Study claims there is no significant natural component to global warming, i.e. 'it's all your fault'

dbstealey,
Do you believe in radiative physics?

Yawn. I said nothing about the graph. Was talking about you and observations of your propensities.
BG-“I agree that it’s my duty to substantiate my claim with evidence, logic and appeals to demonstrably correct physical principles. Whether you consider it “proof” or not is entirely up to your personal standards of “proof”.
No evidence. And a lot of flawed logic. Whether or not you use physically correct principles depends on the argument you are making at any given time. Being able to correctly spew scientific principles is great, but that skill hasn’t proven AGW exists to anyone who understands them.
“I know, it’s such a fun game, isn’t it. A toddler can run around chanting “that doesn’t actually PROVE anything” as well. Usually though, they just ask “why” a lot … and mostly in earnest.”
I’ve never seen a toddler say that, but I suppose it’s possible. If you equate skeptics with toddlers, then let me ask, in earnest “WHY?” (are you here at all?)
“Perhaps missed his equivocation fallacy on the meaning of the word “skeptic”?”
You mean when he corrected your “anecdotal and therefore non-representative” (aka illogical) definition that AGW skeptics (get it right idiot…no no here is skeptical of “climate”) “are largely impervious to logic, reason, well-established and long-standing first principles of physics and especially empirical evidence which runs contrary to their oft-repeated but thinly-evidenced claims that nature is mostly (or in some cases, completely) responsible for secular trends in temperature since the Industrial Revolution.”????
You calling it an “equivocation” doesn’t make it so. You keep declaring yourself to be logical-which means that HIS arguments are irrelevant to the fact that:
“The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.”
“Where’s his “proof” of these claims? Hmmm?”
Probably in the same place yours is. Maybe you should check there rather than acting like a “toddler running around chanting “that doesn’t actually PROVE anything”???

Aphan,

I wasn’t talking about what you think or premises or anything else.

con·jec·ture
noun:
1. an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
synonyms: speculation, guesswork, surmise, fancy, presumption, assumption, theory, postulation, supposition; inference, (an) extrapolation; an estimate;
informal a guesstimate, a shot in the dark, a ballpark figure

I was talking about taking specific actions that harm others based on questionable conclusions.

I interpret “questionable conclusions” as an attack against the premises of my argument. I neglected to mention that “taking specific actions that harm others” is a presumption on your part. So let me make this clear; I do not want the cure to be worse than the disease.

But we all know how well versed in logic you are.

A perfectly logical argument can reach wrong conclusions if one of its premises is wrong. You have a habit of disagreeing with my premises, then accusing me of reaching illogical conclusions based on them. Here’s a recent example:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/02/24-days-to-al-gores-10-years-to-save-the-planet-and-point-of-no-return-planetary-emergency-deadline/#comment-2113371
Earth science is where I came into the climate debate from. It’s my foundation. And because of what I KNOW and UNDERSTAND about the Earth, the physical planet, it’s so much easier to see the logic fails in trying to think that the AIR controls anything on this rock. Putting the past 150 years of “temperatures” into it’s proper context, which is MILLIONS of years old, one realizes darn quick that in all of the geological physical records-rocks, trees, ice cores, sediment cores, fossils, Co2 has never, not once, been guilty of changing the climate.

BG”For about the past million years, atmospheric CO2 levels have ranged 120 and 280 ppmv. They are presently just north of 400.”
Which is SO ODD…because the temperature proxy records, like ice cores etc, demonstrate that it’s been as warm, or warmer than today 4-5 times in JUST the past 12,000 years! With MUCH lower CO2 than is currently in the air now!

There’s a lag between the time you light the burner and the tea kettle whistles.

BG-“And just like that we’re back to pretending we know everything there is to know about climate.”
Really? Nice false dichotomy you stuffed me into there. *wink*

Annoying isn’t it. However, when you write things like “… because of what I KNOW and UNDERSTAND about the Earth, the physical planet, it’s so much easier to see the logic fails in trying to think that the AIR controls anything on this rock …” it’s fairly difficult for me to not observe that you’re all but absolutely confident that YOU know enough about climate to conclude that anyone who disagrees with you is illogical, a moron and/or an outright liar.
I really would be a damn liar if I said I don’t feel more or less the same way about the average WUWT denizen.

