CBC: Keeping Canadian Voters Confused by Paying Rex Murphy

[myata]

The fact is the science ia EXTREMELY uncertain. We really have no idea how much warming will occur nor what the consequences are likely to be.

For once I would agree (in my understanding of the state of the science) that it does not make detailed predictions about the consequences of climate change in each specific geographic area (though some global patterns do seem to be a consensus of most scientists, such as significant warming up, and melting of ice leading to significant raise in ocean level). We also have an example, in one of our nearest neighbour planets, where greenhouse climate pattern has worked to the extreme.

There are many different policy choices we could make including "do nothing - adapt". Unfortunately, a segment of the population who happens to like particular policy choices has tried to use "science" as a ramrod to force people to agree with their choices. This has resulted in a endless debate over the science in the political arena. This is wrong. The science has told us all it can and the remaining decisions are up to us and cannot be dictated by science.

I can actually agree with that. Science, rational information is only one of a miriad of possible motives and drivers that can influence the decisions of our societies. For example, instead of removing the rake or changing one's path around them, one may choose to pray to avoid another painful encounter, or "adapt" by inventing oinments and balsams to soothen the point of impact. Again, there isn't any one "right" decision, very simply put, the nature rewards us for the choices we make as species with opportunities for advancement and progress on one side, and one way ticket to extinction on the other. Most of our the experience so far has been that rational choices enhance probability of success, but of course we can always try something else for a change (not that there would be any novelty in such approaches).

[Michael Hardner]

That's completely false. The earth hasn't been warming in several years. And there have been several factors which have been found to affect temperatures. For instance, the sun. It's common knowledge.

But solar activity is not at all correlated with warming.

[noahbody]

For example, instead of removing the rake or changing one's path around them, one may choose to pray to avoid another painful encounter, or "adapt" by inventing oinments and balsams to soothen the point of impact. Again, there isn't any one "right" decision, very simply put, the nature rewards us for the choices we make as species with opportunities for advancement and progress on one side, and one way ticket to extinction on the other.

How about sending your paycheck to South Africa to a boy who doesn't have a rake? Will the rake still be there tomorrow?

What if there are 50 rakes and all you can pick up is one? Would it make sense to give away your paycheck knowing you really weren't going anywhere?

[Riverwind]

But solar activity is not at all correlated with warming.

Part of the problem are the unreliable temperature records. There was a recent agreement that the sea surface temperature records from the 40s-70s were wrong because the adjustments for the change of measurement device were done incorrectly. The corrections favoured by the "team" assumed the problem was limited to the 40s and it explained a discrepancy with the CO2-centric climate models. Others looked at the issue and felt that the corrections should be applied until the 70s which would increase the correlation between the temperature record and the solar cycles but increase the discrepancy with the models.

One should never underestimate how the preconceptions built into the climate models has affected the adjustments applied the real data.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

That's completely false. The earth hasn't been warming in several years. And there have been several factors which have been found to affect temperatures. For instance, the sun. It's common knowledge.

when did scientific ignorance become logic?...there is no correlation between solar activity and this warming, while average global temps have been rising solar activity has been low...the sun is only now just entering it's active phase, it's common knowledge ...

here's my link to the solar activity, ...now show me your's that shows otherwise...

[Michael Hardner]

Part of the problem are the unreliable temperature records. There was a recent agreement that the sea surface temperature records from the 40s-70s were wrong because the adjustments for the change of measurement device were done incorrectly. The corrections favoured by the "team" assumed the problem was limited to the 40s and it explained a discrepancy with the CO2-centric climate models. Others looked at the issue and felt that the corrections should be applied until the 70s which would increase the correlation between the temperature record and the solar cycles but increase the discrepancy with the models.

One should never underestimate how the preconceptions built into the climate models has affected the adjustments applied the real data.

Even the recent cooling discussed in the emails, though, doesn't look anything like a complete non-correlation. The idea that recent solar activity is causing recent warming is another non-starter. We should start a list of arguments that should be marked as "done" to reduce the noise, don't you think ?

