Those scientists know that Al "McCarthy" Gore would take the photo and target all the dissenters.  Who wants to be checking temperatures in Siberia?

Andrew - I hope that calling people names makes you feel better about yourself.  

Maybe I'll take the trek up to Texas A&M and debate you in front of your class.  You just have to answer one question:

"Without using computer models or predictions, relying only on observed, and objective data, can Dr. Dressler show that increases in CO2 and the slight rise in temperature over the last 100 years has been a bad thing?"  

Hey Darth,

Can you prove to me, using only observed and objective data at the time, that a slight smell and itch coming from a large open wound in your leg will likely turn into gangrene?

Oh, I've got the penicillin, but you cant have it because I don't believe in gangrene.

-Christopher

Hi DarthPetrol,

That's a great idea that was similarly proposed by Brian Valentine, on an earlier blog. (one of the 400 heretics).

However, There was no response from Dr. Dessler.
Neither does he answer questions like could he point to some real evidence....not go read the IPCC report....but maybe a paper at his fingertips, that does not include the word model

   Can Global Warming Skeptics prove that they actually exist?   Can they prove that they don't get money from big oil companies to make their posts?  Can they prove that Global Warming is a good thing?

   Under the standard of proof most of them demand, there is nothing provable under the sun!!!  Back to the caves!!!

patrick in Beijing

Christopherj - thank you for responding in an appropriate way.  

To answer your question, yes, using only objective data I could show you that I have gangrene and that antibiotics could cure me. We could look at medical case studies of other patients with similar symptoms. We could isolate the organisms which cause gangrene and reproduce them in a lab then use antibiotics to measure the effectiveness of the drugs.  

So Patrick do you live in a cave in Beijing? I've been there many times and saw mostly apartment buildings. I don't think asking for data is an unreasonable request, nor is it unreasonable to ask about the accuracy and uncertainty of the data or whether or not the conclusions fall within both the accuracy and uncertainty of the data.  It is called science.  

Funny but I don't recall name calling as part of the scientific method.

Wallaby - was not aware that Brian Valentine had made a similar observation. That is why when Dressler and others argue the theory they always fall back on calls to authority.  "Believe the scientists" or "Trust the UN" sounds much better than "believe the computer models".  

But really that is the root of their argument.

Oh, we have 'medical case studies' too.  They are called ice core samples and they go back at least 500,000 years.  I am not a scientist or even a heavy student of science, but I know that they clearly demonstrate that both of these things can happen:

1.) global warming can cause a CO2 rise

2.) a CO2 rise can cause global warming

They "dance" with each other.

CO2 is measured in the bubbles in the ice and temperature is gaged from the oxygen isotopes in each layer, as I understand it.

I also know that CO2 has never been as high in 500,000 years as it is now and that the current spike is from anthropogenic (human) sources.

I also know that NASA, NOAA, IPCC, and the AGU have said that all of these factors point to a 90% probability of human caused global warming that can have a mostly negative impact on a society that has risen within a certain area of climate tolerance.

So, if your going to try to erase all of that for me you have a pretty big mountain to climb, Mr.  I'm not going to lose any sleep over fretting about your position.

Besides, this argument is rendered quaint now.  We have won and you have lost.  There WILL be a clean energy revolution and a transformation of our society between now and the late 2040's.  There WILL be a carbon cap and then a carbon tax.  You really don't have any impact on this momentum now.  Sorry.  It was fun.

-Christopher

Wallaby - I hadn't heard of Brian Valentine before, but I looked him up. His views are similar to mine, perhaps because we have similar educational backgrounds. My advanced degrees are in both chemistry and engineering.

Christopher - really you should read up on the difference between correlation and causation. And from your post it is pretty clear that for you AGW theory is a political cause.

Two things:

 Ultra strong correlation can lead to what is called 'a likelihood of causation', especially when other forces and factors are considered in the judgement.  And it is totally healthy and sane to act on anything more than 80% likely status.

 My SOLUTION is political, NOT the problem itself.  And you should be glad that is so.  Political solutions help keep me nonviolent.

And the politics and culture of this present day have now rendered your opinion into an insignificant footnote of American culture during these last years of oil money's power.

Go to bed.  You've earned your pay today.  Whatever Houston firm you work for has gotten their worth out of you.

-Christopher

Christopher J,

I do believe that you could find correlations with alleged rising global average temperatures, whatever they are with many other things:

Increasing human obesity in the lead nation; USA, followed I think by Australia, one or the other, or global, of your choice

Increasing consumption of hamburgers and other fast foods

Increasing usage of television world-wide

Increasing usage of anti-depressent drugs

Increasing availability of brown heroin from Afghanistan

What thinkest thou Christopher?

Black Wallaby - Yes, duh! This is because they are all linked.  This is the very basis of environmental science - interdependencies!  Sheesh!

Christopher - I admire your patience, I really do.  However, might I suggest banging your head against a brick wall?  You may find it slightly less irritating....

I fear that Gristmill is suffering an infestation.

VeganCuntryFat,

In what way are you making any contribution to what should be a SCIENTIFIC debate?

I COULD say to you; spread vegemite on your 6-day-old unwashed knickers, and eat them sloshed down with copius apple vinegar lubricant, but how does it forward the debate?

You are currently a waste of page space here.

Please put your brain in gear first, if you wish to actually contribute later!

   Okay, Darth, you got me.  I don't live in a cave!!

   So, let me back up, be polite, and ask the simple question.

   What is an acceptable standard of proof for you??  (and for the other people challenging global warming).

   What is acceptable generally?  What is acceptable in terms of climate data?  In terms of issues such as cigarettes and cancer?  Chemicals and cancer?

   Thanks!!!

patrick in Beijing

I am a professor in the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University. My research focuses on the physics of climate change, in particular, climate feedbacks.

A Professor in Bullsh*t, Tedious Personal Attacks and Tripping Over My Own Feet whilst trying to shove an ice core up my ....would be more appropriate.

I haven't posted much but I have read alot and you Dessler have about as much credibility as a scientist as David Beckham. The IPCC report is now 2-3 years out of date in a rapidly moving field yet you are still incapable of discussing new data, new ways of interpreting old data or anything else about your supposed work. I wish I was paid as a Professor to basically blog about 'what a good chap I am' and 'what terrible bad boys those 'trolls' and 'deniers' are'. I'm out of here for ever, this site and your blog in particular adds absolutely nothing to my learning about climate science. I may as well go read The Sun.

Stockypig

Stocky Pig,

Then contribute for crying out loud.  Sheesh.  Are those bluebonnets blooming and making you so cranky?

Also:  please be clear about your new information.  Which category does it fall under?  Something new around the edges of the subject, or something that changes the fundamentals.

-Christophersj

Black Wallaby,

Your logic fails.  Those factors cannot be mapped over 500,000 years of ups and downs in concert with heat and CO2.  So it doesn't work.

You don't get an Exxon check today.  Do not pass go.

Besides, as I said before, this is just spinning our wheels here.  The political momentum is already underway and you are powerless to stop it. (which is your goal in the end)

Look, youre not going to live in a dictatorship. You still get to choose the shape and color of your plug-in hybrid.  But your gonna have to buy one.

Do you feel oppressed now by having to buy a catalytic converter?

