Global Warming backdown

[Moonlight Graham]

The biggest reason I can think of, is because they can never back up their claims!

No. Another reason is that i'm sure they would feel that a) its not worth their time arguing something considered settled. and it would give more public/media attention to the deniers, something they don't want.

[WIP]

What a crock. Most of their input was provided by a U of T Systems Administrator who used Google Scholar to check on credentials. The Alarmists are going to great lengths to try and shore up their crumbling credibility but they keep shooting themselves in the foot. Yes, the debate is on.

Link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/category/full-comment/

Notice that your National Post blogger doesn't directly challenge the numbers used to determine the merit of each expert; the objections are that one of the analysts - James Prall, is not an expert on climate change. Why should he have to be, since the comparisons were based on statistical analysis of how much each expert actually published that was related to climate change. And the blogger doesn't mention the qualifications of the other three men who co-signed that research paper....why not?

The rest of his whining piece tries to make two arguments of the exception proves the rule: first, by discounting the connection between the number of academic citations and opinion on AGW, or the claim that Al Gore can pop up as a climate expert using the Google Scholar search term. And big f-n deal if it does! If Al Gore is the only outlier he can list by name, that hardly has any weight compared to the 1400 climate scientists who were compared for their views on the IPCC report.

Now, for some reason the fact that 97 to 98% of climate scientists accept the basic conclusions of the IPCC Report, and the fact that the "skeptics" publish very little actual research means nothing to the skeptics. Funny that these are the same people who made a big hullabaloo about 31,000 scientists who signed the ludicrous statement:"there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere". But if you looked at the fine print....specifically, the number of actual climatologists who signed the statement, you would find that there were only 39 with actual expertise in the field. http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php Which was further confirmation that the "climate change skeptics" are a minority of cranks, similar to the scientists recruited by the Discovery Institute to make the case for Intelligent Design!

[WIP]

yes - agreed! On a recent Pliny based distraction, I had a chance to revisit a website I hadn't touched upon for a while... a site that, typically, speaks to legitimate skepticism (at large)... not the usual type/degree of fake trumped up denialism we see surrounding the climate change debate. In any case, this article speaks to your astute observations recognizing the similarities between the climate change denier movement and the creationist movement:

Thanks, but I think the similarities are too obvious to ignore since both the creationists and the climate skeptics play a shell game of shifting claims and arguments. They spend all of their time attacking the conventional wisdom, and little or no time informing the public about what they themselves believe. And, when they get around to their own claims, they have dozens of variations to make it more difficult to respond to them. If someone claims to be a climate skeptic, first you have to play 20 questions to find out what they are skeptical about! Some don't even deny the evidence that we are terraforming the planet, but just want to argue for keeping the status quo by claiming that a hotter, more turbulent world is something we cannot stop, but just have to adapt to.

[Pliny]

No. Another reason is that i'm sure they would feel that a) its not worth their time arguing something considered settled.

And that's my point. It's already settled, just ignore the contrarian and continue along. Meanwhile, "An Inconvenient Truth" becomes required viewing for schoolchildren when we know, by the lack of truth it is entirely a political propaganda piece that somehow misses the scrutiny of the scientific community.

and it would give more public/media attention to the deniers, something they don't want.

So Waldo is out of step here?

What say you, Waldo time to quit wasting your time and give it up?

[Keepitsimple]

Some don't even deny the evidence that we are terraforming the planet, but just want to argue for keeping the status quo by claiming that a hotter, more turbulent world is something we cannot stop, but just have to adapt to.

What evidence? I've already posted some graphs from your own dubious source - the Met Office! They are anomoly graphs based on the average global temperature from 1961-1990. The graphs cover the period from 1850-2009. Near 1850, the global temperature is at most a half degree celsius below the average. Nearer to 2009, the global temperature is at most a half degree celsius above the average. That's an increase of at most, one degree celsius (1.8 degrees Farenheit) over 150 years!! And you call that terraforming?

Link: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

Edited June 24, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

What say you, Waldo time to quit wasting your time and give it up?

whatever it is you believe one should give up... I doubt anyone would do so... simply based on your minuscule commentary/input - hey, Pliny?