BG-“You only “know” this because of paleoclimate studies. Rational people read what else they say in those papers.”
Well duh big bruh! And? I LIKE paleoclimate studies. I like proxy records. I like geological studies. That some paleoclimate studies are done by biased morons who had no idea what they are doing doesn’t mean they all are. So don’t make assumptions about how I feel about paleo anything ok?

I like living dangerously; I think it’s fair to conclude any paleoclimate study that attributes some part of temperature change to the radiative effects of CO2 was written by a biased moron in your book.

Rational people read ALL of the studies and note the error margins and methods used and see how accurate or inaccurate they are.

Rational people understand that nobody has time to read ALL the studies — much less evaluate ALL their methods and tally up ALL the error margins.

BG- “Um, that’s called governance.”
WHAT?

Name any major policy decision in the history of the United States that everyone thought was a good idea, and that someone did NOT think was going to ruin the country or otherwise harm someone.

Brandon,

“As an old fart brushing up on long-standing physics, I’m waiting to be convinced that you have the background to make such a claim stand up.”
I’m confused by that statement, let me see if I can sort it. Going by your numbered list above, (1) and (2) are my subjective personal opinions which don’t easily lend themselves to bombproof substantiation. (3) is the physics and I claim no particular expertise, but from what you write below, you’re open to me formally extending my arguments in the form of a complete essay. Is that about correct?

With respect to (1), had you said “some” skeptics instead of “so-called,” your statement wouldn’t have raised a red flag. In (1) and (3), you clearly profess enough expertise to judge anthropogenic vs. natural factors. You may have it and that’s why I encourage you to write up your modelling data. I would if I had the data and more time or money.

This is the point where I want you to produce a better model. (Cue Stealey, “skeptics have nothing to prove”.)

I’m not in a position right now to provide an alternative model. Want to throw some funds my way? Nevertheless, does failure to provide an alternative make my criticisms of IPCC models invalid?

Everyone has cognitive biases. I would not say that they affect everyone equally. My own biases obviously affect my perceptions differences.

Huh?

This is probably more topical on the thread about Dr. Christy’s recent Senate testimony … [link to the ATTP Christy post]

Wow. Tell us what you really think.
From your comment on the ATTP post:

So, on the other hand, let’s get some serious research for our serious amount of money instead of paying them to “express” themselves … something which they’re already abundantly capable of doing without me having to foot the bill for it.

This is how many, if not all, of us so-called skeptics feel about our tax dollars going towards current IPCC modelling efforts. You seem resentful of even 5-10% spent on opposing hypotheses. Why not an equal 50-50 split? If AGW conformational bias is in effect among those producing IPCC models, how long will it take for any objective results to emerge showing that more CO2 will have no major effect on global temperature?

Aphan,
Whatever Brandon’s motives are, our discussions are helpful to me as I seek a clearer understanding of the science underlying climate change. My attempts at discussions with AGW supporters on pro-AGW websites were discouraging because of comments removed, but mostly a preponderance of ad hominem comments. Obviously Brandon is not being censored here, but he might be experiencing similar denigration.
I haven’t followed your discussions with him, but from your comment to me you must be able to supply the alternative model results he desires showing how natural factors explain temperature trends without a major contribution from human emissions. If so, I would be interested in them as well. BTW, have you seen his model work? He has invested time and effort. Whether or not that is to prove himself right or to find the truth is his problem.
Bottom line for me, being as it is probably too late to do my own research, is to learn as much as possible from experts (not saying Brandon is), ask questions to clarify misunderstandings, and remain open as possible to all arguments both pro and con.

Chic Bowdrie,

With respect to (1), had you said “some” skeptics instead of “so-called,” your statement wouldn’t have raised a red flag.

I understand. My thing is, I’m not willing to completely cede the label “skeptics” to a group I think are more properly called “AGW contrarians”

In (1) and (3), you clearly profess enough expertise to judge anthropogenic vs. natural factors.

Truth is I’m not a know-it-all, I just play one on the Internet.

You may have it and that’s why I encourage you to write up your modelling data. I would if I had the data and more time or money.

I appreciate the compliment. Rather than model a specific case, write it up and defend it here (which I have done plenty of in comments), I might feel more comfortable cleaning up and documenting my regression model then publishing it on GitHub as tool with some pre-loaded data for others to fiddle with.

I’m not in a position right now to provide an alternative model. Want to throw some funds my way?

When I say that I don’t generally mean “you” personally. AGW contrarian working scientists like Christy, Spencer, Curry, etc., yes actually.

Nevertheless, does failure to provide an alternative make my criticisms of IPCC models invalid?

