ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

The philosophical failure of science

If he's not careful, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Scientists is going to round up James Delingpole for excess public brutality. His demolition of the BBC and its so-called science experts borders on pure sadism:
The Beeb constantly resorts to 'experts' whose arguments are bigoted, feeble, fatuous, fallacious and stupid

‘Well, you’re arguing facts against opinions. OK, I mean, the fact that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has rocketed up since the Industrial Revolution, and continues to rocket up, is a fact. Now, it’s so much a fact that even the climate change deniers look away from it and don’t deny it.’
— Professor Steve Jones, Feedback, BBC Radio 4, 18 October

Have a look at that last sentence. It represents such a cherishably stupid, rude, fatuous, crabby, bigoted, ignorant, petulant, feeble, fallacious, dishonest and misleading argument that if it turned out the speaker in question was a professor of logic or philosophy you really might want to shoot yourself in despair.

Can you see what the problem is? Let me explain. This angry professor character wants us to believe that there are people called ‘climate change deniers’ who are so far outside the pale of reasonable discourse that even when they are right it’s another sign of just how wrong they are.

Atmospheric CO2 has been rising since the Industrial Revolution, Jones is telling us, but those pesky deniers are so slippery that they refuse to deny this fact. If they did, presumably, it would make Jones’s job a lot easier because then he’d be able to provide a clear example of these wrong ‘opinions’ deniers supposedly hold. Apparently, though, Jones is unable to produce such a clear example. So instead he has to fabricate one and — in the very next breath — to discount it by conceding that actually this is a point on which ‘even’ the ‘deniers’ agree.
It's a bad sign for the state of science when the average anklebiting blog troll can produce arguments that are more coherent, credible, and convincing than the official mouthpieces of scientific consensus. But then, that's what happens when scientists show they are more dedicated to scientistry than scientody.

Appeal to authority are inherently problematic. But appealing to the climatological authority of a biologist whose specialty is snails? It requires years of J-school to produce that quixotic form of genius.

Labels: ,

171 Comments:

Anonymous RedJack October 24, 2013 9:09 AM  

You must remember, the ankle biting trolls that last here are of a higher breed. The typical ones you see on climate change sites get eaten to fast.

Blogger JartStar October 24, 2013 9:15 AM  

If you want more information I recommend getting a copy of the latest Economist (which Vox mentioned a few days back) and read the article about the dismal state of science in the modern world. It's worse than I imagined, and the Economist is very, very far from an anti-scientific publication.

Anonymous Daniel October 24, 2013 9:35 AM  

The Economist is just jealous. Their science has always been dismal.

Anonymous Anonymous October 24, 2013 9:39 AM  

This, set next to the story of Susan Walsh's mathematician at Alpha Game, makes me think that we've educated a generation of experts who can calculate and regurgitate the facts they've been taught about their field, but they have no capacity for logical thought. They can't debate, because they can't follow an argument well enough to refute it, so they're reduced to snide ad homines and appeals to the authority of their titles. They don't know how to think.

Compared to a medieval scholastic, I don't know how to think either. But at least I know that and I'm trying to learn.

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 9:44 AM  

Delingpole has simply misinterpreted the argument. The argument is about the strength of the fact. Deniers deny everything--but not the CO2 rise, therefore the CO2 rise is indisputable. (Actually, some do deny it, but that's another story.)

Of course, that argument is bad too, since deniers deny all kinds of facts as clear as the CO2 rise: e.g., that the CO2 rise was caused by humans, that global temperatures have increased, that the greenhouse effect is real, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and etc.

Anonymous TheExpat October 24, 2013 9:46 AM  

They don't know how to think.

But they know what they are supposed to doublethink.

Anonymous Carlotta October 24, 2013 9:46 AM  

Sort of OT and you guys may already know this.
Ray Comfort totally schools PZ Myers on camera in his new youtube video on evolution.

Sorry. Back to how a person awakened to using their brain is overcoming the mandate to trust experts.

Anonymous CJ October 24, 2013 9:56 AM  

Nobody does invective like Brits

Anonymous JI October 24, 2013 10:09 AM  

So now the AGW hysteria-mongers are stooping down to misdirecting people by saying "See, everyone, even those deniers, agree CO2 has been going up!", when the subject is temperature, not CO2. This is worse than scientistry.

Anonymous Peter Garstig October 24, 2013 10:11 AM  

Deniers deny everything--but not the CO2 rise, therefore the CO2 rise is indisputable.

And you actually think that this is logically sound?

Anonymous Heh October 24, 2013 10:15 AM  

Related to "Cost of Educating Women" -- which I found by way of the Delingpole piece:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/feminism-vs-egalitarianism-my-response-to-the-guardians-ally-fogg/

I am taken to task by the Guardian’s Ally Fogg for my Telegraph column on the growing underachievement of boys. It’s a thoughtful and spunky piece, which I thought worth replying to here. The phenomenon of male underperformance causes much angst on the left: for years, they’ve loved to see women as the underdogs. But that’s not the case for anyone born after Perry Como was in the charts. When law and medicine graduates are 60pc female, and girls a third more likely to apply to university than boys, we’re not looking at equality. We’re looking at a new inequality being incubated, because male horizons are narrowing. The notions of feminism and equality are becoming detached, which is horribly disorientating for some on the left. So what to do?

Mr Fogg starts by alerting his readers to the nature of the beast.

“For a traditional British conservative take on men’s issues, you can’t get much more pure than the editor of the Spectator writing in the Telegraph in defence of his chum Boris Johnson… The London mayor made a crass, sexist joke this week about Malaysian girls going off to university to find husbands.

Not quite. Boris’s point – that Malaysia is in trouble if two-thirds of its graduates are women – was not about their finding husbands on campus. He simply said that this ratio was a problem because “they’ve got to find men to marry” – and he meant years in the future. His point, which he made at length in the Telegraph six years ago, is that a “basic human prejudice” means these women are unlikely to settle down with non-graduates. So they may be disappointed. It’s worth quoting Boris at length, as this is a thoughtful point.

As a result of the female desire to procreate with their intellectual equals, the huge increase in female university enrolments is leading to a rise in what the sociologists call assortative mating. A snappier word for it is homogamy. Nice female middle-class graduates seem on the whole to be turning up their nice graduate noses at male non-graduates. And when the nice middle-class graduate couples get together, they have the double income to buy the houses and push the prices up — and make life even tougher for the non-graduates.

Boris was flagging up not just a social problem, but an economic one – assortative mating, that basic human prejudice, will fuel inequality. If there was a similarly incisive piece in the Guardian in 2007 about the inegalitarian implications of female dominance of universities, I didn’t read it. As so often, Boris was far more thoughtful, far-sighted and – yes – progressive than his enemies.

Anonymous Catan October 24, 2013 10:20 AM  


Of course, that argument is bad too, since deniers deny all kinds of facts as clear as the CO2 rise: e.g., that the CO2 rise was caused by humans

Nonsense. This is not denied. What people typically cite is:

a) In the historical record CO2 increases typically follow temperature increases by 2 to 300 years and

b) The greenhouse effect of CO2 decreases logarithmically as it increases, rendering it an ineffective greenhouse gas in the aggregate unless scientists invent some unproven positive feedback processes to counteract the logarithmic decline of effectiveness. And that is exactly what they have done.

that global temperatures have increased

In the last decade, your own datasets show that they haven't increased. One prominent warming activist, Mr. Suzuki, didn't even know what the datasets were when he was asked. He didn't even know what HadCRUT was!

that the greenhouse effect is real

Nobody denies the greenhouse effect. What people are saying is that the proposed positive feedback correlation between CO2 and water vapor, where CO2 increases water vapor, which loops back in on itself repeatedly for catastrophic results, is not present. The competing theory is that cloud formation, which climate scientists readily admit they do not understand, (the models do not even account for clouds) counteracts the increase in water vapor by reflecting more radiation away from the earth with increased cloud formation. The fact that you warmistas never bring up or attempt to refute this theory says it all. You have no proof of your positive feedback effect. Period. Without the positive feedback effect, the greenhouse effects of CO2 are not worth worrying about. Simple as that.

that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and etc.

Nope, sorry. See above. What people dispute is the positive feedback effect that correlates with water vapor, without which CO2 is not worth worrying about, as the logarithmic decline in its greenhouse effectiveness as it increases in volume renders it moot by itself.

Your characterization of your opponents as 70 IQ Neanderthals simply isn't going to fly here. We are more intelligent than you realize.

Now, let's see if you have the intellectual fortitude to drop your strawman of your opponents' stance and answer my statements honestly and logically.

Blogger Mercy Vetsel October 24, 2013 10:20 AM  

JartStar wrote: latest Economist..and read the article about the dismal state of science in the modern

The economist article completely missed the bigger problems of systemic bias due to perverse government funding incentives (i.e. crisis = funding) and politicization.

I actually think that holy jihad over evolution was where things started to go off the rails DESPITE the fact that perpetually re-euphemizing Creationists - > Creation Scientists -> Evolutionary Crisis Theorist -> Intelligent Design Theorists have produced nothing of scientific value.

Science should stand on its own and if some school district in rural PA wants to teach their kids something that I'm convinced is wrong, well that's much less of a threat the Republic than having a national priesthood that gets to determine what is right or wrong.

The vast ignorance of basic micro-economics is much more of a threat than ignorance of biology. In New Jersey, kids learn all sorts of utter crap and a Stanford educated jackass just won a statewide election based on a plank of labor price controls (i.e. minimum wage) that everyone know is superstitious rubbish.

