Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 Next
Comments 117451 to 117500:
-
Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon, the mistake you're making is confusing changes in rate with the rate itself. Your calculus is fine, it's your interpretation of that calculus that is in error. Since you have training in physics, I think a nice physical analogy will help illustrate the error: Say you are a skydiver falling at terminal velocity. It should evident that a) you are falling and b) your velocity is constant, so the derivative of your position is a constant. Now, let's say you start moving your arms in and out. As you spread your arms out, your velocity decreases, as you pull them in, your velocity increases. Now, if you differentiate the function of your position (getting velocity), and compare it to the spread of your arms, lo and behold, you'll find a very strong correlation! Does that mean that the motion of your arms is causing you to fall? Of course not! To second some comments made by others, I appreciate that you have come here to take your criticism head on, it is indeed admirable. I hope you have the mental fortitude to step back and evaluate your own claims critically. -
scaddenp at 14:19 PM on 16 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon, I can do my calculus thank you. Now if you have an series which contain an oscillating component and a trend, you cant make statements about cause of trend by correlation of something with a differential of the series. McLean tried that. So far all you are talking about is the unremarkable and well discussed carbon feedback cycle as other posters have explained. -
Albatross at 14:13 PM on 16 June 2010Andrew Bolt distorts again
DeepClimate has some useful insight into how Dr. Hulme's comments have been misrepresented and distorted. Dr. Hulme is not pleased and has issued a clarification. This is yet another example of how "skeptics" intentionally mislead. As for consensus, let us not forget the poll reported in EOS:
For details, for details on the poll please go here
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:09 PM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
johnd said... The misleading part comes about by declaring that these are signs of AGW and dismissing that they may be due to natural warming. I'm sorry but I have to take exception to this. If we look at almost any combination of proxy temp records of the past few thousand to million years I think it becomes obvious that something is extremely different now. I fail to see how such a dramatic change in temp could occur naturally. It "may" be natural but that is an extremely small possibility because if it were natural one would expect that we would be just as dramatically aware of the natural cause. The Siberian Traps have not reasserted themselves last I heard. What we do face is the reality that humans and technology have dramatically changed over the past 150 years. -
gallopingcamel at 14:08 PM on 16 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Wow! Great stuff. Nice of Hocker to show up. Also good to note y'all were civil to him. Ned, I usually disagree with you but this time you and caerbannog have my vote. -
johnd at 13:59 PM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
scaddenp at 12:03 PM, Phil, my comments were in response to the title of this thread, and how the thread itself was lead, mislead, into a debate over the magnitude of a symptom, warming, rather than what are the reasons for it, which in itself is neglecting the full picture, a charge made in the lead post against the sceptics generally. Even the statement in the lead post "we see more heat being trapped by carbon dioxide" is misleading as it is accepted that water vapour is directly responsible whilst CO2 and other greenhouse gases are merely the forcing agents and only responsible for a very small part of direct warming. But how much attention is devoted to the other greenhouse gases. Ongoing research is being conducted on nitrous oxide which is supposedly 300 times as potent as CO2 and accounts for about 5% of Australia's national emissions. The rise in the global use of nitrogenous fertilisers traces a similar path to the global temperature rise. Is that coincidence or a factor? Is it misleading to leave it out of any calculations relating CO2 to temperatures? Action required to curb N2O will be different to that required to curb CO2. With regards to your comment about undiscovered energy flows. The recent discovery of a major deep sea current of Antarctic bottom water east of the Kerguelen plateau which deposits cold oxygen-rich water in the deep ocean basins further north must displace an equal quantity of warmer water. Could this be a newly discovered energy flow? How does the displaced energy in the water manifest itself elsewhere? Is this related to the cycles that have been identified in the various oceans, in this case the IOD? Finally your comment about the TOA energy imbalance. What about it? Would the same TOA energy imbalance have been present during each of the previous interglacial periods? Without such an imbalance, warming would not be possible irrespective of the cause. -
Joe Blog at 13:52 PM on 16 June 2010Andrew Bolt distorts again
John B at 13:22 PM on 16 June, 2010 Interesting link John B... But id put it to you that what he is claiming is that when people claim "2500(pick a number) IPCC scientists have reached a consensus." Its disingenuous... Because its actually relatively easy to prove this to be false. There may be 2500 contributors... But that doesn't translate to 2500 scientists in total agreement. And it becomes an easy task to prove other wise... thus its disingenuous. Take these comments from Dr. Andrew A. Lacis - NASA GISS On chapter 9 AR4 for example. "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted." I dont doubt that he believes in AGW... But his comments could be used as proof of dissent... And it would take you 10 seconds on google to find many more examples. And to get lists of contributors.Moderator Response: "... IPCC scientists have reached a consensus." Its disingenuous... Because its actually relatively easy to prove this to be false. There may be 2500 contributors... But that doesn't translate to 2500 scientists in total agreement." JB: Reaching a consensus does not = total agreement -
