I’ll be offline most of this weekend, as I got virtually no work done for myself this week thanks to the BEST “PR before peer review shenanigans” and the compliant cadre of barking media lapdogs that followed with tails-a-wagging looking for a sound bite.
Discuss topics on science, weather climate, etc here quietly amongst yourselves. don’t make me come back here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
otter17 says:
October 23, 2011 at 1:46 pm
I trust you understood the point I was trying to make however?
here’s another couple to consider…
consider F1 racing (of which I am a follower) – why are there no women F1 drivers? could it be that the vast majority of motorsport participants are male? and as they progress up the motorsport ladder, the likelihood of ‘seeing’ a female in an F1 driving seat decreases exponentially!
Now compare that analogy to peer review in climate science – especially starting from a grass roots funding level. how many research projects are funded to ‘disprove’ AGW? compare then to the number that are funded to ‘prove’ this or that effect from ‘modeled’ CO2 /AGW changes? In other words, the title or intent of the research ‘tags’ along with the supposed concensus to gain funding. Ergo, more positive AGW research is thus undertaken, which thus gets through peer review and the amount of such research is inversely proportional to the anti-AGW type research! The majority of skeptic scientists are working quietly, often without funding, in the background – not necessarily because they are simply belligerent buggers, but because they correctly question the theory and because they are stumped for anwers from the warmista – they go and look for it themselves!
then again, real scientists are always questioning and asking deliberately tricky questions and should be trying to prove their theories wrong ALL the time. That way, they can feel they have attacked the theory from every side themselves.
as for the semantics about warming and CO2 – unless a quantitative, demonstrable proof is shown – it’s all just political hot air IMO. I don’t believe it because I bothered to look at the available facts – NOT just the concensus interpretation! Sure, we can observe that we have had some warming, but hey, that’s potentially entirely natural! there is no causal proof of CO2 and temps. Taking the last ten years is a classic example – previously, we were told that it was all AGW- now, the team tell us its because of natural variation that the warming has been reduced. Ok, that’s fine – but then if you say to them that the prior warming could have been natural too – it’s the d-word for you! Crazy, one sided, twisted, pseudoscience abounds in this field and until someone shows me (with replicated REAL experimentation and observations) otherwise, I’ll stick with being skeptical. THAT, is the true scientific way1
R Gates
Nice article on co2 and ice.Thanks
tonyb
John R T says:
October 23, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Hmm – I wouldn’t have thought so!
1) whats the area compared to the total surface area of the earth. (Unless its the size of a continent -i really wouldn’t bother!) I can’t see it affecting global temps on such a small scale.
2) what happens to the re-radiated sunlight/radiation? I’d suspect that it will simply cause warmer air temps?
3) the latent heat absorbed in melting and subliming the glacial surface is ‘taken’ up by the water so produced – whereas reflected energy is gonna end up at least partly in the atmosphere and could cause localised weather changes?
I will try and find something about it see what the logical reasons are though!
Easy. It’s the AGW crowd that claim our CO2 emissions are the dominant factor in global temperature change. This has to be true in every instance to come close to validating the theory. It only takes one piece of contradictory evidence to falsify it.
30 years of averaged ARCTIC sea ice decline doesn’t verify AGW.
Does a similar period of averaged ANTARCTIC sea ice INcrease validate AGW?
Does the lack of an upper tropospheric hotspot validate AGW?
Does a lack of warming for half of a ‘standard’ climate base period validate AGW?
Does a slowing of sea level rise validate AGW?
Does an r-squared correlation value between CO2 and global temperatures of WAAAAAY below 0.5 validate AGW?
John R T says:
October 23, 2011 at 3:15 pm
“This morning,BBC World Report[?] covered Italian plans to place a reflective sheet on the Marmolada glacier, during the warm season. This geo-engineering effort will retard Global Warming-induced melting, protecting and preserving ski-tourism income.
I have been unable to find other coverage; is it a useful idea?”
Only when they do it entirely by sustainable technology; i.e. muscle power.
John B says:
October 23, 2011 at 2:16 pm
I don’t need to do likewise because I am happy that the scientists who have devoted their lives to working on this stuff have done and continue to do a fine job. And those scientists largely agree that the null hypothesis has been falsified, as summarised in IPCC AR4,
___________________________________
You really need to see the review by Judith Carry of the great IPCC. She was a member of this most “impressive group”. I cant even type that with a straight face.. http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/19/laframboise-on-the-ipcc/
If the review isn’t enough let me know i will send you the $5 for the book she reviews explaining these scientists who have devoted their lives. Just a guess, but you watched and believed Big Al’s last movie ?
