Comments jbullfrog has made

maybe

Maybe because the article was written in late 2006.On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 6 months ago 170 Responses

unexpected

I didn't expect to fire up the grist site for the first time in weeks and find any rational thinking going on. Thanks, MonoApe, for speaking up.

Here is one example to add:

All the folks on here who are trying to rely on the Hadley data as a counterargument to AGW seem to feel that "smoothing" data is "cheating." Yet they then talk about a "cooling trend" in the last 8 years.

Listen, folks, smoothing is simply a graphical representation of the concept of a trend. If you say there is no more global warming because of a downward trend, clearly you are examining small samples of less than a decade at a time. Or in your own words, you would like to look year-by-year. That's fine, let's do that. If we take a one year sample, we may find that, say, 2004 was cooler than 2003. If you implement a very fundamental and uncomplicated type of reasoning you might predict that 2005 would continue this "trend". But this was not the case. It was significantly warmer. So is the "trend" now towards "warmer?" Because the next year reversed again, and 2006 was a lot cooler, and 2007 a bit cooler still.

In other words, if you go year-by-year, then yes, we have a one year cooling "trend" from 2006-2007. If you go back another year, we have a two year streak of one-year cooling "trends." If you go back another year that streak is over, so your argument is dead. By your own year-by-year logic, we have only been cooling for two years...

...UNLESS you want to redefine "trend" to help us understand your theory, which is the "crime" of which you're accusing hundreds of scientists. Which will it be? Are you going to be scientific about this, or just quote the dictionary as if their definition of the word climate had ANYTHING to do with the true essence of this debate about rising temperatures and the credibility of the scientific community. No, you're stuck with two years of cooling, or else you are cheating, just like all scientists everywhere who ever say anything that sounds like it might not be any fun.

I can't stand this juvenille approach. If you're going to argue a scientific theory, you have to use scientific data to support your argument. If you're going to use scientific data to support your argument, you have to use it as part of a legitimate and consistent scientific approach.

NiceGuy, you're a better man than me. (Have I already said this?) You continue to prove it is possible to argue your position with consistency, accuracy and depth without getting visibly pissed off. I just can't help getting mad. I feel as if the denial folks on here think I wouldn't listen if there were a serious scientific counterargument being presented, and as if they think they are presenting one. It's like watching poison at work as they co-opt useful terms and positive traits and use them for their own irresponsible purposes. Like when they mock the fact that you make your arguments with civility, as if that lends their argument credibility. Like when they take a term like cherry-picking, a term representing a concept used by the scientific community to identify an illegitimate argument, and apply it haphazardly and erroneously to any data they can't understand.

So frustrating.On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 109 Responses

a response before I go

B.W., I figured I'd give you some specific answers to your specific questions before I drop out of this debate for a while.

[A]
First of all, I can't tell if you don't understand this yourself, or if you think I don't understand it, but we need to be clear that a graph is either accurate or it isn't. In the case of anomaly, the absolute levels reflected are accurate (within stated "uncertainty" values) regardless of what zero level is chosen or what color the bars go. The bars  themselves are only useful for representing the value of this arbitrary anomaly; but the endpoints still represent temperature averages for each year.

The "tremendous upturn" refers to the fact that if there were a cycle--one can imagine a cycle about every fifty years, with a low in 1860, a low around 1910, and a low near 1950 or 1960--then where is the next trough? Wouldn't it be right about now? Instead of continuing in a predictable cycle or persisting in a statistical range of temperatures that has held true since 1850 (and according to various long-term records, for thousands of years) there has been a long upswing since around 1940. And much of what has happened the last 20 years has been entirely outside of the range of even the extremes anywhere in the prior 130 years (and again, maybe much much more). So, in terms of pure, unadultered statistics and statistical averaging, can you find a cycle that leads you to believe it is likely temperatures will fall significantly anytime soon? I don't see any. But again... not a scientist, not a statistics guru.

In other words, you compare the right side of the graph (which for you, I think, meant since perhaps 1970 or 1980?) to the period between 1908 and 1941. Here's the difference: The upswing between 1908 and 1941 (a) fell in a range of temperatures that seems to be consistent with long-term recent history, and (b) was followed by a downturn (albeit a smaller one). We cannot, on the whole, say the samething for the period from 1950 to the present. It travelled well outside the expected range and the trend has not yet reversed. Of course, I understand this year is so far looking much cooler, so if that kept up, it could be the start of a downturn.

