Speaking Out About Climate Change

[Michael Hardner]

Thus far the temperature changes have also been WELL within the type of changes seen over the last thousand years and more.

Has there been a long increase that correlates to CO2 increases in some other period in the last 1000 years ?

[waldo]

Has there been a long increase that correlates to CO2 increases in some other period in the last 1000 years?

why not ask this resident model expert to bring forward a model reference that can actually explain the past century's climate without including CO2 warming parameters. Certainly, the world of climate models is open to scientists of all persuasion; most definitely, there are legitimate skeptical scientists working with both the recognized open-source climate models as well as their own. And yet, again, as I am aware, no scientist has brought forward any legitimate model to explain the past century's climate... without including CO2 warming parameters.

[Michael Hardner]

why not ask this resident model expert to bring forward a model reference that can actually explain the past century's climate without including CO2 warming parameters.

I guess you could do that, but what is the purpose ? We have a model that explains it now, so are we just looking at why other models don't work ?

Certainly, the world of climate models is open to scientists of all persuasion; most definitely, there are legitimate skeptical scientists working with both the recognized open-source climate models as well as their own. And yet, again, as I am aware, no scientist has brought forward any legitimate model to explain the past century's climate... without including CO2 warming parameters.

Yes, it sounds like CO2 is the best explanation, as you seem to be saying.

[TimG]

Has there been a long increase that correlates to CO2 increases in some other period in the last 1000 years?

That statement means nothing. Coorellation does not mean causation. We have no global data prior to 100 years ago and the various proxies are limited by location or are simply too noisy to provide any useful information.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hansen needs to relax...we got your message Jim. That doesn't mean we're gonna do anything about it. Try and understand the difference. This is not the planet Venus, and the dinosaurs did not die because they failed to implement a carbon tax to prevent rising CO2 partial pressure.

[TimG]

I guess you could do that, but what is the purpose ? We have a model that explains it now, so are we just looking at why other models don't work ?

The models that we have only work because they have been tuned to produce the expected output. Of course, alarmists will never admit they do this and spew a lot of psuedo-scientific verbiage trying convince people the models are not tuned. However, none of this verbiage can disguise the fact that many critical parameters must be estimated and the process of developing these estimates is nothing but tuning by another name. Edited March 9, 2012 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

Any competent meteorologist uses several models just to forecast short term weather, let alone long term climate change.

[Michael Hardner]

That statement means nothing. Coorellation does not mean causation. We have no global data prior to 100 years ago and the various proxies are limited by location or are simply too noisy to provide any useful information.

They also have a good theory on how greenhouse gases trip heat, so...

We've had the discussion about proxies and I'm not convinced, nor are all but a small minority handful of climate scientists.

[waldo]

Has there been a long increase that correlates to CO2 increases in some other period in the last 1000 years?

That statement means nothing. Coorellation does not mean causation. We have no global data prior to 100 years ago and the various proxies are limited by location or are simply too noisy to provide any useful information.

you've tried this now, several times in past MLW threads... I have others, but, for now, will go with this one - you're welcome:

- historical trends in CO2 concentrations and temperature, on a geological and recent time scale (Vostok, Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores, SIO, CRUTEM3v) -

here

:

- CO2 concentration and temperature trend overlay ((Annual atmospheric carbon dioxide (

NOAA

) and annual global temperature anomaly (

GISS

)) from 1964 to 2008) -

here

:

[Michael Hardner]

The models that we have only work because they have been tuned to produce the expected output. Of course, alarmists will never admit they do this and spew a lot of psuedo-scientific verbiage trying convince people the models are not tuned. However, none of this verbiage can disguise the fact that many critical parameters must be estimated and the process of developing these estimates is nothing but tuning by another name.

The theory is good; it isn't even disputed by major climate skeptics. Maybe we should be talking more about the economics than we have been ?

[TimG]

We've had the discussion about proxies and I'm not convinced, nor are all but a small minority handful of climate scientists.

This is a perfect example of a pointless appeal to authority which poisons the discussion. In this case, the majority of climate scientists know nothing about the proxies and mindlessly accept whatever is published. I could get a more informed opinion on the topic from my local sports bar.

