4 ms·

(1) It would help to have solid evidence that temperature was stable before the start of the industrial revolution and the resulting CO2 from human activity. S

by graycat 10y ago

(1) It would help to have solid evidence that temperature was stable before the start of the industrial revolution and the resulting CO2 from human activity. So, we'd have to get rid of the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period. (2) We would have to get rid of the big temperature changes going back 500,000+ years from the Vostok ice core data that Al Gore plotted and where the CO2 concentrations went up about 800 years after the temperatures went up. (3) It would also help to cancel the global cooling from about 1940 to 1970 while CO2 concentrations were going up. E.g., from these examples, IMHO, the temperature record and the record of CO2 concentrations don't support that CO2 concentration changes caused the temperature changes.

btilly 10y ago
(1) You ask for us to lie? Climate is not stable, and any model that says it is is clearly broken. Instead you have to produce the best models you can that can explain both the past and project the future. Then test those models. Those models uniformly project human-caused global warming, and are passing various kinds of sanity checks. (2) You want us to oversimplify? Climate is still not stable, and CO2 isn't the only thing that is involved. The main cause for the start/end of ice ages are orbital shifts. CO2 rise was a lagging result, that then amplified the warming. (3) You still want us to oversimplify? Aerosols are known to cause cooling, and in that period rapidly expanding aerosol use caused a significant amount of cooling. Various countries then passed clean air acts which reduced the levels of aerosols in the air. (They also fixed a pretty major acid rain problem.) In fact one of the proposed solutions for global warming is to deliberately inject aerosols in the stratosphere. From these examples, it looks like your mind is made up. You don't even want to find out what the science says. Instead you engage in a game of oversimplification and gotcha to convince yourself that what they are saying doesn't make sense.
- graycat 10y ago
  > You ask for us to lie? No. I was just responding literally to the question. Or, for a more socially acceptable response, the Vostok data has me have trouble with the idea that humans are causing climate change. > Those models uniformly project human-caused global warming, and are passing various kinds of sanity checks. The data I have on that indicates that essentially all the models ("uniformly") are wildly wrong. They predicted that by now the temperature would be much higher. Some of that data is reviewed in http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop# http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020430140457717... The way too high predictions are plotted in http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/ http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-clima... > Those models uniformly project human-caused global warming Not all the models. There is a model that fits the data much better -- at least since the last ice age: The model claims that the variation in rates of sun spots causes the temperature changes and that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with climate. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- it absorbs in three narrow bands out in the infrared and, thus, absorbs some of the infrared radiation from the Planck black body radiation of the surface of the earth warmed by the sun. But according to the model I am mentioning, this effect from CO2 is tiny. Instead, again from the model I am mentioning, overwhelmingly, the main driver of global temperature since the last ice age has been just clouds, and they have varied with the sun spots. Just why is a longer argument made clear, e.g., in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg So, that is another model that needs to be tested. For now, that model seems to fit the temperature data much better than the CO2, greenhouse gas, Navier-Stokes, atmospheric diffusion, etc. models. To me, the CO2 models fit the data so poorly we have to reject CO2 as relevant to climate change and look elsewhere for the significant cause(s) of climate change. For now, to me, the best model is the one I mentioned here based on sun spots -- you didn't mention sun spots.
  - throwaway5752 10y ago
    Doesn't it worry you at all that you have cited no academic literature in journals? You have an OpEd piece, a youtube video (the producer of which is known for replying to an email critiquing his use of data with "You’re a big daft c*ck"... people can google Martin Durkin and make their own conclusions about him), and the blog of a creationist who refers to those he disagrees with as "global warming Nazis"?
    - mistermann 10y ago
      Has this other model been proven incorrect?
      - throwaway5752 10y ago
        None of the three other articles refers to any model. The closest is Dr. Spencer. His published work been critiqued by better people than me, and is readily discoverable via search engine. I can find no record of him making predictions of future warming, just criticism of existing models over the nature of atmospheric water vapor, cloud formation, and infrared reflectivity. His claims are highly disputed (search for "Remote Sensing Wolfgang Wagner")
    - graycat 10y ago
