AGW/CC Deniers & "Fake-Skeptics" - their mindset

[waldo]

The planet is not racing towards Armageddon as predicted by the usual suspects! But the alarmist "mindset" will not allow for the embracement of these positive factors. The Alarmist mindset cannot accept good news.

racing and Armageddon? Your "good news" summation is predicated upon your misunderstandings and purposeful, self-serving narrow focus/perspective. You posit (strawman) a false linear expectation of, year-upon-year, ever worsening observations... and you do so with a most selective ploy, presuming to cast short-term (often cherry-picked) periods against longer-term predictions. Nothing highlights your ploy, 'the mindset', better than your reference to the Northwest Passage (along with your past references to an Arctic ice recovery) and your "good news giddyness" over a claimed recovery.

as I said, your self-serving focus/perspective doesn't properly speak to that presumed recovery's comparative reference (notwithstanding extent versus volume considerations)... that the "recovery" reference points are typically a comparison back to the most significant years of ice-melt on record (2007, 2012), not the long-term multi-decades long melt. Last year's "fake-skeptic/denier's giddyness" is emblematic of your post. Yes, 2013's Arctic ice didn't melt more than 2012; which, of course, got big-time play as "the recovery", as "AGW is a scam", etc.. Of course, it was rarely, if ever, mentioned that 2012 was the record low melt year... or that the 2013 "recovery" was still the sixth smallest ice extent year on record. Perspective, Simple, perspective!

perspective Simple, perspective: like, longer-term satellite data analysis showing that the Arctic melt season is getting longer by five days per decade. Like, in some regions of the Arctic, the yearly freeze-up is occurring up to 11 days per decade later than it used to.

perspective Simple, perspective: 10.3% per decade melt decline

not accepting to "good news", Simple??? Perspective, Simple... perspective!

[waldo]

Monty Python science. I suspected you had such a source. Oh well, always good for a laugh.

the guy has sourced the AmericanStinker many times for his skewed cut&paste drive-by "ta da's"

[waldo]

That's because there is a long term warming trend that started around 1850 when we got out of the last cooling cycle. Although some would pooh-pooh the thought, the warming/cooling cycles have followed a 25-30 year pattern, saw-toothing upwards to where we are today. No doubt humans have contributed a portion of the warming but as you stated - I don't understand how someone can see virtually no warming for almost 20 years and yet still maintain that humans are the driving force behind Climate Change. In light of the failed models, totally over-stated predictions, and the observed lack of warming - how can you not be a tad skeptical?

perfect... a fake skeptic calling out someone for a presumed lack of skepticism! You've been shown several times that model predictions to observations have shown that models have performed relatively well. You continue to speak of a relative reduced rate of surface warming in isolation... you purposely continue to speak of it in that regard while refusing to acknowledge ocean warming and the increases in ocean heat content. You know, the oceans - where, again, more than 90% of all warming goes into..... versus the ~2% of warming that goes into the atmosphere.

Simple, simple, simple, you're simply continuing your same nonsense that has been debunked many times over. Your "coming out the Little Ice Age (LIA) warming"... your "25-30 year cyclical warming cycle (the way you present/leverage it)"... are just bunk!

- again: there are 2 concensus causes behind the LIA cooling; decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity (re. aerosols). Your premise that today's relatively recent warming is simply a "coming out of the LIA" presumes upon some magical natural reversing of those LIA cooling causes. Your premise can't be supported: on average, solar activity has not increased since the mid-20th century... reduced solar activity cannot explain the past 50 years of accelerated warming. Equally, over the past century, particularly since 1950, volcanic activity has had a net negative forcing (cooling effect).

- you continue to struggle with internal variability. Regardless of their legitimacy or questions concerning the varying duration of cyclic periods, cycles are not external forcings that cause changes to the Earth's energy balance. Cycles/internal variability do not cause warming! Cycles, for example, will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface. If you want to keep pumping the cause of warming as being due to some cyclical variability, some natural cyclical variability, please step up and declare that natural external forcing that you're relying upon as your warming causal tie.

now Simple... there is an external forcing that is the principal cause of today's relatively recent warming... the evidence for GHGs (for CO2) as that principal non-natural external forcing exists... you simply choose to ignore, negate, deny it! Of course you do.

