, demise of the planet’s ability to support life, or any sort of tipping point.

What it proves is that the atmosphere traps heat and, since it is made of air, its temperature varies. No surprise in any of this.
- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2012 @ 09:36
[…] “Blog Nobody Reads” had something of an uptick last week, when Morgan observed that in the Global Somethening game, there were two processes that seemed never in sync: I characterized my problem as a “Clark Kent […]
- A little gestalt over lunch « Blog of the Nightfly | 04/20/2012 @ 10:12
mkfreeberg: Which, as has been explained to you many times, does nothing to substantiate that “Human greenhouse emissions are are primary cause of this warming” nor does it portend any kind of doom, disaster, demise of the planet’s ability to support life, or any sort of tipping point.

You had made the claim that the surface data was tainted. We showed that scientists have accounted for the biases in the data, and that satellite and radiosonde data confirm the surface data. Let’s see if we can make a few sure steps towards some sort of understanding.

The NOAA data shows that the lower atmosphere is warming and the upper atmosphere is cooling. Is that correct?
- Zachriel | 04/20/2012 @ 10:13
We showed that scientists have accounted for the biases in the data, and that satellite and radiosonde data confirm the surface data.

Uh no, you have produced some graphs with curves on them to make it look like the contamination of the surface data is inconsequential. This particular argument is a complete non-starter, as the problems with the surface temperature measurement have a real bearing on the conclusions to be drawn from the documentation.
- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2012 @ 10:20
mkfreeberg: Uh no, you have produced some graphs with curves on them to make it look like the contamination of the surface data is inconsequential.

The graph was produced by the NOAA.

In any case, we pointed to a recent scientific studies that have confirmed that previous data analyses were largely correct.
http://berkeleyearth.org/

We pointed out that biases for the urban heat island effect have been studied and controlled.
Parker, Climate: Large-scale warming is not urban, Nature 2006.

We pointed out that the warming trend found in the surface data is confirmed from independently derived data from lower atmospheric measurements by satellite and radiosonde.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

In any case, leaving the surface data aside, the NOAA data shows that the lower atmosphere is warming and the upper atmosphere is cooling. Is that correct?
- Zachriel | 04/20/2012 @ 10:40
Why don’t you produce a copy of it that’s actually readable, and then I’ll tell you.
- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2012 @ 10:47
mkfreeberg: Why don’t you produce a copy of it that’s actually readable, and then I’ll tell you.

It should be readable. Your browser may be shrinking it to fit your screen. There’s usually an icon, or you can right-click and download into some other program.
- Zachriel | 04/20/2012 @ 11:08
Here, I went into the Gimp editor, removed the alpha channel and saved as .PNG.

And yes, I would say this shows the readings of the lower stratosphere are cooling while the readings of the troposphere are warming. That would indicate the stratosphere and troposphere, themselves, are cooling/warming…assuming the sampling is of such high quality that there is only one way to record/calculate/document it.
- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2012 @ 18:32
Trouble is, though, that is not the case. Science has very little to do with consensus, so it often creates situations, like this one, in which multiple authorities measure what’s happening in entirely valid ways, and reach different (valid) conclusions about what it means..
- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2012 @ 19:40
mkfreeberg: Trouble is, though, that is not the case.

“The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. ”

This confuses short term fluctuations with the long term trend, and explicitly chooses a period that beings with an unusually warm El Niño. Yes, temperatures go up and down over the short run.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm

Severian & mkfreeberg, this is typical of skeptical arguments: Argue the Earth isn’t warming; then if that doesn’t work, argue the warming is minimal; when that doesn’t work, argue it isn’t due to human activity; if that doesn’t work, then say virtually every scientific institution from different countries and different cultures using different methodologies often in entirely different fields of study are all part of a vast conspiracy.

When that doesn’t work, argue the Earth isn’t warming.

There is no reasonable scientific doubt the Earth’s surface is warming. There is no reasonable scientific doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that we can directly calculate warms the Earth’s surface about 1°C per doubling of CO2. There is no reasonable scientific doubt that increased warming results in more water vapor being absorbed by the atmosphere. There is no reasonable scientific doubt that water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is no reasonable scientific doubt that while the lower atmosphere is saturated in the water spectrum, increased water vapor in the upper atmosphere can increase the greenhouse effect. The question of interest is the climate sensitivity, that is, for each doubling of CO2 how much warming can be expected. Multiple studies, using different methodologies, have indicated that the climate sensitivity is probably about 3°C, with a wide range of uncertainty on the upper limit.
- Zachriel | 04/21/2012 @ 05:23
Severian & mkfreeberg, this is typical of skeptical arguments: Argue the Earth isn’t warming; then if that doesn’t work, argue the warming is minimal; when that doesn’t work, argue it isn’t due to human activity; if that doesn’t work, then say virtually every scientific institution from different countries and different cultures using different methodologies often in entirely different fields of study are all part of a vast conspiracy. When that doesn’t work, argue the Earth isn’t warming.

Yeah, I know, so inconsistent of us. So wavering, so feckle, so unfair.

Thing is though, and this, too, has been explained to you repeatedly: That is the argument. All these things. They all have to be proven before rash things can be said, such as, “The science is settled and it is time for governments to act, against the will of their subjects & citizens as necessary, to avoid a calamity.” That statement, which is the crux of all alarmist argumentation, relies on the half-dozen or so tenets you’ve listed.

To resist it and object to it, paints an unflattering picture of the rigor, or lack thereof, in the alarmist community. And the picture is clarifying lately. There’s an e-mail scandal proving that the process of peer review has been mutated and perverted to drown out the voices of the skeptics, your reply is to say “Oh they did another study, everyone was exonerated, nothing to see here.” If someone asks for details, just show them the NOAA graph a zillion times and act smug. Phil Jones says there’s been no warming for fifteen years, mutter something about the comments being taken out of context…they did another study, the scientific consensus is he didn’t mean it…anyone asks for more information, show them the NOAA graph and act smug…the surface temperature readings are shown to be taken from all these stations positioned next to barbeque pits, parking lots, a bunch of bad science caught in pictures — say another study was done, it says there are ways to adjust for the variances (???) everything’s been calibrated, scientific consensus is don’t worry about it, world’s still ending…show ’em the NOAA graph a few more times…act smug…

Science is entering the realm of the political. That much is undisputed. The skeptics cry foul, the alarmists say, well yeah that’s exactly what we’re doing, but it’s necessary…

Thing is, governments do not show resistance against being ordered about like this. They welcome it and they pay for the privilege. The jobs of the people who decide where all the money goes, become much more important, when the story is sold that they money has to be moved around to save the planet.

All of this creates a clear and present threat to the integrity of this thing we’re calling “science” which is in a state of metamorphosis, abandoning its discipline…using numbers of scientists to effectively vote on what is and isn’t so. This new brand of science has an interesting quality that it is capable of being — is eager to become — something commonly referred to as settled. Eh, no. That’s not how science works at all.

With all these threats to the integrity and believability of science itself, the alarmist community responds with scientific laziness. It’s got a thing it wants to be “settled” that relies on five things, if anyone questions the five things they get this complaint back about “you’re questioning too many things, no fair.” That, in and of itself, is sufficient to demonstrate the entire conversation is anti-scientific.

This is exactly how people behave when they present their case looking for an emotional response rather than an intellectual one; if it doesn’t elicit the desired response, they just do it again. Act like something is wrong with the person who’s been shown it, who didn’t react in the desired way. Darn you, here, look at it again. Meanwhile, the case is still unsubstantiated and unproven. All that’s been proven is that our so-called “scientists” are in a state of integrity decline, and have been for awhile.
- mkfreeberg | 04/21/2012 @ 05:55
There is no reasonable scientific doubt the Earth’s surface is warming.

BZZZZZT. Nope. Wrong. Try again.
- mkfreeberg | 04/21/2012 @ 05:56
mkfreeberg: Thing is though, and this, too, has been explained to you repeatedly: That is the argument. All these things.

Yes, so we have to start with the basics until those issues are resolved. The troposphere and surface are warming, and the stratosphere is cooling, the signature of the greenhouse effect. You can ignore the surface measures if you want, but the satellite troposphere and stratosphere show the same story. Solar irradiance has not changed significantly over the last few decades, so it is clear that the heat is being increasingly held near the surface by the greenhouse effect.

The reason we continue to refer to the NOAA graphic is because it compiles data from multiple sources, ground temperature measures, satellite, radiosonde. Oddly enough, you didn’t even bother to look at closely for many days, even as you complained about its repetition. Scientists don’t coddle their ideas, as you and other climate skeptics do, but crash-test them. That’s why they launch satellites, so that they can independently confirm results from ground stations.
- Zachriel | 04/21/2012 @ 06:26
You can ignore the surface measures if you want, but the satellite troposphere and stratosphere show the same story. Solar irradiance has not changed significantly over the last few decades, so it is clear that the heat is being increasingly held near the surface by the greenhouse effect.

Ah, but science doesn’t work by taking one measurement, putting it on a graph and saying “See, that’s settled, now on to the next thing.” Generally, this whole concept of things being “settled” is way too crucial to the argument you’re trying to assemble, and contrary to the way science works.

I have put up a link to an article that says, other real scientists have taken measurements and now the warming is disputed. Can we agree, then, that it is disputed? Or are you proceeding on the premise that the science is only good when it proves what you want proven?

Because that wouldn’t be science, that would be faith.
- mkfreeberg | 04/21/2012 @ 06:30
mkfreeberg: Ah, but science doesn’t work by taking one measurement, putting it on a graph and saying “See, that’s settled, now on to the next thing.”

But it’s not one measure. It’s multiple measures using different methodologies. Don’t know why you are confused on such a simple point.

mkfreeberg: I have put up a link to an article that says, other real scientists have taken measurements and now the warming is disputed.

You have put up a link to an online newspaper. We have cited climatology data from scientific organizations.

mkfreeberg: Can we agree, then, that it is disputed?

Sure it’s disputed—politically and socially. That’s why you see it disputed on blogs and newspapers and in political forums. But there is no significant scientific controversy about whether the Earth is experiencing a warming trend. You can determine this by reading scientific journals. There just isn’t any skeptical research that undermines the broad consensus on climate change.

“Climate change is real… It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.” — National Academies of Science of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, United States.

More important, that is what the data shows. Here’s the new HadCRUT4:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HadCRUT4vs3.jpg
- Zachriel | 04/21/2012 @ 06:45
Here’s a graphic view from NASA:
http://tinyurl.com/globe-climateanomalies
- Zachriel | 04/21/2012 @ 07:00
But there is no significant scientific controversy about whether the Earth is experiencing a warming trend.

Like I said; this concept of things being “settled” figures too prominently into your argument, in too many places. It’s already lost credibility since “the science is settled” has been a mantra chanted for many years now, since well before the science has ever been, in the language being used in the here-and-now, “settled.” Look to the historical predictions of the ocean level rise for an example of what I mean by that.

Climate change is real…

A few posts ago you were arguing that global warming is real. These are not interchangeable terms. Which one are you trying to argue?

It is likely…

The statement indicates uncertainty. Real science defines uncertainty as its workplace; that is where all the research needs to be applied. But in the argument methodology you’ve brought here, you’ve treated uncertainty as something that is contraband, something not to be permitted.

Can’t speak for Severian, but I think that’s why he calls it a catechism. It’s a good description. You’re doing a great job of filling in the details of the things thought, but you’ll brook no uncertainty, even when in the scientific community there is some. That makes your argument a catechism.
- mkfreeberg | 04/21/2012 @ 07:09
mkfreeberg: Like I said; this concept of things being “settled” figures too prominently into your argument, in too many places.

We’ve provided the data, which you ignored.

mkfreeberg: The statement indicates uncertainty.

Of course it does. All scientific findings are considered tentative. The Earth is warming, and it is probable that humans are the primary cause of this warming.

mkfreeberg: But in the argument methodology you’ve brought here, you’ve treated uncertainty as something that is contraband, something not to be permitted.

Uncertainty is more than permitted. Skepticism is encouraged. But you need more than an exclamation of “Is not!” to make a scientific argument.

Meanwhile, the data is still there.

Here’s the new HadCRUT4:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HadCRUT4vs3.jpg

Here’s a graphic view from NASA:
http://tinyurl.com/globe-climateanomalies
- Zachriel | 04/21/2012 @ 07:16
We’ve provided the data, which you ignored.

If by “ignored,” you mean, “failed to show the response we were hoping our presentation would elicit” then I quite agree. Like I said: Anti-science. Perversion of science. Emotional argument. Catechism.

Of course it does. All scientific findings are considered tentative. The Earth is warming, and it is probable that humans are the primary cause of this warming.

If you’ll forgive a shift, which I think is a permissible one since it explores one of the many premises which are key to the argument you’re trying to present: What data provide support for the primary cause argument? The “consensus science” I’ve been reading from the alarmist community, stops before that point, but this is not the first time you’ve crossed that particular line. Last set of statistics I saw them presenting was: Light side of 30 gigatons of CO₂ from humans and about 750 from natural causes. Do your numbers agree with this? If so, how do you logically get to this “primary cause” argument?
- mkfreeberg | 04/21/2012 @ 07:30
Can’t speak for Severian, but I think that’s why he calls it a catechism

Yep, that’s exactly it.

This whole “debate” reminds me of nothing so much as a humanities class we were required to take in college, where we were assigned some long passage out of Aquinas (or somebody like that) on the nature of angels. The writer’s logic was impeccable — IF you grant the central premise that angels exist in the way he says they do, then you’re forced, after reading him, to conclude that angels really do look like this and behave like that.

Problem is, angels don’t exist.

Aquinas (or whomever) would simply be incapable of defending his central premise. If I were to say “hey, Tom… before I follow you through 75 densely-reasoned pages on the nature of angels, I want some proof that angels, you know, exist,” he’d…. well, he’d call for the Inquisitor, probably, but first he’d cite Scripture.

If I then said, “but, you know, if these are real things, I should be able to see some evidence. I’m not just going to take Elijah’s word for it; I need to see some satellite telemetry.”

And at that point, he’d…. cite more Scripture.

If I then said, “well, Tom, that’s interesting, but I’ve got a lot of other citations that call your citations into serious question,” he’d….. cite more Scripture.

See where this is going? 🙂

And just to be clear: even if I granted his central premise that angels exist, it doesn’t at all prove that they behave in the way he says they do. For instance, angels in the Buddhist sutras act very differently than they do in the Christian Bible….

…but we all know what Tom’s response to that would be, don’t we? 🙂

The entire Warmist argument depends on things being exactly one way. Steps A, B, C, and D have to mesh together in precisely the way they say they do, and only in the way they say they do, or the whole thing collapses. But if you point out serious problems with A, they cite B. If you point out the problems with B, they cite C. If you question the validity of C, they cite D. If you question D, they…. cite A. And round and round and round she goes.

That’s not “argument,” it’s a profession of faith.

Which is fine — religion, on the whole, is good — but it sure as hell ain’t science, any more than Aquinas’s gigantic tome on the nature and behavior of angels is science.
- Severian | 04/21/2012 @ 08:44
mkfreeberg: If by “ignored,” you mean, “failed to show the response we were hoping our presentation would elicit” then I quite agree.

We originally posted the graph on 04/16/2012 @ 06:19, then repeatedly referred to it. Only four days later did you admit you couldn’t read the graph, but during that four days you falsely claimed it only showed a single source of data and was therefore unreliable, and that our position was based on only the surface data, which wasn’t true either.

mkfreeberg: What data provide support for the primary cause argument?

The warming troposphere and the cooling stratosphere indicates that heat is being increasingly held close to the Earth’s surface due to the greenhouse effect. Now, it is simply a matter of studying the atmosphere to determine what has changed.

mkfreeberg: The “consensus science” I’ve been reading from the alarmist community, stops before that point, but this is not the first time you’ve crossed that particular line.

We’ve provided citations that included research into all aspects of climate change.

mkfreeberg: Last set of statistics I saw them presenting was: Light side of 30 gigatons of CO2 from humans and about 750 from natural causes.

That’s called the carbon cycle. Without the excess 29 gigatons of anthropogenic CO2, the atmosphere exchanges vast quantities of CO2, ≈332 gigatons with the oceans and ≈439 gigatons with the land (including vegetation), but remains in approximate balance. With the excess anthropogenic CO2, the oceans absorbs a *net* 6 gigatons leading to increasing acidification, while the land absorbs a *net* 11 gigatons. The balance remains in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect.
- Zachriel | 04/21/2012 @ 12:44
Severian: The entire Warmist argument depends on things being exactly one way.

Let’s start with a central premise, that the Earth is warming. The graph we provided from NOAA includes multiple data sources, including surface, radiosonde and satellite measurements. We have cited research published in Journal of Geophysical Research, Journal of Climate, Ecology, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, and Nature. Every major scientific organization, from countries with entirely different political systems and cultural backgrounds, have all concluded that the Earth is warming. Scientists from diverse fields, from forestry to paleoclimatology, using entirely different methods, have reached a strong consensus. We have cited National Academies of Science from around the world, including that of the United States. We have provided data from HadCRUT4 and NASA.

Now sure how else to help you.
- Zachriel | 04/21/2012 @ 12:56
but during that four days you falsely claimed it only showed a single source of data and was therefore unreliable…

Where did I claim it only showed a single source of data?

You’re speaking here on something about which you know very little. You linked to a .GIF file which included an alpha channel, which had transparency data that was evidently not part of the author’s intent. On most Windows browsers this didn’t cause a problem as long as the background was presumed to be white, but on Linux Firefox it made the letters unreadable. The curves, on the other hand, were easily understood and the larger lettering could, with great difficulty, be discerned. When you asked more questions about your own graph that involved understanding the years, this posed a problem on my end due to you not understanding much about your own graphic.

So I loaded it into my image processing software, removed the transparency layer, and fixed the problem for you in your own documentation artifact. No, it does not show humans to be the primary cause of climate change.
- mkfreeberg | 04/21/2012 @ 13:20
Without the excess 29 gigatons of anthropogenic CO2, the atmosphere exchanges vast quantities of CO2, ≈332 gigatons with the oceans and ≈439 gigatons with the land (including vegetation), but remains in approximate balance.

This is what I said quite some time ago. Climate change alarmism is based on a radical quasi-secular cultist religion that says, the “environment” functions properly and cleanly without humans in it and gets all out-of-whack and frowny faced with the humans in it. I’m sure most opinionated loud-folk who refers to humans as “little apes” are sympathetic with this…now with the carbon cycle, things get screwy really fast, because the ethos is extended into the carbon exchange cycle…some 750 gigatons of CO₂ are in this perfect balance, you put man’s piddly 28 or 29 GT on top of that and we have a real problem with the bathtub drain failing to let out as much water as the faucet is putting in. Darn that homo sapiens, things were in perfect balance before the little apes came along…

And that’s what your so-called “science” is talking about, Z. And you know so much about it, you’ve got all these footnotes for us to pour through. Can’t actually walk us through the actual argument and data, but you can cite your fingers to the bone. Read up, Morgan, and let me know if there’s anything wrong! If it doesn’t change your mind, read it again darn you!

This is where the heavy pendlum comes in. Just as, you can’t take a precise reading of the outflow of water through a drain of constant size when the water level is lower (since the pressure changes with the water level)…that analogy actually holds. Plant life consumes the carbon in the atmosphere; it’s built to. The plant life is not a constant, just as the flow of the water through the drain is not a constant because the pressure is not constant. As the CO₂ increases, the ecosystem overall becomes more hospitable to plant life which means…drum roll please…plant life will become more plentiful.

In simpler terms — if things are in such marvelous balance before the little-apes came along, throughout all that time, gee, maybe there might have been a reason for it. How do the little-apes defeat those forces that keep it in balance? Well gee, maybe we don’t. Maybe, like with so many other forms of life in nature, when something comes along to throw things out of balance, in so doing it will activate other forces to bring them back into balance again.

Now, what research do you have that directly contradicts that? Have you got something solid that proves things are in balance without the little apes, and the little apes have it in ’em to foul things up that badly? I know there are lots of people eager to think so…but cultism is not science.
- mkfreeberg | 04/21/2012 @ 13:33
mkfreeberg: No, it does not show humans to be the primary cause of climate change.

One step at a time. Does the data in the NOAA chart show that the troposphere is warming? Is this consistent with surface warming?
http://tinyurl.com/globe-climateanomalies
- Zachriel | 04/21/2012 @ 14:34
I’ve already answered this question.

You’re obviously just spewing a bunch of stuff, “verbal squid ink” Severian calls it…yes you give a cursory appearance of understanding it with your citations and such, but so far you’ve evaded every question about specifics, opting instead to chastise us for not reviewing it for you with the scrutiny you require. And now it has emerged that the image you’ve been re-linking several times, perhaps dozens of times, hasn’t even been prepared with sufficient care as to see what the transparency filter does when it’s placed in front of non-white backgrounds. I don’t doubt you got it from the NOAA, but within that esteemed organization, who do you think prepared it?

I gotta believe, if the planet’s really at stake, the creme de la crem of NOAA’s best and brightest would do something about their own transparency filters. Especially in the graphics that are supposed to show the unenlightened what a pressing problem it is.

As for what the readings show, not sure if you’re capable of understanding my answer if, according to your own reply of 6:45, you’re not willing to concede there is dispute in the scientific community about the measurements. You won’t do anything to substantiate your “squid ink” claim that humans are the primary cause of climate change, and your “one step at a time” badgering presumes that science works by settling this step then that step then that other one…which is not at all how it works. So your understanding of science is in doubt, the skill & stature of the NOAA professionals who assembled this bad graph with the faulty transparency plane is in doubt…which in turn calls the quality of the data into question.

I mean, I get where you’re trying to go with it. You’re trying to circle the wagons around Dr. Jones’ “out of context” statement about no warming in fifteen years, to establish there are some parts of the atmosphere that have been warming all along or some such…but that boils down to just evading my question.

If humans aren’t the primary cause of this impending disaster, there are new questions raised about whether they can do anything about it. And throughout all of this, you still haven’t defined what the impending disaster is, other than to accuse us of putting words in your mouth when we try to define what the case is you’re bringing…because you won’t say.

I have to say, if you were trying to convince me this is an issue, your letter grade for the effort wouldn’t be running real high. Even if I didn’t have to fix your data artifacts for you.
- mkfreeberg | 04/21/2012 @ 15:48
mkfreeberg: you’re not willing to concede there is dispute in the scientific community about the measurements.

We have checked the most recent scientific journals, which is where scientists communicate their findings. Just don’t see any significant dispute about whether the Earth is warming. Can you provide a more specific citation to the scientific literature?

Zachriel: Does the data in the NOAA chart show that the troposphere is warming? Is this consistent with surface warming?

mkfreeberg: I’ve already answered this question.

Is this what you are referring to?

mkfreeberg: And yes, I would say this shows the readings of the lower stratosphere are cooling while the readings of the troposphere are warming.

For some reason, you emphasized the word readings. As there are multiple measures made by different scientists using different methodologies, is there any reason why this is not sufficient to reliably indicate that the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling?
- Zachriel | 04/21/2012 @ 16:37
Let’s start with a central premise, that the Earth is warming

Yo, Torquemada:

I never said “the Earth isn’t warming.”

In fact, I’ve stipulated at least five (and it feels like about five thousand) times that “the Earth IS warming.” My disagreement with you is — has always been — about the consequences of that warming. Cf Severian | 04/16/2012 @ 16:22; where I specifically say: “My point was NOT to assert “the world is not getting hotter.” Rather, I sought to demonstrate that AGW alarmists use the (debatable) proposition “the world is getting hotter” to argue for…. all sorts of things, none of which is in the least scientific.”

See what I mean? Catechism. In order for you to feel you’ve done right by your god, you feel compelled to assert…. all kinds of stuff, none of which appears in the actual transcript, which is right here for the whole world to look at. Which is not science, or even debate. It’s just the intoning of mantras.
- Severian | 04/21/2012 @ 17:02
Severian: In fact, I’ve stipulated at least five (and it feels like about five thousand) times that “the Earth IS warming.”

You may want to explain to mkfreeberg why you believe the Earth is warming.

Severian: My disagreement with you is — has always been — about the consequences of that warming.

Well, the most obvious consequence is sea level rise, which is an inevitable result of global warming.

There is a vast literature on the effects of climate change. Here’s a very few.

Economic
Tol, The economic effects of climate change, The Journal of Economic Perspectives 2009.

Agriculture
Schlenker & Roberts, Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to US crop yields under climate change, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Human migration
Ehrhart, et al., In search of shelter: mapping the effects of climate change on human migration and displacement, Care International 2009
Oceanic acidification

Orr et al., Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms, Nature 2005
Biodiversity

Bellard, et al., Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity, Ecology 2012

Not to mention a number of studies that concern regional effects, among these being decreasing snowpack in North America, loss of tropical forests in South America, water stress and desertification in Africa, and coastal flooding in Asia.

NASA: Effects of Climate Change
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
- Zachriel | 04/21/2012 @ 18:37
For some reason, you emphasized the word readings. As there are multiple measures made by different scientists using different methodologies, is there any reason why this is not sufficient to reliably indicate that the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling?

Oh, my. This is going to call for an examination of the difference between a thing as it really exists, and the thing as it is perceived & measured. Your participation in this entire thread from the very beginning boils down to, essentially, relying on bits of documentation produced by others without your demonstrating any knowledge of how those studies were put together, or of the scientific method; plus, here and there you’ve made some rather glaring errors, the most egregious of which might be your assurance that a new study adjusts for the problems of placing temperature monitoring stations next to parking lots, barbeque grills, et al. In sum, you’ve made it clear that your reliance on “studies” is as boundless as it is uncompromising. I don’t wish this to come off as an insult, it really isn’t my intention, but I don’t think you’re up to this.

We can start with this: The measurements are done by humans and humans are flawed. Also: The science is in a state of constant evolution and there is a reason for this. Yeah, mistakes get made. It’s a fact. Now here and there you take this into account, but when your assurance that the mistakes are inconsequential, or not happening at all, because multiple measurements all say the same thing — well, that’s the ignorance I’m talking about. Multiple measurements can be useful in eliminating error, but only if there is something inherently advantageous within the second observation yielding a benefit not available to the first. Otherwise, it’s just multiple iterations of the same mishap.

Let’s think about the nature of what is being measured when you say “Let’s start with a central premise, that the Earth is warming.” What do we mean by the Earth? It’s a round object, a little less than eight thousand miles in diameter, with a surface that is some seventy percent water and a relatively thin atmosphere surrounding it. How do we measure the temperature of the earth. We have the surface readings which are taken by these problematic stations next to the air conditioning vents…you say, no problem here, move along, because experts have come up with a way to mathematically account for the problems and some study says it’s a pretty good accounting. Besides, so goes the argument, there are these other measurements made in the atmosphere — which is also, for all intents and purposes, surface measurements. So there is a problem here and it doesn’t matter much at all whether you are or are not willing to acknowledge it as one: All of the data you are bringing here, is based on a methodology of peeling a thin skin off this eight thousand mile round rock, and then measuring the temperature along that skin. Down beneath, where all the drama is really happening, even the most current climate science treats it as a “HERE BE DRAGONZ” territory because, hey, that isn’t climate.

Nevertheless, the readings are still unreliable because of the nature of what they are. They are averages of measurements taken from a two-dimensional object, which go into reports and studies that justify a major widespread freak-out over the condition of a three-dimensional thing. After that glaring mistake, it doesn’t matter how scientific the methodology is. Oh it’s quite useful for its intended, scientific purpose, which is to study the climate. But this “Earth mean temperature” thing is pure nonsense because it presumes you can find the average of an object by measuring only a part of it.

Now in another context, like sticking a thermometer up a baby’s butt, that actually works. It’s the body’s circulatory system that makes this functional as a way to figure out the “Baby mean temperature” and, if it’s more than a degree or so above normal, start the freak-out. The Earth’s “circulation” system between non-surface and surface, is not this smooth, this liquid, or as reliable. It is, essentially, a whole different “ecosystem” that has contact with this one only often enough to corrupt the experiment, but not often enough for you to be able to claim, like the mother taking her baby’s temperature, that you’re getting a good reading of the whole object.

And you do need to read the whole object in order to substantiate what you’re talking about, which is that there’s some cause for alarm if the mean temperature goes up by 2.5 to 3.0 degrees or so.

The next problem has to do with the quality of the readings taken from those stations — and from the satellites. Enough written about that. You say, don’t worry about it we’re still safely doomed, Berkeley did a study and adjusted the math. Gee, my physics teacher back in high school drilled into us that if the readings are crap, you better throw them out and start again because anything you calculate from them will also be crap. Made good sense to me. Seems to work differently here. Never let good science get in the way of a lucrative doomsday prophecy, I guess. Anyway, you think the mathematical adjustment resolves everything, I’m less than impressed, your question is about my opinion, and I choose to use the good science. So this remains a problem.

A third problem is in how the averaging is done. If you examine even the NOAA data, you’ll see where they plot out where the temperatures have been increasing on the surface and where they have not, you’ll generally find there is an exchange taking place between the land masses and the oceans, which are dropping in temperature a very small amount in proportion to the much larger variance by which the land masses are increasing, on average. But this is no mere blip, because there is a far greater area on the Earth’s surface covered by these oceans than by land masses. Also, sea water has a much greater heat density than land, and the things found upon that land. It takes a whole calorie to warm up a gram of the stuff by 1 degree Celcius. So when one keeps in mind that when we’re measuring heat retention, what we’re really measuring is the retention of heat energy, it does some damaging things for the theory that there’s some looming crisis because too much heat is being trapped in, unable to escape.

Now, if you can actually walk through an argument that settles those three problems, and gives meaning to these fluffy and unscientific terms like “mean temperature” in a way that demonstrates your own autonomous comprehension — going above and beyond your stock answer of “here’s a citation, go through the footnotes and let us know if you find a problem” — then we can discuss your demand for my agreement that the Earth is or has been warming over some specified period of time. Until you do that, for the reasons explained above, we can’t.

But real science doesn’t work by way of “let’s agree on this, then let’s agree on that, and now that you’ve agreed to that you are obliged to agree to some other thing.” We’re not negotiating alimony or pet care in a divorce court or anything like that…so real science doesn’t work that way. Red Dot Science does, maybe, but that’s how you whip up the crowd at a pep rally, not how you find out what’s actually happening in nature.
- mkfreeberg | 04/22/2012 @ 10:05
mkfreeberg: Oh, my.

“Oh my” is right. A huge amount of handwaving.

mkfreeberg: We can start with this: The measurements are done by humans and humans are flawed.

Yes, all measurements have inaccuracies and biases. All science works with imperfect data.

mkfreeberg: What do we mean by the Earth?

In this case, we’re concerned with the boundary layer.

mkfreeberg: We have the surface readings which are taken by these problematic stations next to the air conditioning vents…you say, no problem here, move along, because experts have come up with a way to mathematically account for the problems and some study says it’s a pretty good accounting.

For once, try to be skeptical of your own position. How could scientists account for poor station placement and the urban heat island effect? Have you read any of the cited papers we have provided?

mkfreeberg: Besides, so goes the argument, there are these other measurements made in the atmosphere — which is also, for all intents and purposes, surface measurements.

No. Satellites measure radiances in columns of air at various wavelengths. They are an independent measure of temperature in the troposphere, yet they confirm radiosonde data and are consistent with surface temperature data.
- Zachriel | 04/22/2012 @ 10:56
I get it now. “Handwaving” is a term you use, or one among you uses, to describe anyone pointing out that measurements, studies or conclusions you happen to like, might be incorrect, flawed, or contaminated for whatever reason. All those protests, reasonable or otherwise, goes into a large bin marked “handwaving.”

Well, if that’s how you define it, then I quite agree with your conclusion that all scientific research supports your favored conclusion. Every lick & spittle of it…aside from the “handwaving.” By definition. So anyone who questions why Severian was accusing you of circular reasoning, this should bring clarity.

No. Satellites…are an independent measure of temperature in the troposphere, yet they confirm radiosonde data and are consistent with surface temperature data.

And they measure nothing beneath the surface, so my point stands. So why are you saying “no”?

Who’s “handwaving” here?
- mkfreeberg | 04/22/2012 @ 12:44
mkfreeberg: I get it now. “Handwaving” is a term you use, or one among you uses, to describe anyone pointing out that measurements, studies or conclusions you happen to like, might be incorrect, flawed, or contaminated for whatever reason.

Handwaving refers to rejecting those measurements without evidence other than your own incredulity and prejudices. All empirical observations are subject to error and biases. Saying that measurements might be in error is not an argument that these particular measurements are in error, or that residual errors impact the conclusion that the Earth’s lower troposphere is warming. It’s not as if scientists don’t consider and study the sources of error.

We have provided data from NASA, including surface measurements, radiosonde and satellite. We have provided independent analysis of the data. You have provided nothing.

mkfreeberg: And they measure nothing beneath the surface, so my point stands. So why are you saying “no”?

You had said this:

mkfreeberg: Besides, so goes the argument, there are these other measurements made in the atmosphere — which is also, for all intents and purposes, surface measurements.

Surface temperature has a specific meaning in climatology. The troposphere is not the surface. The stratosphere is not the surface. Apparently, you are concerned because we haven’t included temperature measurements from the Earth’s interior. Seriously.

Well, scientists do measure the interior temperature of the Earth. There is some minimal direct radiation into the boundary layer from the interior, but this is dwarfed by energy from the Sun. More important, volcanoes can release vast quantities of gas and dust into the atmosphere which can have a profound impact on climate, as already cited above.

In any case, that’s not the specific being addressed, which is whether the troposphere is warming. The NOAA data is clear. The troposphere is warming, consistent with surface warming. Just waving your hands won’t make the data go away.
- Zachriel | 04/22/2012 @ 13:05
Handwaving refers to rejecting those measurements without evidence other than your own incredulity and prejudices.

I have posed reasonable questions.

If you have the ability to do so, which I doubt, why don’t you answer them in a way that meaningfully clarifies how they are inapplicable…or else, admit this is a part of the science that is “unsettled.”

Thus far, all you’re doing is continuing this recent tradition that climate change “science” is not science at all, and simply a rhetorical methodology of saying “we’re right and those other people are wrong.”

In any case, that’s not the specific being addressed, which is whether the troposphere is warming.

It is most of the specific that is being addressed, actually. Your question is, do I concede that the Earth is warming. In response, I contend we’re not even measuring any part of this, aside from the very tiny piece that can be used to scare people and in so doing, shift political power.
- mkfreeberg | 04/22/2012 @ 13:17
mkfreeberg: I have posed reasonable questions.

Which we answered. We’ll answer again.

mkfreeberg: Let’s think about the nature of what is being measured when you say “Let’s start with a central premise, that the Earth is warming.” What do we mean by the Earth?

In this case, we specifically said the lower troposphere is warming.

mkfreeberg: The next problem has to do with the quality of the readings taken from those stations — and from the satellites.

The problems you have pointed out concerning station measurements do not apply to satellite measurements.

mkfreeberg: A third problem is in how the averaging is done.

None of your objections matter to satellite measurements of the troposphere. Do you agree that the evidence indicates that the lower troposphere is warming?
- Zachriel | 04/22/2012 @ 13:52
You know, it occurs to me: If a door-to-door salesman or saleslady perched himself or herself on my porch with a well-studied, well-rehearsed, but pre-assembled sales pitch and I asked a question that was outside the scope of what was studied…he or she would likely give a response of “Well, I don’t know about that but.” So there’s a certain measure of personal integrity you’re missing there, Z. Maybe it’s because you’re really a group and not an individual person. But you’ve got this thing going on, this “Whoever doesn’t buy off is uninformed, stick to that trope, never deviate from it” thing going on. The circuit has been stripped of its fuses, which have been replaced with paper clips, which won’t be tripped no matter how high the current gets.

I’ve pointed out the inconvenient fact that when you ask “Do you concede the Earth is getting warmer” what you’re really asking is, “Do you concede that the atmosphere is getting warmer.” The thing for you to do now, is just to admit it. These measurements you’ve been discussing are measurements of a closed, isolated ecosystem…in which case, the alarmism is credible, but it’s based on measurements which are not fully informed, since the measurements are only of part of a closed system. Thus, an average of them is meaningless.

Or, you can admit the measurements are not of a whole, isolated ecosystem, they are measurements of only part of one. Which would make them then informed, and given the proper context. But that would erase the alarmism value, which is key to the continued funding. One or the other.

I’m not asking you to admit that your construct, while perhaps well versed in what footnotes to offer, lacks the comprehension of the meaning of the research that was done…although that is becoming clearer by the hour to the few people who are still paying attention to the thread. I’m not even asking you to admit that your climate-alarmist so-called-“science” has been taking advantage of the fact that the people who understand the least about this research, are the ones who have the most to say about it, and say it the loudest…although that, too, is becoming clearer all the time, thanks in no small part to you. All I’m asking you to admit is that your demand that I admit the Earth is getting warmer, was misstated. You wanted me to admit the atmosphere is getting warmer, and that this phenomenon has been billed as “The Earth Iz Overheatin!!!Eleventy!!” to get the uninformed excited so more grant money can be secured with less difficulty. You just need to admit this fuzzy concept of “The Earth” has not been defined in a way that it should have been defined, if we’re really considering this whole issue with a methodology based on good, sound science.

Are you capable?
- mkfreeberg | 04/22/2012 @ 16:15
mkfreeberg: I’ve pointed out the inconvenient fact that when you ask “Do you concede the Earth is getting warmer” what you’re really asking is, “Do you concede that the atmosphere is getting warmer.”

You’re still handwaving. We were very specific. Does the evidence indicate that the lower troposphere is getting warmer?

mkfreeberg: the measurements are only of part of a closed system.

The lower troposphere is not a closed system, but exchanges heat with the Sun, the ground, and the layers above and below it, as well as exchanges gases. You seem to be saying that we can’t measure the temperature of the lower troposphere. Is that really your claim?
- Zachriel | 04/22/2012 @ 17:14
You’re still handwaving. We were very specific.

If by “specific” you mean the Earth is the same as its atmosphere, I agree.

That is not the case, however. If you don’t believe me, ask a scientist.
- mkfreeberg | 04/22/2012 @ 17:33
mkfreeberg: If by “specific” you mean the Earth is the same as its atmosphere, I agree.

Let’s look at our original comment on this thread, the one that is still causing you such consternation.

Zachriel: This NOAA chart might help clarify matters. It shows data from a variety of sources, including satellite, balloon and ground-based instrumentation.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
In particular, note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming.

At this point, we are only concerned with satellite and radiosonde data on the lower troposphere, which indicate that the lower troposphere is warming.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2012 @ 05:58
Actually, you asked me to concede that the Earth is warming. In fact, if memory serves, used a little bit of mockery when you discovered Severian was willing to concede this and I was not. Then, you made a point of going after me to find out why I made a distinction between your readings going higher versus the Earth actually getting warmer.

Then, I did something that hasn’t been done a whole lot…which we should be seeing people do all the time, if the goal is really to use science to head off some calamity. I made a listing of three real problems with your argument, when it is evaluated according to what has classically been known as “science.” I went outside of the “throw this sound bite at the uneducated masses it oughtta scare ’em” round-robin.

You called it hand-waving. You haven’t come up with a good reason why it’s called that, but I have: My counter-argument uses real science, in a way you don’t happen to like.

Hand-waving? Two dimensions is not three. That’s a scientific fact. The atmosphere is not all of the Earth; that is science. Water has a higher heat density than sand. That’s science too.

So far, you’ve shown yourself well-studied in studies — just footnotes to throw out there, with footnotes in ’em, that the other party is supposed to peruse and get-back-to-ya. “Verbal squid ink,” Severian calls it, and that’s exactly what it is. Frankly, you haven’t shown yourself to have much comprehension of your own works. I know you’re trying to come off as studious and knowledgeable about the subject, but you’re mostly just coming off as thoughtless and intransigent…”Okay, I concluded such-and-such about this thing, I’m going to make it my mission in life everyone reaches the same conclusion, and if they think of something I haven’t thought of, I’ll just dismiss that as ‘hand-waving.'”

Funny thing is, when you call the other argument hand waving, in doing so you provide a textbook illustration of what it really is.
- mkfreeberg | 04/23/2012 @ 06:13
mkfreeberg: Actually, you asked me to concede that the Earth is warming. In fact, if memory serves, used a little bit of mockery when you discovered Severian was willing to concede this and I was not.

We were referring to the boundary zone, as is clear from context. Not sure why you are making this diversion, except perhaps to avoid dealing with the data.

mkfreeberg: I made a listing of three real problems with your argument, when it is evaluated according to what has classically been known as “science.”

To which we responded more than once. We’ll respond to one of those points again.

mkfreeberg: Water has a higher heat density than sand.

Your probably mean specific heat. How does the specific heat of sand affect radiosonde and satellite measurements of the troposphere?
- Zachriel | 04/23/2012 @ 06:47
To which we responded more than once. We’ll respond to one of those points again.

Oh, I got the points. You called it “hand waving” and…waved it away. With your rhetorical hand.

So no, I don’t concede the Earth is warming. And I’m not altogether sure what this has to do with humans being the primary cause of warming. On that point, you go beyond even the “consensus science.”
- mkfreeberg | 04/23/2012 @ 06:58
mkfreeberg: So no, I don’t concede the Earth is warming.

We provided radiosonde and satellite data indicating that the lower troposphere was warming. You responded by making reference to the “heat density” of sand. We then asked “How does the specific heat of sand affect radiosonde and satellite measurements of the troposphere?”
- Zachriel | 04/23/2012 @ 07:47
Yes, and none of this has to do with the Earth warming.

Additionally, none of it has anything to do with man being the “primary cause” of such warming…a case in which you have surpassed even the wildest imaginings of this consensus-driven phony red-dot science. I’d like to take this opportunity to remind you, now, that this is all a bunny trail off of you providing us with supporting evidence for this particular claim.
- mkfreeberg | 04/23/2012 @ 18:27
mkfreeberg: Let’s think about the nature of what is being measured when you say “Let’s start with a central premise, that the Earth is warming.” What do we mean by the Earth?

To clarify again, the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling.

mkfreeberg: Yes, and none of this has to do with the Earth warming.

The question we asked is whether the data reasonably indicates that that lower troposphere is warming. Let’s try something even simple. Can we measure temperature?
- Zachriel | 04/24/2012 @ 04:01
To clarify again, the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling.

Why clarify that which I’ve shown no sign of misunderstanding? You asked me to concede that the Earth is warming, and for reasons that should be clear now, I do not.

The question we asked is whether the data reasonably indicates that that lower troposphere is warming. Let’s try something even simple[r]. Can we measure temperature?

I’m not sure what any of this has to do with your claim that humans are the primary cause of climate change. You seem to be determined to get ever further away from providing support for this, rather than closer.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2012 @ 05:19
mkfreeberg: I’m not sure what any of this has to do with your claim that humans are the primary cause of climate change. You seem to be determined to get ever further away from providing support for this, rather than closer.

The claim at issue concerns temperature. Can we measure temperature?
- Zachriel | 04/24/2012 @ 08:27
How about make the argument like a grown-up and just walk through the whole thing beginning to end?

Rather than like a little kid in the back seat of a station wagon asking “Are we there yet” over and over…your step-by-step approach tends to leave you confused and distracted, bloviating endlessly about my inability to understand things I’ve shown no sign of failing to understand, anytime I draw a conclusion different from yours. So why don’t we try another approach, you state what you think we know and why you think we know it, and I’ll tell you where all the holes are.

1. Why do you think The Earth is warming;
2. Why do you think humans are the primary cause of this.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2012 @ 09:26
mkfreeberg: How about make the argument like a grown-up and just walk through the whole thing beginning to end?

We tried that, but you had troubles following the argument.

mkfreeberg: 1. Why do you think The Earth is warming;

Thousands of measurements over decades indicate that the troposphere is warming, while the stratosphere is cooling.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

As the data clearly indicates that the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling, do you accept this finding?
- Zachriel | 04/24/2012 @ 09:34
We tried that, but you had troubles following the argument.

Yes, you’re right.

If by “had troubles following” you mean “found problems in.”

Give it another try, and I’ll try to explain in more easily understood terms where you’re going wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2012 @ 09:40
We will take the argument one step at a time. As the data clearly indicates that the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling, do you accept this finding?
- Zachriel | 04/24/2012 @ 09:45
An argument with merit, shouldn’t have to be made by ritual chiding.

It’s not a valid way to pursue the argument, either. If I accept the finding and it is a false finding, it remains false regardless of my acceptance; if it is a good finding and I don’t accept it, there, too, my response to it is irrelevant.

So while this exercise of asking me what I accept might make you feel good, and gratify some latent feeling of personal inadequacy(ies) on your part, it isn’t good science. If this is about what the scientists know & don’t know, why don’t we discuss it the way they do. That’s just good common sense, yes?
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2012 @ 09:51
mkfreeberg: If I accept the finding and it is a false finding, it remains false regardless of my acceptance; if it is a good finding and I don’t accept it, there, too, my response to it is irrelevant.

In other words, even though we provide you relevant data, including direct radiosonde measurements of temperature in the troposphere, you won’t accept it. That’s all you had to say.
- Zachriel | 04/24/2012 @ 10:01
I’m not required to accept data just because it’s measured & relevant.

If I were, then you’d be obliged to accept this.

See? Measurements. Meanings. Called into dispute. Debated endlessly. That’s a part of science. That’s how it works.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2012 @ 10:04
mkfreeberg: I’m not required to accept data just because it’s measured & relevant.

Hee!

No, handwaving is perfectly legal in most jurisdictions.

mkfreeberg: If I were, then you’d be obliged to accept this.

The data is what it is. The first chart is probably HadCRUT3, but truncated in order to be able to ignore the long term trend. Then you agree that the temperature has been relatively stable on a warm plateau over the last several years. Is that correct? Meanwhile, according to your citation, the ocean is still warming during the same period, *so the overall heat energy near the surface is rising*. So let’s return to the longer term trend. Notice that there is a lot of fluctuation, but that there is a clear warming trend in the troposphere.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

Are we in agreement then? Over the last decade or so, the overall energy near the surface has been rising, while the troposphere has been warming over the last half century.
- Zachriel | 04/24/2012 @ 10:41
I think I see the problem.

You live in an exceptionally simple world in which there are no questions or reasonable dispute about things, specifically, which readings are the right ones, or what they might mean. From the very beginning, you’ve shown a complete lack of ability to comprehend such things, and a steadfast recalcitrance against acknowledging them, even when backed into a corner over it. Your repeated demands that myself & others “agree” to this-and-that, even after you’ve been mocked for it, and it’s been meticulously explained to you why this is irrelevant, further demonstrate this lack of understanding you have.

In other words, you live in a world in which works are cited & studied, arguments are had, but real working things are not built.

And your world is outside the actual study of climatology, climate change, and so forth; since none of those disciplines can be researched with any integrity, by people who can’t grasp this. Yes, you’ve got some readings that say one thing, I’ve got a few other readings that say other things…you’ve got an idea about what might be “truncated” and how, but none of that really matters. You just get a kick out of returning to this merry-go-round narrative that your opponent fails to catch on to something and you’re going to educate them because you’re smarter — this we know, because you’ve returned to it at a few points, most recently this morning, where it’s absolutely uncalled-for.

In short, you’ve demonstrated a complete inability to distinguish between “No, I do not accept that” and “I’m too simple-minded to comprehend this, please explain it to me and be as condescending as you possibly can.” The simple concept of someone reading your works, understanding them, and disagreeing with you about their verity or what they mean, entirely eludes you.

Are we in agreement then? Over the last decade or so, the overall energy near the surface has been rising, while the troposphere has been warming over the last half century.

Again, it doesn’t matter if we agree. If we do, and it’s wrong, it’s wrong; if we don’t, and it’s right, it’s right. Every time you do this, it further illustrates the point I’ve made about you, that you live in a world in which reality is made of agreements and has nothing to do with real reality.

That the “science” of climate change doom is rooted in such a world, of course, does very, very little to make it credible.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2012 @ 10:54
This discussion is a great illustration of my contention that leftist “debate” is little more than an attempt to square two incompatible items of faith via verbal squid ink. To wit:

A. Politics, like science, is about nothing but facts.
B. We control all the facts.

The only way to make this work, of course, is to torture the English language into bizarre contortions, so that we end up using very common words in only one weird, hyper-specific, legalistic way that’s light-years away from everyday speech.

For instance, you see it in the “gay marriage” debate. Leftists will not accept a “civil union,” even one that carries all the same legal privileges and disabilities as marriage. This makes no sense if you assume that they really, really care about “fundamental human rights” and all the rest…. but it makes perfect sense if the goal is to force everyone to use the word “marriage” exactly, and only, in the micro-specialized way the left does. The fact that I almost wrote “the same legal privileges and disabilities as straight marriage” up there shows how far advanced this project is.

So, too, with the word “Catholicism.” Andrew Sullivan, for one, keeps insisting that “true Catholicism” means…. all kinds of stuff that it doesn’t mean, and hasn’t meant, ever, in the two-plus millennia of the Church’s existence. But if you point out to him that there IS a church — a large, influential one, called “The Episcopal Church” — that’s perfectly fine with gay clergy, married clergy, and all the other stuff he insists upon; and if you further point out that becoming an Episcopalian is very easy, and that they’d welcome him with open arms; and that he’d thereby seemingly get every single thing his heart desires vis-a-vis religion, he….. stomps his foot and throws a hissy fit insisting that no, he’s talking about Roman Catholicism, damn it, grumble grumble grumble. And if the Pope of the Catholic Church, sitting on the Throne of St. Peter in the heart of the Apostolic See, doesn’t agree, well then he, Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome, isn’t a true Catholic.

And who can argue with that? 🙂

Logic 101: necessary truths can only follow from other necessary truths. So, yeah, if we define “global warming” and “science” in the exact, hyper-specific, legalistic way Zachriel does, then of course “global warming” requires all those hysterics, and of course all those hysterics are perfectly scientific, because they’re right there in the definition: Global warming is the scientifically-proven thing that scientifically requires all kinds of political stuff, all of which is totally scientific. This argument is rigorously logical, because all tautologies are rigorously logical — I doubt if even so great a skeptic as yourself, Morgan, would deny that the argument “A=A; A; therefore A” is about as logical as human brains can get.

So when you, Morgan, point out that all kinds of people who call themselves scientists, and have big fancy science degrees from big important science places, and have unlimited access to all the science-type stuff the world’s leading science-producing nations have to do science with, disagree with both the “global” and the “warming” part of “global warming,” Zachriel literally cannot understand what you’re saying. You might as well be speaking Ancient Sumerian.

An analogy might help. Let’s assume this exchange is about baseball:

mkfreeberg: I’m not required to accept data just because it’s measured & relevant.

Hee!

No, handwaving is perfectly legal in most jurisdictions.

To most of us, the statement “I’m not required to accept data just because it’s measured & relevant” is perfectly comprehensible, and perfectly valid — you’re asserting that Ted Williams was the greatest hitter of all time, and Zachriel keeps responding with “yes, but Nolan Ryan’s lifetime ERA was 4.26.” That’s both measured (4.26 is a real number, obtained by a defined, universally-valid formula) and relevant (ERA is a baseball thing), but absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.

To Zachriel, however, “measured” and “relevant” are knockout blows (to mix the sports metaphors for a sec), because they prove you’re wrong by definition. (A, as we recall, is equal to A). There’s simply no such thing as a “measured, relevant” data point that doesn’t prove you wrong, because that’s what “measured” and “relevant” mean.

Which is how leftists “win” “arguments” — they keep repeating their koans until you either achieve enlightenment and start using words their way, or you throw up your hands in disgust and quit arguing…. at which point they’ve “won,” because they’ve “proved” that you’re too “stupid” to understand what they’re saying.
- Severian | 04/24/2012 @ 12:10
mkfreeberg: You live in an exceptionally simple world in which there are no questions or reasonable dispute about things, specifically, which readings are the right ones, or what they might mean.

In fact, there are plenty of reasonable disputes about the data, you just aren’t raising any.

Zachriel: Are we in agreement then? Over the last decade or so, the overall energy near the surface has been rising, while the troposphere has been warming over the last half century.

mkfreeberg: Again, it doesn’t matter if we agree. If we do, and it’s wrong, it’s wrong; if we don’t, and it’s right, it’s right.

That tautological statement could just as easily be applied to any findings in any area of science. But it’s not an argument about whether this data, the data you yourself cited, is reasonably correct or not. You don’t address the data, you just wave your hands in the hope that it goes away.

Based on your own citation, over the last decade or so, the overall energy near the surface has been rising, while the troposphere has been warming over the last half century. Are we in agreement then?
- Zachriel | 04/24/2012 @ 12:44
Severian: To most of us, the statement “I’m not required to accept data just because it’s measured & relevant” is perfectly comprehensible, and perfectly valid

Your baseball example is not measured *and* relevant.

Severian: To Zachriel, however, “measured” and “relevant” are knockout blows (to mix the sports metaphors for a sec), because they prove you’re wrong by definition.

Clearly not. If we point to the tropospheric temperature record of the last half century and say it shows a cooling trend, then that statement would be false. That’s because it is not a tautology, but a claim about a specific set of data, which may or may not be true, depending on the specifics of that data.
- Zachriel | 04/24/2012 @ 12:50
That tautological statement could just as easily be applied to any findings in any area of science.

If that ain’t “hand-waving,” then the term has no meaning.

Based on your own citation, over the last decade or so, the overall energy near the surface has been rising, while the troposphere has been warming over the last half century. Are we in agreement then?

No, we’re not, and it’s clear you didn’t look at the material behind the link very carefully.

It’s looking like Severian’s got you pegged.

A. Politics, like science, is about nothing but facts.
B. We control all the facts.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2012 @ 12:53
What has any of this to do with proving that

• The Earth is warming, or
• Humans are the primary cause of this warming?
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2012 @ 12:55
mkfreeberg: No, we’re not, and it’s clear you didn’t look at the material behind the link very carefully.

Yes, we did read it. According to your citation, the surface temperature has plateaued, and the oceans have continued to warm. That means the overall heat energy near the surface of the Earth has increased. Not that it matters to you as you apparently have no interest in the science of climate change.
- Zachriel | 04/24/2012 @ 13:00
That means the overall heat energy near the surface of the Earth has increased. Not that it matters to you as you apparently have no interest in the science of climate change.

Nonsense. If the Earth fries, I burn to a crisp along with everyone else. I just don’t think anything like that is happening. Of course, I do agree with you if by “have no interest,” what you really mean is, “you do not form your opinions according to covenant with others.” If that’s your meaning, you have it right. Is that the way people need to think in order to find your science persuasive?

My citation also identifies a substantial disconnect between the accumulation of CO₂ and this mean-temperature statistic, in which you (all) have much greater faith than I…got a counter-claim? Got contrary evidence? If you don’t, it deals a blow to the idea that the human species is causing the phenomenon, in any way…or has any control over it at all. We seem, again, to be retreating further from that point of you’re that you’re supposed to be proving.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2012 @ 13:06
mkfreeberg: What has any of this to do with proving that …

Scientific evidence doesn’t “prove”, but supports.

mkfreeberg: The Earth is warming

As stated repeatedly, the evidence we provided supports the claim that the troposphere has been warming over the last half century. You have provided no contrary evidence whatsoever.