Lon Hocker at 13:52 PM on 16 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
doug_bostrom, I'll buy into that if you change "increases" to "changes". Please note that the satellite temperature anomalies are anything but monotonically increasing. The fun part of my analysis is that these bumps correlate to kinks in the CO2 plot. No we're not one step away. The next step is to accept that the rate of change of CO2 correlates nicely with the satellite-measured temperature anomaly. The final step is to agree on why! -
chris1204 at 13:50 PM on 16 June 2010Andrew Bolt distorts again
Mike Hulme seems to be concerned about the disconnect between 'the consensus' and the 'the sceptics' and the corrosive impact this has on the credibility of climate science in the wider community. In his response (link courtesy of John B @ 8), he writes: 'The point of this bit of our article was to draw attention to the need for a more nuanced understanding of what an IPCC ‘consensus’ is – as I say: “Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.” The IPCC consensus does not mean – clearly cannot possibly mean – that every scientist involved in the IPCC process agrees with every single statement in the IPCC! Some scientists involved in the IPCC did not agree with the IPCC’s projections of future sea-level. Giving the impression that the IPCC consensus means everyone agrees with everyone else – as I think some well-meaning but uninformed commentaries do (or have a tendency to do) – is unhelpful; it doesn’t reflect the uncertain, exploratory and sometimes contested nature of scientific knowledge.' Unfortunately, those who point to the uncertainties in any particular line of evidence are then called cherry pickers. Mike Hulme seems to appreciate the complexities. Otherwise, you end up with something akin to the Cold War meme of arguments needing to be 'clearer than truth.' -
Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon >You can calculate the Satellite temperature anomaly series from the Mauna Loa CO2 series and visa versa. No, you can calculate the derivative of CO2 levels from temperature anomaly, if you try to integrate back to the absolute CO2 level change, you lose a constant. Again, all you can conclude from this is that temperatures affect the rate at which CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, not a direct correlation to changes in absolute volume. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:40 PM on 16 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Making progress here. Between Willis and Hocker it seems that increases of both C02 and surface temperature are accepted as fact, reliably measured. Lots of buy-in to this even in the most revanchist circles, such as WUWT. Does this mean we're only a single step away from a grand reunification of thought? -
Stephen Baines at 13:34 PM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
I must apologize for all my mispellings now and in the future. I'm a truly abysmal typist. -
Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon >You lose the constant ... but all the other terms are intact. No, like you said in your previous sentence, all terms move over one place in the power series. This means that a linear function would turn into a constant, just like Ned said it would. By differentiating the CO2 series, what you are doing is comparing temperatures to changes in the rate of CO2 accumulation, not changes in total volume. This makes physical sense, as temperatures surely affect the rate at which various processes can absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, so the comparison may have some merit, just not in the way you claim it does. -
Marcus at 13:23 PM on 16 June 2010Andrew Bolt distorts again
Another thing, I find it hilarious how aggro Mr Bolt gets over the supposed deception of Rudd, given how often this guy ran to the defense of serial liar John Howard. For me, the politics of the people who support the theory of AGW is irrelevant compared to the *science*. After all, the first person I ever remember talking about the dangers of global warming was the noted Tory PM Margaret Thatcher. Given her background in chemistry, I figured she knew whereof she spoke! -
John Bruno at 13:22 PM on 16 June 2010Andrew Bolt distorts again
Hulme's response is here. I am curious what others think, but I find this defense pretty flaccid. The spirt of the paper was quite critical of the IPCC, this was not merely a neutral review. Second, while Hulme may not have said "the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone" he did write that "Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous." So the IPCC has not misled but is disingenuous? Third, the point "That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies" is false. THAT is the main issue at hand. Hulme writes "The IPCC consensus does not mean – clearly cannot possibly mean – that every scientist involved in the IPCC process agrees with every single statement in the IPCC!" Well obviously, but nobody suggested that was the case (hello strawman). But to suggest that only a few dozen out of the many thousands of scientists that worked on AR4 agreed with the key take home message, that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate, or were qualified to do so is silly. (also note Hulme's argument has shifted (we have seen this tactic before too); initially it was that only a few dozen people were qualified to make that inference, but now he is saying not every author agreed). -
Marcus at 13:19 PM on 16 June 2010Andrew Bolt distorts again
Actually, John B, I think Hulme himself is being extremely pedantic in a bid to shore up the incredibly weak Denialist Argument-& that the denialists are shoring things up still further by misrepresenting his pedantic position! -
