Via Skeptical Science, Peter Sinclair’s video on the evidence for man-made global warming.

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    May 14, 2010

    > Please give us your view of their effectiveness.

    Brent, please give us your view of [the set of concessions you owe this thread under the definition of reasonable person you want others to adhere to](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2499645). Be sure to specifically address the [points referenced by MFS](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2512563).

  2. #2 Brent
    May 14, 2010

    Blimey, they’re ganging up on me!

    OK, guys, give me some time and I’ll address the points you raise.

  3. #3 John
    May 14, 2010

    Poor baby.

  4. #4 Erasmussimo
    May 14, 2010

    Brent, I have been reticent regarding my carbon footprint because I did not want to seem boastful. The fact is, I have a negative carbon footprint. I own 40 acres of forestland that was partially logged and I have been reforesting it. I drive very little, the thermostat is set at 60ºF, and I never burp after drinking soda (well, OK, that last one is a joke). We do have a fireplace with an insert that we use in winter. I souped up its insert fans with some booster fans to increase its efficiency. I don’t burn the slash from dead trees, I throw it into the deepest parts of the ravine made by the creek so as to reduce erosion. I leave much of the large deadwood (especially the oak) on the ground to rot, and I spend a lot of time on fire abatement work so as to decrease the chance that all my sequestered carbon doesn’t go up in smoke in a forest fire. My calculations indicate that I am sequestering a LOT more carbon than I am emitting.

    None of this has anything to do with the truth or falsehood of the statements I make here. Those statements should be evaluated without any regard to their source; they stand or fail on their own.

    By the way, your statements regarding Mr. Gore’s investments reflect a failure to understand the moral significance of those investments. If investing in green technologies were a highly profitable use of capital, then there would be many more investors crowding into that field. The fact that there aren’t a zillion other investors in green technology demonstrates that the ROI for such investments is not as good as the ROI on conventional investments. In other words, Mr. Gore is accepting a lower ROI that he could otherwise get. He is accepting a monetary loss in accordance with his personal commitment to reducing carbon. In other words, he’s putting his money where his mouth is — and you’re calling him a hypocrite for it!

    Lastly, you really should respond to earlier requests that you specify what’s wrong with the NAS and IPCC reports on climate change. They’re the highest authorities, and you’ve written nothing to undermine them.

  5. #5 Brent
    May 14, 2010

    Hi guys! MFS and Lotharsson provided 13 hyperlinks to postings above. Since MFS particularly had clearly spent a lot of time writing his post I thought it fair to also take time.

    aa. In #1328 a poster calling himself “Shorter Brent” wrote lots of silly stuff in capital letters. Wrote: “Token attack on funding for no reason”

    I would argue that, rather like Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address warning of a self-escalating military-industrial complex making war more likely than security, the vast resources being poured into AGW research are corrupting it. The tribal nature of our Great Debate makes a ‘business as usual’ conclusion subject to ridicule by sceptics.

    bb. In 1437, MFS asks me where the cosmic ray/albedo correlation is proven. I cannot because it is unproven. Points out that Svensmark first removed a warming trend before finding a correlation. Finds this illegitimate, but I do not see why. Questions why the Herschel idea and the Parana findings are relevant, asking for references.

    I figured MFS was being disingenuous here, but maybe wrongly. Herschel, arguably the most instinctive astronomer in history, had a profound intuitive grasp of his field, and wondered whether then-unknown solar activity might influence simultaneously sunspot cycles and agricultural yields. He was ‘Pattern Spotting”, which is sometimes dumb, but sometimes is the impetus for discovery. His conjecture appears in p204 of ‘The Age of Wonder’ by Richard Holmes. Holmes refers to Herschel’s 1801 paper ‘Observations tending to investigate the Nature of the Sun’.

    As for the Parana River, correlation is not causality, but where a hypothesis exists (i.e. that cosmic ray penetration of the atmosphere seeds clouds and promotes rainfall with consequent effect on rivers) correlation adds encouragement and makes the further pursuit (to being confirmed or refuted) sensible. There is a link to the paper by an Argentine, Maunas, in #382.

    On the subject of scietists’ pay scales, you are right to chastise me for confusing pay scales with budgets. I accept that living standards of scientists are modest.

    cc. In #1438, MFS refers to “in a warming world”. To that assumption I reply: “Brrrr!”

    dd. In his #1441, MFS questions my use of the term “erroneous logic”, in the IPCC report. My point is that the ‘known knowns’ in climate have led the IPCC to forecast Thermageddon, and whilst the ‘known unknowns’ are referred to, they make no contribution to the analysis of Earth’s stable equilibrium which has operated throughout evolutionary time. This race of ours has only recently had some profound surprises – continents which drift; lifeforms at the mid-ocean rifts etc. The assumption that the ‘known knowns’ are sufficient to forecast the next century is hubristic. The implicit statement ‘we now know enough’ is an error of logic.

    ee. In your link (in #1599) appearing as ‘disagreed’, you link to my #1446, saying that I don’t provide evidence of error. I think the above point (re. #1441) puts it succinctly. The IPCC’s two profound errors are in Feedback and Sensitivity.

    ff. You supply a link to my #1450, and say that I ‘appear to stall’. All these links are tying me in knots. You’re probably right, I stalled.

    gg. You link to my #1463, and call it a ‘deflector shield’. No, it’s a brief discussion on the AGW lobby’s heightened sensitivity to end-of-the-world tales, and the philosophical divide between warmists and sceptics. Well, I disagree that this is Off Topic.

    hh. You dismiss my #1474 as “denier talking points”. It briefly discusses hypothesis validation/refutation, or ‘Popperian falsifiability’. This seems a worthy topic to me. Any scientist of integrity should welcome the opportunity to validate a theory. Slippery customers who prefer to blur the pass/fail criteria are normal in theology and politics, but in science (oh, sod it, you complete the sentence; you know this full well, and to contest it is churlish)

    ii. You write “when challenged on it”, and link to a series of numbers you presented, asking me to interpret their trend. At the time I chose not to reply because I found your challenge rude, and would have responded rudely. You say that you work as a scientist, as if this makes you wise and worthy of people’s ear. The number-series you present, devoid of any context, and especially devoid of any mechanism causing these numbers to be presented, is

    (thinks: do I really want to be scathing?)

    … is a good illustration of how unwise it is to extrapolate effects without understanding of cause. Dumb numerology.

    Time for a cuppa tea.

  6. #6 Brent
    May 14, 2010

    John (1600): My doctor won’t oblige me with a letter stating I am a liar. I asked him what was in my beer-belly, and he snarled, “Well, if you think you can prick it with a pin and enjoy a Guinness fountain, you’re crazy, man. It’s FAT!!!”

  7. #8 Brent
    May 14, 2010

    Conclusion to #1605.

    jj. MFS linked to #1333, in which I said that I’d shut my mouth if my criticisms of the IPCC report are unfounded. Will somebody please support the IPCC claim of “long-lived C02”, its Hockey Stick, its claims of disappearing polecaps, its choice of 1840-2000 as reference period, its conclusion that CO2 forcing dwarfs all others? Will somebody compare Actual and Observed since they published, and admit that Scenario A2 (lots more CO2; runaway warming) is failing to be borne out by events?

    kk. Lotharsson asked me for a ‘set of concessions’. Well, I concede that as a layman my ability to weigh the Gore Hypothesis is limited. I concede that some of the ‘heroes’ I have picked are less than fully reliable. That some of the participants in this thread match their personal actions to their belief in the CO2 threat, and that such actions are dwarfed by collective action. I concede that the case against AGW is not conclusive; depends on the eventual re-hashing of the Relative Forcing Table which may not in fact have to be re-hashed. I concede that the notion that the Royal Society and the US NAS are making a historic error in buying the AGW theory is barely thinkable and would run counter to a long and proud tradition. I concede that among scientists, sceptics are in the minority. I concede a rising temperature trend since 1860, and even since the 1998 peak. I concede that anecdotal evidence from Station Eureka lends some credence to the claim that escalation is more in evidence at high latitudes than temperate. I concede that my rants about the financial rewards to journeyman scientists were unfair. I concede that a ‘tipping point’ caused by polar albedo passing a threshold is feasible.

