Climate Change Skepticism

[Riverwind]

Here is a paper that tried to explain why the climate models do not match the actual data over the last 25 years: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent

with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to

the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in

the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.

The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations and more realistic modelling

efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of

future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution.

This was printed in the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY.

This paper re-enforces many of the claims made by many skeptics who feel that the computer models are exceedingly unreliable. Unfortunately, the CO2 hypothesis is based entirely on the premise that the computer models are accurate. In my view this casts even further doubt on the claims made by the IPCC and the GW advocates.

Edited December 10, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

This paper re-enforces many of the claims made by many skeptics who feel that the computer models are exceedingly unreliable. Unfortunately, the CO2 hypothesis is based entirely on the premise that the computer models are accurate. In my view this casts even further doubt on the claims made by the IPCC and the GW advocates.

Whenever S. Fred Singer's name comes up, I wonder what tricks he is up to and who is paying him this time.

I suspect the observations versus the model will be looked at. At the moment, it is hard to say what conclusions can be made from this paper.

[Canuck E Stan]

Whenever S. Fred Singer's name comes up, I wonder what tricks he is up to and who is paying him this time.

I suspect the observations versus the model will be looked at. At the moment, it is hard to say what conclusions can be made from this paper.

Contaminated data-Ross McKitrick December 05, 2007

Our new paper presents a new, larger data set with a more complete set of socioeconomic indicators. We showed that the spatial pattern of warming trends is so tightly correlated with indicators of economic activity that the probability they are unrelated is less than one in 14 trillion. We applied a string of statistical tests to show that the correlation is not a fluke or the result of biased or inconsistent statistical modelling. We showed that the contamination patterns are largest in regions experiencing real economic growth. And we showed that the contamination patterns account for about half the surface warming measured over land since 1980.

In other words, we have confirmed, on new and stronger grounds, that the IPCC's global surface-temperature data is exaggerated, with a large warming bias.Claims about the amount of surface warming since 1980, and its attribution to anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions, should be reassessed using uncontaminated data. And governments that rely on the IPCC for advice should begin asking why it was allowed to suppress earlier evidence of this problem.

Another (this time)Canadian skeptic to attempt to find fault with.

[Riverwind]

Whenever S. Fred Singer's name comes up, I wonder what tricks he is up to and who is paying him this time.

Yet another attempt at smearing someone instead addressing the facts. The climate models do not match the actual data - this is a well known problem but GW activists don't bother to mention it in themedia. Instead they talk about their 'state of the art' models that they are "constantly improving" which sounds good to people who who don't understand that "state of art" means "guesswork" and that "constant improvement" is necessary because they have never predicated anything correctly.

When it comes to then models I have seen GW activists claim that their models are good because they can predict the past. This sounds reasonable but it is actually a completely rediculous claim because they used their knowledge of the past to create the model in the first place. If you really want to validate a model you must predict the future and verify that your prediction was correct. So far the models have failed that test miserably.

Edited December 10, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Yet another attempt at smearing someone instead addressing the facts. The climate models do not match the actual data - this is a well known problem but GW activists don't bother to mention it in themedia. Instead they talk about their 'state of the art' models that they are "constantly improving" which sounds good to people who who don't understand that "state of art" means "guesswork" and that "constant improvement" is necessary because they have never predicated anything correctly.

When it comes to then models I have seen GW activists claim that their models are good because they can predict the past. This sounds reasonable but it is actually a completely rediculous claim because they used their knowledge of the past to create the model in the first place. If you really want to validate a model you must predict the future and verify that your prediction was correct. So far the models have failed that test miserably.

I don't know what facts you want confirmed here. The paper concludes that there is one of two possibilities. They don't confirm anything.

As for Singer, his reputation precedes him and that isn't a smear, it is an observation about who he works for.

[jdobbin]

Another (this time)Canadian skeptic to attempt to find fault with.

Already dealt with this claim.

[Riverwind]

Already dealt with this claim.

No you haven't. This is a new paper that refutes all previous criticisms. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/...-background.pdf

I have noticed a pattern when people publish papers that demonstrate the flaws in CO2 hypothesis.