By the way, the tropospheric trend is consistent with surface data, especially after we remove many sources of noise to the surface data, such as variations in solar irradiance, volcanism and ENSO.
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f5_online.jpg

Foster & Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010, Environmental Research Letters 2011.
- Zachriel | 04/24/2012 @ 13:08
mkfreeberg: If the Earth fries, I burn to a crisp along with everyone else. I just don’t think anything like that is happening.

Neither do we.

mkfreeberg: Of course, I do agree with you if by “have no interest,” what you really mean is, “you do not form your opinions according to covenant with others.”

What it means is that you won’t accept measured and relevant data, meaning there is no basis for a scientific discussion.

mkfreeberg: My citation also identifies a substantial disconnect between the accumulation of CO2 and this mean-temperature statistic, in which you (all) have much greater faith than I…got a counter-claim?

Yes, we read that. Meanwhile, this discussion is still stuck on your refusal to accept the observation of tropospheric warming, or provide a valid scientific reason to reject those observations.
- Zachriel | 04/24/2012 @ 13:13
[…] Up to 162 comments now. […]
- They are still going « Blog of the Nightfly | 04/24/2012 @ 13:22
Scientific evidence doesn’t “prove”, but supports.

++eyeball roll++ What was Severian saying about verbal squid-ink…fine, I’ll re-word it then, we’ll see how massively that changes the outcome.

What has any of this to do with supporting your notions that

• The Earth is warming, or
• Humans are the primary cause of this warming?

What it means is that you won’t accept measured and relevant data, meaning there is no basis for a scientific discussion.

When did I say I didn’t accept the data? I said, after reviewing it, no I do not agree with the conclusion you are drawing from it. You have demonstrated a steadfast and consistent problem seeing the difference between these two concepts, which I’ve noted already. I’ve also noted, after you do this and then get busted/mocked for doing so, you do it again. Every time you do this, it further illustrates the point I’ve made about you, that you live in a world in which reality is made of agreements and has nothing to do with real reality.

That the “science” of climate change doom is rooted in such a world, of course, does very, very little to make it credible.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2012 @ 15:56
mkfreeberg: I said, after reviewing it, no I do not agree with the conclusion you are drawing from it.

Thank you for the clear statement. Why do you think the NOAA data does not support the claim that the troposphere has warmed over the last half century?
- Zachriel | 04/24/2012 @ 16:07
You made the point up above that science doesn’t actually prove things. It’s clear you only did that to squirt some verbal squid ink, since you don’t believe in it yourself; it’s very obvious you see science as capable of proving, and duty-bound to prove, these things. (Also, you’re using the squid ink exactly like a frightened sepia, darting away from the point of confrontation as fast as your tentacles can carry you. You won’t say anything about why or how we know the Earth is warming, and you won’t say anything about why or how we know humans to be the primary cause of this warming.)

But you do have a point here. Science only provides support for theories and it doesn’t actually “prove” anything. Some day, if you ever actually believe this truism, rather than just using it at convenient times as cuttlefish escape ink, you should convey this thought to the scientists and pundits who are behind the links one rounds up when one queries Google on the troposphere warming. They agree with you, and they have data to back up their position, but the way they argue it is anti-scientific. Their arguments look very much like yours. They have all these pejorative terms for anyone who disagrees with them about their findings, or even questions the findings. Many among them seem to be on some endless perpetual-motion-machine question for the perfect way to say this-is-super-duper-duper-settled.

The real science that is at work here, although subjected to a limited number of variables and with these variables relatively easy to define, remains nascent. The temperature variances they are measuring are microscopic when compared to the vastness of the thing being measured which is the troposphere. The science has been politicized, which is as tragic as it is undeniable. We hear all about how terrible it is that ExxonMobil or some other commercial concern is funding something called “denialism.” Seems to me, it should be anticipated to have an equally corrupting effect when governments fund alarmism.

There is, as I’ve pointed out many times already, the delusive discipline of measuring averages. Averages can be quite treacherous, especially when they are used to track movement of measurements across time. Suppose the Navy gets a wild hair up its butt and decides to paint an aircraft carrier green, and another one bright cherry red; I measure the speed of these two great vessels on Day One, the red one moves at ten knots and the green one moves at six knots, an average of eight knots. I fail to take into account the colors — but color is irrelevant, so that’s quite alright, I arrive at an average of eight knots which is useful. Next day, the green aircraft carrier is still moving at the same speed of six knots, and the red increases from ten to twelve, so the average is nine. Still a useful statistic, so when I subtract and find the delta is one knot between Day One and Day Two, that also is useful.

On Day Three, the green aircraft carrier eases off to five knots, and the red aircraft carrier is nowhere to be seen, so for the sake of my continuing experiment I conduct my measurements on a shiny new bright-cherry-red moped that can go eighty miles an hour. This destroys the integrity of my experiment, because I’m taking an average among a plurality of objects, possessing a disparity of readings on an attribute which has relevance to the thing I’m measuring. I get an average of some 43mph which means absolutely nothing — can’t be used to calculate anything. On Day One and Day Two I could make credible statements about the combined kinetic energy of these craft, and what was happening to that energy reading across time. But that’s based on a premise that the objects being measured are somewhat similar to each other on this other relevant factor, which is the mass. When that goes out the window, all the usefulness of my experiment goes out the window as well. I’m still getting real, rational numbers by using simple division. But that’s all they are, just numbers. They can no longer be applied to anything.

So. The rhetorical methods used by the people who talk about these satellite measurements is pugnacious and anti-scientific, even though like your prose, it is occasionally loaded with citations & footnotes, but the tone of it spoils for a fight and doesn’t demonstrate any welcoming tone for any scrutinizing comments or questions. The science is in a natal stage; there is a natural uncertainty to be entertained due to that, and I’m not seeing anyone who peddles this science acknowledging that uncertainty. They seem to suffer from your problem, laboring under a belief that once a measurement has been made, it becomes gospel truth and cannot ever be put into doubt ever again. It’s black-box science, in that once these rookie mistakes are uncovered the answer seems to consistently be of the form “We’ve conducted a subsequent study on it and these experts — TRUST THEM — provide assurances that all is well.” A high school freshman science student should be able to tell you, when data are found to be bad, you don’t adjust the readings mathematically you throw them out and start over. That’s out of the question, apparently because the science has been politicized. And what kind of people allow science to be politicized in the first place? Scientists? Good ones, with integrity?

Severian discusses the use of narratives — narratives that are supposed to look like discussions of things, as opposed to real discussions of things — here. It’s obvious he’s inspired by our little exchange here. The problems with our discussion in this thread, appear to be mirrored by this community of knowledgeable scientists who’ve been taking & opining about these satellite readings.

Nightfly discusses what’s been happening to the peer review process, with an apt movie review analogy, over here. The University of East Anglia e-mails make it clear that this kind of thing is exactly what happened but…oh yeah, yet again…a bunch of knowledgeable elite wizened elders made a study of the e-mail scandal, and their findings are: Nothing to see here folks, move along.

It’s become a rather tired stock answer. Like Obama saying He doesn’t have to prove something to us and we shouldn’t be asking to see it. In both cases, after awhile the entirety of all the occasions on which this stock answer has been used, is more incriminating than the sum of its parts.

In short, we seem to have a consensus that the Earth is getting warmer, much the same way a sculptor reduces a block of marble into a horse shape by “consensus” — just declaring, with mallet and chisel in hand, that anything that doesn’t look like a horse isn’t part of the consensus. Or as blogger friend Phil put it at one time, “Everyone who agrees with us, agrees with us.” Distilled down into its essentials, that’s what the climate alarmist “science” is really saying. Which sounds like something, to anyone who doesn’t bother to follow the actual argument.

Incidentally, I do think the NOAA data supports the claim that the troposphere has warmed. But, no, I don’t concede the point and I don’t consider even that question to be settled, or closed in any way. I regard it as wide open. I’ve seen science show this kind of foot-stomping grandstanding phony-certainty arrogance a whole lot in my lifetime, especially with the climate sciences (although perhaps a bit more often with medicine)…and, if you wait a few years, here it comes back again to reverse itself. It’s become rather comical, really, to anyone who takes note of what’s happening and manages to remember it across a decent stretch of time.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2012 @ 18:29
mkfreeberg: Incidentally, I do think the NOAA data supports the claim that the troposphere has warmed. But, no, I don’t concede the point and I don’t consider even that question to be settled, or closed in any way.

Why do you think the NOAA data does not sufficiently support the claim that the troposphere has warmed over the last half century? Your previous verbiage seems to to suggest we can’t determine whether the average temperature of a body of air has changed. Is that your position? Really?
- Zachriel | 04/25/2012 @ 04:48
mkfreeberg: A high school freshman science student should be able to tell you, when data are found to be bad, you don’t adjust the readings mathematically you throw them out and start over.

All data is subject to error and biases. In this case, we have radiosonde data supported by satellite data and consistent with ground-based station data. You have offered no evidence whatsoever that the data is in any significant disagreement with the facts. So, on the one hand, we have satellite and radiosonde data from scientists around the world who are actually working to make careful measurements of tropospheric temperatures; and, on the other hand, we have someone on a blog who merely waves his hands.
- Zachriel | 04/25/2012 @ 04:54
“Can’t” is a pretty strong word. I’d say it’s certainly established there are some problems with it. I have strong doubts that the scientists would ever admit the science currently falls short of overcoming the problems, and I have strong doubts that the science has indeed overcome the problems.

To coin another tortured metaphor, I think what they’re doing is rather like measuring the surface area of all the strands of hair on a cat. I can appreciate how, in most situations, once the numbers have been attained they’re going to be in need of mathematical adjustment for one reason or another; and I can see how the adjustment, once made necessary, can be carried out in such a way that a consensus arises that it was done well, and that in that scenario there’s no way to validate it except by consensus. But that would put them in a situation where they don’t know what they don’t know, which I think applies.

After that, we have to consider what this number is good for, what it tells us. I’d say that question is about as easily answered with the average surface of the troposphere, as it is with the total surface area of all the hairs on a cat.

Hey, here’s a question: Would you agree there are energized political forces at work to drive the message that human activity is responsible for any temperature increase, and that if the science is going to do us any good, their influence would have to be kept out of it?
- mkfreeberg | 04/25/2012 @ 04:58
mkfreeberg: “Can’t” is a pretty strong word. I’d say it’s certainly established there are some problems with it. I have strong doubts that the scientists would ever admit the science currently falls short of overcoming the problems, and I have strong doubts that the science has indeed overcome the problems.

What problems are those?

mkfreeberg: I’d say that question is about as easily answered with the average surface of the troposphere, as it is with the total surface area of all the hairs on a cat.

Assuming a reasonable definition of the surface area of a cat’s hair (due to fractalization), there is no problem with estimating the surface area of all the hairs on a cat. Do you understand statistical sampling?

mkfreeberg: After that, we have to consider what this number is good for, what it tells us. I’d say that question is about as easily answered with the average {temperature} of the troposphere, as it is with the total surface area of all the hairs on a cat.

We’ll deal with the usefulness of the figure once we have it. Currently, you don’t think scientists are capable of building and launching satellites to reliably measure the average long-wave radiation of the troposphere.
http://i.usatoday.net/weather/_photos/2011/10/28/Weather-satellite-boosted-into-orbit-5FHABCG-x-large.jpg
- Zachriel | 04/25/2012 @ 05:17
mkfreeberg: Hey, here’s a question: Would you agree there are energized political forces at work to drive the message that human activity is responsible for any temperature increase, and that if the science is going to do us any good, their influence would have to be kept out of it?

Science and politics should ideally be kept separate, but there are important instances where policy-makers and scientists must consult. Scientists have the duty to make known those discoveries that are important to society at large. And policy-makers have the duty to have scientists provide insight into the implications of policy decisions.
- Zachriel | 04/25/2012 @ 05:21
Do you understand statistical sampling?

That’s just weird; every problem that is raised about the research, even the ones acknowledged to be real problems that can only be resolved by rough estimates, you respond with these barbed queries about the inquirer’s understanding of the low-level basics. In addition to being weird it’s also bad science. Looking more and more like a religion all the time.

You were asking why I still have doubts. I confined my comments to the research itself and did not observe anything about the behavior of the global warming advocates. Perhaps I should have included that. As Severian has mentioned a few times, this behavior has consistently more closely resembled the behavior of catechism authorities within a religious sect or cult, than the behavior of responsible scientists or those who are interested in following their research.

Yes, to answer your question. Do you understand the difference between lossy and lossless data compression algorithms?

Science and politics should ideally be kept separate, but there are important instances where policy-makers and scientists must consult. Scientists have the duty to make known those discoveries that are important to society at large. And policy-makers have the duty to have scientists provide insight into the implications of policy decisions.

Well, for one thing, [citation needed] because this is the launching point of a very complex and involved discussion — which is capable of inspiring, and does so inspire, thoughtful and legitimate comments on both sides. But, for another thing, granting your European-style “duties” and “musts,” such an arrangement creates an obvious potential for skulduggery & shenanigans that can corrupt both the resulting policy and the science. Again, the behavior of the global warming advocates opens more questions than it answers, and inspires more concerns than it settles.

Currently, you don’t think scientists are capable of building and launching satellites to reliably measure the average long-wave radiation of the troposphere.

Thanks for the pretty picture, and for telling me what I do & don’t think. But, no, the functionality of the rockets is not being questioned here, nor is the ability of the satellites to gather the data. The question is what is being done with the data, as it is cooked, filtered, adjusted, and percolated into averages which are monitored across time.

Again, it seems we don’t have a problem quite so much with my understanding of statistics, as with your understanding of how an average measured across time can get bolluxed. Contrary to your apparent pre-conceptions, there are a lot of ways it can happen.
- mkfreeberg | 04/25/2012 @ 05:55
mkfreeberg: That’s just weird; every problem that is raised about the research, even the ones acknowledged to be real problems that can only be resolved by rough estimates, you respond with these barbed queries about the inquirer’s understanding of the low-level basics. In addition to being weird it’s also bad science.

Um, asking you if you understand statistical sampling is not “bad science”. And as to whether an estimate is rough, consistent, reliable, or not, is a matter of statistics. So please show your work.

mkfreeberg: Do you understand the difference between lossy and lossless data compression algorithms?

Yes. Not sure the relevance.

mkfreeberg: The question is what is being done with the data, as it is cooked, filtered, adjusted, and percolated into averages which are monitored across time.

Yes, that’s what you keep suggesting, but you never refer to the data itself. Please examine the data and its collection, and tell us why you think the conclusion that the troposphere has warmed over the last half century is in error.
- Zachriel | 04/25/2012 @ 06:18
Um, asking you if you understand statistical sampling is not “bad science”.

Um, sure, not if your intentions are pure. But it is if your intentions are to derail the discussion and keep the methodology protected from any inspection or questioning.

Not sure the relevance.

The relevance is, once the product of a lossy compression algorithm has been decoded, the product of the decoding will resemble the original only superficially. If you were to check the integrity of this through a checksum or a hash algorithm, it would be a meaningless test. Thus it is with estimates; they are the equivalent of a lossy compression algorithm. They don’t result in a verbatim reproduction of what they’re measuring and they’re not supposed to.

So what you’re offering here, essentially, is: After some numbers have been adjusted statistically by some scientists who, trust us, really understand how to adjust statistics…the numbers show a change and the change means it’s time for a freak-out. What’s seldom discussed is there’s a lot of grant money that is a bit harder to go chasing down, if there are too many studies published that say it’s not time for a freak-out. So the incentives are cockeyed. But, apart from that, the exercise is prone to the same problems that would be attendant to the calculation of a CRC on a file that was compressed with a lossy algorithm and then decompressed again…that would be a purely bad exercise. Yours is a mostly-bad one because it’s based on this premise of “this number should stay absolutely static across time” — and where did we get that? That’s what the whole post is about. The readings are going up, we don’t know if what’s being measured really is increasing in temperature, and if it is, we don’t know that this forecasts a further increase at a later time.

In sum, there is a lot of discussion about: Are the data being processed according to best known methods — and not much about, do those methods fit the panic that the politicians are trying to bring about. An estimate shows a change and the change portends problems? That’s how I understand your argument, and that dog won’t hunt.

Please examine the data and its collection, and tell us why you think the conclusion that the troposphere has warmed over the last half century is in error.

This latest round-about is supposed to be about you providing support for

• The Earth is warming
• Humans are the primary cause of this warming

And this is what people are criticizing in your technique. How come, if you’re trying to convince me of your position, I have to go through the data and convince you that I’ve found an error? That makes no sense at all. Unless Severian was correct when he said the whole tactic is about bypassing a logical discourse altogether and winning converts through fatigue. Then it would make all kinds of sense. But only then.
- mkfreeberg | 04/25/2012 @ 07:07
Unless Severian was correct when he said the whole tactic is about bypassing a logical discourse altogether and winning converts through fatigue.

Yup. It’s rather gauche to toot one’s own horn, but I think I nailed it here. Also here:

leftist “debate” is little more than an attempt to square two incompatible items of faith via verbal squid ink. To wit:

A. Politics, like science, is about nothing but facts.
B. We control all the facts.

Problem is, A is manifestly untrue. Facts often have nothing at all to do with politics, as The Adventures of Three-Putt Barry and His Holy Teleprompter so amply demonstrate. And “political science” is…. well, mostly a way for dorky undergraduate causeheads to earn a degree while sitting around getting high, from what I’ve seen, but even the most conscientious “political science” involves a lot of spin and guesswork.

Knowing this — and make no mistake, they do know it — leftists have to focus almost all their attention on B. Which is why they repeat the facts they do have a legitimate claim on like mantras. They’re using one of the oldest tricks in the college kid’s playbook — if you only know the answer to Y, but the professor gives you question X, you just barrel through and answer X as if it were Y and hope the TA gives you a few points for effort.

For instance, we could’ve avoided about 90% of this conversation just by the addition of that little word “could.” The globe could be warming. We have some data suggestive of that. Some percentage of that warming could be human-caused. Since the human-caused bit is the only part we have any real control over, we could do this, that, and the other thing, which could reverse the trend.

Let me be clear: This is a perfectly legitimate argument. (It’s the argument I’ve been trying to have for a good 30-40 posts now).

But it ain’t a scientific argument, it’s a political argument. And the left simply isn’t having that. So around and around we’re forced to go, chanting our little mantras, until Morgan and I give up. And then Zachriel “wins.” Because science.
- Severian | 04/25/2012 @ 10:36
mkfreeberg: But it is if your intentions are to derail the discussion and keep the methodology protected from any inspection or questioning.

There’s no problem with inspecting or questioning the methodology. You just haven’t.

mkfreeberg: the numbers show a change and the change means it’s time for a freak-out.

At this point, we’re simply trying to determine whether the data leads to a reasonable conclusion that the troposphere has warmed over the last half century.

mkfreeberg: The readings are going up, we don’t know if what’s being measured really is increasing in temperature,

What do you think sonde thermometers measure?

mkfreeberg: How come, if you’re trying to convince me of your position, I have to go through the data and convince you that I’ve found an error?

Because reasonable people will accept NOAA’s data, which has been examined, studied, and crosschecked through independent means, over someone on a blog doing nothing but waving his hands.
- Zachriel | 04/25/2012 @ 10:57
Severian: But it ain’t a scientific argument, it’s a political argument.

At this point, mkfreeberg is arguing that the NOAA data is not reliable enough to draw a conclusion about tropospheric warming, but has offered no reason for his position.

Severian: The globe could be warming.

Actually, the data indicates that the troposphere has been warming over the last half century.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
- Zachriel | 04/25/2012 @ 11:01
Exactly. And that point’s been made a few times, too. Study comes out and sez, from Year N to Year N+1 the troposphere warmed by 0.5 degrees, in the Z world that’s what happened and it is absolutely illegitimate to argue the correct increase was 0.51, 0.49, minus-something, zero…all of those possibilities have been eliminated because the measurement is what it is and it says what it says. No uncertainty allowed, because no uncertainty is even comprehended.

To continue with the image processing analogy, it’s like loading a Windows bitmap that’s 32 bits per pixel because it has an alpha channel with transparency information, and saving it out as a 24-bit with transparency value for all pixels assumed to be 1.0. You could say the result is not changed, if you’ve been viewing the 32-bit image in front of a white background. But it did change. That’s why your image editor should have asked you to confirm before the save…come to think of it…I went through precisely that exercise, fixing one of Z’s “proofs” for him/them…the one that was linked thirty bazillion times. In Firefox on Ubuntu Oneiric Ocelot, the year labels weren’t readable because on that platform the background isn’t white.

So this data is supposed to be beyond reproach and unquestionable, but I can’t even read it before going in and fixing it with the edits that should’ve happened at the NOAA before they were placed on the web.
- mkfreeberg | 04/25/2012 @ 11:05
mkfreeberg: Study comes out and sez, from Year N to Year N+1 the troposphere warmed by 0.5 degrees, in the Z world that’s what happened and it is absolutely illegitimate to argue the correct increase was 0.51, 0.49, minus-something, zero…

Sure you can argue about errors. You just haven’t. You just say there could be errors.

Indeed, all data has a margin of error, but that wouldn’t explain the trend upwards over time. Also, we can compare different types of measurements to check for consistency, and they show remarkable agreement. But again, if you think the data is in error, you need to show your work.
- Zachriel | 04/25/2012 @ 11:24
I assume everyone sees what’s happening here, right? This thread establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that Warmism is a cult.

I wrote (04/25/2012 @ 10:36)

Facts often have nothing at all to do with politics… Knowing this — and make no mistake, they do know it — leftists have to focus almost all their attention on B. Which is why they repeat the facts they do have a legitimate claim on like mantras.

…For instance, we could’ve avoided about 90% of this conversation just by the addition of that little word “could.” The globe could be warming…. But [this] ain’t a scientific argument, it’s a political argument. And the left simply isn’t having that. So around and around we’re forced to go, chanting our little mantras.”

To this, Zachriel replies:

Severian: The globe could be warming.

Actually, the data indicates that the troposphere has been warming over the last half century.

I.e. the very same little mantra I just wrote about, complete with that same tired graph (thirteen links and counting!!!) 🙂

This isn’t the way one debates science OR politics. It’s just constant, numbing repetition of a few verbal formulas.

Hare krishna, hare krishna, hare krishna, hare krishna, hare krishna, hare krishna, hare krishna, hare krishna, hare krishna, hare krishna, hare krishna, hare krishna…

[No offense to any actual Hare Krishnas out there — y’all are obnoxious, but not nearly as obnoxious as Warmists].
- Severian | 04/25/2012 @ 11:31
Severian: This isn’t the way one debates science OR politics. It’s just constant, numbing repetition of a few verbal formulas.

Sorry, but it doesn’t cease to be a valid scientific statement because you don’t like the claim or the way it is repeated. The scientific data indicates that the lower troposphere has been warming over the last half century. Nothing on this thread has called into question this basic finding.

We will be happy to discuss the implications of this finding once we establish that and a few other fundamental findings. Keep in mind that mkfreeberg’s basic point is that we haven’t reliably measured the temperature of the lower troposphere, though he doesn’t ever seem to discuss any specifics of how those measurements have been done, or why the multiple, independent measures are consistent.
- Zachriel | 04/25/2012 @ 11:51
And right on cue, here they come again!

Sorry, but it doesn’t cease to be a valid scientific statement because you don’t like the claim or the way it is repeated.

Never said it wasn’t a scientific claim, comrades. In fact, I said, very specifically that it is. Cf here, in the very comment you’re reacting to (04/25/2012 @ 11:310):

Facts often have nothing at all to do with politics… Knowing this — and make no mistake, they do know it — leftists have to focus almost all their attention on B. Which is why they repeat the facts they do have a legitimate claim on like mantras.

Note the emphasis there, gang; there’ll be a test later.

Moreover, you’ll note that I’ve explicitly stipulated several times that this claim is true for the purposes of argument (you’ll find one at 04/16/2012 @ 18:30, for instance).

Now, as Morgan has repeated well past ad nauseam, the bones of contention are:

1) The Earth is warming
2) Humans are the primary cause of this warming
3) Therefore, science requires all kinds of invasive political action.

As you will note, the discussion starting at 04/17/2012 @ 10:10 has stipulated 1) and 2), and is an increasingly desperate attempt on my part to get you to address the bases of 3).

And then an interesting thing happens: You make some noises about “binding agreements,” but as these clearly have nothing to do with science, you…. circle right back to 1), via 2), like one of those Japanese fans folding back in on itself.

Which, not coincidentally, contains the only real data you have.

Which nicely illustrates my point. You’re desperate to argue, as you do at 04/17/2012 @ 05:04, that

as humans are warming the globe, and this warming will cause disruption of agriculture, inundation and salinization of arable lands, increased desertification, mass extinction, human migration with its attendant political destablization, and as this is avoidable, most people would combine these scientific findings with their personal morality to try and find solutions, especially as those solutions are readily available, and have many other salubrious effects. But that’s just ourselves. We happen to be rather fond of the little apes you call humans. Call it a peccadillo.

But you don’t have actual data for any of that (we’ve already pointed out in tedious detail the problems with your little bibliography). What’s more, this makes you sound rather gauleiter-ish (which is just what we conservative troglodytes suspect about you “watermelons;” green on the outside, red inside), and so you…. go back to linking your little chart and arguing the minutiae of 1).

Hare krishna, hare krishna, hare krishna…..
- Severian | 04/25/2012 @ 12:48
Severian: Moreover, you’ll note that I’ve explicitly stipulated several times that this claim is true for the purposes of argument (you’ll find one at 04/16/2012 @ 18:30, for instance).

As the original post concerned the intersection between science and policy, it makes sense to make sure mkfreeberg is clear on the scientific underpinnings of climate science. Apparently, he won’t even accept that NOAA data shows that the troposphere is warming. Oddly, you don’t seem to have any concern with the contradiction of your position with mkfreeberg. Well, not so odd. It’s typical of so-called skeptics whose opinions aren’t bound by science.

Severian: As you will note, the discussion starting at 04/17/2012 @ 10:10 has stipulated 1) and 2), and is an increasingly desperate attempt on my part to get you to address the bases of 3).

Of course, saying you stipulated 1) and 2) leaves open the scientific question of climate sensitivity. Presumably, you stipulate 2-5°C with 3°C the most likely value, but with a large uncertainty on the upper limit. We have already provided you citations to the deleterious effects of climate change.

Severian: 3) Therefore, science requires all kinds of invasive political action.

Don’t agree with #3, so we won’t argue that point. While the problem of climate change will require international cooperation, that doesn’t have to be a tyranny of ” International Climate Police who can kick in your door in the dead of night and haul you off to Gaia-reeducation camp for using two-ply toilet paper.”

Severian: But you don’t have actual data for any of that (we’ve already pointed out in tedious detail the problems with your little bibliography).

Global warming will have deleterious effects. Let’s start with a simple consequent of global warming, rising sea levels, which will lead to inundation and salinization of coastal lands, especially in South Asia.
- Zachriel | 04/25/2012 @ 13:07
Let’s start with a simple consequent of global warming, rising sea levels, which will lead to…

When do we get to the part about you providing support for

• The Earth is warming
• Humans are the primary cause of this warming

?
- mkfreeberg | 04/25/2012 @ 13:21
Nicely done, comrades…. nicely done. 🙂

Oddly, you don’t seem to have any concern with the contradiction of your position with mkfreeberg. Well, not so odd. It’s typical of so-called skeptics whose opinions aren’t bound by science.

Oddly, that’s not contradictory at all. You’ll notice that I wrote

I’ve explicitly stipulated several times that this claim is true for the purposes of argument.

There is NO contradiction between my position — which, as expressed at 04/15/2012 @ 11:09, can best be summed up as agreement with Morgan that climate alarmists claim all kinds of things as science that aren’t science — and my stipulating your claims to be true for the purposes of argument, because that’s what the word “stipulation” means. If you want to argue with Webster’s, go right ahead, but you’re hardly helping your case for being some kind of logical thinker.

You might also run this one through the ol’ sciencey science-o-matic:

Severian: 3) Therefore, science requires all kinds of invasive political action.

Don’t agree with #3, so we won’t argue that point.

Gosh, it sure seems that you do, given the sum total of your replies between 04/17/2012 @ 10:10 and least 04/17/2012 @ 16:55. You might especially consider this choice passage at 04/17/2012 @ 11:41:

That’s called the tragedy of the commons. Individuals gain a short term advantage by cheating. This means that any voluntary individual action is doomed to fail. It will require binding agreements.

Thanks to President Obama’s acceptance of global warming arguments, I can no longer purchase incandescent light bulbs in my home, and I won’t be allowed to sell my house legally until I replace them all. I leave it to posterity as an exercise in logic to explain how such a limitation on my private behavior isn’t invasive political action based on climate alarmism.

This isn’t how intellectually honest people argue. One could make all kinds of arguments for all kinds of Gaia-centric actions, and even laws, while still allowing doubters to doubt. Again, it comes back to could — the Earth could be warming, and it could be our fault, so aren’t we morally /ethically/ prudentially compelled to cut back, just on the off-chance? The worst-case scenario is so horrifying that it’s worth giving up incandescent light bulbs and two-ply toilet paper on spec. And, come to think of it, if we do this and the Earth starts cooling, wouldn’t that in itself prove our point?

But….. no can do. For the leftist, everything has to be their way, all the way, all at once. It all comes back to their insistence — their monomania — that every one of their personal preferences be enshrined as some kind of metaphysical necessity, requiring immediate action. And hence every argument with a leftist that doesn’t veer into “you’re a horrible person” within five posts ends up in a circle-jerk like this one, hare krishna hare krishna.

Personally, I preferred the old style of leftist bullying, where they tried to get the courts to mandate all the stuff they’d never get past the voters. This “everything I personally approve of is science; everything else is rank superstition” nonsense comes uncomfortably close to the old Marxist “historical necessities.” Please consult the history of Russia, 1917-1991, to see how well that worked out.
- Severian | 04/25/2012 @ 13:51
mkfreeberg: When do we get to the part about you providing support for… The Earth is warming

We’ve provided support for the warming of the troposphere. You refuse to accept that the NOAA data shows that the troposphere is warming, even though it plainly does. Not sure how else to help you.

On the one hand, we have every major scientific organization in the world, scientists who actually do the work of collecting the data, using multiple techniques. On the other hand, we have someone on a blog saying “Is not”. What are our readers to think. It’s so hard to decide!
- Zachriel | 04/25/2012 @ 15:33
What are our readers to think.

Actually, that’s an interesting question…. who are these readers, anyway?

I mean, here you’ve got “every major scientific organization in the world,” etc. etc. on the one hand, and on the other, the blog officially known as The Blog Nobody Reads. Seems to me you’ve got this random blogger guy beat cold, like paper airplane-vs.-the Death Star-level beat. So why do you go on, for 194 posts (and counting)? What is this supposed to achieve?

Instead of “hare krishna, hare krishna,” it seems I should be chanting “conform, conform, conform.” Other than the silencing of the merest whiff of dissent, your comments are in the service of…. what, exactly?
- Severian | 04/25/2012 @ 15:41
Severian: Thanks to President Obama’s acceptance of global warming arguments, I can no longer purchase incandescent light bulbs in my home

Yes, and you have to stop when the light is red. That isn’t quite the same as “International Climate Police who can kick in your door in the dead of night and haul you off to Gaia-reeducation camp for using two-ply toilet paper.” There is also the case of democratic people voluntarily entering into agreements.

As for Obama’s acceptance, that’s because the science on global warming is quite clear. Whether that justifies any particular policy depends on an understanding of the implications of those findings balanced against other considerations, such as cost and quality of life.

Severian: the Earth could be warming

The evidence strongly indicates that the Earth’s surface is warming due to increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Meanwhile, you were “increasingly desperate” to discuss the implications of global warming, but strange as it may seem, ignored our response. Global warming will inevitably lead to rising sea levels. Rising sea levels will lead to the inundation and salinization of coastal plains, such as in South Asia.
- Zachriel | 04/25/2012 @ 15:46
OFF-TOPIC

Severian: Actually, that’s an interesting question…. who are these readers, anyway?

We have no illusion that you are likely open to persuasion, though we give you the benefit of the doubt. There are almost always more readers of a blog than commenters. Our comments are primarily directed to those who are willing to listen with an open mind.
- Zachriel | 04/25/2012 @ 15:50
And these sea levels are supposed to rise by, how much?

Also, are you now backing off from your prior claim that the Earth is warming, opting instead for the milder and less alarming “troposphere is warming”?

And on what basis do you say humans are the primary cause of this formerly-Earth, now-tropospheric, warming?
- mkfreeberg | 04/25/2012 @ 15:50
Somehow, Morgan, I think your paper airplane has found a thermal exhaust port, just below the main port.
- nightfly | 04/25/2012 @ 16:06
mkfreeberg: And these sea levels are supposed to rise by, how much?

It depends on many factors, including the amount of warming. So we have to start with that data.

mkfreeberg: Also, are you now backing off from your prior claim that the Earth is warming, opting instead for the milder and less alarming “troposphere is warming”?

From our very first comment on the thread: “note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming.”

mkfreeberg: And on what basis do you say humans are the primary cause of this formerly-Earth, now-tropospheric, warming?

The lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming. We can discuss that in more detail once we have resolved the data concerning the temperature trends.
- Zachriel | 04/25/2012 @ 16:08
Global warming will inevitably lead to rising sea levels. Rising sea levels will lead to the inundation and salinization of coastal plains, such as in South Asia.

It will, eh? You sure about that, comrade? You might want to check with this fellow

James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.

[His new book] will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising.

‘Twould appear that the science isn’t quiiiiiite as settled as James Lovelock — you know, the guy who more or less founded global warming hysteria — used to claim it was.

I cite James Lovelock.

In passing, I note Lovelock’s confirmation of another one of Morgan’s theories:

He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.

And yes, I know, he thinks there will still be warming eventually. He’s also probably “not a real scientist” because he’s not currently at NOAA and thus didn’t contribute to your muddy little .gif. Fact is, I’ve been far more successful at predicting your inane responses than your models have been at predicting global temperatures. I cite — again — James Lovelock, climate scientist.

Now…. you were saying something about “open-minded readers”….?????
- Severian | 04/25/2012 @ 18:27
Quick poll of “those who are willing to listen with an open mind:”

Will Zachriel’s next dismissive comment be:

A) James Lovelock is a “maverick scientist” and therefore not credible

B) We always said that science has room for reasonable doubt; no data set is perfect

C) Rising ocean levels are a fact, even Lovelock says so, see Knutti and Husserl (2009)

D) There’s still global warming in the 2-5 C range, with 3 being the consensus value but the upper limit variable, or

E) We never said anything about global warming; however, the troposphere is warming, see this endlessly-linked .gif.

Vote now!!! The winner will receive fabulous prizes!
- Severian | 04/25/2012 @ 18:32
[sea level rise] depends on many factors, including the amount of warming.

Finally, looks like we have a nod toward that basic concept of human knowledge about nature, which is uncertainty. At 4/18 17:52 I pointed out “The effects being plotted on your graphs are subject to many different variables” and, for reasons still unclear to me, this was the focus of, in fact the essence of, disagreement. How did Sev put it, the entire thing might have been resolved by using the word “could,” but you would not allow any questioning of the “science” in your world. Looks like the disagreement has been resolved, congratulations on coming around. We have measurements, we have more measurements that say slightly different things…several measurements that say approximately the same thing, don’t resolve this, because there are still open questions about whether they were done right & whether they were calculated right. And no, maybe this is the next thing we have to debate endlessly, but “almost all the scientists say” doesn’t resolve this either.

Hey, do you think the sea level rise might ever get to be twenty feet or so?
- mkfreeberg | 04/26/2012 @ 04:50
Severian: ‘Twould appear that the science isn’t quiiiiiite as settled as James Lovelock — you know, the guy who more or less founded global warming hysteria — used to claim it was.

This is why the discussion never progresses. You had stipulated global warming and asked about the implications. When we point out sea level rise as an inevitable consequence of global warming, you unstipulate what you stipulated.

Severian: Rising ocean levels are a fact,

Yes, ocean levels are rising, evidence of global warming.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6638
- Zachriel | 04/26/2012 @ 05:17
mkfreeberg: Finally, looks like we have a nod toward that basic concept of human knowledge about nature, which is uncertainty.

Yes, all scientific findings are considered tenative, eppur si muove.

mkfreeberg: Hey, do you think the sea level rise might ever get to be twenty feet or so?

Possibly, but probably not in the short run. Most recent projections are in the range of 50-100cm this century. However, the rate of ice melt is very uncertain.
- Zachriel | 04/26/2012 @ 05:21
Yes, all scientific findings are considered tenative, eppur si muove.

Ding ding ding ding ding!! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!!!

Turns out it’s B (“We always said that science has room for reasonable doubt; no data set is perfect”).

Get set for the lightning round, in which we predict how fast “Most recent projections are in the range of 50-100cm this century. However, the rate of ice melt is very uncertain” replaces “global warming in the 2-5 C range, with 3 being the consensus value but the upper limit variable” as the cut-and-paste number du jour.

[PS Coming from you, comrade, This is why the discussion never progresses…, you unstipulate what you stipulated is so rich, it’ll be banned by Obamacare as a clear and present danger to our nation’s cardiovascular heath.]
- Severian | 04/26/2012 @ 06:18
Open-minded reader poll #2:

True or false: The only thing Zachriel responds to in my post is the PS, and their response will be something like “show us what we have stipulated that we have unstipulated.”

True or false: Zachriel will ignore that part, and instead respond to this post with “it doesn’t matter if you don’t like how we say it, a scientific fact is a scientific fact.”

Vote now!!!
- Severian | 04/26/2012 @ 06:20
Yeah, I’m going to take that last comment as an acknowledgment of the reason I refused to concede — and why it was very sensible for me to refuse to do so — that the Earth is warming just because the satellite atmosphere temperature readings having been rising on average. I’m going to accept this latest comment as a complete agreement, without reservation, to the point I had made earlier: Measurement of a thing, is not necessarily the thing.

I’m not going to say that’s true of all measurements. You do a hundred yard dash clocked with a quality stopwatch, I can accept that some part of you was behind the starting line when the stopwatch was started, and some part of you crossed the finish line when it clicked off, so there aren’t too many variables involved in that — your time was probably accurate. Now, projecting the future climate change based on an averaging of surface monitoring stations (positioned with all sorts of newbie mistakes made) and satellites that are just assumed to be drifting around in the right places…that’s a different kettle of fish. Looks like we have agreement on the basics, though. This is a debate about “could,” not “is” or “will.” Glad we all saw the light on that one.
- mkfreeberg | 04/26/2012 @ 06:31
Getting back to the original subject though — primer caps versus heavy pendulums. As the temperature of an object changes in recent past & present, can it be predicted what the temperature will do in the near & distant future? And if so, how? With a straight line, or a curve? And if it’s a curve, what shape is the curve?

Your settled-science assumes a straight line, from what I understand; man selfishly piles 29 gigatons of CO₂ upon 750 already emitted by uncontrolled, natural forces, and this evil 29 gigaton excess will cause a linear saturation in the atmosphere which will lead to a linear increase. That assumption meets with setbacks here and here; and whatever poses a problem for the assumption, poses an equal problem for anything that rests upon it.

If the science was ever settled that “Earth mean temperature” must be riveted to carbon saturation in the atmosphere, it isn’t settled that way anymore, and posting the same link thirty times isn’t gonna change that.
- mkfreeberg | 04/26/2012 @ 06:46
mkfreeberg: I’m going to accept this latest comment as a complete agreement, without reservation, to the point I had made earlier: Measurement of a thing, is not necessarily the thing.

Yes, measurements can be unreliable or inaccurate, they can have errors and biases, or miss the mark entirely. Indeed, all empirical measurements have a margin of error. But you haven’t given any reason to doubt the overall reliability of the NOAA measurements.

mkfreeberg: Glad we all saw the light on that one.

Um,

mkfreeberg: What does science 101 say about contaminated measurements?

Zachriel (from days ago): Science 101 teaches that *all* empirical measurements have inaccuracies and biases. Multiple measurements reduce statistical errors. Multiple methodologies limit bias.

mkfreeberg: As the temperature of an object changes in recent past & present, can it be predicted what the temperature will do in the near & distant future?

As you insist that scientists haven’t been able to reliably measure the temperature of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere, there’s no point addressing that question.
- Zachriel | 04/26/2012 @ 07:18
Oh that’s right, you see discussion as something to be done when two sides already agree on things. I forgot.
- mkfreeberg | 04/26/2012 @ 07:29
mkfreeberg: Oh that’s right, you see discussion as something to be done when two sides already agree on things. I forgot.

Not at all. But, without reliable temperature and sea level data, there’s no way to make or test predictions. You refuse to allow that we can extract reasonably reliable data from the hundreds of scientific instruments designed to measure and cross-measure temperature and sea levels, so a discussion about predicting those temperatures and sea levels would have no basis.
- Zachriel | 04/26/2012 @ 07:52
We can stop talking about primer caps, because it’s not. It’s more like camera lens filters. Actually, it’s a lot like camera lens filters. It’s subtractive in a diminishing returns sort of way, because CO2 doesn’t generate the heat, it only absorbs and re-emits available radiation, and it can only do it up to a point.

Lens filters filter out different subsets of the spectrum. An increase in CO2 at this point in the equation yields more like a k*(1/n**y) result. Also, factor in the fact that things like water vapor significantly overlap the CO2 spectral absorption pattern, an increase in CO2 doesn’t yield much additional trapping of heat. [ this makes it more like a k*(1/n**y) – f(H20) – f(CH4) – …. ] and the equation is asymptotic … that is, dT/dCO2 approaches zero after the initial hump.

Eventually, you’re trapping all the heat you can trap with whatever material(s) you’re trapping it with. The gasses themselves don’t warm the earth any more than a blanket warms you (probably a bad example for people who don’t understand that a [non-electric] blanket doesn’t warm you, it just traps some of the heat you are losing.) But it is a good example in reality, nonetheless, for anyone who wants to understand how radiative energy transfer works. I supsect our friend here is not really interested in understanding it, though, and is more interested in the moral superiority high that comes with pontificating with confidence what one’s religious leaders feed you to regurgitate.

So, it’s subtractive, and adding more/heavier blankets after a point doesn’t keep you any warmer.

Which is what we see happening — or to put it another way, explains what we don’t see happening. We have, in the past 100 years, seen a minor wobble upward in global temperature. It is barely discernible, in fact, it is arguably not discernible at all — from normal climactic background noise, despite the dire predictions the Chicken Littles have been squawking since the late 1980’s.

Which is why the CRU at EAU et. al. have spent so much time and effort concocting creative numerical methods to allow them to pretend that it really is discernible from normal climactic background noise. After all, if it’s not a huge emergency, their funding dries up. Ethical scientists had been warning us for almost two decades what had been going on in the AGW religous community, and the EAU CRU email leak only bore that out. Which was quite embarrassing for the AGW-ites, but all they’ve done is double down and repeat their “arguments” louder.
- philmon | 04/26/2012 @ 08:01
You refuse to allow that we can extract reasonably reliable data from the hundreds of scientific instruments designed to measure and cross-measure temperature and sea levels, so a discussion about predicting those temperatures and sea levels would have no basis.

True, if the purpose is to indoctrinate rather than to sort out the details in a “scientific” prediction of our climate’s future, along with the potential problems with it. In case of the former, you must concede Severian was right and this is nothing more than a catechism; time to eject me from the instruction because I’m not following along with the lesson plan. In the case of the latter, as Phil capably demonstrates, just because I’ve found two flaws with your method already doesn’t mean it’s entirely devoid of value to go looking for a third one.

1. We don’t know “The Earth” is warming because the temperature of “The Earth” is not what’s being measured here; you’ve had to back off and say this is all about surface & atmosphere.
2. You show data from the NOAA indicating higher atmospheric readings across time, and demand I concede this means the average is indeed increasing, which pre-supposes that the measurement process must be flawless. When I withhold that, you eject me from the catechism.
3. Phil’s point, which is the original point here: If two inches of blanket make you this much warmer than one inch of blanket, will three inches make you that much warmer? There is no science at all telling us so, and much telling us otherwise.

After we deal with those three, then it might make sense to scour your data sets looking for flaws.

And then you can tell us why you think humans are the primary cause of this approaching…well…you aren’t entirely consistent in saying what the consequences are.
- mkfreeberg | 04/26/2012 @ 08:48
philmon: We have, in the past 100 years, seen a minor wobble upward in global temperature.

Mkfreeberg disagrees that we have been able to measure temperatures with any reliability.

philmon: It’s subtractive in a diminishing returns sort of way, because CO2 doesn’t generate the heat, it only absorbs and re-emits available radiation, and it can only do it up to a point.

That’s right. A doubling of CO2 is only expected to increase temperatures about 1°C due to its own effects.

Rahmstorf, Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts, Brookings 2008.
See also, http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/explained-climate-sensitivity.html

The problem is that as CO2 warms the surface, it causes an increase in atmospheric water vapor. While the lower atmosphere is saturated in the relevant spectra, increased waper vapor in the upper atmosphere will act to increase the greenhouse effect. This phenomena is called climate sensitivity, and has been the subject of intensive investigation, and a number of independent measures puts that sensitivity at about 3°C, but with a large uncertainty on the upper limit.

philmon: all they’ve done is double down and repeat their “arguments” louder.

If you mean that scientists have improved their ability to collect and analyze data by launching satellites, extending their network for data collection, collaborating with statiscians to better under the data, and the like, then sure.
- Zachriel | 04/26/2012 @ 08:50
mkfreeberg: 1. We don’t know “The Earth” is warming because the temperature of “The Earth” is not what’s being measured here; you’ve had to back off and say this is all about surface & atmosphere.

Please desist from misrepresenting our position. From our very first comment on this thread: “note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming.” It is normal to say the “Earth is warming” when referring to the warming biosphere. (The Earth is actually cooling over geological timescales, but inconsequentially in terms of human lifespans.)

mkfreeberg: 2. You show data from the NOAA indicating higher atmospheric readings across time, and demand I concede this means the average is indeed increasing, which pre-supposes that the measurement process must be flawless.

Nope. They just have to reasonably reliable. You have provided no reason to discard the data concerning tropospheric temperature trends. Indeed, philmon said that we have seen an upward trend in global temperature (meaning the Earth’s surface) over the last century, due to what he considers part of the Earth’s natural climate fluctuations.

mkfreeberg: 3. Phil’s point, which is the original point here: If two inches of blanket make you this much warmer than one inch of blanket, will three inches make you that much warmer? There is no science at all telling us so, and much telling us otherwise.

The amount of CO2 warming can be directly calculated. The scientific question is climate sensitivity, which depends on many countervailing influences.
- Zachriel | 04/26/2012 @ 09:02
There is no misrepresentation of your position here.

Z at 4/17 10:35: “The Earth is warming.” After you were asked several times to provide support for this, you shifted the argument and started trying to prove something else so you could get science-ey. Which is exactly the thing I was complaining about in the first paragraph of this post.
- mkfreeberg | 04/26/2012 @ 09:09
mkfreeberg (quoting): “The Earth is warming.”

Our very first comment was about a cooling stratosphere. It is common and ordinary to say “The Earth is warming” or “The globe is warming” when referring to rising surface temperatures due to climate change. Even if you were confused, we addressed that confusion days ago.
- Zachriel | 04/26/2012 @ 09:25
The earth is warming. Except for when it’s cooling. All depends on your time scale. Even over the past 100 years, it’s been warming (1910 to 1940) then cooling slightly (1940 to 1975) and then warming again (1975 to 1995 or so) …

Fact is, Earth has been warming and cooling approximately +/- half a degree for about the past 8,000 years without the horrible catastrophes the Chicken Littles predict. As a matter of fact, the warmer periods were periods of plenty and prosperity as one might expect.
- philmon | 04/26/2012 @ 09:26
But, you see, “the Earth” is “the troposphere,” which is “warming,” which is that NOAA .gif, which is proof, which is science, which is Willy Mays’ batting average from the 1963 season, which is why you’re wrong wrong wrong, hare krishna hare krishna.

One side of this “debate” has been conducted almost entirely in solecisms. If we conclude that yes, the troposphere is the atmosphere — all of it — then the argument works…. or, at least it works if you then equate “the atmosphere” with “the Earth” — again, all of it.

Which is not what those words mean.

The Zachriel clearly demonstrate their inability to use the dictionary here (04/25/2012 @ 13:07), where they claim I’m contradicting Morgan. Which, as we see here (04/25/2012 @ 13:51) is not the case at all, because the word “stipulate” means “to assume as true for the purposes of argument.”

Not to toot my own horn (again), but this is yet more evidence that the left simply can’t grok to the fact that:

A) Politics, like science, is about nothing but facts;

and

B) We control all the facts

are simply incompatible. A) is wrong on its face (or should that be “on its troposphere?); B) is highly unlikely. But since they’re determined to make them compatible, the left is forced to use very common words in a very unusual way. Cf also the Zachriel’s complete refusal to entertain the word “could.” There are many arguments that could be made, and possibly even won, about AGW, the consequences thereof, and the political actions that flow therefrom, based on the word “could.” But no — it has to be “is,” because that’s the only way to preserve both A and B.
- Severian | 04/26/2012 @ 09:29
philmon: The earth is warming. Except for when it’s cooling. All depends on your time scale. Even over the past 100 years, it’s been warming (1910 to 1940) then cooling slightly (1940 to 1975) and then warming again (1975 to 1995 or so) …

That’s right. Earth’s climate fluctuates for a number of reasons. Interesting graph, using log for the time dimension.

philmon: Fact is, Earth has been warming and cooling approximately +/- half a degree for about the past 8,000 years without the horrible catastrophes the Chicken Littles predict.

Yes, but the Earth has warmed about 3/4°C —just in the last century. (Please explain that to mkfreeberg.) The problem, though, is that continued emissions are expected push the temperature even higher.
- Zachriel | 04/26/2012 @ 09:42
Once again Zachriel, since you have sustained and repeated trouble with this:

The reason you can’t point to any specific evidence indicating my lack of comprehension in this, even though you would like to, is because we don’t disagree because of my lack of comprehension. We’ve looked at the same information, you’ve formed one conclusion and I’ve formed a different one. Specifically, I have decided political forces have much to do with what we have been shown, and you, for reasons that cannot be logically explained, have chosen to rule that out as a possibility. I say “logically explained.” We all know why you’re ruling it out as a possibility: You like what’s being said, and want everyone else to accept it as gospel truth, because you have done so. (Insert pinky in mouth and make fish-hooking gesture.)
- mkfreeberg | 04/26/2012 @ 11:34
mkfreeberg: The reason you can’t point to any specific evidence indicating my lack of comprehension in this, even though you would like to, is because we don’t disagree because of my lack of comprehension.

It’s not your ability to comprehend, but your lack of reasoning for your stated positions.

mkfreeberg: We’ve looked at the same information, you’ve formed one conclusion and I’ve formed a different one.

Our conclusion, based on the consilience of the evidence, is that the lower troposphere has warmed over the last half century. This is supported by multiple data-sets, and is consistent with surface measurements. It’s because the data comes from various sources, that we can be confident this is a real trend, and not a spurious problem with any one system of measurement. You have yet to provide any reason why this data is not reasonably representative of tropospheric temperature trends, and there are multiple reasons for believing it is.
- Zachriel | 04/26/2012 @ 12:24
Our conclusion, based on the consilience of the evidence, is that…

Erm, no.

You have relied on this threadbare “overwhelming consensus” leitmotif to support your position. Repeatedly. Even your description of how the data were gathered, “…to allow that we can extract reasonably reliable data from the hundreds of scientific instruments designed to measure and cross-measure temperature and sea levels…” betrays an excessive reliance on overly-emotional pablum. Hundreds of scientific instruments?

Surface area of a sphere is 4 π * r², total surface area of Earth is about 200m mi². So if you’re talking about five hundred such instruments, that’s one for every area equivalent to, roughly, 1.8 Texases. See, the math doesn’t hold up. This is, essentially, an endless argument about which half of the brain to use, and you’re just making a good show, in an Obama-like way, of using the left side that works with hard, abstract thinking. Without really doing it.
- mkfreeberg | 04/26/2012 @ 12:40
Timely.

Love of Theory
- philmon | 04/26/2012 @ 14:48
mkfreeberg: Surface area of a sphere is 4 π * r2, total surface area of Earth is about 200m mi2. So if you’re talking about five hundred such instruments, that’s one for every area equivalent to, roughly, 1.8 Texases.

Hey! That’s actually an argument, of sorts. The U.S. launches approximate 75000 radiosondes each year. Around the world, there are about 900 sites.
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/gyx/weather_balloons.htm

mkfreeberg: See, the math doesn’t hold up.

Heh. You forgot the math. What are the chances that data from hundreds of sites shows a warming trend over half a century by chance alone?

The problem isn’t primarily lack of sites, but sample bias and incomplete data. For instance, there are fewer sites in the Southern Hemisphere and in oceans, while some stations have been in operation longer or with better equipment. Multivariate statistics is used to analyse the data and estimate its reliability. In addition, you can then compare the radiosonde data to other measures, such as satellite, to see if it confirms the same overall trend, which it does.
- Zachriel | 04/26/2012 @ 17:06
What are the chances that data from hundreds of sites shows a warming trend over half a century by chance alone?

Don’t know about “by chance alone,” but the operative question is, could they register something that is at odds with reality, and/or non-indicative of future events. Since the process you have described is essentially random — no wait, actually it’s worse than that, they’re released by convenience, drifting about 125 miles from the release point — and the differential they’re registering is presently statistically negligible…your “chances” are pretty good.

This is where primer caps vs. heavy pendulums come in. What kind of temperature delta has been actually measured at this point? Since Earth is a “heavy pendulum” environment, or in other words, think of Phil’s analogy with the camera filters…your ascent of 3.5-5’C is entirely unsubstantiated.

Since I’m now coming up with some arguments that partially meet with your approval, why don’t you tell me where I’m going wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 04/26/2012 @ 18:54
mkfreeberg: Don’t know about “by chance alone,” but the operative question is, could they register something that is at odds with reality, and/or non-indicative of future events.

Millions of measurements have been made by radiosondes over the last half century. In the locations being measured, the trend is towards warming. Now look at the geographic spread.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11991&page=19
You are arguing that all these places register tropospheric warming, but that the troposphere as a whole is not warming. (A simple test for sampling bias is to take random samples of the sampling, and anyway you slice it, the tropospheric measurements show a warming trend.)

But maybe there’s still a problem, maybe there’s radical compensatory cooling wherever we haven’t looked, so let’s try using a satellite. While satellites are not as precise—they measure long-wave radiation, not temperature—, they cover a much broader area. Yet, satellites also detect a warming trend.

mkfreeberg: What kind of temperature delta has been actually measured at this point? Since Earth is a “heavy pendulum” environment, or in other words, think of Phil’s analogy with the camera filters…your ascent of 3.5-5′C is entirely unsubstantiated.

That’s an interesting question, and a discussion we thought we would be having when we started on this thread; but as long as you deny scientists can reasonably estimate the temperature trend, it’s a discussion that will continue to elude us. You’ve got to start with some basic observational facts.
- Zachriel | 04/27/2012 @ 03:50
mkfreeberg: Since Earth is a “heavy pendulum” environment, or in other words, think of Phil’s analogy with the camera filters…your ascent of 3.5-5′C is entirely unsubstantiated.