The global warming "crisis" took it to a whole new level. Genuine scientist in the Feynman mold should be VERY concerned about the fact that there is now an "official science" that is not only shoddy and overwrought but explicitly tied to partisan politics.

What happens is that when science gets abused for political purposes is that scientists will lose the confidence of laymen who will throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Mercy

Anonymous Catan October 24, 2013 10:25 AM  

The problem Boris and other warming advocates have is that, if the positive feedback effect were actually there, they would have seen some evidence of a temperature cascade by now, wouldn't they? That was the whole point of the doomsday scenarios! That's why they are imagining that the heat somehow hid itself deep in the oceans, where it to conveniently cannot be measured.

Because if they admit that the heat they predicted is not there, they would have to admit that they have no proof of their positive feedback hypothesis, which is what their entire theory rests on.

I have a feeling Boris only has the "Low Church" version of the climate hysteria story, and therefore doesn't even understand what I'm talking about with positive feedbacks. He thinks it's just CO2 that's said to cause all these shenanigans.

Anonymous VryeDenker October 24, 2013 10:43 AM  

This, children, is an excellent example of how propaganda works.

Anonymous Catan October 24, 2013 10:48 AM  

Hey Boris, you believe in evolution, right?

Of course you do.

So, could you kindly explain to us why, if high CO2 levels causes catastrophic feedback loops which skyrocket our temperature upwards and destroy our climate... that many, many plants evolved to thrive best on CO2 levels far higher than our current levels? Please explain that to us. I don't think it comports with your theory... Rather odd, wouldn't you say, that so many of these evolved plants seem to share a love for high levels of CO2? Evolution would seem to predict that those traits would not have been so overwhelmingly selected if such high CO2 levels are so disastrous for the planet.

Why do you think natural selection selected those genes to pass down, Boris?

Anonymous Porky October 24, 2013 10:55 AM  

•The earth is cooling.
•Ice caps are growing.
•Temperatures are falling.
•Models are failing.
•Alarmist predictions are flailing.
•Al Gore is a greedy, fat, ignorant hypocrite.

Facts. Embrace them. Love them.


Anonymous liljoe October 24, 2013 11:00 AM  

Wow Catan, that's what you call dismantling a platitude filled and fallacy wrought argument in a thorough fashion. Kind of like that 91-0 football game that so upset the losers' parents. Well done, sir

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 11:06 AM  

"So, could you kindly explain to us why, if high CO2 levels causes catastrophic feedback loops which skyrocket our temperature upwards and destroy our climate... that many, many plants evolved to thrive best on CO2 levels far higher than our current levels? Please explain that to us. I don't think it comports with your theory"

Your "catastrophic feedback loops" is vague. A doubling of CO2 causes about a 3 degree increase. There is no runaway effect because there just hasn't been enough carbon available to cause one.

You are also under the impression that high temps are the problem. The problem is the rapid change in temperature. Past CO2 excursions have been slow, allowing plenty of time for plants to adjust to the new environment.

Blogger The Remnant October 24, 2013 11:13 AM  

Another problem with latching onto this particular fact is that it ignores other important ones, such as that atmospheric CO2 is a sliver of what it was during the lush Mesozoic (Dinosaur) Era, and that man's contribution to present CO2 is infinitesimal. We could allow environmentalists to take us back to the Stone Age, but Earth's temperature would continue to wax and wane in patterns we could neither predict nor control.

Modern superstition reflects G.K. Chesterton's observation: "When a man stops believing in God, he doesn't believe in nothing. He believes in anything."

Anonymous Peter Garstig October 24, 2013 11:13 AM  

You are also under the impression that high temps are the problem. The problem is the rapid change in temperature.

Please cite these concerns from the latest IPCC.

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 11:16 AM  

"You have no proof of your positive feedback effect. Period."

I take it by "proof" that you actually mean "evidence"?

Ah, but there is evidence that a positive feedback is occurring. Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapor.

Anonymous Some Random Comic October 24, 2013 11:17 AM  

•The earth is cooling.
•Ice caps are growing.
•Temperatures are falling.


•The solutions are working

#justkidding

Anonymous Catan October 24, 2013 11:22 AM  

Your "catastrophic feedback loops" is vague.

There's nothing "vague" about it. The hypothesis is that rising CO2 increases temperature, which increases water vapor, which increases temperature, etc. etc. The counter hypothesis is that cloud formation counters this and cools the earth, intervening in the process.

A doubling of CO2 causes about a 3 degree increase.

Only with the positive feedback effect. Without it, Co2 maxes out at about 1.5°, and little further because of the logarithmic decline in its effectiveness.

There is no runaway effect because there just hasn't been enough carbon available to cause one.

Oh, really? Then why did the alarmists predict catastrophe by now? Surely we haven't stopped putting carbon into the air, and they predicted how much carbon would be released in that time period, did they not? So, you're saying they were wrong about how much carbon it would take?

You are also under the impression that high temps are the problem. The problem is the rapid change in temperature. Past CO2 excursions have been slow, allowing plenty of time for plants to adjust to the new environment.

And you conveniently avoided my point about the historical record showing temperature increases coming before the CO2 increase, not after. This would seem to contradict your claim about "prior CO2 excursions".

Now, discuss the positive feedback effects the entire hypothesis rests on, or get off this ride, because you are too short for it. You don't even realize that the 3° increase you quoted relies on this positive feedback effect to be true.

Anonymous Catan October 24, 2013 11:30 AM  

Let me explain the logarithmic decline in the effectiveness of CO2's greenhouse effect, so you can understand.

CO2's greenhouse effect works by absorbing certain wavelengths of radiation from the sun. At a certain point, when CO2 is sufficiently concentrated, it is already absorbing most or all of these wavelengths, and so, more CO2 will not result in further heating.

The problem you face, Boris, is that it is scientifically proven that CO2 alone will max out at temperatures below anything to be concerned about, barring some sort of positive feedback with other climate processes. This is fact, the climatologists know it, hence the theory of CO2 causing a water vapor feedback loop.

Which they cannot prove, no matter how hard they try. And their predictions come in well above actual observations, perfectly consistent with what you would expect if the feedback effect wasn't there.

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 11:38 AM  

"Ah, but there is evidence that a positive feedback is occurring. Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapor."

You have a habit of making these sorts of assertions without backing them up. Do you have a source for this you can provide that is directly accessible, including a specific web page and/or page number?

And are you talking about atmospheric surveys conducted regularly over wide areas of the globe, or changes in the water vapor content of the air around Las Vegas from 1980 to 2010? Because there's quite a difference between those, and climate scientists adhering to AGW theories have become notorious for cherry-picking data to support their views.

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 11:38 AM  

Only with the positive feedback effect. Without it, Co2 maxes out at about 1.5°, and little further because of the logarithmic decline in its effectiveness.

You are mistaken here. The "no-feedback" number for CO2 is 1.1 deg C per doubling. Measuring its warming potential via "doubling" already takes into effect the logarithmic decline in effectiveness.

Oh, really? Then why did the alarmists predict catastrophe by now?

They didn't. You keep substituting "catastrophe" for "runaway greenhouse effect." No scientist is predicting a runaway GHE because it is impossible via FF burning. A 5 deg C rise in global surface temperature would be a "catastrophe," however. No one predicted such a rise to have happened by now.

And you conveniently avoided my point about the historical record showing temperature increases coming before the CO2 increase, not after.

If you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then this is irrelevant.

Anonymous dh October 24, 2013 11:42 AM  

It's a bad sign for the state of science when the average anklebiting blog troll can produce arguments that are more coherent, credible, and convincing than the official mouthpieces of scientific consensus. But then, that's what happens when scientists show they are more dedicated to scientistry than scientody.

The problem with this statement is that you presume there is a link between what is scientifically accurate, and what is coherent, credible and convincing *sounding* on a blog.

I can see the case that it's easier to create a compelling case that is completely fabricated and based in fantasy than one that is scientifically sound. And the fabricated one would be easier to "sell" and convince people with.

Anonymous dh October 24, 2013 11:48 AM  

Peter-- I have been reading the latest IPCC report in detail, and the concerns about fluctuations in temperature and the corresponding impacts on regional climate are discussed in Chapter 14, by weather event and by region.

Anonymous Catan October 24, 2013 11:48 AM  

The "no-feedback" number for CO2 is 1.1 deg C per doubling.

So you admit the other 1.9 degrees you stated would be due to the unproven feedback effect. Ok, good.

They didn't.

We have always been at war with Eurasia.

If you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then this is irrelevant.

An inconsequential trace gas that maxes out far below dangerous levels without a positive feedback effect to make it scary. Why only trying to limit CO2, Boris? Water vapor is a far more dangerous greenhouse gas!

So we have went from chicken little doomsday scenarios to "if CO2 is a greenhouse gas at all, we are right." The goalpost moving gets very tiresome to watch.

Apparently Boris was asleep for all the 10 year doomsday predictions issued in the last decade. Big surprise.

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 11:49 AM  

The problem you face, Boris, is that it is scientifically proven that CO2 alone will max out at temperatures below anything to be concerned about

This is absolutely wrong, and has been known to be wrong since the 1950s when Gilbert N. Plass studied the passage of IR through the atmosphere layer by layer. When the calculations are done (Google radiative transfer equations or look up a radiation code such as MODTRAN for more info), it is clear that CO2 never becomes "saturated" even if all fossil fuels are burned.

Anonymous p-dawg October 24, 2013 11:51 AM  

@Logos: It was all the evil dinosaur coal barons with their prehistoric, obsolete, coal-fired power plants that caused the Mesozoic's CO2 increase. Obviously.

