This Week in SCIENCE, Volume 327, Issue 5967, Food Security dated February 12 2010, is now available at:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol327/issue5967/twis.dtl
Standing High (requires free registration to view)
Excerpts:
Abstract:
Sea-Level Highstand 81,000 Years Ago in Mallorca
Jeffrey A. Dorale,1,* Bogdan P. Onac,2,* Joan J. Fornós,3 Joaquin Ginés,3 Angel Ginés,3 Paola Tuccimei,4 David W. Peate1
1 Department of Geoscience, University of Iowa, 121 Trowbridge Hall, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
2 Department of Geology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, SCA 528, Tampa, FL 33620, USA; and Department of Geology, Babes-Bolyai University, Emil Racovita Institute of Speleology Cluj, Romania.
3 Departament de Ciències de la Terra, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Carretera Valldemossa km 7.5, Palma de Mallorca, 07122, Spain.
4 Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche, Università di Roma III, Largo St. Leonardo Murialdo, 1, 00146 Roma, Italy.
…
Sea-level rises and falls as Earth’s giant ice sheets shrink and grow. It has been thought that sea level around 81,000 years ago—well into the last glacial period—was 15 to 20 meters below that of today and, thus, that the ice sheets were more extensive. Dorale et al. (p. 860; see the Perspective by Edwards) now challenge this view. A speleothem that has been intermittently submerged in a cave on the island of Mallorca was dated to show that, historically, sea level was more than a meter above its present height. This data implies that temperatures were as high as or higher than now, even though the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was much lower.
…
, Bermuda [Ber (23, 24)], Grand Cayman [GC (25)], and Mallorca [Mal (1)]. (C) Sea-level reconstruction for Mallorca. Elevations and U/Th ages of encrusted speleothems throughout MIS 5 and at the onset of MIS 4 are shown (ages and 2{sigma} error bars are color-coded by sample; blue-colored ages are obtained from earlier studies (10). (D) The reconstructed ocean water {delta}18O, scaled as sea level (29). (E) 60°N June insolation (27). The vertical yellow bar denotes the timing of peak MIS 5a sea level recorded at Mallorca and shows a good correlation with 60°N June insolation and the reconstructed ocean water {delta}18O scaled as sea level."]”]
…
We therefore consider the simple interpretation of our data that eustatic sea level during MIS 5a stood around +1 m relative to present sea level, implying less ice on Earth 81,000 years ago than today. Although this interpretation conflicts with the generally accepted eustatic sea-level curve based on the far-field sites of Barbados and New Guinea, it is consistent with a number of other estimates from around the world, including those from the Bahamas, the U.S. Atlantic Coastal Plain, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, and California (4, 6, 22–26) (Fig. 2B). We considered the simple fact that this geographically diverse suite of sites spans a wide range of presumed isostatic states, yet the suite consistently indicates a late MIS 5a highstand of ~ +0 to 3 m (Fig. 2B). Bermuda and Mallorca, for example, are both tectonically stable, and both have MIS 5e/5a estimates of 2 to 3 and 1 to 2 m above modern sea level, respectively; whereas MIS 5e/5a estimates from Barbados are ~ +5 m and ~ –18 m (2). Any appeal to GIA to account for these discrepancies must somehow take into account the unlikely outcome that different ice centers on different continents (Laurentide versus Fennoscandian) would generate the virtually identical MIS 5e/5a relative sea-level histories of tectonically stable Bermuda and Mallorca. The very rapid onset and relatively brief nature of the MIS 5a highstand may have plausibly generated lags between the timing of sea-level changes and the timing of coral reef growth, and may provide a partial explanation as to why reefs on Barbados and New Guinea do not record a comparable eustatic height for this event. This and other factors that could be part of the apparent discrepancy are discussed in (9).
============
h/t to WUWT reader David Hagen
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As predicted, Monckton let us down by spending too much time bignoting himself and bluffing and not enough time checking his data.
http://bit.ly/bsTDld
http://bit.ly/98BKP0
This is exactly what we’re accusing the AGWers of doing. Get it together will you, Monckton!