[waldo]

What evidence? I've already posted some graphs from your own dubious source - the Met Office! They are anomoly graphs based on the average global temperature from 1961-1990. The graphs cover the period from 1850-2009. Near 1850, the global temperature is at most a half degree celsius below the average. Nearer to 2009, the global temperature is at most a half degree celsius above the average. That's an increase of at most, one degree celsius (1.8 degrees Farenheit) over 150 years!! And you call that terraforming?

Link: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

hey Simple... I note you've caught yourself and now reference the Met Office/source as... dubious! Gee, I wonder who pointed out your most significant hypocritical usage of something you've derided for the past year. What's wrong... couldn't bother to link to NASA... or NOAA? Here Simple, pretend not to read this recap post to your original nonsense.

Here are some graphs from the MET Office. They are anomoly graphs based on the average global temperature from 1961-1990. The graphs cover the period from 1850-2009. Near 1850, the global temperature is at most a half degree celsius below the average. Nearer to 2009, the global temperature is at most a half degree celsius above the average. That's an increase of

at most

, one degree celsius (1.8 degrees Farenheit) over 150 years.

Link:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

but, but, but... Simple... that's from that there CRU group - you know, the group you've attempted to disparage/discredit the last year.

of course, let's not lose sight of your confusion in presuming to compare global sea/land surface temperatures to the previous discussions concerning surface temperatures (as spurred on by jbg's mindless raw data cut/paste exercise of a few select U.S. land stations). Equally, let's not lose sight of your confusion in presuming to compare anomolies with absolute temperatures. Oh wait... anomolies! Weren't you the guy who railed against temperature manipulations... not withstanding all the adjustments/homogenizations you appear to (now) accept. Make up your mind, Simple!

for the record: Per the 2007 IPCC AR4 report, global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century... the majority of that since 1950. Equally, the warming rate over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.13 ± 0.03 °C per decade). But let's not let actual facts get in the way, hey Simple?

[waldo]

Now, for some reason the fact that 97 to 98% of climate scientists accept the basic conclusions of the IPCC Report, and the fact that the "skeptics" publish very little actual research means nothing to the skeptics.

and that recent study parallels another frequently cited study/survey that brings forward very similar findings:

An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth). To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site (http://www.questionpro.com) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation. This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]):

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... What's wrong... couldn't bother to link to NASA... or NOAA?

More American alphabet soup...I'm lovin' it!

[wyly]

No. Another reason is that i'm sure they would feel that a) its not worth their time arguing something considered settled. and it would give more public/media attention to the deniers, something they don't want.

the debate ended long ago...it's no longer about, is the world warming and what is causing it...it's now about how soon, how bad will it be, and can anything be done to slow or stop it...

[WIP]

What evidence? I've already posted some graphs from your own dubious source - the Met Office! They are anomoly graphs based on the average global temperature from 1961-1990. The graphs cover the period from 1850-2009. Near 1850, the global temperature is at most a half degree celsius below the average. Nearer to 2009, the global temperature is at most a half degree celsius above the average. That's an increase of at most, one degree celsius (1.8 degrees Farenheit) over 150 years!! And you call that terraforming?

Link: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

What dubious source? That New York Times article I linked used NOAA`s National Climatic Data Center for source material.

As for what you put down, it appears that most of the increase in temperatures has occurred since 1950. And those graphs are just measuring air temperatures, which do not give the complete picture of how much warming is occurring, since heat is also absorbed by the world`s oceans. The heat content from land and ice sheets also needs to be factored in. When its all added together, there has been a steep rise in the planet`s total heat content http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=105 And that`s why it`s a misleading, dishonest claim to say that the Earth is cooling, even if you do have carefully selected air temperature data that gives such an appearance.

But, since most of us aren't statisticians, and don`t have expert knowledge of the data that is selected for these charts, the arguments that I find most compelling are the big picture facts that can`t be ignored or explained away...such as why are atmospheric CO2 levels continuing to rise? And why is the rate of increase in CO2 levels accelerating? Why do so called climate change skeptics insist that the rise in carbon dioxide levels has no connection with global temperatures, when we've known for decades that CO2 traps heat? And even if it was somehow true that carbon dioxide levels can rise indefinitely without increasing temperatures, there's still that problem of ocean acidification that increases with rising CO2 levels, regardless of temperature!