[waldo]

If it is, it's hiding quite well. The Argo project is the only reliable source of relatively deep ocean temperatures. Unfortunately, the Argo instruments only started collecting information in 2003. To my knowledge, Argo has not detected any significant warming - perhaps even a cooling.....do you have any evidence (based on Argo) to the contrary?

no - Argo floats are not the only reliable source... you've been schooled on this before. But how quaint for you to simply dismiss the multi-decades work of oceanographers who have dedicated their careers to studying ocean heat content. You continue to display your purposeful skew concerning adjustments... you did it recently and I pointedly asked you if you only ever trusted raw data, regardless if it's known to include bias. Of course you ignored that question/challenge.

to your specific question, there are many studies that rely upon Argo float data; one of the more recent/profiled using older measurements, computer reconstructions and Argo profiling floats (down to 2000 meters): a single study that won't be representative of the definitive causal tie of the relative reduced rate of surface warming... but may be one of the multiple affecting causal ties:

Oceans Hid the Heat and Slowed Pace of Global Warming:

[On Guard for Thee]

I'll try that one again.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/feb/12/global-warming-fake-pause-hiatus-climate-change

[-1=e^ipi]

not the razor, again!!! You sure reach for that razor whenever you're backed into a corner...

Without occum's razor, there is no scientific method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Properties_of_scientific_inquiry

I could point to the origins of the 2C target being political in origin, going back to the 1990s.

I could point to a 2C increase above per-industrial levels not being sufficient to cause Antarctic deglaciation (which is the main 'scientific' basis people will point to when asked to justify the 2C target).

I could point to the fact that science does not tell people what to do. So the concept of there being a purely scientifically justified target is nonsense.

I could also point to the complete lack of economic justification for the 2C target.

But ultimately you are asking me to prove a negative, which is impossible outside that which can be derived purely deductively. That is the reason why the scientific method uses principles such as Occum's Razor.

[On Guard for Thee]

Now that we have TS Eduardo fully formed in the Atlantic we are just about on sked for an average storm season there. And with Obile hammering the Baja we are well above average in the Pacific. So there goes that theory. (sorry Shady).

[waldo]

Without occum's razor, there is no scientific method.

But ultimately you are asking me to prove a negative, which is impossible outside that which can be derived purely deductively. That is the reason why the scientific method uses principles such as Occum's Razor.

no - you're not being asked to "prove a negative"... you're being asked to substantiate/qualify your claim that the target has no scientific basis. Again, you made the statement/claim. I even put aside the whole political and/or scientific thingee... I simply asked you to advise just where the 2C came from. No "negative" there... start there... did some guy simply throw a dart, spin a wheel... picked 2C out of a hat? What's the 2C target foundation? Keep reaching for that razor whenever you can't support your statements/claims.

[waldo]

I could point to...

I could point to...

I could point to...

I could also point to...

yes, as you scramble/backpedal, you could point to all those deflections... or you could simply substantiate/qualify your claim that the target has no scientific basis.

[-1=e^ipi]

@ waldo - finding the origins of the 2 degree target is not difficult. Just go to google and type '2 degree target origins'. Here is the result:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697-8.html

It's a political target with origins in the 90's when the understanding of anthropogenic global warming was a lot weaker than it is today.

Now since then, various groups have tried to dogmatically give the 2 degree target a 'scientific basis'. The closest thing to a 'scientific justification' is that if the 2 degree target is exceeded, then this will cause Antarctic Deglaciation. Often paleoclimate data will be used to show that Antarctic glaciation started when the Earth was approximately 2 degrees warmer. But there are a number of issues with this claim: very different ocean currents existed 23 or 34 million years ago than today due to different positions of continents, rarely people take into account the fact that the temperature required to start glaciation should be lower than the temperature required to start deglaciation since a glaciated planet has a higher albedo, the direction of causality between CO2 and temperature is different today than in the past since today it is primarily changes in CO2 levels due to human activity causing climate change rather than changes in Ocean currents, the Earth's orbit/tilt, etc. causing climate change, the 2 degree number is only obtained by arbitrarily rounding down to the nearest degree, etc. I could go into more detail, but that would take time. I am still planning to make a thread on this topic but it's a matter of finding time since I want to do some interesting things for it.

I've looked extensively for a scientific basis for the 2 degree target and have found none. How is it not reasonable to conclude that this scientific basis does not exist?

Edited September 15, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[cybercoma]

Has no one brought up the PriceWaterhouseCooper study yet?

[waldo]

Has no one brought up the PriceWaterhouseCooper study yet?

summary findings about not meeting the 2C target is so yesterday's news! As I've said in the past, as I said recently in this thread, many scientists have concluded that option is long past. Initiatives are underway to arrive at a new target... not necessarily a higher number; rather, alternate approaches to establish goals... perhaps more regional focused targets that key to particular regional impacts.