    My apologies for writing at such length; valid claims of ‘unfinished business’ obliged me to do so.

  8. #9 Lee
    May 14, 2010

    Brent, I find this statement of yours to be stunningly… well, I’ll be kind… stunningly misinformed and devoid of scientific acumen:

    “This race of ours has only recently had some profound surprises – continents which drift; lifeforms at the mid-ocean rifts etc. The assumption that the ‘known knowns’ are sufficient to forecast the next century is hubristic. The implicit statement ‘we now know enough’ is an error of logic.”

    There are multiple independent lines of analysis and reasoning, all leading to the similar conclusion that climate sensitivity is ~ 3C / 2xCO2.

    A key one is this: analysis of glacial/interglacial transitions, where we plug in the known primary forcing – changes in insolation – and we get back out a sensitivity to forcing equivalent to ~ 3C/2xCO2. Note that this analysis integrates both known and unknown forcings and feedbacks, because we are observing primary input and final output.

    There are multiple additional lies of evidence – read Annan, for example.

    In the face of all this evidence, of multiple lines of data and analysis all arriving at consilient conclusions, you retreat to, ‘well, maybe there’s something we don’t know, so lets ignore the lessons and conclusions of all the things we do know..”

    Dude.

    We are measuring the increased downwelling IR, and we know it is due to increased CO2 and water vapor. We are measuring the increasing heat content and increasing surface temperature of the planet. We are observing rapid changes in multiple surface features, all consistent with rapidly increasing surface temperature. We are measuring the cooling stratosphere and the reduced TOA radiation – the primary mechanisms for ratcheting up the equilibrium temperature of the planet. All of these values are consistent with the models, all consistent with what we know from historical analyses of previous climate transitions, all consistent with a sentitivity of ~ 3C / 2xCO2.

    And in addition to all that, we are observing a separate, nonclimatic, but also potentially devastating alteration in ocean chemistry due to increasing CO2.

    We see that this broad consilience of evidence has convinced all but a handful of scientist in the field that we understand at least the essential elements of what is happening – and that of those who aren’t convinced, a large percentage are simply.. well, I’ll be kind again… unconvincable.

    And in the face of all this, your argument becomes, “hey, maybe there’s something no one thought of, that will overturn all this broad consilient body of work, so lets not do anything.”

    Really, dude? Really?

  9. #10 Erasmussimo
    May 14, 2010

    Brent, as far as I’m concerned, your concessions bring you into the ken of “reasonable disagreement”. The phrasing of your concessions leaves much room for disagreement between us, but those disagreements concern finer points. Were I an argumentative person, I would concentrate my attentions on the disagreements, but I prefer to take pleasure in our agreements.

  10. #11 John
    May 14, 2010

    Brent your refusal to provide with with documents proving your weight has meant that I have won hands down. Now to retire to Bishop Hill where I will boast to the assembled retirees about my victory.

    I mean, fancy not telling me your weight.

    This must mean global warming is real.

  11. #12 Lotharsson
    May 15, 2010

    > I would argue that…the vast resources being poured into AGW research are corrupting it.

    Argue away, but to date on this line of argument you’re merely asserting claims about the science *without evidence*. In other words, either making sh!t up or speculating.

    And the quoted claim above seems at first glance at odds with:

    > I accept that living standards of scientists are modest.

    How exactly does the “vast resources” being poured into AGW research corrupt it, when any scientist worth his salt could earn twice as much doing something else?

    And how does this square with your penchant for testing “the strength of your convictions”, when individual scientists accept relatively poor remuneration in order to keep doing this work, rather than go onto the open market and do whatever’s paying the best?

    > Points out that Svensmark first removed a warming trend before finding a correlation. Finds this illegitimate, but I do not see why.

    I haven’t looked back up the thread – but perhaps because the posited albedo change effect is supposed to be *causal* for a warming trend? If so, wouldn’t you expect the correlation to be detectable without removing the observed warming trend?

    > Well, I concede that as a layman my ability to weigh the Gore Hypothesis is limited.

    Gore has no hypothesis. Perhaps you could spell out which particular scientific hypothesis (or set of them) you have in mind?

    > To that assumption I reply: “Brrrr!”

    Goldfish.

    > The assumption that the ‘known knowns’ are sufficient to forecast the next century is hubristic.

    No, your assumption that the ‘known knowns’ are **assumed** to be sufficient to forecast with a reasonably level of uncertainty is hubristic, especially for one who admits his own limited ability to assess the AGW hypotheses. You assessment ability presumably includes ignorance or dismissal of any analysis of the strength of the explanatory power of the ‘known knowns’ and any analysis of the likely uncertainty bounds of the rest.

    > The IPCC’s two profound errors are in Feedback and Sensitivity.

    Hubristic, given the lack of evidence for this assertion and the countervailing evidence surveyed by the IPCC – and given your tendency to argue in black-and-white terms without accounting for uncertainty ranges in the scientific case.

    > It briefly discusses hypothesis validation/refutation, or ‘Popperian falsifiability’. This seems a worthy topic to me.

    Except that the way you want to discuss it is a set of denier talking points that misrepresent the hypothesis and how to falsify it, and for which you’ve had ample instruction on this thread already. Oh, and you flat-out lied about my position for good measure – still no concession on that.

    > Slippery customers who prefer to blur the pass/fail criteria are normal in theology and politics, but in science…

    Brent, you are a slippery customer who **blurs the hypothesis** so that you can provide a biased pass/fail criteria. That was the point of responses to your initial attempt **way** up-thread to set up dodgy criteria – and to ignore that setting up reasonable criteria 20-30 years ago would have seen them passed by now with ease.

    > The number-series you present is … a good illustration of how unwise it is to extrapolate effects without understanding of cause.

    And your answer to it is a good illustration of how to avoid learning when someone points out you are operating on mistaken assumptions. (Which might lead you to posit incorrect “pass/fail criteria”, as one example.)

    > Lotharsson asked me for a ‘set of concessions’.

    Thanks – that was a good start. It might be good to think how those change the arguments you’ve made in the past…

  12. #13 truth machine
    May 15, 2010

    Brent, as far as I’m concerned, your concessions bring you into the ken of “reasonable disagreement”.

    Idiot. At least you got sunspot right.

  13. #14 Brent
    May 15, 2010

    John @ #1611: Good posting! Documents proving my weight are in the post to you.

    This proves that global warming’s a crock.

    Lotharsson (1612): you’re right to ask for a more precise statement of the Gore Hypothesis. (Actually, it has now progressed to Gore’s Law.) Remember when that poor old polar bear tried to climb up on the ice floe, and it (gulp) crumbled and he (glub) paddled off disconsolately towards the flat wet horizon (glug)? Remember how your heart-strings gave a little tug? Gore’s Law states: “The rate of return on Generation Investment Management’s stake in the Chicago Carbon Exchange is directly proportional to the investment in Inconvenient Truth’s CGI.”

    Lee (1609): On a point of etiquette, your word “Dude” encourages me to look closely at the arguments you make in your posting. Thank you for your patience. Maybe I am a ‘lost cause’, incapable of believing in AGW until either (a)it gets warmer in Shropshire (Britain’s equivalent of Missouri, if you follow me) or (b)the Annual Average GISS Temperature Anomaly twice exceeds 0.75C in the next Lotharsseon.

    Your word ‘dude’ – with its subtext of weary disappointment – is much more persuasive than Kincaidspeak.

    p.s. a Lotharsseon (L) is a number of years where L = 20 + N, and N = a number such that if global warming hasn’t yet happened we’ll add some more. L must not be confused with J, the equivalent number employed by Jehovah’s Witnesses to predict the second coming: same principle, different faith.

    Erasmussimo (1604): respect, dude. That’s three brethren with the courage of your convictions. If Dave R (#1047) has sold the Hummer that’ll make four.

  14. #15 Brent
    May 15, 2010

    Lee (1609): You wrote:

    “A key one is this: analysis of glacial/interglacial transitions, where we plug in the known primary forcing – changes in insolation – and we get back out a sensitivity to forcing equivalent to ~ 3C/2xCO2. Note that this analysis integrates both known and unknown forcings and feedbacks, because we are observing primary input and final output.”