[wyly]

There are many other factors which can explain the warming at least as well as CO2. The problem the science establishment has taken the position that any alternative to CO2 must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt before they accept it. It is a rediculous onus of proof. If we could go back and look at all of the evidence without preconceptions about what is important and what is not we would likely find that CO2 is not as important as currently thought.

the science establishment has looked at all other factors and ruled them all out...GHG's are the culprits...GHG's(CO2)had to withstand repeated peer reviews before they were accepted as the cause of AGW any other proposed cause will need to under go the same scrutiny, all others have failed...

this is the way science works...come up with a hypothesis(from many sources) and if it withstands repeated peer reviewed studies it then progresses to Theory-accepted to be true...once a hypothesis reaches a level of accepted theory it must be shown to be wrong before it is discarded or altered...

[Riverwind]

Even the recent cooling discussed in the emails, though, doesn't look anything like a complete non-correlation.

There are two schools of thought on solar effect. One looks directly at the sun's intensity plugs those peak-to-trough changes into the climate models and out comes a number which is too small to matter. However, the climate models do assume that the sun's intensity did increase from 1900-1940 and the climate models need that increase to explain the rise in temps over the same period. It is worth noting that some solar scientists now say that rise in intensity never occurred and the climate models are wrong. The climate modellers ignore this because it is inconvenient.

The second school of thought presumes that there are secondary effects amplify the solar effect and seek to determine the magnitude of the solar effects by extracting a signal from temperature record. These efforts suggest that the solar effect is as much as 10x larger than what would be expected given the simply radiation calculations used in the climate models. This is one of the reasons why some climate modellers are turning to the sun to explain the recent cooling. The trouble is if they accept it has a large cooling effect during solar minimums they have to assume that it has an equal warming effect during solar maximums. This would undermine their claim that the CO2 is major cause of the recent warming.

In short, the solar science is not settled although if does have an effect it is via a mechanism that is currently unknown.

[wyly]

It is worth noting that some solar scientists now say that rise in intensity never occurred and the climate models are wrong. The climate modellers ignore this because it is inconvenient.

link please...

The second school of thought presumes that there are secondary effects amplify the solar effect and seek to determine the magnitude of the solar effects by extracting a signal from temperature record. These efforts suggest that the solar effect is as much as 10x larger than what would be expected given the simply radiation calculations used in the climate models. This is one of the reasons why some climate modellers are turning to the sun to explain the recent cooling. The trouble is if they accept it has a large cooling effect during solar minimums they have to assume that it has an equal warming effect during solar maximums. This would undermine their claim that the CO2 is major cause of the recent warming.

link...

and denier bloggs are not acceptable....

[myata]

The idea that recent solar activity is causing recent warming is another non-starter. We should start a list of arguments that should be marked as "done" to reduce the noise, don't you think ?

One would think (also maybe not using unverified references as a way to avoid endless cyclical arguments), but what if that (endless cyclical argument) is the whole, pure 100% of the logical content of that position?

[Riverwind]

if it withstands repeated peer reviewed studies it then progresses to Theory-accepted to be true...once a hypothesis reaches a level of accepted theory it must be shown to be wrong before it is discarded or altered.

Peer review in climate science is mainly a way to protect the established scientific orthodoxy. It is not a mechanism to determine the correctness of a scientific hypothesis.

[Michael Hardner]

One would think (also maybe not using unverified references as a way to avoid endless cyclical arguments), but what if that (endless cyclical argument) is the whole, pure 100% of the logical content of that position?

Nobody holding that position would admit to using that tactic, therefore none of them would object to tagging arguments so that we could take bad arguments off the table - and that goes for both sides by the way.

[wyly]

Peer review in climate science is mainly a way to protect the established scientific orthodoxy. It is not a mechanism to determine the correctness of a scientific hypothesis.

BS..it's what determines what is taught in our schools...it determines what method physicians approach illness...without peer reviewed hypothesis we have a herd of cats(scientists) going off in a million directions each claiming to know the only real truth...without peer review our entire educational system and scientific world falls apart...

those who deny the system are those who have no evidence to back up their claims...

Edited December 21, 2009 by wyly

[myata]

But of course it does. We have a wide consensus of scientific community confirmed by all main academies of science, research centers and so on. And we have a bunch of predominantly Web based people who'd invent a "school of thought" in a flick and on demand, none ever published or peer reviewed, and blog post it as a meaningful argument against mainstream scientific theory. Take out 1) cyclical arguments going forever over the same, many-times-over debunked fallacies, 2) unverified references to blogs and non professional publications, and 3) plain clueless junk, like quoting yesterday's weather report, and what's left?