[waldo]

@ waldo - finding the origins of the 2 degree target is not difficult.

of course it's not difficult! Ya think... there's only a brazillion articles/papers written about the 2C target. Point of order: your statement/claim was that the target has no scientific basis. What you call 'dogmatic attempts' to provide a scientific basis is simply your want/willingness to dismiss the many undertakings that have done just that. Labeling them 'dogmatic' is certainly your personal perogative. Your reference even speaks to some of those efforts to further scientifically qualify the target... but holds off on your 'dogmatic' assessment. Repeatedly prodding you to finally offer up something beyond your unsubstantiated opinion was well worth the wait for your dogma attachment.

my pointed objection to your statement lies more in relation to the typical "politicization ploy" fake-skeptics/deniers regularly trot out in regards the 2C target; typically attaching it to the IPCC which, of course, in their minds allows for an automatic dismissal of the target... an automatic dismissal of anything to do with the IPCC. Accordingly, as you will recall, I've made multiple efforts to correct you from associating the target to the IPCC. Certainly, the IPCC is one of those organizations presenting evidence to qualify that target... but the IPCC has never set a level at which more detrimental net effects of warming will begin to occur. Further to the IPCC report iterations proper, 2C target qualifying initiatives extended upon the comprehensive document gathering/filtering of the IPCC to do more targeted meta analysis of relevant scientific studies.

as the absolute origin... your article has it wrong, as it's actually back to the late seventies (as, rightly or wrongly, a more risk focused CO2 limits estimate, as broad and accuracy limiting as that most early seventies period afforded). It was subsequently reinforced and extended upon in the early 90s by the World Meteorological Organization, the International Council for Science, the United Nations Environment Program... before being pushed forward in the mid-late 90s by that WGBU German Advisory Council & ultimately adopted by the EU... while further qualified in the early 2000s by the UK Met Office and, again, the WGBU.

you keep mentioning Antarctic deglaciation as some absolute determiner on "the more detrimental" impacts. I've never read anything that places that event anywhere near the 2C target. More pointedly, given the number of times you've reached back hundreds of millions of years attempting to make some point relative to today's warming , I'm somewhat floored that you would attempt to disqualify in terms of differing ocean currents, differing continental locations, etc.. Notwithstanding you seem very confused on the timeframe: the late Quaternary is just the latter 800K years with tolerance added to the range of its lowest and highest observed temperatures (as confirmed by Vostok ice cores), resulting in a temperature span on the "tolerable maximum" of 1.3C (or 2C above pre-industrial).

[-1=e^ipi]

there's only a brazillion articles/papers written about the 2C target. Point of order: your statement/claim was that the target has no scientific basis. What you call 'dogmatic attempts' to provide a scientific basis is simply your want/willingness to dismiss the many undertakings that have done just that.

Look, if you make a 2C target and then try to find a scientific basis for it, then that approach is backwards and dogmatic. What you should do is look at the evidence and then make an informed decision about what the evidence should be, not the other way around. The 2C target came first in the mid-90's. Then later came all these 'scientific justifications'. That's dogma.

I've never read anything that places that event anywhere near the 2C target.

Really? Because you have referenced articles in the past that do exactly that.

I'm somewhat floored that you would attempt to disqualify in terms of differing ocean currents, differing continental locations, etc.. Notwithstanding you seem very confused on the timeframe: the late Quaternary is just the latter 800K years with tolerance added to the range of its lowest and highest observed temperatures (as confirmed by Vostok ice cores), resulting in a temperature span on the "tolerable maximum" of 1.3C (or 2C above pre-industrial).

I'm not confused about the time frame. You are. Antarctic deglaciation started 34 million years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet

[cybercoma]

summary findings about not meeting the 2C target is so yesterday's news! As I've said in the past, as I said recently in this thread, many scientists have concluded that option is long past. Initiatives are underway to arrive at a new target... not necessarily a higher number; rather, alternate approaches to establish goals... perhaps more regional focused targets that key to particular regional impacts.

I'm just wondering if one of the largest accounting firms in the world is hysterical and alarmist.

[TimG]

I'm just wondering if one of the largest accounting firms in the world is hysterical and alarmist.

Whenever non-scientists get involved they usually start by assuming that the projections from climate models are something other than steaming piles of rubbish. This renders any analysis based on such assumptions to be equally useless. As they say: garbage in - garbage out.

