Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

[ding]

Assymptotically so.

Which effectively means it is operated under the assumption that it is correct, but not that it is immune from challenge. And if it is challenged the challenge isn't dismissed without first carefully considering it. Careful consideration would mean addressing the content of the challenge; the basis or reason for the challenge. Not because an overwhelming number of scientists believed otherwise. For example if I said the earth's climate began fluctuating more after the earth transitioned to an icehouse planet and did so because the temperature of the planet was close to the threshold for extensive continental northern hemisphere glaciation that would have to be considered, right? Because that would be relevant to the belief that warming and cooling trends are common in a bipolar glaciated world and that every single one of those changing trends prior to the industrial revolution had to be based upon solar output variation and changes to albedo.

 

[ding]

They do so based on the science.

Actually they do so based upon modeling. If I disagree with their model's assumptions and/or datasets would I still be a denier?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Science isn't decided upon by popular vote.

Correct. But here's where solid logic training comes into play. While no science is done by "consensus", it is expected that a correct hypothesis would be more prone to developing a consensus around it.

For instance, there is a consensus that the laws of thermodynamics are accurate and correct.

There are dissenting opinions which are being squelched to arrive at "consensus."

Not as much as you might wish. Having hung around with a LOT of earth scientists in my career and university I'd have to say I've seldom met any who are skeptical of AGW. And, certainly, the literature shows that as well.

That's really odd because the geologic record is littered with examples of warming trends following cooling trends within glacial cycles and cooling trends following warming trends within interglacial cycles that can only be explained by solar output and albedo.

Again, this logic. If gun shot wounds to the head can result in death and Bob is dead that does NOT mean that Bob had to have been killed by a gunshot wound to the head.

Just because the solar influence may have had something to do with climate in the past says NOTHING about the current climate. In fact our knowledge of how the sun and its cycles have impacted climate in the past helps us understand how it CANNOT CURRENTLY account for the warming.

So what you are saying is that I should blindly accept what I am told?

If you are an expert or particularly knowledgeable about the detailed technical information then, yeah. That's what I assume you do with regards to everything else in your life that you are not an expert in.

Does that sound like the scientific process to you?

It sounds like the way a rational human should behave.

If I went around screaming that the nuclear reactor in my town should be run this way or that way I'd hope to God no one listened to me since I don't know a THING about nuclear power or management of a nuclear reactor.

The value of consensus in the science is for those of us who are not professionals to know which "horse to bet on". When you go to Las Vegas you would be a fool to bet against the house.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Which effectively means it is operated under the assumption that it is correct, but not that it is immune from challenge. And if it is challenged the challenge isn't dismissed without first carefully considering it.

Thankfully the "careful consideration" has been taken care of for the most part in terms of AGW.

Careful consideration would mean addressing the content of the challenge;

But if that challenge is ill-informed or uninformed then what's the value from addressing that challenge?

 

[ding]

Correct. But here's where solid logic training comes into play. While no science is done by "consensus", it is expected that a correct hypothesis would be more prone to developing a consensus around it. For instance, there is a consensus that the laws of thermodynamics are accurate and correct.

So why not include dissenting opinions in the IPCC report rather than squelch them?

Not as much as you might wish. Having hung around with a LOT of earth scientists in my career and university I'd have to say I've seldom met any who are skeptical of AGW. And, certainly, the literature shows that as well.

Again... that sounds like you are arguing that science is determined by popular opinion. I believe there's a bias within the climate science community and it is keeping some from speaking out.

Again, this logic. If gun shot wounds to the head can result in death and Bob is dead that does NOT mean that Bob had to have been killed by a gunshot wound to the head.

Just because the solar influence may have had something to do with climate in the past says NOTHING about the current climate. In fact our knowledge of how the sun and its cycles have impacted climate in the past helps us understand how it CANNOT CURRENTLY account for the warming.

The same argument can be made for increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The difference is that we know natural fluctuations which occurred prior to the industrial revolution were not cause by CO2. The same can not be said for CO2 causing post industrial revolution temperatures because natural variations do exist and cannot be eliminated or dismissed which is exactly what the IPCC has done. According to the IPCC's logic fluctuations prior to the industrial revolution couldn't exist because the weight they place on them tody couldn't have produced the fluctuation in the past.