[Keepitsimple]

As for what you put down, it appears that most of the increase in temperatures has occurred since 1950. And those graphs are just measuring air temperatures, which do not give the complete picture of how much warming is occurring, since heat is also absorbed by the world`s oceans. The heat content from land and ice sheets also needs to be factored in. When its all added together, there has been a steep rise in the planet`s total heat content http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=105 And that`s why it`s a misleading, dishonest claim to say that the Earth is cooling, even if you do have carefully selected air temperature data that gives such an appearance.

I see.....now that the lack of warming can't scare people - one degree over the last 160 years.....now the oceans are heating up. We've always known that too - they warm up and they cool down - all part of why we have Climate Change. There is significant debate as to whether the oceans are currently warming or cooling......there are two major studies in play that are at odds with each other because they use different datasets.

Even your own "Skeptical Science" site predictably tries to downplay one of the studies but even they acknowledge the infancy of the science as shown by vague wording like "uncertainty" and "generally" and "seem to indicate".

Willis 2008 shows a cooling trend since 2004, while Leuliette shows a warming trend. The primary difference between the two is found early in the Argo record, when there were fewer Argo buoys deployed. Leuliette 2009 suggests the discrepancy between the two seems to be due to poor sampling and differences in how the data was handled. But which dataset is more accurate?

The bottom line is there is still uncertainty over the reconstruction of ocean heat. Generally, the various reconstructions show the same long term trends but don't always agree over short periods. The uncertainty means one cannot conclude with confidence that the ocean is cooling. Independent analysis seem to indicate that over last half dozen years, the ocean has shown less warming than the long term trend but nevertheless, a statistically significant warming trend.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

the debate ended long ago...it's no longer about, is the world warming and what is causing it...it's now about how soon, how bad will it be, and can anything be done to slow or stop it...

of course - no one with any presence actually questions the warming that has occurred... and continues. Simple ton bounces around on the subject depending on which latest denier blog catches his fancy. Depending on how you catch Simple ton, he'll either offer a Concern Troll bone to warming having occurred or he'll revert back to his long standing global cooling meme. Of late he seems preoccupied with (now) attempting to diminish the actual warming... labeling it inconsequential. But wait... what's this... Simple ton just pulled the oceans cooling card!

[waldo]

That's an increase of at most, one degree celsius (1.8 degrees Farenheit) over 150 years!!

for the record: Per the 2007 IPCC AR4 report, global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century... the majority of that since 1950. Equally, the warming rate over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.13 ± 0.03 °C per decade). But let's not let actual facts get in the way, hey Simple?

As for what you put down, it appears that most of the increase in temperatures has occurred since 1950.

ya WIP, just ignore Simple's 150 year fixation... yes, as you state, the majority of warming has occurred since 1950.

[waldo]

As for what you put down, it appears that most of the increase in temperatures has occurred since 1950. And those graphs are just measuring air temperatures, which do not give the complete picture of how much warming is occurring, since heat is also absorbed by the world`s oceans. The heat content from land and ice sheets also needs to be factored in. When its all added together, there has been a steep rise in the planet`s total heat content http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=105 And that`s why it`s a misleading, dishonest claim to say that the Earth is cooling, even if you do have carefully selected air temperature data that gives such an appearance.

I see.....now that the lack of warming can't scare people - one degree over the last 160 years.....now the oceans are heating up. We've always known that too - they warm up and they cool down - all part of why we have Climate Change. There is significant debate as to whether the oceans are currently warming or cooling......there are two major studies in play that are at odds with each other because they use different datasets.

Even your own "Skeptical Science" site predictably tries to downplay one of the studies but even they acknowledge the infancy of the science as shown by vague wording like "uncertainty" and "generally" and "seem to indicate".