This is typical of so-called climate skeptics. You want to argue that the Earth (the surface of the Earth!) is going through a cyclical warming trend, but then want to also argue it isn’t warming at all! Then you will argue that humans aren’t the cause. Then that it isn’t warming that much. And then start arguing from the beginning again.
- Zachriel | 04/27/2012 @ 04:04
You are arguing that all these places register tropospheric warming, but that the troposphere as a whole is not warming.

Is that what the data say? I thought this was taking an average. I could be wrong, but this appears to be a misconception of what an average is.

If the average credit card debt per household goes up by $500, that doesn’t mean all the households got further in debt by that much, or even that they all got further in debt. Many among the households sampled might have paid off their credit cards entirely…and the averaging will still be mathematically correct. This is why it’s so crucial to figure out what flaws may exist in the methodology and, after they have all been accounted for, the number produced still might not indicate what some might infer it indicates.

This is typical of so-called climate skeptics. You want to argue that the Earth (the surface of the Earth!) is going through a cyclical warming trend, but then want to also argue it isn’t warming at all! Then you will argue that humans aren’t the cause. Then that it isn’t warming that much. And then start arguing from the beginning again.

That’s right. Your conclusion is based on multiple premises, starting with the one that the measurements are telling you what you think they are telling you. Each of these premises is burdened with doubt that you aren’t willing to acknowledge. And, after you refuse to acknowledge the vestigial levels of question and uncertainty in your premises…you have them pointed out to you. It’s a real pain, innit?
- mkfreeberg | 04/27/2012 @ 06:18
mkfreeberg: I thought this was taking an average. I could be wrong, but this appears to be a misconception of what an average is.

That’s right. There are regional variations. For instance, the arctic is warming faster. An increase in the average temperature of the troposphere means in the total energy has increased.

mkfreeberg: Your conclusion is based on multiple premises, starting with the one that the measurements are telling you what you think they are telling you.

Sure, but we’re stuck on the first one. In any case, you are making inconsistent arguments. You can’t argue that we are in a cyclical warming period while denying that we even know whether there is warming at all.

mkfreeberg: Each of these premises is burdened with doubt that you aren’t willing to acknowledge.

Sure there are uncertainties, but no reasonable scientific uncertainty about whether the troposphere has warmed over the last half century. Notably, you gave up on discussing the evidence.
- Zachriel | 04/27/2012 @ 06:45
You can’t argue that we are in a cyclical warming period while denying that we even know whether there is warming at all.

Sure I can. For example, the evidence presented by the denialists, which the alarmists gave up on discussing quite some time ago, includes farming activity during the medieval period that would not have been possible post-Renaissance in England and in the Nordic regions. Questioning how you gather satellite & weather balloon data, and how it is sampled and tabulated, has nothing to do with any of that.

Sure there are uncertainties, but no reasonable scientific uncertainty about whether the troposphere has warmed over the last half century. Notably, you gave up on discussing the evidence.

This is a situation in which all of the evidence persuading toward an alarmist viewpoint, arrives via relatively new technology that has been undergoing many changes over the period of time being inspected, during which time the science has been politicized and is no longer conducting sanity checks on itself — in fact, according to the e-mails stolen from UEA, the peer review process itself was changed specifically to silence dissenting viewpoints.

This thing we now call “science” is no longer policing itself, so the layman is going to have to do it. Even seemingly innocuous terms like “all the scientists say” can no longer be believed. It is what it is.
- mkfreeberg | 04/27/2012 @ 06:52
This is typical of so-called climate skeptics.

So called because they are in fact skeptical. A minor but important point. The skepticism is real and you are treating it as unwarranted at the outset.

You want to argue that the Earth (the surface of the Earth!) is going through a cyclical warming trend, but then want to also argue it isn’t warming at all!

But that can all be easily true at the same time. Two different examples: The Earth warms and cools in a cycle (A) that is currently on the downswing (therefore “not warming.”) Or, the Earth is currently showing some atmospheric and surface warming (A) but this will soon slow and reverse, and the Earth won’t be permanently warmer (B).

Then you will argue that humans aren’t the cause. Then that it isn’t warming that much. And then start arguing from the beginning again.

The Earth has shown this cyclical temperature variation since long before man had any industry, or lived in such large numbers as today. It is not unreasonable to think that this is normal behavior for the planet regardless of our presence or activity.

As far as arguing from the beginning, well, you keep bringing up the troposphere and the radiomonde and the chart you linked eleventy times and the inaccessable study you mentioned another twenty-hundred times. If you want different replies, ask different questions or give different evidence.
- nightfly | 04/27/2012 @ 06:52
mkfreeberg: For example, the evidence presented by the denialists, which the alarmists gave up on discussing quite some time ago, includes farming activity during the medieval period that would not have been possible post-Renaissance in England and in the Nordic regions.

That’s funny. It’s climatologists that have identified the Medieval Warming Period. Not to mention you are saying that we can identify warming from a 1000 years ago, but can’t identify warming occurring right now.
- Zachriel | 04/27/2012 @ 07:46
nightfly: If you want different replies, ask different questions or give different evidence.

Just because you ignore the data doesn’t mean it will go away. In any case, we also cited satellite observations, which confirms the radiosonde measurements of the tropospheric warming trend.
- Zachriel | 04/27/2012 @ 07:47
Me, I’m willing to concede that the troposphere has warmed slightly in the last 150 years, just as it has cooled slightly in other similar time periods. While doing so, I also throw in the caveat that there is such a thing as the urban heat island effect on measurments, and that attempts to adjust for this are guesses. But ok, I say, so the Earth has warmed half a degree.

1) So what?

2) How much of it is due to increased greenhouse gasses?

3) Given the fact that the increase is well within established fluctuations over the last 8,000 years and we MAY be responsible for a FRACTION of it … so what?

4) Given the data, clearly the AGW-ists models are crap. (And I am a degreed meteorologist saying this.) If they weren’t crap, “scientists” wouldn’t have to spend so much time and effort trying to explain why the data doesn’t come close to the model output.

5) Given the fact that a slightly warmer earth appears to enhance life on earth in general, so what?

It is clear that there is no temperature that the Earth is “supposed” to be. It does what it does.

We’re certain that greenhouse gasses … gasses that have been here pretty much since we’ve had an atmosphere, trap re-radiated IR energy and re-radiate some of it back to the earth’s surface, which keeps the earth warmer than it would be without them. In fact, they are responsible for making the place habitable at all.

From the beginning of the “fragile” “delicate” balance that is our ecosystem has shifted and changed due to various pressures — sometimes caused by external forces (wobbles, asteroids, fluctuations in the intensity of insolation) and internal forces — the sudden success of individual species over others, volcanic activity, shifting continental plates… guess what? We live on a dynamic planet.

And we are a part of it as surely as oceans and ferns and volcanoes and termites.

Temperature has risen and fallen. Sea levels have done the same. Other species just deal with it. Or not. We USED to. Until we started building expensive large structures near the water instead of movable or disposable huts. But that’s our problem.

Is it possible that we could do something that would end up being environmentally detrimental to our species’ experience on this planet?

Sure.

It’s only us that seem to want everything to be unnaturally static. Mostly for our convenience. And we like to tinker. Hell, we invented air conditioning and central heat and the thermostats that control them. We love control. We love power.

Which is, in the end, the central issue here since we’re clearly not throwing the earth into the spiralling tizzy Al Gore tried to fearmonger us into beliving it is in his little self-aggrandizing propaganda film.

Power. People don’t just like controlling the temperature in their homes. They like controlling other people. It gives them a feeling of self-importance. A psychological high. It is a part of our nature. One that must be kept in check. Great students of history that our Founders were, they realized this — that power is both necessary and dangerous. So they designed a system to try to keep it in check. But … I digress slightly.

The AGW theory started as a legitimate concern and was eventually hijacked by the environmental religion (that also started out as a legitimate concern), “scientists” who saw it as the cash cow it has become, and various political entities that see it as a way to get people to cede more of their soveriegnty to them.

The rhetoric from the AGW camp became hyperbolic, and when called on it, they turned up the pitch to shrill. And ridiculous to the point that when called on the hyperbole that they both admitted to (Al Gore) and tried to cover up (EAU CRU et. al.) by drumming out all dissenting opinion as illigitimate (hey, wasn’t it me who pointed out that when you can dismiss everyone who disagrees with you, of course you’re going to have a concensus?) … when those emails were released by an anonymous whistle blower, the whole camp went into See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil mode, rocking back back and forth in their self-inflicted autistic daze.

It’d be more amusing if so many of them didn’t currently have their hands on the levers of power.
- philmon | 04/27/2012 @ 07:52
philmon: While doing so, I also throw in the caveat that there is such a thing as the urban heat island effect on measurments, and that attempts to adjust for this are guesses.

There are simple ways to determine the bias due to the urban heat island effect.You could compare windy to non-windy days, daytime to nighttime, or older urban centers where the bias has stabilized. Or you could simply ignore urban stations. All these tests have shown that surface temperatures show that the urban heat island effect does not explain the warming trend.

philmon: Me, I’m willing to concede that the troposphere has warmed slightly in the last 150 years, just as it has cooled slightly in other similar time periods.

That’s right. The surface and lower troposphere have warmed. The next key observation is that the stratosphere has cooled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RSS_troposphere_stratosphere_trend.png

The reason this is important is because it shows that more heat energy is becoming trapped near the Earth’s surface due to an increasing greenhouse effect. We can examine the atmosphere to determine why the greenhouse effect has increased.
- Zachriel | 04/27/2012 @ 08:36
The next key observation is that the stratosphere has cooled.

Ok. Suppose it has.

The reason this is important is because it shows that more heat energy is becoming trapped near the Earth’s surface due to an increasing greenhouse effect.

Conjecture based in confirmatin bias.

We can examine the atmosphere to determine why the greenhouse effect has increased.

Well, we can make guesses. And if we limit the range of guesses to the thing we’re looking for, since that was the presupposition from the beginning, the circular agrument is complete.

Here’s a theory. Warmer water temperatures means water holds less CO2. Therefore, when the earth warms, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases as less of it is dissolved in the world’s waters.

Well, there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere. And we can examine the temperature record to determine why the CO2 concentration has increased.

But my main point remains …. I am unimpressed with the alarmists’ screeching when I look at the temparature record for the last 10,000 years. I don’t see what the fuss is over the latest minor temporal variation which is clearly in the bounds of past variations — all this while CO2 has apparently increased by 40% from almost three one hundredths of a percent of the earth’s atmosphere to almost 4 one hundredths of a percent of the earth’s atmosphere.

Yes, that’s an increase of just slightly over one one hundredth of one percent of the total, and we’re claiming to “know” that it must have come from man’s activities and not from natural variations in carbon sink efficiencies just by examining the earth’s atmosphere.

As I said, color me unimpressed.
- philmon | 04/27/2012 @ 12:44
Zachriel: The reason this is important is because it shows that more heat energy is becoming trapped near the Earth’s surface due to an increasing greenhouse effect.

philmon: Conjecture based in confirmatin bias.

The total heat is being redistributed with less in the stratosphere and more in the troposphere. Perhaps magic færies transport the heat from the stratosphere to the troposphere.

philmon: Warmer water temperatures means water holds less CO2. Therefore, when the earth warms, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases as less of it is dissolved in the world’s waters.

Except that there is more CO2 in the oceans now, not less.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

philmon: we’re claiming to “know” that it must have come from man’s activities and not from natural variations in carbon sink efficiencies just by examining the earth’s atmosphere.

It’s not that difficult to determine how much CO2 humans have emitted and compare it to how much additional CO2 has accumulated in the atmosphere. Human emissions are more than enough to account for the increase in atmospheric CO2, with the rest being absorbed by the oceans (increasing its acidity) and by land and plants.
- Zachriel | 04/27/2012 @ 14:06
Yes, yes, it’s either CO2, or faeries. There couldn’t possibly be any other explanation. If there’s more heat in the troposphere, and less in the stratosphere, why it must be being transferred from the stratosphere to the troposphere. I’m assuming you do know it works the other way around, of course. Again, when we are talking about miniscule variations that fall within the margin of error and/or natural variance, I find it difficult to get worked up – especially when I know that the scientists are working very hard to uncover any confirmation of the overarching theory and playing games with the datasets that dampen or eliminate evidence that the theory is on target. Hence “hide the decline” and the egregious abuse of statistical analyisis that produced the hockey stick chart.

Speaking of incuriosity, what is the normal fluctuation of CO2 content in earth’s oceans and the normal fluctuations in pH?

Ocean pH apparently varies from about 7.9 to about 8.3. And whadday know, the very short (geologically speaking) time series (50 years?) presented falls right there in that range. Who’d’ve thunk?

It may be relatively easy to estimate how much CO2 humans have emitted. Determine is a bit of a strong word, and it does reveal an affinity toward love of theory. It is far less easy to compare it to how much “additional” CO2 has accumulated in the atmosphere since it is a dynamic system. Choosing a baseline is ultimately a fairly arbitrary act. Human emissions being more than enough to account for the estimated additional CO2 1) doesn’t mean it is the cause of the miniscule increase — percieved or real — and 2) so what?

Again, I refer you to the data. For the sake of argument, let’s accept that 1) increased CO2, up to a point, has a warming effect … which is perfectly reasonable via Planke’s law (in the absence of negative feedback mechanisms), 2) that CO2 has increased by one one hundredth of one percent of the earth’s atmospheric makeup, and 3) that man is completely responsible for the increase. And likes to kick puppies.

Now look at the temperature record over the last 10,000 years.

I have. And I am not alarmed.
- philmon | 04/27/2012 @ 15:09
Two points:

That’s funny. It’s climatologists that have identified the Medieval Warming Period.

It’s even funnier when you realize that it was actually historians, not climatologists, who identified it. They saw old records talking about crops that wouldn’t grow under current conditions, and then started looking around for confirmation. Climatologists were relatively late to the game.

Second, Philmon has noted an extremely important point — AGW alarmism depends on some notion of what the Earth’s “temperature” is supposed to be. And we know this…. how?

It’s as if I took a look at some fossils and said “based on all the Neolithic remains we’ve so far uncovered, the average height of a human male should be 5’2″. But look — starting about 3,000 BC, the height of the average human male started increasing by a few millimeters per decade, until now the height of the average male worldwide is 5’7″, and in America it’s an astounding 5’11”. What else stated around 3000 BC? That’s right — urban culture based on sedentary agriculture. And it’s the United States, with the world’s most productive per-acre agriculture, that has some of the most skewed height differentials. Clearly we need to outlaw all fertilizers and burn the John Deere factory to the ground, lest runaway Anthropogenic Global Heightening further disrupt the delicate balance of our fragile biosphere.”
- Severian | 04/27/2012 @ 16:23
philmon: If there’s more heat in the troposphere, and less in the stratosphere, why it must be being transferred from the stratosphere to the troposphere.

Of course, that’s not what happens. Heat is trapped longer near the surface.

philmon: Again, when we are talking about miniscule variations that fall within the margin of error …

You had stipulated that the troposphere had warmed and the stratosphere had cooled. As usual, when that doesn’t work, the stipulations is dropped and the argument slides into something else.

No, there have been millions of observations. The data on the warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere is not within the margin of error.
- Zachriel | 04/27/2012 @ 18:07
You had stipulated that the troposphere had warmed and the stratosphere had cooled. As usual, when that doesn’t work, the stipulations is dropped and the argument slides into something else.

As you can see from the linked definition, it’s much more proper to say Zachriel had stipulated that Phil must concede that the troposphere had warmed. Phil did so concede. The results of this illustrate why I had not done this. Zachriel, as I have pointed out (or one among the number of persons represented by this identity) cannot or will not recognize the simple human-knowledge concept of uncertainty. He/she/it/they will not even recognize concession for sake of argument.

He/she/it/they is essentially using a “ratchet” method of arguing: You agreed to A, now let’s see if we can get you to agree to B. If that works, through logic, fatigue, or a combination thereof, we will proceed to C.

You’ve made your point, Zachriel. This method is necessary to make climate change look like a crisis. It is a technique indispensable to the defined mission.
- mkfreeberg | 04/27/2012 @ 18:14
Severian: ISecond, Philmon has noted an extremely important point — AGW alarmism depends on some notion of what the Earth’s “temperature” is supposed to be.

The question isn’t what is it “supposed” to be, but what humans have adapted to, the rapidity of the change being wrought, and the consequences of that change to human civilization.
- Zachriel | 04/27/2012 @ 18:18
As usual, when that doesn’t work, the stipulations is dropped and the argument slides into something else.

Ok, so: What is the Earth’s temperature supposed to be?

Let’s drop the math, the models, the stipulations, all that stuff over which measurements are and aren’t reliable…. 242 posts so far, and that’s gotten us nowhere.

It’s a nice, clear, clean, simple question: What is the Earth’s temperature supposed to be?

‘Cause it seems to me you picked an arbitrary point and went forward from there. The Earth (sez you) is hotter than it was in 1950, therefore this is human-caused, therefore this is “global warming,” therefore giant freakout.

If I pick an equally arbitrary point — the late Jurassic, say — I notice that the Earth has cooled dramatically. And unless there were lots of triceratops and T-Rex driving around in SUVs way back when, the (relative) heat of the Jurassic was in no way related to industrial pollution.

And, really, if we’re to “solve” global warming, we’ll have to pick a target temperature to get back down to, right? So…. what’s it to be?
- Severian | 04/27/2012 @ 18:19
PS simply repeating “the Earth is warmer than 1950, it’s a scientific fact, look at the chart” isn’t going to cut it. Answer the question, please — what’s the Earth’s temperature supposed to be, now and for all time?
- Severian | 04/27/2012 @ 18:20
Let’s drop the math, the models, the stipulations, all that stuff over which measurements are and aren’t reliable…. 242 posts so far, and that’s gotten us nowhere.

You know, I have to agree with this. This is looking more and more like a beating-around-of-the-bushes…a debate about how to look at life, all dressed up a fancy debate-about-science costume.

One side made up of grown-up manly men who got a thrill out of spitting & peeing on leaves floating in rivers, and now monopolize the remote control for the big huge teevee set in the living room, says “Isn’t this cool? I do this thing over here, and it has an effect on that thing way way over (or down) there. This is completely awesome!”

The other side says “ZOMFG!!!! We’re having an affect on things, this is horrible!”
- mkfreeberg | 04/27/2012 @ 18:33
And, over half of the relative warming occurred before 1950 … before the majority of the CO2 increase happened. So half of our 0.6C (margin of error 0.2C … rendering it statistically insignificant in addition to it being well within the range of fluctuations since the last ice age 10,000 years ago) happened before this huge CO2 forcing, and the rest of it happened during a solar max cycle which also happens to correlate quite nicely with the temperature rise and yet I’m supposed to believe that a one one hundredth of a percent change in the earth’s atmospheric composition in the direction of CO2 is not only responsible for the bulk of this increase, but that it’s about to explode (just you wait … any year now!!! Our models say so!!!!!! Eleventy!!!!11111!!!!) into some sort of global catastrophe.

Question. 90% of the greenhouse effect is caused by what gas?

1) Carbon Dioxide
2) Methane
3) Water vapor

The answer, which most people don’t know, is (3) — water vapor.

Most of the greenhouse forcing in the models that is attributed to CO2 relies on the modeling of increased water vapor feedback for it’s infamously high predictions, and history shows that the model output has been notoriously and persistently high compared to the data. So the ~~model~~ data is clearly wrong. 😉 But don’t worry. We’ll produce a model that proves we’re right, regardless of the data!

Just wait ’til NEXT year!
- philmon | 04/27/2012 @ 19:27
mkfreeberg: As you can see from the linked definition, it’s much more proper to say Zachriel had stipulated that Phil must concede that the troposphere had warmed. Phil did so concede.

As Severian pointed out above, to stipulate means to agree “to assume as true for the purposes of argument.” That’s the common usage in discussions of this sort.

mkfreeberg: He/she/it/they is essentially using a “ratchet” method of arguing: You agreed to A, now let’s see if we can get you to agree to B.

It is a step-by-step argument, yes. You are never under any obligation to concede a point, but waving your hands doesn’t constitute an argument, and we will continue to point that out when you are resorting to hand waving.

mkfreeberg: You’ve made your point, Zachriel. This method is necessary to make climate change look like a crisis.

We’re not up to that point. You’re still stuck arguing that the troposphere hasn’t warmed over the last half century, even when confronted with evidence from many different international scientific groups, including NASA, that have used many different scientific techniques for data-collection, from thermometers to satellite long-wave studies.
- Zachriel | 04/28/2012 @ 05:45
Severian: Ok, so: What is the Earth’s temperature supposed to be?

“Supposed to be” is not a useful concept. We do know that the Earth is experiencing a rapid warming trend that will result in deleterious effects for human civilization, and probable suffering for millions of people.

Severian: If I pick an equally arbitrary point — the late Jurassic, say — I notice that the Earth has cooled dramatically. And unless there were lots of triceratops and T-Rex driving around in SUVs way back when, the (relative) heat of the Jurassic was in no way related to industrial pollution.

That’s right. There are all sorts of causes of climate change, from orbital variations, changes in solar irradiance, composition of the atmosphere, and the occasional celestial object impacting the Earth. Even the continents have moved substantially since then, which will inevitably change the climate.

Severian: And, really, if we’re to “solve” global warming, we’ll have to pick a target temperature to get back down to, right? So…. what’s it to be?

Nope. There will always be natural climate change. The concern is avoidable extremes and the rapidity of change.
- Zachriel | 04/28/2012 @ 05:53
philmon: And, over half of the relative warming occurred before 1950 … before the majority of the CO2 increase happened.

Here’s the longer view:
http://phillips.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/instrumental_temperature_record_1.png
Yes, there is the countervailing influence of aerosols, which tend to cool the planet. When the industrialized economies cleaned up their air pollution, much of this countervailing influence waned. Today, China is choking on air pollution, and that has the result of slowing global warming. But they will eventually be forced to reduce their particulate emissions.

philmon: So half of our 0.6C (margin of error 0.2C … rendering it statistically insignificant in addition to it being well within the range of fluctuations since the last ice age 10,000 years ago) happened before this huge CO2 forcing, and the rest of it happened during a solar max cycle which also happens to correlate quite nicely with the temperature rise

You didn’t provide the original paper. It’s probably Friis-Christensen & Lassen’s paper from 1991, which attempted to data-mine correlations. However, there were arithmetic mistakes discovered shortly thereafter undermining the paper. Even more important to this discussion, the last two decades—which aren’t shown—, the lines have substantially diverged, as Friis-Christensen himself has stated.

Friis-Christensen & Lassen, Length of the Solar Cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science 1991.

Stauning, Solar activity-climate relations: A different approach, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 2011.

philmon: yet I’m supposed to believe that a one one hundredth of a percent change in the earth’s atmospheric composition in the direction of CO2 is not only responsible for the bulk of this increase, but that it’s about to explode (just you wait … any year now!!! Our models say so!!!!!! Eleventy!!!!11111!!!!) into some sort of global catastrophe.

Most of the atmosphere does not act to produce a greenhouse effect. In any case, it can be directly calculated that a doubling of CO2 will cause a warming of about 1°C.

philmon: The answer, which most people don’t know, is (3) — water vapor.

That’s right, which is why the question of climate sensitivity is so important, and under such scrutiny by the scientific community.

philmon: Most of the greenhouse forcing in the models that is attributed to CO2 relies on the modeling of increased water vapor feedback for it’s infamously high predictions,

Right again. Resolving this issue is of great importance for determining how fast climate change will occur. Studies, using a wide variety of different techniques, are converging on ≈3°C, but there is still a large uncertainty on the upper limit. Here’s a small sampling, which we posted above:

Volcanic forcing
Wigley et al., Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research 2005.

Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
Forster & Gregory, The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data, Journal of Climate 2006.

Paleoclimatic constraints
Schmittner et al., Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science 2011.

Bayesian probability
Annan & Hargreaves, On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity, Climate Change 2008.

Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.
- Zachriel | 04/28/2012 @ 06:33
Nope. There will always be natural climate change. The concern is avoidable extremes and the rapidity of change.

If that is the concern, then I addressed it in the original post before there even was a thread.

Is the Earth a primer cap environment, with a critical event-horizon, with a chain reaction started once the readings are above some certain level? Or is it a heavy pendulum environment in which, the further out of whack the readings become, the more spectacular forces are required to push those readings further out of whack? I opined it is the latter; science backs me up on this; Phil has offered a much more detailed explanation as to how & why. The greenhouse effect does not add heat, it subtracts from the rate at which the heat is lost; and, only so much can be subtracted.

All these inflammatory terms which the general public doesn’t understand, are left unexplained in order to inflate the panic. There really is no such thing as a “satellite temperature reading”, but you & others keep talking about them; the word “trend” implies that changes in the past are useful in predicting changes in the future, which is false, yet the word continues to be used; and the notion of a “tipping point” is as scientific as palm reading. The predictions of global climate over the next century or so, amount to just so much swagger, since anyone familiar with the history of similar predictions knows that they’ve met with little, if any, success.

…and we will continue to point that out when you are resorting to hand waving.

Please do. I like it when people see your stipulating that dissenters against your cherished catechism, must comb through your data sets before you’ll allow them to say anything against it, and then when they point out plain and obvious errors with your logic that make said data sets functionally irrelevant, you blithely and casually dismiss their comments with a cute moniker that amounts to so much psychological projection. That happys me very much. I like it when others can see you doing that.
- mkfreeberg | 04/28/2012 @ 07:22
[…] see Primer Caps and Heavy Pendulums is now up to 252 comments, which is sure to be a record for The Blog That Nobody Reads. I’m not quite so impressed by […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 04/28/2012 @ 08:33
We do know that the Earth is experiencing a rapid warming trend that will result in deleterious effects for human civilization, and probable suffering for millions of people.

No, you DON’T know that.

Was the Medieval Warm Period a net good or a net bad for Europe, c.1000-1500? Because even if we stipulate that the globe is warming — and remember, comrade, you’re the one who claimed the Medieval Warm Period as some kind of triumph for “climate science” — it is NOT AT ALL clear that this caused deleterious effects for human civilization. If anything, the reverse happened — you know, the Renaissance, the beginnings of the Scientific Revolution, etc.

See Constable, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century.
Southern, The Making of the Middle Ages

etc. etc.
- Severian | 04/28/2012 @ 13:01
Okay Morgan…you wanted me to jump in. Here I am….

China is emitting much less than the U.S. per capita.

As others have pointed out to you repeatedly, this is irrelevant. “Per capita” means per person. That’s not important. What is important (assuming we buy into the AGW hysteria) is the total amount of “greenhouse gas” being emitted. The Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t care whether x amount of CO2 and methane and SO2 and the rest are being emitted by sixty people in the US or by six hundred of them in China. The total amount of gas is still X. China has already surpassed the United States as the world’s biggest polluter. Period. That means the total amount of emissions from China is bigger than the US. Even if their “per capita” really is lower, you need to remember they also have four times our population.

It’s also irrelevant that China’s been doing this a shorter period of time. What is relevant is that their emissions are growing faster than ours. AGW doesn’t care what the past is; it’s concerned with a future.

Good grief, comrade. Go around and around with Morgan and Sev a few more times, why don’t you?
- cylarz | 04/28/2012 @ 17:55
And if we’re to let China off the hook because they’ve got 1.2 billion people to feed, why not India? They’re got another billion or so, and like China, are growing and modernizing rapidly. Likewise with Indonesia, Brazil, and a dozen other countries.

I saw an article last week that contained pictures of the world’s most polluted bodies of water. One was in the US (the Mississippi River). One was in Russia – some lake where the USSR used to dump nuclear waste. The rest were all in Third World countries, and I noticed a common theme – massive numbers of people living near a body of water where chemical and industrial waste and raw sewage are simply dumped right in without concern. That’s something that generally isn’t done in industrialized countries.
- cylarz | 04/28/2012 @ 17:59
Yes. The troposphere has warmed. And the troposphere has cooled. It does so diurnally, and it does so over other various time periods. And it has done so (warm, recently, with interspersed periods of cooling), inside the range it has warmed and cooled periodically since the last ice age.

So.

What?
- philmon | 04/28/2012 @ 18:22
And it has done so (warm, recently, with interspersed periods of cooling), inside the range it has warmed and cooled periodically since the last ice age.

Philmon, shame on you for suggesting that the Earth’s atmosphere warmed and cooled before the development of industrial technology in the 19th century…and by extension, arguing that if climate change had a natural cause back then, that it might have one now.

We can’t have facts getting in the way of a good narrative, you know. Not when we’ve got a planet to “save”, national sovereignty to abrogate, and people to control.
- cylarz | 04/28/2012 @ 18:33
And … if I’m going to be designated as conceding anything … let’s qualify what we’re talking about here.

We think the Earth surface temperature is ~0.6C-ish higher today than it was 160 years ago. With a margin of error of 33%, or 0.2C.

Warmer than it was 150 years ago. What temperature SHOULD the Earth be? Should it be what it was 150 years ago?

Was the “proper” Earth temperature the 1860 Earth temperature? Why or why not? Why not 1550? Or the year 900? How much has the Earth “Warmed” since the middle ages?

What? Not at all? If I concede that the earth has warmed some since 1850, what does that mean?

Not much, really, as far as the AGW theory goes. Not much as far as anything goes.

It was 54 degrees when I got up this morning. It was 74 this afternoon. I concede that it was warmer this afternoon than it was this morning. Tomorrow the forecast high is 67.

So. What?
- philmon | 04/28/2012 @ 19:03
Sorry, but it doesn’t cease to be a valid scientific statement because you don’t like the claim or the way it is repeated. The scientific data indicates that the lower troposphere has been warming over the last half century. Nothing on this thread has called into question this basic finding.

Even if we grant you that conclusion (based on the graph you’ve linked to over a dozen times now, because apparently you think we couldn’t have clicked on it the first six or seven)…it still doesn’t prove that human beings have anything at all to do with that warming. You asserted early in the thread that there could be no possible other cause – of course it’s got to be human activity that’s a direct and primary cause of warming in the lower troposphere. You never responded to the counter-claim A) that the lower troposphere warmed in the past, before human beings were *capable* of causing warming and B) that you hadn’t provided enough information to lead us to that conclusion anyway.

Morgan isn’t willing to concede that lower-troposphere temperature increases mean that the whole Earth is getting warmer because he knows exactly what you’re going to say next if he does: “So you agree, then, that drastic, compulsory, and immediate action needs to be taken by the world’s governments immediately!” with all the loss of personal freedom and national sovereignty that entails. You’ve said as much with the bit about coastal flooding in Asia and the desertification in Africa and the oceanic acidification and whatnot. (And that’s assuming the Earth itself won’t adapt (increased plant life to absorb the extra CO2) – to say nothing of humanity’s adaptiveness – which Morgan also pointed out, which you ignored.)

Are you starting to understand why we aren’t impressed with your repeated claims and obscure references?

This is why the discussion thread has gotten so tiring…and I’m embarrassed to admit I read this much of it. (Humor value, I guess.) You keep going around and around.
- cylarz | 04/28/2012 @ 21:49
We have no illusion that you are likely open to persuasion, though we give you the benefit of the doubt. There are almost always more readers of a blog than commenters.

Who the frack is this “we” you keep referring to, anyway? At first I thought you simply meant “AGW hysterics who accept the bad science and therefore agree with me,” but as the thread has worn on (and on, and on…) it’s starting to sound more and more like Morgan and Sev have been arguing with a committee of some sort. What, is this thread some kind of group project for your forensics class? Or are you suffering from multiple personality disorder?
- cylarz | 04/28/2012 @ 22:07
Hey, I have a quick question about this sea-level rise stuff:

The mantra goes that because of global (er, I mean lower troposphere) warming, the polar ice caps are going to melt, and therefore the ocean’s going to rise, which in turn is going to flood coastal regions or put some island chain underwater. Right?

For the moment, I’ll gloss over the fact that that too, is questionable and just posit it for purposes of discussion, ignoring data showing an INCREASE of ice in the Antarctic…

Okay. Any fool knows from looking at a cross-section of an iceberg, that sea ice is abou 80-90% below the waterline. Any sixth-grader knows that ice expands when it freezes in the first place, so that one could argue that the displacement of the ice below the waterline is roughly equivalent to the volume of the entire iceberg. Therefore….drum roll please…..THE ENTIRE BERG (and all the other icebergs like it, along with the rest of the Arctic ice sheet) CAN MELT WITH NO NET CHANGE in sea level. Try this at home – drop some ice cubes into a glass of room-temperature tap water and watch them melt. Does the water level in the glass change? No? Then why does anyone think the seas are going to rise?

Ah – but the Antarctic ice sheet is mostly on land, you see. Okay. Well first off, not all of it – vast ice shelves extend into the so called Southern Ocean, and secondly….SO WHAT? The total volume of ice at both poles represents – what, 5% – of the entire volume of water on Earth? You’re going to tell me that the landlocked portion of the Antarctic ice sheet (plus the relatively tiny amount of ice elsewhere on Earth, such as the Himilayan glaciers) melting…is going to cause catastrophic levels of sea-level rise, with all the attendant dire effects of “salinating the farmland” and the rest?

And even if THAT happened….you’re going to tell me that it’s going to happen as a wall of water rushing into downtown Miami one day in the 22nd century? No. Rise in sea levels are measured in INCHES per century, not feet. Humanity would adapt. As I put it a few times elsewhere on the innerwebz….we’d build dikes, grow palm trees in Saskatchewan, and life would go on as it always has.

Another quick question for our resident gadfly – would you and your fellow AGW alarmists feel less pushed for quick action if your “science” showed that Earth was getting colder instead of warmer? If so, why? Just humor me. Would we still be seeing the same push for urgent political action?
- cylarz | 04/28/2012 @ 22:23
That’s right. There are all sorts of causes of climate change, from orbital variations, changes in solar irradiance, composition of the atmosphere, and the occasional celestial object impacting the Earth. Even the continents have moved substantially since then, which will inevitably change the climate.

If you concede that natural forces resulted in climatic change following the Jurassic, why won’t you concede they could be responsible now?

It’s amazing – you admit that pre-Industrial Age climatic change (such as the Medieval Warm period) occurred, but then turn right around and insist that surface warming taking place *now* is primarily caused by human activity.

And I’ve been wondering something else this entire thread – you keep saying that the radiosondes and the weather balloons and the surface stations and the satellites keep showing that the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling (and this, we’ve been told over and over by you is a hallmark of the greenhouse effect)….so WHY is the stratosphere getting cooler? Wouldn’t it be warming right along with the lower layer? Or are you attempting to claim that heat is being retained by the lower atmosphere in such a way that it’s no longer being allowed to escape to the upper?

Severian: And, really, if we’re to “solve” global warming, we’ll have to pick a target temperature to get back down to, right? So…. what’s it to be?
Z: Nope. There will always be natural climate change. The concern is avoidable extremes and the rapidity of change.

“Avoidable extremes?” “Rapidity of change?” If either of those has a natural/non-human cause, what in the name of Sam Houston makes you think people can do a damn thing about either one, regardless of what world governments do to attempt to address the changes?

Either human beings have caused the changes or they haven’t. The answer to that question is going to have a HUGE bearing on whether or not human beings can do anything to “correct” the climate change.
- cylarz | 04/28/2012 @ 23:18
Or are you attempting to claim that heat is being retained by the lower atmosphere in such a way that it’s no longer being allowed to escape to the upper?

Yes, I think that’s the claim. Funny thing is, it could be taken as damaging to the Zachriel construct’s argument, that past performance is indicative of future results. Here & now, Anno Domini 2012, the insulatory property of our carbon-saturated atmosphere is so perfect that the stratosphere is now cooling…Phil pointed out, accurately, and it’s not been contested, that this is all a subtractive process vis a vis heat leakage, not an additive process in terms of heat accumulation, the effect being, we can only go so far in this direction. Eventually you have so many blankets piled on you that more blanketing doesn’t change anything. We-ell…stratosphere is cooling while everything’s gone all higglety-pigglety down here.

Yet Zachriel, and many others, continue to prattle away about the “warming trend” that will cause this global temperature to rise by, “best estimates are” about 2.5-3.0 degrees C. I’m not sure how these best estimates are defined by “best,” seems to be yet more consensus-driven science. But land and sea mass temperature predictions are known for being shaky, and I’m guessing we’re not supposed to discuss the failed predictions. Down the memory hole they go.
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2012 @ 03:43
Zachriel: There will always be natural climate change. The concern is avoidable extremes and the rapidity of change.

mkfreeberg: If that is the concern, then I addressed it in the original post before there even was a thread. Is the Earth a primer cap environment, with a critical event-horizon, with a chain reaction started once the readings are above some certain level? Or is it a heavy pendulum environment in which, the further out of whack the readings become, the more spectacular forces are required to push those readings further out of whack?

False dichotomy. It might be a system that is pushed into by degrees. There are many countervailing influences, but the evidence indicates several degrees of warming over the next century, and more after that if humans don’t modify their behavior. Of course, humans will modify their behavior, but the longer the wait, the more costly the solution, and the more damage to the environment.

mkfreeberg: The greenhouse effect does not add heat, it subtracts from the rate at which the heat is lost; and, only so much can be subtracted.

And that means that the lower atmosphere will warm, and the upper atmosphere will cool! Now you got it!

mkfreeberg: I like it when people see your stipulating that dissenters against your cherished catechism, must comb through your data sets before you’ll allow them to say anything against it,

You are more than welcome to point out problems with the data, but handwaving is just handwaving, not an argument. The key is that we have multiple sources of data, ground, radiosonde and satellite. And you have nothing but your incredulity.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2012 @ 05:42
Severian: Was the Medieval Warm Period a net good or a net bad for Europe, c.1000-1500? … If anything, the reverse happened — you know, the Renaissance, the beginnings of the Scientific Revolution, etc.

The Medieval Warming Period was from about 950-1250 C.E.. Changes varied by region. Europe experienced longer growing seasons, while other parts of the world suffered drought and collapse. Of course, today the world is much more densely populated and more interconnected.

More important, the evidence indicates that the world is already warmer than it was during the Medieval Warming Period, and expected to warm much more. We have provided citations concerning the detrimental effects of such a large temperature change. This warming is may cause severe disruption of agriculture, inundation and salinization of arable lands, increased rate of desertification, mass extinction, and human migration with its attendant political destabilization.

We already mentioned sea level rise, which is an inevitable result of global warming. You might start with that.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2012 @ 05:55
cylarz: As others have pointed out to you repeatedly, this is irrelevant… What is important (assuming we buy into the AGW hysteria) is the total amount of “greenhouse gas” being emitted.

What matters to the Earth’s climate is *total emissions over time*.

cylarz: China has already surpassed the United States as the world’s biggest polluter. Period.

Saying “Period” doesn’t end the discussion, of course. The Chinese have as much right to the benefits of development as every other country. Their total historical emissions are far less than the United States. Their per capita emissions are still far less. Given the quaint notion that one Chinese person as much right to the benefits of development as one American, any chance of an agreement to limit carbon has to recognize what they see as their legitimate interests.

cylarz: And if we’re to let China off the hook because they’ve got 1.2 billion people to feed, why not India?

China, India, Indonesia, will have to find ways to limit their carbon emissions. The most natural solution is the developed nations develop the technology and export it to the developing world.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2012 @ 06:05
philmon: The troposphere has warmed. And the troposphere has cooled. It does so diurnally, and it does so over other various time periods.

For years we have told told the Earth is melting like a popcycle, and that humanity will would soon be boiled alive in a rising sea. Well, today that lie stands exposed with evidence that any child can understand. I give you frozen water, falling from the sky.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm
- Zachriel | 04/29/2012 @ 06:11
cylarz: Philmon, shame on you for suggesting that the Earth’s atmosphere warmed and cooled before the development of industrial technology in the 19th century…and by extension, arguing that if climate change had a natural cause back then, that it might have one now.

Scientists have know about ice ages and tropical periods for generations. Indeed, the Earth was once a boiling cauldron of molten rock. However, what is happening is not a natural variation, but artificial and substantial. Don’t worry, humans will adapt. Their most important resource is their minds, enhanced by the scientific method and their huge technological infrastructure.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2012 @ 06:14
cylarz: Even if we grant you that conclusion (based on the graph you’ve linked to over a dozen times now, because apparently you think we couldn’t have clicked on it the first six or seven)…it still doesn’t prove that human beings have anything at all to do with that warming.

A warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere are a signature of greenhouse warming. Heat is becoming increasing trapped in the lower atmosphere (more precisely, taking longer to dissipate into space).

cylarz: so WHY is the stratosphere getting cooler? Wouldn’t it be warming right along with the lower layer?

It would if the warming were due to, say, solar irradiance or orbital variations.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2012 @ 06:19
The key is that we have multiple sources of data, ground, radiosonde and satellite. And you have nothing but your incredulity.

No, the key is that you are making the data synonymous with your conclusion, which is a scientifically invalid maneuver. And when people repeatedly point it out to you, and you repeatedly dismiss it as handwaving, not only do you show that you don’t understand the basics involved in what you’re talking about, but you activate a popular Marvel Comic books trope, becoming exactly that which you hate (or, to be more precise, are criticizing). I have nothing but my incredulity? You’ve been nailed repeatedly on “Eh no, you think you know that, but you don’t know that” and you’ve shown very little to no comprehension of what people are talking about. Meanwhile…you don’t know what you think you know.

…but the evidence indicates several degrees of warming over the next century, and more after that if humans don’t modify their behavior…

That’s not “evidence.” That — is fortune telling.

The Chinese have as much right to the benefits of development as every other country. Their total historical emissions are far less than the United States. Their per capita emissions are still far less. Given the quaint notion that one Chinese person as much right to the benefits of development as one American, any chance of an agreement to limit carbon has to recognize what they see as their legitimate interests.

Right…here I thought we had these told-fortunes, about the detrimental effects that would take place if the mean temperature goes up by 3.5 C. Which it will, if humans don’t take steps to limit their emissions. Or will anyway, even humans do take these steps, & will go up even further if they don’t, or something. Now, here you are passionately championing China’s right to pollute. That’s a bit odd. Seems to me anyone who was concerned about the detrimental effects et cetera, would take a position of “What does it matter? Just cut cut cut any way you can.” But if it’s a money grab, or some plot to devalue United States currency to the benefit of other countries…well then, a supporter of such a cause might act precisely the way you’re acting: Pollution is only bad when it comes from the United States.

A warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere are a signature of greenhouse warming. Heat is becoming increasing trapped in the lower atmosphere (more precisely, taking longer to dissipate into space).

If the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming, seems to me what your data are trying to tell you is that the blanketing effect is complete, and the dissipation is non-existent, non-significant or non-consequential.

IOW, if the crisis is on its way and the nature of it is this blanketing effect, it has reached its zenith because the heat’s not being dissipated. Things are going more-or-less okay, the sea levels haven’t risen, flora & fauna are still reproducing, and every now & then a species goes extinct just like has always been the case. But the experts talk about a linear “trend” of temperature increase, after having racked up impressive records of being wrong…they tell me why they “know” this, I point out the logic is not sound because the conclusion is not supported by their data…they, and you, tell me to look into the data, thereby proving they’re not paying attention.

Exactly the way people behave when they have money to make, which would be jeopardized by their learning something, or discussing what they’ve learned in a logical way. They start to repeat little mantras, and travel in tight circular motions. Exactly as you’ve done here.
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2012 @ 06:50
mkfreeberg: No, the key is that you are making the data synonymous with your conclusion, which is a scientifically invalid maneuver.

At this point, we’re just trying to measure the temperature trend in the troposphere.

mkfreeberg: If the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming, seems to me what your data are trying to tell you is that the blanketing effect is complete, and the dissipation is non-existent, non-significant or non-consequential.

Huh? Heat is always being dissipated. As we increase the greenhouse effect, the temperature of the troposphere will trend up, while the temperature of the stratosphere will trend down. That’s because it takes longer for heat to work its way through the atmosphere.

mkfreeberg: Things are going more-or-less okay, the sea levels haven’t risen,

Sea levels are rising.
http://climate.nasa.gov/SeaLevelViewer/seaLevelViewer.cfm
- Zachriel | 04/29/2012 @ 07:32
Have they risen to the 5 or 6 meters Hansen was predicting back in 1981?
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2012 @ 07:45
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2012 @ 07:49
mkfreeberg: Have they risen to the 5 or 6 meters Hansen was predicting back in 1981?

Let’s take a wild guess. You haven’t read Hansen et al. 1981.

–
Here’s our conversation in short:

mk: Sea levels haven’t risen
Z: Observations (citation provided) suggest otherwise.
mk: Hansen is a boogieman!
- Zachriel | 04/29/2012 @ 08:06
mkfreeberg: “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

At this point, we’re just trying to resolve the issue of whether the troposphere has been warming and sea levels rising.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2012 @ 08:08
M: Have [sea levels] risen to the 5 or 6 meters Hansen was predicting back in 1981?

Z: Let’s take a wild guess. You haven’t read Hansen et al. 1981.

BZZZT. Wrong again.

Hansen:

The summer temperature in its viciniity is about -5’C. If this temperature rises ~5’C, deglaciation could be rapid, requiring a century or less and causing a sea level rise of 5 to 6 m.

There’s a point to this: The vast abundance of wrong-ness in these predictions, along with the frequency of the incidents of wrong-ness, entirely eludes you, and poses a problem for your “data == conclusion” framework of red-dot science.
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2012 @ 08:19
mkfreeberg: Have [sea levels] risen to the 5 or 6 meters Hansen was predicting back in 1981?

mkfreeberg: BZZZT. Wrong again.

Where did Hansen say sea levels would have risen to the 5 or 6 meters by this point in time? Oh, right. He didn’t. What you quoted doesn’t support what you said. Rather, Hansen made a qualified statement, first that temperatures rise ~5°C, and then it *could* result in a rapid deglaciation over a century following that rise in temperature. Furthermore, he precedes that by saying “It is not certain whether CO2 warming will cause the ice sheets to shrink or grow,” and a discussion of how changes in precipitation can impact any net melting.

mkfreeberg: There’s a point to this: The vast abundance of wrong-ness in these predictions, along with the frequency of the incidents of wrong-ness, entirely eludes you, and poses a problem for your “data == conclusion” framework of red-dot science.

Except you didn’t show where Hansen et al. was wrong, or why a mistake in a thirty year old paper would undermine the current science. Instead, you ~~misrepresented~~ misread Hansen et al., but you should now have a correct understanding.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2012 @ 08:53
Yes, we always have to look further and say “What you quoted doesn’t support what you said.” Except, after the IPCC 3rd and 4th assessment reports, the numbers we’re talking about are substantially less, and now the “science” is all about how you need to study this stuff to see even a few cm would be really, really bad.

Point is, when it comes to grabbing the headlines and getting in the news, there’s nothing wrong with being associated with statements of the form “sea levels could rise 5 meters.” So these spectacular claims are made, the headlines are grabbed, and then it’s all…let’s qualify that down to 42 cm, but it’s still really bad.

Meanwhile, it isn’t even about making accurate predictions.

Seriously, it’s not. With stock trading, we have an industry built around making accurate predictions. Ditto with presidential elections. People & institutions predict things, and after awhile a few among them build up a reputation and are able to say “I’ve accurately predicted such-and-such” or “I’ve been right x percent of the time.” So hey…who’s the climate-change, or sea-level-rise, superstar of these accurate predictions? There isn’t one, because they just say stuff to get attention, and then after they got the attention they say “Well, what we meant to predict was…”
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2012 @ 09:01
mkfreeberg: Except, after the IPCC 3rd and 4th assessment reports, the numbers we’re talking about are substantially less, and now the “science” is all about how you need to study this stuff to see even a few cm would be really, really bad.

Hansen et al. did not predict 5m sea rise, as you had said. It was was a highly contingent statement, nor does a mistake in a thirty year old paper undermine the current science, though most of the paper holds up quite well.

You misread Hansen el al.

You said sea levels weren’t rising, based on nothing, and contrary to observation.

You said scientists haven’t determined the troposphere has warmed over the last half century, even though by multiple measures it has.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2012 @ 09:15
“Determined.”

“Measures.”

No difference between those two things on Planet Z.
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2012 @ 09:30
Saying “Period” doesn’t end the discussion, of course. The Chinese have as much right to the benefits of development as every other country. Their total historical emissions are far less than the United States.

“Period” —freaking does—- end the discussion if the question is “Who emits the largest total amount of emissions each year, which is what I was trying to get across to you. Might want to bone-up on your reading comprehension there, comrade.

I don’t care what “rights” China or any other country thinks it has. National rights have no meaning against the larger backdrop of humanity’s survival…the very part we object to most. You’ve spent much of the past week trying to tell us that all these calamities are going to ensue if they – along with the rest of us – don’t rein-in their carbon emissions. You’ve gone so far as to say they’ll eventually be forced to do so (no, they won’t….the Chi-Coms care about getting rich and exerting control over their people, not having a clean atmosphere).

I do not care what their total emissions historically are. The important part – yet AGAIN – is what they are going forward, not what they were in the past.

The most natural solution is the developed nations develop the technology and export it to the developing world.

You’re going to force them to import it from the US et al? What if they don’t want to buy it? What if their response is, “Energy from ‘green’ technology is more expensive than from fossil fuel, and we’re interested in the bottom line over here. No, thanks.” ?

. However, what is happening is not a natural variation, but artificial and substantial.

You still haven’t told us HOW you know this.
- cylarz | 04/29/2012 @ 11:50
Just go through their data, cylarz, looking for some flaws. Be sure not to say anything until you find something!

Because that’s the point…
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2012 @ 11:56
Didn’t I spend a rather lengthy post explaining to you why the sea level can’t rise due to mere ice-melting? Morgan points out that predictions of such rise, indeed, are mistaken.

Here you are, insisting that we’re both wrong and that Hansen has been vindicated. No, he hasn’t.
- cylarz | 04/29/2012 @ 11:57
Just go through their data, cylarz, looking for some flaws. Be sure not to say anything until you find something!

Right. Because it’s my responsibility to bolster Z’s claims rather than him doing his own freaking job and making the case for AGW.

I notice he wants to talk about troposphere warming, glacial melting, and environmental catastrophe, but sidesteps every time he’s asked what will have to be done to head that off and what kind of sovereign-crushing action that will entail.
- cylarz | 04/29/2012 @ 12:00
Cylarz,

I notice he wants to talk about troposphere warming, glacial melting, and environmental catastrophe, but sidesteps every time he’s asked what will have to be done to head that off and what kind of sovereign-crushing action that will entail.

Yup. That’s because the Zachriel refuse to use the English language in the normal way.

They want to argue that A) the troposphere is warming, and they have some data for that.

From there, though, they want to claim that B) this warming will result in X, Y, and Z. Which is an educated guess at best, an outright lie at worst, but it doesn’t matter — they’re going to continue acting as if B is some kind of proven fact, i.e. begging the question. I’ve been in this thread an insanely long time, and my super-scientific estimate (which Wanker and Pullem (1995) clearly supports) is that a full 83.5% of their replies have been nothing but question-begging (with the best estimates in the 83.3 – 86.2 range).

From B, they want to argue C), we need to do all kinds of fascistic climate stuff. They actually did argue this about 200 posts ago, and when I pointed out the same things you’re pointing out — that their position seems to entail a “right to pollute” for at least China — they…. walk back and start asserting A and B again, as if they’re all logically equivalent.

What they really want to argue, of course, is that some super-secret climate science facts known only to them justify putting them in charge of your life. Notice their response to my “Medieval Warm Period” question, for instance. It’s worth quoting at length, as it clearly demonstrates the stolen bases:

The Medieval Warming Period was from about 950-1250 C.E.. Changes varied by region. Europe experienced longer growing seasons, while other parts of the world suffered drought and collapse. Of course, today the world is much more densely populated and more interconnected.

More important, [A]the evidence indicates that the world is already warmer than it was during the Medieval Warming Period, and [A1} expected to warm much more. [B]We have provided citations concerning the detrimental effects of such a large temperature change. [C]This warming [D]is may cause severe disruption of agriculture, inundation and salinization of arable lands, increased rate of desertification, mass extinction, and human migration with its attendant political destabilization.

The emphases are mine, as are the interpolated letters.

Note first that the question wasn’t “when was the Medieval Warming Period” or “what were the agricultural effects of the MWP,” but “were these changes deleterious effects for human civilization, as you claim this new round of warming must be?

Immediately after dodging that, though, they begin question-begging at A, since this is precisely the thing we’ve spent 200+ posts debating.

But note the interesting slide from A to A1, and from A1 to B — “expected to get warmer” but “citations concerning the detrimental effects of such a large temperature change.” See, we’ve cited our question-begging! Except that these citations argue future hypotheticals about an entirely different topic. We DON’T know that the world today IS warmer than the MWP, because we don’t have the datasets that apparently make that poor little .gif so compelling. But even if we did….

See what I mean? Nothing but squid ink. They’re hoping that we won’t notice they’re talking about two different things as if they were the same, and as if the citations for one prove the other…. and as if the citations prove what has happened, rather than what theoretically might happen.

[C] is yet another instance of question-begging — that warming kicked off the Renaissance, but this warming will be horrible, because… well, just because. (Note also how wonderfully parochial the Zachriel can get on this score: “the effects of the MWP were different in different regions.” But, but, but… I thought we were talking about The Earth warming? Isn’t that what their little troposphere .gif says?)

[D] is further proof, if any were needed, that this is just an exercise in cut-and-paste: “is may cause severe disruption of agriculture” etc. Well, which is it? And didn’t you just say that all these horrible things will happen?

Really, this is the only reason I stay in this wank-fest — the more the Zachriel talk, the more they seem like the grasping little wannabe-Kommissars they really are.
- Severian | 04/29/2012 @ 13:05
More important, [A]the evidence indicates that the world is already warmer than it was during the Medieval Warming Period…

That right there is bunk. The Medieval Warming Period had an ice-free (or nearly so) Greenland. Stories from that period abound of Viking peoples actually growing grapes there.

Today (and indeed, from the 1200s on), over 90% of the island has been covered by a massive ice sheet, said to be two miles thick at the northern end.

Sorry Zach….you lose. Again.
- cylarz | 04/29/2012 @ 13:36
mkfreeberg: “Determined.” “Measures.” No difference between those two things on Planet Z.

Of course there is. You are claiming the measures are not reliable, hence not determinative, even though there have been millions of observations, by thousands of scientists, using multiple methodologies. However, you offer to substantive reason to doubt the overlapping evidence.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2012 @ 17:08
And so by default, on Planet Z, there’s no difference between the two of them. Just like I said.

Maybe this would be a good time for you to take a few minutes, and read up on the comments made by others about the errors (gaps, really) in your deductive reasoning. They’re not credentialed scholars…well, they aren’t all, anyway. But they’re making multiple observations, probably using multiple methodologies, and all spotting the same problems.

With reason, logic and real science enlisted as your able aids, that has to count for something. Right?
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2012 @ 17:15
Unless, that is, you want to “hand wave” it all away.
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2012 @ 17:15
cylarz : “Who emits the largest total amount of emissions each year, which is what I was trying to get across to you.

“Who” would be individuals in the developed countries.

