Global Warming backdown

[Keepitsimple]

please, don't shy away from Watts now... just when his (and D'Aleo's) central claims/charges in their SPPI nonsense are being totally debunked. Since you've been all about questioning the reliability of the surface temperature records, about UHI, about declining surface station numbers... each of which is principal to Watts' surfacestations.org "project" (and SPPI)... you can suggest you're not a Watts devotee - I ain't buyin it

if you don't categorically subscribe to Essenhigh's claim that 'temperature drives CO2'... that the increased, and increasing CO2 levels of today... are caused by temperature rise - then you are being selective in choosing your denier nuggets. You will pick Essenhigh's claims about CO2 residence time, but apparently not his claims concerning temperature driving CO2. That's fine, except the contradictions obviously arise when Essenhigh links his argument together, and you choose to deconstruct it by mining for that one particular denier nugget of his you like.

as for your guest bloggers expertise, does your referencing it presuppose that we're... now... coming out of an ice age? Is that your substantiation for today's current and rising CO2 level? (/snarc)

You and mini-me Wyly are true believers and I understand that's where you are coming from - and that's OK - I recognize Religious Dogma when I see it. My posts will continue to point out that there are very qualified scientists who are injecting a healthy dose of scepticism into the debate. Coupled with questionable scientific protocol (many scientists are unabashedly disgusted), that scepticism is gaining more and more traction with the media. For every "sceptic" theory or paper that is presented, you present a dissenting paper to try to counter it. All you prove is that there is not really an overwhelming consensus on anything other than "Climate Change is Real". Duh!

Edited March 11, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[jbg]

of course, natural internal processes (like an El Nino cycle) cause variations in the Earth's climate over time... however, none of the natural internal processes... or any of the external influences (natural or caused by human activity (other than CO2))... can account for the current global warming. (I'm not clear how your second sentence relates to your first, particularly in the context of, "accounting for global warming").

How are you so sure of the irrelevance of PDO cycles, AO cycle, sunspot cycles to name but a few.

[waldo]

should we wait to read your, or Simple's explanations on how the natural variability aspects of PDO, La Nina, El Nino... account for global warming?

Yes, natural variability has a lot to do with it. Or are you one who contends that the earth stands still and nothing has changed for millenia?

of course, natural internal processes (like an El Nino cycle) cause variations in the Earth's climate over time... however, none of the natural internal processes... or any of the external influences (natural or caused by human activity (other than CO2))... can account for the current global warming. (I'm not clear how your second sentence relates to your first, particularly in the context of, "accounting for global warming").

How are you so sure of the irrelevance of PDO cycles, AO cycle, sunspot cycles to name but a few.

I am unaware of any credible information to support a position that either natural internal influences or non-anthropogenic external factors can account for the current global warming. I certainly encourage you to bring forward support for any claims, any positions, that hold to a premise that global warming can be attributed to either natural internal influences like your referenced AO large-scale atmospheric circulation or the internal dynamics related to your referenced PDO ocean oscillation... or to external non-anthropogenic forcings (like your referenced solar variance).

[waldo]

please, don't shy away from Watts now... just when his (and D'Aleo's) central claims/charges in their SPPI nonsense are being totally debunked. Since you've been all about questioning the reliability of the surface temperature records, about UHI, about declining surface station numbers... each of which is principal to Watts' surfacestations.org "project" (and SPPI)... you can suggest you're not a Watts devotee - I ain't buyin it

if you don't categorically subscribe to Essenhigh's claim that 'temperature drives CO2'... that the increased, and increasing CO2 levels of today... are caused by temperature rise - then you are being selective in choosing your denier nuggets. You will pick Essenhigh's claims about CO2 residence time, but apparently not his claims concerning temperature driving CO2. That's fine, except the contradictions obviously arise when Essenhigh links his argument together, and you choose to deconstruct it by mining for that one particular denier nugget of his you like.

as for your guest bloggers expertise, does your referencing it presuppose that we're... now... coming out of an ice age? Is that your substantiation for today's current and rising CO2 level? (/snarc)

