“…the time has come to look at options for a planetary-scale intervention…”
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The National Academy of Science has demanded that scientists from disciplines other than climate modelling get a fair turn at the grant trough.
According to The Guardian;
“Climate change has advanced so rapidly that the time has come to look at options for a planetary-scale intervention, the National Academy of Science said on Tuesday.
The scientists were categorical that geoengineering should not be deployed now, and was too risky to ever be considered an alternative to cutting the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. But it was better to start research on such unproven technologies now – to learn more about their risks – than to be stampeded into climate-shifting experiments in an emergency, the scientists said.
With that, a once-fringe topic in climate science moved towards the mainstream – despite the repeated warnings from the committee that cutting carbon pollution remained the best hope for dealing with climate change.
“That scientists are even considering technological interventions should be a wake-up call that we need to do more now to reduce emissions, which is the most effective, least risky way to combat climate change,” Marcia McNutt, the committee chair and former director of the US Geological Survey, said.
Asked whether she foresaw a time when scientists would eventually turn to some of the proposals studied by the committee, she said: “Gosh, I hope not.”
I can understand Marcia’s point – it might be fun to build a doomsday machine, but you probably wouldn’t want to switch it on.
But the frustration of Physicists, Engineers and Chemistry majors is obvious and understandable – in my opinion they’re simply demanding that they get fair access to the climate trough, rather than seeing all the money, women, swanky holiday outings and the fancy new offices, go to the climate muddlers.
The time has come to call the NAS’ bluff.
Including the wholesale witholding of research funds from any academic who has previously published fraudulent global warming bullshit.
There are zero people on this planet capable of intervening ‘on a global scale’ with any understanding of what they are doing or unleashing. Zero.
The world has existed happily for billions of years without this.
It can do so for hundreds of years more…..
rtj1211 says:
The time has come to call the NAS’ bluff.
Exactly. Here is an article showing the names of 160 scientists who did just that.
Sorry Eric but this is the sort of nonsense post that makes skeptics look silly.
I am referring to troughs and pictures of pigs and money.
As a rational person one would embrace any thought into alternative solutions to the “possible” threat of climate change especially if they are likely to be far more cost effective than destructive drastic co2 cuts. I would ask for a fair assessment of nuclear power for the same reasons. I know you would agree with that.
If we have viable and safe technological solutions to what may we be a non problem then that blows out of the water the mitigation just in case argument and further strengthens the sensible wait and see approach.
R&D (not deployment) into geoengineering would be a much better waste of money than building windmills.
I could only agree with that if you could agree to fund research on mitigating global cooling. Ice is more to be feared than fire. 50 years ago it was the only concern. –AGF
Excellent points. This development only serves to diffuse the manipulative sense of panic. My immediate reaction to this article was that WUWT is shooting itself in the foot.
Wrong, wrong , wrong. That is a backdoor attempt at using the precautionary principle. There is no problem with our climate, therefore no “solutions” are required.
Al Gore said on Wednesday it would be “insane, utterly mad and delusional in the extreme” to turn to geo-engineering projects to avoid a climate catastrophe.
Why do you think that all the usual suspects like Gore, Mann, etc. don’t want people to even discuss the possibility of climate engineering? It’s precisely for the reasons posted by “embarassed skeptic.” If people start thinking about geoengineering, the sense of panicked “do something NOW” urgency is diminished. It also forces people to admit that the climate models are not to be trusted.
Metric
February 12, 2015 at 3:49 pm
“Why do you think that all the usual suspects like Gore, Mann, etc. don’t want people to even discuss the possibility of climate engineering?”
Because Gore isn’t invested in the geoengineering action.
Embarrassed skeptic
February 12, 2015 at 11:26 am
“As a rational person one would embrace any thought into alternative solutions to the “possible” threat of climate change ”
As a rational person I demand that you set the geoengineering climate dial such that we can grow pomegranates in Germany again like we did in the middle ages.
This is not bad news. It highlights an important inconsistency in the climate modelers. On the one hand, they are prepared to “trust the model” for the purposes of seizing control of industry globally, but on the other hand they are absolutely TERRIFIED of “trusting the model” for purposes of climate engineering. Why is that?
So do you recommend geoengineering?
I don’t see a need for it now, and of course the present-day models are in no way good enough to do engineering with (that’s part of the point — any climate engineering discussion has to start with an admission that the current models are garbage). But I’m not against the *concept* for some point in the distant future — CO2 will likely never be an issue due to peak fossil fuel production in the relatively near term, but it seems like humanity and technology in general is set to experience some fairly radical changes within the next century, so it’s not a bad technological concept to keep in mind.
After reading Henrik Svensmark’s “The Chilling Stars” and
“The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, Cosmic Rays, and Ice Age Epochs on Earth” by Nir J. Shaviv, I was perverserly hoping Astronomers would try to cash in by stating it was the sun, cosmic rays, etc seriously affecting climate and that more grant money was needed for astronomers to study the potential pending climate swings.
So Gates, what evidence can you offer for AGW via CO2?
(39 times previously Gates has been asked this without giving a response. This will make forty.)
So, Mpainter, what is your position on AGW?
1) Earth is not warming
2) Earth is warming, but Man is not the cause
3) Earth is warming , Man is the cause, but the effects are not worth worrying about
4) Earth is warming, Man is the cause, the effects will be harmful, but not to me, and I don’t care what happens to my grandchildren or theirs.