Anonymous Catan October 24, 2013 11:52 AM  

Also, the very fact that CO2 decreases in effectiveness by half each doubling also counters the "rapid warming" argument. Hard to maintain rapid warming when effectiveness rapidly declines with the increase.

That is, without making up some feedback effect you can't prove to increase the warming to a scary level. Almost like there's a pattern to be seen here.

Hey. Boris, what about the rapid warming and cooling from winter to summer, summer to winter? Plants can't handle the 1-3 degree rise from global warmins, but the seasons, no problem with a 40-50 degree swing? Fascinating!

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 11:52 AM  

"If you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then this is irrelevant."

Boris, do you believe that causality is irrelevant in science?

Anonymous dh October 24, 2013 11:56 AM  

Catan--

Nobody denies the greenhouse effect...

There really are different classes of people on both the pro and anti AGW argument. From what I've seen in limited reading over the last few weeks, there are people who deny the entirity of the fundamentals, including the greenhouse effect. There are others who disagree in the manner you suggest. And their are many more ways that individuals argue for or against AGW.

Anonymous Catan October 24, 2013 11:59 AM  

When the calculations are done (Google radiative transfer equations or look up a radiation code such as MODTRAN for more info), it is clear that CO2 never becomes "saturated" even if all fossil fuels are burned.

Who cares, Boris?

1.1 + 0.55 + 0.275 + 0.1375 + 0.06875...

You're maxing out at a 2.1 degree increase. After an 8-16x increase in CO2.

Soooooo scary. Did you even bother to do the math?

Anonymous Catan October 24, 2013 12:01 PM  

Dh, only a moron focuses his arguments against the worst argument on the other side. It's not even worth discussing. I'm focusing on the relevant details.

Anonymous Heh October 24, 2013 12:02 PM  

I can see the case that it's easier to create a compelling case that is completely fabricated and based in fantasy than one that is scientifically sound. And the fabricated one would be easier to "sell" and convince people with.

This exactly describes what government-funded AGW shills have been doing for decades.

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 12:04 PM  

Virtually no one who is well informed disputes that the greenhouse effect exists. The question is to what extent increases in carbon dioxide increase the greenhouse effect. There is very little evidence that carbon dioxide does increase the greenhouse effect significantly at current atmospheric concentrations and temperatures.

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 12:12 PM  

Who cares, Boris?

1.1 + 0.55 + 0.275 + 0.1375 + 0.06875...

You're maxing out at a 2.1 degree increase. After an 8-16x increase in CO2.

Soooooo scary. Did you even bother to do the math?


Yes, but I did it correctly.

Preindustrial concentration: 280ppm

First doubling: 560ppm, +1.1 deg C
Second Doubling: 1120ppm, +2.2 deg C total
Third doubling: 2240ppm, +3.3 deg C total

And etc.

And, again, this is the "no-feedback" number.

Anonymous Tallen October 24, 2013 12:15 PM  

Boris you agreed earlier that the relationship between increasing CO2 levels and avg global temperature is logarithmic. Your math suggests it's linear. Make up your mind.

Anonymous Catan October 24, 2013 12:15 PM  

Also, Boris, a logarithmic decline is by definition never going to become "saturated" because that would take an infinite amount of CO2. Your attempt to scaremonger by saying we could burn it all and not saturate the climate isn't going to work.

Why ahould we be scared about 2.1 degrees over an 8x increase of CO2, anyway?

Boris, I request that you either:

A) show us why this 2.1 degree increase will be catastrophic or highly detrimental;

or

B) Prove to us the positive feedback effect that raises the sensitivity of CO2 from the prove. 1.1 to 3.0 degrees.

You must accomplish one of the two, or your fear has no merit. Good luck.

Anonymous dh October 24, 2013 12:18 PM  

Dh, only a moron focuses his arguments against the worst argument on the other side. It's not even worth discussing. I'm focusing on the relevant details.
How do you sort out the relevant from irrelevant? There seems to be distinct classes of people arguing, all at different levels.

Anonymous Catan October 24, 2013 12:23 PM  

I don't have time to write white papers at work. Go ahead and refute the data for us:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide

Anonymous Catan October 24, 2013 12:27 PM  

This graph clearly illustrates why the positive feedback hypothesis is necessary to make CO2 scary:

Graph comparing natural to hypothesized forcing from CO2

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 12:29 PM  

Good source, Catan. Thanks. I remember now finding that blog several years ago but I had forgotten it.

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 12:31 PM  

Do you have a source for this you can provide that is directly accessible, including a specific web page and/or page number?

This cite is unfortunately pay walled.

This is full text and a good overview of the data.

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 12:40 PM  

"This is full text and a good overview of the data."

What paragraph and page, Boris?

Anonymous Catan October 24, 2013 12:40 PM  

Are you going to bother directly pointing to any evidence of the anthropogenic feedback effect? I'll quote some money from my link:

The natural heating effect of carbon dioxide is the blue bars and the IPCC projected anthropogenic effect is the red bars. Each 20 ppm increment above 280 ppm provides about 0.03° C of naturally occurring warming and 0.43° C of anthropogenic warming. That is a multiplier effect of over thirteen times. This is the leap of faith required to believe in global warming.

The whole AGW belief system is based upon positive water vapour feedback starting from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm and not before. To paraphrase George Orwell, anthropogenic carbon dioxide molecules are more equal than the naturally occurring ones. Much, much more equal.


What would you say to them in return? Got a quote countering it anywhere? Any data?

Anonymous Peter Garstig October 24, 2013 12:44 PM  

Peter-- I have been reading the latest IPCC report in detail, and the concerns about fluctuations in temperature and the corresponding impacts on regional climate are discussed in Chapter 14, by weather event and by region.

So, 1 whole chapter is addressing this out of how many? According to Boris, this is the real issue, it seems it would merit more attention.

Also, are the claims made in this chapter backed by actual historical data? And what is predicted for the future?

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 12:58 PM  

The problem you guys are have re: the "logarithmic effect" of CO2 is that you are thinking of the logarithmic effect in terms of raw surface temp. But you have to consider the radiative forcing (expressed in W/m`2). That is where the logarithmic diminishing takes place.To calculate the effect, you have to use the Radiative Forcing formula for CO2:

CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig)

Then convert your RF to surface temperature increase.

Blogger Phoenician October 24, 2013 12:58 PM  

Can you see what the problem is? Let me explain. This angry professor character wants us to believe that there are people called ‘climate change deniers’ who are so far outside the pale of reasonable discourse that even when they are right it’s another sign of just how wrong they are.

It's friggin' hilarious how badly Delingpole manages to screw up his interpretation of what Jones said here.

It's even funnier that a so-called "author" and "genius" doesn't manage to notice Delingpole tripping over his own dick.

Oh, Dipshit, truly you are a source of lols,

Anonymous Jack Amok October 24, 2013 12:58 PM  

This, set next to the story of Susan Walsh's mathematician at Alpha Game, makes me think that we've educated a generation of experts who can calculate and regurgitate the facts they've been taught about their field, but they have no capacity for logical thought.

But their capacity for propagandizing is quite substantial. As with Boris here, spinning something around the "nobody denies CO2 is a greenhouse gas" statement.

Well Boris, nobody denies the sun rises in the East either, therefore I must be the King of England. The problem with Leftists is they sprinkle their fabrications with a handful of indisputable, but irrelevant, facts, and then claim their argument is proven. They do it time and time again, on every subject.

Fact A -> hypothetical, unproven Correlation B -> Theory C -> Hysterical Handwaving D -> Fierce Moral Urgency E -> Denunciation of Critics F.

Anonymous kh123 October 24, 2013 1:03 PM  

"There is no runaway effect because there just hasn't been enough carbon available to cause one. "

No results yet? Not enough spending! Where have we heard this before.

"Past CO2 excursions have been slow, allowing plenty of time for plants to adjust to the new environment."

Well, he was dared to delve into that wonderful, creative world of explanatory magic. Time and chance enough, everyone wins in the casino of life.



"That's why they are imagining that the heat somehow hid itself deep in the oceans, where it to conveniently cannot be measured. "

In other words, Godzilla. Or Cthulhu.

Which camp is it again that keeps harping on about an entity stepping into the gap.

Anonymous Catan October 24, 2013 1:08 PM  

Boris still hasn't offered any proof of forcing caused by CO2.

The natural warming effect of CO2 is not a concern. Prove the forcing, with real data. Prove the 13x increase in warming over natural CO2 warming that the models predicted. That is what climate change rests on. Everything else here is a smokescreen.

Where is evidence of the feedback effect?

Anonymous Catan October 24, 2013 1:13 PM  

The core disagreement here is that the people who believe in warming are assuming that our planet is built on unstable positive feedback relationships, that run wildly off course if permitted to.

The common sense hypothesis would be that our billions and billions of years old climate would be built on negative feedback relationships that balance each other out and enable the system to survive for long periods of time.

How many positive feedback systems can we point to in the universe that have survived for millions or billions of years?

Any takers? And, given that knowledge, why are the scientists so hell-bent on hypothesizing this positive feedback effect over and over and over and over, and not bothering to look into, say, cloud formation?

Could it be because the grant money wants a certain result?

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 1:21 PM  

I don't have time to write white papers at work. Go ahead and refute the data for us:

Yeah, that's just a very confused presentation. The first two graphs look approximately right--they are radiative forcing for CO2 as calculated by MODTRAN.

There's no explanation for the next two graphs or the final one that you linked to. It looks like the author just correlated raw temps to ppm in a straight up logarithmic equation, which is simply wrong. (It also ignores that CO2's logarithmic effects break down at very high and very low concentrations.) It is silly, unscientific stuff. And it is contradicted by the first two graphs. Obviously this person has no clue what they are doing.