John Hooper (04:21:44),
I watched the entire Lord Monckton/Tim Lambert debate. From your comment, I doubt that you did. Monckton never “bluffed,” not once. Where did you get that from? He was extremely knowledgeable, more so than Lambert, who was never able to show that Monckton was wrong on his facts. [Unfortunately, the viewers were not shown the charts and graphs that the audience was shown.]
Being a braggart and AGW purveyor, Lambert would naturally claim in his blog that he won the debate. In fact, he lost. I saw it all.
Throughout the debate Lord Monckton was confident, interesting, and had the facts at his fingertips much better than Tim Lambert, who often lapsed into technical minutiae, losing the audience in the process.
The audience was clearly won over by Monckton, who received repeated rounds of applause – quite a contrast to Lambert, who made his points and sat down to a quiet but polite audience.
By the Q&A session, Lambert’s body language and defeated attitude told the story, with his slumped shoulders, bowed head, and by allowing Monckton to answer questions directed at Lambert, or to either of them – with no rebuttal to Monckton’s energetic replies. By conceding the field of battle to his opponent, Lambert made it clear that he knew at that point who the victor was.
If Lambert has actually convinced himself now that he won the debate, he should watch it like the viewers did, and pay attention to the audience’s response. So should you.
John Hooper,
I have a problem with understanding your posts, and it seems to stem from confusion between the various meanings of the word ‘truth’
Pease could you post your definitions?
Monckton never “bluffed,” not once. Where did you get that from? He was extremely knowledgeable, more so than Lambert, who was never able to show that Monckton was wrong on his facts. [Unfortunately, the viewers were not shown the charts and graphs that the audience was shown.]
If Lambert has actually convinced himself now that he won the debate, he should watch it like the viewers did, and pay attention to the audience’s response. So should you.
So you’re saying Monckton won because a partisan crowd who paid to see him beat up a warmist cheered clapped him on?
And that’s not Argumentum ad Populum?
Me, I think it’s a little embarrassing to have the author of a paper you cite state you’ve misinterpreted their findings.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2010/02/debate_australia_tim_lambert.pdf
It’s not an isolated incident either, as you might recall from the fallout after ” The Great Global Warming Swindle”
Too many on this side of the debate are guilty of prematurely piling on.
John Hooper (06:29:29),
I pointed out who won the debate. You are certainly correct when you state that Monckton beat up on Lambert, who clearly couldn’t keep up with him. So now you come up with excuses why your hero lost. Too bad neither you nor Lambert can take it like men, you both make excuses and cry about it instead.
You are complaining about the outcome of the debate, by posting an anonymous link copied from the skeptic-censoring deltoid blog, but I doubt even with your cheerleading that Lambert would consent to another public spanking by Lord Monckton. Being humiliated once in front of a worldwide audience is quite enough for Lambert, I would think. [And: ‘prematurely piling on’?? I, for one, would love to see a rematch, because the first debate was so much fun.]
We all know you would never make your complaint of the audience’s decision about who won the debate if Timmy had won. Just like we all know who the honest scientific skeptics are here, and who are the chameleons.
supercritical (06:28:58) :
John Hooper,
I have a problem with understanding your posts, and it seems to stem from confusion between the various meanings of the word ‘truth’
Please could you post your definitions?
I suspect you’re being facetious, but nevertheless I see skepticism as a healthy part of the body of science, and I see forums like this as part of the extended “peer review” process.
Our goal as I see it is to help steer science not simply nay-say everything emanating from the establishment on principle.
Doing so not only puerile and counterproductive, but really is being a [snip].
It is reasonable to assume in good faith that the established body of science will gravitate towards a more watertight premise. One that punishes both the preposterous extrapolations of warmist doom, as well as the knee-jerk conspiracy theories too common on this board.
Don’t loose sight that we’re all on the side of science.
Lose not loose. Dammit.