    I think I follow, but could you please expand on this?

    You also wrote: “There are multiple additional lies of evidence – read Annan, for example.”.

    Typo or Freudian slip? ;-)

  15. #16 TrueSceptic
    May 15, 2010

    1610 Erasmussimo,

    Brent has tried just about every denialist claim here. He’s just trying another ploy: pretending to be a reasonable, genuine sceptic. Why do you trust him?

  16. #17 Lee
    May 15, 2010

    That response, Brent dude, is an example of why I’m weary of you. Stop being a dishonest prick.

  17. #18 Erasmussimo
    May 15, 2010

    Why do you trust him?

    I don’t. I’m not here for social reasons; I’m here for intellectual reasons. I don’t interpret an intellectual disagreement as a personal conflict. I stick to the facts and the logic, and leave the personality stuff out. Yes, I’m human and I occasionally get emotionally involved, but I try very much to stick to intellectual side.

  18. #19 Lee
    May 15, 2010

    But Erasmussimo, Brent has shown over and over that he is **intellectually** dishonest and not to be trusted. That is not a social or emotional issue, it is precisely an issue with the intellectual approach he uses.

  19. #20 TrueSceptic
    May 15, 2010

    1619 Lee,

    Thanks. I’m baffled that Erasmussimo would assume that I was bringing in personalities when I was clearly referring to Brent’s behaviour when discussing science.

  20. #21 Erasmussimo
    May 15, 2010

    Obviously there’s some serious misunderstanding going on here when we have statements such as #1619 and #1620. When Lee states that “he [Brent] is intellectually dishonest”, Lee is talking about Brent, not the issues. I don’t care about Brent! I care about the issues! I don’t care if Brent is a terrorist, mother-enslaving, orphan-raping litterbug. If Brent writes something I disagree with, then I might go to the trouble of explaining my disagreement. If Brent writes something I agree with, then I might go to the trouble of stating my agreement. Or, as in the case of my #1610, I can state that, while I still disagree with his statements, I find them to be within the ken of reasonable disagreement. In each case, the concern is with the statement, not the person.

    TrueSkeptic, your argument was precisely an ad hominem argument. You asserted that Brent has lied in the past. Then you asked me why I should trust him — an irrelevant question, to my mind, because I don’t care about trusting Brent, I care about the statements he makes.

    I truly believe that discussions such as this one would be better if they were unsigned, so that people couldn’t associate an idea with a person. This would force people to assess each statement solely on its own merits. What a concept! The obsession that people have for identifying ideas with people, and then attacking the people rather than the ideas, is so irrational that I have difficulty perceiving the mental processes at work as anything more than simian dominance displays.

  21. #22 TrueSceptic
    May 15, 2010

    1621 Erasmussimo,

    This is bizarre. Do you not understand what’s happening? Do you really think you can disregard all previous evidence of dishonesty because the perpetrator has switched tactics to appear “reasonable”?

    If you really believe what you say, you would not have made comments like

    First off, I think that all the nasty things that have been written about Brent have been falsified by his two most recent posts.

    and

    Brent, as far as I’m concerned, your concessions bring you into the ken of “reasonable disagreement”.

    You should refer only to the arguments and make no reference at all to the “personality” that made them or to (our description of) his record here.

    I think you are being naïve.

    I don’t think you understand what “ad hominem” means either.

  22. #23 TrueSceptic
    May 15, 2010

    Sorry, failed again to use Preview when I should. The quoted bits should look like

    First off, I think that all the nasty things that have been written about Brent have been falsified by his two most recent posts.

    and

    Brent, as far as I’m concerned, your concessions bring you into the ken of “reasonable disagreement”.

    Then

    You should refer only to the arguments and make no reference at all to the “personality” that made them or to (our description of) his record here.

    I think you are being naïve.

    I don’t think you understand what “ad hominem” means either.

  23. #24 jakerman
    May 15, 2010

    The Brent’s is exploiting the asymmetrical nature of what has been turned into a conflict. The Brents of the world can say what they like then use other strategies to deal with several years of hard won science communicated by half a dozen PhDs in their volunteer time. Is responding to the Brents of the world the best use of highly educated people’s volunteer time?

    Erasmussimo’s approach is valuable but becomes very costly if the Brents exploit their asymmetrical advantage (cheap lies versus expensive facts).

    When is it time to turn off the tap that energizes this dishonest individual? Brent has consumed perhaps several hundred hours our combined lives, and there is important things we could be doing, such as in mixing with people who are not dishonest.

    You will remember that that is the type of person Brent misreprented himself as when he lied out who he was at the start. Even Brent knows that spending time on the Brent’s of the world is a waste of scarce resources.

  24. #25 Erasmussimo
    May 15, 2010

    That’s a fair point, jakerman. Why are we expending time on this effort? Everybody has their own reasons. I have two objectives in this effort. First, I seek to demonstrate to lurkers that support for AGW is rational and reasonable. In seeking this goal, the last thing I want to do is appear to be involved in some sort of personal confrontation. My second objective is to learn how to teach more effectively. By observing the myriad ways that people misunderstand any logical issue, I get a better grip on the crooked ways of the human mind.

    A lot of people approach these discussions as some sort of intellectual joust, with points scored and victories tallied. I suppose that there will always be plenty of young males who seek to prove their manhood in one way or another. When I was young, I did some of the same things. But such things no longer interest me.

  25. #26 jakerman
    May 15, 2010

    >*My second objective is to learn how to teach more effectively. By observing the myriad ways that people misunderstand any logical issue, I get a better grip on the crooked ways of the human mind.*

    Yes I didn’t include that in my calculations. Good point.

  26. #27 John
    May 15, 2010

    It appears that Brent isn’t as witty as he thinks he is. I’d conceed that you’ve done some good posting but…you know. You haven’t.

  27. #28 Lotharsson
    May 15, 2010

    > Gore’s Law states: …

    The old Brent returns, revealing that what was previously positioned as a [concession regarding Brent's level of ability to assess the **science**](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2513464)…was not about the science. That took … what, all of 18 hours? How many other “concessions” will turn out to be dissembling after the fact?

    > Remember when that poor old polar bear tried to climb up on the ice floe…

    Nope. Never seen the movie.

    > Lotharsseon (L) is a number of years where L = 20 + N, and N = a number such that if global warming hasn’t yet happened we’ll add some more.

    Just can’t stop lying about what I said, now with a little dash of satire? Seems like you can’t make your case against the science without misrepresenting it. Ever stopped to wonder why?

    > That’s three brethren with the courage of your convictions.

    Brent still can’t count, never mind the presumptions he makes when he has no evidence.

  28. #29 jakerman
    May 15, 2010

    “*Seems like you can’t make your case against the science without misrepresenting it. Ever stopped to wonder why?*”

    Worth reemphasizing this point that Brent and his ilk continually demonstrate.

  29. #30 Lotharsson
    May 15, 2010

    > …the IPCC claim of “long-lived C02”…

    [Back around](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2481154) the [goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2473027) and [round again](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2488718) and [round once more](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2489430) and [once more for luck](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2490264) … and heck, [once more to make sure](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2497333), although [that probably wasn't enough](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2497672).

    You (a) haven’t shown where the IPCC is in error – merely asserted it, (b) haven’t understood the defense of the IPCC that you falsely claim *has not been made*, and (c) haven’t made any attempt to see if your interpretation of the atmospheric physics is known to be wrong. And you call yourself a skeptic?

  30. #31 Lotharsson
    May 15, 2010

    > …its Hockey Stick…

    So what was your objection again?

    > A 1300-year graph, shaped like a “hockey stick” claims to show temperatures in the NH, but shows no Medieval Warm Period (dismissed on p.469) or Little Ice Age, when British ports had to contend with sea ice, fer chrissakes.

    Fer chrissakes, you confuse the local for the hemispherical – which is a favourite orbiting goldfish tactic – and then extrapolate from your speculation to implying you have “proof” (ditto).

    Your evidence is *consistent* with the hypothesis that there was a synchronous Northern Hemisphere-wide “MWP” and “LIA” – but it’s also *consistent* with the converse argument (which might include non-synchronous regional warming & cooling across the hemisphere). Your “argument” fails to *prove* either case, so despite your claims to the contrary does not demonstrate an error of logic in the IPCC.