My position on warming:
The late warming trend ended circa 1997 and there has been no warming since then.
The late warming trend has been shown to be due to reduced cloudiness, on a global scale, since the mid-eighties. These studies are published and peer reviewed in the fashion so beloved of the warmists and they are based on detailed cloud data records publicly available.
The reduced cloud cover means increased insolation from 2.5 W/ m2 to 5W/m2, which more than accounts for the warming during that interval.
This increased insolation is also is the source of increased SST. CO2 cannot contribute to SST because of the opacity of water to LWIR.
My grandchildren are not frightened by the alarmist propaganda.
I am willing to wager that your grandchildren wet their beds nightly, out of fright over the CO2 bugaboo.
Imo, the dominant characteristic of the alarmists is ignorance compounded by superstition.
No response yet from Gates.
Shall we conclude that he has none to offer?
Gates is over here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/13/new-paper-unprecedented-21st-century-drought-risk-in-the-american-southwest-and-central-plains/#comment-1859259
mixed up about what Asybot was saying about Gates’ “time travel” assertion.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/Global%20Warming2/Warming-Excuses181_zpsce978ec2.jpg
Gates:
Code tech is right. The CO2 issue has stalled climate science. There has been no advance in this field for twenty years except through the work of skeptics. The field has otherwise experienced a setback by the insistence that CO2 determines climate. This is monumental error and it has been thoroughly refuted through peer reviewed science, so beloved by you.
What peer-reviewed science refutes the Greenhouse Effect and CO2 driving climate, please?
Warren Pound — you have skipped Step 1 (a fatal error — sorry):
1. What peer-reviewed science proves that CO2 drives climate shifts?
2. IF 1 = 0, THEN End.
The End.
mpainter is correct, CO2 is a discredited issue. Some folks try to argue radiative physics, which would be fine — except the planet is acting nothing like they repeatedly predicted. So something is very wrong with their belief.
The reason that CO2 has no measureable effect is due to radiative physics, but not in the way Gates believes. The CO2 concentration could rise by 20% – 30% with no measurable change in global temperature. This chart explains the situation clearly.
The screeching and hand-waving by the alarmist cult is due to the fact that global warming has stopped:
[Click in any chart to embiggen]
Even mainstream newspapers like the Washington Post admit that global warming has stopped:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2014/06/newchart.jpg
Next, the “carbon” scare ignores the fact that we are in a cold phase of global temperatures:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2839/28392301.jpg
And the current Holocene shows that we are at the cool end:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Next, the alarmnist crowd was simply lying when they claimed that 2014 was “the hottest year EVAH!!” [Are you paying attention, Rodney Molyneux?]
Next, there has been no acceleration in natural global warming. The planet has been warming naturally at the same rate, and within well defined parameters, since the LIA:
Next, there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening now:
Next, there have been at least twenty ‘hockey stick’ rises in global temperature during the Holocene. The current natural rise is neither unprecedented, nor unusual:
http://i.snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
Next, this animation shows clearly that there is nothing to be concerned about. The ‘carbon’ scare is simply a deceptive method of taxing the air we breathe. Honest science has nothing whatever to do with the global warming scare.
Finally, on ALL time scales out to a million years or more, ∆CO2 follows ∆T:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Past_740_kyrs_Dome-Concordia_ice_core_temperature_reconstructions.png
See in graph: [Note: TEMPERATURE CAUSES CO2 CHANGE]
Empirical evidence shows that cause and effect relationship on time scales from years, to hundreds of millennia. Effect cannot precede cause. Therefore, changes in atmospheric CO2 do not cause global warming or cooling. That is such an irrefutable fact that the alarmist crowd usually ignores it.
If facts change, or if new facts emerge, scientific skeptics [the great majority of readers here] will change their minds. That is the basic difference between skeptics and the climate alarmists here: the alarmist crowd never changes their minds, no matter how many irrefutable facts are presented. Their minds are made up, and closed tight. How many times has anyone seen them post, “I was wrong about the MMGW scare”? I have never seen that, and I’ve been here since the very beginning.
The debate is not really about science. Scientific skeptics argue using facts and evidence, while alarmists argue their true religious climate beliefs. That is the reason there is never any agreement.
[PS: Matthew C., I never took your comments as any sort of challenge. We are on the same page WRT the science.]
[PPS: clipe, funny! Thanx for posting.]
[“Embiggen the chart.” ? Is that permitted in mixed company? .mod]
Thank you db for this excellent and informative post. You wrote:
“Finally, on ALL time scales out to a million years or more, ∆CO2 follows ∆T.”
I wrote the same above, based on my 2008 paper:
“In the modern data record, the rate of change dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature and CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months.
CO2 also lags temperature by about 800 years in the ice core record on a longer time scale.
Therefore, CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales. CO2 does not drive temperature; temperature (among other factors) drives CO2.”
____________________
We wrote with confidence in our 2002 paper:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
____________________
But here are my points from above that, I suggest, require consideration:
“Furthermore, increased atmospheric CO2 from whatever cause is clearly beneficial to humanity and the environment. Earth’s atmosphere is clearly CO2 deficient and continues to decline over geological time. In fact, atmospheric CO2 at this time is too low, dangerously low for the longer term survival of carbon-based life on Earth.