Smokey (07:01:53) :
John Hooper (06:29:29),
I pointed out who won the debate. You are certainly correct when you state that Monckton beat up on Lambert, who clearly couldn’t keep up with him. So now you come up with excuses why your hero lost. Too bad neither you nor Lambert can take it like men, you both make excuses and cry about it instead.
Smokey,
Please note one link emanated from Andrew Bolt, the loudest skeptic in world media (often featured on this blog), who also echoes my sentiment. Go abuse him if it gets you off.
The other was an email from one of the sources quoted by our ally, Lord Monckton. Had you read the email you would see that Monckton’s talked-up source politely says our Lord has misunderstood (not even misrepresented) the paper.
Belligerently cheerleading regardless makes you look a fool. You would be better off direct your bile at Lord Monckton for letting you down. For letting science down.
I have no stake in this other than I can plainly see misrepresentation on the AGW front, but am frustrated by the often even sloppier cases against it.
Science isn’t about picking a team. It’s about punishing a theory.
John Hooper
I was serious in enquiring as to the ‘truth’ in your posts. For example the method of public competition (such as the Monckton/Lambert duel) will produce certain truths, but not scientific truths. Neither can a consensus of an established body, which again will produce certain truths, but not scientific ones.
In other words science is a method by which scientific truths can be discovered. For other kinds of truths, the other appropriate methods are required.
So when you posted on the duel I assumed you were communicating what struck you as ‘true’. But it was not clear to me because it did not make sense in the context of science, or politics, or sport.
[snip] We do not approve of calling people “denialists” here. ~dbs, mod.
Roger Knights (01:24:50) :
Not Amused (22:28:13) :
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHH !!! I am SO SICK of these AGW dogmatic freaks in the online forums !!! I can’t take it any more !!! There’s no rationale and reasoning with these robots, they are so bloody brain-washed !!! All they do is twist everything into circular semantics !!!
“I suggest that you challenge them to make a bet. . . .
At least three noted warmists have given a “better than likely” estimate of the first question (and thus the second by implication, because 209 was close to being the warmest), and from that I infer that they are virtually certain that 2010 will not be noticeably cooler than recent years (the third question). Since the odds automatically adjust as punters place their bets on one side or the other, they and their followers seem not to have backed up their opinions with cash. The skeptics seem to be more willing to put their money where their mouth is.”
That’s a questionable interpretation of the odds. There are a hundred and thirty years of instrument records, so absent a warming trend, the odds that 2010 will be one of the 5 warmest is 5/130 = 4%. The asking bid for “warmest” is 0.74 on the dollar (3 to 1). In other words, if you bet 2010 will not hitting the top five, and there is no warming trend, you would have a 96% chance of tripling your money.
Given the number of skeptics who claim “the world has been cooling since 1998” or crow about record snowfalls, I would think more of them would be willing to take a bet with an average 288% return.
Not Amused, don’t be a sucker. Roger clearly knows the ins and outs of Intrade; that means he’s probably smart enough to know that the world is rapidly warming. He’s likely trolling here for suckers who he can bait into betting against global warming, improving his own 33% return on his pro-warming bet.
John Hooper,
Again, I simply responded to your post [as you responded to those above you] by pointing out who won the debate. Other posters here saw the same debate and came to the same conclusion.
You don’t appear to see things like others do, as pointed out above. For example, you completely misrepresented what vigilantfish (06:38:40) stated. You should remember that fact checking is easy on a thread.
Psychological projection seems to be another of your traits. I was not ‘belligerently cheerleading,’ I was pointing out who won the debate. And since you think I’m a fool, that’s fine with me. I prefer to be underestimated.
There should be many more such formal debates. Unfortunately, Mr Lambert will undoubtedly be reluctant to again debate the always-willing Lord Monckton after being bested. [He certainly shouldn’t have used Mann’s debunked hokey stick chart as his claimed authority.]