Paulie200 at 13:19 PM on 16 June 2010Andrew Bolt distorts again
Wouldn't it be a little bizarre for scientists in the other two working groups to be talking about "Impacts Adaptation and Vulnerability" (WGII) or "Mitigation" (WGIII) of something they felt doesn't exist in the first place?Moderator Response: good point. We call this steppingstone attribution. -
Stephen Baines at 13:15 PM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
johnd. On a more general level...Why prefer some some mysterious and unknown hypothesis over a perfectly legitimate explanation that is consistent with the our preexisting understanding, compatible with the observations and predictive of novel patterns? What scientists would do that? Who even does that in their everyday lives? If my bank account was loosing money and a budget exercise showed that my spending was greater than my income, it would be wishful thinking (not to mention irresponsible) to blame my losses on unpredictable variation in interest rates or some conspiracy on the part of the bankers, or the fickleness of the gods. There is certainly much to learn and I for one am excited to watch how our knowledge of climate develops in the future. But we should't ignore what the evidence is showing us right now in hopes that some ghost in the machine will show up to the party unannounced. -
John Bruno at 13:04 PM on 16 June 2010Andrew Bolt distorts again
OK, there are some sites that seem to be somewhat misrepresenting Hulme a bit, mainly by paraphrasing and leaving out the "in the specific field of detection and attribution studies" of the quote, e.g., here -
Lon Hocker at 12:54 PM on 16 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
scaddenp See my comment above. Bless, doesn't anyone on this site know any calculus? -
John Bruno at 12:50 PM on 16 June 2010Andrew Bolt distorts again
Robert, where did Hulme say he was misrepresented? I think that is interesting. A friend suggested before I post this, I should check in with Hulme. (I didn't) But the quote is from an article that he wrote, not something some reporter reported out of context. I read the paper and I think his point has been fairly represented by Bolt and others. Maybe Hulme can join in and explain himself. -
Lon Hocker at 12:45 PM on 16 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Hi there Ned. It's time for you to review your calculus. Differentiating moves all terms over one place in the power series. You lose the constant (in figure 3, that's the starting CO2 concentration), but all the other terms are intact. When I integrate figure 2 to get figure 3, you can see the match is excellent. There is no need, and indeed, no place for any human CO2 contribution. You claim that short term variations in CO2 come from temperature and long term from anthropogenic CO2. Great, data sets are available for CO2,temperature, and the man made contributions. Show me that your model fits the data as well as mine. No hand waving, just do it! If you can't, your model is wrong. Let me repeat myself. You can calculate the Satellite temperature anomaly series from the Mauna Loa CO2 series and visa versa. There is no need or place for an anthropogenic term. I know this contradicts what the IPCC says. Deal with it. -
scaddenp at 12:38 PM on 16 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon, compare your method to original critique of McLean etal, old news Your methodology differs from this how? -
Daved Green at 12:16 PM on 16 June 2010Andrew Bolt distorts again
This whole denial thing is fuelled buy general societies lack of education and interest in science and scientific principles , very intelligent people are taken in by these arguements , the solutions to AGW are seen to be "green" therefore leftwing even communist meaning the issue polarises into left and right politics . After watching Monckton are reading the comments on youtube and denier blogs I despair at as ever getting our act together . Keeep up the good work John and thanks to all the others who post , I read this every day . -
Ned at 12:06 PM on 16 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Hello, Lon. Thanks for joining us. In your post at WUWT, you wrote: Using two well accepted data sets, a simple model can be used to show that the rise in CO2 is a result of the temperature anomaly, not the other way around. This is the exact opposite of the IPCC model that claims that rising CO2 causes the temperature anomaly. This is simply wrong. Differentiating the CO2 time series converts the long-term trend in CO2 to a constant in your model. That expressly means that the trend is not dependent on temperature anomaly. The correct interpretation of your model would be that there is a long-term underlying rise in CO2, with short-term variations in that trend being partially correlated with temperature anomaly. This is quite different from your original claim. It's also basically uncontroversial -- despite your suggestion that you have overturned the IPCC model, all you've really done is provide a somewhat crude empirical model of the terrestrial carbon cycle feedbacks that amplify the direct CO2 forcing. As Joel Shore told you, this is discussed in some detail in the IPCC AR4 WG1 report. I'm a bit surprised that you still don't seem to understand this. I would think that once people started pointing out these problems, you would have wanted to first make sure you understood them, then posted a clear and unambiguous retraction over at WUWT. Perhaps something like that is in the works? -
scaddenp at 12:03 PM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
johnd, that was a pretty rich post to make at this site. How about What happened to evidence for man-made warning and CO2 lead temperature and There is no empirical evidence If we have "natural warming", then what is causing it. Please remember that energy must be conserved so surface temperature increases must imply a flow of energy from some other source. How have we missed it? But then what about TOA energy imbalance? Everything in climate must have a physical causation whether long term climate or tomorrow weather and I dont buy "as yet undiscovered natural energy flows" compared to existing perfectly good theory of climate which matches what we observe. -