    Never mind almost a dozen other “hockey-stick” reconstructions in the AR4.

  31. #32 Lotharsson
    May 16, 2010

    > its claims of disappearing polecaps

    What was your claim that the IPCC’s error in logic was again?

    > Chapter 4, p339: “…decline in annual mean arctic sea ice extent since 1978…” has now been halted and reversed…

    Goldfish [orbits](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2473893) and [orbits](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2488754) and [orbits](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2493219) and [maybe once more in his own comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2502543).

    For starters. Never mind that Arctic sea ice mass changes due to global warming are not expected to decrease in a nice regular monotonic fashion, because weather patterns have a significant influence too.

  32. #33 Lotharsson
    May 16, 2010

    > …its choice of 1840-2000 as reference period…

    Which is why different IPCC graphs have different historical coverage? As you yourself point out, and others have pointed out on this thread?

    What was your specific claim that the “IPCC error of logic” was again?

    > Chapter 1, p101, shows a terrifying graph with a 1840-2000 timescale. This is cherrypicking.

    …and…

    > Chapter 3: page after page of cherrypicked graphs 1900-2000 and 1840-2000. A glance at the Aletsch Glacier graph (1500BC-2000AD) shows an unexceptional retreat since 1860. It comes and goes. Big deal. Without the underlying physics, extraoploting such graphs are vacuous numerology.

    So…it seems your “error in logic” is the fallacious argument that the IPCC merely **extrapolates** future climate trends and does so from “cherrypicked graphs”, and ONLY by extrapolation from “cherrypicked graphs”.

    That’s either really idiotic or severely ignorant. As has been explained to you a number of times.

  33. #34 Lotharsson
    May 16, 2010

    > Will somebody compare Actual and Observed since they published, and admit that Scenario A2 (lots more CO2; runaway warming) is failing to be borne out by events?

    Do you know what “runaway warming” means? Hint: it doesn’t mean “getting warmer quite quickly by some standard of ‘quickly’”. From memory I don’t think scenario A2 is forecast to demonstrate actual “runaway warming” any time soon.

    And how about you provide a reference to support your argument, rather than asserting it without evidence? When doing so, please take into account uncertainty intervals in published forecasts, variations between emissions scenarios and actual emissions, and the relative magnitude of climate vs weather impacts over the time interval you are considering.

    > …its conclusion that CO2 forcing dwarfs all others?

    As you said:

    > I concede that the case against AGW is not conclusive; depends on the eventual re-hashing of the Relative Forcing Table which may not in fact have to be re-hashed.

    Note that that quote was in the [very same comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2513464) where you argued that no-one had yet addressed the allegedly erroneous “conclusion that CO2 forcing dwarfs all others”, so I’ll take it as a concession by you that your claim of a demonstrable IPCC error in this matter was wrong.

    Apart from one comment held up in moderation, that seems to address all of your concerns from [#1608](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2513464)…

  34. #35 Brent
    May 16, 2010

    Lotharsson,

    I have stuff to do in the real world, so will take some time to digest and respond to your recent posts.

    You’ll hate me for this, but…

    I have a layman’s interest in volcanos (I slept on the rim of Vesuvius in 2005, and spent a bitter Christmas night on Etna at 2800m). I’m watching Iceland’s Eyafjallalokul volcano (idly, from my armchair, like a rubbernecker at a car crash) and this site is brilliant:

    http://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/earthquakes/myrdalsjokull/

    It shows earth tremors around E15, with Katla and Hekla on the map. At time of writing there’s an orange blob at the mighty-but-quiescent Hekla – the first I’ve seen: Hekla rumbled during the night of 15/16 May! As you’ll know, an eruption from Hekla may have dire consequences.

    I do wonder whether your cherished global warming might be no more than low-volcanic-activity (just as peace is absence of war!). The IPCC report has a half-hearted attempt to address aerosols. Could it be that the post-1850 “warming” is merely a recovery from the 1815 Tambora eruption which caused famine in Europe and the US?

    The IPCC’s forcing graph shows CO2’s forcing in red and volcanic ash (rightly) as a cooling influence, in blue. But might it be fruitful to consider an “ash anomaly” – declare a “normal” amount of ash in the atmosphere, and during periods of low vulcanism consider aerosol-absence a forcing factor to rival CO2?

    Do we truly know how long volcanic ash stays airborne? The experts who close Europe’s airspace admit that their measurement capability is tiny, relying on…. Oh no!…. Met Office modelling. (Just as an aside, I wonder if modelling is the last refuge of scoundrels: when the sums are too hard, crank up the Cray.)

    Lotharsson, I know that your reluctance to accept an “N” year period (as falsifiability period for AGW) was because other stuff might happen, that Thermageddon might be postponed by an unpredictable cooling event, and leave the doommongers disappointed. Did you fear that a pesky major eruption might get in the way?

  35. #36 Shorter Brent
    May 16, 2010

    Lotharsson, I am grateful that you’ve shown me the error of my…..

    LOOK OVER THERE!!!

    VOLCANO!!!

    PREVIOUSLY REFUTED POINTS!!!

    DISTRACTION!!!

  36. #37 Lotharsson
    May 16, 2010

    > Could it be that the post-1850 “warming” is merely a recovery from the 1815 Tambora eruption which caused famine in Europe and the US?

    No.

    Volcanic eruptions have been studied, and the climate impact from most is relatively short lived – months running into a year or two, not decades running into a century or longer.

    The Mt Pinatubo eruption was one examples for which the climate responded in line with the models’ expectations. You can look up the temperature impact for yourself and see how long it lasted.

  37. #38 MFS
    May 16, 2010

    [Brent @ 1637](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2516788),

    Could it be that the post-1850 “warming” is merely a recovery from the 1815 Tambora eruption which caused famine in Europe and the US?

    That’s it, I can’t justify wasting more of my time on this. Apparently ice core, tree ring, peat core analysis and every other long-term temperature reconstruction ever published did not in fact exist and were a figment of our imaginations all along.

    Brent: I hope you open your mind to true skepticism one day, and spend some time on the primary sources of information. Don’t pay attention to the likes of Al Gore ([Lotharsson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2516444) is not the only one who hasn’t seen ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, just about every scientist worth his salt knows better than to listen to a politician), or the sh!t you read on denier websites that have as much of a political agenda.

  38. #39 Brent
    May 16, 2010

    MFS, thank you for your time.

    Lotharsson, you say: “You can look up the temperature impact for yourself and see how long [the effect of the 1991 Pinatubo eruption] lasted”.

    I surely can’t be alone in pondering a time-series graph, and seeing a change following some event, and asking myself: “Can I be sure that THAT event caused THAT change?” The key phrase here is: “… than would otherwise have been the case.”

    On p600 of the IPCC report they show a temperature spike following Pinatubo of either 0.2C or 0.7C, depending on one’s prejudice. Would these spikes have occurred had Pinatubo not erupted? How can we know what “would otherwise have been the case”?

    Alsi in 1991 were other “events”: eruptions in Japan and the Phillipines, French nuclear test at Muruoa, and Inter Milan won the UEFA Cup.

    I can only “look up the effect” of Pinatubo by making an unreasonable assumption: that the GISS Temperature Anomaly would otherwise have been flat.

    IPCC Ch.2 p194 suggests that Pinatubo’s effect lasted some years, and maybe 6 years for Krakatoa in 1883. Let’s assume they’re right. They spewed out respectively 10 and 20km3 of tephra. Childs play compared to the 1815 Tambora eruption estimated at 100km3! Imagine a hundred Mount St. Helens! Bang! How long might Tambora’s effects persist? Difficult to say, but multiples of Krakatoa’s persistence is not crazy.

    You guys claim that CO2 is the only forcing agent worthy of examination, that the influence of the sun and volcanos are trivial. (Particle size and latitude and other factors make this game difficult, but the 1816 famines are fact, and nobody doubts their cause the previous year on the other side of the world: Tambora.)

    (By the way, Hekla’s eruption in 1021 produced an estimated 8km3 (huh!), and Katla’s 1918 was even smaller than the Mt. St. Helens firecracker. I conclude that Iceland’s catastrophe-track-record is modest.)