It’s amusing to see the consternation this has caused in Lambert world. To understand how disreputable he is, see the post by “S. Lindsey” @8:09 a.m. on the Congenital Climate Abnormalities thread. Here at WUWT we regularly see comments like that. It is no compliment to alarmist blogs that they denigrate and censor opposing views. I suppose that since they cannot provide empirical evidence to support their CO2=CAGW hypothesis, it’s a face saving tactic.
Your impotent hatred of Lord Monckton will not change reality. Monckton has a long list of defeated debate opponents under his belt besides Lambert, including Gavin Schmidt, Pierrehumbert and others – who are now afraid to debate him.
Public humiliation is acutely distressing, especially when it is done by the always polite Lord Monckton, who wins his debates without name calling or raised voice, simply by showing the audience that the AGW emperor has no clothes.
@ur momisugly George E. Smith (10:23:36) :
I liked the “Many passengers would rather have stayed home.”
part of his quote. Made me think of the “hockey team” et al, they SHOULD have stayed home.
Is the Lambert – Monckton debate on video anywhere?
.
At the end of the day, whether you deny evolution, or AGW, or argue that the Earth is flat, is 10,000 years old, you will always be able to “sell” that belief to somebody.
Clearly there are many people here who are gloating at the prospect of “winning” the argument, for example:
“I was not ‘belligerently cheerleading,’ I was pointing out who won the debate. And since you think I’m a fool, that’s fine with me. I prefer to be underestimated.”
Clearly somebody whose loyalties are not to the truth: his focus is merely on “winning.”
It might be better if the people who believe the science, like me, just come right out and admit that we may very well lose the public relations battle with the anti-AGW true believers. Anti-AGW believers may not be very cogent, but they are very loud, and they have the very great advantage that all they are trying to do is delay and confuse, when inaction is easier and more comfortable than action.
We need to get past the question of who will win the public debate. Anti-AGW believers probably will, at least to the extent they need to, at least until it’s too late. If we concede that, maybe they can get past the thrill of victory to think seriously about what evidence they would need to see to question their own convictions. If you are wrong, Smokey, how will you realize it, and what will you do about AGW?
Ralph (12:22:11),
I’ll see if I can find it. Someone posted the link just as the debate started, and I clicked on it. But I don’t remember where or under what article, so it may take a while to find it.
Robert (12:34:50),
First off, enough with the “deny” language. It is deliberately insulting. The proper term is skeptic. I am a skeptic, which every honest scientist is, first and foremost. Belief has nothing to do with it. Those preaching AGW want everyone to take their word for the coming global warming apocalypse, without providing any empirical evidence whatever that a rise in CO2 will cause any more than a little insignificant warming. If that.
You may not like it, but debate results are based on who won or lost; on who has the better argument. Since the purveyors of the CO2=Catastrophic AGW hypothesis have no solid, testable evidence showing it to be factual, debates like this are necessarily about who has convinced the audience that they have the better argument.
Your boy lost, just as Gavin Schmidt lost to Lord Monckton in their debate. That one was done better, however: prior to the debate the audience was polled about their belief in AGW. The majority were convinced that AGW was a fact. Following that debate, the same audience was again polled. The result: they had changed their minds, and the majority rejected the AGW argument. That is now happening world wide on sites like this. The debate is being decided, and the AGW side is losing it.
The AGW crowd have been desperately seeking something, anything, they can ‘gloat’ about, because they have been so consistently wrong, outmaneuvered and discredited by skeptical scientists. I was not gloating – only pointing out the audience’s applause, in response to being labeled a ‘fool’ and a ‘belligerent cheerleader’ by a chameleon who posts here as an AGW skeptic.
I appreciate the concession speech in your last couple of paragraphs. Even Phil Jones is beginning to sound like that now, on his own personal road to Damascus. More will follow. Because as it has been repeatedly pointed out here for quite some time, the truth will eventually emerge. That’s what is happening: click on “Climategate” at the top of the page. See the truth exposed.
As far as being “wrong” about CAGW, you are assuming there is any more evidence for it than for Prince Charles’ “grey goo” that he’s afraid will destroy the world. Are we to spend $trillions on that monster under the bed, too? Because there is about as much evidence for grey goo as there is for CAGW.