As Gristmill considers the scientific worthiness of an argument to be dependent upon the number of people who gather in its name, perhaps a post on the last time the faithful gathered for church services would be in order.

NO StillSkeptical,

It not just the quantity, but the quality as well, and you know that already.

Did Chevron send you the check yet?

Or are you simply willfully ignorant? In the face of overwhelming evidence, in the face of the fact that no "skeptic" can pass the muster of peer review, meaning their math doesn't add up? In the face of the melting of every inland glacier on the globe, and in the face of ice and ocean sediment core evidence? You are just another PR hack working for the fossil fuel industry. "The number of people" are actual climate scientists, making small acedemic and government salaries, not PR hacks and paid "skeptics" with six-figure "unrestricted research grants" from the coal and oil industries. How does it feel to betray the future of your society and possibly your species for a paycheck? Disgusting.

"It not just the quantity, but the quality as well, and you know that already."

And Grist knows the credentials of those listed.  If theirs don't count, then neither do the believer's.  

"How does it feel to betray the future of your society and possibly your species for a paycheck?"

I don't know; you tell me.

I can't speak for others who may take issue with global warming theory. For me, computer models don't constitute proof.  I would want some sort of independent experiment where the other variables and influences could be controlled. At least some experiment that demonstrates the physical principals behind the CO2 forcing theory.

Failing that maybe another 100 years worth of satellite data. The earth is billions of years old and yet we have only directly measured temperature for 500 years and satellite measurements for 50 years.  That is very small data sample.

    Dear Darth Patrol,

        Do you demand the same proof for new drugs before they are released to the market?  Or new chemicals before they can be used?  What kinds of proofs do you accept for other "theories"?   Or do you reject all of science??  No gravity?  No relativity (just math, after all)?  No Physics?

        Another 100 years?  That is a total fraudulent answer, since you and I will be long dead by then.

        Your answer basically is that NOTHING can convince you.  

        This is where the term "denier" comes from.

        Let's see, then  you probably refuse medicine and the use of clinical treatments that are less than 100 years old (after all, humans have been around over 100,000 years, so why not require a treatment be tested for at least a 100 years).

        You can't go to the dentist, the internet is definitely too young for you!!

        But, wait!!!  No one should talk to you until you have been posting for at least 100 years!!!

        It's spring, the silly season arrives early.

patrick in Beijing

Christophersj wrote concerning my satirical correlations between some worsening human conditions such as obesity in "advanced nations" and the advertised global average temperatures thus:

"Your logic fails.  Those factors cannot be mapped over 500,000 years of ups and downs in concert with heat and CO2.  So it doesn't work."

This is almost certainly a reference to the data that has been extracted from ice core drillings, however the response is severally flawed.
I'll try my best and take it through some steps, but line-by-line dogmatic reactions may prevent comprehension of the whole.

 The current concentration of trace levels of CO2 (PPM) as measured at Moana Loa is considerably higher than at any relevant time as currently measured in gas bubbles that were somehow trapped in the ancient ice.  Whilst there is a logical inference that because CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas and there are claims that it is at an unprecedented level, there is actually no way of directly observing its net influence or of testing it in realistic laboratory conditions. The ice cores cannot tell us anything about today, because there is nothing there to compare with what we appear to have today. Thus, among other things, we look to possible correlations with the published global average temperatures.  Obviously, CO2 could be one thing, but if you actually study the published data of temperature versus CO2, the relationship is not only irregular, but is neither linear or sensibly exponential, despite what the alarmists assert......go look!   Thus if CO2 does not show a sensible correlation, what does?  I suggested jokingly some correlations which may be better than seen in the CO2-T relationship but it is a stretch of the imagination to assert that they are in fact related, and it was a satirical observation pointing to the fragility in the current claims.  Nevertheless, there are some other correlations, which are more serious, such as increased land clearing and agricultural practice, affecting surface albedo, and various kinds of solar activity. See 3) below.

 If you have faith in the ice core record, and have actually studied the data in detail over a long time, you may be aware that many AGW alarmists initially trumpeted it as proof of CO2 initiated warming, despite that cause versus effect could NOT be described!  Another problem was that it applied to the very few high latitude regions where the proxy data was determined, but nevertheless was stated to be GLOBAL data.   At the same time, bizarrely, clear historic and other paeleo-data identifying a Medieval Warm Period around the world evidently warmer than today, were poo poohed  as being individually out of phase and hence NOT globally average-able.  (Despite that they covered a much larger area than the very few ice cores)
Anyhow this whole argument has recently gone rather quiet.  Why?  Because as finer resolution data later became available, whoops it became clear in the ice core proxy data that first the proxy temperature levels rise, and then some hundreds of years later, the CO2 concentrations in the entrapped gas bubbles rise. (800 years is the most popular lag number).   Oh, and much the same in the opposite direction....whilst the CO2 is at a MAXIMUM, the temperatures fall with a centennial lag in CO2 levels.

An interesting observation is that blogosphere traffic on this topic has been enormous, but if you go to the relevant IPCC report AR4 WG1, there is ZERO discussion on it!

Concerning points 3) onward, let's see how you go with 1) an 2) before I spend more of my time on this.

 Solar activity, including the so-far alarming trend "transition" to cycle 24, with no sunspots for two months + rapidly plunging T's.   (HOPEFULLY it does not continue!)
 Ice core data considerations
 Is Moana Loa relevant?
 Recommended reading
 Other stuff

C-J also wrote:

"You don't get an Exxon check today.  Do not pass go."

I've been retired for ~14 years and deny your ASSENINE ASSUMPTION that I am still employed.  If you can prove it, you could contact the ATO (IR in Americano, and gleefully let them know).  Even if I were to be covertly paid by some oil company, (BTW, which one do you totally prefer), so what?

You likely admire Pierre-Humbert (watsisname).... A la RealClimate fame!  I seem to recall that he received as head of department over $50 million funding sometime fairly recently.  OK, money talks!  Non e in accordo?

Concerning your other comments; Can I afford to buy a plug-in hybrid car?  No, and it would not make an iota of sense in Australia, despite that many government departments and other apologists and status seekers are doing just that by the thousands!

You see unless we in Oz convert to Nuclear Power, which is impossible because of the not-in-my-back-yard complex, then we will continue to mostly derive our electrical power from a relatively primitive coal-fired source, as in China.  (= lots of waste CO2 and particulates and stuff.

My chariot has a new generation diesel with TRULY astonishingly efficient performance, and no evident particulates from the tailpipe!  I am very contented with it.

Yes, there is a huge political problem, a bit like when G W Bush and other fundamentalists, even the driven moderate Colin Powell, lied to the world about WMOD, and invaded an oil-rich nation deriding the abhorrence of most of the real-world out there.

Andrew Dessler rehashes his old "my team is bigger than your team" story.  Last time his magic number (the "deniers") was "a few dozen", now it's down to 19. (The real number is probably around 150.)

I suppose he also believes that his team (the "alarmists") number 2,500 scientists, as the media and IPCC chairman would have us believe. (The real number is probably a few hundred.)

Now we all know that BOTH the 2,500 number and the 19 number are pure fabrications, the intent of which is to give numerical legitimization of the Oreskes "consensus" myth, which has since been debunked.

We also know that both numbers as well as Andrew's whole argument are totally irrelevant.