Anonymous kh123 October 24, 2013 1:24 PM  

Catan, I'd figure the next phase will be writing off the K-T Boundary or asteroid hypothesis, with runaway climate being cited again re: dino extinction, jiggered to more or less jibe with prevailing paradigm. Or any other form of massive die-off in the fossil record. Burgess Shale needs to start pulling its weight.

Anonymous Anonymous October 24, 2013 1:25 PM  

You are also under the impression that high temps are the problem. The problem is the rapid change in temperature.

Do you not accept ice core temperature data? because the various Dryas warming and cooling periods were far faster and steeper than any warming we've experienced so far.

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 1:28 PM  

Where is evidence of the feedback effect?

This has already been posted.

Anonymous rtf October 24, 2013 1:38 PM  

@Catan. "Plants can't handle the 1-3 degree rise from global warmins [sic], but the seasons, no problem with a 40-50 degree swing? Fascinating!"

This is the dumbest argument I've heard all day. Plants 'adapt' to seasonal changes by going dormant.

Anonymous Porky October 24, 2013 1:43 PM  

The problem you guys are have re: the "logarithmic effect" of CO2 is that you are thinking of the logarithmic effect in terms of raw surface temp. But you have to consider the radiative forcing (expressed in W/m`2). That is where the logarithmic diminishing takes place.To calculate the effect, you have to use the Radiative Forcing formula for CO2:

Boris, the ice caps are growing. Open your eyes.

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 1:48 PM  

Boris, the ice caps are growing.

lol. No.

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 1:50 PM  

BTW, that's another positive feedback--the albedo feedback.

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 1:51 PM  

"This has already been posted."

You posted an entire paper and didn't cite any specific portions of it. The only actual measurements that I see included in that paper indicate specific humidity to be flat, or possibly decreasing, and do not show the increase in atmospheric water vapor content that you claimed. The rest is "reanalysis." Do you have a source that actually shows satellite measurements showing increases in atmospheric water vapor content?

And Boris, I asked you a direct question that you have not answered: do you believe that causality is irrelevant in science?

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 1:52 PM  

"lol. No."

Once again, no source. Did you just spit that out with Matlab?

Anonymous Porky October 24, 2013 2:21 PM  

lol. No.

Lol! If you don't believe the satellite data feel free to go visit the ice caps yourself.

Be a good lad and bring us back a report of how many drowned polar bears you find along the way!

Anonymous VD October 24, 2013 2:50 PM  

It's friggin' hilarious how badly Delingpole manages to screw up his interpretation of what Jones said here.

Cool story, Phony. How did he screw it up? Do enlighten us.

Anonymous VD October 24, 2013 2:52 PM  

lol. No.

It appears you didn't notice that those charts end in 2010. Meanwhile, since then: "the Arctic ice cap grew by nearly a million square miles from 2012-2013".

Still laughing, Boris?

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 3:17 PM  

"Still laughing, Boris?"

Yes. The trend is still down. For all the talk about some record recovery, the trend went from -14% per decade to -13.7% per decade. See Here. And this years high is still lower than anything before 2007.

And, of course, the sea ice increase does not include land ice.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Gastropodologist October 24, 2013 3:17 PM  

Now don't you be dissing those snails. Not only are they good food, they are good for the planet too.

I wrote my dissertation in the systematics of the land snail species found on the four Pitcairn Islands. So what if only eight people read it? Like a woman, I felt good doing it, and that is what is important.

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 3:21 PM  

do you believe that causality is irrelevant in science?

Of course not. But warming can cause CO2 to be outgassed from the oceans AND CO2 can cause warming. Both things can be true.

Anonymous Catan October 24, 2013 3:21 PM  

With all these positive feedbacks you're finding Boris, it's amazing our planet even survived 1000 years without the liberal intelligentsia to regulate the atmosphere's gases for it!

It truly is mind boggling how people like you find it so easy to believe on faith such an inherently anti-common sense supposition. Even though Vox just proved you hilariously wrong on the ice caps, it won't change your calculation one iota. You will still think that our climate is equivalent to an egg that has been standing on its edge for the last 6 billion years.

Which, to you, is an entirely rational viewpoint to have without any evidence whatsoever.

Anonymous Porky October 24, 2013 3:22 PM  

Still laughing, Boris?

Naw. He's too busy googling "site:algore.com how+to+refute+denialists".

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 3:26 PM  

Even though Vox just proved you hilariously wrong on the ice caps

Regression to the mean: How does it work?

Anonymous Catan October 24, 2013 3:30 PM  

Boris, do you consider any and all warming to be evidence for your hysteria?

They said the Arctic ice sheet would be gone by now, it's hardly gone.

They said the Northwest passage would be open to ocean shipping. It didn't even open at all this year, it remained closed by ice.

So, now you're moving the goalposts. Before, it was disastrous, fast global warming that would get us within 10 to 15 years. Now, you are grasping for any warming evidence you can find at all, never mind the fact that some warming isn't even going to be harmful.

Carry those goalposts. We haven't forgotten all the predictions of the last 15 years.

By the way, is it your stance that the medieval warm period was detrimental to humanity and the planet? It was assuredly much warmer than today. If it was not detrimental, why are you advocating that we spend trillions of dollars to avoid it going in that direction?

More importantly, why did those warmer temperatures not throw those positive feedbacks out of whack back then? For such an unstable system rife with positive feedbacks, it seems remarkably capable of not self-destructing, despite what you may say.

Anonymous pdimov October 24, 2013 3:33 PM  

dh: There really are different classes of people on both the pro and anti AGW argument. From what I've seen in limited reading over the last few weeks, there are people who deny the entirity of the fundamentals, including the greenhouse effect.

Yes, because MPAI. But that's not the whole story.

Average/low-IQ people can't necessarily follow the AGW argument. It's not that they deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. They probably have no idea what CO2 or "greenhouse gas" even means. They just need to decide whether "experts" can be trusted or not. In other words, they have decided, on the basis of the evidence available to them, that Boris is a liar, and consequently, when he says that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, they assume that it probably isn't, because he's lying.

Anonymous Porky October 24, 2013 3:34 PM  

For all the talk about some record recovery, the trend went from -14% per decade to -13.7% per decade...

...which is also known as... growth! LOL!

Keep it comin' Borat! Your stupidity is our entertainment.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 24, 2013 3:34 PM  

You have a mean you regress to? Why can't we all just be nice? No more regressing.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 24, 2013 3:46 PM  

My personal theory is it is aliens causing global warming. They have terraforming bases on Earth and they are pumping out CO2 gas. Because they like it hot.

The Arrival trailer

It is actually a good movie. It has Charlie Sheen in it, so you know it is winning.

You don't deserve to live here

"We're just finishing what you started. What would have taken you 100 years we'll do in 10."

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 3:48 PM  

"Yes. The trend is still down. For all the talk about some record recovery, the trend went from -14% per decade to -13.7% per decade. See Here. And this years high is still lower than anything before 2007."

Not so much.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 24, 2013 3:50 PM  

Regression to the mean: How does it work?

Not the way you think.

If our climate regresses to the mean, we should have ice covering New York in another couple centuries.

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 3:53 PM  

"Of course not. But warming can cause CO2 to be outgassed from the oceans AND CO2 can cause warming. Both things can be true."

An interesting hypothesis, but that's all you've got, apparently. The source that you claimed shows an increase in atmospheric water vapor actually shows a slight decrease. The extent of ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic is increasing. Clearly, there's something going on that is not accounted for in the overly simplistic radiative transfer models you subscribe to.

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 3:54 PM  

...which is also known as... growth! LOL!

Ice caps include land ice, so, again: No.

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 3:56 PM  

"It is actually a good movie. It has Charlie Sheen in it, so you know it is winning."

Is that the one where they sit down to do shots to decide the fate of Earth, and the alien thinks it has the advantage because it has four stomachs, but it doesn't know it has met its match...

Anonymous VD October 24, 2013 4:00 PM  

The trend is still down. For all the talk about some record recovery, the trend went from -14% per decade to -13.7% per decade. See Here. And this years high is still lower than anything before 2007.

That's a nice dodge. It should buy you a few more years before you're obviously wrong on the trend as well as the present facts. As it stands, you said the ice is not growing. And it observably is. So while you may still be laughing, you are also still wrong.

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 4:01 PM  

Not so much.

That's Antarctic Sea Ice, which actually has been increasing, although at a much smaller rate than the Arctic ice has been decreasing.

So, ice caps still melting.

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 4:07 PM  

"That's Antarctic Sea Ice"

The one we don't talk about because it doesn't fit our agenda.

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 4:15 PM  

"So, ice caps still melting."

Not anymore, apparently. What aspect of the consensus climate models explains the YOY Arctic sea ice growth from 2012-2013?

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 4:22 PM  

As it stands, you said the ice is not growing. And it observably is

Sea ice is over one year, which is completely expected because of regression to the mean. The same thing happened after the record in 2007. 2009 saw a huge recovery. Then the record was smashed again in 2012.

The latest data on land ice show shrinking. So a claim that the "ice caps are growing" doesn't stand up.

Anonymous Porky October 24, 2013 4:25 PM  

So, ice caps still melting.

Polar bears still drowning? Rofl!





Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 4:25 PM  

"Sea ice is over one year, which is completely expected because of regression to the mean."

See, there's a clear trend. Except when there isn't.

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 4:27 PM  

What aspect of the consensus climate models explains the YOY Arctic sea ice growth from 2012-2013?