More Ice Ages, which are inevitable unless geo-engineering can prevent them, will cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations on Earth to decline to the point where photosynthesis slows and ultimately ceases. This would devastate the descendants of most current life on Earth, which is carbon-based and to which, I suggest, we have a significant moral obligation.
Atmospheric and dissolved oceanic CO2 is the feedstock for all carbon-based life on Earth. More CO2 is better. Within reasonable limits, a lot more CO2 is a lot better.”
I see two problems for humanity and the environment in the next very few thousand years:
1. Another Ice Age
and
2. Possible CO2-deficiency (if not in this next Ice Age, then in the following ones).
[Note to mod: “embiggen” is Old German 🙂 ]
Allan McRae,
You are correct and it cannot be overemphasized that:
1. Atmospheric CO2 is entirely beneficial and the more, the better.
2. The real danger for life on this planet is a plunge into another ice age. As you pointed out, the last half of the Holocene shows the temperature stepdown that characterizes the termination of previous interglacials, as determined by the ice core record.
dbstealey,
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4gTUlBKPEW8/VN9lJ_h0lgI/AAAAAAAAAVM/qoliBpysQb4/s1600/logco2.jpg
If it’s not measurable, how is it that the y-axis of that graph is in units of temperature?
While Stealey is thinking about that, for the rest of us, here are the CMIP5 projections for temperature response to CO2 out to 660 ppm:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SZQS7bzEf1U/VMtageyyD9I/AAAAAAAAATk/QPvS-LfWFxs/s1600/TMEAN%2Band%2BCMIP5%2BRCP60%2Bvs%2BCO2.png
What dbstealey doesn’t want you to see is that global warming has “stopped” before:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MW_NJp28Udc/VNS3EAEqpOI/AAAAAAAAAUs/hjhuLZFkdoM/s1600/hadcrut4%2Bhiatuses.png
He doesn’t want people to understand that surface temperatures are only one indicator of global warming, especially since the upper 2,000 meters of ocean have been accumulating heat unabated since about 1985:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itemp2000_global.png
dbstealey thinks that people who look at more data than he himself is wiling to present belong to some sort of “alarmist cult”. Bizarre behavior on his part, isn’t it?
Here’s db’s original plot:
http://i.snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
The data for that plot come from here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
Buried in the bottom right corner of the plot DB posted is a caption which says “Mann’s Hockey Stick”. Which it isn’t of course, it’s just the tail end of the data from the GISP2 ice cores used in this particular study, which only contains temperature estimates up to 1850.
The infamous reconstruction from Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) represents the entire Northern Hemisphere, not just the tippy top of Greenland. Because temperatures at the poles are known to be more sensitive to change than the entire planet, naively comparing Alley 2004 to MBH98 would not be appropriate. Using data obtained from KNMI Climate Explorer for the Cowtan and Way infilled version of HADCRUT4, and the coordinates 70-75 N, 30-35 W for Greenland Summit, the full Holocene to present looks like this:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hksiecM4u3Q/VLYC3ecYOKI/AAAAAAAAAP4/ZsJFpmrxgZo/s1600/GISP2%2BHADCRUT4CW%2BHolocene.png
Both data series have a high degree of uncertainty, GISP2 being a proxy reconstruction from cored ice, HADCRUT4 C&W being the result of infilling. One should be skeptical of claims of “unprecedented” rates of change. As well, however, one should be equally skeptical of confident claims that, “The current natural rise is neither unprecedented, nor unusual.” Uncertainty cuts both ways, you see.
Because I suspect the ice core data are somewhat noisy, and what we’re really interested in here is rate of change since pre- vs. post-industrial times, I used a 160-year sample to calculate decadal rate of change over both datasets and combined them into a single plot for comparision:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G1qMbhCpQ-k/VLYSTfkAj-I/AAAAAAAAAQI/NSaunzIV6t8/s1600/GISP2%2BHADCRUT4CW%2BHolocene%2BRate.png
The sharp-eyed reader will notice that amplitude increases the further one goes back in the ice core record. One reason for this could be increasing uncertainty in the data the further back one goes in the record, another reason could be that the beginning of the Holocene really did exhibit rapid temperature fluctuations at Greenland Summit as seen. Or it could be a combination of both. When such questions arise, it’s best to not limit skeptical and critical thinking to eyeballing plots and turn to the literature itself. Alley, et al. (2000) is paywalled and unfortunately I have not been able to find a pre-print version, however we can still read the abstract together: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379199000621
Greenland ice-core records provide an exceptionally clear picture of many aspects of abrupt climate changes, and particularly of those associated with the Younger Dryas event, as reviewed here. Well-preserved annual layers can be counted confidently, with only ≈1% errors for the age of the end of the Younger Dryas ≈11,500 years before present. Ice-flow corrections allow reconstruction of snow accumulation rates over tens of thousands of years with little additional uncertainty. Glaciochemical and particulate data record atmospheric-loading changes with little uncertainty introduced by changes in snow accumulation. Confident paleothermometry is provided by site-specific calibrations using ice-isotopic ratios, borehole temperatures, and gas-isotopic ratios. Near-simultaneous changes in ice-core paleoclimatic indicators of local, regional, and more-widespread climate conditions demonstrate that much of the Earth experienced abrupt climate changes synchronous with Greenland within thirty years or less. Post-Younger Dryas changes have not duplicated the size, extent and rapidity of these paleoclimatic changes.