Unlike delegate counts in US primary elections, scientific legitimacy is not based on a headcount.

As a scientist, Andrew Dessler should come with some facts rather than with his tired "headcount" stories.

As to Andrew's statement: "And no one recycles more effectively than the climate denial machine," I'd have to ask, "How about Hansen? (He's been recycled and self-recycled ad nauseum and still whines about being muzzled).

Max

Patrick wrote: "It's spring, the silly season arrives early."

Tell it to the folks in the US Midwest that have been digging themselves out of record snowfalls for the past months, undoubtedly victims of the consequences of James E. Hansen's "tipping point" resulting from anthropogenic global warming.

Max

I hope you are having a nice late winter day in the caves of Beijing. Nice debate trick, trying to equate two things that are very different.  Al Gore said we know as much about AGW theory as we do gravity.  And you call me silly?

Drugs conduct clinical trials before being tried on the general public. Even then sometimes well designed studies miss things, like in the case of Vioxx.  Same with chemicals, chemicals, clinical treatments, the dentist, etc.  

The other major difference between the things you cite are that the clinical benefits clearly outweigh the risks. I trade some immediate and measurable benefit for some unknown risk.

AGW proponents are asking for just the opposite.  They want us to give up some immediate economic and societal cost for some unknown and unmeasurable benefit decades out in the future. Some try to equate it to "insurance" but again, insurable events can be measured with far greater accuracy than AGW models are capable of.

The more accurate term would be "global warming agnostic", because as you correctly point out I don't think there is enough proof yet.  I don't deny that AGW might be true or go as far as to say it is a hoax. AGW apocolyptics strike me more as members of some cult religion.  

It is a cult religion that apparently worships infoulable computer models.

So Patrick and others.  Recently someone made the following statement that seems to echo my concerns about the basis of the great global warming panic:

"The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models.

We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. [...] The term "global warming" itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable?"

So does this person also know nothing about science?  Is this mystery person a "denier".  Do you wish to heap ridicule on this persons qualifications and intellectual capacity?  

Maybe tomorrow I will tell you who said this. Still waiting for Andrew Dessler, the "Great Oz" to come out from behind his curtain.

   I have to admit I like the image of "infoulable" computer models, though I have never seen one.

   Alas, your expert is useless, unless he/she has been around for 100 years and has 100 years worth of questions.

   Since you reject logic that does not suit you, how can you use logic to support your case?  Remember that if logic is pointless, you cannot make any points.  You are left with your cult-like disbelief to use against what you perceive is others cult-like beliefs.

Dear Max,

      How poor!!!  You mean to discuss global warming without even knowing that it predicts greater variations in temperature and more extreme weather patterns??  How sad!!!  Surely you can do better than that!!  LOL.

      It will be getting close to 70 today!!  And we never got our snow.  Sigh.

patrick in Beijing

Hi Patrick,

I can't believe it!  In explaining the recent harsh winter weather and heavy snowfall, you actually wrote: "How poor!!!  You mean to discuss global warming without even knowing that it predicts greater variations in temperature and more extreme weather patterns??  How sad!!!  Surely you can do better than that!!  LOL."

"It" (IPCC?) predicts unusual cold spells and heavy snowfall?  (Can't find this in IPCC SPM 2007 anywhere.)  Can you point it out to me?

What I can find is (p.7), "...long term changes in climate have been observed.  These include...extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones" and (p.8), "Cold days and cold nights and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights and heat waves have become more frequent."  Did you catch that?  LESS cold, more heat, NOT more cold and snow.

It turns out that there are no supporting data for the claims on extreme weather and IPCC admits in the "fine print" on table SPM-2 that these are "more likely than not" (i.e. 51% probable), with the "Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed" and "Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies."  

To translate this from IPCC double talk to plain English these statements boil down to an admission that the claim is a "50-50 guess, not backed by any actual data".  So ignore it.

The suggestion of more intense tropical cyclones has been refuted by several studies, covering both the Atlantic and the Pacific, for which I can provide you the links, if you are really interested.

So you got that one wrong, Patrick.  You can't rationalize the unusually harsh winter of 2007-08 as a result of global warming.  My guess is that it is due to natural causes, as yet unknown to IPCC and the "mainstream scientific community".

Even if we were to enter a new Ice Age with glaciers moving down to northern Europe and North America, some die-hards would say IPCC predicted this to happen (because of "global warming" caused by man-made CO2, of course).

This is truly moving from the ridiculous to the absurd, Patrick.  Get serious.

Regards,

Max

(Xinhua)  
Updated: 2008-03-09 09:07

"China has completed the reconstruction of all the power-grids that were ravaged by the worst winter storm in 50 years that hit the southern part of the country in January, the State Grid Corporation announced in Beijing Saturday.

"The power grids of the whole country have resumed normal operation," the company said.

The power grids of 10 east provinces operated by the company were severely damaged in the disaster. As many as 172,000 high-voltage pylons collapsed under the weight of ice and snow..." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Enjoy your Spring silly season Patrick

Gotta admit, Black Wallaby, the stuff you reported from the Paraphysical Research Institute in La Jolla, California is too good to be true.

First, the lady scientist's name is "Frost", and then she is talking about "the Yin and Yang of scientific findings", when referring to the "mutually exclusive sets of scientific results" regarding "increasing or decreasing ice volumes on the Antarctic continent".  Wow!

Maybe this explains why IPCC makes claims that both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets LOST mass equivalent to a rise in sea level of 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993 to 2003, when actual satellite measurements of both ice sheets showed an INCREASE in ice mass over exactly the same time period.  

This definitely represents the "Yin and Yang" of "mutually exclusive" claims, as the lady said.  And I would agree with her that compared to the IPCC report "there is a higher level of physical understanding that must be developed".

Good stuff.

Regards,

Max

Hey Pangolin,

Are you for real with your silly statement about "trolls lumping in the denialism"?

Gimme a break about "peer reviewed journal articles".  

Wake up, Pangolin; it's a sham.  The "peer reviewers" are the same guys as the writers.  Haven't you gotten the picture?  Don't be so naïve. Didn't you follow the story on the Mann hockey stick scam?

Max

Poor Pangolin, but at least with your scaley covering I guess you dont have fleas, but maybe a host of ticks that just make you plain crotchety!
Have you run-out of antacid medication for your over-stressed digestive system?

According to my fairly copious very new non-Americano dictionary, I will quote the first of three meanings of the noun 'Satire':

"1, the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, etc., in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc."

This covers the situation fairly well.  In case you did not understand the noun 'satirical' I thought I'd look-it-up for you.

Let me also advise that "EcoEnquirer" is a satirical website which exposes fraud in the so-called environmental debate.

   Why do the deniers sound so desperate?  Guys, you have a problem.  If like Darth, you argue that you need at least 100 years of data to be able to make meaningful statements, then how can you make your OWN statements meaningful?

   Or does Darth's 100 years rule only apply to people who disagree with you?

   And Max, if you disbelieve the IPCC, then why are you trying to use it as evidence to support your own point of view about climate change?

   Or do you believe it when it agrees with you (you think) and disbelieve it when it disagrees with you?

   Umm, sorry guy, that doesn't work.

   It's like claiming in one sentence that George W. Bush is an idiot, then in the next describing him as the smartest guy around!!