  39. #40 J Bowers
    May 16, 2010

    Red dots are volcanic eruptions. Still being worked on, and a lot more forcings and feedbacks to be addded:
    http://i44.tinypic.com/akxy0i.jpg

  40. #41 Chris O'Neill
    May 16, 2010

    Brent:

    You guys claim that CO2 is the only forcing agent worthy of examination

    Brent is full of bullsh!t.

    that the influence of the sun and volcanos are trivial

    We just defer to scientists. You just believe what you want to believe.

  41. #42 Chris O'Neill
    May 16, 2010

    Brent:

    Thermageddon might be postponed by an unpredictable cooling event, and leave the doommongers disappointed.

    Oh yes, postponing solves all the problems.

    Moron.

  42. #43 Brent
    May 16, 2010

    Guy over on WUWT says: “An inconvenient fact, not to be confused with “An Inconvenient Truth,” which was also a spewing of hot, noxious gases from an ash hole.”

    Another guy replies: “Just so you know, that resulted in the spewing of cold Root Beer all over my monitor.. :)”

    (Sorry, Lothy, the above refers to a film you haven’t seen.)

    SB (1636): Your “Hey, look over there: a volcano!” wins five witpoints.

    Chris O’Neill: Minus five for your “moron”.

  43. #44 John
    May 16, 2010

    Brent, you can now keep us updated with all the hilarious hijinks of WUWT commenters in the Brent Thread where you posts are now quarrintined.

  44. #45 Lotharsson
    May 16, 2010

    > I surely can’t be alone in pondering a time-series graph, and seeing a change following some event, and asking myself: “Can I be sure that THAT event caused THAT change?” The key phrase here is: “… than would otherwise have been the case.”

    That’s a reasonable skeptical starting point, although you appear to have not bothered to investigate WHY scientists draw that link – which then lapses into unreasonable “skepticism”. And you also say:

    > …but the 1816 famines are fact, and nobody doubts their cause the previous year on the other side of the world: Tambora.

    And an 1816 “skeptic” might equally well have said “I surely can’t be alone in pondering a time-series graph and seeing a change in agricultural productivity following the volcanic eruption and asking myself: “Can I be sure THAT eruption caused THAT famine?””

    And yet, you are. Why? Through what process did you establish belief in a causal link? How did that process differ from your assessment of potential causal links between global temperature and Pinatubo? Or any other climate-science question?

    > How can we know what “would otherwise have been the case”?

    That’s a very good general question. Some people have started long and useful careers in science due to posing exactly that type of question to themselves. They and their colleagues even publish papers in the literature. Some of them quite likely address your specific question about Pinatubo. What do they say?

    > You guys claim that CO2 is the only forcing agent worthy of examination…

    Lying about other people’s positions seems to be **necessary to your argument**, which a true skeptic would suggest indicates that your argument is most likely fallacious.

    > …that the influence of the sun and volcanos **on climate timescales, especially over the last couple of hundred years or so, are generally** trivial.

    There, fixed a lie of omission for you.

    You haven’t even *come close to showing even a vague chance of plausibility* for your idea that perhaps it was just that volcanic eruptions were sufficiently large and common for centuries (if not longer) that they cooled the climate until they started waning just about the same time as humans started pumping significant quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And I’m pretty sure you haven’t attempted to find any academic literature that could address this question either.

  45. #46 Jon
    May 17, 2010

    Lol ,what a dumbass video. It opens with logical fallacies and does not stop. Gettin past the sandpit logic that characterizes this video we can dig out the actual facts presented that relate to the claim that burning fossil fuels has caused the globe to warm.
    Here they are: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
    Man has added some to the atmosphere.
    There is less radiation getting out.
    The world is getting warmer.
    The world has been getting warmer all by itself since the little ice age. Man has added some CO2 but not a high percentage compared to what was already there. There are now serious questions over the fidelity of the ground temperature records.
    To sum up it seems there is nothing here to get alarmed about.

  46. #47 Brent
    May 17, 2010

    Mr. Lambert, thank you for providing a platform for the fiery debate on this thread. Before debating with warmists – the smart and the dumb, the professionally cool and the abusive, the qualified and the layman – I had little idea of how cogent the AGW theory was, and rather frustrated that the partisan nature of the Great Debate prevented the creation of common ground.

    As a layman (on a layman’s site, albeit enriched by some qualified people), my intention was always to prod the soggy mass of AGW opinion in order to reveal (purely for my own satisfaction) the core ideas and core facts. People soon pointed out that the IPCC reports are required reading; the AGW theory is indeed spelled out in AR4, but digesting it is greatly assisted by discussion, and I am grateful to my fellow posters on that thread.

    I’m afraid that I cannot participate in a “Brent Thread”, which suggests that I personally am the issue, or that my opinions are important.

    I take away from this experience the following conclusion:

    Two key issues will decide the debate: sensitivity and feedback.

    If CO2’s greenhouse effect dwarfs the forcing due to solar and volcanic changes, and if Earth’s climate is subject to unstable equilibrium (both of which are plausible) then the AGW theory stands.

    I thank my fellow posters for their contributions.

  47. #48 sunspot
    May 17, 2010

    more on NZ

    ‘These over-the-top outcomes reek of bias and data manipulation, robbing the series of any vestige of scientific plausibility.’
    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7ze

  48. #49 Lotharsson
    May 17, 2010

    > Man has added some CO2 but not a high percentage compared to what was already there.

    Man has added about 40% more than was already there a couple of hundred years ago. Given that the greenhouse effect is responsible for about 33 degrees Celsius increased temperature, and CO2 for anywhere between 9 and 26% of that, a 40% increase is non-trivial produces a warming effect of the same order of magnitude as *observed* warming.

    > There are now serious questions over the fidelity of the ground temperature records.

    I don’t see that “serious” is justified. Time after time “skeptics” have posed these sorts of questions on various bases, and time after time their concerns have turned out to be unfounded. Call me when they have something that stands up to scrutiny, and that’s significant enough to put a dent in the current climate science understanding.

  49. #50 Scarface
    May 17, 2010

    This video is pure propaganda of the worst kind. The first line about the science behind AGW in this video says it all. There is no proof. They admit it. I can give you the reasons why they will not be able to proof AGW:

    - CO2 follows temperature changes;
    - 5% of annual CO2-emissions come from man;
    - 0,0384% of the air is CO2;
    - the oceans hold about 50 times more CO2 than the air;
    - the warming effect of more CO2 is logarithmic (the more you add, the less effect it has);
    - doubling of CO2 will cause 1 degree temp increase;
    - feedback from clouds and watervapor is negative.

    The IPCC and the AGW-promotors have it the other way around:
    - CO2 causes temperature changes (wrong)
    - positive feedback form clouds and watervapor (wrong)

    That is the problem. And that is why they will never be able to proof AGW because their theory is wrong.

    Climate change is a natural thing.
    Man has no significant effect on climate.

    Case closed.

  50. #51 sunspot
    May 17, 2010

    Scar, do you think this is empirical evidence for man made SS warming ?
    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/802

  51. #52 jakerman
    May 17, 2010

    Scarface, Jon, Care to address the actual content of the video instead of your bogus talking points?

    Do you concede that the [Harries paper](http://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=4&t=154&&n=73) provided empirical evidence? And do you concede that it detects a drop in OLR at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2?

  52. #53 Corrinne N
    May 17, 2010

    First there is no “complete consensus” There are enough scientists who do not agree with the hypothesis “Mankind’s CO2 is causing major warming” to at least put a question mark next to the hypothesis.

    Second the upper ocean heat just dropped 1C – the largest since 1979

    Third Katla has always erupted after Eyjafjallajokull. When Katla erupts it will cause a major disruption in the climate and agriculture. (the year without summer igniting the French Revolution)

    Fourth the Sun is in a funk and is not ramping-up for the next solar cycle peak

    NOW for the MAJOR worry you will not see in the headlines:

    The “Global Warming Crisis” maybe a red herring to distract us while country after country is stripped of its ability to feed themselves and farmland is transferred into the hands of the ultra wealthy. Already 1/5 of the world’s land belongs to one family. Mexico has already lost 75% of its privately held farmland to the likes of Smithfield Foods Inc. 80% of the world grain supply is controlled by less than ten corporations, most privately owned.