You keep trying to pretend the present state of development isn’t an important issue. Society can’t just stop using fossil fuels. There has to be a transition. And there have to be reasonable agreements, and the right of people to peaceful development while meeting their responsibilities to the global environment. Healthy economies are the only way to meet the challenge.

cylarz : National rights have no meaning against the larger backdrop of humanity’s survival…the very part we object to most. You’ve spent much of the past week trying to tell us that all these calamities are going to ensue if they – along with the rest of us – don’t rein-in their carbon emissions.

You don’t read very carefully, then. We have specifically stated that the human species is under no immediate threat of extinction from climate change.

cylarz : You’re going to force them to import it from the US et al?

Controlling climate change will require international cooperation.

cylarz : You still haven’t told us HOW you know this.

Sure we did. A basic argument can be found in our first comment on the thread.

cylarz : Didn’t I spend a rather lengthy post explaining to you why the sea level can’t rise due to mere ice-melting?

cylarz : You’re going to tell me that the landlocked portion of the Antarctic ice sheet (plus the relatively tiny amount of ice elsewhere on Earth, such as the Himilayan glaciers) melting…is going to cause catastrophic levels of sea-level rise, with all the attendant dire effects of “salinating the farmland” and the rest?

If all the ice melted, sea levels would rise 60 meters. However, most of the Antarctic is in no danger of melting. Even a few inches will allow storm surges to inundate and salinate large swaths of arable and inhabited land. It’s just one of many effects of climate change.

cylarz : Humanity would adapt.

Sure humanity will adapt, but why should some farmer in coastal Bangladesh pay for your polluting of the atmosphere? Even when the U.S., which is one of the most open and liberal countries with a long history of immigration, invites people from neighboring Mexico to work in the U.S. it creates tensions and outbreaks of nativism.

cylarz : I notice he wants to talk about troposphere warming, glacial melting, and environmental catastrophe, but sidesteps every time he’s asked what will have to be done to head that off and what kind of sovereign-crushing action that will entail.

As we have answered before, one simple solution is to internalize the externality, such as by placing a tax on carbon.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2012 @ 17:23
Severian: Note first that the question wasn’t “when was the Medieval Warming Period” or “what were the agricultural effects of the MWP,” but “were these changes deleterious effects for human civilization…

Which we answered. It was good for some, and bad for others. We also explained that warming is expected to far exceed those levels.

Severian: We DON’T know that the world today IS warmer than the MWP, because we don’t have the datasets that apparently make that poor little .gif so compelling.

Which is why it is important to first establish the science before discussing possible implications of climate change.

Severian: we need to do all kinds of fascistic climate stuff.

Heh. Godwin’s Law.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2012 @ 17:33
cylarz: The Medieval Warming Period had an ice-free (or nearly so) Greenland. Stories from that period abound of Viking peoples actually growing grapes there.

No. Greenland was not ice free during the Medieval Warming Period. Greenland ice is 2 km thick, and cores date to more than 100,000 years. However, coastal areas were quite mild during the period, and moderated by warm waters from the South. The cause is thought to be due to increased solar radiance. Other areas, such as the Pacific, experienced cooling, so that the average temperature is estimated to be about that of the mid-twentieth century.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2012 @ 17:43
mkfreeberg: And so by default, on Planet Z, there’s no difference between the two of them.

Not at all. Measurements can be in error or biased. That’s why scientists use multiple methodologies. This process will minimize, but not eliminate error.

On the one hand, we have thousands of scientists, from different countries, different cultures, different backgrounds, working in different fields, taking millions of measurements, launching satellites to develop an independent measures to cross-check their data. On the other hand, we have mkfreeberg who can’t provide any reason to question the reliability of the data, but just doesn’t trust it.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2012 @ 17:54
Oh, I trust the data; it’s your inferences from the data that I don’t trust.

And you don’t see the difference between those two things. This does not inspire confidence.

As for the importance of mkfreeberg’s opinions, it is practically non-existent…save for one thing…it becomes relevant because you’re pulling this “do you concede A…B…C…” thing on me. Which makes my opinion relevant.
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2012 @ 18:01
Here’s one concrete example. Sea level rise. It is central to your argument, by your own admission. Now, a quick Google/Wikipedia round-up nets a rough ball-park estimate of…1.7mm/year since the 1880’s observed sea level rise, in regions which show stability across time. I’ll just take it as a given that if we have a dispute/disparity in our reasoning of what is to happen and what is to be done about it, it isn’t here. So we can agree on a linear increase of sea level of 1.7mm.

Looking at the graphs, we see this has been linear…more or less.

Hansen’s 1981 prediction of “5 or 6 meters”…or no wait, you say that’s unfair, so let’s call it Hansen, et al,’s, worst case scenario of 5-6m over the next century…well, that’s simple movement of a decimal point, we’re looking at 55 mm a year to make that happen.

It just isn’t substantiated by the historical record. It’s fortune-telling. As it is unscientific, I don’t need to go through your data finding flaws in it. The math just doesn’t add up. And you can’t see this…which means, you are nothing more than a parrot versed in reciting footnotes, lacking comprehension of basic scientific concepts.
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2012 @ 18:08
Thing I Know #330. A man who doesn’t know the difference between a fact and an opinion, is not to be trusted in delivering either one of those.

Now, you’re not really a “man”…you’re a collective. Which, assuming it includes males over eighteen, these are probably not what I have in mind when I talk about a “man.” But it still fits.
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2012 @ 18:11
“Who” would be individuals in the developed countries.

China is the world’s biggest polluter. By extension they make a bigger contribution to greenhouse gas than anyone else. Why does their pollution not count?

You keep trying to pretend the present state of development isn’t an important issue. Society can’t just stop using fossil fuels. There has to be a transition.

Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. Even though there’s an imminent danger of these catastrophic effects from global warming, you admit that we can’t just turn off the oil tap.

Thank you for conceding the argument.

And there have to be reasonable agreements, and the right of people to peaceful development while meeting their responsibilities to the global environment. Healthy economies are the only way to meet the challenge.

We’ve been trying to get across to you for some time now that there are entities in this world who simply don’t care about this. Do you think the leaders of Iran or North Korea give a flying monkey about global warming? Or are they more concerned about money and power, leaving future generations to fend for themselves? Stop projecting your delicate Western sensibilities onto them.

Oh, I can already predict your response to that – “So what’s America’s excuse, then? Why aren’t WE concerned about future generations?” We are. Private industry gets cleaner all the time. Even if I don’t buy into your AGW hysterics and assorted bullshit, I can still want clean air, can’t I?

You don’t read very carefully, then. We have specifically stated that the human species is under no immediate threat of extinction from climate change.

Who’s talking about extinction? (And stop saying “we.”) I am responding to your claims of these dire regional effects you keep predicting.

Controlling climate change will require international cooperation.

By what means? Threat of war? Oh, oh, by the enforcement mechanisms we have now, you say. Except….those aren’t working. The Soviets never kept any of the arms control treaties they signed with us, and the Chinese aren’t going to keep any relating to emissions. In fact they have already said they’re not interested in signing any that could restrict their economic growth. And as the world’s biggest polluter – not “per capita” but biggest aggregate (“period”)….any effort aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide is doomed to fail.

Sure we did. A basic argument can be found in our first comment on the thread.

Bull. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt – why don’t you restate it for me, then? You’ve found no problem with repeating everything else you’ve said a hundred times. BY WHAT MEANS DO YOU “KNOW” THAT LOWER ATMOSPHERIC WARMING HAS A HUMAN CAUSE? Inquiring minds want to know.

However, most of the Antarctic is in no danger of melting.

That admission tends to undermine, rather than support, your claim of flooding as a result of melting ice caps.

Even a few inches will allow storm surges to inundate and salinate large swaths of arable and inhabited land.

Most “arable and inhabited land” is more than “a few inches” above sea level. San Francisco is more than a few inches above sea level. And since all the alleged melting would come from the North Pole, not the South (see above), I’ve already explained to you that there’s no danger of sea level rise. Most of the water currently locked up as ice (80% plus) is ALREADY below the waterline, wherever it is. That means it is ALREADY displacing sea water. That part which is above the waterline is negligible. The entire volume of ice would fit within that part which is already displaced. Do you not understand the concepts of “mass”,”density”,and “volume?” This stuff is real science. It doesn’t require long list of citations to prove it. A glass of water and some ice cubes will do that.

Have you never seen a cross-section of an iceberg? Good golly, man. Are you capable of understanding such a basic concept?

Sure humanity will adapt, but why should some farmer in coastal Bangladesh pay for your polluting of the atmosphere?

You’ve no problem asking him to pay for China’s, which you’ve assured us is less of a threat than the US is, (despite it being pointed out that China will pollute more than the US going forward). Does that farmer care whether the greenhouse gas comes from the US or China?

Even when the U.S., which is one of the most open and liberal countries with a long history of immigration, invites people from neighboring Mexico to work in the U.S. it creates tensions and outbreaks of nativism.

I love it when the Left refers to the dislike of foreign invasion as “nativism.” Maybe I AM a racist. Maybe I just don’t like brown people. That’s my right. That’s why I live HERE and not in a country populated primarily with them, isn’t it?

As we have answered before, one simple solution is to internalize the externality, such as by placing a tax on carbon.

Because we’re overflowing with jobs and employment opportunities right now, and our industries need another expensive mandate to comply with…that will have the effect of discouraging hiring even further.

Look, I don’t blame China one bit for caring more about their economy than it does the environment. Morgan said waaaaaay up there….”that’s what I want the US to do, too!”
- cylarz | 04/29/2012 @ 18:38
Cylarz, they ARE a “we.” Zachriel is a collective identity.
- nightfly | 04/29/2012 @ 18:47
Zachriel, I have to say this: Aside from TIK #330, there is the other matter in which people (not just me, but 4 or 5 others) persist in asking you “How is it you think you know what you think you know, based on the data you have presented, which, if it proves anything at all, proves far less?” And you respond by behaving as if they have asked “What, precisely, are we to do about the approaching crisis?”

It’s really, really, really creepy. Why don’t you maybe put a little more effort into answering the questions that are actually being asked.
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2012 @ 19:52
You guys are still here? And talking about trading carbon credits to boot? To solve what problem? Al Gore’s expanding pockets? Progressives’ distance from total One World Government control?

It’s settled. Earth’s climate changes. “Normal” is a human construct (technically, in climatological terms, the average over the last 30 years). Anyone who disagrees with me is a denier.

That’s right.

“Normal” changes. And we’re seeing normal, normal changes.
- philmon | 04/29/2012 @ 19:55
No. Greenland was not ice free during the Medieval Warming Period. Greenland ice is 2 km thick, and cores date to more than 100,000 years. However, coastal areas were quite mild during the period, and moderated by warm waters from the South.

I never said it was “ice free.” That would require almost a total melting of the Arctic ice cap. I said Greenland was warmer then than now. I said Vikings grew grapes there at the time. We’ve got archaeological evidence of that. You can’t grow grapes there now. Reading comprehension once again, comrade.

The cause is thought to be due to increased solar radiance. Other areas, such as the Pacific, experienced cooling, so that the average temperature is estimated to be about that of the mid-twentieth century.

If “increased solar radiance” is the culprit, then the entire planet would have gotten warmer, including the oceans…not just Greenland.

And how do you know THAT, anyway? Because Vikings didn’t have SUVs and coal power plants? Okay. So you assume that since they didn’t use carbon fuels and we do….the cause of warming back in the MWP must have been “increased solar radiance,” but since today the lower atmosphere is supposedly warmer than the upper, today it ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY HAS TO BE human activity.

Following-up, I have two more questions for you:

1) If “increased solar radiance” was the cause of the MWP’s increased temperatures (but surely not the cause of them today)…was it also the cause of all the OTHER times the weather got warmer? Like during the Jurassic? At the end of the last Ice Age?

Do you have any evidence WHATSOEVER to support that claim? And what about cooling, causing the return of ice to Greenland? “Decreased solar radiance” you say. Okay, so what caused THAT? Maybe it was those “faeries” you mentioned earlier.

You also referred me back to your first post, when I asked how you know there’s a human cause for warming:

This NOAA chart might help clarify matters. It shows data from a variety of sources, including satellite, balloon and ground-based instrumentation.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
In particular, note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming.

I didn’t ask for a “basic argument.” And I certainly didn’t ask to see that stupid chart. I asked for an answer to my question. HOW. DO. YOU. KNOW?
- cylarz | 04/29/2012 @ 22:47
Stumbled across this, all…

http://fakegate.org/

Nuff said.
- cylarz | 04/29/2012 @ 23:57
mkfreeberg: Oh, I trust the data; it’s your inferences from the data that I don’t trust.

As the temperature observations of the troposphere have trended up, then why don’t you consider this evidence that the troposphere temperature have trended up?

mkfreeberg: So we can agree on a linear increase of sea level of 1.7mm.

Good. Why have sea levels risen?
- Zachriel | 04/30/2012 @ 03:50
cylarz: China is the world’s biggest polluter. By extension they make a bigger contribution to greenhouse gas than anyone else.

If you divide by country, rather than by person, or by geographic area. Indeed, their emissions are accelerating.

cylarz: Why does their pollution not count?

Of course it counts, and they will have to learn to control their emissions like everyone else. The Chinese scientific establishment is very aware of the problem. Just like in the U.S., industrial powers want to slow the response to global warming for short term profits. There are huge political pressures due to the rapid pace of industrialization, and rising expectations of the people.

cylarz: Ah, now we’re getting somewhere.

We said there had to be a transition way up there: “However, all countries need to begin making the transition as soon as practical.”

cylarz: We’ve been trying to get across to you for some time now that there are entities in this world who simply don’t care about this. Do you think the leaders of Iran or North Korea give a flying monkey about global warming?

Everyone who is developed or developing wants and needs to deal with the international community.

cylarz: Or are they more concerned about money and power, leaving future generations to fend for themselves?

Everyone has to balance the rush for current profits against the desire to leave something for the future.

cylarz: Even if I don’t buy into your AGW hysterics and assorted bullshit, I can still want clean air, can’t I?

Sure, and it took political action on a national and international level to make those changes.

cylarz: Who’s talking about extinction?

Cylarz: National rights have no meaning against the larger backdrop of humanity’s survival

Zachriel: Controlling climate change will require international cooperation.

cylarz: By what means?

The usual. International agreements.

cylarz: The Soviets never kept any of the arms control treaties they signed with us,

Sure they do. It’s not perfect, and countries argue about the details, but by-and-large, agreements work when they have functional verification. Gee whiz. Even Saddam got rid of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction per his agreements.

cylarz: In fact they have already said they’re not interested in signing any that could restrict their economic growth.

That’s right. Contrary to what you just said, they know they will have to abide by any agreement they sign, so they are stalling. Just like the U.S., for that matter.

cylarz: And as the world’s biggest polluter – not “per capita” but biggest aggregate (”period”)….

If you divide by political borders. That’s only because China is a large political unit. The West still emits more.

cylarz: any effort aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide is doomed to fail.

No, because as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate, the problem gets worse and more apparent. The question is how long it will take the world to react to the scientific knowledge.

cylarz: why don’t you restate it for me, then?

The lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

cylarz: That admission tends to undermine, rather than support, your claim of flooding as a result of melting ice caps.

The sea will rise due to thermal expansion, as well as ice melt. Greenland doesn’t have to melt entirely to raise sea levels.

cylarz: Most “arable and inhabited land” is more than “a few inches” above sea level.

That’s certainly true, but why should people have to abandon their homes and waves of life because of pollution caused elsewhere? And where are they to go?

cylarz: Do you not understand the concepts of “mass”,”density”,and “volume?”

There is more than sufficient ice on land to raise sea levels. You seem to think either Greenland and Antarctica will melt entirely, or not at all.

cylarz: You’ve no problem asking him to pay for China’s

Not sure how many times we need to repeat this, but China will have to learn to control their emissions also.

cylarz: I love it when the Left refers to the dislike of foreign invasion as “nativism.”

Notably, you ignored the point. If the U.S., which is a liberal society made up of immigrants, experiences social and political tensions due to immigration, what about other societies, which much less political development when waves of refugees from coastal flooding and desertification migrate to their lands.

cylarz: Because we’re overflowing with jobs and employment opportunities right now, and our industries need another expensive mandate to comply with…that will have the effect of discouraging hiring even further.

Yes, we understand you broke your economy, but most people would love to have your economy with all its problems, you will grow out of it within a few years. Meanwhile, the problem of climate change will still be there, and will represent a threat to long term prosperity.

nightfly: Cylarz, they ARE a “we.” Zachriel is a collective identity.

A number of theories have been proposed for our use of nosisms. If Zachriel were legion.

ultimate expression of internet group think
hive
married couple
royalty
commune of pedants
group of poseurs
committee
weird cult
collective pseudonym like Bourbaki
five people
collective
tri-unity
being of more than one mind
royalty
schizophrenic
gaggle of grad students
Jovian clique
someone with a tapeworm
- Zachriel | 04/30/2012 @ 04:26
Good. Why have sea levels risen?

Actually, to return to the point of the post, what makes us think they’ll rise any more than that in the next hundred years? How do we get from 1.7, to 50? Are we using the scientific method when we predict this, or is it all just political maneuvering parading around in a science costume?

Assuming you’re part of the movement, you’ve done very, very little to persuade me it’s the former.
- mkfreeberg | 04/30/2012 @ 04:47
Why have sea levels risen?

I dunno. You tell me.

It’s either Anthropogenic Global warming…. or what was it … faeries?

Either that or it’s been rising since the last glacial max 20,000 years ago. Color me similarly unalarmed.
- philmon | 04/30/2012 @ 05:50
[…] see Primer Caps and Heavy Pendulums is now up to 252 comments, which is sure to be a record for The Blog That Nobody Reads. I’m not quite so impressed by […]
- Trust and Retractions | Right Wing News | 04/30/2012 @ 06:07
[…] see Primer Caps and Heavy Pendulums is now up to 252 comments, which is sure to be a record for The Blog That Nobody Reads. I’m not quite so impressed by […]
- Trust and Retractions | Washington Rebel | 04/30/2012 @ 06:08
cylarz: I never said it was “ice free.”

cylarz: The Medieval Warming Period had an ice-free (or nearly so) Greenland.

No. Greenland was no ice-free (or nearly so). The ice cap is 2km thick and has been there for tens-of-thouands of years.
,

cylarz: If “increased solar radiance” is the culprit, then the entire planet would have gotten warmer, including the oceans…not just Greenland.

The evidence is still accumulating as to whether the Medieval Warming Period was global or regional, but even if global, that doesn’t mean every region experienced the same amount of warming. Some areas apparently experienced cooling, including La Niña in the tropical Pacific strongly cooling the eastern Pacific.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

cylarz: 1) If “increased solar radiance” was the cause of the MWP’s increased temperatures (but surely not the cause of them today)…was it also the cause of all the OTHER times the weather got warmer? Like during the Jurassic? At the end of the last Ice Age?

There are a number of causes that relate in complex ways to determine climate, including solar irradiance, orbital variations, atmospheric content, continental drift, volcanism, albedo, and objects slamming into the Earth. Changes in solar insolation due to orbital variations and the wobble in the Earth’s axis, are the most likely cause of recent ice ages. Over longer periods, changes to the Earth’s atmosphere, the cooling of the Sun, volcanism, and various feedbacks such as albido have had profound effects. As for the Triassic–Jurassic extinction, that may have been due to a meteor impact.

cylarz: HOW. DO. YOU. KNOW?

You start by looking at the evidence. The observations indicate that the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling. Any problem so far?
- Zachriel | 04/30/2012 @ 06:17
mkfreeberg: Actually, to return to the point of the post, what makes us think they’ll rise any more than that in the next hundred years?

Because the evidence indicates that the Earth will continue to warm.

philmon: Why have sea levels risen?

Over the period of your graph, primarily due to changes in insolation as the last Ice Age receded.
- Zachriel | 04/30/2012 @ 06:23
If you divide by country, rather than by person, or by geographic area. Indeed, their emissions are accelerating.

Thank you for conceding the argument that “international agreements” are useless without Chinese cooperation.

Of course it counts, and they will have to learn to control their emissions like everyone else. The Chinese scientific establishment is very aware of the problem.

What part of “the Chi-coms do not CARE” do you not understand?

Just like in the U.S., industrial powers want to slow the response to global warming for short term profits. There are huge political pressures due to the rapid pace of industrialization, and rising expectations of the people.

Note the “com” part of “Chi Coms.” China’s government isn’t responsive to political pressures from its people. It has people imprisoned or shot when they say things it doesn’t want to hear.

We said there had to be a transition way up there: “However, all countries need to begin making the transition as soon as practical.”

For China, that day is a long, long way off.

Everyone who is developed or developing wants and needs to deal with the international community.

Because Iran and North Korea have shown many signs of caring about the international community’s opinion and wanting to be part of it.

Everyone has to balance the rush for current profits against the desire to leave something for the future.

It never occurs to you that the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Sure, and it took political action on a national and international level to make those changes.

No, it took a profit motive and market demand. You think activism by the likes of Greenpeace is the reason solar panels are cheaper every year?

Sure they do. It’s not perfect, and countries argue about the details, but by-and-large, agreements work when they have functional verification. Gee whiz. Even Saddam got rid of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction per his agreements.

Uh, no. He didn’t. That’s why the Iraq War had to be fought. But fighting a war over a treaty violation isn’t an option with China. They have nuclear weapons pointed at us. That, and their economy and ours are (for the moment) hopelessly dependent on each other. We’re their best customer; they make most of the stuff our consumers use.

We’re in no position to impose economic sanctions on them or stop trading with them, either. China is a MFN nation, which means it has the benefit of preferential trade policies from the US government.

That’s right. Contrary to what you just said, they know they will have to abide by any agreement they sign, so they are stalling. Just like the U.S., for that matter.

They’re not “stalling,” they’re NOT INTERESTED. It will cost them money they don’t want to pay. Do you understand the difference?

If you divide by political borders. That’s only because China is a large political unit. The West still emits more.

It doesn’t matter. They still contribute a big enough share that it would doom the effort, even if you had Europe on board. You also need to consider India, Brazil, and others.

No, because as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate, the problem gets worse and more apparent. The question is how long it will take the world to react to the scientific knowledge.

Considering that the skepticism of the AGW position has been GROWING of late, not receding, I think you’re in for a long wait. You guys haven’t been right yet, not in over 20 years of alarmism.

The lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming.

Which……sigh…..is NOT proof or even evidence that people have anything at all to do with it.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

Because posting that for the fourteenth time is going to seal the argument, when the first thirteen didn’t. Morgan already pointed out the problems with it, among them that NOAA didn’t bother to clean it up before posting it online.

The sea will rise due to thermal expansion, as well as ice melt. Greenland doesn’t have to melt entirely to raise sea levels.

Greenland could melt entirely and it wouldn’t matter a whit to sea levels. You’re talking about spreading its volume of ice over the entire planet.

As for the rest of the Arctic cap, ice’s volume shrinks when it melts back into liquid. The entire volume of a piece of sea ice will fit within the volume of water it displaces. This is basic physics. Maybe you were sick that day in junior high science class.

That’s certainly true, but why should people have to abandon their homes and waves of life because of pollution caused elsewhere? And where are they to go?

The Dutch manage to cope with living below sea level. Have for centuries. Any idea what they did?

There is more than sufficient ice on land to raise sea levels. You seem to think either Greenland and Antarctica will melt entirely, or not at all.

You seem to think the former will melt entirely and the latter not at all, so you tell me.

Not sure how many times we need to repeat this, but China will have to learn to control their emissions also.

Not sure how many times I need to repeat this, but THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. They’re not going to “curb” anything if it costs them money. You can’t force them to. You can’t persuade them to. They aren’t going to. They don’t buy into your theories regardless of what you think the evidence says. Even if they did, the trade off is not worth it to them. They do not care about rising sea levels at the rest. They care about profit. They’re precisely all the evil that you accuse capitalist countries of being.

Why do you not grasp this?

Notably, you ignored the point. If the U.S., which is a liberal society made up of immigrants, experiences social and political tensions due to immigration, what about other societies, which much less political development when waves of refugees from coastal flooding and desertification migrate to their lands.

I continue to question that, but even if you’re right people will adapt. Us racists are constantly being told that US demographics are changing and that we need to get with the times.

Yes, we understand you broke your economy, but most people would love to have your economy with all its problems, you will grow out of it within a few years. Meanwhile, the problem of climate change will still be there, and will represent a threat to long term prosperity.

Actually Obama and your friends in Congress broke it, and the last thing said economy needs is more expensive mandates and taxes. Gas is already four bucks a gallon and I’m not paying more for it because some self righteous snot (who usually turns out to use plenty of it himself) is convinced the Earth’s getting hotter.

As for whether or not 10% unemployment (more like 20% where I live) is the envy of the Third World, I couldn’t care less. All I know is that friends of mine are having trouble finding work and paying their bills. A carbon tax is going to make that problem worse, not better.

A number of theories have been proposed for our use of nosisms. If Zachriel were legion.

You’re schitzo. Good enough for me.

The evidence is still accumulating as to whether the Medieval Warming Period was global or regional, but even if global, that doesn’t mean every region experienced the same amount of warming. Some areas apparently experienced cooling, including La Niña in the tropical Pacific strongly cooling the eastern Pacific.

“Experienced different levels of warming” is not the same as outright cooling. A hotter Sun means a hotter planet – all of it.

There are a number of causes that relate in complex ways to determine climate, including solar irradiance, orbital variations, atmospheric content, continental drift, volcanism, albedo, and objects slamming into the Earth. Changes in solar insolation due to orbital variations and the wobble in the Earth’s axis, are the most likely cause of recent ice ages. Over longer periods, changes to the Earth’s atmosphere, the cooling of the Sun, volcanism, and various feedbacks such as albido have had profound effects.

…any one of which could be responsible now, or a combination of them. Assuming there is any warming now. Which is still up for debate. Morgan doesn’t accept your premise; neither do I.

You start by looking at the evidence.

You mean the evidence you keep assuring us is there, but which you haven’t shown?

The observations indicate that the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling. Any problem so far?

Yes. The observations don’t show what you think they do. As Morgan, Phil, and Sev have tried to explain to you.
- cylarz | 04/30/2012 @ 11:36
What I find the most interesting about the AGW people, even if I agreed with any of your positions, is the completely out-of-whack priorities.

The sea level might rise a few inches over the next couple of centuries.
The mean surface temperature might rise three degrees over the next period of time.
A handful of locally catastrophic effects MIGHT happen as a result of the first two.

So…..and this is where we get down to it…we need to artificially restrict economic growth through new taxes and mandates, including a forced switch of our energy sources from reliable fossil fuels to unproven, inefficient “green” technologies (which are all still in their infancy and nowhere near capable of taking over)….which all have problems of their own. Solar panels take desert habitat, windmills chop up birds, and you guys hate nuclear most of all.

Meanwhile:

– Gas is at four bucks a gallon (and you guys don’t want to let us do any of the things that would ease that problem like drill at home)
– Unemployment is in double digits (and you want more taxes and mandates)
– Iran is building nuclear weapons and regularly threatening to attack us and our allies (and you want to talk to them)
– North Korea is testing long range missiles (and you don’t care)
– China is looking at Taiwan and licking its chops (and you think they should be concerned about global warming instead)
– Our president is trying to come up with ways to disarm our citizens (and you’re fine with that, even though several hundred of those brown people below the border you’re worried about, have already paid with their lives for his malfeasance)
– The war in Afghanistan continues to drag on and on and cost men and money, while the bad guys we’re fighting there would love to ram another pair of jets into another pair of tall buildings (and you’re still more worried about warming)
– etc etc etc (post the NOAA gif a few more times, that’ll help)

You see, Zach, out here in the real world, we’re concerned with real problems, not hypothetical ones.
- cylarz | 04/30/2012 @ 11:57
They [the Chinese] do not care about rising sea levels at the rest. They care about profit. They’re precisely all the evil that you accuse capitalist countries of being.

Why do you not grasp this?

I’ll take “because AGW hysteria has never been about the climate; it’s just stealth socialism for the USA” for $500, Alex.

I like the slang term “watermelon,” but it’s misleading — all AGW hysterics are closet communists. They know full well that any agreement with the ChiComs is unenforceable, and therefore meaningless. They, much like the ChiComs themselves, simply don’t care, because the objective has always been to put curbs on what they perceive to be American excess.

The central premise of leftism is that they know how to live your life better than you do. They care about as much about “The Earth” as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Kim did about “The Workers.”
- Severian | 04/30/2012 @ 12:08
It’s an interesting thought experiment: What if there was some new technology that could drastically lower this carbon-footprint-per-capita, without diminishing the living standards of the people who use it (or are forced to use it) even in the slightest. But for some reason, could be implemented only in China, not in the U.S. Would the Zachriel be in favor of making it available in China, since the people living there wouldn’t be hurt by it? For the sake of cutting the total emissions and putting off this disastrous sea level rise?

Or would some basic human “right to pollute equally on a per capita basis” be invoked…find a way to make it work in America, before even thinking of inflicting it on the Chinese.

I’m sure whatever the answer is, there’d be lots of data to back it up.
- mkfreeberg | 04/30/2012 @ 12:13
cylarz: Thank you for conceding the argument that “international agreements” are useless without Chinese cooperation.

That point was made way up the thread. But yes.

cylarz: What part of “the Chi-coms do not CARE” do you not understand?

Just like the ‘Ameri-caps’ don’t seem to care either in the face of powerful corporate forces, but the facts will eventually win out, and people will change, just as they did for air pollution. Long term profitability depends on addressing the problem.

cylarz: China’s government isn’t responsive to political pressures from its people.

China’s government is not nearly as responsive as those in the W est, but they are quite aware that climate will affect their long term growth. And in order to continue to develop, they will have to become more responsive, in any case.

cylarz: For China, that day is a long, long way off.

Perhaps, but the same steps towards a green future are also steps towards long term growth and development. Furthermore, they have to do business in the international community, and pressures will build to make changes.

cylarz: Because Iran and North Korea have shown many signs of caring about the international community’s opinion and wanting to be part of it.

North Korea and Iran are very small contributors to greenhouse gases at this point, and are not rapidly developing. They are outside the system, which limits their growth. That’s the whole point.

Zachriel: Everyone has to balance the rush for current profits against the desire to leave something for the future.

cylarz: It never occurs to you that the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

To the contrary, solutions to the climate problem will require sustained economic development and technological advancement.

cylarz: No, it took a profit motive and market demand.

Air and water pollution were cleaned up largely through direct regulation of emissions.

Zachriel: Even Saddam got rid of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction per his agreements.

cylarz: Uh, no. He didn’t.

Are there no facts in this sector of the Internets?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7759908.stm

cylarz: That, and their {China’s} economy and ours are (for the moment) hopelessly dependent on each other. We’re their best customer; they make most of the stuff our consumers use.

Now you got it. Codependency, trade agreements, verification. These all result in relatively stable and regular relationships.

cylarz: They’re not “stalling,” they’re NOT INTERESTED.

You say that, but they see the same science everyone does. But just like ~~you~~ they want to pretend the problem will go away. That’s the nature of the human animal.

cylarz: They still contribute a big enough share that it would doom the effort, even if you had Europe on board. You also need to consider India, Brazil, and others.

That’s right. Just as if one country dumps its raw sewage into a shared river basin, they are considered a pariah and international pressure is brought to bear.

cylarz: Because posting that for the fourteenth time is going to seal the argument, when the first thirteen didn’t.

You asked. In any case, if you want to look at the scientific case, you might start with the warming troposphere. Without some basis in observations, the rest is just words.

cylarz: Greenland could melt entirely and it wouldn’t matter a whit to sea levels.

Only about 6 meters or so. What are the elevations in Florida?
http://climate.nasa.gov/kids/images/sealevel_up6m1.jpg

cylarz: You seem to think the former will melt entirely and the latter not at all, so you tell me.

Melting will probably be a chaotic process spread over time.

“Climate change is real … It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities This warming has already led to changes in the Earth’s climate.” — Chinese Academy of Sciences.

cylarz: I continue to question that, but even if you’re right people will adapt.

Undoubtedly, most will.

cylarz: Actually Obama and your friends in Congress broke it

Clearly, the financial crisis dates to teh Bush Administration.

cylarz: A hotter Sun means a hotter planet – all of it.

Um, no. It does mean the average temperature will be higher. It is believed that the Medieval Warming Period was about as warm as the 1940’s, but cooler than today.

cylarz: The observations don’t show what you think they do.

You’re saying the observation of increasing temperatures in the troposphere do not show increasing temperatures in the troposphere. What do they show?
- Zachriel | 04/30/2012 @ 13:03
cylarz: The sea level might rise a few inches over the next couple of centuries.

Unchecked global warming will result in accelerating ice melt.

cylarz: The mean surface temperature might rise three degrees over the next period of time.

That’s the current estimate, but there is large uncertainty on the upper limit. Nor will the warming be equally spread. Some areas, especially in high latitudes, will warm much more. While some areas will get more rain, others will get less.

cylarz: out here in the real world, we’re concerned with real problems, not hypothetical ones.

Climate change is a real problem, and will exacerbate most of the other problems you are concerned about.
- Zachriel | 04/30/2012 @ 13:07
Yup. Just like price controls will make things more affordable, communism will put everyone on a level playing field, Jimmy Carter will win re-election and George W. Bush won’t.

Your “wills” are not following good science. Yeah I know, you’ve got truckloads of data and I’m just a blogger who’s being recalcitrant…well…guess what, when your logic is weak, recalcitrant bloggers win.
- mkfreeberg | 04/30/2012 @ 13:10
Your “wills” are not following good science…..when your logic is weak, recalcitrant bloggers win.

Actually, in this one case I beg to differ — the Zachriel are being eminently logical, because they argue from tautologies. Climate change will result in higher sea levels, which will result in massive etc. etc., because those “wills” are written into the definitions of the term. Which is why the term is “climate change” in the first place — used to be global cooling, but when that wasn’t happening, it became global warming, which then became….

Same data, same methods, same mendaciousness, same political agenda…. and hey, whaddaya know? Same result.

Which, again, is why they don’t — can’t — answer your hypothetical up there about the “only in China” carbon-reducer. And why they can’t answer the oft-posed question of how “binding agreements” can be enforced with the ChiComs. And why they can’t seem to explain how the ChiComs, who are surely as cognizant of the “science” as we are here in the US, don’t seem to give a fig. Etc. Etc.

The point is, always has been, and always will be, to control behavior here in America. As I pointed out about 300 posts ago, the speciousness of the AGW arguments become immediately apparent when you flip the politics — like Cylarz, I wonder why an influx of Mexican illegals into America must be met with amnesty and a celebration of diversity, but it’s an existential threat to the Chinese. Or why, in China’s case only, economic development grants a de facto license to pollute. Etc.

Point is, they can bully and harass American citizens with this climate nonsense. And so what if the ChiComs don’t get with the program and are still dirtying up the planet? The environmental left may not like the ChiComs, but they surely do hate you….. and isn’t sticking it to domestic partisan opponents what really counts, Gaia-wise?
- Severian | 04/30/2012 @ 13:53
That’s the current estimate, but there is large uncertainty on the upper limit. Nor will the warming be equally spread. Some areas, especially in high latitudes, will warm much more. While some areas will get more rain, others will get less.

s/will/would/gi

s/large uncertainty on the upper limit/large uncertainty/gi

echo “if our model is correct” >> faithbasedprediction

Because once again, we are talking about models, not reality.

From a family of models which have proven to be notoriously wrong.
- philmon | 04/30/2012 @ 13:54
Here’s my prediction.

The earth will “warm” +/-N degrees over some period of time. This “warming” will manifest itself more in some places than in others. This varying dT/dt will repeat indefinitely.

The changes will be to the detriment of some and to the benefit of others, depending on their cirucumstances.

Just. Like. Always.
- philmon | 04/30/2012 @ 14:04
mkfreeberg: Just like price controls will make things more affordable, communism will put everyone on a level playing field, Jimmy Carter will win re-election and George W. Bush won’t.

Price controls lead to shortages, communism leads to abuses, Jimmy Carter lost his reelection, while Bush won his. Not sure your point.
- Zachriel | 04/30/2012 @ 16:17
mkfreeberg: What if there was some new technology that could drastically lower this carbon-footprint-per-capita, without diminishing the living standards of the people who use it (or are forced to use it) even in the slightest. But for some reason, could be implemented only in China, not in the U.S.

Of course, though hopefully, scientists would find a way to make it work elsewhere.
- Zachriel | 04/30/2012 @ 16:20
Severian: And so what if the ChiComs don’t get with the program and are still dirtying up the planet?

Then the climate will still be threatened. Countries that have taken action will put pressure on China, who needs export markets to fuel their growth.

Fortunately, China is already realizing they can’t continue on their present path. Their power plants are obsolete and rapidly deteriorating, and they recognize the need to invest in more advanced technology. Turns out that the very things that lead to long term prosperity, limiting pollution and using resources efficiently, are the very things that will help the climate. The countries that develop the new, greener technologies will lead the world in the 21st century.
- Zachriel | 04/30/2012 @ 16:27
Countries that have taken action will put pressure on China….Turns out that the very things that lead to long term prosperity…are the very things that will help the climate. The countries that develop the new, greener technologies will lead the world in the 21st century.

There’s that “will” word again, the one that you keep using…. I do not think it means what you think it means.

they recognize the need to invest in more advanced technology.

They do? Got a blurry .gif for that one too, do we? In fact, since you’re obviously as well-informed about Asian history as you are about climatology, maybe you can clue us in to a few of the other occasions where international pressure caused the ChiComs to blink. Human rights? The occupation of Tibet? The Korean War? These are the same folks who nearly nuked Moscow during the Sino-Soviet split…. yet “pressure” from Denmark is going to do the trick.
- Severian | 04/30/2012 @ 19:14
Severian: There’s that “will” word again, the one that you keep using…. I do not think it means what you think it means.

A simple example is the more efficient use of energy in vehicles. Saves money over the long run. Saves the environment.

Zachriel: {China} recognizes the need to invest in more advanced technology.

Severian: They do? Got a blurry .gif for that one too, do we?

Sure.
http://www.industryweek.com/articles/china_overtakes_u-s-_in_green_investment_21415.aspx

Severian: maybe you can clue us in to a few of the other occasions where international pressure caused the ChiComs to blink. Human rights?

Other than rhetoric, was there actual pressure put on China, or did the West continue to invest heavily in the Chinese export industry? When the West begins to reduce its carbon emissions, it will insist that China do the same for competitive reasons. For instance, they may work through the WTO and place a carbon tax on imports from China. This will create market forces that will push China to reduce its carbon emissions, which they will probably be working on anyway, as they know its coming.

Or not. It is entirely possible the human race is too short-sighted to adapt before there is significant environmental damage. However, humans are quite intelligent, and their scientists have already alerted the people and their policymakers to the problem. We have great confidence in them (though perhaps that’s just our peccadillo acting up again).
- Zachriel | 05/01/2012 @ 04:44
Well Zachriel, I’ll go ahead and say it.

According to your own sourcing, the United States is beating the stuffin’ out of China in green investment…on a per capita basis. That one was too easy.
- mkfreeberg | 05/01/2012 @ 05:23
mkfreeberg: According to your own sourcing, the United States is beating the stuffin’ out of China in green investment…on a per capita basis. That one was too easy.

The question about per capita emissions has to do with finding an equitable compromise for any carbon agreement, but as cylarz pointed out above, agreements and policy, including investment, are set on the national level.

The question Severian raised whether China recognized the need to invest in new technologies. They do, and they are. Indeed, they are investing for domestic use, as well as the export market.

And while Chinese investment may seem small per capita, their per capita GDP is much less than the U.S. In any case, investment generally pays off by shear size, not per capita investment. Don’t worry, though, the U.S. has a much, much larger investment in basic science, along with a far vaster technological infrastructure, and can easily shift resources once the political issues are resolved.

mkfreeberg: That one was too easy.

A little snark is okay, but you really should try to think things through some time.
- Zachriel | 05/01/2012 @ 05:40
Hmm. No edit controls.

“sheer size”
- Zachriel | 05/01/2012 @ 05:42
Heh. Green investment.

Me, personally… I have my doubts about what these measurements mean, too, since the first law of thermodyamics would lead one to believe that energy kinetic energy is being removed from the system by the motion, not added.

My theory here would be that it would be an extremely localized effect perhaps based on reduced advective surface cooling around and slightly downwind from the farms. But who knows? Hey, it’s scientitsts. I wouldn’t be too worried about this, either.

It just goes to show you some of the problems teasing meaning out of changes of tenths of a degree average temperatures in a system that varies by at least that much in the long term, and by much more in the short term.

See, the important theme here in the green religion is, “Man BAAAAAAAD!!!!“
- philmon | 05/01/2012 @ 06:40
…you really should try to think things through some time.

I did, and my point stands.

You use “per capita” when it makes the Chinese look better than the Americans…when it doesn’t, you’ve got these thin rationalizations about why it shouldn’t count. Carbon emissions, per capita is all-important. Green energy investment, which has some totally unproven healing effect upon Gaea, for some reason it doesn’t count anymore. You’ve done a good job of being smarmy but you haven’t offered a logical explanation why this might be.

Oh, if only those Chinese could invest as much in green energy on a per capita basis, as us retrograde, throwback yankees…that would be an extra fifteen, twenty billion, easily. Which isn’t happening. Perhaps they need to follow our lead.

The question Severian raised whether China recognized the need to invest in new technologies. They do, and they are.

But not as much as the United States, on a per capita basis. The slackers!
- mkfreeberg | 05/01/2012 @ 06:54
Of course, it must be pointed out it’s a mistake to assume that every dollar put into these technologies must necessarily have a beneficial effect. This would be yet another example of people thinking they know things that they don’t really know.
- mkfreeberg | 05/01/2012 @ 07:06
mkfreeberg: Carbon emissions, per capita is all-important.

To the people involved trying to live a better life, it certainly does matter. The problem is allowing for development, especially in the poorer nations, while limiting carbon emissions. There will obviously have to be a transition.

mkfreeberg: Green energy investment, which has some totally unproven healing effect upon Gaea, for some reason it doesn’t count anymore.

Of course it matters. As we stated several times, the solution to climate change is sustained economic development combined with technological innovation.

mkfreeberg: Of course, it must be pointed out it’s a mistake to assume that every dollar put into these technologies must necessarily have a beneficial effect.

Of course. At least half the money is wasted. That’s the normal state of affairs.
- Zachriel | 05/01/2012 @ 07:19
As we stated several times, the solution to climate change is sustained economic development combined with technological innovation.

And if you state it a few more times, it might actually become true.

Which is the very first point I made before there was even a single comment in the thread. Climate alarmism blends science with non-science things…by the time we get to the part about Earth meeting up with some calamity which can be avoided, if only EveryoneTakesImmediateActionRightNow…the data, along with anything scientific, are entirely abandoned and the argument is marching around in the tall weeds of “if” and repeating mantras over & over again. Clark Kent and Superman are never in the same room at the same time.

You seem to be combining an impressive memory for footnotes and citations, even nailing down the correct year of publication almost all the time, with a complete deficiency in the ability to follow a logical argument…or to provide one…or to even recognize one.

Of course. At least half the money is wasted. That’s the normal state of affairs.

Follow the link. Waste is the least of the problems.
- mkfreeberg | 05/01/2012 @ 07:26
Other than rhetoric, was there actual pressure put on China, or did the West continue to invest heavily in the Chinese export industry?

So, just to be clear: you are claiming that this pressure that will cause the Chinese to curb their emissions involves “the West” cutting off all investment in Chinese exports?

That’s seriously what you’re claiming?

[For the record, it’s also nice to hear a leftist admit that all those “Free Tibet” bumper stickers, benefit concerts, etc. were completely useless. That sobbing sound you hear is Richard Gere and Bono weeping softly in a corner]
- Severian | 05/01/2012 @ 07:29
he solution to climate change is sustained economic development combined with technological innovation.

Well, Morgan, I have to admit, they’ve got you there! Because “sustained economic development” and “technological innovation” are Just. That. Easy.

That huge “whap!” sound you hear is the collective palm of the WTO, IMF, World Bank, etc. impacting their collective forehead. “Sustained economic development! Why oh why didn’t we think of that before!?!?”
- Severian | 05/01/2012 @ 07:33
However, humans are quite intelligent, and their scientists have already alerted the people and their policymakers to the problem. We have great confidence in them (though perhaps that’s just our peccadillo acting up again).

Your pecadillo of talking as if you weren’t human yourself, but a superior race from the stars come to lecture all of us? Because that’s the one I primarily notice. You’re doing a better job convincing me you’re not human than you are that we’re about to boil like a frog in a gradually-warming pot.

So go ahead, fire up the interocetor and scrub the damned atmosphere, already. Or is this one of those “we can only observe, not interfere” cop-outs? You smug alien bastards are all the same.
- nightfly | 05/01/2012 @ 07:39
mkfreeberg: Climate alarmism blends science with non-science things…by the time we get to the part about Earth meeting up with some calamity which can be avoided, if only EveryoneTakesImmediateActionRightNow

And if you state it a few more times, it might actually become true. There is substantial scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming. We have a strong consensus of experts, support from nearly every scientific institution around the globe, and evidence that you simply wave your hands about. Start with tropospheric warming.

mkfreeberg: Follow the link. Waste is the least of the problems.

Of course wind turbines have footprints and negative effects. Everything does.

mkfreeberg: So, just to be clear: you are claiming that this pressure that will cause the Chinese to curb their emissions involves “the West” cutting off all investment in Chinese exports?

The most likely course is a carbon tax on traded goods.

Severian: Well, Morgan, I have to admit, they’ve got you there! Because “sustained economic development” and “technological innovation” are Just. That. Easy.

No harder than any other technological change; incredibly difficult and fraught with unexpected problems. The usual.
- Zachriel | 05/01/2012 @ 07:58
Start with tropospheric warming.

Eh, n-o-o-o-o…go back and read my complaint again, word for word.

Your argument is like an overcooked asparagus, in that it starts out rigid and sinewy down at the “tropospheric warming” end with all the data and such. Even at that tough chewy end, we see you are presuming much that you really don’t know. But, as you migrate away from the ground, upward, it gets tasty, then Okra-like and slimy and disgusting, then you get to the fluffy part at the tip with the “disaster will ensue if we don’t take action, but if we do, all will be made right” the science is long-gone…looks more like a pudding than a vegetable…gloppy, soppy green mess.

Statements like “Start with the tropospheric warming” do nothing but demonstrate that you, or some among you, simply aren’t grappling with the opposing argument. Which in turn calls into legitimate question, everything else you have to say. Even the tougher, sinewy, more sciencey stuff.

I know it’s a bitch & all, but you really need some good science under the whole thing, beginning to end. This has a lot to do with why a lot of people aren’t buying. With the survival of the Earth at stake, don’t you think you should show some good science at the other parts?
- mkfreeberg | 05/01/2012 @ 08:15
The most likely course is a carbon tax on traded goods.

Ok, so to be clear: You’re seriously proposing that the United States, along with the rest of “The West,” should impose across-the-board taxes on Chinese exports if they fail to live up to their climate agreements?

That’s seriously your proposal? For real? No foolin’? It’s so hard to get a straight answer out of you people, I just want to make sure I’m following you….
- Severian | 05/01/2012 @ 08:38
mkfreeberg: Statements like “Start with the tropospheric warming” do nothing but demonstrate that you, or some among you, simply aren’t grappling with the opposing argument.

This was your claim:

mkfreeberg: Climate alarmism blends science with non-science things i

In fact, the concern about the Earth’s climate starts with the scientific findings. And those start with temperature measures.

Severian: You’re seriously proposing that the United States, along with the rest of “The Wsest,” should impose across-the-board taxes on Chinese exports if they fail to live up to their climate agreements?

China has not agreed to any significant actions on climate.

You have suggested that China is not capable of entering into binding treaties, but that simply isn’t so. They are parties to a large number of international trade agreements, including membership in the WTO. They largely abide by their obligations under international treaty, as well as national laws in the countries where they do business. Over time, various new treaties will be proposed and acted upon, including those concerning climate change.
- Zachriel | 05/01/2012 @ 09:42
This was your claim:

mkfreeberg: Climate alarmism blends science with non-science things

In fact, the concern about the Earth’s climate starts with the scientific findings. And those start with temperature measures.

Right, which then is blended with non-science things. Like…China will do this, we will do that, the new technology will heal the planet, et al. Pure fortune-telling.

Looks like the shoe’s on the other foot now, and I’ve got a link I can embed over & over again as long as you demonstrate you haven’t comprehended it yet. Wonder how many hundreds of comments we can get out of that.
- mkfreeberg | 05/01/2012 @ 09:50
mkfreeberg: Right, which then is blended with non-science things.

We have answered political questions about China when asked. Sure, the U.S. and China could fail to ever reach an agreement. None of that changes the underlying scientific conclusions about climate change.
- Zachriel | 05/01/2012 @ 09:57
Yes, you’ve said a lot of stuff. You’ve used and over-used and mis-used that word “will” to the point where a number of us have started to ridicule you for it, and then kept right on doing it.

As I have said right from the beginning: By the time it gets to the calamity that awaits, and the effects that these extraordinary efforts & international treaties will have in avoiding the crisis, the science has been jettisoned entirely.
- mkfreeberg | 05/01/2012 @ 10:01
Over time, various new treaties will be proposed and acted upon, including those concerning climate change.

Ok, but: Is that seriously your proposal? That this new treaty China will (there’s that word again!) enter into be enforced by the US and “the West” unilaterally taxing Chinese exports?

Is that actually what you’re saying?
- Severian | 05/01/2012 @ 10:07
We have answered political questions about China when asked. Sure, the U.S. and China could fail to ever reach an agreement. None of that changes the underlying scientific conclusions about climate change.

NO! By the Great Sachem, no. They are not “conclusions.” Not by a very long stretch. They are observations, and both they and the conclusions drawn from them are very much in doubt, on a number of levels: integrity of the raw data, failure of the many models to accurately predict consequences, questionable methodologies, and above all the desire that anyone with these doubts is (check all that apply): shushed, shamed, vilified, threatened, badgered, ignored, marginalized … anything at all except for answered. Even requests for the data used in some of these studies are refused. Why? Or is this thread a first-hand primer on why people aren’t simply answered when they ask a question?

(And note that simply re-stating the proposition that is under question, is not an answer. If I have a problem with “X”, I have every hope of hearing “X because Y and Z,” and not just variations on “Well, you just don’t understand X,” or “Have you considered X?” or “X because I say so.” If Y and Z are not forthcoming, or have nothing to do with supporting X – indeed, are based on presupposing that X is true – then I’m going to hold X unproven, as anyone ought.)
- nightfly | 05/01/2012 @ 10:11
mkfreeberg: You’ve used and over-used and mis-used that word “will” to the point where a number of us have started to ridicule you for it, and then kept right on doing it.

As we explained, we have confidence in humanity (though perhaps that’s just our peccadillo acting up again).

Severian: Ok, but: Is that seriously your proposal?

Our proposal is that we look at the science first—before deciding on policy.

nightfly: They are observations, and both they and the conclusions drawn from them are very much in doubt, on a number of levels: integrity of the raw data, failure of the many models to accurately predict consequences, questionable methodologies, and above all the desire that anyone with these doubts is (check all that apply): shushed, shamed, vilified, threatened, badgered, ignored, marginalized … anything at all except for answered.

Of course anthropogenic climate change is a scientific conclusion.

Not sure where we left off. Mkfreeberg says that the observations of a warming troposphere don’t indicate a warming troposphere. We could start there.

nightfly: If I have a problem with “X”, I have every hope of hearing “X because Y and Z,”

X is the troposphere has warmed over the last half century. The Y is the radiosonde measurements. The Z is the satellite measurements.
- Zachriel | 05/01/2012 @ 10:29
Severian: Ok, but: Is that seriously your proposal?

Our proposal is that we look at the science first—before deciding on policy.

But according to you, the Science is Settled!!! Hence your constant use of the word “will.”

So, which is it? Is the science settled — and if so, please revisit all your uses of the word “will” in this discussion — or is it not? (in which case, what the hell have we been doing for the last 350 posts?)
- Severian | 05/01/2012 @ 10:35
OK… so I say that merely restating X , in this case “anthropogenic climate change,” is not an answer to questioning X. In reply, I get… X.

Oh, and I also get the radiosonde and satellite measurements, but again, there’s a whole slew of things between those (and those are not fait accompli either) and “EARTH HOTTER !!!twelve!!”

For example, “the troposphere has warmed over the last half-century” and how Morgan says those observations don’t indicate what they seem to. Are the measures reliable? Is the raw data available? What adjustments have been made, and can other people check that work?

Well, the answers seem to be no and hell no. And when it comes to the measures, of COURSE they’re reliable, because they show that the troposphere is warming! X=X. We have a .gif and everything!
- nightfly | 05/01/2012 @ 10:54
Severian: But according to you, the Science is Settled!!!

Have we used the term “settled”? All scientific findings are considered tentative, but anthropogenic climate change is a strongly supported scientific finding. Discussing any policy responses depends on balancing the the risks and alternatives.

nightfly: For example, “the troposphere has warmed over the last half-century” and how Morgan says those observations don’t indicate what they seem to. Are the measures reliable? Is the raw data available? What adjustments have been made, and can other people check that work?

One important way to check reliability is to use a different method of observation, such as using satellite long wave studies to crosscheck radiosonde observations. The findings, including statistical analyses, are published in peer journals. There are hundreds of such studies. A local university may provide you free access to the journals.
- Zachriel | 05/01/2012 @ 11:08
I think we’ve already gone over the problem with hundreds of studies and peer journals: to wit, that sketchy data and dubious findings don’t create reliable conclusions, and bad conclusions don’t magically gain credibility because they wind up in a bunch of studies and journals. That’s why skeptics want the raw data to analyze. I’m talking about independent confirmations, not repeats of the same mistakes, and certainly not studies dismissed out of hand because they point out the mistakes.

To put it another way – if I presented you with a bill for services, and you paid with a bad credit card, and another bad credit card, and a bounced check? I would insist on cash, or else call the cops. It would be entirely beside the point for you to show off your swank Italian suit and flashy watch, or talk about your villa or luxury car. As far as I can tell, none of those things are real. All the new “evidence” that you have the money is not, in fact, money – and I can’t trust the source of the information at all.

That’s pretty much what happens with Global Somethening. “Look at my Rolex! I have an awesome job! I can get the cash any time!” But we never see the cash. Instead of coming prepared with cash – an easily-foreseen need – it’s a big hassle, and apparently it’s our fault that we expect to be paid. Well, having a BMW keychain isn’t evidence of the actual car in the driveway, and a picture of Gatsby’s mansion doesn’t make you the owner. Likewise, when skeptics ask for the data, or to see that the models accurately predict anything at all? Nope, you can’t have the data. You can’t see the adjustments we made. We just get more papers and more dire warnings.
- nightfly | 05/01/2012 @ 12:03
nightfly: That’s why skeptics want the raw data to analyze.

The data has been available, though not always aggregated, and independent scientists have analysed the temperature data, most recently, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Temperature
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/
- Zachriel | 05/01/2012 @ 12:08
Likewise, when skeptics ask for the data, or to see that the models accurately predict anything at all? Nope, you can’t have the data. You can’t see the adjustments we made. We just get more papers and more dire warnings.