      Not really. I have other things to do. The Al Gore, IPCC arguments look bad to me, just from what I wrote, that the temperature record and the CO2 record convince me that CO2 has little or nothing to do with temperature. There is a biggie point: The Al Gore crowd has a claim about CO2 that would have us shoot in the gut much of current civilization. There are at least two ways to respond: (1) From a lot of really good science, find a better answer. (2) F'get about finding a better answer or even any answer but just debunk the Al Gore answer by finding holes in its argument. Then for (2), one way is really simple, just look at the temperature and CO2 record back through the Vostok data 500,000+ years ago. I've basically done that and concluded that from the records we can reject the Gore claims about the effects of CO2 on climate. That Vostok data is what Gore gave as his main evidence that the higher temperatures were from higher concentrations of CO2. Alas, the CO2 concentrations rose about 800 years after the temperatures rose. Another way to do (2) is just to use one of the main criteria of science: Can it make accurate predictions? Well, from some of the references I gave, apparently not. That is, by the CO2, Planck black body radiation, Navier-Stokes, etc. models, the temperature should be very significantly higher now. Well, it's not. So, in science, we reject the prediction and the modelling that made it. So, as in (2), we don't find a good answer but just debunk and reject the Gore CO2 approach. Finding a good answer might be really difficult science, but debunking a proposed answer need not involve much science at all. That rejection is likely just what we are all supposed to do and maybe not publishable. So, we don't look for an academic record of it. For the references I gave, right, they are not primary, but they do give some pointers to primary references. E.g., one of the graphs does name all the models. If that graph is all hogwash, I'd be among the first to want to have good information on that. For that graph with results of the 70 or so models, I just found a link to the graph. I have the graph on my computer from years ago, but I didn't have a link to it on the Internet (I confess -- sloppy record keeping). So, I just took a long gibberish string left over from when I downloaded the graph, pasted it into Google, and let Google give me a link to the graph. I don't know where the graph came from originally (it may say but I haven't looked at that graph in detail for years) but likely not the Web page of the URL I gave. Sorry 'bout that, but I just found a way for you to see the famous graph.
sathackr 10y ago
Don't you know that correlation = causation? CO2 is going up. Temperature is going up. Ocean is going up. Conclusion? All caused by CO2. Oh, and temperature going down is also caused by CO2 going up. I haven't seen it yet but I'm sure Ocean going down is CO2-related also.
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure that's not how they model the climate. These are the same people that predict the course of hurricanes multiple days ahead. I think they understand elementary school level scientific principles.
  - sathackr 10y ago
    They don't have the data to model it the way they predict the course of hurricanes. Models are just models, they're only as good as their design and the data they are fed. We have solid temperature data for only a few hundred years, if that. That's a lot of time to try to model something with so many variables. Both sides have been found to be tweaking the models and input data to tune the output to their agenda, and nearly every time I see it presented, it's "average global temperature rise of x over the last y years has contributed to z inches of sea level rise. We must reduce CO2 because climate change" Average global temperatures have gone up, and down, and up, and down many many times, even before we were even here. If the science were more solid, there wouldn't be so much controversy over it. For every model presentation you can find that predicts it, I can find one that doesn't. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes. Can it trap heat? Yes. Does that conclude that the extra CO2 we are generating is the cause of global temperature rise? Not by a long shot. Does it warrant further investigation? Absolutely. The consequences of being wrong are far to great to ignore.
    - throwaway5752 10y ago
      Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was saying that since they are real scientists, they are not abject idiots and running a linear regression on atmospheric CO2 vs mean global surface temperature. I can't tell you what to think or what models to select, but the rapid and sustained increase in temperatures over the past 30 years would suggest something is up, so I would at least focus on models that would have retroactively explained that rise.
danieltillett 10y ago
These are all problems with the model not actual observational evidence. What observations would change your mind?
- sathackr 10y ago
  My mind isn't made up, because there is not enough evidence to generate a conclusion. Which is why I have a problem with anyone who does come to a conclusion, because they do not have enough evidence either. Observational evidence says temperature is going up, it's gone up in the past, and it will go up again in the future. Sea level has gone up in the past too. Guess how a shark tooth winds up buried in Montana? What will decide my stance is good, solid, open, scientific results, based on sound input, conducted by a neutral party, with sufficient data to draw conclusions, and done in a manner that any interested party can reproduce the results from their own, independently collected data. If only one dataset is available, then the data collection itself must be open and scrutinized. There's too much 'religion' surrounding the issue to trust anyone not to manipulate anything(not necessarily intentionally).
  - Oletros 10y ago
    > What will decide my stance is good, solid, open, scientific results, based on sound input, conducted by a neutral party, with sufficient data to draw conclusions, and done in a manner that any interested party can reproduce the results from their own, independently collected data. If only one dataset is available, then the data collection itself must be open and scrutinized. Ans since when those points are not met? What is a neutral party for you? Why do you thinkg that data is not open and cannot be scrutinized > There's too much 'religion' surrounding the issue to trust anyone not to manipulate anything(not necessarily intentionally). Any example of this manipulation?
  - fiter 10y ago
    > Guess how a shark tooth winds up buried in Montana? My guess is plate tectonics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
Oletros 10y ago
Are you aware that you 2 first points are totally irrelevant with the actual situation?