Arctic Sea Ice did not grow YOY from 2010-2013. 2012 was a huge record low in Arctic sea Ice.

As for models, they underestimate the amount of Arctic sea ice loss.

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 4:38 PM  

"As for models, they underestimate the amount of Arctic sea ice loss."

In other words, the models simply have no explanation for YOY ice growth. According to the government funded climate scientists, this shouldn't be happening. But it did, and they're too self-interested and dishonest to admit the flaws behind their models.

But wait, I'm confused. I thought the models predicted regression to the mean.

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 4:43 PM  

In other words, the models simply have no explanation for YOY ice growth.

Huh? Who said models don't predict ice growing from one year to the next? Of course they do. Changes in currents, wind patterns and temperatures all affect yearly sea ice minima.

Once again, sea ice growth from a record minimum year is expected. It's normal.

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 4:52 PM  

"Who said models don't predict ice growing from one year to the next? Of course they do."

Really? Name one climate alarmist who predicted a YOY increase in sea ice growth from 2012 to 2013.

Anonymous kh123 October 24, 2013 5:00 PM  

"Yes. The trend is still down."

To use your reasoning Boris, it's simply because we haven't had enough [fill in substance, data point, reaction, timeline, etc].

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 5:10 PM  

"Really? Name one climate alarmist who predicted a YOY increase in sea ice growth from 2012 to 2013"

Here you go.

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 5:11 PM  

Even the staunchest global cooling deniers admit that the primordial earth was a very hot place. Over the long run, the planet is clearly freezing.

Blogger Phoenician October 24, 2013 5:22 PM  

Appeal to authority are inherently problematic.

Well, you just got the crap kicked out of your stupidity on making up pseudo-science graphs by PZ Myers, Dipshit - and he didn't have to use "authority" to do it.

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 5:23 PM  

The red line is the baseline prediction and shows a decrease from 2012 to 2013.

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 5:29 PM  

The red line is the baseline prediction and shows a decrease from 2012 to 2013.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

The red line is the prediction. It is higher in 2013 than the 2012 observations.

Hence:

"To sum up,

statistically-based Arctic sea ice minimum extent predictions have performed relatively well, and expect a continued rapid long-term decline.

however, they predict that we will most likely not see a new record minimum Arctic sea ice extent in 2013."

So the increase in 2013 was expected.

Anonymous kh123 October 24, 2013 5:41 PM  

Cite your quotes and info, Boris. Otherwise it just comes off as an attempt to smoke screen.

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 5:46 PM  

"Do you ever get tired of being wrong? "

Do you? The 2013 sea levels might fall within the 90% confidence interval, but what was predicted was a decrease from 2012 to 2013. Of course, that article was written at the tail end of an unusually cold winter, which hardly qualifies it as a prediction.

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 5:58 PM  

And Boris, my claim was that, "...the models simply have no explanation for YOY ice growth."

Your own source states, "It is important to note that this is a purely statistical approach, and hence some of the longer-range aspects of the prediction seem implausible, given our knowledge of the physics of Arctic sea ice."

In other words, the sea ice predictions you provided are not a mechanistic model of the variety preferred by the AGW proponents. Over the long term, they don't find these models credible. So my claim not only remains intact, it is actually supported by the source you provided. AGW proponents have no explanation for a sudden increase in sea ice extent of the sort that we have witnessed over the past year.

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 6:14 PM  

"what was predicted was a decrease from 2012 to 2013."

They predict the mean values. Since the mean value prediction for 2013 was greater than the observed 2012, they predict an increase. It is amazing that you cannot understand this.

Once again: "they predict that we will most likely not see a new record minimum Arctic sea ice extent in 2013."

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 6:17 PM  

So my claim not only remains intact, it is actually supported by the source you provided.

Oh, my. Please don't drop the goalposts whilst you shift them.

Your arguments are nonsense. You don't understand variability in trends and you are continually wrong on every substantive point. Good show.

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 6:30 PM  

"It is amazing that you cannot understand this."

It's amazing that you don't understand the difference between a priori and a posteriori predictions. Or even what a prediction is, apparently, which is saying something is going to happen before it happens and the outcome is trivially obvious. In February 2013, when the article you cite was written, the Arctic ice had already grown more than expected. At that point, the a posteriori likelihood of a YOY increase in Arctic ice was extremely high. Sort of like if I predicted that Boston would win Game 1 of the World Series after the game was over.

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 6:32 PM  

"Your arguments are nonsense. You don't understand variability in trends and you are continually wrong on every substantive point."

Still waiting for that data showing an increase in atmospheric water vapor, Boris.

Anonymous Noah B. October 24, 2013 6:40 PM  

"Oh, my. Please don't drop the goalposts whilst you shift them."

Boris, do you consider a statistical model to be an explanation?

Anonymous Jack Amok October 24, 2013 8:37 PM  

Sea ice is over one year, which is completely expected because of regression to the mean.

What mean is that Boris? The mean over the last 10,000 years, or the last 50,000? Because, y'know, prior to 10,000 years ago there was this thing colloquially known as "The Ice Age" where the Artic ice cap covered all of Canada and the mean temperature of the Earth was about 12 degrees (that's in real degrees, Fahrenheit, but if you want your silly Jacobin metric system, call it 7 degrees C) colder than it is now. If we're regressing to that mean, we're going to get a lot colder and have a lot more ice.

Or perhaps we are regressing to the mean that existed about 125,000 years ago, when it was 2 or 3 of your precious degrees C warmer than it is now, all before we invented the SUV and central air conditioning. Must've been the ancient civilization of Atlantis pumping all the CO2 into the atmosphere.

"Regression to the mean" is utter nonsense in the climate debate because the actual record of data for the Earth's temperature doesn't show any sort of Brownian Motion around a clear mean. What it shows - for the last half million years anyway - is a regular cycle of roughly 125,000 years of glaciation (temps 10 to 15 degrees F lower than today) followed by a 10-25,000 year spike of warming (temps about 5 degrees F plus or minus from today).

And anyway, if regression to the mean is an operative mechanism, then there's no freaking crisis to begin with. The whole effing claim of AGW is that our activity is disrupting the climate. If AGW is true, than the climate wouldn't be regressing to any mean because we would have disrupted the regulatory mechanisms that caused that to happen.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 24, 2013 8:42 PM  

By the way Boris, I am asking you a direct question and expect a direct answer. You have claimed "regression to the mean" accounts for any change in ice or temperature that contradicts AGW. Over what time period is the mean you are referring to calculated?

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 8:43 PM  

Still waiting for that data showing an increase in atmospheric water vapor, Boris.

It's in figure 2 of the full paper I posted.

Boris, do you consider a statistical model to be an explanation?

Data is noisy. No one has ever said that there would be a new arctic sea ice minimum record every year. This is how desperate (or something) those on your side are: when faced with a clear downward trend--a trend which is accelerating--you start talking about one year increases. One year increases happened in 2008 and 2009 and we still shattered the record in 2012. That will happen again. One year of data means nothing.

Anonymous Boris October 24, 2013 8:51 PM  

What mean is that Boris?

The mean of all data we have collected, which goes back to 1979.

You don't seem to understand what I mean by "regression to the mean." The 2012 sea ice minimum was an outlier--far, far below the average trend line since 1979. Therefore, it is very likely that the next year's data will be closer to the trend line.

This is because there are random year to year fluctuations (noise) superimposed on long term trends caused by warming (signal). Noah B wants to pretend that the arctic sea ice extent should be all signal, but no one believes that. It's a straw man.

And the ice age is irrelevant to what we want to know: Is sea ice shrinking as more CO2 enters the atmosphere. The answer is Yes. Clearly.

Anonymous kh123 October 24, 2013 9:07 PM  

"The mean of all data we have collected, which goes back to 1979."

Which seems to be a major crux of the argument. It seems ridiculously a short patch given the timeframes Jack Amok cites above - and which barring you being a YEC I'd assume you'd subscribe to as well.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 24, 2013 9:47 PM  

The mean of all data we have collected, which goes back to 1979.

Then your mean is, ah, pardon the pun, meaningless.

We have ice core data going back a half-million years. Why would 34 years of data - approximately one-seven-thousandth of the span of the ice core data - have any relevance at all?

You don't seem to understand what I mean by "regression to the mean."

Oh, but I do. You mean "a regression to a statistically irrelevant small sample size." You can't look at the last three decades of data and ignore thousands of years that came before.


This is because there are random year to year fluctuations (noise) superimposed on long term trends caused by warming (signal).

But when you expand your time horizon beyond Heath Ledger's lifespan (1979-2008), the entire dataset you base your "mean" on becomes noise within the signal of the Quaternary Glaciation. Even if you only limit yourself to the almost 12,000 years of the Holocene, your paltry 34 year trend is still all noise.

And the ice age is irrelevant to what we want to know: Is sea ice shrinking as more CO2 enters the atmosphere. The answer is Yes. Clearly.

But regression to the mean dear boy, regression to the mean. Sea ice has grown and shrunk repeatedly over hundreds of thousands - even millions of years. Making any conclusions based on a 34 year change is like standing at the beach watching a single ordinary wave roll up the sand and shouting that a flood is coming.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 24, 2013 10:34 PM  

bah, that should be one-seven-thousandth of a percent of the ice core data. The 34 year data set Boris is referencing is so miniscule compared to the totality of what we have, it's hard to express how insignificant it really is.

Really Boris, I think you have to abandon your "regression to the mean" argument. For you to claim the 12 month change Vox and Noah reference is irrelevant in comparison to your 34 year data, you have to accept that your 34 year data is even more irrelevant in comparison to my 5,000 centuries of data.