You make it sound like we can’t trust their data! Oh, wait…

You raise valid questions. On top of the fact that it turns out, according to the East Anglia emails, “scientists” were cooking the data in order to make it fit their predetermined conclusions. It’s as if our worst fears about this whole business were suddenly confirmed. Now the entire body of research that’s reached these pro-AGW conclusions, is suspect, even that which had nothing to do with East Anglia.
- cylarz | 05/01/2012 @ 12:29
Moderation queue, please.
- Zachriel | 05/01/2012 @ 12:31
Moderation queue, please.

Mkfreeberg, the guy you’ve been arguing with for a week, , the one you insist cannot read a NOAA graph or understand simple logic…is the moderator. The rest of us on the thread are all friends of his. We’re regular readers whose contributions he seems to appreciate.

This is his blog, in case you had not noticed.
- cylarz | 05/01/2012 @ 12:34
It seems that this post was a primer cap. 🙂
- philmon | 05/01/2012 @ 12:44
Have we used the term “settled”? All scientific findings are considered tentative

Nyet, comrade… you don’t get away that easily. Go back and look at all the times you said this or that will happen. Not “might” happen, not “could” happen — I spent several posts offering you this exact alternative, and you spent several posts explicitly rejecting it — but will happen.

If these findings are considered tentative, then all your statements that include the word “will” must be false — they are, at best, probabilities.

In other words, they’d be ok if you changed “will” to “could” — a proposition which you have explicitly rejected multiple times.

So: Is the science settled, or isn’t it?
- Severian | 05/01/2012 @ 13:09
Severian: If these findings are considered tentative, then all your statements that include the word “will” must be false — they are, at best, probabilities.

Eppur si muove.
- Zachriel | 05/01/2012 @ 13:12
Then you admit that your use of the word “will” is incorrect?

Eppur si muove — “and yet it moves” — is supposedly the ne plus ultra (oooh, look! a foreign phrase!) of “scientific” beatdowns — an assertion of scientific fact (“the earth moves”) in the face of dogmatic skepticism.

You assert that various things will happen.

Then you claim that these conclusions are tentative.

So which is it? (or as Galileo might say, smettere di schivare la questione)
- Severian | 05/01/2012 @ 13:19
Principium tertii exclusi.
- mkfreeberg | 05/01/2012 @ 13:22
And in this case especially: Adventavit asinus, pulcher et fortissimus
- Severian | 05/01/2012 @ 13:30
Severian: You assert that various things will happen.

Galileo asserted the Earth does move, even though all scientific findings are tentative. The idea is that some facts are so well-established that it is perverse not to give provisional assent. The Earth does move, and gum flapping about the provisional nature of science doesn’t change it.

Apparently, thousands of scientists can’t reliably measure the temperature trend of the troposphere, even after millions of radiosonde observations and the lauching of satellites designed for the purpose. If you can’t even agree that we observe a warming trend in the troposphere over the last half century, then the implications of that warming are rather a moot point.
- Zachriel | 05/01/2012 @ 13:30
If you can’t even agree that we observe a warming trend in the troposphere over the last half century, then the implications of that warming are rather a moot point.

We have seen is not we WILL see. The past is not the future. You said certain things WILL happen, based on conclusions that you now claim are by their nature tentative.

Which is it?

Smettere di schivare la questione
- Severian | 05/01/2012 @ 13:34
Severian: You said certain things WILL happen, based on conclusions that you now claim are by their nature tentative.

Yes, that’s right. Scientific statements are always considered tentative, no matter how well supported. The Sun will rise in Paris in seven hours is such a statement.
- Zachriel | 05/01/2012 @ 14:28
The Sun will rise in Paris in seven hours is such a statement.

And yet…if I were to stubbornly insist that we don’t know for a fact that the Earth is round, you’d still be able to walk through how it all works, easily and say…well, you know, you’re wrong Freeberg, the Earth is round, and not only that it spins. That’s how we know the sun will rise.

To say, as you’ve done here, “There’s no point in going through it until you concede that the Earth is round” would be silly. So how about describing in vivid detail how it is known that we need to sign these international treaties and, more importantly, how the climate will be fixed if & when we do?
- mkfreeberg | 05/01/2012 @ 14:32
Scientific statements are always considered tentative, no matter how well supported.

And so, you admit that desalinization, massive population displacement, and all the rest of your catalog of horrors are mere hypotheticals?

Please do recall that in the modern age it is possible to call a friend in Paris seven hours from now to see if the sun is in fact rising. It is NOT possible to watch all of the horrors you’ve predicted unfold in the historical record — as you yourself have admitted. So, too, with “eppur si muove” — we have actual video footage of the earth moving. We do NOT have video evidence of the horrors you describe. If anything, we have the reverse — see, for instance, Constable, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century, describing a vast positive change in human society that would not have been possible without the Medieval Warm Period.

You are, in other words, conflating facts with hypotheses.

So: All those things you claim WILL happen unless we act right now — those are hypotheticals, yes? That’s what you’re saying? We’re clear on this point?
- Severian | 05/01/2012 @ 14:37
Severian, would you email me from whatever address you’re using these days so I have it for offline purposes? My old gmail one for you is defunct, apparently.
- philmon | 05/01/2012 @ 14:50
mkfreeberg: To say, as you’ve done here, “There’s no point in going through it until you concede that the Earth is round” would be silly.

That’s right, so we would show you why the evidence points to a round Earth. Your tack has been to deny simple observation, such as the retardation of the pendulum which scientists have verified repeatedly since 1677, and which you could verify yourself—if you took the trouble, but won’t.

Severian: And so, you admit that desalinization, massive population displacement, and all the rest of your catalog of horrors are mere hypotheticals?

In science, every claim is a hypothetical, and its empirical implications tested. The Earth moves is a hypothetical. Given global warming, sea levels will rise, so it will flood arable lands and displace people. Given global warming, you might discuss the possible consequences, but that’s rather a moot point when there is no common basis in observation.

Severian: Please do recall that in the modern age it is possible to call a friend in Paris seven hours from now to see if the sun is in fact rising.

You don’t have to call anyone in Paris, any more than Halley had to see his comet return.

Severian: So, too, with “eppur si muove” — we have actual video footage of the earth moving.

Galileo never saw the Earth move, yet he still reached the highly confident conclusion that it did.

Severian: You are, in other words, conflating facts with hypotheses.

It’s hard to take such objections seriously when there is an ongoing dispute over something as simple as measurements of temperature trends, repeatedly verified by different scientists working in varying conditions with a variety of methods.

Severian: So: All those things you claim WILL happen unless we act right now — those are hypotheticals, yes?

Given global warming, some degree of dislocation is almost inevitable, but it can be minimized. The sooner humans act, the lower the cost and the less the environmental damage.
- Zachriel | 05/01/2012 @ 17:01
Given global warming, some degree of dislocation is almost inevitable, but it can be minimized.

Nyet, comrade — you don’t get to keep begging the question like that.

“Global warming is a scientific fact” and “In science, every claim is a hypothetical” are mutually contradictory. You say so yourself, here:

In science, every claim is a hypothetical, and its empirical implications tested.

The implications of your theory have NOT been tested. Indeed, every time we try to square the alarmists’ predictions with observed fact, the predictions are shown to be way off…. or very obviously forged, as the East Anglia emails so amply demonstrate.

Galileo never saw the Earth move, yet he still reached the highly confident conclusion that it did.

When Galileo said “eppur si muove,” it was a hypothesis. It has since been confirmed by empirical observation (cf. your own definition of “science,” above); it is no longer a hypothesis, but a fact.

It’s hard to take such objections seriously when there is an ongoing dispute over something as simple as measurements of temperature trends

Yes, and I find it hard to take seriously any contention of someone(s) who plainly don’t know the difference between a fact and a hypothesis.

So, again: Global warming is a FACT, which WILL lead to widespread desalinization etc. Yes or no?

Smettere di schivare la questione.
- Severian | 05/01/2012 @ 17:14
Phil,

sent you an offline. My email has been acting funny – I sent one a while ago as well. Apologies.
- Severian | 05/01/2012 @ 17:20
Severian: you don’t get to keep begging the question like that.

That’s not begging the question. It’s a simple conditional. It allows exploring the consequences of global warming without assenting to the premise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Severian: “Global warming is a scientific fact” and “In science, every claim is a hypothetical” are mutually contradictory.

Um, no. Calling it a scientific fact means that it is sufficiently supported by evidence that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. The Earth moves was a well-established scientific fact long before satellites could directly observe its motion.

Severian: In science, every claim is a hypothetical, and its empirical implications tested.

That’s right. But just because it is a hypothesis doesn’t mean it isn’t factual. The Earth moves is a hypothetical. We might test it by observing the retardation of the pendulum, or even more indirectly, by predicting the return of a comet. The more successful tests, the more confidence we have in the hypothesis.

Severian: The implications of your theory have NOT been tested.

Sure they have. Here’s a simple test of the hypothesis: If anthropogenic greenhouse gases are warming the globe, then we will see a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere; and that is what we observe.

Severian: When Galileo said “eppur si muove,” it was a hypothesis. It has since been confirmed by empirical observation (cf. your own definition of “science,” above); it is no longer a hypothesis, but a fact.

Galileo was sent to the Inquisition for saying it was a fact rather than a speculative hypothesis.

Severian: Yes, and I find it hard to take seriously any contention of someone(s) who plainly don’t know the difference between a fact and a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.

A scientific fact is well-established statement about an empirical phenomenon.

Severian: Global warming is a FACT, which WILL lead to widespread desalinization etc. Yes or no?

Global warming is a scientifically well-established phenomenon. Given global warming, sea levels will rise.
- Zachriel | 05/01/2012 @ 17:41
Your tack has been to deny simple observation, such as the retardation of the pendulum which scientists have verified repeatedly since 1677, and which you could verify yourself—if you took the trouble, but won’t.

And that’s perfectly alright, perfectly fine. It obstructs nothing.

NOW — if I were to say “Earth is not warming Earth is not warming I refuse to listen to anybody who says Earth is warming, it’s not it’s not it’s not, I can’t hear you la la la” and stick my fingers in my ears…that would be a completely different situation entirely. That’s not what is taking place here. You demanded that I concede the Earth is warming, I said no, and then you refused to discuss it any further. Let’s just keep that straight.
- mkfreeberg | 05/01/2012 @ 17:48
mkfreeberg: And that’s perfectly alright, perfectly fine.

Denying observations made repeatedly by scientists, and not bothering to make those observations yourself, is intellectually vacuous and scientifically sterile.

mkfreeberg: You demanded that I concede the Earth is warming, I said no, and then you refused to discuss it any further.

We’re happy to discuss it. You did point out what you perceived were problems, so we pointed out that radiosonde observations were largely confirmed by satellite observations. It really comes down to you don’t like the observations. Denying observations made repeatedly by scientists, and not bothering to make those observations yourself, is intellectually vacuous and scientifically sterile.

Meanwhile, climate scientists continue to collect data and improve their methods.
- Zachriel | 05/01/2012 @ 18:01
A scientific fact is well-established statement about an empirical phenomenon.

No, that is NOT what the word “fact” means.

If it were, then “a candle bursts into flame because of phlogiston” is a fact. “There is something that causes fire, called phlogiston” is one of the best-established statements in the history of science — all the leading scientific minds of Europe believed it for the better part of 200 years. You could search the libraries in vain for tracts expressing doubt about phlogiston; every single mention of the property that heats fire would contain the word phlogiston.

So: Global warming is a scientifically well-established phenomenon. Given global warming, sea levels will rise is exactly as scientific — and as factual as the statement “phlogiston causes candles to burst into flame.” All the citations say so, and if they’d charted wick temperatures before, during, and after the introduction of the flame, the resultant NOAA .gif would definitely show a rising trend near the surface of the wick, cooling at the top…. which — all together now — is the signature of phlogiston.

Care to try again? Dictionary.com defines “fact” as:

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2. something known to exist or to have happened:

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:

So: Global warming is a fact, which WILL result in all that stuff. Yes or no?
- Severian | 05/01/2012 @ 18:14
Denying observations made repeatedly by scientists, and not bothering to make those observations yourself, is intellectually vacuous and scientifically sterile.

That seems like hand-waving. Let’s say it’s so, and I’m being intellectually vacuous and scientifically sterile. You could still explain to me, if you chose to do so (and had the argument to make), why the science says humans are the primary cause of the global warming you think is factual; and, what the science has to say about these plans to fix the problem, to make sure they’re effective.

I mean, I’m not being intellectually vacuous or scientifically sterile when I presume, it must be an awesomely high priority to make sure the plans are effective, am I? That seems, to say the least, intellectually robust and scientifically virile.
- mkfreeberg | 05/01/2012 @ 18:17
What if I accepted AGW as “a scientific fact” and even accepted these dire predictions about what will happen to this region and that one…..

…and yet disagreed on the best course of action? Or worse, agreed on the course of action and yet didn’t feel the trade-off was worth it?

In other words, what if I adopted, oh, the Chi Com’s position?
- cylarz | 05/01/2012 @ 18:30
I’ve seen a lot of anti-war people do what the Zachriel is doing here. “Do you concede George W. Bush sold this war on a pack of lies.” And I say no, I don’t…and then they, well, for lack of a better term, hand-wave. Not against an argument, but against me, or anybody else who doesn’t concede what they want conceded. They essentially declare the opposition to be unfit for any further discussion, deliver a fancy flourish about it, and — walk off, rhetorically leave the room, change the subject, whatever.

So they’re willing to walk through the steps of proving the “fact,” but only to people who are fit to hear it. In other words, those who already agree.

The argument essentially boils down to one of: “Start with the premise A. Now then…A. There. I proved it.” It is an argument that goes nowhere, because it has no distance to travel; it ends precisely where it begins. It is a gelding of an argument.

You were just using manhood metaphors to describe “sterile” ways of thinking & discussing. Looking more and more like a case of psychological projection. Hey, you don’t drive a big expensive fancy red car, do you?
- mkfreeberg | 05/01/2012 @ 18:40
Looking more and more like a case of psychological projection

Heh.

That’s why I’m so caught up on this seemingly pedantic definition-of-a-fact stuff — the only way Z’s argument works is if every single step of it is an established scientific fact. Warming IS happening, it IS human caused, treaties ARE necessary, the ChiComs WILL obey them, etc. etc.

Problem is, none of those are facts. They are, at best, hypotheses based on the data in the endlessly-linked .gif. (in the same way “eppur si muove” was a hypothesis until we actually saw the earth rotating on satellite photos).

Hypothesizing a bit myself…. the only way to explain the data (their weird insistence on “will” and their absolute refusal to use “could;” the endless linking of the same basic stuff; the tautological nature of the whole argument) is to return to my prior contention that they’re trying to make their politics into science — they’re having problems with subject-object differentiation and so, as Nightfly put it so eloquently, they’re compelled to make their preferences into commands. Used to be they used the law to do this — democracy requires, fairness requires, social justice requires — but now they’ve hit on “science” as their bullying tactic du jour.
- Severian | 05/01/2012 @ 18:54
Crap… screwed up my italic tags. Sorry about that. I’ll try to hyperventilate less (don’t want to use up any more of the planet’s rapidly-warming troposphere than is necessary).
- Severian | 05/01/2012 @ 18:55
Fixed.
- mkfreeberg | 05/01/2012 @ 19:05
Thanks! My bad.

I forget who said it, but some author apologized for writing too long a letter — “I didn’t have the time to make it shorter,” he said. I need to polish up the ol’ prose style; I’m an italics (and ellipses) addict.

And if this hasn’t been said before… thanks for hosting this, ummmm….discussion? Just approving the comments for this sucker has to take a good chunk of your day. Much appreciated; it’s been most illuminating.
- Severian | 05/01/2012 @ 19:15
Severian: If it were, then “a candle bursts into flame because of phlogiston” is a fact.

Not a particularly good example, as no experiment showed the actual existence of phlogiston. A more useful example might be the atom (fact), which modern chemistry had proposed (hypothesis) to explain how elements reacted. There is both the fact of the atom, and Atomic Theory. They are not one and the same.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Severian: So: Global warming is a scientifically well-established phenomenon. Given global warming, sea levels will rise is exactly as scientific — and as factual as the statement “phlogiston causes candles to burst into flame.”

Well, no. We can directly observe global warming, and the consequent sea level rise.

You seem to be arguing semantics. Is that your only argument against climate science, the meaning of words?
- Zachriel | 05/02/2012 @ 05:07
mkfreeberg: You could still explain to me, if you chose to do so (and had the argument to make), why the science says humans are the primary cause of the global warming you think is factual; and, what the science has to say about these plans to fix the problem, to make sure they’re effective.

We’ve already explained one of the primary evidences, but you reject the observations, even though they have been confirmed by independent means, and subjected to independent analysis, most recently by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project.

mkfreeberg: I’ve seen a lot of anti-war people do what the Zachriel is doing here. “Do you concede George W. Bush sold this war on a pack of lies.” And I say no, I don’t…and then they, well, for lack of a better term, hand-wave.

They shouldn’t hand wave, but show why they think Bush lied. Certainly they were wrong about the most important legal justification for the war, as exemplified in Powell’s disastrous redux of Adlai Stephenson’s trip to the U.N.

mkfreeberg: The argument essentially boils down to one of: “Start with the premise A. Now then…A. There. I proved it.”

The first claim is that the troposphere is warming. You pointed to what you perceived as problems with the radiosonde observations, so we then collect observations from satellite and these largely confirm and extend the radiosonde observations. At that point all we hear is that science is tentative and observations can be wrong, without any reason to doubt this important crosscheck.
- Zachriel | 05/02/2012 @ 05:11
cylarz: What if I accepted AGW as “a scientific fact” and even accepted these dire predictions about what will happen to this region and that one….. …and yet disagreed on the best course of action? Or worse, agreed on the course of action and yet didn’t feel the trade-off was worth it?

Then you should make that argument. Instead, we have the typical so-called science skeptic shift … It’s not warming. Humans aren’t the cause. It’s not warming that much. There’s nothing we can do about it. It’s not warming. Humans aren’t the cause …
- Zachriel | 05/02/2012 @ 05:14
Severian: That’s why I’m so caught up on this seemingly pedantic definition-of-a-fact stuff — the only way Z’s argument works is if every single step of it is an established scientific fact. Warming IS happening, it IS human caused, …

Yes, certain facts have to be established with reasonable scientific certainty before any discussion of policy would make sense.

Severian: … treaties ARE necessary, etc. etc.

We can discuss possible policy options once we establish the scientific underpinning.

Severian: (in the same way “eppur si muove” was a hypothesis until we actually saw the earth rotating on satellite photos).

You keep acting as if the Earth’s movement isn’t both a fact and a hypothesis. For instance, if we hypothesize the Earth rotates, what does that imply about the rate of a pendulum?

Severian: I’ll try to hyperventilate less (don’t want to use up any more of the planet’s rapidly-warming troposphere than is necessary).

Respiration is carbon neutral.
- Zachriel | 05/02/2012 @ 05:24
[…] Seems silly to even think about applying such a test. Perhaps it is. But too many left-wingers would not pass it, and yet, they want to discuss things. Which leads to endless micro-circular round-robins like this. […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 05/02/2012 @ 07:24
At that point all we hear is that science is tentative and observations can be wrong, without any reason to doubt this important crosscheck.

Right, which you don’t like, so you refuse to proceed any further. Leaving your claim unsubstantiated. throughout nearly 400 posts now.

So it is exactly as I have said. You have “proof” that humans are the primary cause of the warming and that the warming will bring some kind of disaster that can only be headed off by means of some kind of international accord…for anyone who thinks such a thing already. And you have nothing to say to anybody else except “go look at this graphic again and again until you agree with us.”

My original point has found supporting evidence. For all the scary/glossy/sexy/pessimistic prophecies, the science just isn’t there.
- mkfreeberg | 05/02/2012 @ 07:33
Zachriel: At that point all we hear is that science is tentative and observations can be wrong, without any reason to doubt this important crosscheck.

mkfreeberg: Right, which you don’t like, so you refuse to proceed any further.

So on the one hand, we have thousands of scientists using various techniques to measure temperature trends, and on the other hand, we have someone who rejects those measurements without providing a reason. That sums it up quite well.
- Zachriel | 05/02/2012 @ 08:40
Is that your only argument against climate science, the meaning of words?

Hey, Morgan, I think we have another entry for “the nutty things liberals say!”

Yes, that is one of my primary arguments against your version of climate science. You keep misusing very common words in a very odd way. For instance, you write that A scientific fact is well-established statement about an empirical phenomenon. Which is NOT what the word “fact” means.

More to the point, your definition includes as “scientific facts” many things that are flat wrong. Thomas Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to address precisely this issue. The period he calls “normal science” (the old Ptolemaic theory of the solar system, say) proceeds from one of these incorrect — but well-supported!– statements about empirical facts. There were even experiments and everything — when navigators couldn’t use the Ptolemaic model to guide their ships, astronomers started building in “epicycles,” “retrograde motion,” etc. And these worked — you could navigate by the Ptolemaic method — but it wasn’t a true picture of the way the solar system is actually arranged.

So, yes — I have a great many problems with “the meanings of words.” You keep trying to bully us into agreeing with you by insisting on these nonstandard usages, and when we point out their manifold problems, you…. keep on going as if we agreed. Moreover, you refuse to budge even for the sake of argument, even when that would move the whole discussion along — your absolute insistence on the word “will,” for example, when “could” would get us all quite a bit further down the road.

It’s simply bad faith; your arguments with the dictionary are just one of the most obvious symptoms.
- Severian | 05/02/2012 @ 09:10
Severian: More to the point, your definition includes as “scientific facts” many things that are flat wrong.

Please quote our statement concerning climate that includes the term “scientific fact” so we can look at the particular claim you are taking issue with.

–

Dictionary: scientific fact: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted. Example: The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.

Wiki: In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

Fact and Theory: facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
- Zachriel | 05/02/2012 @ 10:31
05/01/2012 @ 17:41 A scientific fact is well-established statement about an empirical phenomenon.

Severian: Global warming is a FACT, which WILL lead to widespread desalinization etc. Yes or no?

Global warming is a scientifically well-established phenomenon. Given global warming, sea levels will rise.

Followed quickly by:

05/02/2012 @ 05:07 We can directly observe global warming, and the consequent sea level rise.

We would like to point out, for the benefit of our slower-witted readers, that you are yet again begging the question — even if we accept, despite all the well-documented problems pointed out by Morgan, Philmon, and Nightfly, that “we can directly observe global warming,” this does NOT automatically result in sea level rise (as, again, has been pointed out ad nauseam via the ice cube analogy). This acceptance of direct observation of global warming would also then force an intellectually honest interlocutor to explain the increase in Arctic icecaps, etc.; all of which have been repeatedly pointed out to you and dismissed with yet another link to your favorite little .gif

When you’re not hand-waving away objections, you’re simply begging the question over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

“Global warming is a fact. Look at this chart.”

“There are problems X, Y, and Z with that data.”

“Oh, we know all about those, but they’ve been corrected by top men. Top. Men. No, you can’t see the raw data, or the methodology, or the math. Top. Men. Look at the graph. Now, can’t we all agree that global warming is a scientific fact?”
- Severian | 05/02/2012 @ 11:23
Severian (quoting): Global warming is a scientifically well-established phenomenon.

Yes, global warming is a scientifically well-established phenomenon.

Severian: “we can directly observe global warming,” this does NOT automatically result in sea level rise

Warmer water has a higher volume. About half of the current sea level rise is due to thermal expansion.
- Zachriel | 05/02/2012 @ 14:33
About half of the current sea level rise is due to thermal expansion.

“Is”? or “could be“?
- mkfreeberg | 05/02/2012 @ 14:48
mkfreeberg: “Is”? or “could be“?

Domingues et al., Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea level rise, Nature 2008.

Your link to the McKay and Overpeck paper concerned future sea level rise, and the study indicates that land ice sheets may be more sensitive to global warming than previously thought. In other words, a higher proportion of sea level rise was due to melt, because there was more melt, not because water stopped expanding when warm. In any case, thermal expansion is an important contributor. Not sure how that helps your case.

Here’s what the authors of your cited paper said:

“The 20th century is the first century for which how much energy we’re getting from the sun is no longer the most important thing governing the temperature of the Arctic,” McKay said.

Greenhouse gases are the most likely cause of the recent rise in Arctic temperatures, said McKay and his co-author Jonathan T. Overpeck, a UA professor of geosciences and atmospheric sciences and director of UA’s Institute of the Environment.

Overpeck said, “The Arctic should be very sensitive to human-caused climate change, and our results suggest that indeed it is.”
- Zachriel | 05/02/2012 @ 15:41
Domingues et al., Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea level rise, Nature 2008.

Yes, yes, that’s all very nice and scientific-sounding, but, as always, you are dodging the question — IS or COULD BE?

Nothing in the bit you cut and pasted was relevant to that. The closest you got was here (In other words, a higher proportion of sea level rise was due to melt, because there was more melt, not because water stopped expanding when warm), but that doesn’t say, or even imply, that about HALF the rise IS due to thermal expansion.

This is what we keep going on and on and on about — you are seemingly incapable of arguing in good faith. Again: saying something IS something when that conclusion is in doubt is called begging the question. “Answering” a question with a lot of vague, sort-of-relevant-sounding verbiage is called dodging the question.

How are we supposed to take your “science” seriously when “science’s” putative champion can’t even follow a point-to-point discussion?
- Severian | 05/02/2012 @ 15:58
Severian: but that doesn’t say, or even imply, that about HALF the rise IS due to thermal expansion.

That’s what the citation was for, the estimated amount of current sea level rise that can be attributed to thermal expansion. We can provide you the citation, but we can’t make you read it.

Severian: Yes, yes, that’s all very nice and scientific-sounding, but, as always, you are dodging the question — IS or COULD BE?

There is no reasonable scientific doubt that liquid sea water expands when heated.
- Zachriel | 05/02/2012 @ 16:27
Severian,

Your problem seems to be that you think that there is something about a scientific fact other than just something that is reasonably confirmed, or confirmed so well that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. All science is not only tentative, but only an approximation. Perhaps Isaac Asimov can explain this to you in his essay, “The Relativity of Wrong”.

Asimov: when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
- Zachriel | 05/02/2012 @ 16:41
But the people who went around saying the Earth is flat, were probably wrong in a much more “perverse” way than the people who might have said the Earth is probably flat. You’d agree with that, right?

Because your comments have been more aligned with ideas of the former. Severian and I have been trying to see if you can acknowledge…in my case, more to get a reading on what kind of mindset we’re dealing here, than anything else…the concept of uncertainty. Just, that it exists. In some things.

Thus far, the effect I had on your messed-up .GIF file when I stripped the transparency layer out of it, would appear to be exactly the same as what your mind exerts on any new idea it finds appealing. Like the RGB of a pixel, the composition and implications of the idea are preserved, but you strip out the uncertainty and presume 1.0 across the board.

But then, none among you probably ever viewed that image over anything but a white background, so you have no idea what I’m talking about. You have people here who are not disagreeing with you about any of the characteristics of your ideas, the R, the G or the B, but take issue with the complete certainty (opacity) of the idea. Your alpha channel is all messed up. “About half of the current sea level rise is due to thermal expansion” maybe turn out to be completely correct; yet, like a pixel that is exactly the right color and possesses exactly the correct luminescence, but assumes 1.0 opaqueness where it doesn’t apply, it’s still a misrepresentation. In fact, it’s pure ignorance.
- mkfreeberg | 05/02/2012 @ 17:40
mkfreeberg: But the people who went around saying the Earth is flat, were probably wrong in a much more “perverse” way than the people who might have said the Earth is probably flat.

No. Didn’t you read Azimov? People had a reason to believe the world was flat, and they were correct to within a few inches per mile. But when shown evidence that the world is round, then it would be perverse to simply ignore the evidence because you don’t like the conclusion. Meanwhile, those who were willing to consider the roundness of the Earth went on to measure the size of the Earth with reasonable accuracy (which you should certainly know!).

Meanwhile, you wave your hands at global warming, while scientist go about the business of building new instruments and launching satellites to provide more accurate measurements of global warming.

mkfreeberg: the complete certainty (opacity) of the idea.

All scientific findings are considered tentative and are only approximations. However, to say the world is a sphere is less wrong than to say it is flat.

If you think the tropospheric measurements are in error, it isn’t enough to say that measurements could be in error, you have to show why they are in error, or the reasonable person will consider that millions of measurements made by thousands of scientists to be far closer to the truth than someone who simply waves his hands.

mkfreeberg: In fact, it’s pure ignorance.

We provided a scientific citation. Just saying they are ignorant is not an argument that their results are in error. In any case, liquid sea water expands when warmed, so thermal expansion is a consequent of warming.
- Zachriel | 05/02/2012 @ 17:59
Instead of encouraging me to read Asimov, maybe you should work on your own reading comprehension skills. Here, for instance:

There is no reasonable scientific doubt that liquid sea water expands when heated.

That was not the question. That was NEVER the question. The question was, are you sure — 100%, metaphysically certain — that said expansion accounts for 50% of the sea level rise?

Let me repeat, for about the 384th time, that you are begging the question, and when called on your question-begging, resort to dodging the question. As Morgan puts it, Severian and I have been trying to see if you can acknowledge…in my case, more to get a reading on what kind of mindset we’re dealing here, than anything else…the concept of uncertainty. Just, that it exists. In some things.

Just so. You keep insisting on this word IS, when a great many obstacles could be removed, and a fruitful discussion entered into, by simply replacing this with the word COULD.

Instead of doing that, though, you keep dodging the question by dogmatically asserting irrelevancies, and then go right back to question-begging with IS.

Why is that? What do you hope to achieve by this tactic? You cannot convince me that something IS so when it only MIGHT be so, because I know the plain meaning of the very common English words “is” and “might.”

Again, the utter speciousness of this tactic is clearly revealed by flipping the politics. If, back in 2003, I kept saying “Saddam IS developing WMDs, he IS going to use them on US targets, he IS linked to Al Qaeda, he IS a sponsor of international terrorism,” you’d be freaking out. At that point, you would surely break out your Webster’s Third and start giving me a long lecture about the difference between “is” and “could.” If I then pointed out that we have a substantial body of evidence that he is — maybe even linked a .gif of some satellite photos of weapons plants — you’d be all over that, too. Those photos don’t prove anything, you’d say. It’s all politics, you’d say.

See what I mean? So I’ll ask again: Why do you insist on talking about possible future events as if they are certainties? Why do you make all your various claims about science being uncertain — perhaps the only 100% true thing you’ve said in this entire discussion — and then keep on insisting that this and that WILL happen? What does this gain you?
- Severian | 05/02/2012 @ 19:01
If it’s red-dot science, the reason would be that to acknowledge any uncertainty (in the conclusions Z happens to like) would dampen the “pep rally” effect. Therefore, even legitimate questions are to be loathed and rejected. Thermal expansion IS the cause of 50% of the sea level rise…thermal expansion IS the cause of 50% of the sea level rise…thermal expansion IS the cause of 50% of the sea level rise…we WILL catch the red dot!
- mkfreeberg | 05/02/2012 @ 19:15
Morgan,

Yup — red dot science all the way (I love that term, by the way).

And lest anyone be tempted to write all this off as “mere semantics” (or, in Zachriel’s charming phrase, “a problem with the meanings of words”), an analogy might help:

Say you’re playing pool and you call “eight ball in the corner pocket.” That’s a “will” statement, syntactically, but anyone who has ever played the game knows it’s really a “could” statement. If someone were to ask me “is it a scientific fact that the eight ball will go in the corner pocket?”, I’d have to say no, of course not — what I really mean is something like “all things being equal, and if the conditions in this room are exactly as I think they are, and I execute the mechanics in precisely the necessary way, then the ball will most likely go in the pocket.” And right there I’ve introduced massive uncertainties into the system, because of course I can’t know all the conditions in the room — the slight warp of the stick, the precise condition of the felt, the surface integrity of the cue ball, etc. — any more than I can guarantee I’ll flawlessly perform the proper mechanics of the shot. Which, again, anyone who has ever had a shot come up just a weeeeee tiny fraction short understands from bitter experience.

If Zachriel were talking in this way — “when I say ‘will,’ I really mean ‘could;’ I think that it’s likely, but with a healthy respect for the massive uncertainties inherent in the system” — I’d be ok with it.

But he’s not. I’ve explicitly offered them that alternative several times, and they’ve explicitly rejected it.

Instead, they double down. Keeping with the pool analogy, it’s as if they said “yes, not only is it a scientific fact that the ball will go in the corner pocket, but the next song on the jukebox WILL be ‘Achy Breaky Heart.'”

Which is just absurd. They only way this insistence makes any kind of sense is Red Dot Science…. which renders this discussion triply pointless, as there is simply no profit in arguing with the guy who coined the term on his own terms. Bizarre.
- Severian | 05/02/2012 @ 19:26
Wow, are you guys still going at it? I’ve gotten to the point where I’ve stopped reading Z’s posts. He just keeps saying the same thing over and over and over:

“Look at the NOAA graphic.” “Global warming is established scientific fact.” “This will happen if it isn’t headed off.”

I have to give the Zachariel some small measure of credit: They/he/she/it is/are the most doggedly persistent blog commenter I’ve ever run across. I have never seen a liberal go around and around with someone for this period of time. This thread is a WEEK old (at least) and still seems to be going strong, even as I have commented less.

Credit for something else: This Z entity has a level of faith in (and zealotry for) “scientific” AGW theories that would embarrass most Christians. This poster pushes AGW theory with more outright fervor and stubbornness than us churchgoers push Jesus. We’re made to look downright pathetic by comparison.

Their problem, of course, is that science itself has become a sort of god; a religion, maybe a cult if you will. Rather than simply a way of knowing, a methodology for discovering truth or answering theoretical questions or determining the outcome of an experiement, the process (and the conclusions they believe it leads to) is clung-to as it were the be-all, end-all. This is why they’ve given you the runaround like this; they don’t have the answers to your questions, but to admit that would be to cause the entire facade to come crashing down.

These people have a completely different worldview than I do. I’m at the point where I’ve simply stopped caring if the globe is getting hotter due to human activity. For all I know, the whole AGW theory is nothing but a big plot by world governments in order to further centralize power over food production, population control, and the rest. I’m not normally given to conspiracy theories, but it all dovetails so nicely with events described in Revelation that I’m no longer willing to dismiss such talk as mere poppycock. In any case, I don’t think I’m going to be around long enough to witness any of these predicted catastrophes. Even the most dire predictions are slated to take place centuries from now. My grandparents dealt with the crises of their day; I’ll deal with mine; my grandchildren can deal with theirs.

Been enjoying the heck out of the posts written by the rest of you, however. Watching Sev, Nightfly, Morgan, and Philmon use these moron as a punching bag, has been nothing short of entertaining.
- cylarz | 05/02/2012 @ 22:52
Heard a good one today:

Deja Poo. The feeling that you’ve heard this crap before.

Sev? Morgan? This doesn’t remind you guys of anyone around here, does it?
- cylarz | 05/02/2012 @ 23:36
Severian: The question was, are you sure — 100%, metaphysically certain — that said expansion accounts for 50% of the sea level rise?

All scientific findings are tentative and approximations at best. The question isn’t whether global warming has cause sea level rise, but trying to account for the vagaries of glacier melt. The estimate we provided is certainly more correct than denying that greenhouse warming will not cause a rise in sea levels.

Severian: You keep insisting on this word IS, when a great many obstacles could be removed, and a fruitful discussion entered into, by simply replacing this with the word COULD.

Whenever someone makes a scientific claim, it is entailed that science is tentative and approximate. So we might say, scientists have concluded that if the Earth’s surface warms, sea levels will rise. We could rephrase that as “If the Earth’s surface warms, then it is reasonable to conclude based on our scientific knowledge that sea levels will rise”.

Severian: I kept saying “Saddam IS developing WMDs, he IS going to use them on US targets, he IS linked to Al Qaeda, he IS a sponsor of international terrorism,” you’d be freaking out.

Well, no. But we would point out that the evidence for each of those conclusions was weak, at best. On the other hand, thermal expansion is strongly supported, so if the Earth warms, we can reasonably expect sea levels to rise.

Severian: Why do you make all your various claims about science being uncertain — perhaps the only 100% true thing you’ve said in this entire discussion — and then keep on insisting that this and that WILL happen?

Nothing in science is 100%, but based on the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the Earth is more round than flat, and that it would be perverse to deny provisional assent to this claim, certainly without providing some sort of contrary evidence. Similarly, based on the evidence, the troposphere has warmed over the last half century is a reasonable scientific statement. Perhaps it’s part of a longer cyclical pattern. But simply denying that temperatures have increased over the last half century, or that warming surface temperatures won’t result in rising sea levels, simply isn’t a tenable position.

You have to start all scientific discussion with the observations, and that is something this forum has refused to do.
- Zachriel | 05/03/2012 @ 05:21
mkfreeberg: Thermal expansion IS the cause of 50% of the sea level rise…

Baby steps. Given global warming:

1. Global warming will cause thermal expansion of the seas.
2. Thermal expansion will cause non-zero proportion of sea level rise.
3. If there is some glacier melt, subsidence or depletion of terrestrial aquifers, then thermal expansion will account for less than 100% of sea level rise.
4. In any case, the quantity of thermal expansion will be about the same.
5. Thermal expansion can be scientifically estimated.

Which statements do you disagree with?
- Zachriel | 05/03/2012 @ 05:32
cylarz (making up quotes): “Global warming is established scientific fact.”

The observations indicate that the troposphere has warmed over the last half century.
- Zachriel | 05/03/2012 @ 05:37
Severian: Instead of encouraging me to read Asimov,

After re-reading your comment, you really should read Asimov, as he directly addresses your concerns.

Asimov: “The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that “right” and “wrong” are absolute; that everything that isn’t perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.”
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
- Zachriel | 05/03/2012 @ 05:52
Baby steps. Given global warming:

1. Global warming will cause thermal expansion of the seas.
2. Thermal expansion will cause non-zero proportion of sea level rise.
3. If there is some glacier melt, subsidence or depletion of terrestrial aquifers, then thermal expansion will account for less than 100% of sea level rise.
4. In any case, the quantity of thermal expansion will be about the same.
5. Thermal expansion can be scientifically estimated.

Which statements do you disagree with?

In the parlance of the legal-disclaimer-guy who comes on the radio at the end of a speculative investment spot, I take issue with the idea that past performance is indicative of future results. The whole idea of a trend, linear, curvilinear, asymptotic, et al, has been substantiated with pure emotion and nothing else. Most damning to your settled science, is: Methods and means of gathering these data and drawing conclusions from them, have (of necessity) been altered, significantly, during the time in which the data were gathered…which, in any other experiment in any other scientific discipline, is a sin. How this becomes relevant: It seems to be part of the settled science that doubts are to be treated the way you have treated them. Which is — some of what has been done here, is scientific, using satellites, statistical samplings and so forth, therefore, anyone who doubts must be anti-scientific. They need to read some of the wonderful studies and then they’ll come around, and if they don’t, they should be ejected from further discussion.

So, your data are contaminated, making it a moot point what’s done with them…and making it an exercise in irrelevance dispatching an ideological antagonist to go through them (except as a tactic of distraction). The peer review process, as demonstrated by the UEA e-mail debacle, has been corrupted. Politics is getting mixed up with science and no one involved seems to be terribly concerned about it, the politicians are clearly in it to make money, any study that finds something alarming is much more assured access to further grant money than an study that doesn’t…”green” has, ironically enough, dissolved into a corporate slogan to be waved around by advertisers determined to overcharge the public for products that are inferior. I’m seeing people, everywhere, ostensibly concerned about the damaging effects of this climate change, convinced that human activity is the cause and that a fix is available to us in the form of these micro-small lifestyle changes — but unwilling to make them. Their cars are twice as big as mine. Even James Hansen has taken to the tedious and meticulous scientific method of promoting his own name by getting arrested in demonstrations…so everyone who’s afraid the world is about to end, but could possibly be behaving as if it’s a promotional gimmick, is, indeed, behaving as if it’s a promotional gimmick.

All based on what this mean global temperature is about to do. Which, we all agree here, is an average of a semi-closed system, which is our atmosphere; occasionally, and unpredictably, subject to influence from outside forces. Rendering the whole study of what it’s going to do, essentially meaningless. And then, as Phil has pointed out, scientifically, hand-waving all of the above away and acknowledging that the projections are as settled as the Earth being round, which is an equivalence you and others appear to support — to someone who can understand the conclusions and how they are produced, the projections are nominal, not outside the range of what Earth has already seen, while it supported life just fine & dandy; the findings are not alarming. In short, the whole thing stinks from stem to stern.

Other than that — the definition of the system being measured, the gathering of the data, the unprecedented institutionalization of science, the mixing it up with politics, the corruption of that institution, the corruption of the peer review process, the cock-up incentives acting upon those who do the studies, the unscientific and hysterical evaluation of the conclusions drawn — other than those few things, I can’t see a single problem with any of it.
- mkfreeberg | 05/03/2012 @ 07:06
Cylarz,

Wow, are you guys still going at it?

Yeah. Sigh……..

But I’m about to throw in the towel. You simply cannot reason with dogmatists.

I ask Why do you make all your various claims about science being uncertain… and then keep on insisting that this and that WILL happen? What does this gain you?

and they come back with, as a direct response (quoting my question and everything):

Nothing in science is 100%…. But simply denying that temperatures have increased over the last half century, or that warming surface temperatures won’t result in rising sea levels, simply isn’t a tenable position.

Which is NOT an answer to the question asked. Like the college kid (as I increasingly suspect they are) who studied the wrong chapter for the test, they just keep answering the question they wish I had asked. Unfortunately for them, I’m not their TA, and there are no As for effort in real life.

And then, to top it all off, they quote Asimov: “The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that “right” and “wrong” are absolute; that everything that isn’t perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.”

This, from people who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the documented existence of bad data, shaky methodology, “hide the decline,” and empirical measurements that don’t support, or positively contradict, their models. I don’t see how three or four of their heads didn’t explode, Scanners-style, from the cognitive dissonance after cutting-and-pasting that one.
- Severian | 05/03/2012 @ 07:09
mkfreeberg: In the parlance of the legal-disclaimer-guy who comes on the radio at the end of a speculative investment spot, I take issue with the idea that past performance is indicative of future results.

Gee whiz, a lot of words, but don’t see an answer. The question was raised above whether rising sea levels is an expected consequent of global warming. Even littler baby steps:

If you warm liquid sea water, does it tend to expand?
- Zachriel | 05/03/2012 @ 07:23
Yes, that question was raised…. by you, in yet another attempt to dodge a completely unrelated question.
- Severian | 05/03/2012 @ 07:26
Severian: Yes, that question was raised…. by you, in yet another attempt to dodge a completely unrelated question.

Severian 4/21/2012: My disagreement with you is — has always been — about the consequences of that warming.

We pointed to sea level rise as once such consequent.

If you warm liquid sea water, does it tend to expand?
- Zachriel | 05/03/2012 @ 07:51
BZZZZT! Nice try, but no. The full quote is:

My disagreement with you is — has always been — about the consequences of that warming. Cf Severian | 04/16/2012 @ 16:22; where I specifically say: “My point was NOT to assert “the world is not getting hotter.” Rather, I sought to demonstrate that AGW alarmists use the (debatable) proposition “the world is getting hotter” to argue for…. all sorts of things, none of which is in the least scientific.”

We were arguing about climate treaties, etc., all of which you claim WILL do this and that. As if those were also some kind of scientific facts.

That’s ok, though — if you keep responding to the statements you WISH I’d made, you might eventually hit upon a response to something I actually DID say.
- Severian | 05/03/2012 @ 08:10
Severian: That’s ok, though — if you keep responding to the statements you WISH I’d made, you might eventually hit upon a response to something I actually DID say.

You DID say that your disagreement “has always been — about the consequences of that warming.”

Severian: We were arguing about climate treaties, etc., all of which you claim WILL do this and that. As if those were also some kind of scientific facts.

We talked about lots of things. Such political statements do not usually have a strong scientific basis, and as we pointed out, it is quite likely the U.S., China and the international community will have difficulty in reaching an agreement on climate.

Severian: My disagreement with you is — has always been — about the consequences of that warming.

One such consequent is sea level rise.
- Zachriel | 05/03/2012 @ 08:28
BZZZT! Try again!

The rest of the quote in context reads Rather, I sought to demonstrate that AGW alarmists use the (debatable) proposition “the world is getting hotter” to argue for…. all sorts of things, none of which is in the least scientific.”

I.e. your constant claims that certain things — treaties, for example, and the Chinese compliance therewith — WILL happen. You keep acting as if these are settled, scientifically, when clearly they are not. You’re even hedging in your response here: Such political statements do not usually have a strong scientific basis, and as we pointed out, it is quite likely the U.S., China and the international community will have difficulty in reaching an agreement on climate.

Uh huh. “Usually.” “Will have difficulty.” But didn’t you just spend umpteen posts arguing that China WILL –your word — eventually sign such a treaty and WILL (ditto) obey it, because they WILL buy into global warming etc.? “The consequent sea level rise” is just step 2 in your 467-point prognostication of what WILL happen.

Not “could,” WILL.
- Severian | 05/03/2012 @ 10:21
The entire point of this entire @#$@# post — for the 459th and final time — is that you people continue to pull the Superman / Clark Kent maneuver with so-called science.

You begin with “the troposphere is warming, here’s our little .gif, won’t you agree that’s what it says?”

If you get that, you go to “If you warm liquid sea water, does it tend to expand?”

But if you get that, then you jump immediately into doomsaying — that meas the seas WILL rise some huge amount, this WILL result in huge demographic changes, which WILL result in umpteen catastrophes …. none of which are proven, or provable. They’re hypotheses at best, wild-ass guesses at worst, but they always completely saturated with politics –in the data collection itself, the peer review process, all the way down the line to “we must implement binding treaties and unilateral carbon taxation” (you never did answer that one, by the way, so I’m going to take that as a yes).

But when you’re called on that, you immediately run back to “If you warm liquid sea water, does it tend to expand?”

It’s grossly dishonest and transparently political.
- Severian | 05/03/2012 @ 10:29
Severian: But if you get that, then you jump immediately into doomsaying …

Well, no. We are more than happy to build our argument a step at a time, in particular, starting with those scientific findings with the strongest support. We might start with tropospheric warming, for instance.
- Zachriel | 05/03/2012 @ 11:05
We are more than happy to build our argument a step at a time, in particular, starting with those scientific findings with the strongest support.

Clearly you are not.

Cf. your constant use of the word “will,” and your explicit refusal to use the word “could.”

Cf. your absolute refusal to stipulate, even for purposes of argument, that there might be the slightest doubt about any of your findings.

Cf. your constant linkage to one cherry-picked chart, and only that chart, as your support.

&c.

An “argument” that admits no possibility of doubts or questions isn’t an argument, it’s a lecture.
- Severian | 05/03/2012 @ 11:40
We are more than happy to build our argument a step at a time, in particular, starting with those scientific findings with the strongest support. We might start with tropospheric warming, for instance.

…

Such political statements do not usually have a strong scientific basis, and…

So it is exactly as I stated, it seems; The Zachriel is in agreement with me. That the “science” is a messy hodge-podge mixture of things that really are science, dissolving into a mushy bunch of political goo that is not certain, not supported by fact, in fact is highly suspect, but like all political endeavors defines itself with an intense desire. Unfortunately, in this case, the desire is to cloak itself as “science” and enjoy the benefits of institutional validation, which in reality, has not really been applied to it.

To make it credible, you have to argue it with a mindset that refuses to recognize the fundamental concept of doubt. Just like all pixels in a 24-bit Windows bitmap file are absolutely opaque, all things known are absolutely certain. Probability theory itself becomes a nullity.

Whatever ya gotta do to make bad ideas look good, I guess…
- mkfreeberg | 05/03/2012 @ 11:47
Severian</b.: Cf. your absolute refusal to stipulate, even for purposes of argument, that there might be the slightest doubt about any of your findings.

In fact, we have repeatedly stated that scientific findings are always tentative and approximate. But it is the Azimovian question of the degree of scientific support. So, for instance, the claim that the world is rounder than it is flat, that ordinary matter is made up of atoms, that the cosmos is billions of light-years across, are strongly supported scientific findings, and it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

The claim in question is whether the troposphere has warmed over the last half century. Nothing posted thus far on this board has suggested that this conclusion isn’t correct.
- Zachriel | 05/03/2012 @ 12:04
To make it credible, you have to argue it with a mindset that refuses to recognize the fundamental concept of doubt.

Bingo.

Which leads me to wonder: do leftists just refuse to argue in good faith, or is it possible that they don’t know how?

In my exchanges with the Zachriel, for instance, demonstrating at least a modicum of good faith would be easy. They could say something like “well, if the word ‘could’ is so all-fired important to you, fine, such-and-such could happen. Now can we get on with the discussion?”

They not only didn’t do that, they went out of their way several times to reject it.

Similarly, someone arguing in good faith (and with command of the facts) should have no problem responding to your (and Nightfly’s, and Philmon’s) criticisms about the .gif. “Fine, you don’t like that one, here are seventeen more showing the exact same thing, and here’s a website that has a bunch more. Go nuts.”

They just keep linking the same .gif, to the point where it’s a running joke.

Finally, someone actually arguing in good faith would, when accused of arguing in bad faith, come back with “well, what can I do to prove it? I want to make sure you understand my point of view, because I’m legitimately interested in changing your mind.”

Instead they go back to “let’s start with troposphere warming” and the whole cycle begins again.

That’s not an argument, it’s a lecture…. and an astonishingly bad one, proceeding only from tautologies.
- Severian | 05/03/2012 @ 12:04
The claim in question is whether the troposphere has warmed over the last half century. Nothing posted thus far on this board has suggested that this conclusion isn’t correct.

🙂

And right as I’m posting that comment, they’re proving it true.
- Severian | 05/03/2012 @ 12:05
Severian: Finally, someone actually arguing in good faith would, when accused of arguing in bad faith, come back with “well, what can I do to prove it?

What would it take to demonstrate that the troposphere has warmed over the last half century, considering that using thermometers apparently hasn’t been sufficient?

Severian: And right as I’m posting that comment, they’re proving it true.

If you mean you didn’t address the claim about tropospheric warming, you’re right! That you refuse to answer even simple questions about the physics involved shows you don’t care to discuss posited global warming, but have other motivations.
- Zachriel | 05/03/2012 @ 14:28
What would it take to demonstrate that the troposphere has warmed over the last half century, considering that using thermometers apparently hasn’t been sufficient?

Don’t know about that, but arguing in good faith might have something to do with doing the arguing where the point of contention exists, rather than sticking to the part where you can feel all science-y.

I don’t know that the sea levels are going to rise over the next hundred years, to such a great extent as to cause any kind of calamity. And I don’t know that, if this is the case, humans will have been the primary cause of it happening. Science simply hasn’t been applied here. Politics have; great loquacity in the blogger threads have; Al Gore has made a lot of money making a movie about it; science has not been applied. It’s still way back at “We’ve been measuring the surface/atmospheric readings” and water becomes less dense when heated.

When the alarmist community intractably insists on discussing the past & present readings over and over again, it adds fuel to the idea that much of the global warming narrative relies on faith.

There is a reason why science is “always tentative and approximate.” It is, by design, a process of evolution of ideas. And the best science starts out silly, as a big, overly-simplified “whenever.” Like: Whenever women see the “bad cartography” diagram of the bed, they react the same way, “That’s absolutely true except it’s backwards.” So here’s a theory: All women will react this way. Eventually you meet a woman who doesn’t, and you have to refine the theory. This is how it was discovered that, to cite one of your favorite examples, the Earth moves. How much confidence the theory inspires at any given time, is not really the point; the point is to continue refining the theory based on new discoveries. It is a continuous process of inductive reasoning.

By the time statements are made about how definite the theories are, or how much confidence they inspire, or how “it would be perverse to deny provisional assent to [the] claim[s],” it isn’t science that is being discussed anymore, but rather a doctrine of faith. Every time you re-use that phrase, you show you aren’t working from science…which, again, is the point I was originally making.
- mkfreeberg | 05/03/2012 @ 14:43
mkfreeberg: I don’t know that the sea levels are going to rise over the next hundred years, to such a great extent as to cause any kind of calamity. And I don’t know that, if this is the case, humans will have been the primary cause of it happening.

Probably because you won’t seriously consider the evidence, as you have shown on this thread.

mkfreeberg: Science simply hasn’t been applied here.

Well, that is certainly incorrect. Thousands of scientists study climate and related fields, and evidence of climate change is coming in from entirely different fields of study.

mkfreeberg: It’s still way back at “We’ve been measuring the surface/atmospheric readings” and water becomes less dense when heated.

Sorry science bores you, but repeatedly measuring things is exactly the sorts of findings that allow us to determine what is happening with the Earth’s climate.

mkfreeberg: How much confidence the theory inspires at any given time, is not really the point; the point is to continue refining the theory based on new discoveries. It is a continuous process of inductive reasoning.

Yes, except it’s not merely inductive, but hypothetico-deduction.

mkfreeberg: By the time statements are made about how definite the theories are, or how much confidence they inspire, or how “it would be perverse to deny provisional assent to [the] claim[s],” it isn’t science that is being discussed anymore, but rather a doctrine of faith.

It would be perverse, in the light of the evidence, to deny that the Earth moves. That is the reasonable conclusion based on the scientific evidence, not a doctrine of faith.
- Zachriel | 05/03/2012 @ 16:22
Just for fun, I’m going to play devil’s advocate for a moment here and make the argument that the Zachariel should be making if they want to “argue in good faith” and otherwise be taken seriously. I hope they’re paying attention, because this is how to want to be persuasive toward an AGW skeptic:

Ahem.

1) Based on the best available information, a large portion of scientists engaged in the research of climatology, meteorology, and related disciplines have concluded that the Earth’s mean sea-surface temperatures have been rising over the last several decades, and with it, the lower-most portions of the atmosphere.

2) Further, measurements have been taken by many different devices, including but not limited to: satellites, radio dropsondes and weather balloons, aircraft, and surface weather stations. Based on the information gathered, it is reasonable to conclude that present temperature trends will continue.

3) Further, based upon……we believe that it is entirely possible that such temperature changes are at least partially driven by human activities, such as the combustion of various carbon-based fossil fuels. You may examine our raw data at……and policy-makers and interested members of the public are invited to draw their own conclusions.

4) Computer models indicate that if present trends continue as forecasted, this and this and this may occur at some point in the future. Needless to say, while the survival of humanity itself isn’t at stake, these trends could result in serious ecological damage such as a rise in sea levels and acidification of the oceans…which in turn could contribute to social upheaval and disruption in the form of desertification, inundation of coastal areas and mass population migration. These in turn could represent serious challenges to humanity as a whole by the end of the 21st century and into the 22nd.