   When youse contradict yourownself, youse got problems.

patrick in Beijing

Like I said Patrick:
Enjoy your Spring Silly Season

Hey Patrick,

You asked me: " And Max, if you disbelieve the IPCC, then why are you trying to use it as evidence to support your own point of view about climate change?"

Let me explain so you can understand.

You made a suggestion that the current cold and snowy winter was somehow caused by AGW.

I pointed out to you that not even the champions for the "AGW scare", the IPCC, make such a ridiculous statement.

I also pointed out how those statements that were made by IPCC relating to severe weather events were (by their own admission) not backed by any hard data, but were just 50-50 guesses, and that those relating tropical cyclone activity with AGW have been refuted by the observed facts as reported in scientific studies, which were ignored by IPCC.

Sorry, Patrick, you lost this part of our discussion.  Severe cold weather events are not caused by AGW, not even in the eyes of the greatest supporter of the disastrous AGW hypothesis, the IPCC.

Got it this time?

Regards,

Max

The whole AGW crisis depends on the output of computer models. That is the inconvenient truth for AGW theorists.  No computer models - no global warming scare.  

Why don't you want to tell people this simple fact?  If as you say, you have science on your side and there is this overwhelming consensus, then it shouldn't matter if people know the truth.

Why hide behind scientific authority or UN panels?  Could it be that the AGW proponents know that the public would be much less willing to accept this theory if they knew it was an artifact of computer modeling?  

I have not contributed to Gristmill in past, preferring to read the wise contributions of others.  However, I read with horror the appalling and disrespectful attitude of some of the most recent 'posters' and felt compelled to say something.  The visceral personal attack that resulted and the subseqent attacks on others, simply demonstrate their failure to engage in reasonable discussion.

I was accused of not adding to the scientific debate - ha!  Good one.

I doubt that I will in the future either.

  In your own post you say that the IPCC mentions "These include...extreme weather".  

  Now you tell me you were wrong??  That the IPCC doesn't mention "extreme weather"??  

  Or does that not include possible unusual cold spells?

  I am not sure what you think you have won by refuting yourself, but I hope you enjoy it, whatever it is.

  Or do you have a secret definition of extreme weather, known only to yourself??

  Anyway, happy denying!!

patrick in Beijing

   One of the things you should consider is a course in statistics.

   Statistics, simply put, are nothing more than large quantities of numbers of things we have counted.

   But since our counting methods may have flaws, we tend to use mathematics to try to make up for the flaws.  (These days, they involve mathematics on machines, instead of just paper, often times called "computer models" (more on that later)).

   In statistics, we deal with totals, but they are often meaningless, just numbers, it is the details that matter.

    For example the number 8 is a total.  The number four can represent the average between 8 and 0.  

    The number four can also represent the average between 4 and 4.

    Mathematically, these are the same.  They are equivalents.   4 + 4 = 8 + 0.

    From a practical standpoint, if they are temperatures, one can see that they are not the same.

    4 + 4 would represent a moderate climate.  

    8 + 0 would represent a climate given to extreme swings (Max should pay attention to this too!).

    Yet from an average point of view, they would be identical.  Imagine that!

    Now lets change the average to 6.  We could have 6 + 6.

    This would be a hotter temperature.

    Or 12 + 0.  Oh, oh, we can see how this would be more extreme!!!  And even scary.  While the average is only 2 higher than the average of 4, the extreme is much higher!!!

    And there are many other possibilities.

    But it is helpful to first understand a little bit about statistics.

    The other thing about statistics, is to understand what they are good at doing and what they are poor at doing.

patrick in Beijing

   Imagine you are flipping a coin, and writing down the result each time.

   After a couple of hundred flips, you have some totals.  So many heads, and so many tails.  These are statistics.

    But, if you flip the coin again, you still have no idea of what the result will be.

   Statistics are very bad at predicting the results of any one event.  It is part of their nature.  Try it yourself.  You'll see.  

    What you can do , is use statistics to predict the results of a number of coin tosses to a fair degree of accuracy.

   But you can't predict any particular coin toss.

   This also applies to things like weather.  You can predict trends in weather  (like coin tosses) but cannot predict the weather on any particular day.

   But note, that over time, as you collect large amounts of data (coin tosses), you may find that you are predicting the general trend of tosses.  But  still, you will never predict that next toss with any particular accuracy.

   Which brings us to global warming.  We can see large general trends, but predictions which focus on "one" event, don't work very well.

   Don't believe me?  Start tossing coins!!!

patrick in Beijing                                                                                                                                                                    

   Dear Darth,

       I am not surprised you don't understand computer models.  They seem to mystify most people.  Maybe I can help a little bit.

       There is nothing magical about computer models.  They are really nothing more than long mathematical formulas written in computer code instead of on paper.

       Any compute model can be written on paper.  Any mathematical formula can be written on a computer and become a "model".

       Here is how they work.  Someone (often a number of someones) develops a formula that they believe represents what they see happening in real life.

       They put it on a computer.  Presto!!  They have a computer model.

       But is it any good??

       No one can predict the future and tell if their prediction is correct before the future actually arrives.

       So, what to do?

       Well, the past at one time was the present, and it had a future.

        So, if we feed the past into the model, it should be able to predict it's own future.  If it does, we are on the right track.  If it doesn't, it's back to the drawing board.

       Of course, it's not that simple.  We need to feed in the data from  a number of pasts.  And the data is not always collected in the same way, and it just isn't that simple.

        But, if we feed in more and more data, and adjust our models, over time, they get better.

        There are always lots of different models, and they often disagree.

        But, what happens when they mostly start to show something similar??  Bells and alarms go off.

        We may have something true and real.  As true and real as we can find at this time.

        Of course, it is possible to reject science, and to say that there is no point in trying to understand anything until we know ALL of the answers and have ALL of the data, perfectly lined up (sound familiar?).  But that way means no "theories".  Which is the antithesis of science, and of how progress is actually made.

        But really all computer models do, is run the data.  Nothing so terrible or magical.

        It is worth noting that computer models are used extensively in every day life, from medicine to machine design.  If you really hate them, you should log off, and consider heading for Amish country.  (nothing against the Amish).

patrick in Beijing

Black Wallaby:  Back on March 8th, you said

"If you have faith in the ice core record, and have actually studied the data in detail over a long time, you may be aware that many AGW alarmists initially trumpeted it as proof of CO2 initiated warming, despite that cause versus effect could NOT be described!  Another problem was that it applied to the very few high latitude regions where the proxy data was determined, but nevertheless was stated to be GLOBAL data.   At the same time, bizarrely, clear historic and other paeleo-data identifying a Medieval Warm Period around the world evidently warmer than today, were poo poohed  as being individually out of phase and hence NOT globally average-able.  (Despite that they covered a much larger area than the very few ice cores)

Based on the above, I don't think you really understand what the cores are telling us.  The temperature in the cores is derived from the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the ice.  This is based on the "global temperature", not local effects.  So you are not correct when you say it applies to a few very high latitude areas.  

You are further incorrect when you state that the other proxies cover a much larger area than the ice core records.  Again, the ice core is actually one of the proxies that does give a fairly good idea of global conditions.

In regards to the individual proxies that show the MWP, some do, some don't - but as you state one of the key problems is the phase problem.  