[waldo]

I'm not confused about the time frame. You are. Antarctic deglaciation started 34 million years ago.

nice try! The reference was to you being confused about the timeframe associated with the origin of the 2C target; i.e. the last part of the Quaternary, the latter 800K years ago. Perhaps read it again, hey! And as I said, aside from your timeframe confusion, it's amazing to see you presume to negate something based upon changing ocean currents relative to the long distant past continental positioning. I'll be sure to point this out to you the next time you, for the umpteenth time, presume to go back to the long distant 200-to-600 million years ago period and claim relevance to today.

in any case, again, your statement/claim was that the target has no scientific basis to support it. It most certainly does, regardless of you choosing to label that basis as "dogmatic", or not. There's really no further point in going back and forth on this: truth trumps your agenda driven dogmatic labeling every time.

.

[waldo]

Whenever non-scientists get involved they usually start by assuming that the projections from climate models are something other than steaming piles of rubbish. This renders any analysis based on such assumptions to be equally useless. As they say: garbage in - garbage out.

the PwC world-wide 'Sustainability & Climate Change' division specialists thank you for your consideration, most particularly the 100+ UK based personnel that I read worked on the report. I wonder if there are any economist types in that mix... you know, that particular category of your "non-scientists" designation that you really, really, really like/prefer over those wascally scientist types.

[Keepitsimple]

Whenever non-scientists get involved they usually start by assuming that the projections from climate models are something other than steaming piles of rubbish. This renders any analysis based on such assumptions to be equally useless. As they say: garbage in - garbage out.

Exactly. It goes back to the tennis ball visual. All Climate Change/Global Warming theories are based on one premise - and all subsequent "peer reviewed" papers, studies, predictions, etc. are based on that premise. The visual is those 10,000 tennis balls. In 1850, 3 of them were red - representing three CO2 molecules among 10,000 other molecules (300 PPM) in our atmosphere. Now - over 150 years later, we have 4 red balls. The "consensus" would have us believe that moving from 3 balls to 4 balls has sent the planet into a death spiral - and humans are now the driving force behind Climate Change - a process that's been going on for millennia.

[waldo]

Exactly. It goes back to the tennis ball visual. All Climate Change/Global Warming theories are based on one premise - and all subsequent "peer reviewed" papers, studies, predictions, etc. are based on that premise. The visual is those 10,000 tennis balls. In 1850, 3 of them were red - representing three CO2 molecules among 10,000 other molecules (300 PPM) in our atmosphere. Now - over 150 years later, we have 4 red balls. The "consensus" would have us believe that moving from 3 balls to 4 balls has sent the planet into a death spiral - and humans are now the driving force behind Climate Change - a process that's been going on for millennia.

no... not your tennis ball nonsense again! Yet again! Simple, the simple questions you ignore and refuse to answer; again: "how many tennis balls are required to throw out of balance the natural source/sink cycle... resulting in the accumulation of "your tennis balls". What happens when your tennis balls accumulate... in greater and greater numbers?"

[-1=e^ipi]

nice try! The reference was to you being confused about the timeframe associated with the origin of the 2C target; i.e. the last part of the Quaternary, the latter 800K years ago.

What is your definition of 'the last part'? Because certainly it cannot mean Epoch since that is the Holocene which started 11700 years ago.

800K years ago corresponds to the end of the Calabrian where there was an ice age and the last magnetic pole reversal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabrian_%28stage%29

Sorry, but I cannot understand what is so special about 800000 years ago such that you can somehow infer that 'catastrophic' warming will occur if temperatures exceed 2C above pre-industrial levels. What is the definition of 'catastrophic' here, and how is it scientifically determined that 2C corresponds to this 'catastrophic' warming?

it's amazing to see you presume to negate something based upon changing ocean currents relative to the long distant past continental positioning.

Certain paleoclimate techniques used for the justification of the 2C target tend to ignore the effect of changing ocean currents due to plate techtonics, which is significant if the time scale is on the order of 30 million years, but not significant if the timescale is on the order of 2 million. But I'll go into this in more detail in a future thread.

I'll be sure to point this out to you the next time you, for the umpteenth time, presume to go back to the long distant 200-to-600 million years ago period and claim relevance to today.

It is one thing to use the past 600 million years to infer the conditions under which life evolved on Earth and how life will respond to climate change, and something completely different to use the past 600 million years to create climate models. I'm not trying to use such ancient data to model climate to determine a CO2 target.

It most certainly does

Oh good, you have finally claimed that the 2C target has a scientific basis. Now you can't continue with your 'I'm not the one making the claim so I don't have to provide evidence' BS.

You made a claim, now back it up. Show me this 'scientific basis' for the 2C target, if it exists.

Edited September 16, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

I like this "tennis ball" thing. You can bat it all over the place. But yep, garbage in, garbage out. Let's get back to where all this ice came from down south, and went to up north.

[waldo]

you're borrrring me!