1) Immediately respond with vague statements criticizing methodology or data sources;

2) Cast aspursions on the author's integrity by suggesting that they paid by the oil industry (whether true or not);

3) Continue on as before claiming the paper has been 'discredited' if it comes up (even though nothing of the sort has happened);

4) The authors publish detailed refutations of the criticisms of their methodology or data sources;

5) GW advocates ignore the refutations and point to previous comments to show the paper has been 'discredited'.

The entire process is a mockery of what science should be about.

Edited December 10, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

No you haven't. This is a new paper that refutes all previous criticisms. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/...-background.pdf

This is the second time that I have seen this exact link this week. I responded at the time. I thought it was in this thread.

[Riverwind]

This is the second time that I have seen this exact link this week. I responded at the time. I thought it was in this thread.

You repsonded with a blog from *2004*. In other words, you used Step 5) from the GW activists misinformation guide. Edited December 10, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

You repsonded with a blog from *2004*. In other words, you used Step 5) from the GW activists misinformation guide.

No, it was from this exact link because I have the same file bookmarked.

In any event, the heat island effect still indicates a warming. Further study is needed and even the author has admitted that.

Edited December 10, 2007 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

No, it was from this exact link because I have the same file bookmarked.

This is what you posted:

Then you post McKitrick's work which had a flaw pointed out by Tim Lambert in 2004.

More of that here:

http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/25/mckitrick-mucks-it-up

You tried to use a blog from 2004 refute a paper produced in 2007. This is a disinformation strategy that is used over and over by GW advocates in the media and the reasons why no one should take a claim that a paper has been refuted unless they go back and look for themselves. This reality really disturbs me because it means I cannot trust anything said by a GW advocate - I must double check everything.

In any event, the heat island effect still indicates a warming. Further study is needed and even the author has admitted that.

No. The 2007 paper was a much larger study that showed a co-relation between urban areas and higher temperature. The work is sufficient to show that there is a serious problem with the data that GW advocates choose to ignore.

To summarize:

1) The urban heat island effect is real and does make temperatures artificially high;

2) The IPCC uses statistics to compensate for the urban heat island effect;

3) If that was done correctly then there should be no correlation in the corrected data between temperature and urbanization;

4) McKitrick demonstarted that there is a correlation in the corrected data - this means that the urban heat island effect has *not* been removed from the data;

5) The size of this error close to to the amount of warming attributed to human induced increases in CO2 concentrations;

6) When confronted with this issue the IPCC admits there is a problem but blames it on ocean currents;

7) This is non-argument since data biased by ocean currents instead of the urban heat island effect is still *bad* data;

Edited December 10, 2007 by Riverwind

[margrace]

There has been predictions that the children growing up now will not live as long as we do. I guess if you have no children or your children will be protected, you think, then doing anything is robbery of your money. You can't take it with you.

It all seems to come down to money, but no amount of money will buy back the health of the amount of people who are becoming severly asthmatic, no money can buy back the life of a child who is dying of cancer.

[jdobbin]

No. The 2007 paper was a much larger study that showed a co-relation between urban areas and higher temperature. The work is sufficient to show that there is a serious problem with the data that GW advocates choose to ignore.

My error in using Tim Lambert's work from 2004. Lambert is in Bali at the moment so we will likely see a response in a few weeks.

I just checked the 2007 paper link that you posted still admits that there is warming and that more study is needed. McKitrick himself says that he isn't going to that study himself.

Edited December 10, 2007 by jdobbin

[stevoh]

I have noticed a pattern when people publish papers that demonstrate the flaws in CO2 hypothesis.

1) Immediately respond with vague statements criticizing methodology or data sources;

2) Cast aspursions on the author's integrity by suggesting that they paid by the oil industry (whether true or not);

3) Continue on as before claiming the paper has been 'discredited' if it comes up (even though nothing of the sort has happened);

4) The authors publish detailed refutations of the criticisms of their methodology or data sources;

5) GW advocates ignore the refutations and point to previous comments to show the paper has been 'discredited'.

The entire process is a mockery of what science should be about.

I too have noticed a pattern in the skeptic point of view:

1. Identify one flaw or element of uncertainty in pro-global warming research and use it to dismiss it all.

2. Pick a specific element out of a legitimate peer reviewed publication that challenges specific data on global warming, and use that specific element to refute global warming as a whole. Even in the case where the paper itself is not casting doubt on human caused global warming.