Anonymous Porky October 24, 2013 10:35 PM  

And the ice age is irrelevant to what we want to know: Is sea ice shrinking as more CO2 enters the atmosphere. The answer is Yes. Clearly.

Huh? You only want to know if there's a correlation? That figures! Lol!

Here's a correlation for you, Borat. The direct correlation between Al Gore's alarmism and the millions of dollars he makes off of it.

Amazing, huh? LOL!

Or how about the correlation between the amount of money James Hansen made illegally on the side with the number of FOIA requests he refused.

Astonishing correlation!

Or the correlation of the amount of grant money sent to the CRU with revisions in the temperature record?

Such incredible correlations! Lol!

You're such a sucker, Borat.



Anonymous Keller October 24, 2013 11:21 PM  

"Arctic Temperatures Highest in at Least 44,000 Years."

New study.

http://www.livescience.com/40676-arctic-temperatures-record-high.html

Anonymous Jack Amok October 24, 2013 11:29 PM  

"Arctic Temperatures Highest in at Least 44,000 Years."

Not terribly relevant when we have data that the temperatures were even higher 125,000 years ago. That's like saying "Ocean highest in last six hours" when you know there's a high tide twice a day.

Anonymous Boris October 25, 2013 12:43 AM  

Sea ice has grown and shrunk repeatedly over hundreds of thousands - even millions of years. Making any conclusions based on a 34 year change is like standing at the beach watching a single ordinary wave roll up the sand and shouting that a flood is coming.

This is a foolish argument. The ice caps are melting when we add more CO2. This is all happening now. It is irrelevant what happened 10,000 years ago.

Anonymous Boris October 25, 2013 12:46 AM  

If you take your temperature and notice a fever of 105, would you refuse medical treatment because the sample size was too small and you had lived 40 years at 98.6?

Anonymous Boris October 25, 2013 12:50 AM  

"Not terribly relevant when we have data that the temperatures were even higher 125,000 years ago."

Why is temperature 125,000 years ago relevant? CO2 started rising in the 1800s. Temperatures have risen since then, as theory predicts. The atmosphere is trapping more IR, as theory predicts. Temperatures from 125,000 years ago are irrelevant to that argument.

Anonymous kh123 October 25, 2013 1:02 AM  

"If you take your temperature and notice a fever of 105, would you refuse medical treatment because the sample size was too small and you had lived 40 years at 98.6?"

Depends on how much cowbell's involved.

Anonymous Noah B. October 25, 2013 1:29 AM  

"It's in figure 2 of the full paper I posted."

That is a statistical reinterpretation of data, not a graph of direct measurements taken by satellite as you previously claimed.

"This is how desperate (or something) those on your side are: when faced with a clear downward trend--a trend which is accelerating--you start talking about one year increases."

If people like you hadn't already destroyed your credibility on issues like gun control and trying to get government to micromanage every aspect of our lives, and then lying about it, perhaps you might have some credibility left. As it stands now, I don't even believe what you claim the raw data to be. And why should I? Why would I, or anyone with a shred of sense, believe those who are known liars? If you do turn out to be right about this, it's going to be damned ironic.

And you dodged my direct question. Do you consider a statistical model to be an explanation?

Anonymous Noah B. October 25, 2013 1:31 AM  

"Why is temperature 125,000 years ago relevant?"

Because life clearly thrived then and there were no mass extinctions around that time we're aware of. So the alarmism over a hypothetical temperature rise is clearly overdone.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 25, 2013 2:16 AM  

Boris, you are an idiot.

Why do temperatures 125,000 years ago matter? Because when you look at the temperature record of the Earth over a time frame beyond your myopic horizon of 35 years, you see that temperatures have risen and fallen regularly without human intervention.

Look at this chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

It lists global temperature, along with atmospheric CO2 and dust concentrations, based on ice core samples from Antarctica. You may notice something of a pattern - cold periods followed by spikes of warm followed by another cold period. There is nothing about the current run-up in temperature or CO2 concentrations that looks significantly different than the previous run-ups that led to brief warming periods followed by another glaciation. I'll also point out that chart comes from Wikipedia, where about the last thing you could accuse the editors of being are AGW skeptics. They are your co-religionists Boris, and they are publishing a chart that demonstrates temperatures 125,000 years ago matter to the discussion.

Saying the temperature 125,000 years ago doesn't matter is like saying the tide level yesterday doesn't matter because you see the water rising. Well, genius, the tide comes in and goes out twice a day. If you know that, then you don't worry about it coming in. If you don't know that, then you stand there freaking out that the water is covering the sand and - OMG! it's almost all the way to the pile of driftwood at the base of the cliff!!!!!! We're all going to drown!!!!

What we are experiencing regarding our climate today is nothing unusual in the history of the Earth. That's why what happened 125,000 years ago is relevant, because what we're seeing looks a hell of a lot more like what happened 125,000 years ago than it does any of the disaster scenarios you Global Warmingmongers spool out.

But, let's keep it simple for you. If the temperature 125,000 years ago is irrelevant because your 34 year data set is more recent, then your 34 year data set is in turn irrelevant because Vox and Noah have more recent data that shows a different trend. You can't have it both ways Boris. If your data trumps theirs because it is a bigger sample size, then my data trumps yours because it is an even bigger sample size. OTOH, if your data trumps mine because yours is more recent, then Vox and Noah's data trumps yours because it is yet more recent.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 25, 2013 2:40 AM  

If you take your temperature and notice a fever of 105, would you refuse medical treatment because the sample size was too small and you had lived 40 years at 98.6?

But this is a specious question. The more accurate question would be, if you take your temperature this morning and discover it is 99 degrees, would you immediately go jump naked into ice water? Your temperature has been 99 degrees before - many times before. It is a routine thing, and in your experience it will go down again within the week.

OTOH, you will likely die of hypothermia if you jump into the ice water.

That's why understanding historical patterns and norms is important. It helps you avoid panicking and doing something dangerously stupid when confronted with perfectly ordinary events.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 25, 2013 2:48 AM  

CO2 started rising in the 1800s.

Oh, and one more thing. CO2 did not start rising in the 1800's. It started rising in 9,700 BC. It's been rising, more or less steadily, ever since. Furthermore, the increase in CO2 lags the rise in temperature. The temperature change happens first - then the CO2 change follows. Something causes the temperature to rise, and the rising temperatures cause CO2 concentrations to increase. Then, later, something causes temperatures to decline, and the declining temperatures cause CO2 concentrations to fall.

What that something is, we can certainly argue about, but we know what it is not. It is not CO2 concentrations. They are the result of temperature changes, not the cause of them. Arguing otherwise is like saying the apple hitting you on the head is the cause of gravity.

Anonymous VryeDenker October 25, 2013 3:47 AM  

"Carbon credits" is just the name of the proposed global currency.

Anonymous Boris October 25, 2013 8:34 AM  

That is a statistical reinterpretation of data, not a graph of direct measurements taken by satellite as you previously claimed.

It's data from satellites. Your complaint seems to be that used math in presenting it.

As it stands now, I don't even believe what you claim the raw data to be.

This is your problem. When you start talking about "gun control" in a discussion of climate data, you are probably too much of an ideologue to reason clearly.

And you dodged my direct question. Do you consider a statistical model to be an explanation?

No.

Anonymous Boris October 25, 2013 8:45 AM  

Why do temperatures 125,000 years ago matter? Because when you look at the temperature record of the Earth over a time frame beyond your myopic horizon of 35 years, you see that temperatures have risen and fallen regularly without human intervention.

This is simply a logical error. You are saying that since the temperature changes naturally, then human burning of fossil fuels cannot change it.

Except that past changes in temperature show that the earth's temperature can be changed--and changed by relatively small external inputs.

What that something is, we can certainly argue about, but we know what it is not. It is not CO2 concentrations. They are the result of temperature changes, not the cause of them.

More terrible logic. Yes, CO2 can be outgassed from the oceans when they warm (and re-absorbed when they cool.) But the rise in CO2 since the 1800s is caused by the burning of fossil fuels (and some land changes). The CO2 did not come from the oceans--in fact, the CO2 concentrations have increased in the oceans and the biosphere.

Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it will increase surface temperature.

So, when people say "but warming causes CO2, not the other way" it's clear they haven't done the slightest bit of thinking about the issue.

Blogger James Dixon October 25, 2013 9:28 AM  

> This is simply a logical error. You are saying that since the temperature changes naturally, then human burning of fossil fuels cannot change it.

No. We're saying that if the normal changes are significantly greater than the current ones, which they are, then we have no certain way of know if the current changes are natural or caused by man, but that since they're well within the historical range, they're probably nothing to worry about.

Anonymous Boris October 25, 2013 10:00 AM  

No. We're saying that if the normal changes are significantly greater than the current ones, which they are, then we have no certain way of know if the current changes are natural or caused by man, but that since they're well within the historical range, they're probably nothing to worry about.

Well, this is just wrong. Once again, the concentrations of a strong greenhouse gas have increased by 40%. The increase is caused by humans burning fossil fuels and land use changes. Moreover, all known causes of natural change have been observed to be neutral.

Claiming there is "nothing to worry about" because there could be some as yet undiscovered natural cause of warming AND CO2's effect is small is not a defensible position. It's possibly true, but there is no evidence that it is.

Blogger James Dixon October 25, 2013 10:58 AM  

> Well, this is just wrong.

Your opinion means nothing to me without proof. And to date that proof has been lacking.