    In 1996 Dan Amstutz, VP of Cargill (grain traders) wrote a 1996 farm bill that shut down the US grain storage system. In 2008 the USDA announced “the cupboard is bare” all of the US stores had been depleted.

    The IMF/World Bank “Structured Adjustment programs” removed nation support systems for third world farmers and drove them into bankruptcy. Countries were blackmailed into producing agricultural goods for export instead of food for local consumption. Transnational corporations dumping subsidized US/EU grain, drove farmers into bankruptcy, then bought the land cheap to produce high price exports. The following quotes show the grain traders greed and the level of concern for other humans.

    “In summary, we have record low grain inventories globally as we move into a new crop year. We have demand growing strongly. Which means that going forward even small crop failures are going to drive grain prices to record levels. As an investor, we continue to find these long term trends…very attractive.” [Food shortfalls predicted: 2008](http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/dancy/2008/0104.html)

    “Recently there have been increased calls for the development of a U.S. or international grain reserve to provide priority access to food supplies for Humanitarian needs. The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) and the North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) strongly advise against this concept..Stock reserves have a documented depressing effect on prices… and resulted in less aggressive market bidding for the grains.” July 22, 2008 letter to President Bush [Bush letter on grain reserves](http://www.naega.org/images/pdf/grain_reserves_for_food_aid.pdf)

    We have been setup for starvation and high profits when the weather causes a major disruption in agriculture.

    The American farmer has been fighting the corporate takeover but we are slowly loosing [NAIS is Back!](http://nonais.org/2010/04/01/nais-is-back/)

    There is a place to leave comments on the Federal Register about the new Animal Disease Traceability Plan (ADTP). The main thing everyone needs to know is that since the farmers killed NAIS on the federal level now the states will be the ones making the regulations. We need to get involved or they’ll only hear from the people who want NAIS.(The large corporations)

    http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=APHIS-2010-0050

    Here are the REFERENCES you need to get up to speed:

    [MUST READ - 1](http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html)

    [MUST READ - 2](http://www.foodsafetynews.com/contributors/nicole-johnson/)

    [Extermination of family farms is planned](http://www.i-sis.org.uk/savePolishCountryside.php)

    [Bill Clinton Admits Global Free Trade Policy has Forced Millions Of People into Poverty](http://www.agmates.com/blog/bill-clinton-admits-global-free-trade-policy-has-forced-millions-of-people-into-poverty/)

    [World Bank/IMF Structural Adjustment Policies](http://www.whirledbank.org/development/sap.html)

    [Farm Wars](http://farmwars.info/?p=1145)

  53. #54 John
    May 17, 2010

    Scarface, how nice of you to pop by.

    Please read:

    * CO2 follows temperature changes;
    * 5% of annual CO2-emissions come from man;

    * 0,0384% of the air is CO2;

    So many errors in only six words.

    * the oceans hold about 50 times more CO2 than the air;

    * the warming effect of more CO2 is logarithmic (the more you add, the less effect it has);

    Yet we’ve hardly added any according to you.

    * doubling of CO2 will cause 1 degree temp increase;

    * feedback from clouds and watervapor is negative.

    Have a nice day.

  54. #55 Bernard J.
    May 17, 2010

    Gack!

    Brent is given his own cave in which to wave his club of disingenuity around, which didn’t seem to suit the blushing fellow, and suddenly others of his ilk materialise here and begin pounding the ground with their rocks?!

    Who called the reinforcements? And why did they recruit particularly dim trolls…? Any half-educated lay person who has followed for any length of time the debunking of “sceptical” arguments, would know just how spurious and nonsensical are the points at [#1646](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2518573), [#1650](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2518821) and [#1653](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2518931). Seriously, how many times must the denialist fairytales be revealed as nothing more than beer-room fishing yarns?

    Someone obviously didn’t appreciate having quarantined Brent’s antics in rail-roading this thread.

  55. #56 truth machine, OM
    May 17, 2010

    “Why do you trust him?”
    I don’t.

    You’re as dishonest as you are stupid:

    Brent, as far as I’m concerned, your concessions bring you into the ken of “reasonable disagreement”.

    Trusting moron.

  56. #57 truth machine, OM
    May 17, 2010

    I stick to the facts and the logic, and leave the personality stuff out.

    You’re such a fucking liar, Erasmussimo. Your posts, such as #34 with

    I’d like to defend James against the avalanche of angry responses to his comments. Not that I agree with his claims. I’d like to point out that James represents a different class of commentator here.

    are full of comments about personalities. You have persistently blathered about tone and defended the trolls as being well-meaning and “reasonable”. What a pathetic fool you are.

  57. #58 truth machine, OM
    May 17, 2010

    Yes I didn’t include that in my calculations. Good point.

    Erasmussimo is suckering you just as Brent is suckering him; E.’s actual history in this thread is nothing like his characterization of himself.

  58. #59 Scarface
    May 17, 2010

    @John:

    The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide:

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

    Looking forward to your comments!

    The science is settled: CO2 is a harmless tracegas.
    Oh, btw, it’s plantfood.

    AGW: the mother of all hoaxes.

  59. #60 Stu
    May 17, 2010

    >The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide:

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

    >Looking forward to your comments!

    Haha, good comedy. How is something that forms an integral part of our understanding of atmospheric radiative processes (the logarithmic effect of CO2) supposed to disprove our understanding of atmospheric radiative processes?

  60. #61 truth machine, OM
    May 17, 2010

    Looking forward to your comments!

    There are already comments on that thread; perhaps you could try refuting the criticisms. Only, you don’t understand a word of them or the original article, you just like Archibald’s conclusion.

    The science is settled: CO2 is a harmless tracegas.

    What is settled is that you are an ignorant idiot.

  61. #62 John
    May 17, 2010

    Hi Scarface, any rebuttals to the argument crushing information I provided you would be appreciated.

    BTW – how can Co2 be plant food when it’s just a trace gas? You’re contradicting yourself.

  62. #63 jakerman
    May 17, 2010

    Scareface, you are dodging the topic and now [dodging questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2518896).

    I find that is an early marker of denialism, failure to engage in real science and a preference for propaganda.

  63. #64 jakerman
    May 17, 2010

    Corrinne, do you care to address [the topic of the thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2518931)? Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen, as are opinions without well founded evidence.

    Why do you need AGW to be fake for rich people to take the property of the poor? That has been happening for millennium regardless. The reason it is happening is inequity in power and, improper checks on power, and corruption via handing over too much to the profit motive.

    I suggest if you are deeply concerned about the food issue you mention you cease blocking the efforts of others to address climate change, and start focusing on reform of the pillars that are suppose to hold a functioning democracy together, such and preventing media consolidation, and the improper power of money in the electoral system.

    Now back to the topic of this thread.

  64. #65 TrueSceptic
    May 17, 2010

    1657 TM,

    See 1622-3. Should we call Eras “Judy”? Now, that *is* getting personal. ;)

  65. #66 sunspot
    May 19, 2010

    Space station to refine predictions

    ‘In his capacity of the head of the Russian-Ukrainian project “Astrometria” on the Russian segment of the International Space Station, Abdussamatov is conducting additional research to refine his prediction that a new Little Ice Age will begin in 2014.
    Abdussamatov explained to the climate conference that the Russian segment of the ISS is scheduled to collect more precise data on sun activity over the next sixyears.’

    “If the Astrometria project is developed in time,” Abdussamatov said, “we will be able to develop a more precise forecast of the duration and the depth of the approaching new Little Ice Age and to understand the reasons of cyclical changes taking place in the interior of the sun and the ways they affect the Earth and various scopes of human activity.”

    Abdussamatov’s theory is that “long-term variations in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth are the main and principal reasons driving and defining the whole mechanism of climatic changes from the global warmings to the Little Ice Ages to the big glacial periods.”

    In his speech’s conclusion, Abdussamatov took on advocates of the theory of man-caused warming who want to diminish human use of hydrocarbon fuels. He contended, instead, that a reasonable way to combat coming cooling trends would be “to maintain economic growth in order to adapt to the upcoming new Little Ice Age in the middle of the 21st century.”