Kev-in-Uk says:
October 23, 2011 at 3:32 pm
“I trust you understood the point I was trying to make however?
here’s another couple to consider…
consider F1 racing (of which I am a follower) – why are there no women F1 drivers?
…… ”
___________________
The claim of biased funding is a common claim among [snip], and could potentially be a valid one. Nevertheless, a skeptical person would not lend credence to such a claim without evidence (I for one am skeptical of your claim). One cannot accuse the scientific process of bias unless some evidence is provided. I challenge you to find me information that compares the funding for scientists side by side. I want names and yearly funding figures. Funding from all sources is encouraged, if possible. You don’t have to have all the evidence at once. I’m patient. Now go nuts finding evidence.
John B says:
October 23, 2011 at 12:13 pm
“how can 10 years or so of relatively flat temperatures be “refuting the CAGW nonsense” when 30+ years of declining Arctic sea ice is regularly cited here as being far too short a time span to be significant?”
The decline in Arctic Sea Ice is not seen as insignificant but as a cyclical occurence that regularly leads to media panicking. This is well documented.
http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/
Heatwave melts North Pole, 1958
http://www.real-science.com/arctic-temperatures-1958
otter17 says:
October 23, 2011 at 4:14 pm
I challenge you to find me information that compares the funding for scientists side by side.
I will reverse the challenge for you and make it easier. Find me 20 studies just 20 in the last 6 months that refutes agw and I will find you 80 that says its real or here is the catastrophe it will cause. Think hard, think you can find me 20?
Wait, I know that the term “denier” (not calling anyone that) was prohibited, but I said the word “contrarian” (not calling anyone that in this post either) in my post just above. Is that word not ok either? If so, then ok the snip is alright I’ll use “skeptic” as the term of choice from here on out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrarian
Some of you who favor solar and ocean cycles as causes of past climate changes may enjoy this rather interesting article that combines both rather convincingly:
http://www.clim-past.net/2/79/2006/cp-2-79-2006.html
@Keith.:
Does a similar period of averaged ANTARCTIC sea ice INcrease validate AGW?
Antarctic not predicted to show significant loss of ice, yet, as it is currently too cold.
Does the lack of an upper tropospheric hotspot validate AGW?
This is a fingerprint of any warming (even Spencer agrees on that), and probably due to measurement deficiencies.
Does a lack of warming for half of a ‘standard’ climate base period validate AGW?
Not strictly true, but if it continues to not warm for another decade, it will invalidate AGW. (If warming resumes, do you think that will validate AGW)
Does a slowing of sea level rise validate AGW?
Ditto
Does an r-squared correlation value between CO2 and global temperatures of WAAAAAY below 0.5 validate AGW?
Nobody ever said it would be linear.
But really, you can’t do science by one-liners. If these things really bother you, look a bit deeper.
otter17,
By your own definition, the “contrarians” are the Believers in CAGW.
The OISM Petition lists well over 30,000 profesionals with degrees in the hard sciences, including over 9,000 PhD’s, who have co-signed this statement:
Alarmists have tried several times to get as many signers for their various counter-petitions, but they haven’t come close, even if you total all their various petitions [and the same signers are on all the different petitions].
So you see, the alarmist crowd is much smaller than you think it is. Thus they [and you] are the contrarians. The majority of scientists know that CAGW is bogus, and the 30 thousand+ signers on the OISM Petition proves it.
A comment in a thread earlier this week got me thinking. The ‘skeptical’ position is a bit incoherent. Contradictory even. Some say the globe hasn’t warmed in the modern era (not so many lately), some say it has. Some say the greenhouse effect is rubbish (the infamous G&T paper and the many people who back/ed it), others that it is real. Some say that the temperature record is unreliable, others that it is pretty good if not perfect. One person may argue that climate sensitivity is low, but then say that climate changes a great deal, which strongly implies a higher sensitivity than is normally argued for in the skpetical canon. Some say we’re headed for global cooling, others that it will warm but not much.
A neutral visitor to WUWT and the skeptiverse in general comes across these varying positions if they delve into the comments, or even if they read enough articles. One strength of the mainstream view is that it is coherent. The messages don’t change with the predilections of the blogger or poster, and there is little in the way of inner contradiction (I know some may have an issue with that, but bear with me).