Willis 2008 shows a cooling trend since 2004, while Leuliette shows a warming trend. The primary difference between the two is found early in the Argo record, when there were fewer Argo buoys deployed. Leuliette 2009 suggests the discrepancy between the two seems to be due to poor sampling and differences in how the data was handled. But which dataset is more accurate?

oh snap! Simple's back to attempting to trend over the smallest of interval periods... this time over 4 years! When will Simple ever learn?

but wait... it gets better. Simple's zeal to presume to highlight a single studies ocean cooling reference, sees Simple never really bothering to reaffirm the state of his linked article's reference to competing study dataset discrepancies. If Simple had simply bothered to check... if Simple had put his presumed skeptic hat on, rather than his preferred denial cap... Simple would have realized his favoured studies author had issued an update/correction. Specifically, the Willis et al (2008a) study (In Situ Data Biases and Recent Ocean Heat Content Variability), corrects errors made within Simple's linked article referencing 2003-2006 ocean cooling ala the earlier Willis et al (2008) study:

Two significant instrument biases have been identified in the in situ profile data used to estimate globally integrated upper-ocean heat content. A large cold bias was discovered in a small fraction of Argo floats along with a smaller but more prevalent warm bias in expendable bathythermograph (XBT) data. These biases appear to have caused the bulk of the upper-ocean cooling signal reported by Lyman et al. between 2003 and 2005. These systematic data errors are significantly larger than sampling errors in recent years and are the dominant sources of error in recent estimates of globally integrated upper-ocean heat content variability. The bias in the XBT data is found to be consistent with errors in the fall-rate equations, suggesting a physical explanation for that bias.

Willis also writes within the U.S. Climate Variability & Predictability newsletter:

Is It Me, or Did the Oceans Cool?

Our (

initial

) results were met with a certain amount of surprise and skepticism by the climate science community, but they caused a great deal of excitement among deniers of global warming.

So you can imagine how I felt when I finally discovered that the result was wrong. After more scrutiny of the data, we eventually showed that the cooling was caused by a small warm bias in the old ocean observing system, along with a huge cold bias among a few instruments in the new one (Willis et al.,2008a).

When the dust finally settled, rapid ocean cooling was gone

(Figure 1).

oh my! You'll need to work harder to support your latest ocean cooling meme - hey, Simple?

[Pliny]

the debate ended long ago...it's no longer about, is the world warming and what is causing it...it's now about how soon, how bad will it be, and can anything be done to slow or stop it...

What are scientists suggesting we do to slow or stop it? Where are the peer reviewed studies or are they leaving it entirely up to the politicians and political solutions?

You know science proved the genetic inferiority of the Jews or at least there was a consensus in the 1930's about that. And the solutions were political.

[Pliny]

whatever it is you believe one should give up... I doubt anyone would do so... simply based on your minuscule commentary/input - hey, Pliny?

No condemnation of the false claims in "An Inconvenient Truth", Waldo? Al Gore still the infallible Pope?

Are you waiting for some peer reveiwed literature on not debating the "deniers" before you take Sir Hitchens' advice?

We should change the title of this thread to the "Global Warming Smackdown"!

[bloodyminded]

You know science proved the genetic inferiority of the Jews or at least there was a consensus in the 1930's about that. And the solutions were political.

Since you proposed the analogy: there was, and remains, a consensus among the deniers on related matters as well.

[Pliny]

Since you proposed the analogy: there was, and remains, a consensus among the deniers on related matters as well.

Whatever do you mean?

[Bonam]

You know science proved the genetic inferiority of the Jews or at least there was a consensus in the 1930's about that.

You mean Nazi propaganda "science"? Some of the same scientists perhaps that later got some human subjects to perform their sick and twisted mutilation and torture "experiments" on? Are you seriously trying to compare these most horrific and disgusting of Nazi war criminals to climate change scientists?

[Pliny]

You mean Nazi propaganda "science"? Some of the same scientists perhaps that later got some human subjects to perform their sick and twisted mutilation and torture "experiments" on? Are you seriously trying to compare these most horrific and disgusting of Nazi war criminals to climate change scientists?

I am implying that science is often used for political purposes and that scientists are human. Was it believable at the time that there were scientists that would become Nazi war criminals?

I think the global environment is so crucial to the most zealous that it will place it's importance above economic consideration and it's primacy over human development and advancement. Who knows to what ends some will go for the promise of a pristine, natural environment? There are signs that some drastic measures will be taken to the detriment of our well-being.