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/86i

  66. #67 Lotharsson
    May 19, 2010

    > Abdussamatov’s theory is that “long-term variations in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth are the main and principal reasons driving and defining the whole mechanism of climatic changes from the global warmings to the Little Ice Ages to the big glacial periods.”

    Part of his claim appears to simply reiterate current climate science – e.g. Milankovitch cycles drive changes in solar energy reaching the earth which in turn drives or triggers significant long term climate changes (amplified by feedbacks including atmospheric CO2 and water vapour and albedo changes).

    However as far as his claim addresses *recent* global warming, it’s [back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2337973).

  67. #68 Lotharsson
    May 19, 2010

    Oh, and it’s highly amusing that sunspot cuts-and-pastes an argument that “incoming solar energy caused global warming” but at the same time claim that “the sun’s going to get cooler and will soon cause a little ice age” – when [the sun has ALREADY been getting cooler for several decades, and the earth has only been getting warmer](http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm).

    I wish they’d at try to make arguments that are least **internally** consistent, let alone congruent with the empirical evidence…

  68. #69 MFS
    May 19, 2010

    sunspot @ 1666,

    *Begin dramatic Discovery Channel voiceover*…

    …that a new Little Ice Age will begin in 2014…

    …taa, daa, daaaaaa!!!…

    Is anybody else reminded here of Nostradamus or other crackpot conspiracies, or of the year 2,000, end-of-the-world scenarios? And how appropriate is it that the post number is 1666, huh?

  69. #70 sunspot
    May 19, 2010

    Abdussamatov also said in National Geographic,

    ‘Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

    In 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

    Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

    “The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said.

    Solar Cycles

    Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun’s heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets’

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/880

  70. #71 Lotharsson
    May 19, 2010

    > The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars…

    [Really? Maybe not](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm).

    (Is that a long-term solar irradiance increase that only “skeptics” can see? Or do “skeptics” argue that other solar scientists are falsifying their results?)

    And what is meant by “long term” here, because solar irradiance has been declining for several decades, and over the really loooooonnnnnnngggggg term IIRC solar output has *declined* much much more than we’ve seen over the last few decades.

  71. #72 TrueSceptic
    May 19, 2010

    1669 MFS,

    I’m only surprised it’s not 2012*, you know, the year that the Mayan calendar “ends”, which seems to obsess some people who know as little about the Mayan calendar as they do about science.

    *There will be some huge change on 21.12.2012 apparently. Of course, no one will say exactly what it will be.

  72. #73 TrueSceptic
    May 19, 2010

    1671 Lotharsson,

    Why is it that the “It’s the sun wot dunnit” meme simply keeps being refreshed when anyone can get the data and graph it, or just let WFT do the work? Choose whatever averaging you like (or none), the correlation is [obviously lacking](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1900/normalise/mean:60/plot/pmod/from:1900/normalise/mean:60/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/normalise/mean:60) in recent decades.

  73. #74 Stu
    May 19, 2010

    BTW, you know what else Abdussamatov believes?

    >”Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”

    This is so full of stupid I wasn’t sure where to start with it. But how about I start with the fact that a molecule’s mean free path near the surface is on the order of nanometres, and in the stratosphere it’s on the order of micrometres.

  74. #75 sunspot
    May 20, 2010

    Climate Change:

    Animal deaths !

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8b1

  75. #76 MFS
    May 20, 2010

    Sunspot @ 1674,

    Will you please stop spamming OT stuff? What on earth does the death of four gorillas from cold weather have to do with Peter’s video on the empirical evidence for global warming?

  76. #77 John
    May 20, 2010

    It’s almost like Sunspot is trolling.

  77. #78 sunspot
    May 20, 2010

    Huh ? M fess, I posted a link about apes that live on the f.cking equator that froze to death ! Is that piece of shit video at the top not telling us that it’s supposed to be getting hotter ?
    THE EVIDENCE IS NOT EMPIRICAL and the fact that apes are freezing to death on the EQUATOR certainly throws a shade of grey over the aGW hypothesis.

    About being OT, have a look at your dopey post @ 1669, what world are you in, hahaha believing in that crap.

  78. #79 Lotharsson
    May 20, 2010

    > It’s almost like Sunspot is trolling.

    John wins the internetz for a day!

  79. #80 Lotharsson
    May 20, 2010

    > …the fact that apes are freezing to death on the EQUATOR certainly throws a shade of grey over the aGW hypothesis.

    …or would, if “the aGW hypothesis” predicted that even [4500m high snow-covered volcanoes](http://www.travelpod.com/travel-blog-entries/hilde/rwanda-2007/1186875600/tpod.html) would no longer *ever* get cold.

  80. #81 chek
    May 20, 2010

    Sunspot I can’t access your link, but your one-dimensional understanding of the world about you is common enough knowledge, so in this case I’m going to take a stab at it as also being quite literal.

    Apart from latitude, what other factor might mitigate against what are characterised as hot equatorial temperatures?
    (Hint: they’re also called “mountain gorillas”)

  81. #82 sunspot
    May 20, 2010

    we all knew this, you cannot trust NOAA !

    “NOAA… systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler,” the authors say. “The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs.”http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8bj

    now they are at it again !

    Ian MacDonald, an oceanographer with Florida State University, who more than two weeks ago said the oil spill was likely five times as large as the 5,000 barrel-a-day estimate from the National Oceanic Atmospheric and Administration, said the agency is attacking scientists who challenged government estimates, while itself doing little to glean new information about the spill size.

    “The scientific community in the Gulf of Mexico is fairly small … and we’ve been very dedicated for a long time and not only is nobody listening to us in this, but it seems like they really want us to shut up,” MacDonald said. “It’s very, very punitive and anybody who is doing this is getting attacked by NOAA.” http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8bk

    Fancy that, attacking scientists for not lying, sounds familiar don’t it.

  82. #83 Lotharsson
    May 20, 2010

    > “NOAA… systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler,” the authors say.

    Fail. Your argument about the NOAA starts out with [false claims](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/dropouts/) and [false implications that have proven false](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/false-claims-proven-false/).

    > It’s impressive how many things they can get wrong in so few words. …

    > But they just made up the claim that “NOAA began weeding out … systematically and purposefully …” The fact is that **NOAA — a U.S. government agency — has no control whatever over which station data various nations contribute to the GHCN**. If they have a complaint about a reduction in stations from, say, Canada, it’s blatantly dishonest to blame it on NOAA, they should take it up with Canada. …

    > You could argue all day over what part of their claim is most dishonest. But it seems to me that **the clear winner for “most stupid” is the very idea that removing locations “which had a tendency to be cooler” will somehow introduce a false warming into the global temperature anomaly calculation**.

    Why, it’s almost like you WANT to be shown to be disingenuous and completely credulous.

  83. #84 Stu
    May 20, 2010

    >”NOAA… systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler,” the authors say. “The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs.”http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8bj

    Ahhh the old Watts/D’Aleo SPPI paper. Tell me Sunspot, are you ever sceptical of anything that vaguely supports your position? Because I can tell you with certainty that both the premise and conclusions of that SPPI “paper” are false.

    The evidence is here: < http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/false-claims-proven-false/>

    This result is not in dispute as it has been independently reproduced.

    Since you actually responded to MFS, I’m gonna assume you’re in a respondin’ mood today. So here’s the deal: if you address my post, do so logically and have the guts to admit that this contrarian talking point is simply dead wrong.

    However, if you do not address my post and simply pop up with a new talking point to deflect attention, it will be taken by me (and surely the vast majority of the readers here, since I’m putting this out in the open) as a tacit admission that you’re wrong anyway.

    Of course, you could try and defend Watts and D’Aleo, which would be brave of you because even Watts and D’Aleo haven’t been able to defend Watts and D’Aleo.

  84. #85 Stu
    May 20, 2010

    Damn it Lotharsson. You win this time.

  85. #86 sunspot
    May 21, 2010

    Thankyou for attempting to correct me slothy & stu ,
    however as you both only addressed 50% of the post, and as I still have my doubt’s about the temperature data I can only award you both 25 points each, as it was a combined effort I will be generous and combine your points, 25 + 25 = 50, hmmm, 50 out of 100, that’s a fail, sorry.