Chris McGrath at 12:01 PM on 16 June 2010Andrew Bolt distorts again
The direct link to Hume's paper is http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf -
Robert Murphy at 11:58 AM on 16 June 2010Andrew Bolt distorts again
It's amazing how quickly the meme has spread in just a few days. In the same way that every "skeptic" knows that Jones said warming stopped in 1995, or that the decline in the "hide the decline" referred to a decline in late 20th century temperatures, this new one will be accepted as Gospel and will be trotted out every time someone mentions consensus in any way. The fact that Hulme has already come out and said he was misrepresented will be ignored. -
KR at 11:54 AM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
Ah - correction to my last post, the temperature records and radiative balances indicate global warming. The rates, and much additional evidence (carbon isotopes, deductive reasoning about energy use, ocean pH, paleo evidence about forcings, etc.) point toward AGW. -
KR at 11:50 AM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
e - excellent comment, I like that Popper article. Berényi, you might also look at this article on inductive science by Wesley Salmon - he was an accomplished philosopher of science, not to mention a really nice guy. I'll note that purely deductive, self-contained logic is excellent for absolute proofs. However, correct inductive inferences allow you to learn new things, even if you cannot view every case, follow every lead, examine every single example in the observable universe and beyond. That's where new knowledge comes from. I spent several years studying epistemology and the philosophy of science - I'm well aware of the differences, and your tone is quite insulting. Let's step back a bit. The whole skeptic issue with UHI is calling into doubt the temperature record, and hence questioning AGW. While I cannot agree with your criticism of the GHCN data for any number of reasons (not least of which Spencer's data errors and the repeated validations of said data over many variations of location and subset), put that to the side. Even if your critique proves issues with the GHCN data it doesn't invalidate any of the independent temperature records or other evidence indicating AGW. I think all of AGW has been a subtext of this discussion, and I wanted to make that separation explicit. The UHI issue is tied specifically and entirely to the GHCN data and data sets dependent on it - and even Spencer notes that the MSU data are not calibrated using the surface temperatures. The inductive and robust part - The idea of AGW is based on multiple lines of evidence indicating a common conclusion, providing a probablistic (with a tied assumption of a reasonable uniformity of nature and results) inductive support for the idea that our carbon emissions are increasing the radiative greenhouse effect, causing long term climate warming. And as a tie-in, the GHCN data agrees. Supporting premises for GHCN are the (deductive) reasoning for area, UHI, and statistical effects and their correction, repeatable results with multiple subsets, AND each of the dovetailing independent data sets, which provide additional premises for a separate inductive inference that the GHCN data is correct. Induction is NOT perfect by any means. But deduction cannot teach you anything you don't already know. -
johnd at 11:47 AM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
What appears to be most misleading is that all the examples shown in the lead post, the independent lines of evidence, the signs of warming, are simply just that, signs of warming, but that is not what should be in dispute. The misleading part comes about by declaring that these are signs of AGW and dismissing that they may be due to natural warming. Where is the evidence that CO2 leads temperature and it is not temperature that leads CO2? Where is the evidence that clouds are temperature dependent and not that temperature is cloud dependent? This question of clouds is vitally important. According to NASA, "The balance between the cooling and warming actions of clouds is very close although, overall, averaging the effects of all the clouds around the globe, cooling predominates", COOLING PREDOMINATES. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/ We know also that clouds increase over winter, yet are not responsible for the winter. So lets not be misled into the debate as to whether the planet is warming or not, but instead examine the evidence that can prove it is due to man and not natural causes. -
Lon Hocker at 11:23 AM on 16 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
For those who haven't read my posting, you might do well to read it at WUWT, before commenting. The linear term is not gone, but converted to a constant. I am shocked how few people remember their calculus. I chose Mauna Loa CO2 and Satellite temperatures, because those are the only data source that is not disputed. A different view of the comparison is shown in Figure 3, where the Mauna Loa CO2 concentrations are modeled over the last 30 years using ONLY the satellite temperature data. Basically, Figure 2 is integrated to produce figure 3. There is no residual needing a contribution anthropogenic CO2. There is no missing linear term. Please feel free to make you own model, but I won't buy into it unless it matches the observations of those two very reliable data sets. -
moldyfox at 11:08 AM on 16 June 2010Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
The truth is out there guys: FIRST hu?: If I remember from undergrad the 6.4W/m^2 is the difference between the energy Earth receives from the Sun (solar flux 1365W/m^2 minus the CERES global measured flux of reflected sunlight) and that which is emitted back to space as thermal infra-red light (again a flux globally measured by CERES). SECOND: If I were a climatologist (which I am not) before worrying about the +6.4W/m^2 CERES imbalance I would take a look at the latest peer reviewed engineering analysis of the quality of current CERES data from 2009 G. Matthews, “In-flight Spectral Characterization and Calibration Stability Estimates for the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System” Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. Vol 26, Issue 9, pp 1685-1716. This explains how CERES solar wavelength calibration suffers un-directly detectable in-flight contaminant degradation and ultimately is based entirely on a reference radiometer on the ground which itself has never been measured and whose mirrors are >13 years old. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:39 AM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
e: ...the source of error is different in each of these, and yet they produce essentially the same result. That's exactly what bothers me, but the strange coincidence is much broader than what's being discussed here and now in this thread. In various threads on this site assertions have been made to the effect that GPS systems are insufficiently inaccurate, tide measurements mean nothing, atmospheric temperature measurements are hopelessly flawed, sediment cores are faulty, oceanic temperature measurements are unreliable, C02 measurements are not correct, ice cores are contaminated, radiometers lie to us. Various faults have been pointed out in the data produced by this diverse collection of instruments, noise has been highlighted and generally exaggerated in importance yet again and again we see a disturbing similarity and confirmations of predictable connections and relationships in longitudinal trend lines produced from these data sources. We're supposed to conclude that-- coincidentally-- all data sources connected with climate research are substantially producing bunkum. Paradoxically, many of these measurement systems are somehow still useful for other applications. How likely is that? Another conclusion--more plausible-- might be that these systems are adequately well engineered and operated and that while undoubtedly there are greater or lesser sources of noise infecting data collections they are reasonably useful, with some reinforcement of that notion coming from their mutual consistency, their meta-measurements of various related climate-related subsystems. -
How climate skeptics mislead
BP: >Probabilistic reasoning at the meta-level has no place in science whatsoever. False. Absolutely and categorically false. I suggest you read up on the philosophy of science, particularly the work of Karl Popper and the problem of induction. In summary, because positive formal proof cannot exist in empirical science, the best we can ever do is claim that a current theory is more probable than any other competing theory. Popper explains why this is sufficient to place trust in the scientific method, where previous philosophers cast doubt. A good high level discussion of the topic can also be found here (the references cited on that page are also worth looking at). I quote: "A crucial related point is that modern scientific theories are probabilistic. This means that all testing of scientific predictions is carried out in a statistical framework. Probability and statistics pervade modern scientific theories, including thermodynamics (statistical mechanics), geology, quantum mechanics, genetics, and medicine." >Science uses binary logic. A proposition is either true or false. False again. Much of this is addressed in the works cited above. My favorite take on this subject though is Isaac Asimov's essay The Relativity of Wrong. I strongly suggest you take a look, it is an interesting and illuminating read. >I would really be happy to see a single attempt to discuss the problem itself in detail on its own merit instead of casting doubt from the twilight. As this is a blog about AGW skepticism, the most relevant question to ask is "does your speculative hypothesis cast doubt on the science in its current state"? You have thus far failed explain why it should. -
Stephen Baines at 10:15 AM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
"you live in another world. In the days of pre-postmodern science if a conclusion was robust, it was considered a weakness, not strength. Robust means it is resistant to attempts of falsification not because of its internal value but its external connections (networking properties)." This argument is semantic red herring. "Robust" existed as a word well before software engineering and is not always used in the way you state. For instance, a theory can be "robust" in that it applies under a wide range of conditions or has survived extensive falsification. In this context "robust" means "healthy" or "strong." It's true that in some cases "robust" can mean impervious to challenge, but that was clearly not the intended meaning in this case. The message that was intended was that a hypothesis that is consistent with multiple independent lines of data will always be more convincing than a another, mutually exclusive one that is consistent with only one line of data and inconsistent with others. That sentiment is perfectly consistent with the scientific evidentiary approach (I don't know what the term "post-modern science" even means). You, on the other hand, are arguing for a new correction to land temps that generates inconsistency among independent measures of global heat which should in reality be aligned (and do with the current set of corrections). If you showed any willingness to acknowledge that this situation raises questions about the validity of your method, and that maybe it needs revision or rejection as a consequence, people would be more receptive. As it stands, its appears your idea is the one that is unfalsifiable and subject to confirmation bias. -
kdkd at 09:15 AM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
Berényi #146Science uses binary logic. A proposition is either true or false.
This is incorrect. A proposition is either supported or unsupported. Deductive reasoning is the preserve of mathematics, science is the home of induction, which is why there will never be formal proof for anthropogenic global warming, just the balance of the evidence. At this stage the multiple independent lines for AGW are overwhelming, but there will always be wriggle room for the so called sceptics. -
Berényi Péter at 09:06 AM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#145 e at 08:41 AM on 16 June, 2010 I fail to see why improbable speculation should automatically cast doubt on hard science. In that case you should train yourself to see it. Probabilistic reasoning at the meta-level has no place in science whatsoever. If you like this method, perhaps stockbroker is the proper profession for you. Science uses binary logic. A proposition is either true or false. I would really be happy to see a single attempt to discuss the problem itself in detail on its own merit instead of casting doubt from the twilight. -
How climate skeptics mislead
BP > If land surface temperature trend is reduced by 45% then either SST history should be adjusted accordingly or some weird physics is going on about which we don't have a clue. The piece you are missing is that the consequences of this hypothesis impact the probability that your hypothesis is true. If it were true, it would mean not only that land surface temperature, sea surface temperature, and satellite temperature readings have errors, but that the source of error is different in each of these, and yet they produce essentially the same result. This conclusion is highly improbable and by extension your hypothesis is highly improbable. Possible yes, probable no. I won't disagree with you that perhaps there are interesting things to learn in investigating the nuances of UHI's. Where I - and others here - take issue is the implication that your hypothesis casts doubt on current "mainstream" climate science. I fail to see why improbable speculation should automatically cast doubt on hard science. -
Berényi Péter at 08:31 AM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#141 KR at 07:48 AM on 16 June, 2010 independent investigation is _key_ to a robust conclusion Dear KR, you live in another world. In the days of pre-postmodern science if a conclusion was robust, it was considered a weakness, not strength. Robust means it is resistant to attempts of falsification not because of its internal value but its external connections (networking properties). The concept of robustness was developed for software engineering purposes, where it has its proper place. It is used in a world where software gets so mind bogglingly complicated, that no one has the capacity to understand it, so one has no choice but tolerate some errors and try to compensate for them by other means. This concept was borrowed recently by various branches of science even if it is incompatible with the scientific method itself. After all a scientist is supposed to know in detail, down to the last comma what he is talking about. -
Albatross at 08:19 AM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
BP, You say "The atmospheric model behind them is fine tuned to reality, meaning to align them nicely with other datasets (including land surface temperatures)." Not correct. Spencer himself states that the MSU data are not calibrated using the surface temperatures. Even so, let us ignore the MSU data for the moment. That still leaves us with the OHC, SST and RAPTPAC data. As I showed earlier on this thread, the warming trend in the mid-tropospheric radiosonde temperature data is greater than that in the SAT record shown in the Figure. There is simply no credible evidence to suggest that official SAT data are exaggerating the warming. I know you feel that you are onto something here, but surely you are smart enough to know when to call it a day? -
Berényi Péter at 08:01 AM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#138 dhogaza at 07:08 AM on 16 June, 2010 There's more than one [model], and they're in reasonably good agreement
Of course they are. The atmospheric model behind them is fine tuned to reality, meaning to align them nicely with other datasets (including land surface temperatures). Lower troposphere is only measured at a single channel (Ch. TLT, a narrow IR band) with an awful vertical resolution. One can only recover lower tropospheric temperatures from that single channel, if, for example, water vapor distribution is known. As direct (weather balloon radiosonde humidity) measurements are dismissed by the community, it is not an easy task to get it aligned to (genuine) reality. Therefore they usually suppose a quasi-constant relative humidity profile, while many decades of balloon data indicate a decreasing trend above 700 mbar. Anyway, it is a job for another day to explore every nook and cranny of this issue. -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 07:55 AM on 16 June 2010Podcasts, interviews and Monckton bashing
Defamation, also called calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always, a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant). I'd be happy to contribute financially to support a lawsuit to find out whether it is Mr Abraham or Lord Monckton that has been libelled. -