On the premise that an incoherent POV is a weak one, and that there is not a great deal of scientific unity in the skeptical viewpoint/s, I wondered if it would be worth conducting a poll to get a consensus position from skeptics on various basic concepts. In my mind the questions are something like:
The world has warmed over the 20th century – strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree
There is experimental evidence that increased CO2 in a volume of air will increase the warmth of that volume – s a/a/d/s d
It is reasonable to expect that increasing CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause some warming at the Earth’s surface – s a/a/d/s d
The instrumental surface temperature records are completely unreliable – s a/a/d/s d
Published studies corroborating the IPCC view of AGW are almost certainly constructed by biased scientists – s a/a/d/s d
It is impossible, or illegitimate, to derive a global average temperature – s a/a/d/s d
It is more likely than not that the Earth is heading for an extended period of global cooling – s a/a/d/s d
etc.
Those off the top of my head, based on what I read fairly regularly in the skeptical blogosphere. A real poll would require more care on phrasing etc to make the questions as neutral as possible.
I guess that some people may think some of the questions patronising, but these are honestly the concepts that I see argued by skeptics with some frequency. I would try not to put my own stamp on the questions. I consider myself a neutral observer who tends to go along with the mainstream view because I’m not qualified enough to make a judgement against it. It would be interesting to see how skeptics would phrase the questions – in the best of all worlds the questions would be arrived at by collaboration.
Obviously, a poll isn’t science. But personally I’d like some clarity on what the skeptical position actually is (the science, not the political stance), and also what it isn’t, or if there is even a general consensus on various concepts. I guess I hope that a simple poll might, indirectly, encourage reflection and ultimately a firming up around core ‘rebuttals’ to the mainstream view that aren’t contradictory. A cynical person might say that the skeptics’ cause is best promoted by an all-out attack – that an overarching, coherent position would be more vulnerable to dismantling. But I believe skeptics care as much about promoting a logically coherent rebuttal to the mainstream view as they do about winning the political battle. That’s kind of why I’d like to see a poll like this.
Wasting time dreaming up ways to control CO2 emissions is entirely stupid.
1) CO2 does not and cannot drive climate. It’s a trace gas which has been much higher than now several times over the last 200 years, as lately as the 1940 when it was 440-550 ppm (only 390 ppm currently).
2) Even if CO2 could warm the climate, it would be only 0.002 deg C due to our emissions. There is solid science out here that CO2 would actually lead to a bit of cooling by ramping up the global water vapor convection heat engine.
3) CO2 has been rising steadily while the limate has done nothing and even cooled since 1996. The two are clearly not linked.
4) CO2 emissions have gone up drastically while CO2 rise has been linear, if not slightly decreasing in rate of growth. This clearly indicates that the atmospheric CO2 rise is not due to or controlled by or caused by human activity.
4) CO2 is plant food and there is no down side to greening the planet and having plenty of food.
Of course, if you are anti-human, none of this is good news and you will be against the truth.
Jeff D says:
October 23, 2011 at 4:36 pm
“I will reverse the challenge for you and make it easier. Find me 20 studies just 20 in the last 6 months that refutes agw and I will find you 80 that says its real or here is the catastrophe it will cause. Think hard, think you can find me 20?”
______________________
Forgive me if I don’t understand, what is this particular challenge supposed to prove?
Anyway, here is a LARGE list of references to get you started. Click on the link below. Then click on any one of those chapters (1 through 11) and then click on the References. There are a LOT of peer reviewed papers.
http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
As far as papers that fit your position, I can think of a few off the top of my head. Some of these had some flaws and had rebuttals written against them.
Spencer, Braswell, 2010 (Remote Sensing)
Lindzen, Choi, 2009 (Geophysical Research Letters)
Soon, Baliunas, 2003 (Energy & Environment)
Smokey says:
October 23, 2011 at 4:59 pm
“The OISM Petition lists well over 30,000 profesionals with degrees in the hard sciences, including over 9,000 PhD’s, who have co-signed this statement:”
__________________________
I don’t think I mentioned anything about outnumbering anybody, did I? Anyway, Smokey, could you verify how many of those 9000 PhD’s are practicing climate scientists, such that there is an apples to apples comparison? I am skeptical that all of those 9000 PhD’s you mention are practicing climate scientists. I would prefer if that could be verified through a statement from the petition owners or some link to evidence, a website link.