From that my conclusion, as a lay observer of the science, is that the volatility seen in the rate plot I show above may very well be less due to estimate uncertainty and “noise” and more due to actual variability. Note however that whereas the Younger Dryas ended about 11,500 years ago, the plot that DB posted as well as my plots only go back to 10,000 ybp (present = 1950). From Alley (2000) itself comes the following plot which does show the YD as seen in the GISP2 ice core data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
We don’t need a rate plot to infer that the rates of change very likely are not an artifact of uncertainties in the estimate. So what is dbstealey referring to when he says, “The current natural rise is neither unprecedented, nor unusual.”? We don’t know, he makes no citations for further independent skeptical inquiry — we’re to just take his word for it that someone said something about unprecedented something in some unknown context and conclude that whoever said it was lying. Proper skeptics should not be satisfied with the incompleteness of DB’s argument on this point.
The plot DB posted implied that MBH98 data were included in the plot, which is false. Here’s what the plot would look like had MBH98 data been included:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Iwu98liKyZg/VLc5_rQcK9I/AAAAAAAAAQ0/U2Kigt7-3rU/s1600/GISP2%2BHADCRUT4CW%2BMBH98.png
As a bonus the instrumental data are also shown. Finally, note again that it’s improper to naively compare a NH proxy reconstruction to a single proxy ice core reconstruction from a high latitude. Polar regions are far more sensitive to both external forcings and internal variability. Not taking polar amplification into account when eyeballing such plots is folly.
Allan MacRae, thanks. I notice that the *ahem* ‘refutation’ to my empirical evidence consista of projections for temperature response to CO2. That is amusing. Those charts are simple overlays on top of R.B. alley’s data, with ‘projected’ future temperatures laid on top of the ice core evidence.
Next, Gates cherry-picks temperatures from the 1800’s. That proves nothing at all. We know there has been a recovery since the LIA. Implying that human emiisions are the cause is wishful thinking at best.
I note that all the additions in purple to the charts Gates posted are similar to the CMIP5 “projections”. They are not ice core evidence. And despite the desperate attempt to show that human activity is the cause, they still were unable to exceed prior global warming events during the Holocene — when human emissions were non-existent. Thus, they are fabricating charts in order to promote the alarmist narrative.
Finally, Gates writes:
…my conclusion, as a lay observer of the science…
Funny! The most amusing thing is that Gates “observes” whatever feeds his confirmation bias, and he rejects everything else. He is a True Believer in runaway global warming, despite the plain fact that Planet Earth is still debunking his belief system: global warming has stopped. And, I might add, not one alarmist prediction has ever happened! They were all wrong. When someone is consistently, 100.0% WRONG in every prediction they make, but they still insist on repeating their pseudo-science, there is something seriously wrong with them.
Nothing to be done about Gates’ misrepresentations, except to point out his endless errors to others. I enjoy setting the record straight here, and I intend to be at it longer than he is. ☺
“We know there has been a recovery since the LIA.”
..
What is the cause of the “recovery??”
A reversal or continuance (in the case of inherent variability) of any one of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Brandon Gates said:
You might want to look up the actual definition of “global warming”.
Rodney Molyneux asks:
What is the cause of the “recovery”??
Why don’t you tell us, Rodney?
What I know is that the LIA was one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene. What caused the LIA, Rodney?
I don’t know. What I do know is that the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified, which means this: there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening now.
Further, Occam’s Razor says that the simplest explanation is almost always the correct expalnation. By far the simplest explanation is natural climate variability, cf Lindzen. There is no need to add an extraneous variable like CO2 — the alarmist crowd’s magic gas. That needlessy complicates the issue.
Finally, Planet Earth is still debunking the alarmists’ nonsense. The planet is the ultimate Authority, and it flatly contradicts the “carbon” scare. Debate over, except among the True Believers.
dbstealey,
Oh, what empirical studies drive the results of this chart then?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4gTUlBKPEW8/VN9lJ_h0lgI/AAAAAAAAAVM/qoliBpysQb4/s1600/logco2.jpg
You may wish to review your previous responses to similar questions about this plot before you answer anew.
Which chart are you talking about, DB? This one?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hksiecM4u3Q/VLYC3ecYOKI/AAAAAAAAAP4/ZsJFpmrxgZo/s1600/GISP2%2BHADCRUT4CW%2BHolocene.png
Sorry old boy, best you’ve got me on there is interpolated data from Cowtan and Way on HADCRUT4. As clearly noted in the legend of the plot. As discussed quite openly in my original post.
There isn’t a single plot in this entire thread from me which limits the time period to the 1800s. Whatever are you on about? When in doubt say, “cherry pick” and call it good? lol.
Correct, they’re not ice core evidence. The purple series (magenta really ….) are from modern instrumental data, but with interpolation. Both methods introduce uncertainty, as I noted in the original post, but you’ll note that the instrumental portion is at much higher (annual) resolution. So it’s noisier, which noise I left in to illustrate that ice cores inherently smooth out annual variability. I could, and have, smoohed out the instrumental data but decided to “err” on the side of leaving the data as-is and let others’ eyeballs decide for themselves.
Right. I posted this plot …
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
… which shows higher temperatures than present at the GISP2 site on Greenland Summit showing hotter temperatures there than at present, and significantly higher rates of change during the Younger Dryas. All of which does call into question statements like “unprecedented warming” and “unprecedented rate of change”. Hooo boy, yup, that’s me stroking my own beliefs there. You caught me red handed on that one.