KR at 07:48 AM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
Berényi, I interpreted this post as claiming that the satellite data could not be used to support the GHCN v2 ground station data, due to the satellite vertical resolution - and your repeated statements that the satellite data would need to be rechecked if there was an issue with the ground data. This would only be the case if you thought the satellite data incorrect! If you thought the satellite data accurate, and the GHCN data is in agreement, you have no basis to consider the ground data wrong, either. These three data sets all show the same trends, and are in quite close agreement. Spencers data treatment is well known to be incorrect, and the 'logarithmic' population objection you speak of doesn't appear to be an issue in properly corrected GHCN v2 data. In fact, the agreement between assorted subsets (properly corrected) of the GHCN stations is a clear indication that the UHI effect does not distort the data. (This is a point you have not addressed at all well, in my opinion - not all stations have experienced population increases) Possible issues due to UHI effects would be higher variances for the GHCN data, considerable dependence on which stations were used, and significant biases or slope changes against other data sets. None of these are visible in the properly corrected GHCN data. When compared to the satellite data there are no differences in slope or value outside what you would expect from the accuracy ranges. I'll repeat myself a bit here - if you have as Albatross points out MANY independently developed data sets, with robust internal and external checks, all in excellent agreement, and a widely debunked objection that throws one of them off by 45% - Occam's razor indicates that your objection is incorrect, not all the other data sets. You cannot ignore the additional data sets - independent investigation is _key_ to a robust conclusion. At most you might find that the single data set you're discussing is providing a false agreement, and at this point only a single investigator (Spencer) appears to have any claims to that point. This UHI thing is a red herring (false error), and a dead horse (we've beaten this topic to death long ago). I appreciate your viewpoints, Berényi, and the energy you put into them, but this UHI objection just doesn't hold up. -
Albatross at 07:27 AM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
BP, while I admire and commend your enthusiasm and dedication I think "e" at #135 shows one of the primary problems (other posters here have noted other problems) with Spencer's hypothesis and methodology. In my humble opinion, stating the current UHI corrections are way off is not borne out by the observations, and is essentially a red herring. There is always room for improvement to the UHI and homogenization adjustments (which are both a necessary evil). For example, Hansen et al. discuss some of those in the draft of his upcoming paper on the SAT record. However, if the current UHI corrections were as poor as you claim them to be, then there would simply not be such good agreement between the RATPAC, SAT, MSU, SSTs and 0-2000 m OHC data as there is. That is the reality. -
dhogaza at 07:09 AM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
"Moderator Response: Perhaps this conversation will serve as a case study appropriate to the topic of the post?" I think the point has already been made. With emphasis. -
dhogaza at 07:08 AM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
"If I were you I'd check that computational model in depth." There's more than one, and they're in reasonably good agreement. -
Berényi Péter at 06:49 AM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#135 e at 05:06 AM on 16 June, 2010 If your hypothesis is true and UHI is not properly accounted for in the temperature record, then both the sea surface and satellite trends should vary significantly from land surface trends You are absolutely right. If UHI is not properly accounted for both SST and satellite data should be re-checked. As for the latter one I have a guess. Satellites do not measure atmospheric temperature directly, but brightness temperature using various channels. To convert it to proper temperatures a pretty complicated atmospheric model is needed. If I were you I'd check that computational model in depth. But as I have already mentioned a couple of times, it is a separate job for another occasion. -
Berényi Péter at 06:15 AM on 16 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#125 Ned at 00:45 AM on 16 June, 2010 Most people, I think, would take this as an indication that your estimate of the effect of UHI is inflated. I bet they would. Wrongly, of course. I hope you agree the analytic method requires breaking down problems to their constituent parts and treat them separately as long as possible. Having done to each problem what we could a synthetic step follows when we try to put together what we have got. If they don't fit, we should go back and scrutinize each problem further in itself until a satisfactory fit is achieved. It is not allowed to distort the shape of any piece at synthesis to fit it to the "big picture" without sufficient reason concerning that piece alone irrespective of