You and mini-me Wyly are true believers and I understand that's where you are coming from - and that's OK - I recognize Religious Dogma when I see it. My posts will continue to point out that there are very qualified scientists who are injecting a healthy dose of scepticism into the debate. Coupled with questionable scientific protocol (many scientists are unabashedly disgusted), that scepticism is gaining more and more traction with the media. For every "sceptic" theory or paper that is presented, you present a dissenting paper to try to counter it. All you prove is that there is not really an overwhelming consensus on anything other than "Climate Change is Real". Duh!

progress... we have moved you off your use of the 'religious zealotry' label to, now, a 'religious dogma' tagging.

there are very few, 'higher profile' credible skeptic scientists left. Perhaps that's why you've lately resorted to second tier types like Essenhigh and Segalstad Your so-called media traction simply reflects upon lazy journalism standards of the mainstream press... notwithstanding the outright fabrications or agenda driven pursuits (attributed more to Shady's favoured British tabloid sources, but also seen on occasion within select North American rags).

you're truly a bombastic pompous Simple ton. We play whack-a-mole with you for shits&giggles. Do you actually think your scurrying about finding little denier gems actually accounts for something in relation to the overwhelming scientific consensus that accepts the theory of AGW climate change? Clearly... you have zero perspective. We could quite literally flood these MLW climate related threads with a brazillion papers supporting the theory of AGW climate change... or a brazillion articles that showcase the observational impacts of AGW climate change. You know... all that wealth of information that truly does show the overwhelming scientific consensus that you refuse to recognize, refuse to acknowledge.

[Keepitsimple]

I am unaware of any credible information to support a position that either natural internal influences or non-anthropogenic external factors can account for the current global warming. I certainly encourage you to bring forward support for any claims, any positions, that hold to a premise that global warming can be attributed to either natural internal influences like your referenced AO large-scale atmospheric circulation or the internal dynamics related to your referenced PDO ocean oscillation... or to external non-anthropogenic forcings (like your referenced solar variance).

That's the position of the IPCC - they can't account for it so it HAS to be anthropogenic in nature. There's no real proof - just a lack of knowledfge of anything else at this time. But I give you a tiny bit of credit - at least you are starting to take a position. What if, as Phil Jones says, the MWP could have been as warm as today (or even warmer)? Doesn't that put a serious fly in the ointment because CO2 was at pre-industrial levels?

Edited March 11, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[wyly]

That's the position of the IPCC - they can't account for it so it HAS to be anthropogenic in nature. There's no real proof - just a lack of knowledfge of anything else at this time. But I give you a tiny bit of credit - at least you are starting to take a position. What if, as Phil Jones says, the MWP could have been as warm as today (or even warmer)? Doesn't that put a serious fly in the ointment because CO2 was at pre-industrial levels?

the scientifically uneducated/simple-tons can't comprehend the evidence...

no matter how many times anyone tells you there are different causes for warming and cooling you come up with with this gem..."CO2 was at pre-industrial levels" duh! WARMINGS CAN OCCUR FOR DIFFERENT REASONS! ...my 10 year old can grasp that...

regardless how much evidence is presented that points to CO2 you stumble around grasping for desperate explanations that have zero support and no evidence such as Cosmic Rays or those that have been completely ruled out "the sun"...your arguement isn't based on rational logic it's one of stubborn arrogant ignorance...

[wyly]

The Sun is NOT the center of our galaxy...

jerkoff, you know what I meant

[Shady]

WARMINGS CAN OCCUR FOR DIFFERENT REASONS!

Absolutely. So in until "science" can determine these factors, and what signficance they have on warming or cooling, the AGW theory is moot.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, natural variability has a lot to do with it. Or are you one who contends that the earth stands still and nothing has changed for millenia?

As I have posted over and over, these things have been taken into account in the models. It's not a mystery as to what effects these factors have - there is a consensus too.

[Michael Hardner]

Absolutely. So in until "science" can determine these factors, and what signficance they have on warming or cooling, the AGW theory is moot.

This has been done as much as it will ever be done, IMO. If you don't believe in correlation coefficients and statistical processes, proxies, then you won't believe the models - but then again you will never believe them.