Now, if you’d be so kind as to provide a quotey quote of some “warmist” using the unprecedented meme in a sentence, I’d surely appreciate it so that I can do my own skeptical research into it. Bonus points if it comes from literature, not some breathless hyperbolization from an activist on tee vee — what matters most to me is what the researchers themselves are actually saying, not talking heads in media. Thanks.
“I don’t know”
….
Excellent response.
…
Since you “don’t know” I suggest you stop using the word “recovery”
…
Just use the words “recent warming” because if you use the word “recovery” it implies something caused the cooling which is not happening now. Unless you know what cause the LIA, there is no such thing as “recovery”
Only on WUWT does one find so much reserved wisdom. Gosh, someday I hope I’m this smart.
rodmol@virginmedia.com,
Yeah, especially since human populations have a tad more than “recovered” from the LIA. Just sayin’. 😀
Brandon Gates,
Regarding the definition of Global Warming, I guess you’re choosing the path of either deliberate or actual obtuseness rather than engaging, so I guess I’ll have to spoon-feed you:
“Global Warming
The recent and ongoing global average increase in temperature near the Earths surface.”
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#G
Now do I have to repeat the quote that prompted me to suggest you look up the definition?
And with regard to the recovery in world population and the ice age, that was in the citation I provided to “rod” as a possible reason for the “recovery” from the little ice age. Yes, the World’s population has increased since the LIA. Why are you smiling at “rod” about that?
Gates says:
Now, if you’d be so kind as to provide a quotey quote of some “warmist” using the unprecedented meme in a sentence, I’d surely appreciate it…
Sure, no problem. But I don’t want to provide the quote for nothing in return. Otherwise you will start pestering me like “Socrates” constantly did, demanding citations every time I made a comment.
So, if I provde the quote, will you go away? That’s the deal. Agree, and I will post it. Don’t agree, and you can do your own quote mining. Simples.
dbstealey,
lol, no. Especially not now that you’re trying to cut a deal to get rid of me. Oh my, that’s simply delightful. Thanks for making my day.
Then my statement stands. Go do your ownh homework, and you will find the quotes I found.
dbstealey,
Oh I’ve read plenty of them. I simply figured that a resident of the Show Me state would be all too happy to oblige a formal request. Such a maverick you are.
Why should I ‘oblige’ you, Gates? “Socrates” used the same tactic [before he was banned]. I’ve found that providing requested information should be done for people who are reasonably polite.
You don’t qualify. So you don’t get what you want.
[Wrong again, Gates. You don’t know what state I’m from. But I know where you’re from.]
dbstealey,
I was wondering why I hadn’t seen Socks around these parts of late. Makes sense now.
Well see, we understand each other perfectly then. Of course there’s more to divining intent than just “tone”. Pretty sure you actually understand that as well, but to be completely honest some days I really can’t tell if you’re as illogical and idiotic as the guy you play on the Internet.
Coulda swore you told me once you were from Missouri. Lifting IP addresses is free for you guys, so I’ll spare you the time and expense of the next obvious step:
Brandon Robertson Gates
2120 Bonar St.
Berkeley, CA 94702
See what a nice guy I really am? Come by and see me any time.
Gates says:
I was wondering why I hadn’t seen Socks around these parts of late. Makes sense now.
Clearly you don’t follow the comments very closely. Anthony made that decision public, based on serial violations of policy. He posted it recently. You could find it if you wanted to.
There is very little difference between “Socrates’ ” posting style and yours. Very little. And I have no doubt that he will be back, using another sockpuppet name. He has posted under at least a dozen different screen names already. He gives trolls a bad name.
Honesty is not a concern to some commenters, and that moral failing seems to appear exclusively among the alarmist crowd. Their inability to accept reality is one of the causes.
So here’s a challenge for you: stop insulting other commenters, and stop incessantly calling people names. You do it constantly, trying to goad others into doing the same thing, so you can snivel about it. If you’ve noticed, no one is taking the bait.
I don’t have a need to insult like you do. All I ever do is post facts and evidence, and that is what generated your hatred. I could give you chapter and verse, but there is no need. I know what you write, and I see your intense frustration. You hate the fact that Planet Earth is contradicting everything the alarmist clique predicted.
You could disagree using whatever facts you can find. Of course, if you don’t have verifiable facts that support your beliefs, then name-calling is easy. You’ve already said you enjoy it. You’ve already said that you will continue that despicable practice. The fact is, you like to poison the well.
The reason is clear: you are a hater. That basic fact drives your comments. You hate people who post facts and evidence that you are completely unable to overcome or refute. The rational response is to acknowledge that if you have no credible facts, then your belief must be mistaken. A real skeptic will change his mind if new facts and evidence show him he was wrong. If new evidence appears showing me that I’m wrong, I will have no trouble at all saying that. But so far, I’ve seen no credible evidence that the CAGW crowd is right about anything.
Really, you aren’t very far from the run of the mill commenter’s opinion here. I think that a doubling of CO2 will result in a less than 1ºC rise in global T. I think AGW exists. I doubt that your view is much different.
That puts us pretty much on the same page. So it is only your personal hatred that causes you to call names and try to goad people. You are a hater, Gates, pure and simple. You could argue the finer points of disagreement rationally, using whatever evidence you can find. But you don’t. Because it’s much easier for you to hate. You are a hater by nature. That comes across clearly in your comments. It’s pretty despicable, and it’s a personal failing that you really should try to correct.