I regards to the lead / lag issue, that is an interesting topic and I would be interested in discussing it further with you.  However given the timings I would say that the initiation of de-glaciation must be based on orbital mechanics, in which case, why would you not expect CO2 to initially lag?  

Finally, I would like you to clarify your statement "...but if you go to the relevant IPCC report AR4 WG1, there is ZERO discussion on it!"  I am not sure I agree, but I would like you to specifically state what there is zero discussion on.

Dr. Dessler:  Thank you for an interesting blog.  I will be dropping by more often!

Regards,
John Cross

Patrick in Beijing:  I liked your comment about waiting until we know all the answers.  I do a little work in fluid mechanics and there is still a huge amount of work to be done in order to understand fluid flow.  

For example in aerodynamics, we can not trace the trajectory that an individual particle will take as it passes over a wing (and don't get me started about vortexes).  

However Bernoulli's equation still applies to many situations very well.

Regards,
John Cross

Hi Patrick,

You wrote: "In your own post you say that the IPCC mentions "These include...extreme weather".  
  Now you tell me you were wrong??  That the IPCC doesn't mention "extreme weather"??  
  Or does that not include possible unusual cold spells?
  I am not sure what you think you have won by refuting yourself, but I hope you enjoy it, whatever it is.
  Or do you have a secret definition of extreme weather, known only to yourself??"

Sorry, Patrick, you really should read the IPCC report if you want to quote it.

I used the IPCC statement on extreme temperature: "Cold days, cold nights and frost have become less frequent while hot days, hot nights and heat waves have become more frequent."  On extreme weather, IPCC includes "droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and intensity of tropical cyclones".

There is no mention of INCREASED extreme cold weather, bur rather a statement that cold days, cold nights and frost have become LESS FREQUENT.

Hope this clears it up for you.

Regards,

Max

  Nice try Max, but "includes" is not the same as "is limited to".

patrick in Beijing

Nice try, Patrick, but you have not shown me where IPCC projects colder weather from AGW, while I have shown you where they specifically predicted fewer cold days and nights.

But we've beaten this dog to death.  If you want to believe that the cold winter of 2007-2008 was caused by global warming which was caused by human CO2 emissions, by all means do so.

It's great to have blind faith even against all odds.

I'll pass on that one, though.

Regards,

Max

Thanks, Patrick, for your lesson on "Statistics 101".

You indicate that statistics are not good at forecasting the weather, but are better at the "broad brush approach" of forecasting overall climate changes.

Makes sense to me.

When using computer models to make forecasts (or "projections", as the modelers prefer to call them), it would seem to me to be very important to crank in the correct assumptions (or "feedbacks", "scenarios" and "storylines", in modeler-speak).

What is your take on this, and how can we be sure we are not getting GIGO forecasts?

Regards,

Max

Thanks Patrick for the computer lesson.

I have tried to obtain some of the underlying mathematical relationships for the CO2 sections of the GCM models.  Once I was interested in the equations of state used in the GCMs so I asked an expert.  Instead of an answer I got back hate mail.

My chemical engineering models had very good physical properties and lots of repeatable data. These models are much less complicated than the GCM models, yet we can't predict temperatures down to 1 or 2 degrees C on well defined systems.

I guess Chemical Engineers should just turn over the modeling jobs to the climate modelers.  They seem to have figured out all the hard stuff we struggle with.  

Of course the climate modelers can only make forecasts out 50 years with absolute certainty. Don't ask them if it will rain tomorrow, they don't have a clue.

VeganCountyFan wrote on 10 Mar 2008

"I have not contributed to Gristmill in past, preferring to read the wise contributions of others.  However, I read with horror the appalling and disrespectful attitude of some of the most recent 'posters' and felt compelled to say something.  The visceral personal attack that resulted and the subseqent attacks on others, simply demonstrate their failure to engage in reasonable discussion.
I was accused of not adding to the scientific debate - ha!  Good one.
I doubt that I will in the future either."

I totally agree, although sometimes become over-irritated by streams of non-contribution to the debate topic, and retaliate.
I think there is too much testosterone on this site, and the balling just snowballs. For instance one "contributer" said something to Max Manacker like:
"You have rocks in your head"
Followed by another "contributer" adding something like:
"That is an insult to rocks."

Quite silly really.

Hey Darth,

You queried what!   How dare you!

Still, at least you didn't get a death threat.

What I don't understand is that there are so many complex systems, (not just simple parameters), that should be included, which are not yet fully understood; clouds being a classic example.  How do they manage to make the correct assumptions when there is inadequate data?

I'm confused.

  Dear Max,

      I worked in a number of large corporate systems, and the amount of GIGO was impressive.  It sometimes amazed me that any number in the world is reliable...

      That said, there is a standard way to measure models.

      Feed different sets of data through (from the past) and match them to reality.  They should match pretty closely (never perfectly), which would demonstrate the reliability of the model.

      Are they perfectly predictable then?  Nothing is.  Not even cigarette smoking and cancer.  But I wouldn't advocate it.

      They are the best we can do with what we have at this time.  And there are always new and better ones.

      Science is not about find grand "eureka" answers mostly at this point, it is a lot of little slogs forward, painfully made (with a step back once in a while).

      And computer models are sometimes the same.  But we can measure and test them.

Dear Darth,

      Most people regard their models as proprietary, they exact mixture is like the ingredients in Coke, NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.  This i s after all, how they hope to make money.

      Is this good for science?  No, not really, but it is the nature of capitalism.

      All we can do is look at data and results.  Sad, really, but there it is.

patrick in Beijing

Hi Black Wallaby: Thanks for your response - I appreciate you taking the time to explain your point.  However I am afraid that I still disagree with you.'

You are correct that the isotope precipitation process is a complex one affected by Rayleigh fractionalization and other things (i.e. the size of the ice caps).  However even so we can still produce useful results from it.

I believe that you are further incorrect when you provide the concluding quote in the context of isotopes.  The ratio of isotopes should be fairly insensitive to the temperature at which they are deposited (but sensitive to the path they took to get there).  Anyway, the part you quote from is another method where they actually measure the borehole temperatures at different depths to build up a temperature profile (nothing to do with isotopes).  

I would also disagree with your interpretation of the AR4 report.  In chapter 6 on pages 444 to about 448 it discusses the idea of Milankovitch cycles forcing initial climate change and then CO2 rising as a response and then a forcing.  The lag is well documented in there in several places.  I will also note that in the next report, they will probably talk about Loulergue work which would imply that this lag is not as clear cut and many would like it to be.  To quote from his abstract:  Our finding suggests that the phase relationship between CO2 and EDC temperature inferred at the start of the last deglaciation (lag of CO2 by 800±600 yr) is overestimated and that the CO2 increase could well have been in phase or slightly leading the temperature increase at EDC.

Thanks for an interesting response.

Regards,
John

I've been reading this thread trying to comprehend why someone with scientific and technical background would be so passionately trying to deny the overwhelming science supporting global climate imbalance. And then I remembered an interview I heard on the radio several years ago. It was with a medical researcher and MD who had worked for 40+ years for Phillip Morris denying the link between cancer, lung and hear disease, and smoking. The amazing thing was that he still believed, after so many years of established science, that everyone else in the medical community was wrong and that his "data," which had never been able to pass the muster of peer review, was somehow correct.