[B]
No thanks, I've read a few things and it's not something that interests me. Just saying it would be nice to know we're wrong about rising temperatures for some simple, clearly explainable reason.

[C]
Well, inaccuracies persist only when they are allowed to--when no one questions them. There are so many scientists in so many fields studying climate change that if there were problems with the fundamental methodology, techniques, or equipment associated with things like temperature records, I hope they would have surfaced by now. So I don't think that technical inaccuracies will be found to account for the theory of AGW.

[D]
Other temperature records are entirely relevant in that the climate works in cycles, and statisticians work in averages. If all we have to work with is the past 150 years, we may be missing cycles that can explain this warming, or we may be comparing our ranges and averages to a period of time which is itself an anomaly. We need a longer-term point of reference to truly know the significance of our short-term observations.

A few simple examples: what if some proxy record suggested the past 200 years were actually colder than average (an anomaly), and that we're just now getting back to a level that's been generally consistent for at least a few thousand years? That would probably cause us to stop looking at our situation as a crisis, wouldn't it? Or what if upswings of this rate and magnitude we part of a few-hundred-year natural cycle of some sort? The Hadley record could not reveal things like these. So it's important to view the more accurate surface temperature record in the context of as many longer-term records as possible.On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 7 months ago 170 Responses

complexity

Exactly, NiceGuy. And again, most of us Joes leaving comments aren't qualified to properly assess the statistical correlations and complex influences that are in play here. I'll leave it to the scientists.

I'm also going to leave the arguing on these points to other folks, since I'm finding it kind of toxic. And I think NiceGuy, for one, has been both more polite and eloquent than I've managed to.

Before I go, a few things...

J. Bailo, Manacker, etc., I still wonder at what your assumptions are about the scientific community. A lot of folks seem to get a thrill from assuming that practically every member of the scientific community can somehow look the other way while everyone else falsifies their results or their conclusions to make a buck. Science itself would collapse under the weight of such a quagmire. Any scientist's work rests on the foundations of those that studied the subject matter before him. Falsities stacked upon falsities can only reach so high. As a respected member of the scientific community, J. Bailo, you would no doubt be inclined to check the data and methods and conclusions of others before you did any research that relied on them--or else your own work could be for nothing. I think you'd love to find errors in someone else's work, because it would get you closer to some kind of truth (or at least further from falsehoods). So I simply cannot buy this conspiracy theory (even as a passive "conspiracy of human nature"). Besides, human nature might lead me to drive like a bat out of hell, steal things when I don't have the money, cheat on my wife... but I don't do these things, because I am a decent human being who understands the consequences and wants to live a life that's honest and respectful of others. I'd venture a guess that most respected scientists feel this way about their profession. Wouldn't you?

Also, I'll reiterate that I am not a scientist in a field relating to the study of the climate. Neither are the skeptics posting here. So as I see it, if I post a link to an article that represents the work or the viewpoint of one or a small group of researchers, and I say I trust this study, there are three ways I could have arrived at that level of trust: (1) I took it on faith that they are right; (2) I analyzed and tested their methods and conclusions myself (and I'm very poorly equipped to do this); or (3) I found that their conclusions are supported or refuted by the work of other scientists. Otherwise, I have to assume those observations might be inaccurate; the methodology may have been wrong; factors may have been overlooked; or conclusions may have been dubiously inferred. The more experts approve of the methods that were used, and the more research that seems to suggest the same conclusions, the more likely the conclusion is correct. There are definitely exceptions to this, and most new "facts" begin as minority opinions, in a sense, but in the end science must determine if science is right. Economists cannot. Politicians cannot. Blog commenters cannot. I feel it is extremely arrogant and ignorant to think we can.

I am done debating folks who think their own opinion of science is more valid than that of hundreds of scientists. I am done with people who don't understand that the IPCC reports are compilations and analyses of research by hundreds of experts in various fields over many years, not a commissioned study or a statement of political opinion. If you are someone who feels this way, you are free to have your opinion, but I disagree with you and no longer feel the urge to argue.On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

suggesting...

So you're suggesting that:

(1) scientists with top academic and scientific institutions are getting paid to do studies and fudge the numbers or their analysis in favor of AGW,

(2) other respected scientists who would naturally question and test these findings are also ALL getting paid to fudge their own numbers or analysis, and

(3) there are no scientists left out of the many hundreds who publish in legitimate, peer-reviewed journals relevant to the topic of AGW who are not in the pocket of the AGW conspiracy.