In and of itself, no. I’m just generally weary of alternative mechanisms not being put through the crucible of formal modelling and peer-reviewed publication. Naysaying is an important skeptical trait, but science doesn’t advance knowledge by saying “no” to the experimental hypothesis.
“Everyone has cognitive biases. I would not say that they affect everyone equally. My own biases obviously affect my perceptions differences.”
Huh?
I bunged that one up eh? Most people apparently think of their own views as unbiased. I’m no exception. Conclusion: we’re all biased to some degree, “measuring” that is not easy, but I’m pretty sure bias affects everyone equally.

From your comment on the ATTP post:
“So, on the other hand, let’s get some serious research for our serious amount of money instead of paying them to “express” themselves … something which they’re already abundantly capable of doing without me having to foot the bill for it.”
This is how many, if not all, of us so-called skeptics feel about our tax dollars going towards current IPCC modelling efforts.

I don’t doubt it. I cross-posted my comment at ATTP’s on the Dr. Christy thread: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/03/in-defense-of-satellite-temperature-data-dr-john-christys-powerful-senate-testimony-yesterday/
… and responded to your points there with some extensions (and yes, repetitions) of my original post. It’s in moderation so I can’t link the comment directly.

Brandon, you must be a glutton for punishment.

Chic Bowdrie,

… you must be a glutton for punishment.

One wonders what that says about my tormentors. 😉
I’ll put it to you this way: I’ve found it better to spend more time in harm’s way than my own echo chamber.

Now that’s pretty close to exactly right.

I thought so too, which is why I shamelessly filched it from someone on that ATTP thread.

So you want me to be a glutton for punishment?

I thought I’d seen you post over there before and not get too roughed-up. Let me see if I can pare it down.
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf
Summary
Climate change is a wide-ranging topic with many difficulties. Our basic knowledge about what the climate is doing (i.e. measurements) is plagued by uncertainties. In my testimony today I have given evidence that the bulk atmospheric temperature is measured well-enough to demonstrate that our understanding of how greenhouse gases affect the climate is significantly inadequate to explain the climate since 1979. In particular, the actual change of the fundamental metric of the greenhouse warming signature –the bulk atmospheric temperature where models indicate the most direct evidence for greenhouse warming should lie is significantly misrepresented by the models. Though no dataset is perfect, the way in which surface datasets have been constructed leaves many unanswered questions, especially for the recent NOAA update which shows more warming than the others. Finally, regulations already enforced or being proposed, such as those from the Paris Agreement, will have virtually no impact on whatever the climate is going to do.
No, I’m not willing to give him 1% of the US climate research budget to test the one and only one alternative hypothesis he presents in his testimony: … regulations already enforced or being proposed, such as those from the Paris Agreement, will have virtually no impact on whatever the climate is going to do.
How he could write that with such certainty after leading with …
Our basic knowledge about what the climate is doing (i.e. measurements) is plagued by uncertainties.
… boggles the mind.
The 5-10% he’s asking for for a Red Team to do actual research and not an “assessment report”? Yes, I support that. The main output of that research needs to be an integrated climate model up to CMIP5/6 specifications and compatibility. It would be judged by a pre-determined skill score metric applicable to all similar models. Guaranteed funding in exchange for a guaranteed carbon tax or other mitigation/replacement program.
If 5 years isn’t enough time, extensions granted on the basis of progress and/or extending the mitigation/replacement program. Both sides get something they’ve been asking for but not obtaining.

Aphan,

He’s willing to admit his own side of the argument is unproven, while demanding proof from others that they PROVE him wrong!

No, that is not my position. This is my position: One does not simply “prove” anything in non-trivial empirical sciences. See again, the problem of induction. One thing I am willing to say with absolute certainty: no human being is omniscient.

Modeled results are the only thing that the AGW crowd has left to hang their opinions on, because every other KNOWN “natural” factor in the global warming/climate change debate has been shown to include error margins large enough to contain the temperature increase, either individually, or in simple combinations.

Emphasis mine. Your claim, your burden of “proof”. Honor your own paradigm and PROVE it already.
In the face of your claim of such great uncertainty and in the name of self-consistent logic, one wonders how it is you are so certain AGW theory is wrong.

He admits his perceptions are tainted by his own biases, while insinuating that some people are more influenced by their biases than others -Freudian slip or projection or insinuation?