> Moreover, all known causes of natural change have been observed to be neutral.

Then you have no explanation at all for the climate changes observed throughout history, and you claims are obviously complete and total nonsense.

> It's possibly true, but there is no evidence that it is.

And there's an equal lack of evidence demonstrating that it isn't.

Global temperatures and CO2 levels are well within historical norms that took place without human intervention. Until you can explain that, you have no case for AGW.

Anonymous Boris October 25, 2013 11:20 AM  

Then you have no explanation at all for the climate changes observed throughout history, and you claims are obviously complete and total nonsense.

Ice ages are caused by MIlankovitch cycles--changes in orbital eccentricity and axial tilt. These things have no effect on the timescale that we have seen warming. Just because you are personally ignorant of an explanation does not mean that there isn't one.

And there's an equal lack of evidence demonstrating that it isn't.

Yes, proven increased greenhouse gas concentrations, proven warming trend, satellite observations showing that less IR is escaping to space in the CO2 dominated wavelengths--but no evidence. Again, personal ignorance of the evidence doesn't make it disappear.

Global temperatures and CO2 levels are well within historical norms that took place without human intervention. Until you can explain that, you have no case for AGW.

Again, just terrible logic. You can't prove something is causing something else unless it goes outside of "historical norms"? That is just an arbitrary statement. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Is this really the best argument you guys have?

Anonymous Noah B. October 25, 2013 11:33 AM  

"It's data from satellites. Your complaint seems to be that used math in presenting it."

Satellite data is not depicted in that chart.

Anonymous Noah B. October 25, 2013 11:42 AM  

"...satellite observations showing that less IR is escaping to space in the CO2 dominated wavelengths--but no evidence."

Which you have also not produced. Every time you make a claim of this kind, you are unable to provide the evidence you initially claim exists. This is quite a pattern.

If you're so desperate to advance your argument that you're suggesting that some climate scientist's calculated function of atmospheric water vapor as a function of temperature is the same thing as actual satellite data of a meaningful sample size indicating that atmospheric water vapor has actually increased, you're too emotionally invested in this issue to reason clearly.

Anonymous Noah B. October 25, 2013 11:46 AM  

So, when people say "but warming causes CO2, not the other way" it's clear they haven't done the slightest bit of thinking about the issue.

Which is still more than you, apparently. At least they understand the importance of causality rather than sweeping it under the rug when it doesn't fit their agenda.

Blogger James Dixon October 25, 2013 12:16 PM  

> Ice ages are caused by MIlankovitch cycles--changes in orbital eccentricity and axial tilt. These things have no effect on the timescale that we have seen warming.

Funny. I've never seen that even described as an established theory anywhere. Time for some research.

OK, dates given:

Though he did his work in the first half of the 20th century, Milankovich's results weren't proven until the 1970s

indicate why I've never heard of it. You're apparently quite bit younger than me.

It's apparently moderately well (but not completely) accepted, with this qualifier: "Although the idea of Milankovitch cycles as a factor in the Earth's climate was initially greeted with some suspicion by climate scientists, it is now generally accepted that Milankovitch cycles account for about 60% of past variation in climate."

40% is still a pretty good sized hole. Most of it can probably be covered by variations in the sun's output, but I have no idea if studies have been done confirming that or not. Note that Boris completely ignores this in his analysis, of course.

So Boris is correct that I was unaware of the details of this explanatory theory. He's incorrect in that he assumes I didn't know that orbital effects influenced climate. Hint, I figured that out in high school, Boris. And he's incorrect in ignoring the sun's output. It is most definitely not the case that "all known causes of natural change have been observed to be neutral".

> Again, personal ignorance of the evidence doesn't make it disappear.

How could I be unaware of the this "evidence" when people like you keep spouting it. No, I don't consider it either reliable evidence or convincing. It doesn't even explain the changes over the past few thousand years, which would be largely contained within a single MIlankovitch cycle,

> You can't prove something is causing something else unless it goes outside of "historical norms"? That is just an arbitrary statement. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Typical of someone who has no grasp of the scale of historic change.

You're the one who isn't making any sense. You have no explanations for even the recent historical record, but you expect us to accept your theory of future events based on evidence which won't even back test properly.

Which would be fine, expect that your people then demand total and complete control over our lives as a result. And you predict hell on earth if we don't give it to you. Very well, we'll see you there.

Anonymous Noah B. October 25, 2013 12:20 PM  

Tyrants always make excuses to justify their lust for power. This is just another one.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 25, 2013 12:29 PM  

Again, just terrible logic. You can't prove something is causing something else unless it goes outside of "historical norms"? That is just an arbitrary statement. It makes no sense whatsoever.

By "terrible logic" I see you actually mean logic that reaches a conclusion you don't like. You have observed something - temperatures rising in the recent past - and proposed a theory for why - humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. I have observed the same thing and proposed a different theory for why - it's part of the natural temperature cycle the Earth has been going through long before mankind stole fire from the gods.

Furthermore, your theory has claimed to predict things and been proven wrong. Global warming has stalled and perhaps even reversed since 1998. That's 15 years worth of non-conformance to your theory, However, it fits perfectly with mine.

Let me restate that: Your AGW theory does not explain current temperature trends. My MIlankovitch cycle theory does. How do you explain the last 15 years of non-conformance to your theory? Are you going to resort to "regression tot he mean" again? Because if so, then we're back to you explaining why a mean that excludes the majority of the data is relevant in any way.

Anonymous Boris October 25, 2013 12:39 PM  

Which you have also not produced. Every time you make a claim of this kind, you are unable to provide the evidence you initially claim exists. This is quite a pattern.

I produced this in our last discussion. You misread the graph.

some climate scientist's calculated function of atmospheric water vapor as a function of temperature is the same thing as actual satellite data

That is the data, expressed as % rise in specific humidity per deg K. It's absolutely hilarious that you keep saying that it isn't data.

At least they understand the importance of causality

Increasing CO2 cause surface warming. This is true irrespective of warming preceding CO2 in the distance past.

Anonymous Boris October 25, 2013 12:51 PM  

Let me restate that: Your AGW theory does not explain current temperature trends. My MIlankovitch cycle theory does.

What? Orbital forcings (i. e. Milankovitch Cycles) are not the cause of recent warming. They don't act on short time scales. You are just throwing words together at this point.

Global warming has stalled and perhaps even reversed since 1998. That's 15 years worth of non-conformance to your theory, However, it fits perfectly with mine.

Global warming has not stopped, and it certainly has not reversed. Surface temperatures have indeed decelerated, but ocean heat content has been soaring. The total heat retained in the climate is what has been predicted by an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Your "theory" is nonsense. You just say everything that happens is natural. You might as well say "magic elves."

Anonymous Jack Amok October 25, 2013 1:07 PM  

Your every response is just another variation on "well, but that doesn't account for the devastating effect of man-made CO2 emissions" when the very question at hand is whether man-made CO2 emissions are relevant or not. That's what's known as petitio principia, or Begging the Question.

Your arguments all boil down to declaring irrelevant anything that doesn't assume CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by humanity is the primary driver of global temperature. You have reached a conclusion and are now trying to find ways to dismiss any evidence that contradicts your conclusion. That's not science, that's propaganda.

Your "theory" is nonsense. You just say everything that happens is natural. You might as well say "magic elves."

And yet you just say everything that happens is man-made. You might as well say "Donner Party." They had a rather unpleasant lesson in who's more powerful, man or nature.

Anonymous Boris October 25, 2013 1:14 PM  

Your arguments all boil down to declaring irrelevant anything that doesn't assume CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by humanity is the primary driver of global temperature. You have reached a conclusion and are now trying to find ways to dismiss any evidence that contradicts your conclusion. That's not science, that's propaganda.

Look, you just learning the term "Milankovitch Cycles" and then saying "Oh, now my theory is that Milankovitch Cycles are causing the current warming" is absolutely precious. You don't seem to understand that we can measure the orbital eccentricity and the axial tilt of the Earth and that these factors have not changed. We can measure Total Solar Irradiance and find that it has not changed. It's not that these possibilities haven't been thought of. They have been studied and there is ZERO evidence that they could have caused the recent warming.

Meanwhile, a KNOWN greenhouse gas has increased by 40% and you pretend like it won't have any effect. We know it will have an effect--physics tells us so. If you don't believe in physics or in the greenhouse effect, then fine, but don't pretend you're being scientific. You're being the exact opposite of scientific.

Anonymous Noah B. October 25, 2013 1:33 PM  

"I produced this in our last discussion. You misread the graph."

What you produced was a graph of change in brightness factor versus wavenumber. Not the same thing at all.

Anonymous Noah B. October 25, 2013 1:39 PM  

"It's absolutely hilarious that you keep saying that it isn't data."

It's a calculation (possibly) based on data. It is not a depiction of measured data. And the variables depicted are completely different from those we were discussing. Specific humidity is not measured in %/K.

Anonymous Noah B. October 25, 2013 1:49 PM  

"Increasing CO2 cause surface warming. This is true irrespective of warming preceding CO2 in the distance past."

You have admitted that past warming has caused CO2 increases. You also claim that CO2 increases result in increased warming because it's a greenhouse gas. You further claim that a positive feedback cycle exists in which warming caused by CO2 increases atmospheric water vapor, causing much more warming than the CO2.

Yet you ignore the obvious: Earth continues to support life, and the climate has not spun out of control during past warming cycles in the recent geological past. Therefore, even if you are correct about the positive feedbacks present, this cycle of positive feedback must at some point be dominated by a negative feedback which you have not fully considered. More likely, it's a combination of both: you have vastly overestimated the magnitude of positive feedback present, and negative feedback from cloud formation and other factors occur in ways that you cannot predict.