Read up on the null hypothesis, then get back to us.
Debate link: click
“First off, enough with the “deny” language. It is deliberately insulting. The proper term is skeptic. I am a skeptic, which every honest scientist is, first and foremost.”
I don’t agree with your self-description. Skepticism is a habit of mind, an approach to problems, one which, with a few noble exceptions, I have found sadly lacking in anti-AGW believers.
What is evident from your comments as well as those of many of your peers here is an attitude of uncritical acceptance and celebration of anything which seems to confirm your beliefs, and endless attacks on anything which threatens them. This is the hallmark of an ideologically driven belief system, and it is not “skeptical” merely because the position you are embracing is one rejected by most climate scientists. Being against instead of for something may make you a critic, but it doesn’t make you a skeptic.
“You may not like it, but debate results are based on who won or lost;”
“your boy lost”
“I appreciate the concession speech”
Again, I suggest you get past your desire to “win” the public relations fight (and you probably will, if not as overwhelmingly as you’ve lost the scientific debate) and take an interest in the truth. Get your focus off your dog in the fight, and address the real questions: what is the truth about global warming? How will you know if you have been mistaken about it? What evidence would make you question your belief that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong about global warming?
A skeptic would have answers to those questions. I won’t be surprised if you don’t.
But there IS a warming trend and we’re at its peak, as a chart of the temperature trend of the past 130 years shows: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ v On that page, GISS points out that “The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008.”
Further, 2009 is the 2nd warmest year on the GISS record (which is the record used by Intrade to settle bets), the trend up from 2008 is sharp, and Jan. 2010 has set an all-time record (per UAH). Even if there were no recent warming trend but only random variation — yet, given that 2009 happened to be in the upper 10% (say) of the historical range, the odds of 2010 being either THE warmest or among the five warmest would be considerably better than 1/130 or 5/130.
As I explained above, 2009 was the second warmest year on record and 2010’s January is setting a record, so there’s no reason to expect that 2010 is as likely to be as cool as, say, 1948 (which is much further away) as to be as warm as 2009 (i.e., among the top five). If yearly variations are random, as per your hypothesis, then the most likely prediction for next year is that it will most closely resemble this year.
Ha-ha! (For the record, I haven’t yet placed any temperature-related bets there. I plan to in a few weeks. When I have, I’ll “declare my interest” in any posts on the topic I submit here.)
I see that you, like me, enjoy turning the tables — i.e., amusingly suggesting that I’m playing a double game. That’s perceptive. There’s a saying in gambling circles that “there’s no right side to a bet, there’s only the right odds,” so I do have a “cushion shot” in mind — i.e., I might take the “Yes” (warmist) side of one of the bets I mentioned under certain circumstances. For instance, I think that 2010 will continue to rack up record high temperatures for the next two months and that eventually this trend (plus the predictions of Gavin, Hansen, and Ms. Pope) will tempt enough warmists to bet Yes on “THE warmest?” that the odds will rise over 50%.
I think that the actual rational odds ought to be 25%. Therefore what I plan to do is place a standing order to “buy” the bet at 25% (hoping it will dip down there again soon) and “sell” it at 50%. I might even buy it at its current 33% and aim to sell it at 55%. If it got higher, then I’d take the other (coolist) side of the bet.
Robert:
“I don’t agree with your self-description.”
That’s tough, Robert; I am a scientific skeptic. Most of the people on this “Best Science” site are skeptics. And if it weren’t for skeptics, you’d still be going to your local witch doctor to treat diseases. So be grateful.
You try to equate scientific skeptics with Holocaust deniers. Reprehensible. No wonder you’re confused about the role of skeptics. Their purpose is to ask questions regarding a new hypothesis, not answer them. I can easily answer your questions. Do you think you’re the first to ask them here? The problem is that the promoters of the CAGW hypothesis are the ones who repeatedly dodge skeptics’ questions, such as: show us the raw data and methods that you used to formulate your conclusions. Answer: *crickets*
Like mostf AGW purveyors, you’ve turned the scientific method on its head. It is those putting forth a hypothesis, such as CO2=CAGW, who have the burden of showing that it explains reality better than the long held theory of natural climate variability. So far, they have failed.