Smokey, if you could subdue your tone a bit, I and others would likely appreciate it. The way you are antagonizing people doesn’t make for as healthy of a thread discussion.
R. Gates says:
October 23, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Some of you who favor solar and ocean cycles as causes of past climate changes may enjoy this rather interesting article that combines both rather convincingly:
http://www.clim-past.net/2/79/2006/cp-2-79-2006.html
Hmmm. By only using TSI it’s overlooking EUV and magnetic flux for starters, both of may have greater than zero impact. It’s therefore probably overstating the impact of TSI and/or atmospheric GHGs on temperatures. Not convinced I’m afraid.
otter17 says:
October 23, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Thanks you proved my point.
You can give me 3, and i can give you 80. Seems a bit one sided to me.
otter,
Could you subdue your threadjacking a bit? I and others would appreciate it.
And per your request:
http://oism.org/pproject
http://www.petitionproject.org
http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
Here is the breakdown of signatories of the Oregon Petition:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
Of the 30,000 signatories, 39 are climatologists. How many of those are among the 9,000 with a PhD is not published, but if it is proportional it would be about 12.
By far the biggest numbers are mechanical and electrical engineers.
Ironically, this petition agrees with Naomi Orekses’ study that shows that the closer people are to being active climate researchers, the more likely they are to accept the reality of AGW. Oh, but of course that just means they have sold their souls to… I don’t know, whatever is supposed to be running the scam
Jeff D says:
October 23, 2011 at 5:15 pm
otter17 says:
October 23, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Thanks you proved my point.
You can give me 3, and i can give you 80. Seems a bit one sided to me.
—————–
Jeff, what exactly is your point? There are way more papers published that support the reality of AGW than not. What are you getting at?
I once saw a TV show featuring an interview with the cosmologist Paul Steinhardt. For those who don’t follow cosmology, Dr. Steindardt is one of the developers of a radical new theory in his discipline. In the interview Steinhardt said, in a remarkably matter- of-fact manner, that there was a new NASA experiment that could deliver the verdict on his theory. If the results of this experiment went one direction, it would bolster the theory, and if they went the other direction they would rule it out. It suddenly struck me how courageous this is: This man has been working on this theory as his full-time occupation for years, and if the evidence delivered by nature says it’s wrong, he’s prepared to abandon it in a heartbeat. How’s that for objectivity?
The lesson here is that physicists don’t really value their theories. They value the process that leads to their theories’ acceptance or rejection. They believe that process will eventually discover, and subsequently accept, a theory accurately representing the truth.
I was again struck, this time by the contrast with climatology. A certain clique of climatologists certainly do value their theory. Their actions reveal that. They are quick to rally to its defense when it’s threatened. They are proactive in attempts to discredit people who may threaten it. And recently, they have even begun to use the courts in an attempt to prevent people speaking out against it (behavior I wouldn’t expect to see in physics anytime soon).
Another reason to be suspicious of the “standard model” of climatology: It’s too precious to be true.
@John B:
Antarctic SEA ice was predicted to decline, although land ice was not due to greater snowfall from a more moisture-laden atmosphere. While temperatures in the Antarctic interior will always be too low to cause much melting, the flux in sea ice at the margins is at least partly driven by sea and air temperatures fluctuating around the freezing point. Raising air and sea temperatures would therefore limit the extent of sea ice. We’ve not seen this in the south.
A rising tropopoause is a fingerprint of any (tropospheric) warming, but a clear upper-tropospheric hotspot would be expected if GHGs were causing additional heat to be absorbed and reflected downward. Repeated measurements, by satellite and weather ballons, have shown this to not be the case to any significant degree, and it’s really not that difficult to measure.
Nobody said it would be linear (nobody??). But by saying it’s the dominant factor in warming, it was very strongly implied that all other factors combined could not reverse the direction of temperature change. With accelerating CO2 growth this should be even more so, implying continuous temperature increase, if not at a constant rate (to allow for the subordinate effect of natural variations). A prolonged period of static or falling temperatures would not exactly be consistent with AGW.
I could live without the patronising bit about science by one-liners, thanks. In this case and at this hour, it does make for a concise way to demonstrate how the AGW hypothesis isn’t being verified by observations. Indeed, some observations go beyond just not verifying AGW.