Do you consider everyone rational today and there could never possibly be another "mad scientist"? Believe me many didn't recognize the mad scientists of the Nazi era, for whatever reason, and it would be hard for most to tell the mad scientist of today. It seems they only exist in history.

[waldo]

You know science proved the genetic inferiority of the Jews or at least there was a consensus in the 1930's about that. And the solutions were political.

You mean Nazi propaganda "science"? Some of the same scientists perhaps that later got some human subjects to perform their sick and twisted mutilation and torture "experiments" on? Are you seriously trying to compare these most horrific and disgusting of Nazi war criminals to climate change scientists?

I am implying that science is often used for political purposes and that scientists are human. Was it believable at the time that there were scientists that would become Nazi war criminals?

I think the global environment is so crucial to the most zealous that it will place it's importance above economic consideration and it's primacy over human development and advancement. Who knows to what ends some will go for the promise of a pristine, natural environment? There are signs that some drastic measures will be taken to the detriment of our well-being.

Do you consider everyone rational today and there could never possibly be another "mad scientist"? Believe me many didn't recognize the mad scientists of the Nazi era, for whatever reason, and it would be hard for most to tell the mad scientist of today. It seems they only exist in history.

Pliny, in support of your avowed denialism, in your continued zeal to draw upon the climate change politicization bogey-man, even you, have reached a new low in demonizing analogies… presuming to conflate climate change scientists with… your stated “zealot environmentalists”… with the pseudo-science of eugenics and it’s applied sterilization/genocide “social engineering”. Truly, a most memorable Pliny post!

oh wait – clarification is in order… in my own haste I simply offer a generic reference to “climate change scientists”. Pliny, will you accept that or would you prefer a more nuanced derivative… one that would allow you to more pointedly attach your “mad scientist” labeling and highlight the “drastic measure signs” you allude to? You know… the measures you equate to genocide.

oh my! This, your latest post, appears to offer insight into your earlier advocacy for "pure science", - hey, Pliny?

Don't be so afraid without it, Waldo - and keep the science pure.

[WIP]

oh snap! Simple's back to attempting to trend over the smallest of interval periods... this time over 4 years! When will Simple ever learn?

Yes, it's not skepticism when you deliberately cherry pick data that can be used to support your cause, especially when the source realizes they made a mistake, but the so called climate skeptics that seized upon an anomalous cold reading don't mention the update. I seen a video of the self-proclaimed "Lord" Monckton getting reemed in front of a U.S. Congressional panel on climate change for doing something similar -- picking an arbitrarily recent time interval to claim that global air temperatures are cooling. He could get away with playing around with graphs and statistics with a general audience, but he tried to bamboozle five climatologists on the panel, who have a greater understanding of the data than the phony lord does.

Once again, the whole strategy of the global warming skeptic movement follows the same pattern of creationists who try to disprove the Theory of Evolution -- they start with a preconceived conclusion (the earth is 6000 years old or that the earth is actually cooling) and ignore a wide body of evidence against their contrarian conclusions, as they demand explanations for the few anomalies that haven't been explained yet. Nevermind that both subjects -- the planet's complex weather systems and the long,slow development of life on Earth, are complex subjects that we are gradually able to understand.

What I want from the climate contrarians is an answer for why we should play Russian Roulette with the lives of future generations, all because they think they have found a few facts that don't fit the evidence for warming!

[WIP]

I am implying that science is often used for political purposes and that scientists are human. Was it believable at the time that there were scientists that would become Nazi war criminals?

By your analogy, the modern version of the Nazi war criminal scientists are the small number of well payed scientists who are collecting generous remunerations either directly or indirectly from the oil, gas and coal companies who want confusing propaganda distributed to the public in order to prevent any governments from changing an economic system that is tailored to continuing use of fossil fuels.

[bloodyminded]

Whatever do you mean?

You said

You know science proved the genetic inferiority of the Jews or at least there was a consensus in the 1930's about that. And the solutions were political.

I responded

Since you proposed the analogy: there was, and remains, a consensus among the deniers on related matters as well.

I was speaking of Holocaust deniers.

Since you used the analogy, I assumed it was appropriate.