by graycat 10y ago

btilly 10y ago

(1) You ask for us to lie? Climate is not stable, and any model that says it is is clearly broken. Instead you have to produce the best models you can that can explain both the past and project the future. Then test those models. Those models uniformly project human-caused global warming, and are passing various kinds of sanity checks. (2) You want us to oversimplify? Climate is still not stable, and CO2 isn't the only thing that is involved. The main cause for the start/end of ice ages are orbital shifts. CO2 rise was a lagging result, that then amplified the warming. (3) You still want us to oversimplify? Aerosols are known to cause cooling, and in that period rapidly expanding aerosol use caused a significant amount of cooling. Various countries then passed clean air acts which reduced the levels of aerosols in the air. (They also fixed a pretty major acid rain problem.) In fact one of the proposed solutions for global warming is to deliberately inject aerosols in the stratosphere. From these examples, it looks like your mind is made up. You don't even want to find out what the science says. Instead you engage in a game of oversimplification and gotcha to convince yourself that what they are saying doesn't make sense.

graycat 10y ago
> You ask for us to lie? No. I was just responding literally to the question. Or, for a more socially acceptable response, the Vostok data has me have trouble with the idea that humans are causing climate change. > Those models uniformly project human-caused global warming, and are passing various kinds of sanity checks. The data I have on that indicates that essentially all the models ("uniformly") are wildly wrong. They predicted that by now the temperature would be much higher. Some of that data is reviewed in http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop# http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020430140457717... The way too high predictions are plotted in http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/ http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-clima... > Those models uniformly project human-caused global warming Not all the models. There is a model that fits the data much better -- at least since the last ice age: The model claims that the variation in rates of sun spots causes the temperature changes and that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with climate. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- it absorbs in three narrow bands out in the infrared and, thus, absorbs some of the infrared radiation from the Planck black body radiation of the surface of the earth warmed by the sun. But according to the model I am mentioning, this effect from CO2 is tiny. Instead, again from the model I am mentioning, overwhelmingly, the main driver of global temperature since the last ice age has been just clouds, and they have varied with the sun spots. Just why is a longer argument made clear, e.g., in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg So, that is another model that needs to be tested. For now, that model seems to fit the temperature data much better than the CO2, greenhouse gas, Navier-Stokes, atmospheric diffusion, etc. models. To me, the CO2 models fit the data so poorly we have to reject CO2 as relevant to climate change and look elsewhere for the significant cause(s) of climate change. For now, to me, the best model is the one I mentioned here based on sun spots -- you didn't mention sun spots.
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  Doesn't it worry you at all that you have cited no academic literature in journals? You have an OpEd piece, a youtube video (the producer of which is known for replying to an email critiquing his use of data with "You’re a big daft c*ck"... people can google Martin Durkin and make their own conclusions about him), and the blog of a creationist who refers to those he disagrees with as "global warming Nazis"?
  - mistermann 10y ago
    Has this other model been proven incorrect?
    - throwaway5752 10y ago
      None of the three other articles refers to any model. The closest is Dr. Spencer. His published work been critiqued by better people than me, and is readily discoverable via search engine. I can find no record of him making predictions of future warming, just criticism of existing models over the nature of atmospheric water vapor, cloud formation, and infrared reflectivity. His claims are highly disputed (search for "Remote Sensing Wolfgang Wagner")
  - graycat 10y ago
    Not really. I have other things to do. The Al Gore, IPCC arguments look bad to me, just from what I wrote, that the temperature record and the CO2 record convince me that CO2 has little or nothing to do with temperature. There is a biggie point: The Al Gore crowd has a claim about CO2 that would have us shoot in the gut much of current civilization. There are at least two ways to respond: (1) From a lot of really good science, find a better answer. (2) F'get about finding a better answer or even any answer but just debunk the Al Gore answer by finding holes in its argument. Then for (2), one way is really simple, just look at the temperature and CO2 record back through the Vostok data 500,000+ years ago. I've basically done that and concluded that from the records we can reject the Gore claims about the effects of CO2 on climate. That Vostok data is what Gore gave as his main evidence that the higher temperatures were from higher concentrations of CO2. Alas, the CO2 concentrations rose about 800 years after the temperatures rose. Another way to do (2) is just to use one of the main criteria of science: Can it make accurate predictions? Well, from some of the references I gave, apparently not. That is, by the CO2, Planck black body radiation, Navier-Stokes, etc. models, the temperature should be very significantly higher now. Well, it's not. So, in science, we reject the prediction and the modelling that made it. So, as in (2), we don't find a good answer but just debunk and reject the Gore CO2 approach. Finding a good answer might be really difficult science, but debunking a proposed answer need not involve much science at all. That rejection is likely just what we are all supposed to do and maybe not publishable. So, we don't look for an academic record of it. For the references I gave, right, they are not primary, but they do give some pointers to primary references. E.g., one of the graphs does name all the models. If that graph is all hogwash, I'd be among the first to want to have good information on that. For that graph with results of the 70 or so models, I just found a link to the graph. I have the graph on my computer from years ago, but I didn't have a link to it on the Internet (I confess -- sloppy record keeping). So, I just took a long gibberish string left over from when I downloaded the graph, pasted it into Google, and let Google give me a link to the graph. I don't know where the graph came from originally (it may say but I haven't looked at that graph in detail for years) but likely not the Web page of the URL I gave. Sorry 'bout that, but I just found a way for you to see the famous graph.