5) Based upon the information presented in 2) and 3), we believe a general and reasonable course of action would be to a) limit fossil fuel consumption and b) engage in a public information campaign towards a). Second, we believe that a combination of public and private efforts toward the development and implementation of alternative fuel technology would be extremely helpful. More specific information can be found at (insert URL). Further, we propose (insert additional specific policy proposals here). While these changes could be implemented in western democracies with a fair amount of education and activism toward policy-makers, it is absolutely crucial to gain the cooperation of the developing world as well, lest the efforts of the West at curbing greenhouse emissions come to naught. Even the best such efforts would be counter-balanced and then some if the non-Western world, particularly China and India, are not brought on board. Obtaining this cooperation is expected to be a matter of some difficulty and all are encouraged to weigh-in with suggestions. Surely some combination of export of green technology, diplomatic, and economic incentives could be devised which would hasten their support.

The East Anglia email scandal was an embarrassment to the scientific community and we fully recognize that it has undermined the reputation of climatologists the world over. Rest assured that honest scientists everywhere are concerned about how this has made us look, and we will work diligently over the next few years in order to regain the public’s trust and reestablish our credibility in their eyes. We reject and renounce dishonest scientific methods and believe it is very important to carefully consider ALL of the data gathered by our instruments before attempting to determine any past trends, to say nothing of future ones.

It is of paramount importance that the scientific community conduct its work with the utmost of transparency and integrity, even if the data ultimately lead us to the conclusion that fear over climate change has proven to be a false alarm. We are less concerned about funding and politics, and more concerned about the truth.

The stakes are very high; if the scientific community’s worst fears are realized, the consequences could be catastrophic for all of us.

Ahem.

Oh, and Zachariel? Don’t you DARE fucking claim that’s what you’ve been saying all along, because we’ve all been reading this thread and we know better. Sev has you pegged when he points out that your being so cocksure of yourself has undermined your credibility here.
- cylarz | 05/03/2012 @ 17:22
cylarz: 1) Based on the best available information, a large portion of scientists engaged in the research of climatology, meteorology, and related disciplines have concluded that the Earth’s mean sea-surface temperatures have been rising over the last several decades, and with it, the lower-most portions of the atmosphere.

You’re missing one of the key observations, the observed cooling of the stratosphere. That’s why understanding the temperature trend is so important to understanding what is driving climate change.

cylarz: 2) Further, measurements have been taken by many different devices, including but not limited to: satellites, radio dropsondes and weather balloons, aircraft, and surface weather stations. Based on the information gathered, it is reasonable to conclude that present temperature trends will continue.

It’s more than a simple induction. While the system is certainly chaotic, the evidence indicates that greenhouse warming is driving the system to a higher energy state.

cylarz: 3) You may examine our raw data at……and policy-makers and interested members of the public are invited to draw their own conclusions

The original climate research was done on a shoestring. The data was collected in many different countries, with different protocols, so aggregation was a complicated process, and not all the data was available because of the various protocols. The data has always been available to interested scientists willing to aggregate the data, but most laypersons wouldn’t have access anymore than they have access to the raw data from most other scientific enterprises. Today, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project is aggregating the data and making it publicly available.

cylarz: Computer models indicate that if present trends continue as forecasted, this and this and this may occur at some point in the future. Needless to say, while the survival of humanity itself isn’t at stake, these trends could result in serious ecological damage such as a rise in sea levels and acidification of the oceans…which in turn could contribute to social upheaval and disruption in the form of desertification, inundation of coastal areas and mass population migration.

It’s more than computer models, but okay.

cylarz: The stakes are very high; if the scientific community’s worst fears are realized, the consequences could be catastrophic for all of us.

There is large uncertainty on the upper limits of global warming, and on how the ice caps will react to that warming, so policy-makers have to balance risk with cost to come up with reasonable solutions. Of course, none of that is possible as long as people pretend there isn’t a problem.

A good restatement overall. Thank you.
- Zachriel | 05/03/2012 @ 17:55
American Meteorological Society:

Climate is changing in many ways. Global mean temperatures have been rising steadily over the last 40 years, with the six warmest years since 1860 occurring in the last decade…

Sea levels are generally rising around the world and glaciers are generally in retreat. A component of sea level rise is attributed to expansion due to a long-term increase in ocean heat content. The impacts of even small rises in sea level on coastal zones are expected to be severe, particularly in conjunction with storm surges associated with vigorous weather systems…

In recent decades, humans have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.), which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.

http://ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
- Zachriel | 05/03/2012 @ 17:59
mkfreeberg: I don’t know that the sea levels are going to rise over the next hundred years, to such a great extent as to cause any kind of calamity. And I don’t know that, if this is the case, humans will have been the primary cause of it happening.

Z: Probably because you won’t seriously consider the evidence, as you have shown on this thread.

Someone seriously considering the evidence, in fact, laboriously and diligently considering it to your full satisfaction, doesn’t know these things either.
- mkfreeberg | 05/03/2012 @ 18:10
cylarz: Oh, and Zachariel? Don’t you DARE fucking claim that’s what you’ve been saying all along, because we’ve all been reading this thread and we know better.

Zachriel: A good restatement overall. Thank you.

Well, isn’t that peachy. Dishonest little group of shits, ain’t you? But that’s the thing – this wasn’t a restatement of what you’re saying, because you’re saying that these things are all fait accompli, case closed, the end… not that they’re possibilities or things to further investigate.

Case in point: nattering on forever about the troposphere getting warmer and the stratosphere not – “the signature of global warming” – uhm, WHY is that the signature? Because of all the horrible things you state are givens, but which are in fact only possibilities, and which have stubbornly not happened on schedule, or to the severity expected.

(BTW, the tropospheric warming seems to have just stopped over the past decade. This is a problem for the Global Somethening theory. It’s supposed to be trending upwards based on the past half-century, but it’s leveled off since 2001, based on nobody doing all that much of anything about it?)
- nightfly | 05/03/2012 @ 18:31
nightfly: because you’re saying that these things are all fait accompli, case closed, the end

While all science is tentative and approximate, some findings are more strongly supported than others. For instance, the Earth moves, liquid sea water expands when heated, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, ordinary matter is composed of atoms, and so on. Other findings are much less certain. The only way to determine scientific confidence is to actually look at the methods and data, something that has not been prominent on this thread.

nightfly: Case in point: nattering on forever about the troposphere getting warmer and the stratosphere not – “the signature of global warming” – uhm, WHY is that the signature?

Thank you for asking. The inverse relationship shows that solar energy is taking longer to escape the atmosphere than otherwise. It’s a direct result of the mechanics of heat transfer. Increase the greenhouse effect, and the troposphere will warm and the stratosphere will cool.

nightfly: (BTW, the tropospheric warming seems to have just stopped over the past decade. This is a problem for the Global Somethening theory.

Shorter periods don’t capture global warming. Santer et al., Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale, Journal of Geophysical Letters 2011.

Or in a graphical form (land surface),
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif
- Zachriel | 05/04/2012 @ 04:30
“Realists,” huh?

If the label applied, the accuracy rate of the climate’s-gonna-do-this predictions we’ve been hearing over the last twenty years, would’ve been higher.

Some among the realists are on record as saying it’s a good thing to exaggerate the danger, to get the public engaged. I wonder what fellow “realists” call these showboaters & demagogues. Unrealistic realists?
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2012 @ 05:30
Shorter periods don’t capture global warming.

Neither do longer ones. There is ample evidence that Earth’s been hotter than this centuries ago. You’re cherry-picking the bottom of the trough on temperature trends and looking at that time period, and completely missing the cyclical changes in temperature over the course of centuries.

The only way to determine scientific confidence is to actually look at the methods and data, something that has not been prominent on this thread.

I hate to break it to you – well, ok, maybe I enjoy to break it to you – but there are two difficulties here.

First, you are the one who put forth a proposition. Yours is the burden of proof. And from your very first comment, you’ve missed the point entirely. (Morgan replied to that comment with “That’s not what we’re discussing here.” You have seen fit to make it the discussion over the course of 440 comments.) Nearly everything you’ve done since is simply asserting conclusions. When questioned, you either reassert the conclusion (which is not an answer) or provide links to studies that rely heavily on the point in question – thus rendering them just as (or more) dubious than the point itself.

Second, it’s rich that you’re accusing us of not looking at methods or data, when so much of our objection to your conculsion is, in fact, that the methods and data are highly suspect. When we quetion them as you have yourself suggested, we are lectured on scientific fact, or buried under jargon, or referred to papers none of us have access to – anything but answered. And this is part and parcel of the Global Somethening movement. Questioning their methods and data gets you a “denier” label, or a “so-called skeptics” label – in fact, to do as you suggest here, “actually look at the methods and data,” is to damage one’s career in climatology and close the supposedly-open doors of inquiry among one’s peers.

Well, if the data and methods were sound, more of what was expected would be happening. But observations have shown pretty much that none of it is happening. The sea levels should show that sharper 5+ cm rise, not the much lower 1.7 cm. The Arctic should be losing ice, not gaining it. And my last point still stands – if you argue that the warming trend is a constant (which you have done quite often), and that increased saturation of greenhouse gases will always lead to a linear increase in temperature (2-5°, with 3° most common and uncertainty in the upper range), then the past ten years should reflect that, not show that the half-century trend has leveled off. The planet seems to be most uncooperative to Global Somethening theory – it is acting like Morgan’s heavy pendulum, not like your primer cap.
- nightfly | 05/04/2012 @ 07:35
nightfly: There is ample evidence that Earth’s been hotter than this centuries ago.

Well, it depends on how many centuries. The best evidence indicates the Earth is warmer than at any time in the last 2000 years.

There are all sorts of causes of climate change, from orbital variations, changes in solar irradiance, composition of the atmosphere, and the occasional celestial object impacting the Earth. Even the continents have moved substantially over millions of years, which will inevitably change the climate.

nightfly: You’re cherry-picking the bottom of the trough on temperature trends and looking at that time period, and completely missing the cyclical changes in temperature over the course of centuries.

No. We’re looking at the inverse relationship of temperatures in the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere.

nightfly: First, you are the one who put forth a proposition. Yours is the burden of proof.

We have provided more than ample scientific support.

nightfly: Second, it’s rich that you’re accusing us of not looking at methods or data, when so much of our objection to your conculsion is, in fact, that the methods and data are highly suspect.

Other than our own citations, there has been very little discussion of the methods or data. And when there is, we have responded.

nightfly: The sea levels should show that sharper 5+ cm rise, not the much lower 1.7 cm.

So sea levels are rising to some degree. Satellite measurements indicate a current rate of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/year (1993 to 2009). Future projections remain highly uncertain.

Nicholls & Cazenave, Sea-Level Rise and Its Impact on Coastal Zones, Science 2010.

nightfly: And my last point still stands – if you argue that the warming trend is a constant (which you have done quite often), and that increased saturation of greenhouse gases will always lead to a linear increase in temperature …

We have not said the warming trend is constant, or that greenhouse gases would lead to a linear increase in temperature. In fact, we have said quite the opposite many times. Climate is a complex system, and there are many reasons for global temperature to fluctuate. The question is whether it is being driven into a higher energy state over time.
- Zachriel | 05/04/2012 @ 18:30
The best evidence indicates the Earth is warmer than at any time in the last 2000 years.

You keep using that phrase [“the best evidence”]. I do not think it means what you think it means.
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2012 @ 18:32
mkfreeberg: You keep using that phrase [“the best evidence”]. I do not think it means what you think it means.

NCDC.NOAA: “As with the other reconstructions, regardless of the proxy data used, this reconstruction indicates that the temperatures of the last two decades are warmer than any other period in the past two millennia.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

Moberg et al., Highly variable Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Reconstructed from Low- and High-Resolution Proxy Data, Nature 2005.
- Zachriel | 05/05/2012 @ 05:28
So what makes that “best”? This is a word you’ve used repeatedly, even resting entire arguments, at least the ones about what’s going to happen, on it. Best evidence, best estimates, etc. You get called on it, you provide citations, and you say “we have provided citations.” But what makes these items any good at all, let alone best?
- mkfreeberg | 05/05/2012 @ 06:08
mkfreeberg: So what makes that “best”?

Because you offer no evidence contrary to the findings.

mkfreeberg: But what makes these items any good at all, let alone best?

Good and best are different measures. It’s best because you offer nothing else. It’s good because it considers more than one measure; and because the findings have been upheld over time, especially given its wide scientific exposure through publication in Nature.
- Zachriel | 05/05/2012 @ 06:44
It’s best because you offer nothing else.

Then “best” is an incorrect qualifier; you should say “only.”
- mkfreeberg | 05/05/2012 @ 07:06
mkfreeberg: Then “best” is an incorrect qualifier; you should say “only.”

We’ve pointed out your lack of substantive reply many times. “Only” on this blog. Based on the best available evidence in the scientific community. Paleoclimatology is an entire field of study, so the cited paper is not the only work that has been done. Again, multiple measure yield the same result.

Of course, it could still be due to natural variations. For that we would refer again to the temperature record of the last half century, and to the know facts concerning CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas.
- Zachriel | 05/05/2012 @ 07:57
That having all been said, “best” distinctly implies a plurality of candidates, all but one of which were eliminated systematically by means of the consistent application of some defined criteria. The whole discussion within the thread, along with the post itself, these are all concerned with whether or not people know what they’re talking about when they talk up these dire consequences of climate change…which it looks like you don’t, when all’s said & done, since “best evidence” and “best estimates” have nothing to do with what you’re really presenting.
- mkfreeberg | 05/05/2012 @ 08:09
[…] not happen, so the word “want” has to be used instead. We saw this in the legendary monster thread, as Severian was very capably summing up in a comment he committed a few minutes ago: …I find […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 05/15/2012 @ 06:35
[…] I’ve written many times in many places, since our most educational exercise about the matter: They speak of future events, as if they have occurred in the past. The very word […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 07/18/2012 @ 09:50
[…] thousand to one that his comments will devolve into an infuriating little maneuver I call The Cuttlefish. If you don’t want to wade through 400+ posts of that (hide your razor blades and shoelaces […]
- On the Need for Repetition | Rotten Chestnuts | 12/31/2012 @ 11:20
Not to flog a dead horse too much, but I’ve got to post something here. I followed the link on rottenchestnuts.com posted by Severian about the Cuttlefish maneuver and read the entire set of comments here. Ugh. Or rather Q.E.D.

I noticed Zachriel’s constant (re)posting of the link to the “signature” of greenhouse warming: the lower atmosphere is warming while the upper atmosphere is cooling. My first response was, “Well, duh! Of course this is the signature of greenhouse warming. Without it, we’d be more like Mars.” But the evidence of greenhouse warming isn’t the same as proving anthropomorphic global warming and even less proof of catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming. To quote Zachriel from 04/16/2012 @ 08:22 Rather, a doubling of CO2 will cause an increase in surface temperatures of about 1°C. This will result in an increase in atmospheric water vapor. The scientific question is the sensitivity of the climate system to this increased water vapor. Studies point to 2-5°C with 3°C the most likely value.

As I see it, the logic goes as follows:
A) Doubling CO2 will lead to an increase of temperature of about 1°C.
B) Increased temperatures will allow the atmosphere to hold more water vapor.
C) Increased water vapor will trap more heat, increasing the effect of the doubled CO2.
D) The vater vapor muliplying effect will result in some increased temperatures. “Studies point to 2-5°C with 3°C the most likely value.”

I’ve heard this logic chain before, but something kept tickling the back of my mind about a problem with it. Then I remembered it about a third of the way down the comments. Since it was never brought up, I’m posting it now.

Yes, an increase of temperature in the lower atmosphere is the signature of greenhouse warming, but that in itself doesn’t demonstrate the water vapor multiplying which is the backbone of the gloom and doom climate changemongers. The signature of the water vapor multiplying is a hot spot in the lower atmosphere, as identified by the global warming models themselves. (See image A on page 25 of http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-all.pdf) But the expected and predicted hotspot in the lower atmosphere has not been found by the multitude of measurements taken of the atmosphere. (See image E on page 116 of the above pdf) So the posting and reposting of the nifty NOAA image (also on page 8 of the above pdf, but it’s been waved about enough times) doesn’t prove what Zachriel thinks it proves.

Credit where credit is due: I originally came across this information in Jo Nova’s The Skeptic’s Handbook several years ago. Her main site is http://joannenova.com.au/.
- Captain Midnight | 01/15/2013 @ 12:57
Captain Midnight: I noticed Zachriel’s constant (re)posting of the link to the “signature” of greenhouse warming: the lower atmosphere is warming while the upper atmosphere is cooling. My first response was, “Well, duh!

Good. You may want to explain that to others on this forum. As with most so-called skeptical movements, they bounce between several inconsistent viewpoints.

Captain Midnight: But the evidence of greenhouse warming isn’t the same as proving anthropomorphic global warming and even less proof of catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming.

That’s right. The greenhouse effect is *increasing*. Baby steps.

Captain Midnight: The signature of the water vapor multiplying is a hot spot in the lower atmosphere, as identified by the global warming models themselves.

Well, no. The tropospheric hotspot is not due to the greenhouse effect, but a result of the adiabatic lapse rate.
- Zachriel | 01/15/2013 @ 14:35
Some good advice for the Zachriel.

Or, as I put it this morning:

For all the noise liberals make about the value of nuance, you would think they’d be able to appreciate that different stories can be told about the same reality, there may be different observations made, and yet both stories might be true. And yet, time after time we see conflict arise around them, which they then blame on others, because they perceive that the other story must be a “lie.” Like William F. Buckley used to say, “…liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, [but] it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.” This very often causes them to confuse “do you agree” with “do you know.”

And I’ve seen you do this quite a few times in this thread alone. There is this litany of what was measured, what it must mean, what’s going to happen even…and it is entirely discarded as a possibility that 1) perhaps a stranger will agree with all this, and yet fail to grasp the relevant concepts, or 2) another stranger will disagree with some of it, and still might know what he’s talking about. In simpler terms: Mimicking the stated prototype is taken as an adequate replacement for any assessment of competence, and even for raw intellect. Not that you’re alone in doing this.

But you libs are awfully quick to leap to conclusions about who doesn’t know what they’re talking about. It’s a bit creepy how you have so much certainty about this, before you even fully comprehend what is being said.
- mkfreeberg | 01/15/2013 @ 16:37
Thus spake Zachriel, Well, no. The tropospheric hotspot is not due to the greenhouse effect, but a result of the adiabatic lapse rate.

Really? When I look at graph A from figure 1.3 on page 25 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf, I see that the tropospheric hotspot is the result of “PCM Simulations,” i.e. computer modeling.

I draw your attention again to graph E from figure 5.7 on page 116 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf that shows the “observed changes” in the atmospheric temperatures. There is no tropospheric hotspot.
- Captain Midnight | 01/15/2013 @ 18:23
mkfreeberg There is this litany of what was measured, what it must mean, what’s going to happen even

Baby steps. Captain Midnight agrees that the greenhouse effect is increasing. He even gives it a “duh”. Are we in agreement on this? If so, what has changed in the atmosphere to cause this increase?

Captain Midnight: Really? When I look at graph A from figure 1.3 on page 25 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf, I see that the tropospheric hotspot is the result of “PCM Simulations,” i.e. computer modeling.

Yes, it is shown in models because it is predicted from the adiabatic lapse rate. It’s not a signature of greenhouse warming, but any form of warming, even regional. For instance, Bengtsson & Hodges, On the Evaluation of Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere, Climate Dynamics 2011; or Trenberth & Smith, The Vertical Structure of Temperature in the Tropics: Different Flavors of El Niño, Journal of Climate 2006.

Captain Midnight: I draw your attention again to graph E from figure 5.7 on page 116 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf that shows the “observed changes” in the atmospheric temperatures. There is no tropospheric hotspot.

The hotspot is well-observed over short time scales, see Trenbert & Smith 2006 above. Long term observations are sparse, but are consistent with the models. See Titchner et al., Critically Reassessing Tropospheric Temperature Trends from Radiosondes Using Realistic Validation Experiments, Journal of Climate 2009.
- Zachriel | 01/16/2013 @ 06:25
No, I don’t want to take baby steps. Why do you keep saying “baby steps”? After all, this would be advantageous to someone talented at using pseudo-scientific language to make a conclusion appear legitimate where it otherwise would not be; it would not be advantageous to someone who can support the conclusion in a scientific way. Furthermore, that is not how science works. We don’t achieve complete agreement on this baby idea then that baby idea and then that one, proceeding in a linear, irreversible, unidirectional “progress” toward some conclusion that some agenda-driven faction wants to see “proven”; in science everything is up for appeal, and challenge, all the time, and nobody gets to say “Ah, you can’t change your mind on that, you already agreed way back here…”. This is like Science 101. We have to depart from that to make it look scientifickul, that the Earth due to heat up 3 degrees Celcius?

Because if that is the case, you’re doing far greater damage to your own argument than anybody else has here. Captain Midnight has taken some of your conclusions seriously and then provided challenges for others. As you provide support for those others, you’re in a “my citation says this and your citation says that” conflict…which you can then reconcile by pointing out how his might be in error. I’m not seeing you do that, instead you’re demanding complete agreement on the earlier points from those who have not yet conceded them. The global climate isn’t going to very much care whether I agree with it or not, it’s going to do what it will do.

And, just from watching the way you’ve presented the points you want to present here, knowing you’re not the only ones working this way, I’m going to be questioning everything coming out of the scientific & academic orthodoxy for a very long time. While you labor tirelessly to “make” me and everybody else agree to these baby steps…which is not how science is supposed to work.
- mkfreeberg | 01/16/2013 @ 06:54
mkfreeberg: No, I don’t want to take baby steps.

People learn to walk by taking baby steps.

mkfreeberg: Why do you keep saying “baby steps”?

An effective explanation starts by establishing a foundation for understanding. In science, that foundation is in observation.

mkfreeberg: Furthermore, that is not how science works.

That’s exactly how science works, by building on previous discoveries.

In this case, we have evidence of an increasing greenhouse effect. From that, we can then try to determine what has changed in the atmosphere that has led to the increased greenhouse effect.
- Zachriel | 01/16/2013 @ 11:30
People learn to walk by taking baby steps.

Doesn’t matter. That’s not how science is done. State your argument…and, whoever sees fit to do so, will form whatever conclusions they like about whether you’ve done an adequate job. This is not done by covenant or by obligation, it is done by independent, quality, rational thought. Science, not salesmanship.
- mkfreeberg | 01/16/2013 @ 11:36
mkfreeberg: That’s not how science is done.

That’s exactly how science is done. Every discovery is built on previous discoveries. So do you agree that Earth’s greenhouse effect is increasing?

mkfreeberg: State your argument

Sure. Increases in atmospheric CO2 are primarily due to human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and the production of concrete. Increased atmospheric CO2 is posited to cause an increase in Earth’s greenhouse effect. If the greenhouse effect is increasing then we should observe that the surface is warming while the stratosphere is cooling, which we do.
- Zachriel | 01/16/2013 @ 11:58
mkfreeberg There is this litany of what was measured, what it must mean, what’s going to happen even
Zachriel Baby steps. Captain Midnight agrees that the greenhouse effect is increasing. He even gives it a “duh”. Are we in agreement on this? If so, what has changed in the atmosphere to cause this increase?

I should have more correctly written that the “duh” signature of the greenhouse effect is a warmer lower atmosphere and a cooler upper atmosphere not warming and cooling. I conceded that there is a greenhouse effect over the Earth, otherwise we’d be more like Mars. My apologies for my suffix problem for giving you the mistaken impression that I also concede that the greenhouse effect is increasing.

Zachriel Yes, it is shown in models because it is predicted from the adiabatic lapse rate. It’s not a signature of greenhouse warming, but any form of warming, even regional.
and
The hotspot is well-observed over short time scales…

It’s well-observed? Then why is graph E from figure 5.7 on page 116 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf that shows the “observed changes” in the atmospheric temperatures demonstrates that there is no tropospheric hotspot. Graph E is the “radiosonde data °C/decade (1979 to 1999)” as indicated in the pdf. If the “short time scales” you state of increased temperature are not sufficient to affect the overall graph, then they are not consequencial.

But this brings me to the first thing that brought me to this post: Severian’s reference to the Cuddlefish’s tendency to release digital ink as a way of clouding the conversational waters. When I referenced the ClimateScience.gov pdf, I gave you a link, the pages to focus on, the images to look at, and which graph in the imagas to focus on. You respond by giving me three unlinked journal references with no indication of where to focus my attention. The impression I get from that action is you are more interested in clouding the issue with vague references than providing actual information. I have both a family and a job. I have very little time to spend digging up references for you. And since I was courtious enough to provide something specific, I’d appreciate the same in response. Or are you really just about clouding the waters with digital ink?
- Captain Midnight | 01/16/2013 @ 12:02
Since I found the link to the ClimateScience.gov pdf from the Jo Nova website, It is only fair that I quote a bit from her post about some of the responses she has received to her Skeptics Handbook that points out the flaw in the modeled hotspot and the observed lack of one. First, a quote from Zachriel in response to my pointing out the two graphs: “Yes, it is shown in models because it is predicted from the adiabatic lapse rate.” And now a chunk of text from Jo Nova:

The hot spot… is due to changes in the moist adiabatic lapse rate. First up, the adiabatic lapse rate is a measurement, not a thing, and measurements don’t change the weather. Clouds, radiation and ocean currents change the weather, but “lapse rates” are only numbers on a page, not a force of nature. The term sounds impressive, and only a few people will spot that the sentence is essentially meaningless. There is also no reference here, so it’s not just meaningless, it’s baseless too. If more water vapor existed up on high, it would act as a powerful greenhouse gas and that would change the lapse rate. It’s plain silly to pretend that the moist adiabatic lapse rate has got nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

The attempt to throw in meterological jargon is either a naked grab to confuse the uninformed, or a sad reflection on the depth of the debate outside skeptical circles. Then watch the contradiction: First they say that “it’s a misconception that the hot spot is a signature of the greenhouse effect– it’s not”. Then they say the hot spot is caused by any surface warming and “is not unique to the greenhouse effect”. Are you feeling informed? Apparently the hot spot is not due to the greenhouse effect, and at the same time it’s also not unique to the greenhouse effect. Which is it then?

Let’s be clear, the hot spot is due (in climate model simulations) to an array of effects. According to the IPCC, the main feedback and most powerful greenhouse gas is water vapor. Another form of feedback is water vapor condensing and dumping latent heat, and then there’s clouds which also contribute. Read AR4, Chapter 8, page 632.

What matters to everyone on earth is that, regardless of what is supposed to cause the hot spot, there is no hotspot, so the climate just isn’t doing what the models predicted. The models are wrong about feedbacks and the hotspot. Since the only “evidence” of impending cataclysm comes from models, it’s time to worry about something else. Wait twenty years — maybe the models will have evolved by then and won’t be so outrageously wrong.

The models predict a hotspot when observed measurements shows there is not. Therefore the models are wrong. The models also predict impending doom from climate change, but we have already seen that the models are wrong.
- Captain Midnight | 01/16/2013 @ 12:13
Captain Midnight: My apologies for my suffix problem for giving you the mistaken impression that I also concede that the greenhouse effect is increasing.

S’right. How do you account for the warming lower atmosphere and cooling stratosphere?

Captain Midnight: It’s well-observed? Then why is graph E from figure 5.7 on page 116 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf that shows the “observed changes” in the atmospheric temperatures demonstrates that there is no tropospheric hotspot.

Because of measurement uncertainty as discussed in the studies we cited above. Measurements have been spotty over long time scales, and there have been problems with bias in radiosonde measurements.

In any case, it’s not a signature of greenhouse warming.

Captain Midnight: You respond by giving me three unlinked journal references with no indication of where to focus my attention.

We provided the explanation, and properly cited the studies to support the explanation.

Captain Midnight: And since I was courtious enough to provide something specific, I’d appreciate the same in response.

The usual way is to start with the abstract. Here’s an independent test, Allen & Sherwood, Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds, Nature Geoscience 2008.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g280_s09/recent_atmosphere/allen_sherwood_ngeo08.pdf
- Zachriel | 01/16/2013 @ 13:08
That’s exactly how science is done. Every discovery is built on previous discoveries.

No, you’re altering the supposition. It’s true that science often works by way of a layered approach but it’s false that it locks any of these in, the way you seek to do with these “baby steps.” Real science is chock full of cul de sacs, little episodes of “oops, we were wrong about that.”

So, no. That is not how science is done.

State your argument, from stem to stern, so that others might find flaws in it. Forget the baby steps.
- mkfreeberg | 01/16/2013 @ 13:12
A scientific mind is changed.

That is your scientific process. Recalls the quote attributed to John Maynard Keynes “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”

I would go even further, and say that people who are unprepared to do such a thing, are not doing science. They should not delude themselves into thinking, nor should they pretend to others, that this is what they’re doing.
- mkfreeberg | 01/16/2013 @ 13:27
mkfreeberg: No, you’re altering the supposition. It’s true that science often works by way of a layered approach but it’s false that it locks any of these in, the way you seek to do with these “baby steps.” Real science is chock full of cul de sacs, little episodes of “oops, we were wrong about that.”

Um, so are baby steps. They’re experimental and tentative, and only by trying different things does a baby learn to walk.

In science, we attempt to establish a few observational facts. We might then posit an explanation, and try new tests to see if it fits our hypothesis. We continue this process, slowly acquiring knowledge of our subject. But unless you start with baby steps, you’ll never learn to walk.

mkfreeberg: State your argument, from stem to stern, so that others might find flaws in it.

We have.
- Zachriel | 01/16/2013 @ 13:28
We have.

Yes, and Captain Midnight has found problems with a part of it, whereas I’m simply refusing to concede some different part. So, do some science, and attend to the problems found, rather than trying to make strangers on the Internet irreversibly commit to the fun parts that you like better. If you can’t do that, then you’re not stating your argument in a scientific way…it’s more like you’re reciting something, like a campfire song, and then chastising whoever isn’t singing along.

Thus far, all you’ve managed to illustrate, is how the thinking works among people who uncritically buy into all this. This actually damages your point rather than reinforcing it, because it’s easy to see your methods are not scientific. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly by others besides just me.
- mkfreeberg | 01/16/2013 @ 13:31
Thank you for the link. It makes looking up the source material much easier. From the abstract:

Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface.

Hello, predicted hotspot!

Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend. However, non-climatic biases have been found in such measurements. Here we apply the thermal-wind equation to wind measurements from radiosonde data, which seem to be more stable than the temperature data.

So direct temperature measurements don’t show this trend using equipment designed to measure temperature. Instead climate scientists “discovered” the expected heat that their models predict, but that their instruments don’t detect, by treating wind as a better measurement for temperature than thermometers.

If a model isn’t backed up by measurements and facts, the model should be reexamined for accuracy. Instead climate scientists are looking to wind to fit their models. Sounds to me like coming up with epicycles to force the planets to fit the Ptolemaic theory of perfect circular orbits rather than examining the Ptolemaic theory of astronomy for accuracy.
- Captain Midnight | 01/16/2013 @ 13:34
Lo… the dead horse rises to ride again.

I said it before, and I guess I have to say it again – gosh, the Zachriel sure seem to talk as if they were some superior breed: aliens or something. “Baby steps” indeed – so now if you disagree, you’re an infant who has to be led by the hand everywhere? What a total load.
- nightfly | 01/16/2013 @ 13:44
Captain Midnight: Hello, predicted hotspot!

That’s right. It’s predicted due to the adiabatic lapse rate.

Captain Midnight: So direct temperature measurements don’t show this trend using equipment designed to measure temperature.

Yes, and as we explained, the historical data is spotty and of uneven quality. We provided studies that addressed this issue.

Captain Midnight: Instead climate scientists are looking to wind to fit their models.

Independent measures is essential in science. You have to show why the study is flawed, not merely wave your hands.
- Zachriel | 01/16/2013 @ 13:56
Captain Midnight: Hello, predicted hotspot!
Zachriel That’s right. It’s predicted due to the adiabatic lapse rate.

Predicted but not measured. Let me remind you again of the the ClimateScience.gov pdf that predicts the hotspot on page 26 and admits that it’s not there on page 116.

Captain Midnight: Instead climate scientists are looking to wind to fit their models.
Zachriel Independent measures is essential in science. You have to show why the study is flawed, not merely wave your hands.

A model that predicts an atmospheric hotspot is flawed when no hotspot is detected using the devices designed to actually detect temperature. Climate scientists admit that thermometers don’t capture the expected results of their model, but they don’t look at the model as the source of the problem. Instead, they reach for winds to “prove” their model. What’s next? Using light meters as a way of measuring sound when microphones fail to do so?

I see why you object to hand-waving. It might throw off the “temperature” of the atmosphere by the extra winds.
- Captain Midnight | 01/16/2013 @ 14:36
Captain Midnight: Predicted but not measured.

The short term observations are consistent with models, but long term measurements are spotty and inconsistent (Titchner et al. 2009). That’s because of early equipment problems, and because fewer resources were expended on studying tropical weather in the past. We can cite the studies, but we can’t make you read them.

Captain Midnight: Let me remind you again of the the ClimateScience.gov pdf that predicts the hotspot on page 26 and admits that it’s not there on page 116.

Let’s read what is says:

This preliminary analysis suggests that the large-scale “fingerprint” of stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming over the satellite era – a robust feature of previous detection work – has not been fundamentally altered by the inclusion of hitherto-neglected forcings like carbonaceous aerosols and LULC changes (see Table 5.3). This does not diminish the need to quantify the individual contributions of these forcings in appropriate “single forcing” experiments.

Your own citation supports our original claim.

Captain Midnight: What’s next? Using light meters as a way of measuring sound when microphones fail to do so?

Yes, laser interferometry can be used to detect sound at a distance.
- Zachriel | 01/16/2013 @ 15:13
Zachriel The short term observations are consistent with models, but long term measurements are spotty and inconsistent (Titchner et al. 2009). That’s because of early equipment problems, and because fewer resources were expended on studying tropical weather in the past. We can cite the studies, but we can’t make you read them.

That article is more about massaging the temperature data than it is about the lack of robust long term measurements. And it mentions specific datasets that don’t comply with modeled trends. I find it interesting that some of the temperature readings are judged to be “biased cold” in the report because they don’t more closely track with the model. Note that the model’s prediction is held up as the standard, and recorded measurements are seen to be off of the model, and not the other way around.

Captain Midnight: Let me remind you again of the the ClimateScience.gov pdf that predicts the hotspot on page 26 and admits that it’s not there on page 116.
Zachriel Let’s read what is says:
This preliminary analysis suggests that the large-scale “fingerprint” of stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming over the satellite era – a robust feature of previous detection work – has not been fundamentally altered by the inclusion of hitherto-neglected forcings like carbonaceous aerosols and LULC changes (see Table 5.3). This does not diminish the need to quantify the individual contributions of these forcings in appropriate “single forcing” experiments.
Your own citation supports our original claim.

“Hey, guys! The analysis suggests that we aren’t seeing the warming that our models are predicting. How about we add some ~~epicycles~~ aerosol forcings to push the numbers into line with our theory?”

Captain Midnight: What’s next? Using light meters as a way of measuring sound when microphones fail to do so?
Zachriel Yes, laser interferometry can be used to detect sound at a distance.

Which is why open-laser interferometry nights are all the rage currently in bars.
- Captain Midnight | 01/16/2013 @ 17:06
Captain Midnight Which is why open-laser interferometry nights are all the rage currently in bars.

“Thanks for coming out to open-laser interferometry night here at Tom’s. First up is a regular, Sally, with some more of her poetry.”

“My soul.
A dark miasma of hate.
Why did I sell it to Satan?”

silence

*tap* *tap* “Hey, is this light meter on?”
- Captain Midnight | 01/16/2013 @ 18:05
Captain Midnight: That article is more about massaging the temperature data than it is about the lack of robust long term measurements.

The reason people go to doctors when they’re sick is because they know more about disease than their plumber.

The problem is with the historical data. It was collected by multiple parties, using different methodologies, for various purposes. Climatologists are now trying to use this data to reconstruct historical changes. The problem is that the data is spotty and inconsistent. There are breakpoints in the data which are clearly observational artifacts. Therefore, no matter what, the data must be homogenized, that is, biases and discontinuities removed to provide the best possible reconstruction. You have not addressed this, nor even seem to understand the problem.

We could simply say the data is unreliable, in which case, there is no historical data to determine anything about the long term tropical tropospheric hotspot. We have good data supporting the short term tropical tropospheric hotspot. But scientists are very adept at extracting information from tenuous data. The slightest change in the brightness of a star can be used to infer the existence of an exoplanet. A trace of antibodies can be used to detect cancer. And data from old radiosondes may be analyzed in order to create a reasonably reliable historical record. But you can’t use the unadjusted data due to the very obvious problems with breakpoints and other anomalies.

Captain Midnight: The analysis suggests that we aren’t seeing the warming that our models are predicting. How about we add some epicycles aerosol forcings to push the numbers into line with our theory?”

But that’s not what it said, and aerosols certainly do influence climate. We have natural experiments, such as volcanic eruptions that give us a good understanding of how aerosols cool the climate, such as 1816, the Year Without a Summer, or more recently, the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

Captain Midnight: Which is why open-laser interferometry nights are all the rage currently in bars.

What you said was “What’s next? Using light meters as a way of measuring sound when microphones fail to do so?” You asked about situations where conventional microphones are ineffective, and that’s exactly what laser interferometry is used for. This is an example of how scientists learn to collect often tenuous data by unorthodox methods, such as measuring wind to infer temperature, detecting light to infer sound, or watching Brownian motion to infer the existence of distinct molecules.

http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS210/Microphone/index.html

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/more_stuff/Applets/brownian/brownian.html
- Zachriel | 01/17/2013 @ 06:08
I really doubt the big problem here is with the historical data. They saw what they saw, and measured what they measured, and since they were interested in finding out what was actually going on, they were as accurate as they could be. They weren’t worried at all about “What does this prove?” at that point, they just wanted to record it. We’re the ones looking back and finding things that we don’t like, and then deciding that it HAD to have been inaccurate, because of “different breakpoints and other anomalies.” So we massage that stuff, too, to fit in better with what we expected to find.

As has been remarked, real science starts with what’s actually there, and tries to find out what it means afterward. I’m pretty sure that’s what the good Captain was talking about with microphones and laser meters… the microphone may not have picked it up, but we all still heard something. The sound is the important thing. We use whatever we can to measure the actual sound; we don’t switch methods just because we happen not to like what we’ve heard.

The Global Somethening Cause is all about sentences first, and trials afterward. Even if it all turns out to have been accurate, I wouldn’t dare trust its acolytes with the authority to do anything about it. A movement that changes data to fit a computer simulation is likely to try the same thing with humanity – forcing people and ruining lives for the sake of theory.
- nightfly | 01/17/2013 @ 08:07
nightfly: I really doubt the big problem here is with the historical data.

Of course there’s problems with the data. For instance, there are sudden discontinuities in particular stations, coincident to changing the instruments being used.
- Zachriel | 01/17/2013 @ 08:55
Captain Midnight: Which is why open-laser interferometry nights are all the rage currently in bars.
Zachriel What you said was “What’s next? Using light meters as a way of measuring sound when microphones fail to do so?” You asked about situations where conventional microphones are ineffective, and that’s exactly what laser interferometry is used for. This is an example of how scientists learn to collect often tenuous data by unorthodox methods, such as measuring wind to infer temperature, detecting light to infer sound, or watching Brownian motion to infer the existence of distinct molecules.

I’m going to go with the assumption that you just simple are missing the point here. Climate scientists didn’t resort to inferring temperature from winds because there was no results from their thermometers, but because the results from their thermometers didn’t match their expected values. I draw your attention again to graph E from figure 5.7 on page 116 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf that is the “radiosonde data °C/decade (1979 to 1999)”. They have the temperatures logged there in the graph. Notice that there are gaps in the graph. They are acknowledging that there are missing spots in their temperature records, but the bulk where the predicted hotspot should be is included in the graph because they have the data.

But the climate scientists are wedded to their model more than the data. So when the predicted hotspot doesn’t appear in their data using real, actual thermometers, they resort to inferring that the heat really is there, and that wind is a better way of identifying temperature than thermometers. Again, I refer you to Titchner’s 2009 article you mentioned that discusses on page 474 section 5 that “The unadjusted daytime trend is biased cold relative to the climate model expectation…” Notice that the data is “biased cold” in relation to the model. For these climate scientists, it’s Klimamodell über alles and the data needs to be worked and reworked, adjusted and normalized, massaged and tweaked to make it fit the model.

I scoff at the idea of winds being a better gauge of temperature than thermometers precisely because the winds are used as a way of getting temperatures that fit the models when the thermometer records are not toeing the model’s line, not because the thermometers don’t work, and using winds are a way of extending our data-gathering ability. Using laser interferometry to capture sound when microphones are incapable of doing so makes senses, like in the spy trope of recording a distant room’s sounds by bouncing a laser off the window. The government agents aren’t able to put a mike in the room, so they resort to Q-branch tech.

If we were to apply the climate scientists’ standard of using wind to gather different data when they dislike what the thermometers are recording to my “open-laser interferometry nights” example, then a friend recording Sally’s steaming pile of poetry with his microphone could say that her poem was much better when captured by his light meter, and the friend produces something different from what the microphone picked up.

“Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day…”
- Captain Midnight | 01/17/2013 @ 09:42
Zachriel The problem is with the historical data. It was collected by multiple parties, using different methodologies, for various purposes. Climatologists are now trying to use this data to reconstruct historical changes. The problem is that the data is spotty and inconsistent. There are breakpoints in the data which are clearly observational artifacts. Therefore, no matter what, the data must be homogenized, that is, biases and discontinuities removed to provide the best possible reconstruction. You have not addressed this, nor even seem to understand the problem.

My problem is that the people who are homogenizing the temperature record are the same people who view the model as being more important than the data. So the existing spotty and inconsistent temperature is being homogenized, and the trend is always hotter and hotter results. And. I. Don’t. Trust. Their. Numbers.
- Captain Midnight | 01/17/2013 @ 09:54
Captain Midnight: The analysis suggests that we aren’t seeing the warming that our models are predicting. How about we add some epicycles aerosol forcings to push the numbers into line with our theory?”
Zachriel But that’s not what it said, and aerosols certainly do influence climate. We have natural experiments, such as volcanic eruptions that give us a good understanding of how aerosols cool the climate, such as 1816, the Year Without a Summer, or more recently, the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

Both Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. Tambora were massive eruptions, and both cooled the planet measurably. But the theory of man-caused aerosols having a significant cooling effect on the atmosphere has some problems. First, the theory says that man-caused aerosols are masking half or more of mankind’s warming, but aerosols are short lived, when compared with CO2, and are concentrated in specific areas. To have a world-wide effect of cooling the planet as they are assumed to do, they’d have to produce monstrous cooling in the local areas in the realm of many degrees. And if aerosols are masking temperatures in a significant way, then we’d see the northern hemisphere to have less warming than the southern hemisphere, since most aerosols are up in the north. But records show the opposite.

For thems what care, Warren Meyer produced a nice 10 minute video talking about this, along with comparing historical temperature with model predictions.
- Captain Midnight | 01/17/2013 @ 10:21
Captain Midnight: Climate scientists didn’t resort to inferring temperature from winds because there was no results from their thermometers, but because the results from their thermometers didn’t match their expected values.

There were known problems with the temperature record, so per usual scientific practice, they attempt to find an independent measure.

Captain Midnight: So when the predicted hotspot doesn’t appear in their data using real, actual thermometers, they resort to inferring that the heat really is there, and that wind is a better way of identifying temperature than thermometers.

The temperature readings have known problems. We’ve pointed this out before, pointed you to studies, but you seem to keep ignoring the point.

Captain Midnight: I scoff …

Yes, but scoffing is not an argument.

Captain Midnight: First, the theory says that man-caused aerosols are masking half or more of mankind’s warming, but aerosols are short lived, when compared with CO2, and are concentrated in specific areas. To have a world-wide effect of cooling the planet as they are assumed to do, they’d have to produce monstrous cooling in the local areas in the realm of many degrees.

Do you think scientists might actually “measure” emissions and their effects with “instruments” and “whatnot”? Is it worth a short review of the literature to find out if they have?
- Zachriel | 01/17/2013 @ 11:46
Here’s a more recent study on the tropical tropospheric hotspot. Thorne et al., Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy, Wire’s Climate Change 2011: “It is concluded that there is no reasonable evidence of a fundamental disagreement between tropospheric temperature trends from models and observations when uncertainties in both are treated comprehensively.”
- Zachriel | 01/17/2013 @ 12:28
“I scoff…” … “But scoffing is not an argument.”

You did omit the whole reason why he scoffed, which is to say that you skipped the argument. Anything but answered.

I also observe that you straight-out admit that your preferred researchers are trying other methods of temperature measure because of “known problems.” This seems to be the big point to you, but you fail as ever to address why it’s a big point to us: the “problems” suddenly and mysteriously vanish when the measurements match what people want them to say – to fit a theory, instead of taking the facts and then theorizing from them. Sherlock Holmes would be ashamed of the lot of you.

This is what I observe:

The skeptic says, “These data are suspect.” They go on to say why, as Capt. Midnight’s several links at 9:54 show: placing so many sensors so close to artificial heat sources gooses the numbers. There are also well-known problems with the infamous hockey stick graph, exposure of collusion and predetermining results via the East Anglia emails, and a host of contrary scientific work casting doubt on the certainty of those predetermined results.

The acolyte says, “The historical data are suspect.” They go on to simply alter it by fiat. They don’t let anyone else check that data, in some cases even destroying it to thwart independent testing and verification. They use influence (political or social), prestige withheld or conferred, to promote “friendly” studies and thwart or discredit “unfriendly” ones, as if this were a debate over hockey teams in a bar rather than a pursuit of objective fact. But when an issue is made over their dogmatic conduct, they immediately cry foul and claim Science is All.

It’s a farce, and if the Global Somethening model was really that robust, it wouldn’t need any of this sort of underhanded crap. It would stand on its own, and those who stood by their work would not fear it being independently checked. In fact, they’d welcome it, and if that checking showed problems, they would be doubly-pleased, because they would learn something new.
- nightfly | 01/17/2013 @ 12:55
nightfly: You did omit the whole reason why he scoffed, which is to say that you skipped the argument.

Scoffing doesn’t invite close look at one’s arguments. And we did address the argument. We’ll address it again.

Captain Midnight: I scoff at the idea of winds being a better gauge of temperature than thermometers precisely because the winds are used as a way of getting temperatures that fit the models when the thermometer records are not toeing the model’s line, not because the thermometers don’t work, and using winds are a way of extending our data-gathering ability.

Independent measures are an essential methodology of science. Even when one set of data seems conclusive, independent measures add confidence that the findings are valid. In this case, we have long term temperature data with known problems, that is inconsistent with short term temperature data. As the data becomes less reliable, it veers more from the expected pattern. So using an independent measure is exactly what is prescribed.

Captain Midnight: Using laser interferometry to capture sound when microphones are incapable of doing so makes senses, like in the spy trope of recording a distant room’s sounds by bouncing a laser off the window. The government agents aren’t able to put a mike in the room, so they resort to Q-branch tech.

Captain Midnight had scoffed that people would use light to detect sound when conventional microphones don’t work. And, in fact,laser interferometry is used to detect sound in situations where conventional microphones don’t work.

Captain Midnight: This seems to be the big point to you, but you fail as ever to address why it’s a big point to us: the “problems” suddenly and mysteriously vanish when the measurements match what people want them to say – to fit a theory, instead of taking the facts and then theorizing from them.

For historical reasons, we have spotty and inconsistent temperature measurements of the tropical troposphere due to different and changing equipment, different countries, different standards, sporadic investment, without regard to any potential use decades later. If you prefer to ignore the data, then we can use proxies.

nightlfy: They go on to simply alter it by fiat.

No. You have to analyze the data and the events surrounding the data collection, and use independent measures. How did you think science worked?
- Zachriel | 01/17/2013 @ 13:38
Z: “Independent measures are an essential methodology of science. Even when one set of data seems conclusive, independent measures add confidence that the findings are valid. In this case, we have long term temperature data with known problems, that is inconsistent with short term temperature data. As the data becomes less reliable, it veers more from the expected pattern. So using an independent measure is exactly what is prescribed.”

This really doesn’t answer our objection. If one measurement says one thing, and another says something different, what is your justification for tossing the ones you don’t like and holding onto the ones you do? And you’re as good as saying that you’re doing it – you define less reliable as “veers more from the expected pattern” and thus toss anything that isn’t in that pattern because “it’s less reliable.” What I’m still waiting for is any recognition that maybe the “expected pattern” is the problem here – and to answer your final question, that is how I think science works. Not by tossing what doesn’t fit, or massaging it with a formula you won’t disclose, or ignoring parts of it and refusing to let anyone see those parts. That is pretty definitively what “by fiat” means.

You keep saying that it’s the skeptics who are ignoring the data, when this entire freaking double-dipped conversation has been all about trying to get to the unaltered data, which your side is so keen on vanishing.

In any case, it’s lost its charm a lot sooner this time. We object, you use the objection itself as an attempt to bolster your argument, or else you simply use the objection yourself – in that way it gets to be valid when you use it, but not when we do. If your position was so unassailable you wouldn’t be pulling this middle-school gifted-program bunk. We aren’t the ones who prefer to ignore data. We aren’t the ones who don’t know how science works. We certainly aren’t the ones who hand-wave things away. And if we scoff, it’s because you’ve earned it.
- nightfly | 01/17/2013 @ 14:26
nightfly: This really doesn’t answer our objection. If one measurement says one thing, and another says something different, what is your justification for tossing the ones you don’t like and holding onto the ones you do?

By examining the evidence in detail to determine where the problems lie. For instance, older radiosonde temperature measurements have discontinuities. Statistical methods are used to determine how to align these discontinuous measurements. A simple example would be a discontinuity concurrent with a change of equipment.
- Zachriel | 01/17/2013 @ 15:23
Scientists study the evidence in a lot of detail. Here’s a study of just the the Australian radiosonde stations:

Christy & Norris, Discontinuity Issues with Radiosonde and Satellite Temperatures in the Australian Region 1979–2006, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 2008: “Four periods of significant shifts in temperatures were found in the radiosondes relative to both satellite datasets. In the first two shifts—around 1982/83 and 1987/88—the radiosondes experienced an accumulated LT and MT warming shift of 0.5 K on average. These shifts coincided with equipment changes.”

But it’s easier to scoff than to actually grapple with the data.
- Zachriel | 01/17/2013 @ 15:37
Zachriel Captain Midnight had scoffed that people would use light to detect sound when conventional microphones don’t work. And, in fact,laser interferometry is used to detect sound in situations where conventional microphones don’t work.

I’m going to quote myself from 01/17/2013 @ 09:42:
I’m going to go with the assumption that you just simple are missing the point here. Climate scientists didn’t resort to inferring temperature from winds because there was no results from their thermometers, but because the results from their thermometers didn’t match their expected values.

You my continue your toot about microphones if it makes you feel grand, but you continue to ignore the fact that thermometers were successful in capturing atmosphere temperatures, but because they didn’t agree with the Klimamodell über alles mindset, the climate scientists moved on to winds to make the numbers conform to their theory.

I have pointed out multiple times now that climate scientists are more wedded to their models than they are to the data. You have not addressed this, nor even seem to understand the problem.
- Captain Midnight | 01/18/2013 @ 10:52
Captain Midnight: You my continue your toot about microphones if it makes you feel grand, but you continue to ignore the fact that thermometers were successful in capturing atmosphere temperatures

As we have pointed out, there are multiple problems with thermometer readings. There is information that can be gleaned, but not by ignoring these problems.

Christy & Norris, Discontinuity Issues with Radiosonde and Satellite Temperatures in the Australian Region 1979–2006, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 2008: “Four periods of significant shifts in temperatures were found in the radiosondes relative to both satellite datasets. In the first two shifts—around 1982/83 and 1987/88—the radiosondes experienced an accumulated LT and MT warming shift of 0.5 K on average. These shifts coincided with equipment changes.”

Captain Midnight: I have pointed out multiple times now that climate scientists are more wedded to their models than they are to the data. You have not addressed this, nor even seem to understand the problem.

You claim so, yes, but you haven’t provided evidence that the basic findings are in error.
- Zachriel | 01/18/2013 @ 11:47
This paper discusses some of the issues with radiosonde data, Eskridge, et al., Unexplained Discontinuity in the U.S. Radiosonde Temperature Data, Journal of Climate 2003.
- Zachriel | 01/18/2013 @ 12:03
Captain Midnight: I have pointed out multiple times now that climate scientists are more wedded to their models than they are to the data. You have not addressed this, nor even seem to understand the problem.
Zachriel You claim so, yes, but you haven’t provided evidence that the basic findings are in error.

Aaaaand you dodged the question. The question isn’t about error in the data; the question is about bias in favor of the models over the data.
- Captain Midnight | 01/18/2013 @ 13:07
Captain Midnight: The question isn’t about error in the data; the question is about bias in favor of the models over the data.

Which explains why thousands of scientists continue working to collect more and more evidence, use advanced methods to analyze data, test scientific hypotheses, and thereby further our understanding of Earth’s climate.
- Zachriel | 01/18/2013 @ 15:09
Jesus, I sure am glad it’s only “climate science” that works this way, not something important! Can you imagine if medicine worked like this?

“Doc, I think there’s something seriously wrong with me!”

“Oh, it’s just allergies.”

“But doctor, I’m losing a lot of blood!”

“Yep, hay fever will do that. Dries your sinuses right out. You’ve got a minor nosebleed from allergic rhinitis.”

“But doc, it’s not a nosebleed! I’m losing pints here! And look, there’s this knife sticking out of my kidney.”

“Abdominal tenderness is very common with hay fever. We’ll have to run a blood test to be sure, but I’m positive it’s allergies.”

“But… but… the knife!”

“Balderdash. According to Funk and Wagnall (1993), a knife in the kidney causes paralyzing pain. You couldn’t be talking to me right now if you really had a knife in your kidneys.”

“But doc! I AM talking to you!”

“Exactly. Hay fever. The sound of your own voice proves it.”

[patient keels over, dies]

“Why, that’s the fourth fatal hay fever case I’ve had this week! I’d best apply for an NIH grant to figure out why all these acute hay fever cases keep showing up in this trauma ward…..”
- Severian | 01/18/2013 @ 15:36
Captain Midnight: The question isn’t about error in the data; the question is about bias in favor of the models over the data.
Zachriel Which explains why thousands of scientists continue working to collect more and more evidence, use advanced methods to analyze data, test scientific hypotheses, and thereby further our understanding of Earth’s climate.

Aaaaand you dodged the question. Again. I draw your attention to graph A from figure 1.3 on page 25 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf, that predicts a warming in the range of 1.0 – 1.2°C. Then waaaay in the back comes graph E from figure 5.7 on page 116 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf of the temperature changes in the atmosphere from 1979 to 1999 that shows a change in the 0.0 to 0.1°C range where the models predict almost a full 1°C higher temperatures should be. The predicted temperatures aren’t there.

What is the response? Climate scientists and ~~global warming~~ climate change fearmongers question the data and resort to alternative methods of getting to the data the models predict.

Bias in favor of the models over the data. Q.E.D.
- Captain Midnight | 01/18/2013 @ 16:33
[…] there’s been some activity in the Thread that Wouldn’t Die over at Morgan’s place. I bear the responsibility for this — a fellow called Captain […]
- The Greatest Offensive Catcher in Baseball History | Rotten Chestnuts | 01/18/2013 @ 18:00
Captain Midnight: I draw your attention to graph A from figure 1.3 on page 25 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf, that predicts a warming in the range of 1.0 – 1.2°C.