Gosh Aphan, I don’t honestly know for sure. That’s the pernicious thing about cognitive biases — they tend to hinder objective self-analysis, to say nothing of non-distorted evaluation of others.
Is the fact that you didn’t answer the question you raised a tacit “admission” of your own imperfect perceptions and biases, or an example of you criticizing me for insinuating with insinuation? Is the latter a double-standard or simply just you attempting to give me a taste of my own medicine? Something else entirely?

Aphan,

So in his speech, he addressed those three specific points. In his summary, (which you posted) he’s merely mentioning that his remarks COVERED all three, so when he says “regulations already enforced or being proposed, such as those from the Paris Agreement, will have virtually no impact on whatever the climate is going to do” he’s already backed up why he thinks that in his actual remarks.

Here’s the first part of his summary again:
Climate change is a wide-ranging topic with many difficulties. Our basic knowledge about what the climate is doing (i.e. measurements) is plagued by uncertainties. In my testimony today I have given evidence that the bulk atmospheric temperature is measured well-enough to demonstrate that our understanding of how greenhouse gases affect the climate is significantly inadequate to explain the climate since 1979.
I don’t care if UAH TLT v6.0beta4 is perfect, 37 years of one climate parameter is not the sum total of observations available for drawing conclusions. His summary continues:
In particular, the actual change of the fundamental metric of the greenhouse warming signature –the bulk atmospheric temperature where models indicate the most direct evidence for greenhouse warming should lie is significantly misrepresented by the models. Though no dataset is perfect, the way in which surface datasets have been constructed leaves many unanswered questions, especially for the recent NOAA update which shows more warming than the others.
Dr. Pielke Sr. disagrees: https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-247.pdf
I don’t agree with Sr. on a lot of things, including some statements in this particular paper. I do agree with his main argument here because they make absolute physical sense:
1) Net energy gain/loss is the central prediction of rising/falling atmospheric GHG concentrations, from which temperature change follows
2) We would reasonably expect the largest heat sink in the climate system, the oceans, to absorb/release the bulk of energy flux during a regime of rising/falling pertubation in radiative forcing.
From those physics it follows that the largest model/observation deviations over the short-term are going to be seen in the part of the system with the least mass and lesser specific heat capacity.
As for, … the way in which surface datasets have been constructed leaves many unanswered questions, especially for the recent NOAA update which shows more warming than the others.
Karl et al. (2015):
UAH TLT v5.6 to v6.0beta4:
Not peer-reviewed, not published, no-code beta product being used in Senate testimony, but it’s NOAA that have “unanswered questions”. Pull my other one.
Let’s quantify “significantly misrepresented by the models”:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WGX4QGtowJo/VrO2ze8qVWI/AAAAAAAAAlY/R1w630Lh32U/s1600/HADCRUT4%2Bvs%2BCMIP5%2BRCP8.5%2Bregression%2Bmonthly%2B2015-12.png
Using a regression to scale CMIP5 to HADCRUT4, it would appear “the models” run 8.7% hotter than this non-“Karlized” surface temperature time series.

Christy never expresses that his statements on regulations should be viewed as an “alternative hypothesis” of anything, so you saying that you would not be willing to fund research to test what is really YOUR opinion of HIS opinion is illogical and irrelevant!

It’s my tax money I’m offering him to fund his Red Team. I get a say in what I would want him to do with it, same as YOU WOULD.

Aphan,
I made an error in my last post. Dr. Christy did not present TLT v6.0beta4 temperatures to the Senate, but rather TMT v5.6:
… which makes the models look worse. Shocker. Ever hear of stratospheric cooling?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rVss1ZRHvx4/VnsKTcQxreI/AAAAAAAAAg4/VQyhN-gPj6o/s1600/RATPAC-A%2BTemperature%2BTrends%2Bby%2BAltitude%2B1958-2015%2Bglobal%2Bvs%2Btropics.png
(Data: RATPAC-A radiosonde)

Do you understand the difference between temperature measurements taken by satellites and the temperature reconstructions done by NOAA using ERSST?????

Yes. One is sea surface temperatures taken mostly in situ, the other is upper air temperatures taken from orbit.

“The Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) dataset is a global monthly sea surface temperature analysis derived from the International Comprehensive Ocean–Atmosphere Dataset with missing data filled in by statistical methods. This monthly analysis begins in January 1854 continuing to the present and includes anomalies computed with respect to a 1971–2000 monthly climatology. The newest version of ERSST, version 3b, is optimally tuned to exclude under-sampled regions for global averages. In contrast to version 3, ERSST v3b does not include satellite data, which were found to cause a cold bias significant enough to change the rankings of months.”

You’re one version behind, the latest is ERSST v4.

NOAA’s newest tweaks might not bother you, but they bother a whole lot of other people, including congress and 300+ scientists.

No, they don’t bother me, I look at data sans the blinders for anything older than the past 18 years and isn’t measured from orbit.
300+ scientists, huh. You sure you want to play the consensus game here?

Infilled data, anomalies computed with respect to a 30 year period that ended 15 years ago, excludes under-sampled regions, and does not include satellite data because the data caused a COLD bias.

The switch from ERSST v3b to v4 was … (drumroll) … net cooling:
If you don’t like Karl (2015) you could use HadISSTv3, but, um, it runs hotter than ERSSTv4. Dunno what to tell you other than, well, you’re striking out here.
If you don’t like an anomaly baseline which is 15 years old, it’s simple enough to recompute one to suit your personal tastes.
If you don’t like infilled data, you can get the raw SSTs from ICOADS and do your own analysis.
Why shouldn’t under-sampled regions be excluded, especially if you don’t like infilling?
If you think satellite temperature products are not full of similar sausage-making, I have some oceanfront property in Paraguay to sell you.

Brandon,
Some thoughts after catching up on the last few comments.

Finally, regulations already enforced or being proposed, such as those from the Paris Agreement, will have virtually no impact on whatever the climate is going to do.
How [Christy] could write that with such certainty after leading with …
Our basic knowledge about what the climate is doing (i.e. measurements) is plagued by uncertainties.
… boggles the mind.

I think Christy was making the point that the Paris agreement doesn’t have enough teeth to curtail emissions, therefore global temperatures are not likely to be effected much regardless of what CO2 sensitivity turns out to be. In any case, he argues, climate knowledge uncertainties don’t justify costly and potentially unwarranted mitigation efforts.

Guaranteed funding in exchange for a guaranteed carbon tax or other mitigation/replacement program.

Get real. That’s heads you win, tails we lose.

This is my position: One does not simply “prove” anything in non-trivial empirical sciences.

Not sure what you mean by this. Neither side has sufficient proof at this time. However, the burden of proof remains on those like you who are proposing drastic measures, who haven’t improved model correlations, sensitivity estimates, and natural vs. anthropogenic attribution.

Though no dataset is perfect, the way in which surface datasets have been constructed leaves many unanswered questions, especially for the recent NOAA update which shows more warming than the others.
Dr. Pielke Sr. disagrees:

I don’t think he does. For one thing, Christy is comparing datasets. Pielke is asserting that heat content is a better measure of any radiative forcing than temperature.

1) Net energy gain/loss is the central prediction of rising/falling atmospheric GHG concentrations, from which temperature change follows.

Not exactly. Pielke is saying energy gain/loss results from radiative forcing irrespective of its source. Sun, clouds, etc. Could have nothing to do with IR active gases.

2) We would reasonably expect the largest heat sink in the climate system, the oceans, to absorb/release the bulk of energy flux during a regime of rising/falling pertubation in radiative forcing.

This is unclear. Energy is absorbed and released. The flux is the rate at which it occurs. Obviously the bulk of the heat content will go into oceans, but atmosphere temperatures parallel ocean temperatures pretty well, so I’m not sure about this:

From those physics it follows that the largest model/observation deviations over the short-term are going to be seen in the part of the system with the least mass and lesser specific heat capacity.

You could be right, but I’m not sure what it has to do with Christy’s beef with Karl et al. (2015).

I made an error in my last post. Dr. Christy did not present TLT v6.0beta4 temperatures to the Senate, but rather TMT v5.6 … which makes the models look worse. Shocker. Ever hear of stratospheric cooling?

You should recheck yours and Christy’s sources. I don’t see where he used TMT v5.6 in his senate testimony. And your RATPAC data shows the surface warming a lot less than the troposphere. My analysis shows it being the same. I think the reason the troposphere warmed that much is because of an increase in water vapor beginning around 1992.

The switch from ERSST v3b to v4 was … (drumroll) … net cooling:

From 1850 something that may be the case. However, Christy showed that since 1995, that change biased NOAA trends upwards relative to Hadcrut4 and UAH sea surface measurements.
BTW, have you seen Monchton’s latest WUWT post? He asks if the surface has warmed, where did it come from warming of the troposphere. I would be interested in your take on it.