This is in spite of the fact that there is a long-standing, much better funded industry (oil and coal) that, it seems, would have gotten these same scientists in their own pockets decades ago.

I'll answer a few more specific points next week, as I don't expect to be near the computer this weekend. But for the most part, I'm done. My inclination to deal with such absurd assertions is pretty much gone.On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

missing the point

My point is that you, not a climate scientist, are making a vaguely-educated guess that the few folks with actual scientific research (not unsupported hypotheses) that contradicts AGW will be global warming's Alfred Wenger. You are making that guess. How are you qualified to decide that this particular study was performed and interpreted infallibly?

Until the scientific community strengthens this point of view with more tests and supporting evidence, it remains one of relatively few potentially valid arguments against AGW, in the face of hundreds of studies that seem to support AGW.

Put another way... You and I have no idea if this is a valid piece of evidence. It's up to scientists to figure that out, and the odds seem pretty small right now, though by no means is it impossible.

Is this concept making any sense to you? It's how science works. Evidence gathered by observations is used to form hypotheses, which are tested, and the results of multiple tests are linked together to support theories, which quite often can never be proven beyond all doubt. Scientists must simply judge the relative strength of the collective evidence for a theory while attempting to disprove any hyphotheses that refute it. It frustrates me to think you don't know how the scientific method and the scientific community function, yet you're in a public forum trying to paint the independent work of hundreds of respected biologists, geologists, ecologists, climatologists, meteorologists, and other scientists all around the globe as a scam. What you and I think of the science doesn't matter, Max. It's what experts think of it that matters.

There is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise, so if you continue to insist that you can judge good and bad science for yourself instead of trusting experts, this argument is over.On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

still unanswered

J. Bailo,

You still haven't answered that lingering question from earlier in the week. As someone who's got only a passing knowledge of drums, will you accept the assessment of me and hundreds of other respected professionals that Joe is a talented drummer, regardless of your opinion of his music?

If not, why not?On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

that last post is for you, too, Max

manacker,

Please read the last few paragraphs of my response to J. Bailo regarding specific evidence. That was for you, too, along with all the others who say there's no evidence.On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

what scientists do

Max,

There have been hundreds of papers written in the last 15 years or so in the peer-reviewed literature, and along with the many that support the concept of anthropogenic global warming or that at least leave the door open to it, there are exactly zero that strongly doubt or refute the theory. I have to imagine these hundreds of papers, written by hundreds of scientists, represent exactly what you're asking for: evidence. Here's an article that discusses the consensus and the scientific literature in a clear and logical way: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Now, I'm no expert on all this stuff, and far from being any kind of science nut, let along a scientist. But I do tend to trust experts, especially lots of them who say the same thing. It seems to me these experts were doing a very wise thing when they combined data from many different temperature record sources, rather than simply pointing to one temperature record that appears to be contrary. Your argument seemst to rest upon only one set of observations.On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

missing the point

As always, I feel you're missing the point. In being concerned for humans, we must be concerned for other species, and the environment. If you don't understand this, you should learn about the life cycles of food, fuel, plastics, pollution, and other important elements of our lives and then return to the debate. I'll continue on the assumption that you do understand how the condition of our environment affects our lifestyle, consumption, and quality of life, and how these things affect the condition of our environment.

You have to be able to see it's not the Eskimo I'm worried about. He'll be fine if it gets a little cooler, or a little warmer. Or probably even a whole lot warmer. But your arguments reflect a startling lack of understanding that other animal species, which lack clothes, insulated structures, tools, and such, are slower to adapt. And plants are even slower, as it takes an enormous amount of time for one habitat to replace another. Even if animals can keep up with rising water, shifting weather patterns, and temperature changes, their food supplies somewhere down the food chain cannot. On top of that are enormous logistical problems posed by rising sea levels. If that theory pans out, there may be a period of such rapid sea rise that tens of millions of people need to relocate in an impossibly short amount of time. And not just that, but the infrastructure (roads, homes, factories, gas stations, chemical plants, oil refineries, sewage systems) they leave behind will be underwater, leeching toxins into the sea on an unprecedented scale.

So what we're talking about here is not a normal imbalance of nature. Nature is normally quite balanced on the scale we're talking about--years and decades. Wildfires and invasive species remake localities, but it is only with the influence of man that we see massive destruction of habitats, extinctions of species, and now, probably, climatological shifts.