@Janice Moore. Sorry, Janice, you got it backwards. ALL Peer-reviewed science concludes CO2 drives Climate. Only in the world of WUWT amateurs is the Greenhouse Effect non-existent.
Mr. Pound: “prove” PROVE — not “conclude” — is the term in the little macro above. Sorry, you have only written an endless loop: fatal error.
Please see your instructor.
Further to Mr. Pound:
You responded down here
to my comment up here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/11/national-academy-of-science-demands-equal-access-to-the-climate-trough-for-geoengineering/#comment-1859254
Another coding error. I would advise you to drop Programming 102 (I would be happy to sign a waiver for the Office of Reg. and Rec.) and take Programming 101.
You appear to be eager to learn. This advice will help you succeed: listen to your teachers. 🙂
Sorry, Janice. Multiple errors by you, again:
1) ‘Proof’ is for math, ‘evidence’ is for Science.Science works by the accumulation of evidence in support of a hypothesis, or set of hypotheses. In the case of AGW, the IPCC assesses the probability, based on the accumulated evidence, at 95%.
2) Nor did I offer such ‘proof’ as you incorrectly implied — I said that peer-reviewed science concludes (based on evidence) that CO2 drives climate. Your arguing against the Greenhouse Effect is equivalent to arguing against Physics — the Greenhouse Effect has been well established science since the 1800s.
Janice, disregard warrenlb’s nitpicking. He is a true know-nothing.
His arguments consist of his endless Appeal to Authority fallacies, and… well, nothing else, really. Take away that fallacy and he has nothing worthwhile to say.
@warrenlb:
I just posted solid empirical evidence showing conclusively that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2. But you give your usual response. I doubt that you could think for yourself if your life depended on it.
Come now DBS. You previously posted that you ‘beiieve’ CO2 causes a bit of warming (but not very much) , but now you deny it entirely. Actually, you’ve been wrong with both contradictory positions:
1) That CO2 both lags and amplifies temperature was predicted in 1990 in a paper “The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming” by Claude Lorius):
“Changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing”
The paper also notes that orbital changes are one initial cause for ice ages. This was published over a decade before ice core records were accurate enough to confirm a CO2 lag.
2) Your post uses time scales WAY to large to observe that about 90% of the temperature rise in the Milankovitch cycles occurred AFTER the CO2 rise caused by the initial temperature rise due from the Earth’s orbital changes, in time scales of a few thousand years.
Yours and Janice Moore’s argument that ‘Temperature only leads CO2 increases’ is equivalent to “Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them”.
warrenlb once again misrepresents:
You previously posted that you ‘beieve’ CO2 causes a bit of warming (but not very much) , but now you deny it entirely.
Wrong, deluded boi. I wrote that I think that AGW exists — to a very minuscule degree. I also wrote that there is no measurable evidence of AGW, because the effect is so tiny. BIG difference.
If you can’t get simple concepts like that straight, your comments are not worth reading. Are they?
Nexxt:
Yours and Janice Moore’s argument that ‘Temperature only leads CO2 increases’…&etc.
warren, WAKE UP. I posted verifiable empirical scientific evidence. I have repeatedly posted data showing that ∆T leads ∆CO2 on all time scales, out to hundreds of millennia.
You have posted nothing in the way of testable evidence contradicting what I posted. All you ever do is give your silly opinions. If you can contradict what I wote by using empirical data like I did, then produce it now.
Otherwise, your opinion is worthless pablum.
dbstealey,
But only if it’s from ice core data, doesn’t look like it comes from a computer projection, and isn’t presented as an “overlay”. Whatever that means.
No wait, I got it. Only show me data that both sides of the debate can agree on. Yes, I recall that being one of your criteria.
warrenlb,
One of my absolutely most favoritest quotes ever. And you are not alone in noticing that db changes his tune on whether CO2 has any effect at all, or if it does it can’t be measured or any of a dozen other variations on, “just show me the empirical data and I’ll believe you.” Of course upon dutifully honoring your own burden of proof there are any of about a dozen ways he dismisses them as invalid from, “it only shows what your confirmation bias says” to “it’s not x (arbitrary) kind of data” to “it’s not data that both sides can agree on”. That last one is a particular “favorite” of mine.
But this … this one he’s outdone himself on: Otherwise, your opinion is worthless pablum.
The master of soothing bromides doesn’t like the opposition’s pabulm, eh? Whodathunkit. What does he expect when he asks for data and then simply turns his nose up at it Every. Single. Time?
Gates and warrenlb:
I have posted several charts based on empirical data, showing conclusively that ∆CO2 follows ∆T. On all time scales, from years to hundreds of thousands of years.
In response, you both… asserted. That’s all.
If you have verifiable data proving that CO2 is the cause of changing temperatures, I challenge you to produce it. Now.
Otherwise, I have posted the data which strongly supports my statement. You have done nothing but emit pixels. As usual.
I have data. You have Belief. No wonder you’ve lost the debate.
Come on then mutual mental masturbation club – are you going to run away from stealeys challenge or are you going to run away like girls again, you blowhards
…. why don’t you spend two days discussing how my spellchecker took out the apostrophe in stealey’s, because that’s about as much evidence as you have for CO2 levels going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm having any effect on ANY climate parameter.
There are third rate scientists, maybe even 5th rate who can still convince their mommy’s knitting circle they’re scientists. Then there are people below that …..