We have responded several times concerning the tropical tropospheric hotspot, including providing multiple citations. You have ignored those responses, then claimed we haven’t responded. Not sure how else to help you.
- Zachriel | 01/18/2013 @ 18:50
Captain Midnight: I draw your attention to graph A from figure 1.3 on page 25 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf, that predicts a warming in the range of 1.0 – 1.2°C.
Zachriel We have responded several times concerning the tropical tropospheric hotspot, including providing multiple citations. You have ignored those responses, then claimed we haven’t responded. Not sure how else to help you.

Aaaaand you dodged the question. Yet again. It’s not the predicted hotspot, by itself, that is the issue. It’s not the lack of real data, by itself, not fitting in with the model that is the issue. It is the way people in scientific fields are desperately clinging to the model as being more important than the data. The data is seen as being off from the models, and not the other way around, because the models are more important to them.

That’s not science. That’s faith.
- Captain Midnight | 01/19/2013 @ 10:17
Captain Midnight: I draw your attention to graph A from figure 1.3 on page 25 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf, that predicts a warming in the range of 1.0 – 1.2°C.
Zachriel We have responded several times concerning the tropical tropospheric hotspot, including providing multiple citations. You have ignored those responses, then claimed we haven’t responded. Not sure how else to help you.

Ah, yes. Your multiple citations. Other than the oft-linked graphic, and the once when I pointed out that you cite, but don’t link, you have failed to do us the common courtesy of giving us URLs to the works you cite. And when you do cite something, there has been no effort to point to a page, figure, or graph. It’s the whole document. Twice, I recall, you quoted something from the doc dump, but didn’t include a page number with the reference. So I see three possibilities for the continued behavior:

1) You don’t possess the common courtesy to provide URLs to the works you cite.
2) You’re too lazy to provide URLs to the works you cite, expecting others to do the work for you.
3) You’re farting out digital ink to cloud the issue.
- Captain Midnight | 01/19/2013 @ 10:18
Captain Midnight: I draw your attention to graph A from figure 1.3 on page 25 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf, that predicts a warming in the range of 1.0 – 1.2°C.
Zachriel We have responded several times concerning the tropical tropospheric hotspot, including providing multiple citations. You have ignored those responses, then claimed we haven’t responded. Not sure how else to help you.

The claim that you haven’t responded comes from my post on 01/18/2013 @ 10:52: I have pointed out multiple times now that climate scientists are more wedded to their models than they are to the data. You have not addressed this, nor even seem to understand the problem.

The question isn’t about the tropical tropospheric hotspot. The question isn’t about the lack of historical data to back up the tropical tropospheric hotspot. The question isn’t about errors or discontinuities in temperature readings.

The question is about bias in favor of the models over the data by climate scientists and climate change fearmongers.
- Captain Midnight | 01/19/2013 @ 10:18
Captain Midnight: Ah, yes. Your multiple citations. Other than the oft-linked graphic, and the once when I pointed out that you cite, but don’t link, you have failed to do us the common courtesy of giving us URLs to the works you cite. And when you do cite something, there has been no effort to point to a page, figure, or graph. It’s the whole document. Twice, I recall, you quoted something from the doc dump, but didn’t include a page number with the reference.

We provided valid scientific citations. You might have to actually make some effort to read and understand the papers. Sorry, but not all papers are available outside of journals. Papers are sometimes available on the author’s personal website, but not always.

Captain Midnight: Aaaaand you dodged the question. Yet again. It’s not the predicted hotspot, by itself, that is the issue. It’s not the lack of real data, by itself, not fitting in with the model that is the issue. It is the way people in scientific fields are desperately clinging to the model as being more important than the data. The data is seen as being off from the models, and not the other way around, because the models are more important to them.

Yes, we understand the issue you are raising, but you have provided no evidence supporting your position, other than that scientists make adjustments to the data, which is standard scientific practice. Only by grappling with the data and the methods of analysis would you be able to make your case.
- Zachriel | 01/19/2013 @ 13:19
Zachriel Yes, we understand the issue you are raising, but you have provided no evidence supporting your position, other than that scientists make adjustments to the data, which is standard scientific practice. Only by grappling with the data and the methods of analysis would you be able to make your case.

You keep thinking that bias is a matter of data, when it is a matter of outlook. I’ll remind you again that scientists were able to measure the temperature of the atmosphere for the period of 1979 to 1999 as demonstrated by graph E from figure 5.7 on page 116 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf. But because they didn’t agree with the Klimamodell über alles mindset, the climate scientists moved on to winds to make the numbers conform to their theory. That is bias in favor of the theory over the data.

And I’ll remind you again that in Titchners 2009 paper that discusses on page 474 section 5 that “The unadjusted daytime trend is biased cold relative to the climate model expectation…” Notice that the data is “biased cold” in relation to the model. For these climate scientists, it’s Klimamodell über alles and the data needs to be worked and reworked, adjusted and normalized, massaged and tweaked to make it fit the model. That is bias in favor of the theory over the data.

Both examples are minor rewording of what I’d posted before. Both show scientists more attached to their theories than the data.

Q.E.D.
- Captain Midnight | 01/21/2013 @ 11:32
Captain Minight: You keep thinking that bias is a matter of data, when it is a matter of outlook.

Merely pointing to “outlook” is scientifically meaningless. You have to show that the bias is affecting the science.

Captain Minight: “The unadjusted daytime trend is biased cold relative to the climate model expectation…”

Not sure you understand what you’re reading. Santer et al. 2005 correctly identified the discrepancy between model and and the unadjusted data. Santer et al. suggested it may be due to unidentified mechanisms that affect the long term trend, or due to observational artifacts.

Titchner et al. shows that the discrepancy is likely due to systematic biases in the data, in particular, a cooling bias in daytime observations, but they can’t accurately estimate the magnitude of the bias. The data is still too sparse to reach more definitive conclusions.
- Zachriel | 01/21/2013 @ 13:42
Captain Minight: You keep thinking that bias is a matter of data, when it is a matter of outlook.
Zachriel Merely pointing to “outlook” is scientifically meaningless. You have to show that the bias is affecting the science.

And you keep moving the goalposts for proof you’ll accept. It’s no wonder you refuse delivery.

Captain Minight: “The unadjusted daytime trend is biased cold relative to the climate model expectation…”
Zachriel Not sure you understand what you’re reading. Santer et al. 2005 correctly identified the discrepancy between model and and the unadjusted data. Santer et al. suggested it may be due to unidentified mechanisms that affect the long term trend, or due to observational artifacts.
Titchner et al. shows that the discrepancy is likely due to systematic biases in the data, in particular, a cooling bias in daytime observations, but they can’t accurately estimate the magnitude of the bias. The data is still too sparse to reach more definitive conclusions.

Do you notice that in each case here, the data is being called into question? At no point do I recall you, or any of the cited authors, ever calling their models into question. The models are the object of veneration that all data must bow before. Again, this is faith, not science.
- Captain Midnight | 01/21/2013 @ 14:07
Captain Midnight: At no point do I recall you, or any of the cited authors, ever calling their models into question.

Santer et al. 2005.
- Zachriel | 01/21/2013 @ 14:22
Merely pointing to “outlook” is scientifically meaningless. You have to show that the bias is affecting the science.

Um…”You have to show such-and-such”…in order to…what, exactly? There’s an implication here of some task being attempted and potentially achieved, the achievement of which would be an objective determination not dependent on any intelligent observer’s feelings, preconceived notions or biases. Like dunking someone in a tank by throwing a softball at a paddle.

I interpose that with the five W’s and I see an explosion, much like what one sees when one drops a Menthos in Diet Coke.

– What would be the task attempted, here?
– How do we know when it has been achieved?
– Who arbitrates this?
– What other criteria are there for getting this done?
– Where are they written down?

Failing some quality responses to all of these, it looks like proof of what I was saying earlier today.
- mkfreeberg | 01/21/2013 @ 14:46
mkfreeberg: Um…”You have to show such-and-such”…in order to…what, exactly?

To provide valid support for a scientific claim.
- Zachriel | 01/21/2013 @ 14:49
Unless I’ve lost track, CM was actually challenging a scientific claim, not providing support for an alternative one.

Those are two different things.
- mkfreeberg | 01/21/2013 @ 15:07
mkfreeberg: Unless I’ve lost track, CM was actually challenging a scientific claim, not providing support for an alternative one.

He’s saying the scientists have misinterpreted the data, or rather forced the data to fit their models, which “are the object of veneration that all data must bow before.” That requires understanding the studies in question. Santer et al. point out a problem with the long-term data. Because the data supports the short term, they conclude that either the models fail to account for some mechanism that is only apparent over the long term, or more likely, the discrepancy may be due to the paucity and known problems with the long term data. Titchner et al. are attempting to answer this question.

None of this calls into question anthropogenic climate change, but may make long term predictions more difficult.
- Zachriel | 01/21/2013 @ 15:17
None of this calls into question anthropogenic climate change, but may make long term predictions more difficult.

Well…that’s half correct.
- mkfreeberg | 01/21/2013 @ 15:20
Zachriel Titchner et al. shows that the discrepancy is likely due to systematic biases in the data, in particular, a cooling bias in daytime observations, but they can’t accurately estimate the magnitude of the bias. The data is still too sparse to reach more definitive conclusions.

It is the data that is viewed as not meeting the model’s prediction, and not that the model isn’t matching the measured data.

Zachriel He’s saying the scientists have misinterpreted the data, or rather forced the data to fit their models…

Uh, no. In the first of the two examples from my post on 01/21/2013 @ 11:32, the data is there, but it’s not the numbers they want because they don’t match the model’s predictions. So scientists decided that inferring temperatures from wind is a better gauge of what’s really happening over that of actual thermometer readings. In the second, the data is seen as being colder than the expected model’s numbers. The model is the yardstick that the data is measured against.
- Captain Midnight | 01/21/2013 @ 17:42
Captain Midnight: Do you notice that in each case here, the data is being called into question? At no point do I recall you, or any of the cited authors, ever calling their models into question.

You need to correct that misstatement statement. Santer et al.—as cited by Titchner et al.— specifically addresses that question, a question which Titchner is attempting to answer.

You also need to address our other points. Santer et al. found it more plausible that there were residual errors in the data-sets, because the modern data, which is more accurate and more widespread, strongly supports the model. However, they allowed that there may be other mechanisms that affect the long-term trend that are not accounted for in the current models.

Captain Midnight: It is the data that is viewed as not meeting the model’s prediction, and not that the model isn’t matching the measured data.

The historical data wasn’t collected for climate research, but for regional weather forecasting. Ground stations were not located to provide a global picture, discontinuities occur due to changes in instruments, hardware, software, or procedures. The data isn’t usable in the original form, but there are a variety of statistical means to remove the inhomogeneities. Titchner et al. use various error models to determine the most probable cause of the discrepancy.

Captain Midnight: So scientists decided that inferring temperatures from wind is a better gauge of what’s really happening over that of actual thermometer readings.

Sorry, but that is also incorrect. Scientists use every available means to determine the underlying facts. That means trying to extract trends from less than perfect temperature data, then comparing it to wind data from the same radiosondes, launching satellites to measure radiation patterns, traveling to the poles to collect crucial evidence. It’s what scientists do.

Captain Midnight: So scientists decided that inferring temperatures from wind is a better gauge of what’s really happening over that of actual thermometer readings.

Read your statement again. The “actual thermometer readings” show sudden jumps in temperature when the instruments are changed or even when personnel change. Do you really think that those jumps indicate a real change in temperature? You cannot simply plot the raw data and get any real results.

The tropical tropospheric hotspot is supported by the recent, most accurate data, and is less supported by the older, less accurate data. Sure, there could be other mechanisms that affect the long-term trend, but the hotspot isn’t a signature of greenhouse warming, and is expected to be due to any source of warming, even regional warming. And the globe has warmed over the period in question. So even if Titchner et al. is wrong, that doesn’t directly impact the hypothesis that the warming is due to greenhouse gases.
- Zachriel | 01/22/2013 @ 06:44
There are a lot of ways to homogenize the data, depending on various choices made, such as how we recognize a discontinuity. See Thorne et al., Uncertainties in climate trends: Lessons from upper-air temperature records, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 2005a.

Titchner et al. explores this question. They found that errors were not likely due to false breakpoint detection, but due to missed breakpoints or incorrect adjustments. They recommend not relying upon a single homogenization method for trend estimation.

Titchner et al. does not find direct evidence of the tropical tropospheric hotspot. Rather, they simply show that the error bars are high enough that the data doesn’t preclude the existence of the hotspot.

Hope that helps.
- Zachriel | 01/22/2013 @ 07:08
Rather, they simply show that the error bars are high enough that the data doesn’t preclude the existence of the hotspot.

Interesting and ironic to see a warmist use that argument.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s a valid argument. But it applies in other areas as well. Such as in the area of … how much of the warming since 1930 can be attributed to anthropogenic activity over the warming that’s occurred since 1850 and other compeletly non-anthropogenic contributions?

When the margin of error in your data is on the same (or higher) order of magnitude of the thing you’re trying to explain with your theory, this tends to happen. That is, you can’t really conclude anything definitive from it.

Smoothing and homogenizing is all well and good as far as it goes, but it doesn’t change this fact. That and another nickel still won’t buy you a soda.

I suppose it’s consistent in that it’s another iteration of “just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there.”

Wasn’t someone talking about faith earlier?
- philmon | 01/22/2013 @ 11:13
That’s where I was going 1/21/13 15:07. Seems to me, these scientific claims are being held to a standard that is more relaxed than the standard imposed on the challenges against them.

When the challenge has to meet a more rigorous standard than the scientific claim being challenged…I have a difficult time seeing such a claim as scientific.
- mkfreeberg | 01/22/2013 @ 11:26
philmon: Interesting and ironic to see a warmist use that argument.

That’s what the paper found. They could not robustly quantify the degree of bias.

philmon: how much of the warming since 1930 can be attributed to anthropogenic activity over the warming that’s occurred since 1850 and other compeletly non-anthropogenic contributions?

And that question is being intensely studied. That’s why they launch satellites, and travel to remote locations to collect data.

philmon: When the margin of error in your data is on the same (or higher) order of magnitude of the thing you’re trying to explain with your theory, this tends to happen.

The short term fluctuations are larger than the long term trends. There are several ways to approach the problem. First and foremost, more data. In addition, by collecting different kinds of evidence. Then modern methods of data analysis to extract as much information as possible from less than perfect data.

philmon: Smoothing and homogenizing is all well and good as far as it goes, but it doesn’t change this fact. That and another nickel still won’t buy you a soda.

In fact, such methods of data analysis are part and parcel of modern science, and forms the basis of much of current technology. For instance, a cellphone can extract signals from below the noise floor.
- Zachriel | 01/22/2013 @ 11:40
mkfreeberg: Seems to me, these scientific claims are being held to a standard that is more relaxed than the standard imposed on the challenges against them.

The claim was that the data *contradicted* the existence of long term tropical tropospheric amplification. However, the data is *consistent* with the phenomenon, albeit with high margins of error. Better data and more advanced techniques may eventually resolve this issue.
- Zachriel | 01/22/2013 @ 11:45
mkfreeberg: Seems to me, these scientific claims are being held to a standard that is more relaxed than the standard imposed on the challenges against them.
Zachriel The claim was that the data *contradicted* the existence of long term tropical tropospheric amplification. However, the data is *consistent* with the phenomenon, albeit with high margins of error. Better data and more advanced techniques may eventually resolve this issue.

Yep, the data is consistent all right. You can tell by reading reports like Sherwood’s 2008 paper titled, “Robust Tropospheric Warming Revealed by Iteratively Homogenized Radiosonde Data.” This is one of those reports that includes winds as a proxy for temperature. And on page 5436 of the Journal of Climate (but thankfully page 11 of the pdf), a nifty graphic is displayed (Figure 6). On top are cross-sections of the atmosphere’s temperature changes over decades, the bottom are the climate model’s predicted temperatures. OMGWTFBBQ!!! Look at all that red! The scientists have found the missing hot spot! Global warming is real, and we’re all gonna die!

But before we cheerfully give up our freedoms to our climate change overlords, it pays to look at the scale for the graphs. Notice that 0 degrees of change is red. That means if the atmosphere didn’t change at all during the 1959-2005 or 1979-2005 timescales, the graphs would be all alarm-bell red! No change in temperature should be a neutral color instead of an eye-catching red. I raise the possibility that red was chosen purposefully to be eye-catching and boost the idea of a measured warm spot in the atmosphere, as predicted by the climate models. If we go back to graph E from figure 5.7 on page 116 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf of the temperature changes in the atmosphere from 1979 to 1999, we see a change in the 0.0 to 0.1°C range. Pretty much exactly what Sherwood found, but without the “look at me!” red.

Santer says that the missing hotspot could be there, but it’s just hiding in the margins of error. I think the hiding hotspot has well trained by H.M. Government’s public service film #42.
- Captain Midnight | 01/23/2013 @ 14:07
Captain Midnight: On top are cross-sections of the atmosphere’s temperature changes over decades, the bottom are the climate model’s predicted temperatures. OMGWTFBBQ!!! Look at all that red!

Not sure how you’re reading the graph (nor why the color would be important in a scientific context), but the conclusion is that the adjusted tropospheric temperature trends roughly agree with expectations, but there is still a lot of uncertainty due to the problematic nature of the data.
- Zachriel | 01/23/2013 @ 14:58
Zachriel (nor why the color would be important in a scientific context)

As Alsatia Zevo said, “Well, red usually means ‘Caution,’ or ‘Beef’ if it’s a bouillon cube.”
- Captain Midnight | 01/23/2013 @ 16:05
Pretty hard to ignore the psychological impact of red.

We don’t have to argue about that, do we?
- mkfreeberg | 01/23/2013 @ 16:07
mkfreeberg: Pretty hard to ignore the psychological impact of red.

It’s a scientific paper. Readers aren’t interested in the psychological impact, but the findings of the paper and how they are supported.

Captain Midnight: As Alsatia Zevo said, “Well, red usually means ‘Caution,’ or ‘Beef’ if it’s a bouillon cube.”

Heh! That’s what’s left of your argument—choice of color in a scientific graph?!
The color-choice is a standard spectrum aligned linearly to the data values.
http://flightspectrumllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/spectrum.gif

In any case, the findings aren’t determined by the colors in a graph, no matter how garish. The conclusion was that the adjusted tropospheric temperature trends roughly agree with expectations, but there is still a lot of uncertainty due to the problematic nature of the data.
- Zachriel | 01/24/2013 @ 06:33
mkfreeberg: Pretty hard to ignore the psychological impact of red.
Zachriel: It’s a scientific paper. Readers aren’t interested in the psychological impact, but the findings of the paper and how they are supported.

That is malarkey. Scientists are keenly interested in the psychological impact of their work on one important subset of people: journalists. They are very likely to be careless or willfully complicit in the deception and run the graph as-is, with all that red splashing across page 1 (or the digital equivalent).

You could dodge – indeed, I am certain you will dodge – by claiming that you’re not responsible for other people’s misunderstandings, but that too is far short of the truth. It was meant to be misunderstood. In fact, it’s part and parcel of the problem much under discussion here, that of preferring what a model says ought to happen vs. what actually is happening. At no point whatsoever have you offered any other reason for the unreliability of the raw data other than “it doesn’t match what we expected to find.” And you judge the quality of what you measure by how closely it matches what the computer spits out. If it takes some psychology to make the proles see what you wish, well, it’s all for a noble cause and they’re better off just shutting their cake-holes and submitting to us.

Far from being “what’s left of the argument,” it’s simply more fuel for the pants-on-fire. The behavior of the Global Somethening crowd has been one of advocacy, not science, pretty much from beginning to end. Once you do that, then all bets are off; line-crossers will cross lines, whether those are colors on a graph meant to alarm rather than inform, or the suppression and destruction of data unhelpful to the conclusion.
- nightfly | 01/24/2013 @ 08:24
nightfly: Scientists are keenly interested in the psychological impact of their work on one important subset of people: journalists.

Journalists rarely read scientific papers, or they would be better educated. Then again, they’re journalists, not scientists. They read press releases.

nightfly: At no point whatsoever have you offered any other reason for the unreliability of the raw data other than “it doesn’t match what we expected to find.”

We have not only listed problems with the data, but provided multiple citations. It’s what most of this thread is about. The radiosonde temperature data was collected for regional weather forecasting, so sondes were sparsely located in many areas of the globe. A common problem is a discontinuity when equipment is upgraded. The data has to be homogenized before it can be used. This is an active area of research. Another method of measuring tropospheric trends is to use wind as a proxy.

There’s substantial support for short term tropical tropospheric amplification, and what data there is, does not contradict a long term trend. Only further study will likely resolve this issue.
- Zachriel | 01/24/2013 @ 08:39
We have not only listed problems with the data, but provided multiple citations. It’s what most of this thread is about. The radiosonde temperature data was collected for regional weather forecasting, so sondes were sparsely located in many areas of the globe. A common problem is a discontinuity when equipment is upgraded. The data has to be homogenized before it can be used. This is an active area of research. Another method of measuring tropospheric trends is to use wind as a proxy.

There’s substantial support for short term tropical tropospheric amplification, and what data there is, does not contradict a long term trend.

Does not contradict a long term trend…after the data are homogenized. A process driven by humans, who can be incentivized to come to illogical conclusions, who can decide things emotionally, be swayed by the color of red. Even if they’re scientists. They’re humans before they’re scientists.

If most of the thread is about whether the data can be relied upon, it is odd that this homogenization process has not been specifically discussed. I’ll kick off that much-of-the-thread discussion with one sentence: My tenth-grade physics teacher would have forced me to throw out data that had to be “homogenized,” and start over again.

I fretted about whether we had to argue about the psychological impact of the color red. Seems I got my answer, and it is in the affirmative. Can’t help wondering what other self-evident, simplistic and fundamental truths also have to be debated to make this look like legitimate science. If it encounters an assault grounded in something even more plain, like two being a prime number, I suppose that has to be argued as well.
- mkfreeberg | 01/24/2013 @ 09:05
We have not only listed problems with the data, but provided multiple citations. It’s what most of this thread is about.

And – for the umpteenth time – your problems all amount to “This doesn’t help us, so it must be wrong. We’ll measure it over and over until we see something that fits our predictions.” That just isn’t science. What that is, is like a kid playing Monopoly re-rolling five times, and using the one roll that avoids landing on someone else’s hotel.

To use your latest example, that of temperature data collected for weather forecasting: if you’re forecasting weather, don’t you want it to be an accurate forecast? And to that end – accomplishing a real thing that can be really checked, “Did I get pelted with rain this morning like they said?” – they need to be as precise as possible. There’s a well-known story of a man who lived in Islip, on the south shore of Long Island, who bought a brand-new barometer. He opened it up, read hurricane-level low pressures, and presumed this was impossible. He promptly took the next train to the city to complain to the merchant. While he was gone, the Great Storm of 1938 demolished his house.

It didn’t matter what his expectations were, and it would have been pointless to tell the storm that this wasn’t supposed to happen, that ‘urricanes ‘ardly hever ‘appen on Long Island. It doesn’t matter what a forecaster predicted for yesterday, when the actual weather happens. And in the same manner, having entire raw data sets declared unusable in adherence to a theory is the opposite of science. The data is supposed to test the theory, not the other way around.

Were I in charge, it would be simple – I’d make sure the measuring stations weren’t in obvious heat islands like the middle of parking lots, next to HVAC exhausts, or such. And then I’d use those measurements to build a model. I would use the radiosonde or the wind or what-else-all to build other models. And then I’d run those models to predict the next week or month. I’d see if the models were any damned good at what they were meant to do before I started evaluating the reliability of new data according to those models.
- nightfly | 01/24/2013 @ 09:14
Z There’s substantial support for short term tropical tropospheric amplification, and what data there is, does not contradict a long term trend. Only further study will likely resolve this issue.

I’ll hazard a guess that it will only be “resolved” in the eyes of the alwarmists when data can be homogenized in such a fashion that it shows support for past amplification, at which time it will be touted as “proof”. That seems to be the preferred approach.

Sometimes data is crap for what you’re trying to discern, especially when the amplitude of the change is in the neighborhood of your margin of error. We need to recognize that there is no way to “fix” bad data other than to replace it with good data. Otherwise, you’re guessing — yes, with educated guesses, and errors are cumulative. There are inherent problems in teasing meaningful correlative trends in the orders of magnitude we’re looking at even if we had perfect data. One of my “things I know” is that if you’re looking very hard for evidence of something, you’ll eventually find it whether it’s there or not.

Actually, this is WHY there has been a call for the raw datasets used by the alwarmist camp. It is to see if the alwarmists homogenized datasets can be reproduced using the methods they say they used, and as a check on the methods themselves.

Citing the hockey stick debacle, science needs skepticism, or it ain’t science. It’s the Wizard of Oz.
- philmon | 01/24/2013 @ 09:18
mkfreeberg: Does not contradict a long term trend…after the data are homogenized. A process driven by humans, who can be incentivized to come to illogical conclusions, who can decide things emotionally, be swayed by the color of red.

Heh. It’s called statistics. But if you reject the long term radiosonde data, then you reject Captain Midnight’s claim that the data contradicts tropical tropospheric amplification.

mkfreeberg: My tenth-grade physics teacher would have forced me to throw out data that had to be “homogenized,” and start over again.

Well, you can’t start over again because we’re dealing with historical data, and trying to tease out whatever information we can.

nightfly: To use your latest example, that of temperature data collected for weather forecasting: if you’re forecasting weather, don’t you want it to be an accurate forecast?

There is less need for accuracy, and less incentive to measure temperatures in remote locations. Also, there are systematic problems. Balloons drift, they have their own temperature signal, how the thermometers were shielded vary, inconsistency in the time of day readings are taken. All these, and more, have to be accounted for.

philmon: Sometimes data is crap for what you’re trying to discern, especially when the amplitude of the change is in the neighborhood of your margin of error.

The margin of error for multiple measurements can be much less than the margin of error for a single measurement.

philmon: Actually, this is WHY there has been a call for the raw datasets used by the alwarmist camp.

The raw data has always been available.
- Zachriel | 01/24/2013 @ 09:38
The raw data has always been available.

Well, that‘s certainly not true.
- mkfreeberg | 01/24/2013 @ 09:53
mkfreeberg: Well, that‘s certainly not true.

That wasn’t a request for data, but for e-mail correspondence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-state-of-nova/post/2012/09/18/6c422d98-0133-11e2-b257-e1c2b3548a4a_blog.html
- Zachriel | 01/24/2013 @ 10:02
The raw data has always been available.

Putting a finer point on it, perhaps most of the data used is technically available, as in it was chosen from a larger dataset that was available, but the data … the stations that were chosen, also suggesting which were not … not so much.

Hard to peer review something when you can’t find out what it is you’re actually reviewing.

Or when you define anyone who disagrees with you reflexively as “not a peer”.
- philmon | 01/24/2013 @ 10:06
That wasn’t a request for data, but for e-mail correspondence.

Mmmmmm, partially.

Perhaps it was the emails that were considered exempt, but it wasn’t just email.

MANASSAS, Va.—On Tuesday, more than four months after the American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center requested emails and other files from a specifically identified University of Virginia back-up computer,
- philmon | 01/24/2013 @ 10:13
philmon: Putting a finer point on it, perhaps most of the data used is technically available, as in it was chosen from a larger dataset that was available, but the data … the stations that were chosen, also suggesting which were not … not so much.

Remember, the data wasn’t originally collected to be used to determine global trends. It was scattered in many countries, many different scientific communities, and in many different languages. So first, the data had to be aggregated. Once that process was done, there were still the problems mentioned above. However, the technical details of homogenization is published and subjected to scientific criticism. It’s been an ongoing process. One of the latest efforts was by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.
http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/
- Zachriel | 01/24/2013 @ 10:19
philmon: Mmmmmm, partially.

Michael Mann is not the keeper of the data. The original sources of historic data are still there, recorded in archives around the world.

By the way, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project doesn’t use homogenization, but determined the same trend as previous researchers.
http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/methods-paper.pdf
- Zachriel | 01/24/2013 @ 10:24
Been an ongoing process…right. One done by humans. Imperfect, emotional humans.

Perhaps it is time to do a recap of the rules that apply to climate “science,” and do not apply to too many other disciplines of science.

One, since the historical data cannot be re-measured, we are to “homogenize” data that were collected previously, for entirely different purposes, with different equipment, and use “statistics” to do adjustments. This is thought to be as good as fresh, “good” data, not because it really is, because, well, how the heck else can it be done? Since there isn’t any other alternative, we’ll pretend one thing is as good as another even though we know for a fact that it isn’t.

Two. In just this one discipline of “science,” an assertion made (that the world as ecosystem is on a path to oblivion unless dire action is taken, and soon) does not have to meet standards as strict as the challenges made against it. In other fields, when you pose a problem against a work of research, the researchers have to come up with a rebuttal against it, but here, you haven’t even successfully posed the problem until you jump through all sorts of hoops. You have to show you’re “qualified” to ask a question even if the question makes sense — does the Earth’s atmosphere act as a primer cap, or more like a heavy pendulum? — you have to have published work in a peer-reviewed journal, and maybe the challenge itself has to be peer-reviewed.

Three…”peer reviewed,” as we saw with the UEA e-mail leak, and from what Phil has been pointing out, is a pliable term. No peers disagree with the “findings” because, if they even dare to question it, they stop being peers.

Four. And this is something that doesn’t get inspected too much; as is the case with other institutionalized disciplines involving learning, being “well informed” about the issue is often mistakenly confused for having merely developed talents for mimicking the orthodox viewpoint, regardless of the true command of the knowledge concepts underneath the mimicry. What is unique to climate science is, outside of that narrow band of elites who have access to the satellites and weather balloons, and other equipment by which the measurements are taken — there is no other way to do the learning. It is all mimicry because it cannot be anything else. Those who have access to the equipment report on their “findings,” and then the amateurs who wish to be well informed, parrot what they say. There isn’t any other way to do it, in this particular field.

There may be more special rules I’ve missed, applying exclusively to this science-y domain of climate change. Each one is a blow to the conclusion reached, because as the conclusion relies on each one of these special advantages, not only does it become a weaker conclusion, but it becomes less science-y.
- mkfreeberg | 01/24/2013 @ 10:32
mkfreeberg: Been an ongoing process…right. One done by humans. Imperfect, emotional humans.

That’s right. While science works to minimize subjectivity, being a human endeavor, it is imperfect.

mkfreeberg: One, since the historical data cannot be re-measured, we are to “homogenize” data that were collected previously, for entirely different purposes, with different equipment, and use “statistics” to do adjustments.

Statistics is a well-founded discipline.

mkfreeberg: This is thought to be as good as fresh, “good” data, not because it really is, because, well, how the heck else can it be done?

Well, no, it’s not. Nearly every citation we provided discusses the problems with the data, and places limits on our confidence based on those problems.

mkfreeberg: Two. In just this one discipline of “science,” an assertion made (that the world as ecosystem is on a path to oblivion unless dire action is taken, and soon) does not have to meet standards as strict as the challenges made against it.

Sure it does.

mkfreeberg: you have to have published work in a peer-reviewed journal, and maybe the challenge itself has to be peer-reviewed.

Yes, you publish for peer review. It’s your peers you’re trying to convince, not your bartender.

mkfreeberg: Three…”peer reviewed,” as we saw with the UEA e-mail leak, and from what Phil has been pointing out, is a pliable term. No peers disagree with the “findings” because, if they even dare to question it, they stop being peers.

There are a number of skeptics who publish. There just isn’t any significant science that undermines our current understanding of climate change.

mkfreeberg: What is unique to climate science is, outside of that narrow band of elites who have access to the satellites and weather balloons, and other equipment by which the measurements are taken — there is no other way to do the learning.

Your claim can’t pass the simplest test of credibility. A valid scientific field doesn’t exist in isolation, but is intertwined with related fields. Climatology relates to atmospheric physics, glaciology, paleo-climatology, ocean chemistry, biology, ecology, statistics, metrology, oceanography, forestry, geology, geophysics, geochemistry, planetology, etc. Journals that publish climatological research include the most prestigious, such as Nature, Science, and PNAS.
- Zachriel | 01/24/2013 @ 11:04
Thank you for proving my point. Phrases like “most prestigious” have no place in real science, any more than “overwhelming evidence.” These are terms used for establishing the alpha dog, not for serious discussion of scientific knowledge.
- mkfreeberg | 01/24/2013 @ 11:20
Captain Midnight: As Alsatia Zevo said, “Well, red usually means ‘Caution,’ or ‘Beef’ if it’s a bouillon cube.”
Zachriel Heh! That’s what’s left of your argument—choice of color in a scientific graph?!

And you gloss right over the fact that 0 degrees of change is represented on the graph by red. It’s like alarms sounding off that nothing has happened.

Zachriel In any case, the findings aren’t determined by the colors in a graph, no matter how garish. The conclusion was that the adjusted tropospheric temperature trends roughly agree with expectations, but there is still a lot of uncertainty due to the problematic nature of the data.

It aligns? Really? Vast swaths of the graph show 0 degrees change, with tiny scattering of hotter. This isn’t the broad swaths of heating atmosphere that was predicted by the models. And look again at the predicted heat. Notice that it tops off at 0.6°C. Then back to the predicted model from figure 1.3 on page 25 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf. The central hotspot is predicted to be in the 1.0-1.2°C range. What I see is that Sherwood’s hotspot prediction is half of what was published just two years earlier. With all the benefit of adding in winds as a proxy for temperature, Sherwood’s final graph, when adjusted to use the same colors, is very similar with good ol’ figure 1.3 from before. And the “adjusted tropospheric temperature trends roughly agree with expectations” is a crock when the scientists themselves are saying that the heating could be just hiding in the margin of error.

I don’t have a problem with alwarmists squawking about rising temperatures or cataloging the impending tragedies that will come. People are free to prognosticate to their hearts’ content. But I do have a problem when the alwarmists demand that people curb their freedoms, adjust their lives, reduce their travels, pay more for goods, and otherwise control people’s actions with the authoritative boot heel of the state.

I do believe it was Carl Sagan who made popular the phrase, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” If that is the standard, then before extraordinary policies restrict the freedoms of people around the globe, there should be extraordinary evidence, and not excuses that the proof could be there, but it’s just hidden by the margins of error.
- Captain Midnight | 01/24/2013 @ 11:42
mkfreeberg: Thank you for proving my point. Phrases like “most prestigious” have no place in real science,

We weren’t answering a scientific claim. You had said that climatologists were “a narrow band of elites who have access to the satellites and weather balloons by which the measurements are taken — there is no other way to do the learning”. We gave reasons why this is not a credible position. First, climatologists work with many scientists in other fields, from geophysicists to statisticians to glaciologists. The data and analysis is spread over many disciplines, peer reviewed, then more data is collected from more sources.

mkfreeberg: any more than “overwhelming evidence.”

There’s nothing wrong with the phrase “overwhelming evidence” when used appropriately. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the Earth moves, for instance.
- Zachriel | 01/24/2013 @ 12:15
Captain Midnight: Vast swaths of the graph show 0 degrees change, with tiny scattering of hotter.

Are you reading the same paper? Sherwood 2008? “We find, in particular, tropical (30°N–30°S) warming that is as fast since 1979 as during the longer 1959–2005 period and that increases with altitude from 850 through about 300 hPa. Extratropical warming was about the same in both hemispheres since 1959, but was strongly asymmetric since 1979, with stronger warming in the ENH and little in the ESH.”

Captain Midnight: If that is the standard, then before extraordinary policies restrict the freedoms of people around the globe, there should be extraordinary evidence, and not excuses that the proof could be there, but it’s just hidden by the margins of error.

You’re the one who staked your claim on the tropical tropospheric hotspot, even though the phenomenon is not a signature of greenhouse warming. The evidence for greenhouse warming isn’t primarily found in these studies.
- Zachriel | 01/24/2013 @ 12:31
There’s nothing wrong with the phrase “overwhelming evidence” when used appropriately. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the Earth moves, for instance.

Alright, I think we can all agree that the Earth moves. It’s still scientifically invalid to use that phrase, even in that context. If skepticism is respected as the bonding agent between the scientific orthodoxy and the reality it is supposed to represent, then if any advantage is to be awarded in discourse between the decided and the undecided, such advantage should go to the undecided. “Overwhelming evidence” is a phrase deployed to achieve the opposite of this.

It has no other purpose.
- mkfreeberg | 01/24/2013 @ 12:37
mkfreeberg: Alright, I think we can all agree that the Earth moves. It’s still scientifically invalid to use that phrase, even in that context.

No, it’s not. While all scientific findings are considered tentative, the weight of evidence can certainly be considered overwhelming in the case of the Earth’s movement. One might avoid words such as “indisputable”.
- Zachriel | 01/24/2013 @ 12:46
For the same reason one might avoid words such as “indisputable,” one might as well avoid using words like “overwhelming.”

In fact, I would go on to say there is greater reason for avoiding the o-word, since its use is confined to the intentional provocation of an emotional response. “Indisputable” at least has the virtue of retaining some meaning, when conversationally confined to matters involving reason and measurements. Although, if good science is to be used in all the thought processes, neither one will end up being used, in any context.
- mkfreeberg | 01/24/2013 @ 13:03
mkfreeberg: In fact, I would go on to say there is greater reason for avoiding the o-word, since its use is confined to the intentional provocation of an emotional response.

The scientific evidence that the Earth moves is overwhelming.
- Zachriel | 01/24/2013 @ 13:09
And…”the Earth moves” is either being contested, or else it is not.

If it is not, then the statement is scientifically useless, because it is entirely useless from any perspective.

If it is being contested, then the scientific thing to do is to provide the evidence and the rationale by which we come to this understanding.

In that situation, such a statement is made for one reason and one reason only: To dismiss the skepticism of the uncertain participant. “I’ve made up my mind, you should have made up your mind the same way, and I don’t care to get into the details of it because they are ‘overwhelming’.” Since there is no other definable objective for the word’s use, the case has been made that it entirely lacks scientific value. If scientists in good standing are throwing it around every which way, this by itself does nothing to challenge the assertion I have made.
- mkfreeberg | 01/24/2013 @ 13:22
Captain Midnight: Vast swaths of the graph show 0 degrees change, with tiny scattering of hotter.
Zachriel Are you reading the same paper? Sherwood 2008? “We find, in particular, tropical (30°N–30°S) warming that is as fast since 1979 as during the longer 1959–2005 period and that increases with altitude from 850 through about 300 hPa. Extratropical warming was about the same in both hemispheres since 1959, but was strongly asymmetric since 1979, with stronger warming in the ENH and little in the ESH.”

And that’s why figure 6 of Sherwood’s paper shows such strong warming in the lower tropical atmosphere.

Oh wait, it doesn’t.

Zachriel You’re the one who staked your claim on the tropical tropospheric hotspot, even though the phenomenon is not a signature of greenhouse warming. The evidence for greenhouse warming isn’t primarily found in these studies.

You keep stating that. And yet figure 1.3 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf breaks down five different ways the atmosphere may change, lumping them into well-mixed greenhouse gases, sulfate aerosols, ozone, volcanic aerosols, and the sun. Each one has its own predicted signature. Graph F shows the predicted sum of the five effects. I find it interesting that you state that the hotspot as predicted by graph F isn’t the signature of greenhouse warming when it is dominated by graph A representing greenhouse gases.

And when graph E from figure 5.7 is examined, the predicted hotspot from the greenhouse gases is missing. So you can be seen to be correct that the evidence for greenhouse warming isn’t primarily found in these studies.
- Captain Midnight | 01/24/2013 @ 13:38
mkfreeberg: And…”the Earth moves” is either being contested, or else it is not.

http://theflatearthsociety.org

mkfreeberg: If it is not, then the statement is scientifically useless, because it is entirely useless from any perspective.

Now you’re just playing word games. The Earth’s movement is not in serious dispute because the evidence is overwhelming.

The Earth’s movement is a scientific question. It is something we can determine through observation. The scientific evidence supporting the Earth’s movement is overwhelming. We’re not wedded to the word, nor does this seem pertinent to the discussion.
- Zachriel | 01/24/2013 @ 13:43
We’re not wedded to the word, nor does this seem pertinent to the discussion.

It is the arguing technique that is topical.

The common thread I see between the technique on display in many other places, here as well, and the unscientific cliche of “evidence is overwhelming,” is an attempt by the decided to pull rank on the undecided. As I’ve already mentioned, if the decided are challenged by the undecided on a matter on which they consider the “overwhelming evidence” to back up their claim, the scientific thing to do is to choose from among all these findings based on which is the simplest, or most compelling, and walk through it. In this case, discuss the movement of the planets relative to the movement of the stars. Then, if the falsely skeptical choose to ignore that, well then that would be their problem…but to pull the pin and walk away is unscientific.

Note that I did not call for any punishment to be rained down upon the heads of those who say “the evidence is overwhelming.” Nor have I called for their claims to be dismissed, or for any of their other claims to be put to a new challenge through an associated besmirchment of their names. I’m simply pointing out that the trope lacks scientific value because it has nothing to do with the scientific method. This is correct.

And it has a lot to do with climate change, sadly. Everyone who’s paid attention understands the issue has been unfortunately politicized, and much of this has to do with the well-worn cliche of “the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming.” It is uttered a lot, because many among the alwarmists are hostile toward details. They just want to “win.” Like alpha dogs.
- mkfreeberg | 01/24/2013 @ 13:52
Captain Midnight: You keep stating that.

It’s not a signature of greenhouse warming, but an effect of any warming, even regional warming, due to the adiabatic lapse rate.

Captain Midnight: So you can be seen to be correct that the evidence for greenhouse warming isn’t primarily found in these studies.

That’s right. Long term tropical tropospheric amplification is not seen in those graphs.

Other data supports short term amplification, and that the globe is generally warming over the period. The discrepancy could be due to the poor tropospheric data, or mechanisms that affect the long term trend that are not accounted for in the models. It’s also possible the other data is wrong, but that is supported by many more lines of evidence, so is less plausible. We’ve pointed to several studies concerning the poor quality of the long term tropospheric data.
- Zachriel | 01/24/2013 @ 13:53
Unscientific.

- mkfreeberg | 01/24/2013 @ 13:57
Zachriel It’s not a signature of greenhouse warming, but an effect of any warming, even regional warming, due to the adiabatic lapse rate.

And yet on 04/16/2012 @ 06:19 you stated, “In particular, note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming.” That’s a nice description of figure 1.3 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf. But figure 1.3 isn’t a signature of greenhouse warming even though the models show that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling.

So, is it (04/16/2012 @ 06:19), or isn’t it (01/24/2013 @ 13:53)?
- Captain Midnight | 01/24/2013 @ 14:07
Captain Midnight: That’s a nice description of figure 1.3 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf

You are confused. Do you understand what is meant by a signature? It’s a one-to-one correspondence. Tropical tropospheric amplification is expected to occur due to any source of regional warming. It’s a result of moist adiabatic lapse. (The temperature of water-saturated air drops more slowly than dry air, a result of the latent heat of water vapor as it condenses. This is a physical mechanism.) The amplification could be due to changes in solar irradiance, increases in greenhouse gases, or just local conditions, anything that warms the air and causes an increase in humidity. On the other hand, a warming troposphere with a cooling stratosphere implies that heat energy is being held more closely to the surface, hence greenhouse warming.

This is what we observe:
1. Warming troposphere
2. Cooling stratosphere
3. Short term tropical tropospheric amplification
4. Ambiguous data concerning long term tropical tropospheric amplification
- Zachriel | 01/24/2013 @ 15:36
On the topic of “overwhelming evidence” and why this phrase is bullshit of the purest ray serene, a word from David Stove is in order.

The money shot:

Of course it is not always easy to tell equivocation from downright inconsistency. Take Kuhn again. Some one may tell me that he is not reluctant, at all, to admit my historical claim (A). And certainly it would be easy to point to many passages in his writings which support this interpretation. All those passages, for example, in which he says that normal science, operating under the guidance of a paradigm, solves problems. No doubt, in particular, Kuhn would admit that normal science has solved a great many problems since 1580. Well, if it has solved those problems, then those problems have been solved, haven’t they? We know Kuhn says that a new paradigm “replaces”, “destroys”, the old one. But he never says that every solution of a particular problem, achieved under the old paradigm, somehow is “destroyed” or becomes an un-solution under the new. Indeed, how could that be? What would it even mean, to say so? If a problem has been solved then it really has been solved. But if this tautology is not denied, then solutions to problems (unless they were, for example, forgotten) would accumulate through successive paradigms. But what then becomes of Kuhn’s famous rejection of the cumulative view of the history of science?
- Severian | 01/24/2013 @ 18:16
Zachriel The amplification could be due to changes in solar irradiance, increases in greenhouse gases, or just local conditions, anything that warms the air and causes an increase in humidity. On the other hand, a warming troposphere with a cooling stratosphere implies that heat energy is being held more closely to the surface, hence greenhouse warming.

Holding up a warming troposphere with a cooling stratosphere as the signature of greenhouse warming tells us that the troposphere is warming as the stratosphere is cooling. But it says nothing about the why it is happening.

Good old figure 1.3 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf simulates five methods of explaining why the atmosphere’s temperature is changing. The two aerosols and the sun do nothing to contribute to greenhouse warming since none of them add to the lower atmosphere’s temperature while decreasing the upper. (The aerosols do the opposite by warming the top and cooling the bottom, and the sun warms all the atmosphere.) But both ozone and greenhouse gases are shown by the models to contribute to warming the troposphere and cooling the stratosphere. If the models were correct, when all these forcings are added together, we’d see the well-flogged horse of the tropospheric hotspot. But the amplification of trophospheric warming isn’t present in the long term data. It has to be guessed at with winds or hunted for in the margins of error.

A warming troposphere with a cooling stratosphere is the what of greenhouse warming. The five models from figure 1.3 are the why of greenhouse warming. And the data doesn’t support the models’ why. Certainly not enough to point the finger at man and demand that people change by the ham-fisted power of the state.
- Captain Midnight | 01/24/2013 @ 18:21
Severian:

David Stove: No doubt, in particular, Kuhn would admit that normal science has solved a great many problems since 1580.

In the quoted section, there seems to some confusion of a logical solution with a practical solution.

Are you saying the evidence is not overwhelming that the Earth moves?

Captain Midnight: Holding up a warming troposphere with a cooling stratosphere as the signature of greenhouse warming tells us that the troposphere is warming as the stratosphere is cooling. But it says nothing about the why it is happening.

It could be magic pixies swatting heat photons as they try to escape.

The greenhouse effect is straightforward physics. Calculate the blackbody radiation of the Earth.
- Zachriel | 01/25/2013 @ 05:42
Captain Midnight: Holding up a warming troposphere with a cooling stratosphere as the signature of greenhouse warming tells us that the troposphere is warming as the stratosphere is cooling. But it says nothing about the why it is happening.
Zachriel It could be magic pixies swatting heat photons as they try to escape.
The greenhouse effect is straightforward physics. Calculate the blackbody radiation of the Earth.

Humor! Who knew it was in you?

But you miss the point. Figure 1.3 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf shows five models explaining why the atmosphere’s temperature is changing. And the dominant one in the bunch is the model for greenhouse gases. This is the model that isn’t there in the data, or maybe it is, but it’s shy. And that is the model that gives big-government alwarmists the impetus to demand that mankind be reduced, limited, changed, and otherwise controlled by the dictates of the state. We’ve been told about horrible calamities that will befall mankind, but so far the evidence isn’t there. Apocalypse meh.

And the behavior of the anthropogenic climate change champions tells me that there isn’t a crisis.
- Captain Midnight | 01/25/2013 @ 10:47
Captain Midnight: But you miss the point.

We did respond to your point. You want to pin everything to a single graph, but don’t seem interested in the specifics.

This is what we observe:
1. Warming troposphere
2. Cooling stratosphere
3. Short term tropical tropospheric amplification
4. Ambiguous data concerning long term tropical tropospheric amplification

Then you said, “But it says nothing about the why it is happening.” We responded that the greenhouse effect was due to straightforward physical mechanisms and that you should start with the calculated blackbody radiation of the Earth.
- Zachriel | 01/25/2013 @ 11:15
Zachriel Then you said, “But it says nothing about the why it is happening.” We responded that the greenhouse effect was due to straightforward physical mechanisms and that you should start with the calculated blackbody radiation of the Earth.

Which explains the how it works, but doesn’t address the models explaining why it is happening. The leading model is based on greenhouse gases that alwarmists blame mainly on bad, nasty, evil man who needs to have his freedoms curtailed by right-thinkers. If those models are incorrect, then the push to limit people’s freedoms by a powerful state is shown to be groundless.
- Captain Midnight | 01/25/2013 @ 12:37
Captain Midnight: Which explains the how it works, but doesn’t address the models explaining why it is happening.

Good, so we are agreed the greenhouse effect is increasing. But just for fun, if you did calculate the blackbody radiation of the Earth, you would notice the Earth’s surface’s average temperature without the greenhouse effect would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is. Indeed, there’s a paper we need to give priority to, Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896. He determined that increases in CO2 would increase the greenhouse effect.

So, what has changed in the atmosphere over the last several decades that could account for an increase in the greenhouse effect?
- Zachriel | 01/25/2013 @ 12:57
Zachriel So, what has changed in the atmosphere over the last several decades that could account for an increase in the greenhouse effect?

Before you baby-step your way through the AGW argument, let me state it, as nicely summed up by Warren Meyer:

The strong AGW hypothesis is roughly as follows:

1. The world has been warming for a century, and this warming is beyond any cyclical variation we have seen over the last 1000 or more years, and beyond the range of what we might expect from natural climate variations.

2. Almost all of the warming in the second half of the 20th century, perhaps a half a degree Celsius, is due to man-made greenhouse gasses, particularly CO2

3. In the next 100 years, CO2 produced by man will cause a lot more warming, from as low as three degrees C to as high as 8 or 10 degrees C.

4. Positive feedbacks in the climate, like increased humidity, will act to triple the warming from CO2, leading to these higher forecasts and perhaps even a tipping point into climactic disaster

5. The bad effects of warming greatly outweigh the positive effects, and we are already seeing the front end of these bad effects today (polar bears dying, glaciers melting, etc)

6. These bad effects, or even a small risk of them, easily justify massive intervention today in reducing economic activity and greenhouse gas production

In the rest of this paper, we will focus on potential weaknesses in this hypothesis. Specifically, I will argue that:

There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it is pretty clear that CO2 produced by man has an incremental impact on warming the Earth’s surface.

However, recent warming is the result of many natural and man-made factors, and it is extraordinarily difficult to assign all the blame for current warming to man.

In turn, there are very good reasons to suspect that climate modelers may be greatly exaggerating future warming due to man. Poor economic forecasting, faulty assumptions about past and current conditions, and a belief that climate is driven by runaway positive feedback effects all contribute to this exaggeration.

As a result, warming due to man’s impacts over the next 100 years may well be closer to one degree C than the forecasted six to eight. In either case, since AGW supporters tend to grossly underestimate the cost of CO2 abatement, particularly in lost wealth creation in poorer nations, there are good arguments that a warmer but richer world, where aggressive CO2 abatement is not pursued, may be the better end state than a poor but cooler world.

Like Meyer, I won’t argue with AGW’s #1, but I will say that #2-6 are, as-yet, unproven, and they become more tenuous as they go along. I see no need to sacrifice my freedoms before the alwarmists who are forecasting doom. And especially not when they don’t live their lives as if they believed in the doom they foretell.

I harp on not being willing to forgo my freedoms because, as I see it, that’s the ultimate direction a debate on AGW is going. If man is indeed the cause of increased storm activity, stronger hurricanes, drought, floods, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria, then it follows that man’s behaviors must be limited. A strong state can limit mankind’s behaviors, first with guidelines and gentile asking, then by laws and fines, and finally by armed intervention.

That’s not the future I want to see. I believe that people do best when they have their freedoms, not when they are forced by the state.
- Captain Midnight | 01/25/2013 @ 13:36
Warren Meyer: There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it is pretty clear that CO2 produced by man has an incremental impact on warming the Earth’s surface.

Odd then that Captain Midnight kept arguing against this point. Meyer is simply recycling the same tire arguments that have already been addressed in the scientific literature.

Warren Meyer: 6. These bad effects, or even a small risk of them, easily justify massive intervention today in reducing economic activity and greenhouse gas production

Well, no. Reducing economic activity is not a reasonable solution to climate change. Much of the world is still developing and has the right to a better life. It will take technological innovations to provide this better life, and that means more economic activity, not less.

Warren Meyer: However, recent warming is the result of many natural and man-made factors, and it is extraordinarily difficult to assign all the blame for current warming to man.

That takes us back to the evidence for the greenhouse effect. The majority of changes are due to greenhouse gases.

Warren Meyer: Poor economic forecasting, faulty assumptions about past and current conditions, and a belief that climate is driven by runaway positive feedback effects all contribute to this exaggeration.

Again, that is incorrect. Models predict a combination of positive and negative feedbacks with considerable lag in response times.

Warren Meyer: As a result, warming due to man’s impacts over the next 100 years may well be closer to one degree C

There are a variety of scientific tests of climate sensitivity. While there is still some uncertainty, the answer is converging on 2-5°C per doubling of CO2.

Captain Midnight: I harp on not being willing to forgo my freedoms because, as I see it, that’s the ultimate direction a debate on AGW is going.

Again, that would not be a reasonable solution to climate change. While there has to be international cooperation, there also has to be the open debate, robust markets, and technological innovation necessary to finding solutions.

Captain Midnight: That’s not the future I want to see. I believe that people do best when they have their freedoms, not when they are forced by the state.

Your fears don’t have any effect on the scientific findings. Turning a blind eye won’t make the problem go away.
- Zachriel | 01/25/2013 @ 14:22
[…] at Morgan’s place, for instance, the Thread that Wouldn’t Die was active up to just a few days ago, and there are several other threads on broadly similar topics […]
- The Stuff Liberals Worry About | Rotten Chestnuts | 01/28/2013 @ 08:16
[…] I’m reminded of an exchange we had a week ago. Morgan: […]
- “Valid” | Rotten Chestnuts | 01/28/2013 @ 10:17
Warren Meyer: There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it is pretty clear that CO2 produced by man has an incremental impact on warming the Earth’s surface.
Zachriel Odd then that Captain Midnight kept arguing against this point. Meyer is simply recycling the same tire arguments that have already been addressed in the scientific literature.

And with a wave of the hand, you dismiss the argument chain Meyer makes. I can almost hear, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

Warren Meyer: However, recent warming is the result of many natural and man-made factors, and it is extraordinarily difficult to assign all the blame for current warming to man.
Zachriel That takes us back to the evidence for the greenhouse effect. The majority of changes are due to greenhouse gases.

Quick – name the number one cause of global warming.

Warren Meyer: Poor economic forecasting, faulty assumptions about past and current conditions, and a belief that climate is driven by runaway positive feedback effects all contribute to this exaggeration.
Zachriel Again, that is incorrect. Models predict a combination of positive and negative feedbacks with considerable lag in response times.

Dominant positive feedback is necessary to go from the projected 1°C warming due to doubling CO2 to the higher temperatures that models predict.