As climatologist Roy Spencer says, “No one has falsified the theory that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” If the climate ever exceeds its natural long term parameters, then you can start looking for a cause. Until then, it’s just natural variability.
Adding an extraneous entity like CO2 violates Occam’s Razor: Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. ~William of Ockham (1285-1349).
You need to understand that skeptics have nothing to prove. The burden is entirely on the promoters of a new hypothesis: Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.
Therefore, regarding the hypothesis that CO2 produced by human activity is causing “unprecedented” global warming which will lead to climate catastrophe: the onus lies upon those making that claim. Regarding the claim that there has been an alarming rise in global temperatures: the onus lies on those who say so. And they have the obligation to disclose all of their raw and adjusted data and methodologies to skeptical scientists – which they refuse to do.
The believers in the CO2=CAGW hypothesis have no empirical [real world], testable, reproducible, verifiable evidence showing that a given increase in CO2 will result in a measurable rise in temperature. So they try to put the burden back on skeptics, demanding that skeptics must prove a negative.
The insistence that CO2 is the central culprit in their hypothesis is an argumentum ad ignorantiam: the fallacy of assuming that something is true, simply because it hasn’t been proven false, or that it must be true because they haven’t thought of any alternative explanations. What they are lacking is empirical evidence showing a verifiable connection between a rise in CO2 and a rise in global temperature.
But there is no real world evidence that CO2 is anything other than a harmless and beneficial trace gas, comprising only 0.00038 of the atmosphere. To propose spending trillions of dollars to ‘mitigate’ a non-problem is extremely irresponsible. That money would be sidetracked from truly deserving areas of science, which have already been starved of funding due to the AGW scare.
Robert, you sound like someone in the humanities, with little technical expertise. Sociology? English Lit? Certainly you are no engineer or scientist; your misunderstanding of the scientific method is apparent. [C’mon, did I guess correctly? Was I close?]
“That’s tough, Robert; I am a scientific skeptic.”
Wrong on both counts. Again, you can’t answer the questions. Again, you spout unscientific nonsense, mangling such basic concepts as parsimony and the scientific hypothesis.
“You try to equate scientific skeptics with Holocaust deniers. Reprehensible.”
I guess your propensity of making stuff up is not limited to climate discussions. Godwin’s Law FAIL.
“No wonder you’re confused about the role of skeptics.Their purpose is to ask questions regarding a new hypothesis, not answer them.”
Sorry, no. Nor is AGW a new hypothesis. You are proposing a new hypothesis: that climate scientists are wrong about AGW, the unprecedented warming of the latter twentieth century is somehow being caused by “natural variation.” I question your unsupported hypothesis. Call me skeptical.
“I can easily answer your questions. Do you think you’re the first to ask them here?”
Then answer them.
“Like mostf AGW purveyors, you’ve turned the scientific method on its head. It is those putting forth a hypothesis, such as CO2=CAGW, who have the burden of showing that it explains reality better than the long held theory of natural climate variability. So far, they have failed.”
Sorry, “CAGW” is your term, which you have attributed to me without evidence. State it as a hypothesis, and the points for it and against it, and then we can discuss it.
The hypothesis, now the theory, of AGW, has succeeded by every rational and empirical test. That’s why faith-based critics like you are reduced to analyzing the posture of of scientists, rather than their data.
“What they are lacking is empirical evidence showing a verifiable connection between a rise in CO2 and a rise in global temperature.”
No, Smokey, you’re wrong. Look here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Storms/Storms_Fig.05.pdf
Note the absorption bands of the radiation.
” propose spending trillions of dollars to ‘mitigate’ a non-problem is extremely irresponsible. That money would be sidetracked from truly deserving areas of science, which have already been starved of funding due to the AGW scare.”