Why don't we see for ourselves, in an experiment of a sort? Let's start counting every example of scientifically meaningful argument (where the point relates to science, as opposed to e.g. policy) and see how far we'd get?

[wyly]

But of course it does. We have a wide consensus of scientific community confirmed by all main academies of science, research centers and so on. And we have a bunch of predominantly Web based people who'd invent a "school of thought" in a flick and on demand, none ever published or peer reviewed, and blog post it as a meaningful argument against mainstream scientific theory. Take out 1) cyclical arguments going forever over the same, many-times-over debunked fallacies, 2) unverified references to blogs and non professional publications, and 3) plain clueless junk, like quoting yesterday's weather report, and what's left?

Why don't we see for ourselves, in an experiment of a sort? Let's start counting every example of scientifically meaningful argument (where the point relates to science, as opposed to e.g. policy) and see how far we'd get?

hmmm...can't wait until 20% of american school texts begin teaching the sun orbits the earth, after all peer reviewed science claiming otherwise is just "Peer review in climate science is mainly a way to protect the established scientific orthodoxy. It is not a mechanism to determine the correctness of a scientific hypothesis."

[Riverwind]

can't wait until 20% of american school texts begin teaching the sun orbits the earth

You realize, of course, the theory of planetary motion was never peer reveiwed. The scientists involved simply published their ideas, experiments and results using the media of the time and others discussed their merit with worrying about whether they had been 'peer reveiwed'.

Whether you want to admit or not peer review has been used as tool to suppress dissent in the field of climate science and, thanks to the CRU emails, there is concrete evidence to support these claims. Given that evidence the onus is now on the promoters of peer review to explain why it deserves the respect that they demand. i.e. if peer review works so wonderfully well then show some evidence.

Before you answer here is some reading: http://www.newsweek.com/id/209100

It is a sorry fact of science that many, many of the results reported even in peer-reviewed, published studies are wrong—by some accounts, most are wrong. By dumb luck (also known as statistical errors), something that seems to be associated with something else isn't; something that seems to cause something else doesn't; or something that seems to be the result of something else isn't. Alternatively, a study can fail to find evidence for something that, it later turns out, is indeed true. Both kinds of mistakes—false positives and false negatives—are well known to scientists, who take lots of precautions (not always successfully) to prevent them.

This would be bad enough if the areas where these mistakes cropped up were obscure, unimportant backwaters. But they're not. According to a new study (yes, I understand the irony), the more popular a science topic is, the more likely its findings are to be riddled with errors.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

There are two schools of thought on solar effect. One looks directly at the sun's intensity plugs those peak-to-trough changes into the climate models and out comes a number which is too small to matter. However, the climate models do assume that the sun's intensity did increase from 1900-1940 and the climate models need that increase to explain the rise in temps over the same period. It is worth noting that some solar scientists now say that rise in intensity never occurred and the climate models are wrong. The climate modellers ignore this because it is inconvenient.

link please...

The second school of thought presumes that there are secondary effects amplify the solar effect and seek to determine the magnitude of the solar effects by extracting a signal from temperature record. These efforts suggest that the solar effect is as much as 10x larger than what would be expected given the simply radiation calculations used in the climate models. This is one of the reasons why some climate modellers are turning to the sun to explain the recent cooling. The trouble is if they accept it has a large cooling effect during solar minimums they have to assume that it has an equal warming effect during solar maximums. This would undermine their claim that the CO2 is major cause of the recent warming.

link...

and denier bloggs are not acceptable....

bump

wyly, twas hoping Riverwind would head us down the Svensmark path... wonder why he won't go there - Svensmark's published!

[Riverwind]

wyly, twas hoping Riverwind would head us down the Svensmark path... wonder why he won't go there - Svensmark's published!