    After my perusal of your links I came across this,

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8f7

    and this

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8fa

    Your evidence is not empirical !

    This http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8f8 will most likely be a game changer, along with the continuing solar minimum, I’m wondering what will be the new “cooked” up alarmist falsehood’s that speculate about where the missing heat will be ?
    Opps ! hold on, they can’t even find it now.

  86. #87 truth machine
    May 21, 2010

    Huh ? M fess, I posted a link about apes that live on the f.cking equator that froze to death ! Is that piece of shit video at the top not telling us that it’s supposed to be getting hotter ? THE EVIDENCE IS NOT EMPIRICAL and the fact that apes are freezing to death on the EQUATOR certainly throws a shade of grey over the aGW hypothesis.

    I can see how someone with an IQ as low as yours could think so.

  87. #88 truth machine
    May 21, 2010

    However, if you do not address my post and simply pop up with a new talking point to deflect attention, it will be taken by me (and surely the vast majority of the readers here, since I’m putting this out in the open) as a tacit admission that you’re wrong anyway.

    What does it matter whether he admits, tacitly or explicitly, that’s he’s wrong? He’s already demonstrated a hundred times over that he’s an idiot without a shred of intellectual integrity.

  88. #89 Stu
    May 21, 2010

    >This http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8f8 will most likely be a game changer, along with the continuing solar minimum, I’m wondering what will be the new “cooked” up alarmist falsehood’s that speculate about where the missing heat will be ? Opps ! hold on, they can’t even find it now.

    Why? Spencer is talking about weather here. El Nino and La Nina, yeah it’s all very interesting but it has little to no relevance for the long term trend.

    As for the missing heat, either the satellite measurements are wrong or our observations are inadequate. Have you looked into which of these is most likely?

  89. #90 sunspot
    May 22, 2010

    Stu, here’s an explanation for the missing heat, it is also an interesting look into the Stern review.

    ‘The essence of my report was that after three years of study of a comprehensive hydrometeorological database, I could find no evidence of unexplained variations in the data. It became increasingly obvious that the anomalies were the consequence of variations in the receipt and poleward redistribution of solar energy.

    Subsequently my reports and papers were targeted at South African readers. I had lost all faith in material published by Western authors in the light of my experience with the Stern Review. It was impossible to determine the nature of material that was deliberately omitted from their analyses, as well as the deliberately manipulated data such as that produced by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the UK.’

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8hg

    Will Alexander is telling you that you are being fooled, he is one of many honest and respectable scientist’s that speak honest climate science, not politicized climate science.

  90. #91 Lotharsson
    May 22, 2010

    > …as well as the deliberately manipulated data such as that produced by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the UK.’ …

    There’s no evidence of deliberately manipulated data from the CRU or any other major source of climate records.

    > Climate change is presently in a position of total disarray.

    That’s the first sentence in his article, and it’s a lie.

    > Will Alexander is telling you that you are being fooled, …

    By lying? He sure fooled you.

  91. #92 sunspot
    May 23, 2010

    Statement of William Happer

    ‘I have
    spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with
    gases – one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. I have
    published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. I am a member of a
    number of professional organizations, including the American Physical Society and the
    National Academy of Sciences.’

    ‘Most of the greenhouse effect for the earth is due to water vapor and clouds,. To
    get the frightening global warming scenarios that are bandied about, the added CO2
    must substantially increase water’s contribution warming. The jargon is “positive
    feedback” from water vapor and clouds. With each passing year, experimental
    observations further undermine the claim of a large positive feedback from water. In
    fact, observations suggest that the feedback is close to zero and may even be negative.
    That is, water vapor and clouds may actually diminish the relatively small direct warming
    expected from CO2, not amplify it. The evidence here comes from satellite
    measurements of infrared radiation escaping from the earth into outer space, from
    measurements of sunlight reflected from clouds and from measurements of the
    temperature the earth’s surface or of the troposphere,’

    download pdf here
    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8ke

  92. #93 John
    May 23, 2010

    Dr. William Happer, fair and impartial.

    Oh wait.

  93. #94 sunspot
    May 23, 2010

    It’s the Sun, stupid

    ‘Solar scientists are finally overcoming their fears and going public about the Sun-climate connection.’

    Scientists, and especially solar scientists, are becoming assertive. Maybe their newfound confidence stems from the Climategate emails, which cast doomsayer-scientists as frauds and diminished their standing within academia. Maybe their confidence stems from the avalanche of errors recently found in the reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, destroying its reputation as a gold standard in climate science. Maybe the solar scientists are becoming assertive because the public no longer buys the doomsayer thesis, as seen in public opinion polls throughout the developed world. Whatever it was, solar scientists are increasingly conveying a clear message on the chief cause of climate change: It’s the Sun, Stupid.

    Jeff Kuhn, a rising star at the University of Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy, is one of the most recent scientists to go public, revealing in press releases this month that solar scientists worldwide are on a mission to show that the Sun drives Earth’s climate. “As a scientist who knows the data, I simply can’t accept [the claim that man plays a dominant role in Earth’s climate],” he states.

    Read more: from this quality publication, http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8kg

  94. #95 Lotharsson
    May 23, 2010

    > Whatever it was, solar scientists are increasingly conveying a clear message on the chief cause of climate change: It’s the Sun, Stupid.

    [Once more around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2526758).

    The same article also draws a possible link between low sunspot numbers and colder climate such as the Little Ice Age – but fails to point out that we’ve been having low sunspot numbers lately and it’s STILL been about as hot as it’s been for maybe one or two millennia.

    > Among solar scientists, there are a great many theories about how the Sun influences climate. Some will especially point to sunspots, others to the Sun’s magnetic field, others still to the Sun’s influence on cosmic rays which, in turn, affect cloud cover. There is as yet no answer to how the Sun affects Earth’s climate.

    So…we don’t know how, and we have potentially incompatible theories about it but no theory’s proponents can convince the proponents of the others – [let alone other climate scientists](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2337973) – but we’re SURE the sun did it?

    Also from the article:

    > …revealing in press releases this month that solar scientists worldwide are on a mission to show that the Sun drives Earth’s climate…

    …and I’m on a mission to win Lotto without buying a ticket, but I haven’t succeeded yet. Call me when they have more than aspirations.

  95. #96 Lotharsson
    May 23, 2010

    On Lawrence Solomon, the writer of sunspot’s latest link, regarding [his book "The Deniers"](http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=12d547f8-af20-490a-9049-b22c5f2c5df9) about “dissident” scientists who are oft-name-checked or quoted by sunspot et al, Richard Littlemore writes:

    > [Solomon] says that while reflecting on his own research, “I … noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers.” (My emphasis.)

    > It’s hard to imagine how someone could make that concession on page 45 and then string a book out to page 213 (not counting footnotes.) It’s harder still to think that he could then continue to pursue his desperate argument that a legitimate debate still exists about the central question of anthropogenic global warming.

  96. #97 Lotharsson
    May 23, 2010
  97. #98 Tim Lambert
    May 23, 2010

    Looks like Solomon verballed Kuhn. Actual quotes from Kuhn:

    >[“this understanding may ultimately help us predict how and when a changing sun affects Earth’s climate.”](http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-releases/Kuhn-Humboldt/)

    >[“We can’t predict the climate on Earth until we understand these changes on the sun,”](http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-releases/SunSize-May2010/)

  98. #99 Lotharsson
    May 23, 2010

    > Looks like Solomon verballed Kuhn.

    Maybe not the first time. At least three of the scientists profiled in Solomon’s book “The Deniers” complained that he misrepresented their position.

  99. #100 sunspot
    May 26, 2010

    ‘This paper (and all of the other papers based on empirical data) finds increased CO2 leads to a negative feedback upon water vapor, rather than positive as assumed by the IPCC. The 0.5°C sensitivity is in very close agreement with all of the other papers based on empirical data rather than virtual computer models. Meanwhile, Gavin Schmidt et al at NASA/GISS continue to fiddle with their computer models rather than test them against inconvenient satellite data, and lo and behold come to the conclusion that the IPCC models underestimate sensitivity 30-50%. ‘

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8×2