… and then below that there are people like you two. Go look in a mirror.
philincalifornia,
You have them pegged. Neither one is any kind of scientist at all. They are just noisemakers who pucker up and run away [or more often, deflect and change the subject] any time a challenge is issued.
The whole debate is about whether CO2 causes global warming. More to the point, the true debate is about whether CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. Because if the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2 only brings about less than a 1ºC rise in temperature [my position], then there would never have been a debate in the first place.
The “carbon” scare began as a way to frighten the populace. For a while it was succeeding. But now it has morphed into an abject failure.
Who knows why a small, insignificant handful of wild-eyed Chicken Littles here are still hand-waving over a completely harmless trace gas? I certainly don’t know. All I know is that they are flat wrong.
philincalifornia,
The simplest relationship to show is one pretty much everyone on WUWT should have seen a variation of at some point:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_1900_2008.gif
I already know that dbstealey is going to say, “that’s a simple overlay chart designed to trick the eye into thinking that T responds to CO2” or that it’s just a “coincidental correlation”. I’ve been down this road with him several times in the past, his “answers” are variations on the same theme. He knows full well that causation and attribution cannot be directly measured like temperature itself can because of the scale of the system and all the confounding climate factors which constantly affect temperature.
So it’s not an honest question because he knows the answer is quite difficult to explain. And he also knows that I don’t deny that literally all paleo data show CO2 lagging temperature, so he can just bury me, or anyone in plots showing that relationship.
It’s a stupid game, and only people who are disposed to falling for such idiotic rhetorical tricks will gobble up his brand of tripe. I can’t fix that. So I refuse to play his dumb little game, once through it was enough — I gave him a chance to play it straight with me and he failed to debate me in good faith. Others here get different treatment depending on how well I recall my previous interactions with them. If I don’t remember, I assume they’re new and play it straight because I give everyone at least one shot to have a real discussion. Otherwise I go into snark mode, or try to draw them out until they mess up and trap themselves.
You, I remember and …
… that’s pretty much the most sensible thing I’ve ever seen you write. As for myself, I’ve recognized for a long time that I’m an arrogant pain in the ass pontifcating know-it-all blowhard asshole. Thing is, I consider those to be amongst my most endearing qualities, and I’m constantly amused that I’m not welcomed here with open arms for it.
@ur momisugly Brandon…Even those that is the well adjusted GISS graph, there is still enough uncorrelated points on that graph to cause scepticism about the connection. First off the first warming period on that graph certainly has no correlation to co2. Then look at the slight cooling from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. During that entire span of years the addition of co2 into the atmospheric accelerates. Now comes the part that you and your warmist friends like the most. From the late 1970s up to around 2005/07, global temps rise at a heightened pace. The rate of growth of atmospheric co2 does the same. If you only look at that time period, then anyone would wonder about a connection. But then we finally arrive at the reality of the years which have passed since then. Since 2005/07 to the present, the last 9 to 10 years, the co2 connection has once again gone astray from what the models have projected. Yet co2 keeps skyrocketing. From 2005 up to today, co2 has risen by 25 ppm. That is a very large gain for so short a time, and certainly a significant % of the total atmospheric gain since 1900. Now I suppose the first counterpoint that you will make is that natural variation can always lead to discrepancies between the co2 theory and reality. Maybe yes, and maybe no. At the very least a wait and see policy should be in order as that graph is insufficient proof for what you are claiming until more years can pass to either verify, or falsify the story.
Do institutional scientists, like McNutt, actually think in an integrated manner from fundamental concepts to other concepts in a coherent chain of reasoning? McNutt posits prima fascia that there are some scientists thinking about crazy schemes is evidence that we need to take action now on a severely observationally challenged theory of significant climate change. If she wishes to increase trust in science, she needs to begin to think.
John
Yet Marcia McNutt talks of the observationally challenged theory of significant climate change as proven. She should concentrate on facts that show the theory as insufficient to be seriously held much less proven.
John
John Whitman says:
…Marcia McNutt talks of the observationally challenged theory of significant climate change as proven.
In other words, Marcia McNutt is no different from a lot of Nutts who post here. They actually believe that MMGW is ‘proven’. It’s not. And the more evidence and facts that appear, the more likely it is that any global warming due to human emissions is so minuscule that it can be completely disregarded.
OK, the picture causes me to say it once again…
We are clearly at the beginning of the anthroporcene epoch…
Which, unfortunately for humanity is not mutually exclusive with, and has strong overlap with both the idiocene and illiterocene epochs
@Brandon Gates. DBStealey’s ‘position’ that the ‘Greenhouse Effect is real’ but ‘insignificant’ is classic . It allows him to reject the findings of Science while claiming ‘Oh, I’m pro-science, I believe in the Greenhouse Effect’.
I keep asking if he, or any of his cohorts, have attempted to publish their remarkable findings that CO2 doesn’t lead the Industrial Age’s Global Temperature rise–and of course they haven’t. They love to claim ‘no one has shown data ‘proving’ AGW’, but they haven’t shown the scientific world their data and arguments that contradict AGW.
I WONDER WHY?
What a stupid argument. Why would anyone have to go out to prove something that’s unproven is wrong ?
Please post a falsifiable conjecture, hypothesis or theory of anthropogenic carbon dioxide causing any measurable effect on any climate parameter ….