If you are an expert or particularly knowledgeable about the detailed technical information then, yeah. That's what I assume you do with regards to everything else in your life that you are not an expert in.

Actually I question everything. I start with what the experts say and test it to see if it makes sense. Where AGW breaks down is in it's claim of climate sensitivity. The radiative forcing of CO2 is not transient. The GHG effect is real time. It doesn't take centuries for its effect to be felt. That's why on cloudy nights the morning will be warmer relative to clear nights.

It sounds like the way a rational human should behave.

If I went around screaming that the nuclear reactor in my town should be run this way or that way I'd hope to God no one listened to me since I don't know a THING about nuclear power or management of a nuclear reactor.

The value of consensus in the science is for those of us who are not professionals to know which "horse to bet on". When you go to Las Vegas you would be a fool to bet against the house.

If you are saying rational human beings should blindly accept whatever they are told then I don't want to be a rational human being.

What do you believe drove these climate fluctuations?

 

[ding]

Thankfully the "careful consideration" has been taken care of for the most part in terms of AGW.

How so?

But if that challenge is ill-informed or uninformed then what's the value from addressing that challenge?

To show how it was ill informed.

For instance, how could you prove the challenge that scientists reach opposite conclusions depending upon which datasets they use is an ill informed or uninformed challenge?

It's public record that the IPCC is including urban temperature station data and using the low variability solar output dataset. Temperatures from rural temperature stations aren't that out of line with natural causes, especially when the high variability solar output dataset is used. So is this an informed challenge or is it an uninformed challenge?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

So why not include dissenting opinions in the IPCC report rather than squelch them?

Do you think that the CDC is required to give you the anti-vaxxer view of vaccines?

Again... that sounds like you are arguing that science is determined by popular opinion.

I was pretty clear. You can re-read what I wrote. I said nothing of the sort. In fact I explicitly said the opposite.

I believe there's a bias within the climate science community and it is keeping some from speaking out.

I once watched a "documentary" about Creationists who lost their jobs because they didn't toe the "Evolution line". Of course it was a bunch of bunk, but it sounds like the same thing.

The same argument can be made for increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The difference is that we know natural fluctuations which occurred prior to the industrial revolution were not cause by CO2.

Some were, actually.

The same can not be said for CO2 causing post industrial revolution temperatures because natural variations do exist and cannot be eliminated or dismissed which is exactly what the IPCC has done.

You seem to not understand that the IPCC doesn't do any research itself. They rely on the published literature.

Actually I question everything. I start with what the experts say and test it to see if it makes sense.

HOW do you test it? The climate data is relatively complex. What systems do you use? What calculations do you run? The thing is you probably don't "test" anything.

Where AGW breaks down is in it's claim of climate sensitivity.

When you read articles like Knutti and Hegerl (2008) what specifically do you take exception to?

The radiative forcing of CO2 is not transient.

This is not necessarily a huge issue. It is not dissimilar to how we treat reaction kinetics and thermodynamics in non-equilibrium systems.

That's why on cloudy nights the morning will be warmer relative to clear nights.

Not really the same thing.

If you are saying rational human beings should blindly accept whatever they are told then I don't want to be a rational human being.

Are you a climate scientist? If not why do you think you have special insight that allows you to gainsay the findings of literally thousands of independent researchers over the last 60-100 years?

I'm actually quite curious. If you prefer the work of Lindzen or Curry to the vast, vast, vast majority of the earth's climate experts you are effectively betting against the house. Not because you have some inside knowledge, but rather because you prefer their position.

Obviously I don't know you, but I rather assume you are at least like me and that means you are not a climate expert. I've been lucky to work in the earth sciences and be around a lot of folks who were, but I'm not myself. So in a sense I'm forced to defer to those who know better than I do.

I assume you are likewise hindered.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

How so?

To show how it was ill informed.