As for your not being convinced: this is where I doubt your own claim to be a honest broker in this debate. I walked you through the papers and explained exactly why Mann was wrong. My explaination should have been understandable to anyone with some knowledge of statistics. Yet you claim your are 'not convinced'. I suspect the real reason is you are scared of admitting that the sceptics are right about some issues and prominant climate scientists are basically liars.

Edited March 9, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

I understand Hansen is also (one of) NASA's chief scientists, NAS elected, the recipient of numerous scientific awards and a most prolific author/co-author of peer-reviewed scientific papers - and a red flag to deniers! Did I note how quick out of the gate you were in this thread

The fact that he's so prolific highlights his agenda more than anything. His NASA credentials are what they are. He's a smart guy, but his credentials don't make him right. His former boss, John Theon, is himself a skeptic and has claimed that Hansen's models are useless, as have many other NASA employees.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

your personal claim to inaccuracy, exaggeration and sensationalism would be a reflection on successful challenges to his position/writings, particularly in balance to the contextually relevant nature of said challenges. We just read a classic TimG fail in this very thread a few short posts back. In any case, your personal claim/assessment is noted.

My assessment of Hansen's agenda and claims are based on the information I have on how he does his research and the criticism that brilliant men like Dyson, Giaever and even Hansen's former boss have heaped upon his research methodology and conclusions.

I recalled one of your past rants against models... so I was curious and just checked your posting history - over roughly 3 years you have had much to "say" about climate models; however, I do note you not once... ever... provided any citation/substantiation to anything you've ever stated about climate model capabilities, acknowledged uncertainties, hindcast reliability, success as predicated upon predictions/projections-to-observations, etc.. You certainly talk a good, uhhh... "game"!

See Theon's criticism I linked above. If absolutely necessary, I'll get more, but if I do, please prepare to actually respond to them and not dance around them with your sad excuse for clever wit.

clearly, as I've stated/highlighted many times over, legitimate skepticism is the cornerstone/foundation of any/all science. Your favoured brand of 'fake skepticism' is nothing more than outright, overt denial.

and you'll be the judge of legitimate skepticism? Am I right??

Edited March 9, 2012 by Moonbox

[waldo]

and explained exactly why Mann was wrong.

what's a TimG conspiracy theme without a bow to his hero McIntyre's never-ending nemesis!

I suspect the real reason is you are scared of admitting that the sceptics are right about some issues and prominant climate scientists are basically liars.

liars! Uhhh, ok... I'll add it to your growing list:

=> themes of conspiracy, group think, ideological bias, confirmation bias, job protection, fraud, data manipulation, peer-review corruption... and lying liars!

[Michael Hardner]

This is a perfect example of a pointless appeal to authority which poisons the discussion. In this case, the majority of climate scientists no nothing about the proxies and mindlessly accept whatever is published. I could get a more informed opinion on the topic from my local sports bar.

Hyperbole.

And... appeal to authority is a fallacious argument only when the authority isn't qualified, or holds a minority view, from my understanding.

As for your not being convinced: this is where I doubt your own claim to be a honest broker in this debate. I walked you through the papers and explained exactly why Mann was wrong. My explaination should have been understandable to anyone with some knowledge of statistics. Yet you claim your are 'not convinced'. I suspect the real reason is you are scared of admitting that the sceptics are right about some issues and prominant climate scientists are basically liars.

I will revisit it with you, but as I remember one of the criticisms was that one of the factors was "upside down", if we're talking about the same thing. Still doesn't make sense to me.

[waldo]

whoa Moonbox... Marc Morano!!! Have you no shame?

if the level of your supposed critique of James Hansen can't rise above a sourcing from the likes of Marc Morano, no worries, hey?

red flag, hey Moonbox?

[waldo]

I will revisit it with you, but as I remember one of the criticisms was that one of the factors was "upside down", if we're talking about the same thing. Still doesn't make sense to me.

respectively Michael, there is a dedicated thread for this TimG nonsense; several actually. In fact, as I've pointed out to you already, each and every time the gate is opened on TimG's obsession with Mann's reconstructions, he (purposely) derails another thread.