Warren Meyer: As a result, warming due to man’s impacts over the next 100 years may well be closer to one degree C
Zachriel There are a variety of scientific tests of climate sensitivity. While there is still some uncertainty, the answer is converging on 2-5°C per doubling of CO2.

Not by doubling CO2 itself. Positive feedback has to be introduced to make the higher forecast of 2-5°C possible.

Captain Midnight: I harp on not being willing to forgo my freedoms because, as I see it, that’s the ultimate direction a debate on AGW is going.
Zachriel Again, that would not be a reasonable solution to climate change. While there has to be international cooperation, there also has to be the open debate, robust markets, and technological innovation necessary to finding solutions.

When the power of the state is introduced to make people change their behaviors, it’s a short distance from “please” to “you will.” Try to buy a new household toilet in the U.S. that is higher than 1.6 gallons per flush. And how many manufacturers are making 100 Watt incandescent light bulbs in the States now? Neither one of these restrictions are the result of robust markets or technological innovation. Both were imposed by government.
- Captain Midnight | 01/28/2013 @ 10:54
Captain Midnight: And with a wave of the hand, you dismiss the argument chain Meyer makes.

We do address it. It’s been addressed many times. It’s the standard litany.

Captain Midnight: Quick – name the number one cause of global warming.

The sun rising. Over decadal timescales, greenhouse gases.

Captain Midnight: Dominant positive feedback is necessary to go from the projected 1°C warming due to doubling CO2 to the higher temperatures that models predict.

The term he used was “runaway”. There is a flywheel effect, but not a runaway effect. Stop emissions of CO2, and temperatures will stabilize over time, albeit at a higher temperature.

Captain Midnight: Not by doubling CO2 itself. Positive feedback has to be introduced to make the higher forecast of 2-5°C possible.

That’s what climate sensitivity means.
- Zachriel | 01/28/2013 @ 11:20
Captain Midnight: When the power of the state is introduced to make people change their behaviors, it’s a short distance from “please” to “you will.”

Still doesn’t change the scientific findings.
- Zachriel | 01/28/2013 @ 11:22
Captain Midnight: And with a wave of the hand, you dismiss the argument chain Meyer makes.
Zachriel We do address it. It’s been addressed many times. It’s the standard litany.

The key place the alwarmist house of cards theory breaks down is assuming that the majority of of warming in the 20th century is soley due to man-made greenhouse gases, as well as the idea that positive feedbacks will greatly increase the warming from C02. Then comes the social aspect of the cost of intervention which has been only lightly discussed.

Captain Midnight: Quick – name the number one cause of global warming.
Zachriel The sun rising. Over decadal timescales, greenhouse gases.

Congratulations! You are the third person to correctly answer that particular question I’ve asked. The sun is the driving force for global warming, and without it, nothing else matters. Which is why I look at phrases you use like “The majority of changes are due to greenhouse gases” with skepticism. If greenhouse gases were the dominate driver, then the temperatures as by predicted model from figure 1.3 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf would be detected when the actual observed changes don’t show it.

Solar cycle 24 has been pretty wimpy, and this could foretell a decreased output from the sun. It could even be something similar to the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715 which had very few sunspots and colder temperatures. A wimply or overactive sun could drive climate numbers far in advance to what man can contribute.

Captain Midnight: Dominant positive feedback is necessary to go from the projected 1°C warming due to doubling CO2 to the higher temperatures that models predict.
Zachriel The term he used was “runaway”. There is a flywheel effect, but not a runaway effect. Stop emissions of CO2, and temperatures will stabilize over time, albeit at a higher temperature.

He also uses the term “tipping point” which is commonly used, even by climate scientists like Hansen. I don’t see much of a difference between “runaway” and “tipping point.”

Captain Midnight: Not by doubling CO2 itself. Positive feedback has to be introduced to make the higher forecast of 2-5°C possible.
Zachriel That’s what climate sensitivity means.

It is predicted by the computer models, but not born out by measurements. As Meyer points out in this graphic, we have historical data for temperature as well as the various feedback models for CO2 that have been put forward. Looking at how we have changed in the past, the feedback model that best tracks the past behavior is on of 0% feedback, producing about 1°C warming with CO2 doubling. That’s not catastrophic warming. And interestingly enough, that corresponds very nicely with the observed temperatures as shown on figure 5.7 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf.
- Captain Midnight | 01/28/2013 @ 17:44
Captain Midnight: When the power of the state is introduced to make people change their behaviors, it’s a short distance from “please” to “you will.”
Zachriel Still doesn’t change the scientific findings.

We’re talking human behavior and not scientific findings here. Let’s say that God comes down and carves in 20′ tall letters that global warming is a fact, and it is man that is the sole driver of that warming. And when this happens, everyone is in complete agreement with God’s math. But what is the reaction by the nations of the world to those people who, despite acknowledging that it’s 100% man’s fault, decide to continue with their current greenhouse gas lifestyle?

The time between identifying these people who refuse to conform and the call for government force to make the people live a certain way would probably be easily measured in seconds.
- Captain Midnight | 01/28/2013 @ 17:54
Captain Midnight: The key place the alwarmist house of cards theory breaks down is assuming that the majority of of warming in the 20th century is soley due to man-made greenhouse gases, as well as the idea that positive feedbacks will greatly increase the warming from C02.

There is good evidentiary reasons to believe that humans are causing substantial changes to the climate. Each step depends on the previous steps, so stop when you can’t go any further:

* CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and will directly contribute about 1°C per doubling of CO2. You’ve indicated your agree with this.

* The increase in temperature due to CO2 will cause the atmosphere to absorb more water vapor. Are you okay with this?

* Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Are you okay with this?

* While the lower atmosphere is saturated with water vapor as far as its effect as a greenhouse gas, the upper atmosphere is dry, and this increased water vapor will cause a further increase in temperature. This phenomenon is called “climate sensitivity”. Are you okay with this?

* There are a variety of measures of climate sensitivity, which we have cited numerous times. Here’s a review paper:

Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.

Captain Midnight: The sun is the driving force for global warming, and without it, nothing else matters.

While the Sun is Earth’s primary source of heat, we’re concerned with *changes* to the overall heat budget. Changes in solar irradiance do not account for the majority of warming over the last several decades. Remember the signature of greenhouse warming? Do we have to really go back to step #1?

Captain Midnight: I don’t see much of a difference between “runaway” and “tipping point.”

It’s a fundamental difference. Tipping point refers to changing from one stable configuration to another. Runaway implies there is no stable configuration once the system is perturbed.

Captain Midnight: It is predicted by the computer models, but not born out by measurements.

Actually, there are many independent measures of climate sensitivity. See Knutti & Hegerl.

Captain Midnight: As Meyer points out in this graphic …

Sorry, it’s a disembodied graph. You’ll have to point to the data from which it is derived.

Captain Midnight: We’re talking human behavior and not scientific findings here… But what is the reaction by the nations of the world to those people who, despite acknowledging that it’s 100% man’s fault, decide to continue with their current greenhouse gas lifestyle?

Yes, that’s a problem. It’s called tragedy of the commons. Doesn’t change the scientific findings, though.

Suppose you could argue that people can’t change, there’s nothing you can do about it, so why bother, the world will just suffer. Que sera sera! Not sure we agree that’s true, though. Humans are pretty inventive in a pinch. Trends like this come to an end. People can and do change.

Captain Midnight: The time between identifying these people who refuse to conform and the call for government force to make the people live a certain way would probably be easily measured in seconds.

Used to be in the U.S. rivers would literally catch fire, and young children couldn’t play outside on smoggy days. If the trend had continued, … , but it didn’t continue. Laws were passed. People changed. Every industrialized country went through a similar process.
- Zachriel | 01/28/2013 @ 18:45
Zachriel While the lower atmosphere is saturated with water vapor as far as its effect as a greenhouse gas, the upper atmosphere is dry, and this increased water vapor will cause a further increase in temperature. This phenomenon is called “climate sensitivity”.

Which was modeled in figure 1.3 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf as part of the greenhouse gases. And which was not seen based on figure 5.7 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf. And which was hinted at with Sherwood’s report, if we ignore that much of the graph shows no changes.

If CO2 warming of 1°C were multiplying into an addition of 2-4°C due to water vapor, then it should be identifiable. The models predict 0.6°C to 1.2°C warming and that’s not been seen. There are measurements showing CO2 increasing in the atmosphere, and then there are guesses that this will multiply into catastrophic temperature increases.

Captain Midnight: As Meyer points out in this graphic …
Zachriel Sorry, it’s a disembodied graph. You’ll have to point to the data from which it is derived.

Warren Meyer, “The Plug”, 2009.

Captain Midnight: The time between identifying these people who refuse to conform and the call for government force to make the people live a certain way would probably be easily measured in seconds.
Zachriel Used to be in the U.S. rivers would literally catch fire, and young children couldn’t play outside on smoggy days. If the trend had continued, … , but it didn’t continue. Laws were passed. People changed. Every industrialized country went through a similar process.

It’s easy to point to a company pumping raw industrial wastes into a river and demonstrate how that flammable waste is catching fire or their toxic waste is killing fish. But it’s another thing to tell the world that because of mankind’s CO2 output, scientist are guessing that we’ll see catastrophic temperature rise. Convincing people to voluntarily reduce, reuse, and alter their lives based on guesses from scientists is a harder sell. But it’s easy to convince a few in power to pass laws and write regulations that tell the people “you will” and “you won’t.” It’s an easy sell to convince government that heavy-handed action to force compliance is in the people’s best interest.
- Captain Midnight | 01/29/2013 @ 16:12
Captain Midnight: Which was modeled in figure 1.3 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf as part of the greenhouse gases. And which was not seen based on figure 5.7 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf.

The chart shows tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. It does not show tropical tropospheric amplification, but we have already responded to that.

1. Amplification is not a signature of greenhouse warming.
2. Short term data supports amplification.
3. Long term data is sparse and inconsistent.
4. Analysis indicates that the long term data does not contradict amplification.
5. More research is required.

We’ve pointed this out before, but you must have forgotten. Are you claiming that CO2 warming will not increase evaporation? Is that plausible?

Captain Midnight: Warren Meyer, “The Plug”, 2009.

It doesn’t show up on Google Scholar or even Google. What journal is it published in?

Captain Midnight: It’s easy to point to a company pumping raw industrial wastes into a river and demonstrate how that flammable waste is catching fire or their toxic waste is killing fish.

It took a while for people to get used to the idea that the Earth moves. Like a lot of science, it’s not obvious. If it was obvious, it wouldn’t have to be discovered. In any case, it wasn’t easy getting action on pollution. People forget the struggles of the past.

Captain Midnight: It’s an easy sell to convince government that heavy-handed action to force compliance is in the people’s best interest.

It’s apparently not an easy sell. Even with every major scientific organization warning that anthropogenic climate change will be significant, there has been no effective coordinated action.
- Zachriel | 01/29/2013 @ 17:48
Captain Midnight: Warren Meyer, “The Plug”, 2009.

Zachriel: It doesn’t show up on Google Scholar or even Google. What journal is it published in?

Found it!

We searched the domain the graphic was hosted on.

http://www.google.com/?q=site%3Awww.climate-skeptic.com+“warren+meyer”+”the+plug”

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/the-plug.html

We’ll take a look.
- Zachriel | 01/29/2013 @ 18:07
[…] there it’s simply a matter of endless question-begging and assertion, like so. You say karma ins’t a real thing? Then how else do you explain […]
- 39.2 Percent of Statistics are Made Up | Rotten Chestnuts | 01/29/2013 @ 18:25
Okay. Meyer says he is guessing.

Warren Meyer: I cannot prove this, but I am willing to make a bet based on my long, long history of modeling (computers, not fashion). My guess is that the blue band, representing climate without man-made effects, was not based on any real science but was instead a plug. In other words, they took their models and actual temperatures and then said “what would the climate without man have to look like for our models to be correct.”

Meyer is apparently claiming that climatologists “plug” arbitrary values for the effects of aerosols and climate sensitivity into their models in order to get them to provide the expected projections of warming.

The first thing you learn, even as a baby PhD, is to do a literature review before embarking on any new research project. Do you think that, if we did a literature review, we would find scientists attempting to independently and empirically determine the effects of aerosols and climate sensitivity? Or do you think that climate scientists just sit in front of computers and play with models, somewhat like Meyers is doing? What do you think we’ll find when we check the literature? Just curious.

As for the “High Feedback” graph, it’s deceptive because it looks like a time line, but it’s not. CO2 emissions are not linear over time, but bunched over the last few decades. The slope (ppm increase per year) was 0.71 in 1960, 2.14 in 2005. The rate of increase is increasing. (There was a slight slowdown due to the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.)

As for the solar activity chart, which uses sun spots as a proxy, solar irradiance is a very significant factor in historical climate change. However, which you can see in the graph, they become strongly decoupled in recent decades.
- Zachriel | 01/30/2013 @ 06:31
Or do you think that climate scientists just sit in front of computers and play with models, somewhat like Meyers is doing?

A lot of climate science would be exactly this. Much of the doom-and-gloom we hear about temperatures going up by as much as 5 degrees C over the next century, is the result of nothing but this. I’ve pointed this out before, climate science is rather unique here. You want to put a research paper out about psychology of apes, you can get hold of an ape, a cage, the props needed for your experiment, and go to work. With climate science, by its very nature we only have a few elites with original access to the “source.” Everyone who is not part of that elite group, is reduced to “play[ing] with models” and drawing conclusions from the numbers.

Charges of “hand waving” therefore should be thrown out very carefully and conservatively. The very nature of the science means that everyone is drawing conclusions from little data, and most are drawing conclusions with none.

Here is a good example of genuine hand waving: I don’t like what that implies, I feel it isn’t true, I demand the release of the information because I feel it will prove what I think. That — is hand-waving.
- mkfreeberg | 01/30/2013 @ 06:43
mkfreeberg: A lot of climate science would be exactly this.

Some, certainly.

You didn’t answer the other question. Do you think that, if we did a literature review, we would find scientists attempting to independently and empirically determine the effects of aerosols and climate sensitivity?
- Zachriel | 01/30/2013 @ 06:56
Thought you were asking CM. I was just jumping in, helpfully, with this observation about the double-standard: This definition of hand-waving on this subject matter over here, that other definition for that other subject, over there.
- mkfreeberg | 01/30/2013 @ 07:09
mkfreeberg: Thought you were asking CM. I was just jumping in, helpfully, with this observation about the double-standard: This definition of hand-waving on this subject matter over here, that other definition for that other subject, over there.

Great example of handwaving! We ask about Meyer’s unproven accusation that climate scientists were just making up numbers, and you response with this:

mkfreeberg: With climate science, by its very nature we only have a few elites with original access to the “source.” Everyone who is not part of that elite group, is reduced to “play[ing] with models” and drawing conclusions from the numbers.

Science is hard work, but there’s nothing preventing you from collecting or studying the data. Again, great example! Keep up the good work.
- Zachriel | 01/30/2013 @ 07:23
Actually, it seems you have hand-waved away the point I made about what hand-waving really is. You also hand-waved away the point I had about the double standard, that this definition of hand-waving on this subject matter over here, applies, but then that entirely different definition applies for that other subject, over there.

You also seem to have lost track of the person to whom it is you asked the question. It is traditional to keep this in mind when you accuse people of ducking it. Perhaps you need to go and choose from among you, a single person to do this grilling you seek to do, I think your practice of having multiple individuals using one account is getting in the way here. This is probably why it is a practice the rest of us have not encountered very often; it might not be a good one.
- mkfreeberg | 01/30/2013 @ 07:28
mkfreeberg: You also hand-waved away the point I had about the double standard, that this definition of hand-waving on this subject matter over here, applies, but then that entirely different definition applies for that other subject, over there.

Oh, it’s the same standard.

On a thread about climate change, you claim that you don’t have access to the data. Well, science is hard. When climatologists started to unravel the puzzle, they had to aggregate data from scientific institutions around the world. The data was in different languages, different protocols, different cultures, different instrumentation, collected for differing purposes. Yet, that is how science proceeds. They aggregated the data, proposed hypotheses, then they went and collected more data; from ice cores and tree rings and geological formations and satellite radiation experiments and weather stations at the poles. The data is there. There are entire scientific journals full of data.

You might have to walk from Alexandria to Syene to find the answers.
- Zachriel | 01/30/2013 @ 07:44
But — and you seem to be having a tough time with this — I don’t accept the validity of the process. There’s nothing to be said positively about it other than “we don’t have anything else.”

Which is fine, for doing straight science. For predicting the end of the world, it isn’t. One of many reasons why…that isn’t part of science.

I’m afraid you’ve aggregately spent a whole lot of energy to assess my competence in a task which I never agreed to engage in the first place. I don’t accept that the data could validate what is being inferred from it.
- mkfreeberg | 01/30/2013 @ 07:47
mkfreeberg: I don’t accept the validity of the process.

On what basis?

mkfreeberg: I don’t accept that the data could validate what is being inferred from it.

Climate scientists are inferring a ≈3°C warming per doubling of CO2. On what basis do you reject this finding?
- Zachriel | 01/30/2013 @ 08:10
What you said was a bit different from that:

Climate change doesn’t have a tipping point in the sense of runaway global warming. Rather, a doubling of CO2 will cause an increase in surface temperatures of about 1°C. This will result in an increase in atmospheric water vapor. The scientific question is the sensitivity of the climate system to this increased water vapor. Studies point to 2-5°C with 3°C the most likely value.

As the title of the post suggests: If there is a scientific question, then it has to do with how the planet’s ecosystem responds to these changes. Is it inclined toward entropy. Does it react like a primer cap which, once moved outside of a situational norm, is inclined to move further away. Or, does it react like a heavy pendulum which, moved out of a situational norm, is more inclined to move back to it.

Your prediction, blotted with footnotes that I’m supposed to go chasing, is that the carbon will be a primer and then the water vapor will be the gunpowder, causing this deadly and destructive chain reaction. If that is the case, then the Earth’s atmosphere would be the only water-based system of which I know, including liquid-cooled car engines, inclined to slip further out of whack once put outside of its norm. You claim to be able to explain scientifically how that is the case. Once pressed to do so, you put forth these arguments that are concerned primarily with attaching bizarre obligations to any skeptics, or even sincere questioners, along with an insistence that they should be entirely ignored until they go chasing after your rainbows. Just doesn’t look like good science to me.

“3°C most likely value” is an extraordinary claim. I’m filing that one alongside Ted Danson telling us the oceans will be dead in a decade (in 1988) if something’s not done…any reason I shouldn’t?

And, is your question for me or for Captain Midnight? Is it one of you asking CM the question, and another among you putting the question to me? This is all so confusing. Is it intended to be?
- mkfreeberg | 01/30/2013 @ 08:23
mkfreeberg: I don’t accept the validity of the process.

Zachriel: On what basis?
- Zachriel | 01/30/2013 @ 08:31
Figuring out what the Earth’s climate will do a hundred years on, and what we should do about it, is not science.
- mkfreeberg | 01/30/2013 @ 08:39
mkfreeberg: Figuring out what the Earth’s climate will do a hundred years on, and what we should do about it, is not science.

Projections certainly are a part of science. A simple example is Edmond Halley’s cometary predictions. Any other basis?
- Zachriel | 01/30/2013 @ 09:06
None other is needed. Based on my own gathering of data, this is an effort to alter the balance of power between two classes of people. Therefore, the viewpoint that it is a political discussion, is an accurate one. The viewpoint that it is a scientific one, is the illusion.
- mkfreeberg | 01/30/2013 @ 09:33
mkfreeberg: None other is needed.

In your original post you asked a question, “What kind of environment is the Earth?” The only way to answer that question is to look at the evidence. But it doesn’t matter what evidence is provided, your answer would be the same.

Thank you for clarifying your view.
- Zachriel | 01/30/2013 @ 09:50
I provided a rationale for my assessment that it is a heavy-pendulum environment, predisposed to return to its original situation once moved out of it. Water is a natural coolant, existing in liquid form within only a relatively narrow range, with a high specific heat rating. Therefore, the Earth is not a firecracker. This would entirely defeat the hysteria, and by the way, I’ve not seen anything presented to compel me to reconsider this. The relevant question of “What exactly is this ‘tipping point?'” historically invites a lot of obfuscation, equivocating, different answers depending on which expert you ask, emotionalism and distraction from the alwarmist community.

I have seen lots, and lots, and LOTS of demands here, for me to go chasing down some footnote-rainbow. I don’t find that convincing.

This is, after all, a political matter. Not a scientific one. The question is whether one class of people should be given power over another class of people. The “science” is just a bunch of maneuvering, with some published papers embedded in it here & there, which may be entirely sound by themselves. But in this context, it’s all just a bunch of maneuvering to sideline opposition…a rather constant objective in the human activity of politics.
- mkfreeberg | 01/30/2013 @ 10:18
mkfreeberg: I provided a rationale for my assessment that it is a heavy-pendlum environment.

Sorry, but it is impossible to address that question without addressing the evidence.
- Zachriel | 01/30/2013 @ 10:26
The heck you say. “Yes.” “No.” See how easy that is?
- mkfreeberg | 01/30/2013 @ 10:26
Zachriel As for the “High Feedback” graph, it’s deceptive because it looks like a time line, but it’s not. CO2 emissions are not linear over time, but bunched over the last few decades.

The axes are clearly labeled as temperature increase and atmospheric CO2. The only evidence of time are the markings at about 280 PPM in the pre-industrial time and today at about 380 PPM. Going off on time is a rabbit chase down a path that Meyer isn’t suggesting.

But here’s the thing that you didn’t address: the blue feedback 0 line is the baseline of about 1°C increase per doubling of CO2. The yellow, orange, and red lines are the trends that are necessary to get beyond that 1°C increase baseline. That’s the added effect of water vapor that climate scientists have guessed is going to magnify the temperature increase of CO2. What Meyer does very well here is show the trend of observed warming from about 280 PPM to 380 PPM. That tracks very nicely with the base blue line. For the catastrophic temperature increases to be real, the increase of temperature as CO2 increases has to track closer to the other lines. And history shows that it doesn’t. That’s the key point of this graph.
- Captain Midnight | 01/30/2013 @ 14:09
Here’s some interesting information coming out of the leaked 2014 IPCC draft report. The temperature predictions are way higher than what has been recorded in the same time period. Seems that the predictions and the reality are diverging in this last decade.
- Captain Midnight | 01/30/2013 @ 14:44
Captain Midnight: But here’s the thing that you didn’t address: the blue feedback 0 line is the baseline of about 1°C increase per doubling of CO2.

You don’t need a graph. CO2 increased from about 290 to 390 from 1900 to now. The temperature increased 0.74°C over the same period. That works out to a 2.15°C increase for a doubling of CO2. Have no idea how he drew his lines, and he doesn’t provide the specifics necessary to replicate his methodology.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html

Meyer is apparently claiming that climatologists “plug” arbitrary values for the effects of aerosols and climate sensitivity into their models in order to get them to provide the expected projections of warming. Do you think that, if we did a literature review, we would find scientists attempting to independently and empirically determine the effects of aerosols and climate sensitivity? What do you think we’ll find when we check the literature?
- Zachriel | 01/30/2013 @ 15:11
Captain Midnight: But here’s the thing that you didn’t address: the blue feedback 0 line is the baseline of about 1°C increase per doubling of CO2.
Zachriel You don’t need a graph. CO2 increased from about 290 to 390 from 1900 to now. The temperature increased 0.74°C over the same period. That works out to a 2.15°C increase for a doubling of CO2.

Your math works out in a nice linear way, but CO2’s effect on temperature is logrithmic, not linear. The CO2 increase from 290 to 390 is close to a third of the way to doubling the 1900 beginning point. Because of the logrithmic nature of CO2 warming, that first third has a greater effect on warming than does the second third, and much more than the last third.

Zachriel Meyer is apparently claiming that climatologists “plug” arbitrary values for the effects of aerosols and climate sensitivity into their models in order to get them to provide the expected projections of warming.

You are not reading the post right. It’s not about projections into the future but plugs, tricks, and hacks to make their models track closer to reality in the past. That’s what is discussed in the last part of Meyer’s post.

Zachriel Do you think that, if we did a literature review, we would find scientists attempting to independently and empirically determine the effects of aerosols and climate sensitivity? What do you think we’ll find when we check the literature?

*sniff* Seems to have the aroma of an appeal to authority here. But I’m sure that’s not what you’re intending.
- Captain Midnight | 01/30/2013 @ 18:09
Captain Midnight: Your math works out in a nice linear way, but CO2′s effect on temperature is logrithmic, not linear.

Yes, CO2 is logarithmic. If a doubling of CO2 results in 1°C warming, and an increase from 290 to 390 increased temperatures 0.74°C, then that would still represent an amplification of about 75%. In addition, there is still warming in the pipeline, and scientists point to aerosols as depressing the current warming somewhat, so the evidence is pointing to higher amplification than a naïve extrapolation would suggest.

Captain Midnight: *sniff*

Really, now. Your avoidance is telling.

Captain Midnight: Seems to have the aroma of an appeal to authority here.

It’s not an appeal to authority. It’s an appeal to evidence, and directly relevant to Meyer’s claim. Meyer “guessed” scientists were just plugging in numbers for aerosols and climate sensitivity. Do you think that, if we did a literature review, we would find scientists attempting to empirically determine the effects of aerosols and climate sensitivity? What do you think we’ll find when we check the literature?

mkfreeberg: With climate science, by its very nature we only have a few elites with original access to the “source.”

If no one has made empirical studies of aerosols and climate sensitivity, it’s a great opportunity to make an important contribution to the study of climate. But you might have to walk from Alexandria to Syene to find the answers.
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 06:26
Mkay, well I’ve already walked it (the common belief about Eratosthenes is that he produced his answer without leaving Egypt, and likely hired someone to do the walking). The answer I have is, we have a bunch of charlatans trying to seize a good chunk of the world’s wealth; they’re using a scam based on pseudo-science to do this.

It is an educated inference, just like the notion that the circumference of the Earth is fifty times the distance between Alexandria and Syene.

The only challenge to my theory I see at the present time, is some anonymous guy on the Internet, who isn’t even a guy, sending me off to go run down a bunny trail of footnotes. Just like fraudsters would be expected to do with pseudo-science. This fits in to my theory, just like a sunbeam into a well. So, just like the “science” involved in a flat earth, the science that says we have an earth disintegrating from human activity, tends to fall apart as soon as one takes it seriously and starts asking questions.
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2013 @ 06:44
mkfreeberg: Mkay, well I’ve already walked it (the common belief about Eratosthenes is that he produced his answer without leaving Egypt, and likely hired someone to do the walking).

Yes, he would have commissioned a professional walker, an independent, objective measure.

mkfreeberg: The answer I have is, we have a bunch of charlatans trying to seize a good chunk of the world’s wealth; they’re using a scam based on pseudo-science to do this.

Well, collecting your own data would have the advantage of not being tainted by “a bunch of charlatans”, a.k.a. scientists. In any case, you have indicated you aren’t interested in the evidence, so actually going out and collecting data would certainly be out of the question.
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 07:28
Zachriel: a professional walker

http://tinyurl.com/EratosthenesPacer
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 07:53
Actually, what I said was this was a political issue and not a scientific one.

It is interesting that you equate “an independent, objective measure” with outsourcing the task of collecting the data, even as you acknowledge “collecting your own data would have the advantage of not being tainted.” Measuring is a human endeavor, and as such can be executed well or poorly, whether it is outsourced or not. One does have a tighter control over the methodologies involved when one abides by the maxim of “if you want something done right, do it yourself.” But it’s not immediately evident how one achieves “objectivity” by having someone else do it.

Also, as pointed out previously, climate science is unique in that it is mostly confined to that: “Research,” for the majority of those interested, would be limited to reading what someone else wrote. And, I suppose, arguing on the Internet…
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2013 @ 07:59
mkfreeberg: Actually, what I said was this was a political issue and not a scientific one.

Determining whether the Earth is undergoing anthropogenic warming is certainly a scientific question.

mkfreeberg: It is interesting that you equate “an independent, objective measure” with outsourcing the task of collecting the data, even as you acknowledge “collecting your own data would have the advantage of not being tainted.”

Precisely. Pacers professionals in the field of measuring distances. They were essentially instruments. If Eratosthenes didn’t trust his pacer, he could have walked it himself, or hired competing pacers. He could crosscheck with regular travelers to provide an independent estimate.

Similarly, if you don’t trust the data the thousands of climate scientists have collected and cross-checked, you can collect your own, or find other, independent measures.

mkfreeberg: Measuring is a human endeavor, and as such can be executed well or poorly, whether it is outsourced or not.

That’s right. Some research is certainly of better quality than other research, but you can’t make those judgments with your eyes closed.

mkfreeberg: One does have a tighter control over the methodologies involved when one abides by the maxim of “if you want something done right, do it yourself.” But it’s not immediately evident how one achieves “objectivity” by having someone else do it.

Objective, of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

The scientific methodology to reduce bias is through independent replication, and crosschecking with varying methodologies. Climate science overlaps multiple fields of study, from oceanography to planetology, from physics to satellite imaging, from geology to forestry, from statistics and metrology to glaciology.

mkfreeberg: “Research,” for the majority of those interested, would be limited to reading what someone else wrote.

Yeah, no telling what empirical research someone might write down, e.g. Sidereus Nuncius, the results of which were immediately replicated by observers all over Europe using their own instruments and methods.

mkfreeberg: “Research,” for the majority of those interested, would be limited to reading what someone else wrote.

That was exactly our question, “Do you think that, if we did a literature review, we would find scientists attempting to *empirically* determine the effects of aerosols and climate sensitivity?”
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 08:32
So we essentially agree on what is to be done with the science. Or at least, much more of our disagreement has to do with categorizing this whole issue as a scientific, versus a political, one.

Which you have persistently bypassed, or rather leapfrogged, for some five hundred posts here. If we’re going to be charitable to the political forces who insist they should be given power over others outside their group, because the Earth is in a state of compromise in its ability to continually sustain life, that wold involve asking “Is there science to indicate this might be the case?” That would necessarily start with the question of primer caps versus heavy pendulums: Is this thin atmosphere covering the planet, of the nature that it tends to move further out of the norm, once nudged away from it? Or, is its nature to self-correct in the metrics, back toward the norm, like all other systems based on water?

The apocalyptic theory relies on our perception of the atmosphere toward the former, while the evidence you insist we should inspect, tells us it is the latter. Phil tried to clue you in on this with the blanket analogy, and Captain Midnight tried to do it again over essentially the same issue, yesterday.

And it seems your response to these is something like “Yes that is science, but that isn’t the science we happen to like.”

Which only further reinforces my point: This is a political issue, not a scientific one. As such, the analogies involving the original Eratosthenes ultimately fail. He had nothing to gain from convincing anyone the Earth was round, and this-big in circumference. He was simply conducting a measurement. Which wasn’t even his day job.
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2013 @ 08:50
mkfreeberg: Or at least, much more of our disagreement has to do with categorizing this whole issue as a scientific, versus a political, one.

Whether the Earth is experiencing anthropogenic climate change is clearly a scientific question. It’s no more a political question than whether the Earth moves.

mkfreeberg: If we’re going to be charitable to the political forces who insist they should be given power over others outside their group, because the Earth is in a state of compromise in its ability to continually sustain life, that wold involve asking “Is there science to indicate this might be the case?”

The answer is no. While climate change may cause the extinction of some species, humans and much other life will persist.

mkfreeberg: That would necessarily start with the question of primer caps versus heavy pendulums: Is this thin atmosphere covering the planet, of the nature that it tends to move further out of the norm, once nudged away from it? Or, is its nature to self-correct in the metrics, back toward the norm, like all other systems based on water?

Or a more complex response. Those are questions amenable to scientific investigation.

mkfreeberg: And it seems your response to these is something like “Yes that is science, but that isn’t the science we happen to like.”

No. The complex response of the Earth’s climate is certainly an important scientific question.
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 09:48
Whether the Earth is experiencing anthropogenic climate change is clearly a scientific question. It’s no more a political question than whether the Earth moves.

But…that isn’t the real question, is it. We certainly do not get to vote on whether or not the Earth is warming. The question is, should we go forward with these policies.

And, once we look into the science that overlaps with this policy question, we discover the political agitators who want us to choose their remedy, have some pretty clear ideas about what science we should inspect, and what science we should not.

Just as, I’m sure, if one of the “scientists” from 200BCE came to learn about Eratosthenes’ common-sense conclusion about the shape and size of the Earth, he had his own footnote-rainbow he’d have wanted people to go chasing down. But the circumference of the Earth, along with its climate, couldn’t give a fig what people choose to read, or say, or think. They’re going to do what they’re going to do.
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2013 @ 10:03
mkfreeberg: But…that isn’t the real question, is it. We certainly do not get to vote on whether or not the Earth is warming. The question is, should we go forward with these policies.

The answer to the policy question depends on the answer to the scientific question. For instance, if anthropogenic climate change is negligible or non-existent, then there is no need to have a policy that addresses it.

mkfreeberg: And, once we look into the science that overlaps with this policy question, we discover the political agitators who want us to choose their remedy, have some pretty clear ideas about what science we should inspect, and what science we should not.

Perhaps, but that’s why it’s important to have a scientific understanding of the problem before considering various policy options. Even if there is a real problem, some people will hyperventilate.
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 10:08
Perhaps, but that’s why it’s important to have a scientific understanding of the problem before considering various policy options.

Okay, well it looks like everyone participating has a workable understanding. The conversation should then proceed to whether there is some scientific evidence that says the climate change is “neglible or non-existent” — and, tellingly, this seems to be the part you don’t want to have inspected. We had this back-and-forth in early May about what “the best evidence” means, said meaning being absolutely crucial to what it is you are trying to assert, and you’ve insisted on keeping this crucial term functionally nebulous.

Within this thread at least, that, and no one person’s scientific lack of understanding or misunderstanding, has been the most daunting obstacle to reaching the truth.

Meanwhile, since the Earth’s atmosphere is a heavy-pendulum environment, it is not a likelihood that pandemonium is imminent, or even anything to be concerned about in the generations to come. If there is good science that says otherwise, you have yet to provide it. Although you’ve certainly mentioned it with the “best evidence” phrase a number of times.
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2013 @ 10:16
mkfreeberg: The conversation should then proceed to whether there is some scientific evidence that says the climate change is “neglible or non-existent” — and, tellingly, this seems to be the part you don’t want to have inspected.

We are more than happy to discuss the evidence, but you said you weren’t interested.

mkfreeberg: Meanwhile, since the Earth’s atmosphere is a heavy-pendulum environment,

What is your scientific evidence that the Earth is a “heavy-pendulum environment”? How does that explain the warming troposphere while the stratosphere cools?
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 10:35
Zachriel and scientists point to aerosols as depressing the current warming somewhat…

Aerosols again. Yep, gotta be them pesky aerosols that are depressing the warming. That would explain why figure 5.7 of the ClimateScience.gov pdf doesn’t show the predicted massive warming. That would explain why Sherwood didn’t find the predicted massive warming. And that could explain why the leaked 2014 IPCC draft report doesn’t see the predicted warming.

Except for aerosols to have the massive cooling effect they would need to mask the predicted massive warming, they would have to significantly cool areas by multiple degrees since they are both short lived and localized when compared with CO2 and water vapor. And since the majority of the aerosols are produced in the northern hemisphere, we should see that significant cooling there, more so than in the south. But temperature records show the opposite.
- Captain Midnight | 01/31/2013 @ 10:41
We are more than happy to discuss the evidence, but you said you weren’t interested.

To repeat, again, I said that this is an issue more concerned with politics than with science.

What is your scientific evidence that the Earth is a “heavy-pendulum environment”? How does that explain the warming troposphere while the stratosphere cools?

To repeat, again, this means that an environment, once nudged out of one reading on a metric toward another, will be pre-disposed to return to its norm. This is typical of environments and machinery — systems — that can make use of water as a coolant agent, since water has a high specific heat measurement, much energy is required to raise the temperature of a constant mass of it by some measured temperature differential. Also, it warms the materials with which it makes contact, as it condenses, and cools such materials as it evaporates.

Water itself, ironically, has “primer cap” qualities in that it loses this specific heat measurement once it turns into steam, and also when it turns into ice. The saucepan on your stove will become hotter without the additional investment of electrical energy into the coil beneath it — once the water has boiled away. Until the water has boiled away, however, the water will essentially absorb much of the heat energy, and then dissipate it into the surrounding air. Tasked to elevate the temperature of the saucepan to, let’s say, 230°F, with the heat from the burner being the only tool at your disposal, you’d first have to boil away all the water. And to date I’ve not heard any theories forecasting that all the water is going to boil off the Earth due to climate change, so that situation is essentially out of scope for us.

Within the situations that are left, we’re dealing with a heavy pendulum — pre-disposed to return to its norm, pre-disposed away from extremes, and as external forces push it out of the norm by investing energy in such a push, a greater share of energy is required to push it further out.

There are other heavy-pendulum properties involved in the much-discussed carbon saturation in the Atmosphere. This is what Phil was trying to explain to you back in April. It’s not a case of retaining a predictably greater accumulation of heat, with a greater accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere.

Perhaps we’re doing right by inspecting levels of understanding of the primitive scientific concepts, and presuming lack of understanding until the opposite is shown, but doing this in the wrong place.
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2013 @ 10:48
Captain Midnight: Except for aerosols to have the massive cooling effect they would need to mask the predicted massive warming, they would have to significantly cool areas by multiple degrees since they are both short lived and localized when compared with CO2 and water vapor.

Maybe someone should conduct a scientific study of aerosols and find out. Do you think there are scientists attempting to *empirically* determine the effects of aerosols and climate sensitivity? If not, that might be a great idea for a PhD!
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 10:59
Odd that this is being left undone.

More evidence that the science is being phonied-up, passed around as a gimmick, to push the political effort over the hump.
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2013 @ 11:06
mkfreeberg: To repeat, again, I said that this is an issue more concerned with politics than with science.

And we replied that it doesn’t make sense to address the policy questions without a good understanding of the science.

mkfreeberg: To repeat, again, this means that an environment, once nudged out of one reading on a metric toward another, will be pre-disposed to return to its norm.

Yes, we understand the concept of equilibrium, but you haven’t provided any evidence that the Earth is destined to always remain in equilibrium. Indeed, geological history indicates that the Earth’s climate is a complex system with more than one equilibrium point or chaotic attractor.

mkfreeberg: Water itself, ironically, has “primer cap” qualities in that it loses this specific heat measurement once it turns into steam, and also when it turns into ice.

Wonder if scientists are aware of this… In any case, the Earth can only lose heat by radiation.

Nor have you explained the cooling stratosphere. We have strong evidence that the greenhouse effect is increasing, which explains why the lower atmosphere and surface are warming, while the upper atmosphere is cooling. Your explanation fails to explain the data.
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 11:13
Zachriel: Maybe someone should conduct a scientific study of aerosols and find out. Do you think there are scientists attempting to *empirically* determine the effects of aerosols and climate sensitivity? If not, that might be a great idea for a PhD!

mkfreeberg: Odd that this is being left undone.

We have an answer! This is a great opportunity to do some real science!

Does Captain Midnight agree that this is being left undone?
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 11:17
And we replied that it doesn’t make sense to address the policy questions without a good understanding of the science.

And I repeat, again, that it looks like those in attendance have this. So we can dispense with that part of it unless you have substantial reason to infer that is not the case.
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2013 @ 11:20
mkfreeberg: it looks like those in attendance have this

Don’t know what that means. Do you disagree that it makes sense to understand the science before addressing policy?
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 11:22
Not to mention that you made an empirical claim in the original post, and just repeated it, that the Earth is a “heavy-pendulum environment”.
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 11:38
Don’t know what that means.

Well then, you’ll just have to re-read it until you get it.

Not to mention that you made an empirical claim in the original post, and just repeated it, that the Earth is a “heavy-pendulum environment”.

I’m willing to entertain reasonable challenges to it. I’m taking it as a given that it’s not a matter of controversy.

But I think it should be noted that, the system of faith that we refer to as “anthropomorphic climate change,” including the dogma of immediate-action-required and the dogma of approaching-the-tipping-point, relies on the nonsensical notion that the climate behaves differently: Some critical horizon is to be approached, and then surpassed, and then things somehow slip “out of control.”

It’s nonsense. That’s probably why nobody can put it all together, and put their good names by the entire recitation of it.
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2013 @ 12:49
Confession time: I’m done with this thread, but I’ll part with a long and rambling finish. (For the tl;dr crowd–there isn’t enough evidence to show a massive temperature rise like predicted by climate scientists. At most, we’re looking at a minor increase. More of an “ahh… that’s nice” than a “AAAHHH I’m burning!” effect. You may now stop reading.)

Growing up as a kid, I loved watching the School House Rock cartoons. I will still throw my DVD into the system and sing along even now. My favorites were the history songs, but let me point you to the 11 math songs because I have a mental math problem to consider. Ready? Take each of the songs and each number mentioned in each song and multiply them all together. I’ll start off by giving you all the numbers mentioned in the song about the number 2 titled “Elementary, My Dear“:

40, 40, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 6, 2, 4, 8, 2, 5, 10, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 6, 12, 2, 7, 14, 2, 8, 16, 2, 9, 18, 2, 10, 20, 11, 22, 12, 24, 13, 26, 14, 28, 15, 30, 30, 16, 32, 17, 34, 18, 36, 19, 38, 20, 40, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 6, 2, 4, 8, 2, 5, 10, 2, 174, 2, 174, 2, 100, 2, 70, 2, 4, 2, 174, 200, 140, 8, 348, 32, 64, 33, 66, 34, 68, 35, 70, 2, 98, 2, 98, 2, 100, 2, 2, 200, 4, 196, 40, 40

You multiply that all together and you get a very big number! So what’s the answer if you multiply all the numbers together from the rest of the songs?

Zero.

Yep. Because one of the School House Rock songs talks about the zero (“My Hero, Zero“), the mathematical principle that mulitplying any number by zero results in zero. Math is fun!

And so is science. Back when Cosmos was first aired, I was intreged by the Drake equation he discussed in episode 12. You can watch the snippet here on YouTube. Since we can’t use <sub> or <super> tags, or use <img> for inline images in these comments, the formula is going to look ugly here, but here goes nothing:

The Drake equation states that:

N = R* · fp · ne · fl · fi · fc · L

where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);
and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

Whew. That’s a rather complicated formula, and depending on what values you place for the variables, the end number can vary quite a bit. But here’s my complaint regarding this formula: we can only guess at the values of fl, fi, fc, and L because we just don’t know what they are. Essentially, the Drake Equation is scientific-looking fluff that obscures the fact that we’re multiplying by a guess — and just as multiplying by zero makes the answer zero, multiplying by a guess makes the whole answer a guess, whatever the end number may be. It may be an educated guess or just a WAG, but it still remains a guess.

Which brings me (finally!) to the subject of ~~global warming~~ climate change. Scientists are prognosticating dire temperature changes in the future, and they know that this is going to happen because their models tell them so. And computer models are a fancy high-tech way of making guesses. Guesses about how much greenhouse gas concentrations will be around in the next 100 years, guesses about what these gases do to the atmosphere, guesses about how the Earth’s ecosystems will react to these changes — there are lots of guesses going on here, folks. And just as any number multiplied by zero becomes zero, any number multiplied by guesswork becomes a guess.

There’s a way to test any global warming model: feed it the best known data about the past climate and have it generate what the next two decades should look like. Then, as the years pass, the recorded data can be compared with the predicted data and a judgement rendered. And here’s the kicker: we already have this. One can look at the three predictions James Hansen made in 1988 and compare them with actual numbers in the decades since. And in a leaked 2014 IPCC draft report the forecast warming is also missed.

Data, even really good data, when multiplied by a guess, results in just a guess. And I don’t want to be legislated or regulated based on a guess.

No need to respond. Just swim on.
- Captain Midnight | 01/31/2013 @ 12:55
Captain Midnight: One can look at the three predictions James Hansen made in 1988 and compare them with actual numbers in the decades since.

Hansen’s original model used a climate sensitivity of 4.2°C, and would have fit more closely to observation with a sensitivity of 3.4°C. It also successfully predicted the regional distribution of warming.

Captain Midnight: But here’s my complaint regarding this formula: we can only guess at the values of fl, fi, fc, and L because we just don’t know what they are.

Which proves the point.

You directed us to an argument by Meyer. He “guessed” that scientists were just plugging in numbers for climate sensitivity to reach their conclusion. So we asked a simple and relevant question. Do you think that, if we did a literature review, we would find scientists attempting to independently and empirically determine the effects of aerosols and climate sensitivity?

You never answered. Scientists aren’t guessing about climate. They’re collecting data, often under difficult conditions.
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 13:12
You never answered. Scientists aren’t guessing about climate. They’re collecting data, often under difficult conditions.

Not just collecting it. Concluding things from it…making predictions…advocating for expensive policy changes even when the predictions don’t hold up. Of course, by then, it isn’t really science by anybody’s definition.
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2013 @ 13:16
mkfreeberg: I’m willing to entertain reasonable challenges to it.

We already provided a reasonable challenge: Earth’s climate history. Nor does some vague notion of equilibrium explain why the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling.
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 13:21
mkfreeberg: Not just collecting it. Concluding things from it…making predictions…

You’re confusing science with medieval philosophy. Scientists propose hypotheses, make entailed predictions, then collect evidence to support or refute the hypothesis, modify or discard the hypothesis, and then collect more evidence.

Advocacy is not science, though scientists certainly advocate. Again, start with the science before worrying about policy prescriptions.
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 13:45
Thanks for the recommendation, but I think I’ll go ahead and worry about the policy prescriptions.

They’re the crooks, trying to take my money. A trillion-dollar scam. The “scientists” are just accomplices, you might say they’re distracting the guards while the safe is being blown up.

But still, if the scientific method they’ve been using is aptly represented by what I’ve seen in this thread, maybe I should worry about them as well. I’ll find a way to work it in.
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2013 @ 14:52
mkfreeberg: The “scientists” are just accomplices, you might say they’re distracting the guards while the safe is being blown up.

So whether or not anthropogenic climate change may result in widespread disruption of human civilization and the world’s environment doesn’t matter in your analysis?
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 15:02
Get back to me when you have some hard evidence that this is a likelihood. Then we can talk further about that. Starting with, whether the scientific method was used in establishing that evidence, with better rigor than I’ve seen it used here.
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2013 @ 15:03
mkfreeberg: Get back to me when you have some hard evidence that this is a likelihood.

We’re happy to talk about the evidence. One crucial evidence is the warming troposphere and the cooling stratosphere, the signature of greenhouse warming. Are we okay with this, or did you still have questions?
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 15:08
I’m not happy with making every aspect of my life that has something to do with the production of energy, artificially expensive, just because someone can document that the atmosphere has the capability of trapping heat. That’s just unreasonable.

I think it is fair to say that if we could somehow take all the posts in this thread, and plot them in a pie chart according to what they seek to prove or to assert, there’d be this huge wedge bigger than all the rest involving your inquires of “are you okay with this”? It might look like, if it was a slice of pizza you just picked up, you’d immediately hold it up to the light to see if you got two pieces stuck together. It might approach half. It might exceed half. It might look like Pac Man’s head. There’s been an awful lot of this stuff, and it seems to me what you’re trying to prove is not anything more scientific than “we know what we’re talking about, and anybody who doesn’t conclude the same things we do, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”

I also have the impression you’ve been given ample time and space to “prove” this, and thus far all you’ve managed to show is that the other participants do know what they’re talking about. In fact, ironically enough, your consistent maneuver of “are we okay with this so we can go on to the next baby step” is demonstrably at odds with the way science is really supposed to work.

I have posited that an environment, or system, can be a primer cap or a heavy pendulum. To put it in mathematical terms, if quantity of energy E can raise the temperature (or any other metric of it relying on accumulated energy) from M0 to M1, and it requires <E to raise it from M1 to M2 — that would be a primer cap. The more out of whack it gets, the easier it is to push it further out of whack. If the energy required to raise from M1 to M2 is >E, then it is a heavy pendulum. Earth’s climate, I say, is a heavy pendulum, and the reason we don’t hear the “tipping point” explained in any detail is that there isn’t one, and cannot be one. Like all other known things that are water based, it is inclined to return to its norm, and it becomes incrementally and increasingly difficult to move it out of that norm.

This is just an additional obstacle the doomsday scenario would have to encounter — after it overcomes what Phil was talking about, with the blankets. Such-and-such a greater carbon saturation does not equate to an equivalently more formidable greenhouse effect.

Now — tell me where I’m wrong. Your “do you agree, let’s go in baby steps” maneuver has not proven what it is supposed to, it’s time to abandon it. Just explain the theory, stem to stern, in one swoop.
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2013 @ 15:35
mkfreeberg: Earth’s climate, I say, is a heavy pendulum, and the reason we don’t hear the “tipping point” explained in any detail is that there isn’t one, and cannot be one.

The reason you don’t hear is because you don’t listen. A tipping point occurs because of positive feedback. For instance, as Arctic sea ice melts, it exposes more water, which absorbs more heat, leading to more ice melt.

mkfreeberg: Like all other known things that are water based, it is inclined to return to its norm, and it becomes incrementally and increasingly difficult to move it out of that norm.

We note you don’t posit an actual mechanism.

There are several reasons to believe that there is not a single equilibrium point for the Earth’s climate, including the history of Earth’s climate, which has seesawed erratically between hot and cold periods. Another reason is that we can observe the climate in a state of rapid greenhouse warming today.
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 16:14
And, I note, you didn’t define a tipping point. It can’t be done, because such a tipping point would have to be a boundary between “under control,” and “oopsie, slipped out of control.”

Humans have never had control over this.

It is very plausible for pendulums to “seesaw.” That is what they do. They go one direction, they go the other direction…they return to the norm. As Earth’s climate has done.
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2013 @ 16:20
mkfreeberg: And, I note, you didn’t define a tipping point.

We defined it above, but we’ll define it again. It’s when a system changes from one stable state of equilibrium to another stable state of equilibrium.

mkfreeberg: It is very plausible for pendulums to “seesaw.”

Sure, but saying so doesn’t make it so, nor does the evidence support a simple oscillation. We can observe greenhouse warming. As long as greenhouse gases continue to increase, the Earth’s surface temperature will increase. It’s a physical mechanism. It’s not a question of whether the Earth will continue to warm, but how much.

mkfreeberg: As Earth’s climate has done.

Earth’s climate history is not characterized by a simple oscillation or by a stable equilibrium. The Earth has experienced long periods of very warm and very cold climate.
- Zachriel | 01/31/2013 @ 19:31
So to summarize:

1. No “tipping point,” in the sense of anything slipping out of control, or embarking on some new threshold of accelerated/runaway warming.
2. No solid evidence that any “widespread disruption of human civilization and the world’s environment” is likely or imminent, be it connected or unconnected to human activity.
3. It’s a racket.
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2013 @ 19:59
mkfreeberg: 1. No “tipping point,” in the sense of anything slipping out of control, or embarking on some new threshold of accelerated/runaway warming.

You keep making empirical statements, but ignore the evidence that contradicts your position.

We might want to mention that your original post was a false dichotomy. There are more options than “primer caps” and “heavy pendulums”. Can you name any other possibilities?
- Zachriel | 02/01/2013 @ 06:07
You keep making empirical statements, but ignore the evidence that contradicts your position.

There isn’t evidence that contradicts my position. It’s something that simply is. And, to repeat, this is a problem that awaits the doomsday scenario after it overcomes the “blanket” issue Phil was talking about. Now maybe I’ve missed it, but I’ve not yet seen you take that one on.

To the extent this is about science, what I’ve learned from this thread is that it is mostly about psychology. We’re looking at a psychological phenomenon — not limited to climate research by any means — in which people, who are all studied up on footnotes and such, get educated beyond their hat size and start to live in a comfort zone. Yours is “Anybody who disagrees with us, disagrees with us due to an important misunderstanding they have” — you’ve had 625 comments to define what exactly that is, you haven’t succeeded in doing it and yet, bizarrely, you continue to go through the posturing.

Z: We are more than happy to discuss the evidence, but you said you weren’t interested.

M: To repeat, again, I said that this is an issue more concerned with politics than with science.

Z: And we replied that it doesn’t make sense to address the policy questions without a good understanding of the science.

M: And I repeat, again, that it looks like those in attendance have this. So we can dispense with that part of it unless you have substantial reason to infer that is not the case.

Z: Don’t know what that means. Do you disagree that it makes sense to understand the science before addressing policy?

M: Well then, you’ll just have to re-read it until you get it.

It’s like you can’t step out of the comfort zone. The whole experiment with the water wells 2200 years ago, was all about stepping out of the comfort zone…as long as you cannot do this, you will continue to be befuddled by events.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2013 @ 06:49
mkfreeberg: There isn’t evidence that contradicts my position. It’s something that simply is.

Which is why we said you were handwaving. Your response is vacuous because it would be the same regardless of what we posted.

There is virtually no one who thinks the Earth’s climate is a simple periodic system. That notion is contradicted by historic climate change, and is contradicted by modern observations.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2013 @ 07:16
“response is vacuous because it would be the same regardless of what [the opposition] posted” is actually an apt description of what you’ve had to say throughout this thread…hand wavers.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2013 @ 07:17
mkfreeberg: “response is vacuous because it would be the same regardless of what [the opposition] posted” is actually an apt description of what you’ve had to say throughout this thread

That’s not correct. While we have insisted that you be willing to support your claims, and that we should understand the science before addressing policy, when Captain Midnight posted information to support his view, we took time to read the information he provided, then directly addressed that information. But afterwards, he didn’t acknowledge our points, and just kept repeating the same information, so the discussion lagged.

We are always happy to address the evidence. If you grant, arguendo, anthropogenic climate change, then we’d be happy to discuss policy options, as well.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2013 @ 07:25
But, I don’t agree that this is the proper sequence, because I don’t accept this is scientific.

You can’t tell people how they are to discuss something, refuse to have an honest exchange with them if they don’t comply, and then go and act like they are the ones who stopped the conversation. Well, you can I suppose…but it isn’t an accurate reflection of what happened.

Through this thread, top to bottom, the science really hasn’t gotten much more involved or enlightening than “none like it hot.” This enforces the view that, in spite of all the footnoting and buzzwording, this really isn’t about science. Other than the science of human psychology.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2013 @ 07:29
mkfreeberg: But, I don’t agree that this is the proper sequence, because I don’t accept this is scientific.

Whether the Earth is undergoing anthropogenic climate change is certainly a scientific question.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2013 @ 07:31
And we’ve discussed that already. Thanks for playing.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2013 @ 07:33
[…] we around these parts noticed last year, and many times since then, libs are awfully free and easy with that word […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 02/03/2013 @ 13:23
[…] we around these parts noticed last year, and many times since then, libs are awfully free and easy with that word […]
- “Will…” | Rotten Chestnuts | 02/03/2013 @ 13:42
[…] they simply retreat to their factual — or, at least, empirical-sounding — claim. As here, from the Thread that Wouldn’t […]
- D3: “Moonwalk” / “Moonwalking” | Rotten Chestnuts | 02/15/2013 @ 10:39

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Primer Caps and Heavy PendulumsSaturday, April 14th, 2012

Primer Caps and Heavy Pendulums
Saturday, April 14th, 2012