[Shady]

This has been done as much as it will ever be done, IMO.

Really? You don't think we'll ever be able to better understand all of the different factors in play? That sounds a lot like Bill Gates' claim that nobody will ever need more than 640 kilobytes of memory on their personal computer.

[Bonam]

jerkoff, you know what I meant

No, you need to write what you mean if you want people to know what you mean. If you can't even get a basic fact straight, like whether the Sun is the center of our freaking galaxy, how can people trust your endless spam of statements about much more subtle and complex scientific topics?

[Shady]

No, you need to write what you mean if you want people to know what you mean. If you can't even get a basic fact straight, like whether the Sun is the center of our freaking galaxy, how can people trust your endless spam of statements about much more subtle and complex scientific topics?

LOL, checkmate.

[bloodyminded]

I think we can safely assume Wyly doesn't believe any such thing.

[waldo]

That sounds a lot like Bill Gates' claim that nobody will ever need more than 640 kilobytes of memory on their personal computer.

and it never dies, it perpetuates like your MLW intellectual dishonesty. Despite the repeated claims by Bill Gates that he never made that statement, despite no one being able to offer a citation to support Bill Gates having made the statement, it perpetuates. Perhaps you can produce that citation and put an end to the continuous cycling of this false fabrication... (note: British tabloid sources are excluded from consideration)

[waldo]

That's the position of the IPCC - they can't account for it so it HAS to be anthropogenic in nature. There's no real proof - just a lack of knowledfge of anything else at this time. But I give you a tiny bit of credit - at least you are starting to take a position. What if, as Phil Jones says, the MWP could have been as warm as today (or even warmer)? Doesn't that put a serious fly in the ointment because CO2 was at pre-industrial levels?

ah yes... the ole "by default" denier canard! If only for consistency, let's continue to point out for you that science doesn't deal in proofs.

as for your junkyard-dog act over my stated position, what you might now presume to tag as 'a start'... would seem to suggest you've not given proper consideration to anything I previously written - and I am seriously perturbed that you've been ignoring me up to now

about that IPCC position you proclaim as 'default'... the one that is by no means default:

- would you care to state whether or not you accept that the current CO2 level is ~388 ppm?

- would you also state whether or not you accept that radioactive and chemical composition analysis of today's CO2 level has attributed it to the burning of fossil fuels (with relatively minor considerations toward cement production and deforestation)?

- would you also state whether or not you accept the scientific principles that tell us the increase in global temperature is consistent with what we should expect when the levels of CO2 (and other GHG's in the atmosphere) increase in the way that they have?

- would you also state whether or not you accept that polar ice gas extractions show that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere today, are 35% greater than they have been for at least the last 650,000 years?

- with particular reference to a 1979 start period, care to comment on the following visual depicting the atmospheric CO2 level rise; a depiction that ends with expansion near the video end to include ice core measurements back to the 19th Century:

[Michael Hardner]

Really? You don't think we'll ever be able to better understand all of the different factors in play? That sounds a lot like Bill Gates' claim that nobody will ever need more than 640 kilobytes of memory on their personal computer.

They will never be able to prove causation, in my opinion. They will only ever have models, which is obvious. I mean, you can't create a planet-sized atmosphere to experiment with right ? Now, for the current models, they have isolated major factors and established correlation coefficients that have a broad consensus of support. So, it can't get much better.

What can get better ?

To answer your question directly: Yes, understanding of how these things work can always get better, and the general population can and probably will buy into the models more as time goes on.

[Keepitsimple]

They will never be able to prove causation, in my opinion. They will only ever have models, which is obvious. I mean, you can't create a planet-sized atmosphere to experiment with right ? Now, for the current models, they have isolated major factors and established correlation coefficients that have a broad consensus of support. So, it can't get much better.

What can get better ?

To answer your question directly: Yes, understanding of how these things work can always get better, and the general population can and probably will buy into the models more as time goes on.

Perhaps if the models can predict the next 15 years.......they didn't do so well for the last 15 - no statistically significant warming.