The interviewer finally asked him how he could still believe there was no link between cancer and smoking. His reply? "How could I live with myself, knowing that my career and paycheck had come from a company who had caused so much sickness and death? That would violate my oath as a physician." (Paraphrased, of course).

The PR hacks who know what they are doing but are too self-absorbed and nihilistic to care are disgusting. But the "scientist" who refuses to face the truth? That's just pathetic.

Hey Robco1,

Looks like you sort of got carried away in your analogy: "The PR hacks who know what they are doing but are too self-absorbed and nihilistic to care are disgusting. But the "scientist" who refuses to face the truth? That's just pathetic."

Comparing an MD on the Phillip Morris payroll who denies that smoking causes lung cancer (as proven in extensive clinical trials with hard data) with someone who is rationally skeptical of the "computer-generated virtual predicted future AGW disaster" is ludicrous.

There is no valid comparison. Period.

It is as absurd as the comparison made by AGW activists, which compares AGW skeptics with "holocaust deniers".

And it is not a matter of "refusing to face the truth".  

The rational skeptic is actually searching for the "truth" - which is pretty hard to find among all the shaky science, ballyhoo and hype out there.

Max

Hey Pangolin,

You wrote: "Correct, there is no valid comparison. The amount of research connecting human activity to global warming far exceeds the tobacco/cancer connection in the sheer amount of data, independent paths of confirmation and precision and validity of analysis."

The first part of your statement made sense.

The second part obviously does not.  

Sheer volume of paper does not reflect scientific evidence.  Nor does repeating a dogmatic statement over and over make it any more true.

Show me, if you can, where there is any experimentally derived hard data (not computer models) "connecting human activity [specifically CO2 emissions] to global warming".  Which physical experiments were run and what data were collected from them?

As for your doomsday statement: "Climate change denial, outside of peer reviewed studies, is nothing less than denial of the mass execution of millions at minimum and possibly billions of people.

It's reprehensible to the extreme."

"Mass execution of...possibly billions of people?"

Wow!  This hyperbole is ridiculous to the extreme.

Come back down to Earth, Pangolin.  Don't paint a more disastrous picture than IPCC does.

Max

Hey Pangolin,

You wrote: "There is also VERY LITTLE DOUBT that IF localized climate change due to warming persists in disrupting croplands mass famine WILL result. Such a famine COULD easily engage negative feedbacks that CAN result in far more early deaths and lost productive-years of human life than tobacco ever will."

I've capitalized the key words in your statement.

"Very little doubt"?   Hmmm...

There is no hard evidence to date that localized climate change due to warming has disrupted croplands, so you started off with a mighty big IF.

Then you say that your imaginary famine COULD engage hypothetical "negative feedbacks".  What kind of feedbacks?  Where are the physical data?

These imaginary hypothetical feedbacks can then "result in far more early deaths".  Please explain, providing backup data.

By physical data I do not mean computer model studies.  They don't count.

Relax.  It's all hype, Pangolin.  There's no disaster ahead.

Max

Believe it or not, folks, Pangolin actually wrote (and may even have believed it was correct, although I cannot imagine it): "There is no apt historical comparison to global warming deniers as no other historical group had the ability to destroy the majority of the human race."

Global warming "deniers" are going to "destroy the majority of the human race"?

Wow!

What a bunch of unadulterated BS!

This reminds me of "Repent now - the end is near!" hysteria.

Pangolin, tell me, are you a fundamentalist "cult" preacher?  What's your gig?

Max

Black Wallaby:  Thanks for the links!  You are correct and now I am somewhat better informed.  As I said - thanks.

I will add that the glacier temperature signal is supported by the coral isotopes so I suspect that it is broadly representative of the earth, but that is another argument for another time.

In regards to the lag I am surprised that you think 800 years is not reasonable.  Keep in mind, we are not talking about any increase in energy from the sun when we are talking Milankovitch cycles.  There are two main reservoirs of CO2, the oceans and land based.  Increases in temperature would need to warm the oceans to begin off-gasing of CO2 and the land based portion was locked up under glaciers which would also require a lag time.  Consequently I would expect to see a fairly slow rise in CO2.

Upon reading back through your posts I see you also stated "..... the ice-core to Moana Loa "correction factor" of 83 years, I think it is for Greenland."  Do you have a reference for that.

Thanks,
John

Hi John,

Sorry to cut in on your exchange with Black Wallaby, but one point caught my eye, so I did a quick check.

You cited a critique of a 2004 paper by Zbigniew Jaworowski "Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Global Climate", on the Boojums blog site.

Let's go through Boojum's critique of Z's statements, one by one.

To Z's statement "many climatologists have claimed that human activity has caused the near-surface air temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in history. Industrial carbon dioxide emissions, they say, will soon result in a runaway global warming, with disastrous consequences for the biosphere.", the "Boojums" blog responds: "If we were sticklers, we might ask for more specificity than `many climatologists', or object that no one has predicted `runaway' warming."

Boojums is apparently not well informed on this.  IPCC supposedly (according to their chairman) represents 2,500 scientists, a significant number of whom are "climate scientists"; IPCC has stated that the late 20th century rate of warming is unusual, and that this period is likely to be the warmest in the past 1300 years.  Now maybe that's not saying exactly "faster and higher than ever before in history", but it comes very close.  So one point for Z.

"No one has predicted `runaway' warming"?  Maybe not the IPCC, but how about Hansen with his "tipping point" from which the environment and human civilization are unlikely to be able to recover?  And Hansen is not alone among alarmist climatologists.  
Score another point for Z.

Z's second quoted statement was : "Just a few years earlier, these very same climatologists had professed that industrial pollution would bring about a new Ice Age. In 1971, the spiritual leader of the global warming prophets, Dr. Stephen H. Schneider from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that this pollution would soon reduce the global temperature by 3.5°C."

Boojums' first says that there were only two scientists (Schneider, Rasool), who predicted global cooling at the time.  While the number was much smaller than the current "2,500" who predict warming, there were definitely some others beside just these two.  

The Newsweek April 28, 1975 article named a few of these scientists and then stated "that scientists were "almost unanimous" in believing that the looming Big Chill would mean a decline in food production, with some warning that "the resulting famines could be catastrophic." In addition, Newsweek said, "the evidence in support of these predictions" - everything from shrinking growing seasons to increased North American snow cover - had "begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."

Not to be out-scooped, Time, July 29, 1975, reported, "Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."  "Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees F."  Times also named some of the scientists.

Bryson, Kukla, Lamb, Emiliani, Hare, Mitchel, McQuigg are some of the names mentioned.

So there were definitely more than "only two scientists" who predicted cooling, but still a small number when compared to the hundreds who are riding on the multibillion dollar global warming industry of today.

So let's call this a tie for Boojums and Z.

Boojums then goes on to rationalize why Schneider et al were wrong in their prediction "because they had used too low a value for CO2 sensitivity" (not too relevant to the discussion here) and to add to a partial quotation, which was omitted by Z (also irrelevant to the specific discussion).

To Boojums' closing remark: "We are now three paragraphs into a twelve-page paper. Jaworowski has already presented us with four misleading statements, three errors of omission, two outright errors of fact and a misattribution in a pear tree."

I'd correct that and say that the score is 2 for Z, 0 for Boojums and 1 tie.  (Couldn't find the "misattribution in a pear tree").

In summary, Z may be dead wrong on his predictions of a "solar-caused Little Ice Age" (let's hope so!), but Boojums did a pretty unconvincing job of showing that his statements were flawed.

Just my input on this.

Regards,

Max

Hi Jabailo,

You refer to "the people who shout that January's drop in temperature does not represent climate".

The key point here is obvious.  Ya gotta know what the difference is between weather and climate.

If January 2008 had been the warmest January in 10 years it WOULD represent evidence of an alarming change in CLIMATE.  Since it was the coldest January, it's only weather and irrelevant.

For several years in a row the Hadley Centre has given us forecasts that the next year will likely be the hottest on record, and that this is part of an alarming warming climate trend, only to have to swallow their words when the facts come in, with such statements as "200X was the sixth warmest year in this century".

They finally wised up this year, and did not make any predictions.

To your question whether "'climate' is linear, non-linear or chaotic", a good starting point would be to look at weather.

Sure, one can usually say (in the N. Hemisphere) that July will be warmer than January, but one cannot accurately predict the weather more than a few days in advance.

There are "Farmers' Almanacs", etc. out there that try to do this, but they are about as specific and accurate as the predictions made by astrologers, oracles or prophets.

If you accept that weather is chaotic, and that the concept of "climate" is sort of an integration of weather over longer periods of time, then doesn't it follow that "climate" is by definition also chaotic and therefore not predictable?

Regards,

Max

Hi Josullivan58,

Welcome back.  Glad you have "chosen to reply".

You wrote: "Some of the arXiv articles are nonsense".

Both the G+T and the Smith papers were arXiv articles, but that does not automatically make them "nonsense".  

But with all your talk of "peer review" you have not brought any refutation of G+T, and ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

Keep trying.

Regards,

Max

Hi Max:  thanks for reviewing my source and supplying your comments.  However you appear to not understand the points that were made.  
You claim that the statements "... caused the near-surface air temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in history." And "...late 20th century rate of warming is unusual, and that this period is likely to be the warmest in the past 1300 years" to be equivalent.  However to consider this true you would need to equate "faster than ever" with "unusual" and "history" with "1300 years".  I can not see the equivalence of these but I am prepared to listen to an argument.  But I will say that Boojums wins this one!

Your second point equated "runaway warming" with "tipping points".  Again this is not correct.  A tipping point is a change of state with (in this case) a positive feedback.  A runaway greenhouse effect is also an effect of a positive feedback, but there is an importance difference between the two.  In electrical engineering terms a tipping point has a gain of less than 1 while a runaway had a gain of more than 1.  

You also say "Boojums' first says that there were only two scientists (Schneider, Rasool), who predicted global cooling at the time.  While the number was much smaller than the current "2,500" who predict warming, there were definitely some others beside just these two."  In this case you have missed the context of the statement in that Jaworowski was talking about an ice age caused by industrial pollution.  Who predicted an ice age is not relevant unless they predicted it would be caused by industrial pollution.  

You also seem to be confused about who stated what.  It was Jaworowski who provided two authors as "many climatologists".  

The question of who predicted an ice age when is interesting.  I will state that I do not know a climatologist who does not think that without AGW we will see another iceage - the key point is when (about 10,000 years from now seems to be the most recent answer).  We can discuss it in more detail if you wish.

So by my count it is still Boojums 3 and Jaworowski 0.  

Regards,
John

Hi John,

You wrote me: "Jaworowski was talking about an ice age caused by industrial pollution.  Who predicted an ice age is not relevant unless they predicted it would be caused by industrial pollution."

If you check it out a bit more closely, you will see that there were others (as I admitted far fewer than those predicting AGW today) that also projected global cooling from human pollution.  I named a few that were listed in Newsweek, Time, etc.  And I agreed that the Joworowski/Boojums dispute on this point was tied, since there were more than two, but far fewer than today.

Jaworowski's essential point (which Boojums did not address) is that there were doomsayers back in the 1970s as there are today: " No matter what happens, catastrophic warming or catastrophic cooling, somehow the blame always falls upon `sinful' human beings and their civilization - which is allegedly hostile and alien to the planet."

This essential point (the use of guilt and hyperbole to spread a message of hysteria to a public that is unaware of all the facts) was underscored by the quote from Stephen Schneider" "To capture the public imagination ... we have to ... make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have. ... Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest."

Boojums cherry-picked wisely in not addressing this statement in its critique of Jaworowski, since it is just as true today as it was back when Schneider made it.

Your point on the technical difference between "runaway" climate change and reaching a "tipping point of the system with the potential for irreversible deleterious effects" (as Hansen puts it) is summarized in your statement, "In electrical engineering terms a tipping point has a gain of less than 1 while a runaway has a gain of more than 1."  

This moot point will be lost on most everyone who is not an "electrical engineer" and, therefore, unaware of this technical fine point in electrical engineering terminology.  (BTW Hansen's message was not given to a meeting of electrical engineers it was given to the US House of Representatives.)  For them (and the general public) these two are the same.

As to the difference between "human activity has caused the near-surface air temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in history" and the statements in IPCC SPM 2007 that temperature is "the highest in the past 1300 years", that the "warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years" (when temperature records only exist since the late 19th century) and "very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming" is again splitting hairs.  

Jaworowski made the point in fewer words with less modulating verbiage (such as "likely", "very likely" or "very high confidence") than IPCC, but they are both getting the same message across: "Human are causing it to be warm more quickly to higher temperatures than we have ever seen."

So the score is still: J = 2, B = 0, tie = 1

But this is not a fruitful discussion, John, just like the Boojums "putdown" of Jaworowski really did not contribute much either (which is the whole point I wanted to make).

This kind of blog site "putdown" to selectively pick statements out of a scientific paper to discredit and ridicule the writer and the conclusions of the paper is a standard gambit of those who want to invalidate any dissent of the so-called "consensus" view on AGW.

Next Ice Age (in 10,000 or maybe 100 years)?

Could be an interesting topic.

What do you think?

Regards,

Max

Sorry, John.

The number of scientists in the Greenpeace poll was actually 45% of the 113 who responded, so only 51 scientists.

A smaller "many" than I said earlier, but still many (try to get that many into a phone booth or elevator).

Regards,

Max

Hi Max:  Just saw your greenpeace poll.  My opinion is that polls like this are not really that good at determining who thinks what in scientific areas.  For example if I was given the question that they were asked, I would answer possible.  Look at how they phrased the question - "emissions continued at their present rate."  What does this mean - continue at this rate until we run out of fossil fuels, continue in a theoretical way for ever, etc.  

When we wrote the Boojums piece we based it on peer-reviewed work as much as possible.  I think the relevant question is who published that in their opinion there would be a runaway greenhouse effect.

Regards,
John

Hi John,

You wrote: "The Boojums article showed that in this article Jaworowski had several facts wrong."

Wrong, John.  In the article we are discussing, Boojums did not even discuss the "scientific facts". Instead it resorted to the "golden horseshoe" approach of attempting to ridicule Jaworowski.

The points they mentioned did not accomplish this at all.

Then you added: "If there are errors in a paper then they should be exposed.  I don't understand the view point that scientific errors are not important."

Here I agree with you (I never said that scientific errors are not important, did I?).

However, Boojums did not "expose" any scientific errors in Jaworowski's paper, but rather snidely gave him a "golden horseshoe" for other statements he made.

But to your basic point: there are many scientific errors in IPCC SPM 2007.  Should they also be exposed?  Should we count on Boojums to take care of this?  Probably not.

I am surprised at your statement that you that you are "somewhat surprised" that I do not think it is "appropriate to select statements out of a paper that are incorrect or based on faulty logic".

Do you mean by "select" what AGW proponents refer to as "cherry pick"?   I thought this was what skeptics do, not what AGW proponents are supposed to support.  But I agree that "cherry picking" is OK, provided it is pertinent.

But face it, John.  Boojums did a lousy job of trying to discredit Jaworowski.  

Now let me tell you that I am not necessarily supporting Jaworowski's predicting of an upcoming ice age.  

But I also reject the IPCC projection of alarming global warming, and - even more - Hansen's prediction of an imminent global warming "tipping point" that will result in the destruction of our planet.  

What is your stand on this?  Do you really believe this malarkey?  

Since you are a rational, technically savvy individual, I sort of doubt it.

Regards,

Max

Regards,

Max

Hi John,

You wrote: "In regards to Jaworowski's statement that "human activity has caused the near-surface air temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in history" could you please indicate where he defines that it is the instrumental temperature history he is talking about as you indicate.  To me his history could have been the ice core temperature history or the geological temperature record.  And that doesn't even touch his comment about rate."

Since you ask me to "please indicate", here goes.

Webster: History = "a systematic written account comprising a chronological record of events"

The most recent "written" "chronological record" of temperature is the instrumental temperature record.  I believe Hadley is one of the oldest, going back to around 1850.

Then there are written records relating to crop growth, unusually harsh winters, advancing glaciers, sea passages, etc. from all over the civilized world at the time that go back as far as medieval times, and in rare cases, even further.  These are also "historical" records from which climate data can be gleaned, although (when it comes to the Medieval Warm Period) some AGW supporters prefer to call this "anecdotal" rather than "historical" evidence.

IPCC has probably covered the period one could call "history" (when discussing records of temperature) pretty well, when it refers to the past 1300 years.  And quite possibly this could be the period to which Jaworowski was referring in his statement.  He did not make it a point to specify.

Ice core temperature data are scientific proxy recreations, but do not constitute "history", in the true sense of the word, since they are not based on a "written account comprising a chronological record of events".

Had Jaworowski written "geological history" it would have been more specific, and would have included all of the ice core data.

Historical data for rate of temperature increase are even harder to specify.  There I would suppose that Jaworowski was probably referring to the period of the historical instrumental temperature record (from which a rate of increase could be determined), although, again, he was not specific on this point.

But hey, John, let's not drag this exchange on too long.

In other blog articles that I have seen, Boojums has done a better job of critiquing scientific papers by going after and refuting specific scientific points one by one with supporting evidence.  This is the correct way to critique a scientific paper.

In this article they just did a poor job by not addressing specific scientific claims of Jaworowski but only trying to ridicule him with a "golden horseshoe" award for statements he made.  This approach usually backfires, as it clearly did in this case.

Next time, John, bring a better Boojum reference.  I know they are out there.

Regards,

Max

John,

Might I add to Max's comments that perhaps It should be remembered that Zbigniew Jarowowski is not a native English speaker.
I have to think hard when even spelling his name!  I think I got it right.

Regards, Bob

Hi Max:  Sorry, no matter how you cut it Jaworowski made a number of errors in the first few paragraphs and Jim and I merely pointed them out.  He attributed comments to groups which can not be supported and made misrepresented the work of other scientists.  In my view these are serious errors.  

Now, I do know that this is just the first part of a multi part series and I also know that there are other errors further into the article that you might consider more scientific.  But it does not make the initial ones any less.  

In regards to the points in question, the only argument you seemed to present was your definition of history.  I looked at the online Merriam-Webster dictionary and found the following :

1: tale, story
2 a: a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes b: a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena c: an account of a patient's medical background d: an established record (a prisoner with a history of violence)
3: a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events (medieval history)
4 a: events that form the subject matter of a history b: events of the past c: one that is finished or done for (the winning streak was history) (you're history) d: previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal)

As you can see a number of them would actually support a longer timeframe.  For example 2a just talks about a chronological record of events.  2b is even better as it talks about presenting related natural phenomena.  

However I think that context plays an important part in something like this and in an article talking about ice cores, I think that a reference to history can be taken to be of a similar time frame as the ice cores represent.

Finally, if you think that pointing out errors in scientific papers is actually "cherry picking" then I can see that we have a lot more discussion in front of us.  Which is probably a good thing,

Regards,
John

Black Wallaby:  Thanks for the post.  I am going to consider what you wrote and post again later.

Regards,
John

Hi John,

You are beating a dead horse.

Surmising what Jaworowski meant by "history" is meaningless.

As an observer, I can only tell you that the Boojums article you cited was unconvincing.

If you think it was a great piece of scientific refutal, that's your opinion.

Let's not waste any more time on this.

Bring better arguments next time.

Regards,

Max

Hi John,

You wrote: "Finally, if you think that pointing out errors in scientific papers is actually "cherry picking" then I can see that we have a lot more discussion in front of us.  Which is probably a good thing."

So what would be the definition of "cherry picking"?

This is a term, which I have seen frequently used by supporters of the theory that we are in a period of potentially alarming global warming caused by an anthropogenic greenhouse effect when referring to those who are skeptical of this theory.

From Webster online I see the definitions:
Intransitive verb: "to select the best or most desirable"
Transitive verb: "to select as being the best or most desirable; also: "to select the best or most desirable from"

In the context of the ongoing scientific debate surrounding the anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW) theory and its implications, it has been used to indicate: "to select the scientific data points, reports, statements, etc., which are the most desirable for getting across the point one wants to make", with the implicit addition: "while ignoring, rejecting or refusing to accept as correct those data points, reports, statements, etc., which do not support or contradict the point one wants to make".

Would you agree with my interpretation on this?  Or would you see a better or more precise definition?

If we can agree on a definition, then we can both get more specific, if you really feel that. "a lot more discussion" of this topic "is probably a good thing".

Regards,

Max

Hi Max:  You stated that "Surmising what Jaworowski meant by "history" is meaningless".  I might point out that it was actually you who first introduced the idea of resorting to the definition of history.  However since you brought it up, the definition easily allows for an interpretation that goes back a hundred thousand or a hundred million years.  However more importantly is the context of "history" as used in the article which, when talking about ice ages and solar cycles obviously refers to hundreds of thousands of years.  

So in fact all the criticisms in the Boojums article still stand.  

You may feel that the article was unconvincing but you have not made a case for such.  If you really feel it is unconvincing then it should be no problem to produce better rebuttals.

Regards,
John.

Max:  I can accept your definition of "cherry picking".  My point was simply that pointing out errors in an paper is not cherry picking in any conventional sense.  

Supposedly Jaworowski put his best effort into this article, thus the surprising thing is that it has errors, not that it has so many errors that you can cherry pick among them.

Regards,
John