Again, I'm asking exactly how much expertise you have in this field. As I said earlier I've actually got a LOT of background in the earth and chemical sciences and even worked at one of the leading oceanographic facilities which was the home of some of the leading climate scientists on earth and even I don't feel confident enough to take a position that is at odds with the consensus.

 

[ding]

Do you think that the CDC is required to give you the anti-vaxxer view of vaccines?

A better analogy would be the Supreme Court issuing rulings with dissenting views. There's nothing like full transparency.

Claire Parkinson, a climatologist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Space Flight Center said, "many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change are reluctant to voice their opinion."

So it seems like it's a little bit more than just not presenting dissenting views.

A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[ding]

I was pretty clear. You can re-read what I wrote. I said nothing of the sort. In fact I explicitly said the opposite.

And yet your statement that, "Having hung around with a LOT of earth scientists in my career and university I'd have to say I've seldom met any who are skeptical of AGW" seems suspiciously like an appeal of a popular vote.

What does it matter how many people you know who aren't skeptical of AGW? Are you suggesting I should change my mind because of popular opinion?

 

[ding]

I once watched a "documentary" about Creationists who lost their jobs because they didn't toe the "Evolution line". Of course it was a bunch of bunk, but it sounds like the same thing.

I believe that Claire Parkinson, a climatologist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Space Flight Center would disagree with you.

A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with scientific enterprise. Real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge.

Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus by the IPCC on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress.

 

[ding]

Some were, actually.

You will be hard pressed to prove that as a rule CO2 drove past climate changes given the fact that prior to the industrial revolution CO2 lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years throughout the geologic record.

But please feel free to point out all the instances where it did using the oxygen isotope curve.

 

[ding]

You seem to not understand that the IPCC doesn't do any research itself. They rely on the published literature.

Given the IPCC's desire to drive government policy decisions I would think full disclosure should be the minimum standard.

The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice” (Sarewitz 2011).

ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[ding]

HOW do you test it? The climate data is relatively complex. What systems do you use? What calculations do you run? The thing is you probably don't "test" anything.

The geologic record. Which does not support CO2 driving climate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

HOW do you test it? The climate data is relatively complex. What systems do you use? What calculations do you run?

Good questions to ask Michael Mann.

 

[ding]

When you read articles like Knutti and Hegerl (2008) what specifically do you take exception to?

What part of my statement that the GHG effect is real time did you not understand?

The GHG effect is effectively a choke which slows the transfer of heat to outer space with the choke setting being equal to the concentration of the GHG. That's it. If you magically eliminated CO2 from the atmosphere by snapping your fingers the effect would be immediate. If you magically doubled the concentration by snapping your fingers the effect would be immediate.

 

[ding]

This is not necessarily a huge issue. It is not dissimilar to how we treat reaction kinetics and thermodynamics in non-equilibrium systems.

The positive feedback they pile on is an issue for me.

 

[ding]

Not really the same thing.

How is cloud cover trapping heat overnight not the same thing as the GHG effect?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You will be hard pressed to prove that as a rule CO2 drove past climate changes given the fact that prior to the industrial revolution CO2 lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years throughout the geologic record.

I believe it is thought that there was a significant effect from CO2 during the End Permean Extinction, but I could be mistaken about that, but I believe there are some who feel that it was in part due to the extensive volcanism associated with the Siberian Traps which put out a bunch of additional CO2. But it doesn't have to be the "rule", there are many reasons for climate change in earth's history.

As for CO2 lagging temperature, that's just Chemistry 101 stuff. Basic chemistry. As you warm a fluid like sea water dissolved CO2 will exsolve. That's nothing new.

CO2 can both DRIVE and LAG warming. There's virtually nothing controversial about that fact.

But please feel free to point out all the instances where it did using the oxygen isotope curve.

Why only go back that far? Why not go back to say the end Permean?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with scientific enterprise.

I honestly wish you would have read what I actually wrote. I'll try yet again: Science is not driven by consensus, but a solid hypothesis can be expected to generate a consensus.

I can't say it any simpler than that.

Unless you think that the laws of Thermodynamics do not fall into a general consensus.