[Keepitsimple]

the scientifically uneducated/simple-tons can't comprehend the evidence...

no matter how many times anyone tells you there are different causes for warming and cooling you come up with with this gem..."CO2 was at pre-industrial levels" duh! WARMINGS CAN OCCUR FOR DIFFERENT REASONS! ...my 10 year old can grasp that...

regardless how much evidence is presented that points to CO2 you stumble around grasping for desperate explanations that have zero support and no evidence such as Cosmic Rays or those that have been completely ruled out "the sun"...your arguement isn't based on rational logic it's one of stubborn arrogant ignorance...

Very convenient. If it's warm - it's global warming, if it's cold, it's climate change. If there's a lot of snow, it's caused by Global Warming. Hurricane like Katrina?..... Global warming. Warmer in the MWP - that was from different causes (we're not sure what the cause was, but who really cares?).....because even a 10 year old knows that warming can occur for different reasons.....but this time, it HAS to be the hand of humans because we can't explain it any other way. Yep, forget about those cosmic rays and sunspots - or anything to do with the sun - they've been ruled out. Those pesky PDO's? - very minor influence. CO2 residence time - forget it - we know exactly how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere. And don't pay any attention to all those missing thermometers in Northern Canada and Russia. It's all covered - and there's a consensus you know. There simply is no reason to be sceptical anymore. It's settled.

[bush_cheney2004]

Now, for the current models, they have isolated major factors and established correlation coefficients that have a broad consensus of support. So, it can't get much better.

It can get much better, improving with better model integrations and platform computation. But I like how the "experts" describe it in "climate speak":

Climate simulation codes like ECHAM5 consider the dynamics of the Earth system over a long period of time. The huge number of time steps to be propagated restricts the spatial discretization to comparably coarse grid resolutions. This requires scalable parallelizations based on the lowly resolved spatial domain which can cope with the computational effort in the non-parallelizable time domain.

[Bonam]

Climate simulation codes like ECHAM5 consider the dynamics of the Earth system over a long period of time. The huge number of time steps to be propagated restricts the spatial discretization to comparably coarse grid resolutions. This requires scalable parallelizations based on the lowly resolved spatial domain which can cope with the computational effort in the non-parallelizable time domain.

I wonder how many people here can actually understand what that means in its entirety.

[bush_cheney2004]

I wonder how many people here can actually understand what that means in its entirety.

Well, to be fair, it was written as a white paper abstract for like minded folk. But my point in posting it meets yours....these guys need to hire a PR firm, not Al Gore. Admitting that their models have many limitations for integrations, feedback, resolution, time, etc. would only hurt their case.

Edited March 12, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

Well the point is to me and anyone that's ever taken a course in computational methods it makes sense. But most people arguing back and forth about it here are simply incapable of reading and understanding the actual papers whose results they argue endlessly about.

Most of the real scientists working on this stuff don't much care about the PR, they do the science because that is what they are interested in and because for most of them it is their job. Of course there are some polito-scientists out there too but they are a minority and they tend to be the ones at the root of some of these controversies.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

Well the point is to me and anyone that's ever taken a course in computational methods it makes sense. But most people arguing back and forth about it here are simply incapable of reading and understanding the actual papers whose results they argue endlessly about.

Maybe, but like the fractured disciplines that make up so called "climate science", I think many here can easily understand one or more elements based on education and experience. That's what drives many of their convictions.

Most of the real scientists working on this stuff don't much care about the PR, they do the science because that is what they are interested in and because for most of them it is their job. Of course there are some polito-scientists out there too but they are a minority and they tend to be the ones at the root of some of these controversies.

In the end, that's OK by me, as "scientists" do not make policy. A lot of people don't realize that the science being argued requires the unification of several separate disciplines for a whole earth climate model, and this simply is beyond current capabilities except at a very coarse / large scale.

[Michael Hardner]

Perhaps if the models can predict the next 15 years.......they didn't do so well for the last 15 - no statistically significant warming.

Are you referring to Dr. Jones' comment ? Wasn't that for less than a 15 year timespan ?