3. Find another potential cause of global warming and assume that must be the sole cause, dismissing the idea that various elements all influence global temperature.

4. Accept data from any source, scientific or otherwise, without any review if it supports their position.

5. Claim that any refutation to global warming should be considered, regardless of whether the source is scientific, peer reviewed, or has political motives.

6. Call global warming a religion, and spew out a stream of stereotypical left wing assumptions.

The fact that we are allowing non-scientists so much influence in this debate is where I see the problems surfacing. As time goes by the science for human influenced global warming will become more precise, and our actions can be more defined. Even if the results of that science mean that human influenced global warming is a negligable effect.

In the meantime we reduce pollutants, reduce our energy consumption, and reduce our dependence on oil. Not a bad side effect at all.

[noahbody]

There has been predictions that the children growing up now will not live as long as we do. I guess if you have no children or your children will be protected, you think, then doing anything is robbery of your money. You can't take it with you.

It all seems to come down to money, but no amount of money will buy back the health of the amount of people who are becoming severly asthmatic, no money can buy back the life of a child who is dying of cancer.

The above are actual problems, but they have absolutely nothing to do with GW.

[Riverwind]

First off - I cannot defend every skeptic out there. Some of them are loons with axes to grind. I only consider skeptics who are scientists with experience in climate science or a discipline that uses the techniques required to interpret the data (statistical analysis, computer modelling, paleoclimate estimations).

1. Identify one flaw or element of uncertainty in pro-global warming research and use it to dismiss it all.

The AGW warming hypothesis is based on a set of assumptions. Falsifying any of the assumption invalidates the hypothesis. Falsifying a hypothesis is a fundamental part of the scientific method and no GW advocate should be surprised.

2. Pick a specific element out of a legitimate peer reviewed publication that challenges specific data on global warming, and use that specific element to refute global warming as a whole. Even in the case where the paper itself is not casting doubt on human caused global warming.

Again - the CO2 hypothesis is not proven and will never be proven. Proponents argue that it is the most 'plausible' explanation for observations anything that casts doubt on the plausibility argument should be considered and weighed against their arguments.

3. Find another potential cause of global warming and assume that must be the sole cause, dismissing the idea that various elements all influence global temperature.

Personally I think GW advocates are guilty of this because they reject the idea that anything other than CO2 could be causing the observed temperature rises even though they admit that CO2 is directly responsible for only a small part of the warming they predict. The climate is a complex system I don't believe it is possible to attribute any one cause to the effects observed.

5. Claim that any refutation to global warming should be considered, regardless of whether the source is scientific, peer reviewed, or has political motives.

At this point in time there is no one involved in the debate who is free of political motives. Trying to smear people on one side of the debate is hypocritical.

The fact that we are allowing non-scientists so much influence in this debate is where I see the problems surfacing.

Every one of the sources that I have been looking at are scientists with expertise the techniques used to develop the CO2 hypothesis.

As time goes by the science for human influenced global warming will become more precise, and our actions can be more defined. Even if the results of that science mean that human influenced global warming is a negligible effect.

Agreed.

In the meantime we reduce pollutants, reduce our energy consumption, and reduce our dependence on oil. Not a bad side effect at all.

Hallelujah. This is my entire argument. Don't reject the possibility that CO2 is a possible source of warming but we should focus on reduction strategies that have broader environment benefits. Reducing CO2 for the sake of reducing CO2 is a mistake given the information we have now. Edited December 10, 2007 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

First off - I cannot defend every skeptic out there. Some of them are loons with axes to grind. I only consider skeptics who are scientists with experience in climate science or a discipline that uses the techniques required to interpret the data (statistical analysis, computer modelling, paleoclimate estimations).

Then we are similar in our approach.

Hallelujah. This is my entire argument. Don't reject the possibility that CO2 is a possible source of warming but we should focus on reduction strategies that have broader environment benefits. Reducing CO2 for the sake of reducing CO2 is a mistake given the information we have now.

If you accept that global warming is occuring, but do not accept that human CO2 release is causing the majority of it, what is the hypothesis that you most subscribe to?

[Oleg Bach]

Then we are similar in our approach.

If you accept that global warming is occuring, but do not accept that human CO2 release is causing the majority of it, what is the hypothesis that you most subscribe to?