The words of Jim Hansen, NASA Scientist:

Indeed, it is likely that the sun is an important factor in climate variability. Figure 4 shows data on solar irradiance for the period of satellite measurements. We are presently in the deepest most prolonged solar minimum in the period of satellite data. It is uncertain whether the solar irradiance will rebound soon into a more-or-less normal solar cycle – or whether it might remain at a low level for decades, analogous to the Maunder Minimum, a period of few sunspots that may have been a principal cause of the Little Ice Age.

The direct climate forcing due to measured solar variability, about 0.2 W/m2, is comparable to the increase in carbon dioxide forcing that occurs in about seven years, using recent CO2 growth rates. Although there is a possibility that the solar forcing could be amplified by indirect effects, such as changes of atmospheric ozone, present understanding suggests only a small amplification, as discussed elsewhere (Hansen 2009). The global temperature record (Figure 1) has positive correlation with solar irradiance, with the amplitude of temperature variation being approximately consistent with the direct solar forcing. This topic will become clearer as the records become longer, but for that purpose it is important that the temperature record be as precise as possible.

The science is not settled on solar effects. Edited December 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

The words of Jim Hansen, NASA Scientist:

The science is not settled on solar effects.

geezaz! Oh my! A skeptic quoting from Hansen! Are you stating, unequivocally, that Sir Jim places solar variability as a significant causal factor in AGW global warming... relative to CO2? Of course he doesn't, but feel free to show otherwise.

You may find this most recent discussion with Hansen illuminating... almost an hour long covering Copenhagen, hackergate, cap and fade, etc.

good to see Hansen is now one of your go-to guys

[Riverwind]

Are you stating, unequivocally, that Sir Jim places solar variability as a significant causal factor in AGW global warming... relative to CO2? Of course he doesn't, but feel free to show otherwise.

Once again you are jumping in when you have no idea of the issues or the questions being asked or answers.

In this case, Micheal Hardner expressed this view:

Even the recent cooling discussed in the emails, though, doesn't look anything like a complete non-correlation. The idea that recent solar activity is causing recent warming is another non-starter. We should start a list of arguments that should be marked as "done" to reduce the noise, don't you think ?

I have shown that even James Hansen agrees that there is a positive correlation between solar radiance and the temperature record.

Hansen also agreed with my characterization of the scientific debate of over solar effects when he said:

Although there is a possibility that the solar forcing could be amplified by indirect effects, such as changes of atmospheric ozone, present understanding suggests only a small amplification.

Now Hansen does think that the solar amplification is small but that is a matter for scientific debate and it is definitely not settled no matter what the alarmists may say. Edited December 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[Alta4ever]

Waldo and wyly when are you going to quit, the poll in the other thread shows that everyone on this forum thinks your full of BS on this subject.

[waldo]

Waldo and wyly when are you going to quit, the poll in the other thread shows that everyone on this forum thinks your full of BS on this subject.

hey... which way did your denying self vote?

don't you have a socialist slag to offer... as well - c'mon!

[waldo]

Once again you are jumping in when you have no idea of the issues or the questions being asked or answers.

In this case, Micheal Hardner expressed this view:

I have shown that even James Hansen agrees that there is a positive correlation between solar radiance and the temperature record.

Hansen also agreed with my characterization of the scientific debate of over solar effects when he said:

Now Hansen does think that the solar amplification is small but that is a matter for scientific debate and it is definitely not settled no matter what the alarmists may say.

Hansen agrees! So what - so do other real scientists... but in your typical manner, you would presume to drop another reference to make the case for "natural variability"... over CO2. In that context, your favourite context, you simply don't like it when your real agenda is pointed out... explicitly. Yes, you relent... when challenged - you state, he (Hansen) agrees that solar variability's affect is small - interesting how you didn't include that little ditty in your earlier comment Yes, certainly, bring your scientific argument forward - I questioned why you didn't goto Svensmark - wassup!

[bloodyminded]

Waldo and wyly when are you going to quit, the poll in the other thread shows that everyone on this forum thinks your full of BS on this subject.

Actually, it's quite astonishing that so many people think blog arguments are superior to peer-reviewed science.

Ah well.

[Alta4ever]

Actually, it's quite astonishing that so many people think blog arguments are superior to peer-reviewed science.

Ah well.

The CRU Hacked emails have shown us what peer reveiwed science has come to. I scoff at your "peer" reviewed science, it has become a joke.