What is your definition of 'the last part'? Because certainly it cannot Epoch since that is the Holocene which started 11700 years ago. 800K years ago corresponds to the end of the Calabrian where there was an ice age and the last magnetic pole reversal

for someone who blusters to no end about the 2C target... who linked a reference that spoke to the German WGBU advisory group, are you sure you actually know the target temperature mean min/max range limits and their associations... 800K years ago also marks the glacial/interglacial cycle shift to large ice sheets and overall the geological period that has shaped our present day environment. You know, something more representative than your perpetual ready reach for 200-to-600 million years ago!
.

Sorry, but I cannot understand what is so special about 800000 years ago such that you can somehow infer that 'catastrophic' warming will occur if temperatures exceed 2C above pre-industrial levels. What is the definition of 'catastrophic' here, and how is it scientifically determined that 2C corresponds to this 'catastrophic' warming?

"catastrophic" strawman??? Again, do you really even know what the 2C target is... what it represents? Like I said earier, you certainly didn't in the other thread when this topic first came forward. I would have thought that by now you would at least know the basic definition! Apparently not. Again, that 2C target represents the temperature at which more detrimental climate change impacts will begin to be observed.
.

Certain paleoclimate techniques used for the justification of the 2C target tend to ignore the effect of changing ocean currents due to plate techtonics, which is significant if the time scale is on the order of 30 million years, but not significant if the timescale is on the order of 2 million. But I'll go into this in farm more detail in a future thread.

yeesh! Again, see above - see you blustering about the target but showing no understanding of what it's based upon.
.

It is one thing to use the past 600 million years to infer the conditions under which life evolved on Earth and how life will respond to climate change, and something completely different to use the past 600 million years to create climate models. I'm not trying to use such ancient data to model climate to determine a CO2 target.

keep digging that hole of yours... deeper and deeper and deeper you go!
.

Oh good, you have finally claimed that the 2C target has a scientific basis. Now you can't continue with your 'I'm not the one making the claim so I don't have to provide evidence' BS.

You made a claim, now back it up. Show me this 'scientific basis' for the 2C target, if it exists.

easy-peasy! I'll just defer to what you labeled the "dogma that gave the 2C target a scientific basis". I suggest you get off the BlusterExpress and spend some time actually reviewing the target definition, temperature range limit derivations, the significance of and relationship to that 800K years ago time period, etc. There's really no point in continuing when you show you're so out of your depth!

[-1=e^ipi]

who linked a reference that spoke to the German WGBU advisory group, are you sure you actually know the target temperature mean min/max range limits and their associations...

showing that an increase in global temperatures by 2C above pre-industrial levels moves the Earth outside the range of temperatures of the past 800000 years does not demonstrate that going above this 2C level leads to 'catastrophic' global warming.

who linked a reference that spoke to the German WGBU advisory group, are you sure you actually know the target temperature mean min/max range limits and their associations... 800K years ago also marks the glacial/interglacial cycle shift to large ice sheets and overall the geological period that has shaped our present day environment. You know, something more representative than your perpetual ready reach for 200-to-600 million years ago!

No, 2.6 million years ago marks the shift to a glaciated climate. That's why geologists mark it as the beginning of the Pleistocene and the Quaternary period. 800000 years ago marks nothing (except maybe the start of the Ionian, but then how does this satisfy your definition of 'the last part'?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene

"catastrophic" strawman??? Again, do you really even know what the 2C target is... what it represents? Like I said earier, you certainly didn't in the other thread when this topic first came forward. I would have thought that by now you would at least know the basic definition! Apparently not. Again, that 2C target represents the temperature at which more detrimental climate change impacts will begin to be observed.

'Catastrophic' or 'more detrimental'. Call it what you want. Either way, please explain to me what is so special about 2C that if you go beyond that suddenly things are 'more detrimental'.

yeesh! Again, see above - see you blustering about the target but showing no understanding of what it's based upon.

Then please enlighten me. What is it based upon? Because I see no scientific basis.

keep digging that hole of yours... deeper and deeper and deeper you go!

It's been well established that you are uncomfortable about the topic of evolution. I have yet to see you claim that you agree with the theory of evolution, or accept that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

easy-peasy! I'll just defer to what you labeled the "dogma that gave the 2C target a scientific basis". I suggest you get off the BlusterExpress and spend some time actually reviewing the target definition, temperature range limit derivations, the significance of and relationship to that 800K years ago time period, etc. There's really no point in continuing when you show you're so out of your depth!

Again, back up your claim. Show me this 'scientific basis' for the 2C target.

[waldo]

you're clearly not reading what I've written - I have absolutely no intention to continue enabling your purposeful derail of this thread.