Edited March 9, 2012 by waldo

[Michael Hardner]

there is a dedicated thread for this TimG nonsense - in fact, as I've pointed out to already, each and every time you open the gate on this nonsense, TimG (purposely) derails another thread.

Fine then, post it here... managing threads is a mug's game though we should all still try.

[TimG]

I will revisit it with you, but as I remember one of the criticisms was that one of the factors was "upside down", if we're talking about the same thing. Still doesn't make sense to me.

In brief: proxies have an orientation which is dictated by the physical phenomena. e.g. mercury expands when temperature goes up - it does not contract. It would be wrong to use a set of mercury expansion data in way that assumes that mercury contracts when temperature rises. If someone did that you could say that they used the dataset upside down. This is exactly what Mann did. I walked people through the original source paper and explained exactly how contamination in the last 100 years of data fooled Mann's algorithm into believing the proxy orientation was opposite of what it should be given the underlying physics. I feel my explanation is straight forward and can be understood by anyone with an basic understanding of regression.

This issue is small in the big picture but it is a useful discussion point because:

1) I am 100% certain that I am correct (on most other issues like sensitivity I will acknowledge that I could be wrong).

2) Waldo responses on the topic demonstrate that he is often simply repeating propaganda that he does not understand.

Edited March 9, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Waldo - I meant to post the thread link here. If not, then give the thread title and I can find it.

If this is a continuation of that discussion, I'll go there to discuss.

[waldo]

Waldo - I meant to post the thread link here. If not, then give the thread title and I can find it.

If this is a continuation of that discussion, I'll go there to discuss.

there are several threads to choose from; I'd suggest you can start here, ala TimG's lapping bow to McIntyre upsidedownyness:

you can get bogged down in TimG parroting McIntyre... but you can cut through it all by simply highlighting McIntyre has never taken to actually formally challenging the MBH/Mann et al paper/reconstructions. Ask TimG why... why McIntyre (or anyone, for that matter) just can't find the time/impetus to actually formally challenge MBH/Mann et al paper/reconstructions. Apparently, it has something to do with the McIntyre career based, decade+, never-ending "audit", self-styled hockey-stick slayer McIntyre sham; i.e., why put an end to a good thing! Equally, of course, since TimG has now highlighted his personal 100% certainty, there is nothing to keep him, personally, from doing exactly the same - formally challenging MBH/Mann et al paper/reconstructions... since he's 100% certain!

TimG calls this 'small in the big picture'... so small, he continually flaunts it - over, and over, and over again! So small!

[dre]

Waldo - I meant to post the thread link here. If not, then give the thread title and I can find it.

If this is a continuation of that discussion, I'll go there to discuss.

This is a continuation of hundreds of identical discussions with the same things being trotted out over and over again.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is a continuation of hundreds of identical discussions with the same things being trotted out over and over again.

That's OK...these kind of rope-a-dope discussions are all that is left to the grand carbon scam that has failed. The alarmists had their say, but the world just shrugged.

[Moonbox]

whoa Moonbox... Marc Morano!!! Have you no shame?

if the level of your supposed critique of James Hansen can't rise above a sourcing from the likes of Marc Morano, no worries, hey?

red flag, hey Moonbox?

Who cares where the link came from? The relevant material is true and can be sourced from any number of places. John Theon believes that Hansen's work is a sham, stated it publicly, and his words are available for all to see. This is Hansen's former boss.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/

If necessary, I can dig up similar statements from Freeman Dyson too, a brilliant and well respected physicist, who says the same things about the climate models and their implications.

Instead of attacking me with your sad excuse for wit, respond to what Theon says. It's all there. I'm waiting.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Moonbox

[Michael Hardner]

That's OK...these kind of rope-a-dope discussions are all that is left to the grand carbon scam that has failed. The alarmists had their say, but the world just shrugged.

This particular discussion is special - at the core is the question of whether climate scientists published a bogus conclusion or not.

[Moonbox]

The conclusion is still up in the air. I don't think anybody really knows. What's bogus are the people who've declared the debate is concluded.