the "whole". That's a basic & indispensable technique of scientific enquiry, one way for avoiding the horrendous trap of confirmation bias. And, for that matter, one of the first lessons to learn about the scientific method, and learn it by heart is not to care about how most people would take your results. That concern is for politicians and actresses. You, apparently (?) take it as an indication that the global sea surface temperature trend is incorrect No, I don't take it as an indication of anything. I simply register the logical consequences of a proposition in a conditional form. If land surface temperature trend is reduced by 45% then either SST history should be adjusted accordingly or some weird physics is going on about which we don't have a clue. The proposition above is a true one. At the moment, however, I am not concerned with SST, but land surface temperatures as they are recorded in GHCN v2 and their relation to UHI. SST can wait for its due course. #126 KR at 01:06 AM on 16 June, 2010 you do realize that the data has already been corrected for the UHI effect? I do realize an attempt was made to correct for UHI. But do you realize I have already explicated why this was insufficient? Go back in this thread, read, understand and come back. Your claim that the satellite data is incorrect really doesn't fly, so to speak. Either my English is an atrocity (sorry for that, it's my second language) or your comprehension skills are lacking. At the place you have indicated I have written "satellite data are useless for this particular job, because they do not have sufficient vertical resolution" (which is true). How could you read this as satellite data being incorrect is beyond me. #128 skywatcher at 01:21 AM on 16 June, 2010 you are basing your assertions on Spencer No, I do not need Spencer anymore. I still give him credit for discovering the fact logarithmic dependence of UHI on local population density extends well below levels usually considered "rural", but now I only have to use it as a heuristic hint, not as a premise. The figure 0.16°C/doubling derivable from his graphs is still useful, but the same (or a slightly higher, ~0.25°C/doubling) value can be obtained from independent UHI studies as well. Anyway, there is no order-of-magnitude difference in this respect. As far as I am aware of serious local UHI studies were only done to settlements with population larger than 10,000, that is, flagged "urban" in GHCN. For this range the logarithmic relation is firmly established. This is why I need another source, in this case IPCC TAR WG1 2.2.2.1 stating "neither pair of differences is statistically significant", referring to multiple peer reviewed studies on temperature trend differences for rural/urban sites. As there is no statistically significant difference in trends, for the time being let's consider them to be equal. We do know world population has doubled almost twice (1.83 times) during the 20th century. Therefore average population density over the world has also doubled twice (because land surface has not changed significantly in this interval). Local population density trends may differ according to location, but on a global level they cancel each other. Now, we have a function TUHI(d), where d is local population density and the function lends the expected value of UHI in °C. TUHI(d) is known to have a logarithmic pace for population densities considered "urban". Therefore TUHI(d) = c×log(d) for some constant c if d > d0 with a suitable value of d0. Now let d(t) be the average time dependence of local population density for rural sites, D(t) the same for urban ones. We can write D(t) = c×log(D(t)) with the same constant c and D(t) > d0 > d(t) if no site switched status during the epoch. Time derivative of UHI (trend correction) is same for rural and urban sites (IPCC): T'UHI(d(t))×d'(t) = T'UHI(D(t))×D'(t) = c×D'(t)/D(t) (1) At the same time UHI effect for rural sites is supposed to grow slower than logarithmic: c/d > T'UHI(d) if d0 > d (2) Therefore c×d'(t)/d(t) > c×D'(t)/D(t) (3) It means temporal logarithmic derivative of population density is larger for rural than for urban sites. It is equivalent to say that doubling time is smaller at rural sites, that is, relative increase of population is faster. I let you check how realistic this conclusion is in a world where urbanization is the overall trend with an ever larger proportion of population living in cities. -
How climate skeptics mislead
BP, It's really quite simple. You have a hypothesis, that hypothesis makes measurable predictions. If your hypothesis is true and UHI is not properly accounted for in the temperature record, then both the sea surface and satellite trends should vary significantly from land surface trends. This is not the case, so your hypothesis as it stands is falsified. What more needs to be said? You do not get to wave your hand and declare that all these observations must be wrong. If you think there is an error in the satellite and SST data that perfectly mimics that of UHI, you must first identify that error and prove that it exists. Only then do you get to revive your hypothesis. This is how science works. Observations drive theory, not the other way around.
Prev 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 Next