Please don't try to use philosophy, guesswork, or spring break as rationales to ignore science.On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 7 months ago 170 Responses

analogy

J.Bailo,

Here's where your problem is: The question at hand, in terms of drummers, is, "Does this drummer possess skill and talent?" This is something measurable by other drummers. Can he keep time? How fast are his hands? How accurately can he play in a given style? What kind of dynamic contrast is he capable of? What you think of the drummer doesn't matter. It doesn't affect these quantifiable benchmarks.

Translating into climate science, the question at hand is not whether we like these scientists' ideas or the consequences they imply. It is whether their work is legitimate and robust based on the opinions of other scientists, not Joe Schmo bloggers. You and I are hardly qualified to intelligently critique the work of scientists with thousands of collective years of study, research, and experience among them, and who work in a community that strives for truth because it would die without it.

Your arguments continue to distract from the important issues, just like a slimy politician. This entire series of articles, along with many of the comments from Coby and others, contain a wealth of references to the work of scientists working for universities, environmental groups, governments, and industry groups. I don't know what "independent scientist" means to you, but I think are hundreds of them in all these lists of names. Unless "independent scientist" means a guy in his basement with some homemade equipment and hairbrained theories. You may not find many of those here.

I get the feeling you fantasize about being at some climate science convention, and during a Q&A session you stand up and deliver the enormous uppercut of a question that stumps the panel of experts. "Wow, this random guy from the audience has thought of something that we and our 800 highly educated colleagues haven't considered before." Is that why you're on here posting comments like this?

(Not a rhetorical question.)On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

debating with intelligence

J. Bailo and amtr, please debate with intelligence. Pouting, superstition, ignorance and conspiracy theory don't mix well with science.

J. Bailo, your arguments are petty and small. What an eskimo thinks of climate change has no bearing on whether his ecosystem will successfully transition through rapid changes. A rapidly changing ecosystem is most likely an unbalanced one, and an unbalanced ecosystem is ripe for invasive species, disease, extinctions, drought, flood, and famine.

amtr, "those pushing this junk science" are many hundreds of scientists all over the world who publish in peer-reviewed journals. Not ONE article in the legitimate scientific journals over the last ten years has refuted global warming, and not ONE has strongly doubted there is at least an anthropogenic component. About half of the hundreds of climate-change-related articles in these publications the last decade have asserted that man's contribution to the problem is somewhere between likely and nearly certain. If you can't trust that, then I suppose nothing can convince you.

Manacker, thank you for presenting a smart counterargument. My thoughts on all this:

(1) On a macro, philosophical level, scientists don't form a consensus for their health. Any scientist would be happy to be the one to make a final proof for or against something as huge as climate change. The scientific community tends toward facts and proofs since the work of any one scientist rests on the foundations established by the others, and it invalidates one's own work if the foundations are proven unsound. So scientists like to check each others' work and explore new possibilities. I cannot believe that your arguments have not been specifically addressed to some extent in studies up to this point. I don't have anything to point to to back it up, though. Take a look--I bet it's out there.

(2) More specifically, I understand our climate to be one of cycles on many different levels. Ice ages operate in the tens of thousands of years, sunspots in eleven-year turns, etc. So why is it at all surprising to you that the data isn't in a straight line? I think that specific matter is addressed in the section of the IPCC report you linked to.

(3) The environment is a more complex system than most skeptics (yourself excluded, I imagine) seem to realize. There are innumerable climatalogical and meteorological cycles to consider, along with countless factors from cow methane to deforestation, water vapor to glacial movement. Any computer model of this sort of system will be imperfect, and I feel uncertainty from fifty to a hundred years ago is likely due to the fact that we now measure and track so many things in so many more ways than we did then. And all this aside, CO2 is just one of those many factors being studied (and potentially blamed) for warming. Looking on page 684 of the IPCC report you cited, there are a couple of graphs that would seem to suggest that when all anthropogenic factors are considered (not just CO2), only since about 1935 has there been any trend away from what the climate might be doing without our influence. So apparently your CO2 vs. temperature chart alone doesn't paint the bigger picture that these scientists are seeing.

(4) I am waiting for someone to discover that this tremendous upturn at the far right side of the graph is due to some oversight in measurement, recordkeeping, tolerances, or calibration, but it seems extraordinarily unlikely given the number of people now studying the problem. Have you seen the number of different ways that past climates are being studied and quantified? Tree rings, ocean salt content at various depths, animal and plant fossil records, core sampling, and on and on and on. There are lots of checks and balances here.

Again, good to hear from a skeptic who's at least thinking about it. It's good brain exercise to have a quality argument with someone you disagree with.On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 7 months ago 170 Responses