Straw man argument. We might call it “catastrophic global warming migation theory”: despite economic analysis to the contrary, you assert (without evidence) that reducing carbon emissions would cost “trillions” of dollars.
“Robert, you sound like someone in the humanities, with little technical expertise.”
Again, rather than address the science, or answer the questions, you want to fight and argue. Maybe, you hope, a little ad hominem will get us into the kind of back-and-forth you like, and away from the uncomfortable science stuff you don’t want to deal with.
The questions still stand:
1) How will you know if you’re wrong about AGW? What evidence would lead you to question your beliefs?
2) How would you suggest we proceed if in fact you are wrong in your claim that CO2 is “a harmless trace gas” (speaking of comments that display a lack of literacy in basic science)?
Roger: I like your analysis of the odds. I’m curious if 2010 will be the warmest year on record, but I wouldn’t like to lay odds on it. Top five, though, seems like a pretty safe bet. I’m surprised you can get a 33% return on it. I’m thinking of opening an account myself.
Robert,
Since you’re a noob here, I highly recommend that you go through the WUWT archives. There is plenty to learn, and unlike the echo chamber alarmist blogs with a handful of true believers shouting the same globaloney at each other, WUWT allows all points of view – as you can see.
In the archives you will see the evolution of the “denier” label, and plenty of debate surrounding it. Yeah, yeah, godwin’s law, it’s all there. But that violation was by the alarmist contingent, not by skeptics. And anyone who claims that “denier” isn’t a deliberate insult taken straight from “Holocaust denier” is incredible. Don’t be incredible. You’re already on shaky ground here with what you believe to be the scientific method.
“The hypothesis, now the theory, of AGW, has succeeded by every rational and empirical test.”
So give us some of that empirical, falsifiable evidence showing that a specific, measurable rise in CO2 results in a measurable increase in global temperature …oh, that’s right. I already asked that. No answer – because there is no such evidence.
The fact is that CO2 rises as a function of temperature. In other words, CO2 rise is an effect of rising temperature, not a cause. Cause can not precede effect. At least not in my universe.
And the theory of natural climate variability, as taught in schools for many decades and elucidated by Dr Spencer above [an actual climatologist, not a sociologist], is the theory that must be falsified by any upstart hypothesis such as CAGW. Here’s a pretty good description of natural climate variability: click
Since you didn’t answer my question about your background, did I guess right? Non-science?
That being very likely, I’ll give you a break – and some worthwhile knowledge along the way. You asked…
1) How will you know if you’re wrong about AGW? What evidence would lead you to question your beliefs?
Backwards again. It is the CAGW hypothesis that must be defended, according to the scientific method, not skeptical scientists who question it.
The conjecture/hypothesis, which you won’t state so I will, is that a rise in CO2 will lead to runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. Shorthand: CO2=CAGW; even shorter: CAGW, or AGW.
The scientific method requires that a hypothesis [which in this case is more of a conjecture] must withstand falsification. Further, it must be structured in a way that allows falsification. Just like any religion, AGW does neither.
The AGW conjecture can not be falsified. Why? Because the raw, unadjusted data it is based on has been *ahem* “lost.” Thus, past instrumental temperature measurements can never be falsified.
We are now expected to take the word of the same people who have stated, in writing, that they fabricated entire temperature data sets to support their AGW hypothesis. In other words, we are expected to take it on faith.
Even worse for climate alarmists, the planet itself has falsified the CO2=CAGW conjecture by cooling for most of the past decade, even as harmless CO2 ramps up: click
Note that Hadley, GISS, and both satellite records all show cooling since 2002. In addition, the 3,300 ARGO buoys show deep ocean cooling.
Planet Earth is laughing at the hubris of the AGW contingent. So who should we believe? An English Lit major? Or Planet Earth?
2) How would you suggest we proceed if in fact you are wrong in your claim that CO2 is “a harmless trace gas” (speaking of comments that display a lack of literacy in basic science)?