Forget about softening the words--- climalte destruction...it's a lot like calling normal land "green space', as if real land was an artifical addition? Green space is what was here first not second - climate change is like saying "I have not killed you, but just changed you" garbage!

[Riverwind]

If you accept that global warming is occuring, but do not accept that human CO2 release is causing the majority of it, what is the hypothesis that you most subscribe to?

Everyone agrees that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels will cause a 1 deg increase in temperature. However, that increase is not large enough to be concerned about. A problem only exists because the GW alarmists argue that CO2 will cause feedbacks that amplify its effect triggering temp increases of 5 degrees or more. They justify this claim with models don't have a very good track record of predicting anything. I realize that some of the models have got some things right some of the time but that only proves that you can sometimes get the right answer if you have enough models.

In other words, I think it is crazy to make huge social investments based on the outputs of these models alone because there are way too many things that we don't understand about how the sun, CO2, clouds and aerosols interact with each other. For example, someone has recently shown that cosmic rays can influence cloud cover - a factor that none of these models consider. Who knows what we may find in the future.

[Riverwind]

Forget about softening the words--- climalte destruction...it's a lot like calling normal land "green space', as if real land was an artifical addition? Green space is what was here first not second - climate change is like saying "I have not killed you, but just changed you" garbage!

The earth had no ice caps and 5x CO2 levels as today in the jurassic period yet the earth supported a lot of life including megafauna like T-Rex and Brontosaurs. Climate change is simply change - it is neighter good nor bad from the perspective of the planet even if it make life inconvenient for certain primate species. Edited December 11, 2007 by Riverwind

[jbg]

6. Call global warming a religion, and spew out a stream of stereotypical left wing assumptions.

If Canada pulled all of its cars and trucks off the road, and shuttered every factory, do you think it would change a single temperature on a single day in a single place (other than in the very immediate vicinity of the city or factory thus ruined)?

[White Doors]

There has been predictions that the children growing up now will not live as long as we do. I guess if you have no children or your children will be protected, you think, then doing anything is robbery of your money. You can't take it with you.

It all seems to come down to money, but no amount of money will buy back the health of the amount of people who are becoming severly asthmatic, no money can buy back the life of a child who is dying of cancer.

Are you lost margrace? What does that have to do with the subject at hand?

Edited December 11, 2007 by White Doors

[margrace]

Are you lost margrace? What does that have to do with the subject at hand?

It is unconceivable to me that people cannot connect the whole thing, pollution to our air may be causing a speed up in climate change, laws that allow the poisoning of our ground may also be killing people.The whole idea is connected and people who advocate divide and conquer are at best advocates of doing nothing.

[jbg]

It is unconceivable to me that people cannot connect the whole thing, pollution to our air may be causing a speed up in climate change, laws that allow the poisoning of our ground may also be killing people.The whole idea is connected and people who advocate divide and conquer are at best advocates of doing nothing.

Pollution is a very real issue. Climate change, as far as human activity, is largely a phony one. That is the distinction.

Pollution is, at least how I define it, the addition of poisonous substances to the water and/or atmosphere. From there, it finds its way into people, domestic animals or pets, and/or wildlife. As such, it is directly and immediately harmful.

There is much validity to the worry about climate change but for different reasons. Climate has always been changing, and sometimes rapidly. This did not pose a problem when North America was thinly settled by hunter-gatherers and small-scale Native American farmers. The people simply moved with the shifting weather and associated wildlife. This is not so easy to do when your "settlements" now have upwards of 50 million people (NYC-I 95 megalopolis) or even the TO area's 5 million or so. Even natural climate variability could pose severe problems, though, I point out, both are happily situated where a 6 C swing in temperature either way would, short term at least, be bareable (sp).

[noahbody]

The whole idea is connected and people who advocate divide and conquer are at best advocates of doing nothing.

Seems to me you've been criticizing the Conservative government on the environment for some time. In reality, this broader approach to environmental concerns was what they presented in their original Clean Air Act. What the Opposition parties did as you mentioned was divide and conquer.

This fixation on CO2 emissions is what is poisoning the environment. There are real issues such as smog that need to be addressed that won't be because countries put their entire environmental budget into the collection plate of the GW preachers.