sathackr 10y ago

Don't you know that correlation = causation? CO2 is going up. Temperature is going up. Ocean is going up. Conclusion? All caused by CO2. Oh, and temperature going down is also caused by CO2 going up. I haven't seen it yet but I'm sure Ocean going down is CO2-related also.

throwaway5752 10y ago
I'm pretty sure that's not how they model the climate. These are the same people that predict the course of hurricanes multiple days ahead. I think they understand elementary school level scientific principles.
- sathackr 10y ago
  They don't have the data to model it the way they predict the course of hurricanes. Models are just models, they're only as good as their design and the data they are fed. We have solid temperature data for only a few hundred years, if that. That's a lot of time to try to model something with so many variables. Both sides have been found to be tweaking the models and input data to tune the output to their agenda, and nearly every time I see it presented, it's "average global temperature rise of x over the last y years has contributed to z inches of sea level rise. We must reduce CO2 because climate change" Average global temperatures have gone up, and down, and up, and down many many times, even before we were even here. If the science were more solid, there wouldn't be so much controversy over it. For every model presentation you can find that predicts it, I can find one that doesn't. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes. Can it trap heat? Yes. Does that conclude that the extra CO2 we are generating is the cause of global temperature rise? Not by a long shot. Does it warrant further investigation? Absolutely. The consequences of being wrong are far to great to ignore.
  - throwaway5752 10y ago
    Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was saying that since they are real scientists, they are not abject idiots and running a linear regression on atmospheric CO2 vs mean global surface temperature. I can't tell you what to think or what models to select, but the rapid and sustained increase in temperatures over the past 30 years would suggest something is up, so I would at least focus on models that would have retroactively explained that rise.

danieltillett 10y ago

These are all problems with the model not actual observational evidence. What observations would change your mind?

sathackr 10y ago
My mind isn't made up, because there is not enough evidence to generate a conclusion. Which is why I have a problem with anyone who does come to a conclusion, because they do not have enough evidence either. Observational evidence says temperature is going up, it's gone up in the past, and it will go up again in the future. Sea level has gone up in the past too. Guess how a shark tooth winds up buried in Montana? What will decide my stance is good, solid, open, scientific results, based on sound input, conducted by a neutral party, with sufficient data to draw conclusions, and done in a manner that any interested party can reproduce the results from their own, independently collected data. If only one dataset is available, then the data collection itself must be open and scrutinized. There's too much 'religion' surrounding the issue to trust anyone not to manipulate anything(not necessarily intentionally).
- Oletros 10y ago
  > What will decide my stance is good, solid, open, scientific results, based on sound input, conducted by a neutral party, with sufficient data to draw conclusions, and done in a manner that any interested party can reproduce the results from their own, independently collected data. If only one dataset is available, then the data collection itself must be open and scrutinized. Ans since when those points are not met? What is a neutral party for you? Why do you thinkg that data is not open and cannot be scrutinized > There's too much 'religion' surrounding the issue to trust anyone not to manipulate anything(not necessarily intentionally). Any example of this manipulation?
- fiter 10y ago
  > Guess how a shark tooth winds up buried in Montana? My guess is plate tectonics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

Oletros 10y ago

Are you aware that you 2 first points are totally irrelevant with the actual situation?