Yes, a harmless trace gas, English Lit major. There is no empirical evidence showing that the atmospheric trace gas is harmful in any way. None. Furthermore, CO2 is a beneficial plant food that directly helps the world’s poorest to eat: click
Your questions lack rigor. Asking how we are to proceed if I am wrong is a completely “what if” question, which could be asked about nearly anything. What if there are alligators under your mother in law’s bed? What if global warming is caused by postal rate increases?
Questions like that are specifically what the scientific method was designed to weed out. One could just as easily claim that methane is the problem. But the alarmist crowd hung their collective hats on carbon dioxide, based on a recanted 1896 Arrenhius paper, and now they are looking extremely foolish. Their choice is to move the goal posts once again this late in the game, by admitting they were wrong about CO2, or to be a part of the slow motion train wreck that started with Climategate. Lose-lose.
If you really believe that my statement that CO2 is harmless is wrong, then show us, using real world evidence, how it is harmful in the trace amounts we’re discussing: 0.00038 of the atmosphere; one part in 2,600. Of course, you can’t. You’re just a humanities major. Or something similar. [Am I right? C’mon, ‘fess up! I stepped up and answered your questions. Thoroughly, and with plenty of citations. Fair is fair.]
“But that violation was by the alarmist contingent, not by skeptics.”
You brought it into this discussion, and while I would certainly class you as an “alarmist” and you’re certainly not a “skeptic,” I don’t think that was what you meant
“Since you didn’t answer my question about your background, did I guess right? Non-science? ”
What’s the point in making claims about our backgrounds that can’t be verified? Just because you don’t understand basic scientific concepts like a null hypothesis or parsimony, what does it gain us to speculate on your level of education of lack thereof? Nothing at all. It’s a distraction from the discussion of the facts, where you know you lose. Case in point:
“Note that Hadley, GISS, and both satellite records all show cooling since 2002.”
2005 was the hottest year on record according to the GISS data. So your claim is false. The oughts were the hottest decade on record, same source. January 2010 was the hottest ever recorded, by the satellite data. Even in this too-short term frame, your claim fails.
Let’s get to the meat: again, you refuse to answer the skeptic’s basic questions, and you justify your failure to do so with a misstatement of how scientific debates work, and lame excuses: “Your questions lack rigor.” Add rigor to the list of scientific concepts you don’t understand.
You state the hypothesis of “CAGW”: “a rise in CO2 will lead to runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.”
That’s vague to the point of uselessness. How big a rise? How much is “runaway”? What is your definition of “catastrophe”?
You’d be much better served with specific claims (all true/false):
1. CO2, methane, CFCs and other GHG warm the climate. Without them, it would be colder. With more of them, more solar energy is captured by the climate system instead of radiating into space.
2. The past several decades have shown progressive warming compared to the rest of the instrumental record. The warming trend falls well outside what could be explained by a standard distribution (p = very small).
3. The warming of the past several decades does not correspond with changes in the sun’s radiance, Milankovitch cycles, changes in the Earth’s albedo, or other natural forcings.
4. The increase in CO2 and other GHGs is primarily due to human activities, with some feedbacks.
Hence: The observed rise in CO2 and other GHGs is the most likely explanation for the rise in global temperature.
That would be one way to state the theory of AGW. But, of course, the problem with saying it that way, as opposed to the hyperbolic straw man you’ve constructed, is that 1-4 are all supported by rock-solid science, and once you concede 1-4, the conclusion is pretty obvious, even without the mountain of empirical data that supports it.
BTW, I like what you do here: “Yes, a harmless trace gas, English Lit major.” So we see you’ve proceeded from making stuff up with no evidence “you sound like someone in the humanities, with little technical expertise. Sociology? English Lit? Certainly you are no engineer or scientist;” and you rapidly progress from wishing something was so to assuming that it is: “English Lit major.” Such is your idea of “rigor.”
Again, the questions are:
1) How will you know if your hypothesis that AGW is not happening is false?
2) How do you think we should handle the problem of AGW if you are wrong?
Let’s add one more easy question for any real skeptic:
3) What are the three best arguments in favor of the theory of AGW?