…. I mean, just so we can completely eviscerate you in public
warrenlb,
I have a standing challenge to dbstealy — anyone on WUWT really — to produce an climate model which produces gridded output that beats the CMIP5 ensemble. Closest I’ve seen is Monckton et al. (2015) linear trend curve-fitting exercise. Which they themselves claim was not designed to be a full-blown GCM replacement. So it’s peer-reviewed FUD. Other than that [crickets].
I too wonder why. But not really.
I don’t produce models, Gates. That’s YOUR problem: you believe model output is reality.
I know better.
dbstealey,
So you think the model presented by Monckton et al. (2015) is garbage too. Thanks for that confirmation.
Gates says:
So you think the model presented…&etc.
Listen up:
I don’t produce models, Gates.
You are constantly putting words in peoples’ mouths. That is just another of your usual misrepresentations. Models are useful. I don’t produce models. Get it?
I listen to the real world above everything else, and the real world is busy debunking your belief system.
I am a total realist. Whatever the real world tells me, I accept. The planet has never told me that there is anything to be concerned about WRT rising CO2. OTOH, you believe in things for which there is no evidence. Witch doctors used to make their living off people like you. Modern ones like Mann still do.
You are a true hater, Gates, with a very thin veneer of being a normal person. But you lay the hate on everyone who disagrees with you. That’s where all your insults and name-calling come from. You hate.
philincalifornia,
That my friend is the null hypothesis approach in a nutshell, and pretty much how properly skeptical scientific research works.
@warrenlb:
Explain: what is the “position” of science? Do you know? If so, please enlighten us.
Is your self-anointed assumption that the “position” of ‘science’ that CO2 caused the Industrial Age’s Global Temperature rise?
If so, post evidence, as I challenged you to do.
But instead of accepting my challenge and posting evidence, you have once again made baseless assertions.
So try again. Produce evidence, showing strong evidence that changes in CO2 are the cause of subsequent changes in temperature. I don’t think you are capable of doing that. You are all talk, and no substance.
I have already posted plenty of data showing that changes in global temperature are the cause of subsequent changes in CO2. Unless you can counter that with the opposite cause-and-effect, you are posting your usual baseless pablum.
This is a science site, not a wishful thinking blog. Either post facts as I have — or you lose yet another argument.
You haven’t won one yet. Try harder.
Re: the Null Hyothesis. Gates has zero understanding. If he understood the Null Hypothesis and was honest about it, his entire world view would come crashing down around his ears.
Because the Null Hypothesis totally DEBUNKS the alarmists’ entire narrative. Anyone who understands it knows that. Thus, ipso facto, Gates doesn’t understand it.
In statistical inference on observational data, the Null Hypothesis refers to a general statement or DEFAULT Position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena.
Occam’s Razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the FEWEST ASSUMPTIONS should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.
Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.
THEREFORE, one should start by assuming that the minor warming and cooling of Earth’s atmosphere observed since the Industrial Age is predominantly natural and NOT significantly humanmade.
One might then hypothesize that that there is a significant human influence on climate and attempt to prove it, but this key step has been skipped by the global warming alarmists.
The claim that 97% of imbeciles believe that fossil fuel emissions are causing dangerous global warming is NOT a scientific statement – it is nonsense.
Correct again dbstealey
His understanding is so bad it’s not even wrong.
Yet another POS-t to pile on his colossal dung-heap of worthless, obfuscating, straw man, passive aggressive bullish!t comments that he and the other parasites seem so proud of constructing.
If only they knew.
For the benefit of other readers with no scientific training, if you need further elaboration of my point please Google – Richard Courtney moon is made of green cheese WUWT. I think we can all (well almost all) agree that the null hypothesis is not that the moon is made of green cheese.
(Snip. -mod.)
Trolling again, I see. I caught that before a moderator snipped it.
Why is it you folks can never argue facts and evidence?…
…oh, I get it. You don’t have credible facts or evidence. So it’s all ad-hom, all the time.
Carry on.
Why don’t they ban you for sockpuppetry?
Why don’t they ban you for sockpupperty, Rod M/Rod Molyneux/rodmol@virginmedia.com? And maybe other fake names?
Years ago I used a screen name, like lots of folks. Then Anthony began telling people he did not like screen names, so I started using my own name. I’ve never played games with it or overlapped names, and if that’s the best you’ve got, no wonder you’re getting destroyed in the real debate.
Stick to facts and evidence, and make your best case… oh. Right. You don’t have much in the way of facts or evidence. Neither one of you do. So Gates insults and calls people despicable names, and you become a self-anointed grammar critic — something you’re not cut out for, as we’ve seen. I didn’t join in the monkey-piling on you for your incorrect grammar comments. But a half dozen others readers did, and they set you straight.
So astick to science. If you can. I can whip you either way, but I prefer the science. It’s why most of us are here.
“So astick to science.”
..
Tsk tsk tsk, did you forget to turn on your spell checker?
[Begin that disruption again and you will get cut off. .mod]
LOLOL!!
THAT is the best you’ve got?? No wonder you’re losing the science deabte… oops.
As if YOU have never made a typo1 <–[oops! That was supposed to be an exclamation point].
So I made a typo — and you're wrong about your MMGW nonsense. Can we call it even? ☺
[And FYI: I don’t use a spellchecker.]
I don’t have to do anything.
.
Gates is obliterating you…
..
I’ll just make some more popcorn and watch you struggle.
He is db
In rod’s world the competition is who can post the most cr@p