Anonymous Boris October 25, 2013 1:58 PM  

Specific humidity is not measured in %/K.

They have shown you a graph of % change in specific humidity per degree of warming--that's the positive water feedback effect. If you want the raw data, I suggest you read the references and find it. If they've made a mistake, you can prove me (and them) wrong. Go for it!

Therefore, even if you are correct about the positive feedbacks present, this cycle of positive feedback must at some point be dominated by a negative feedback

You don't seem to know what a positive feedback is. A positive feedback is just an amplification of the original signal, that doesn't mean that a system with only positive feedbacks will ever reach a runaway state.

Blogger James Dixon October 25, 2013 1:58 PM  

> You just say everything that happens is natural.

Are or are not human beings part of nature?

> Look, you just learning the term "Milankovitch Cycles" and then saying "Oh, now my theory is that Milankovitch Cycles are causing the current warming" is absolutely precious.

You might want to learn how to read then, as that's not what I said.

> We can measure Total Solar Irradiance and find that it has not changed.

Yeah, right. Solar radiation has changed substantially just over the past few decades. You act like now one has every heard of the sun spot cycle.

> Meanwhile, a KNOWN greenhouse gas has increased by 40% and you pretend like it won't have any effect.

Again, I never said it had no effect. Others might have, but I didn't. I said I didn't consider your "evidence" either reliable or convincing.

Anonymous Noah B. October 25, 2013 2:09 PM  

"They have shown you a graph of % change in specific humidity per degree of warming--that's the positive water feedback effect."

Only if there's warming.

"You don't seem to know what a positive feedback is. A positive feedback is just an amplification of the original signal, that doesn't mean that a system with only positive feedbacks will ever reach a runaway state."

You're obviously math-challenged. A system with only positive feedbacks is unstable and does, in fact, increase without bound.

Anonymous Noah B. October 25, 2013 2:11 PM  

"If you want the raw data, I suggest you read the references and find it."

At least you've stopped pretending to have satellite data indicating the atmospheric water vapor content actually has increased. You have a chart (possibly) based on data.

Anonymous Eric Ashley October 25, 2013 2:21 PM  

Boris should be YEC. Positive feedback mechanisms and the continued survival of Earth become more believable over six thousand rather than BABOY (billions and billions of years.)

Anonymous Noah B. October 25, 2013 2:24 PM  

"Boris should be YEC."

He should. If you combine AGW and YEC, you really might have something.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 25, 2013 2:29 PM  

Look, you just learning the term "Milankovitch Cycles" and then saying "Oh, now my theory is that Milankovitch Cycles are causing the current warming" is absolutely precious.

You think I'm just learning about it? You are a fool, a tool, and a troll.

we can measure the orbital eccentricity and the axial tilt of the Earth and that these factors have not changed. We can measure Total Solar Irradiance and find that it has not changed. It's not that these possibilities haven't been thought of. They have been studied and there is ZERO evidence that they could have caused the recent warming.

There is near total evidence that they have caused recent warming. Yes, we can measure them, No, they have not changed. Which is precisely why they predict the current temperature of the earth you fucking ignoramus. They don't predict it to the degree, they predict it within a range, which it is within. If you disagree with that, they you are simply ignoring data that doesn't fit your conclusion.

You are lying about the facts.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 25, 2013 2:34 PM  

He should. If you combine AGW and YEC, you really might have something.

Well, we already know AGW is a form of substitute Christianity, right down to sacred texts, original sin, penitence, and mankind having exiled ourselves from bountiful garden through our own hubris.

I suppose they justify the rather significant downgrade from Jesus to Algore as their savior by the fact they get to say they lived while their Messiah walked, or rather jetted around, the Earth. And possible some of them think they can be enshrined as Patron Saints by future generations. The rest just want a rather substantial tithing.

Anonymous Noah B. October 25, 2013 2:39 PM  

Correction -- positive feedback doesn't cause an output to increase without bound if the system transfer function magnitude is sufficiently low.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 25, 2013 2:49 PM  

Correction -- positive feedback doesn't cause an output to increase without bound if the system transfer function magnitude is sufficiently low.

Or, to put it in terms the math, statistics, logic, and data -challenged Boris might be able to understand:

if you are going to claim a mechanism is capable of creating runaway changes,

and that mechanism has been present for millions of years,

then you must explain why the runaway condition has never occurred.

And if Boris wants to say we've never had the situation of humanity pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, well, that's precious, because we've certainly had the situation of Co2 being pumped into the atmosphere through massive forest and brush fires in the past. Or perhaps Boris thinks trees never burned until us humans invented the internal combustion engine.

Blogger James Dixon October 25, 2013 2:51 PM  

> You think I'm just learning about it?

No, he thinks I just learned about it, Jack. And by name, he's right. By understanding of the phenomena involved, he's not.

Anonymous Boris October 25, 2013 3:02 PM  

You're obviously math-challenged. A system with only positive feedbacks is unstable and does, in fact, increase without bound.

You don't seem to realize that radiation increases proportionally with the fourth power of temperature. This is a sort of built-in negative feedback that prevents runaway effects. Luckily, other people are aware of the Stefan–Boltzmann law.

Anonymous Boris October 25, 2013 3:05 PM  

There is near total evidence that they have caused recent warming. Yes, we can measure them, No, they have not changed.

Your argument is that orbital forcings have caused a change in temperature by not changing?

That's some pretty amazing logic right there.

Anonymous Boris October 25, 2013 3:07 PM  

if you are going to claim a mechanism is capable of creating runaway changes,

Luckily, no one is making this claim.

Anonymous Noah B. October 25, 2013 3:07 PM  

"This is a sort of built-in negative feedback that prevents runaway effects. Luckily, other people are aware of the Stefan–Boltzmann law."

Yeah -- that would be us "deniers" who keep telling you that you're not adequately accounting for negative feedback.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 25, 2013 3:11 PM  

James, he actually said that in response to text he quoted from one of my comments, so I do believe he was implying I just learned about it. I have in fact know about it for some time. As I have known about carbon cycle theory since my college days at UCSD where I met Roger Revelle*, the guy who first came up with the carbon-greenhouse-warming theory and then was later disgusted at how it had been bastardized by people using it to push political agendas.

* - at that point, I thought I might want to be an oceanographer and attended any SIO events I could. Then I found out I wouldn't get my own surplus minesweeper and PBY, so I went into engineering.

Anonymous Noah B. October 25, 2013 3:32 PM  

Do you do any scuba diving, Jack?

Blogger James Dixon October 25, 2013 3:41 PM  

> James, he actually said that in response to text he quoted from one of my comments, so I do believe he was implying I just learned about it.

Possible, Jack, but I took at as being directed at me since I admitted I had not heard of it by name. Hey, I'm an old timer here at 55. :) It was being researched about the time I was in college, and probably hadn't made it into the text books yet.

But the facts of orbital changes were known, and the supposition that they could impact climate were already being voiced.

It's also possible he misquoted or got confused about who said what. He doesn't strike me as the type to admit that if true though.

Anonymous Boris October 25, 2013 7:50 PM  

Yeah -- that would be us "deniers" who keep telling you that you're not adequately accounting for negative feedback.

It's almost like you don't realize that the Stephan-Boltzmann law is already accounted for.

Oh, wait, you don't.

Blogger James Dixon October 26, 2013 7:36 AM  

> It's almost like you don't realize that the Stephan-Boltzmann law is already accounted for.

And yet for every "law" you throw at us, you have no explanation for the medieval warm period, the little ice age, or the current demonstrated lack of global warming; among a myriad of examples I could find. When someone does, I'll consider listening. But given the fact that you're willing to completely ignore these and pretend they don't matter, it won't be to you.

Anonymous Noah B. October 26, 2013 1:39 PM  

I never claimed intimate knowledge of climate models or to be a mind reader. Getting an acknowledgement of the existence of negative feedback from an AGW proponent is actually first for me. So you are correct, this is the first I've heard that this is taken into consideration in your models. And why should that be surprising, when climate alarmists apparently seldom mention this fact?

Here's a recent quote from Dessler: “The only possible way future warming won’t be significant is if there exists some sort of off-setting negative feedback, which has yet to be discovered..."
Link here.

After running some back-of-the-napkin numbers, the negative feedback effect of increases in thermal radiation is much larger than I would have thought. Assuming an average global temperature of 15 deg C, a 5 deg C temperature rise would result in an approximately 8% increase in thermal radiation. It seems difficult to believe that water vapor trapping of heat would predominate over increases in thermal radiation. And of course, we're still not considering changes in cloud formation that might result from increased atmospheric water vapor.

But computer models are only useful insofar as they assist us in refining our hypotheses. We still need experiments generating data to determine whether we are correct. One such data set that would appear to be of extreme importance is the change in atmospheric transmittance vs. wavelength, as this would be the most revealing look at what is actually happening with the atmosphere. A plot of only changes in brightness temperatures obscures saturation effects in the absorption process that are of prime importance.

And I find the Dessler study you provided less than convincing. Why should it be a surprise that atmospheric water vapor increases with existing temperature? We have known for quite some time that the partial pressure of water increases with temperature, so the correlation between higher temperatures and higher atmospheric water vapor seems patently obvious. Do you not find it the least bit troubling to the integrity of your theory that they are not reporting actual increases in atmospheric water vapor?

Anonymous Noah B. October 26, 2013 4:34 PM  

should have been - "Why should it be a surprise that atmospheric water vapor increases with increasing temperature?"

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts