"Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

"Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"

GS Chandy
Worth reading, in my opinion: the Scientific American article, "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again" - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptical-research-effort-confirms-global-warming

My sincere apologies to those who that this is not relevant to Math-Teach.  But do consider that we may not be able to discuss the teaching of math (or of anything else) if we don't learn how to minimize global warming (assuming, of course, that it is something real and not something phony cooked up for their own devious purposes by the 'alarmists', and, no doubt, by the 'Education Mafia' as well).

GSC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"

Greg Goodknight
Straw man arguments. "Global warming" was never in serious doubt; yes,
it's gotten warmer since the little ice age. Yes, there was a warming
trend in the latter 20th century. This is not in serious dispute, though
there is strong circumstantial evidence that thumbs have been put on the
scale to nudge the adjusted latter day surface records higher.

Berkeley's Muller isn't even an *anthropogenic* global warming skeptic;
he's been on the record as believing it is very probably true. His
"skeptic" label is only because he was blistering in his attack on the
"hide the decline" tactics revealed by the Climategate emails. The BEST
uses much the same surface data as all the other surface temperature
data sets, it isn't strange they came up with similar results and the
newly released papers have also not yet passed through a peer review
process.

The last few years of the BEST is particularly interesting... rather
than 2010 being a record high like Hansen's NASA GISS data and all the
others, they show a mild decline since about 2004.

The good thing about BEST is the promised transparency and availability
of data and code online. For now, let's try to give
science-by-press-release a pass and wait for the peer reviewed journals
to catch up.

- -Greg

On 10/22/2011 6:43 AM, GS Chandy wrote:
> Worth reading, in my opinion: the Scientific American article, "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again" - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptical-research-effort-confirms-global-warming
>
> My sincere apologies to those who that this is not relevant to Math-Teach.  But do consider that we may not be able to discuss the teaching of math (or of anything else) if we don't learn how to minimize global warming (assuming, of course, that it is something real and not something phony cooked up for their own devious purposes by the 'alarmists', and, no doubt, by the 'Education Mafia' as well).
>
> GSC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"

GS Chandy
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
Greg Goodnight posted Oct 25, 2011 12:38 AM:
> Straw man arguments.
>
Of course. All the world is straw (except those parts that are oil and money).

>
> "Global warming" was never in
> serious doubt; yes,
> it's gotten warmer since the little ice age. Yes,
> there was a warming
> trend in the latter 20th century. This is not in
> serious dispute, though
> there is strong circumstantial evidence that thumbs
> have been put on the
> scale to nudge the adjusted latter day surface
> records higher.
>
Of course.  And the activities of 7 billion human beings could have had absolutely no effect on the global system.
>
> Berkeley's Muller isn't even an *anthropogenic*
> global warming skeptic;
> he's been on the record as believing it is very
> probably true.
>
What a bad boy is he!
>
>His
> "skeptic" label is only because he was blistering in
> his attack on the
> "hide the decline" tactics revealed by the
> Climategate emails.
>
Redeemed a bit of his sins by that, perhaps?  Or was that only a devious ploy?
>
>The BEST
> uses much the same surface data as all the other
> surface temperature
> data sets, it isn't strange they came up with similar
> results and the
> newly released papers have also not yet passed
> through a peer review process.
>
Let's totally ignore them, or, better yet, let's dump them, along with the 'Education Mafia' onto history's dustbin.

>
> The last few years of the BEST is particularly
> interesting... rather
> than 2010 being a record high like Hansen's NASA GISS
> data and all the
> others, they show a mild decline since about 2004.
>
> The good thing about BEST is the promised
> transparency and availability
> of data and code online.
>
Aha!  How come?  Is such an improbable thing even possible?
>
>For now, let's try to give
> science-by-press-release a pass and wait for the peer
> reviewed journals
> to catch up.
>
OK.  Let's.

GSC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"

Greg Goodknight


On 10/24/2011 1:21 PM, GS Chandy wrote:
> Greg Goodnight [sic] posted Oct 25, 2011 12:38 AM:
>> Straw man arguments.
>>
> Of course. All the world is straw (except those parts that are oil and money).

Pure empty rhetoric from you, with a dollop of ridicule, what a shame.
Straw man arguments to boot, since I've never believed or argued that
man hasn't had some effect on weather or it's longer term record, the
climate.

In a talk a year or so ago, along with giving his opinion (not based on
any research of his, just the literature) that AGW due to CO2 is
probably true, Muller also let fly with what he termed something that
isn't in dispute: that just a 2% variance in the clouds from the
unverified models would mean there will be no warming. None.

You see, in the politics of the moment, just an admission there is room
for error makes one a skeptic not to be trusted. Muller is something of
a political operator (his "Physics for Presidents" was a popular course
for those who didn't have the horsepower to take a real physics class)
and I wouldn't be surprised if this latest flurry wasn't at least
partially meant to rehabilitate his image among the Berkeley Prius set.

The issue to be supported is whether the climate is fragile, dominated
by positive feedbacks with clouds and water vapor (by far the dominant
greenhouse gas) trapping more heat than the energy in the sunlight they
reflect away back into space, or is the climate stable with *negative*
feedbacks... yes, more heat means more water is evaporated which makes
more clouds and reflects more sunlight out. Storm systems are also major
transports of heat from the surface into the upper atmosphere and into
space, more negative feedbacks.

The BEST does NOTHING to establish the positive feedbacks assumed by the
climate modelers, but with no telltale positive feedback warming events
ever in the fossil record of the past 500+ million years.

- -Greg


>> "Global warming" was never in
>> serious doubt; yes,
>> it's gotten warmer since the little ice age. Yes,
>> there was a warming
>> trend in the latter 20th century. This is not in
>> serious dispute, though
>> there is strong circumstantial evidence that thumbs
>> have been put on the
>> scale to nudge the adjusted latter day surface
>> records higher.
>>
> Of course.  And the activities of 7 billion human beings could have had absolutely no effect on the global system.
>> Berkeley's Muller isn't even an *anthropogenic*
>> global warming skeptic;
>> he's been on the record as believing it is very
>> probably true.
>>
> What a bad boy is he!
>> His
>> "skeptic" label is only because he was blistering in
>> his attack on the
>> "hide the decline" tactics revealed by the
>> Climategate emails.
>>
> Redeemed a bit of his sins by that, perhaps?  Or was that only a devious ploy?
>> The BEST
>> uses much the same surface data as all the other
>> surface temperature
>> data sets, it isn't strange they came up with similar
>> results and the
>> newly released papers have also not yet passed
>> through a peer review process.
>>
> Let's totally ignore them, or, better yet, let's dump them, along with the 'Education Mafia' onto history's dustbin.
>> The last few years of the BEST is particularly
>> interesting... rather
>> than 2010 being a record high like Hansen's NASA GISS
>> data and all the
>> others, they show a mild decline since about 2004.
>>
>> The good thing about BEST is the promised
>> transparency and availability
>> of data and code online.
>>
> Aha!  How come?  Is such an improbable thing even possible?
>> For now, let's try to give
>> science-by-press-release a pass and wait for the peer
>> reviewed journals
>> to catch up.
>>
> OK.  Let's.
>
> GSC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"

GS Chandy
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
Greg Goodknight posted Oct 25, 2011 3:42 AM:

>
> On 10/24/2011 1:21 PM, GS Chandy wrote:
> > Greg Goodnight [sic] posted Oct 25, 2011 12:38 AM:
> >> Straw man arguments.
> >>
> > Of course. All the world is straw (except those
> parts that are oil and money).
>
> Pure empty rhetoric from you, with a dollop of
> ridicule, what a shame.
> Straw man arguments to boot, since I've never
> believed or argued that
> man hasn't had some effect on weather or it's longer
> term record, the
> climate.
>
Perhaps you are correct in your claim:

If so, let me check out your post and my response once again (along with your arguments continuing below my signature)- and my apologies in advance.

GSC

> In a talk a year or so ago, along with giving his
> opinion (not based on
> any research of his, just the literature) that AGW
> due to CO2 is
> probably true, Muller also let fly with what he
> termed something that
> isn't in dispute: that just a 2% variance in the
> clouds from the
> unverified models would mean there will be no
> warming. None.
>
> You see, in the politics of the moment, just an
> admission there is room
> for error makes one a skeptic not to be trusted.
> Muller is something of
> a political operator (his "Physics for Presidents"
> was a popular course
> for those who didn't have the horsepower to take a
> real physics class)
> and I wouldn't be surprised if this latest flurry
> wasn't at least
> partially meant to rehabilitate his image among the
> Berkeley Prius set.
>
> The issue to be supported is whether the climate is
> fragile, dominated
> by positive feedbacks with clouds and water vapor (by
> far the dominant
> greenhouse gas) trapping more heat than the energy in
> the sunlight they
> reflect away back into space, or is the climate
> stable with *negative*
> feedbacks... yes, more heat means more water is
> evaporated which makes
> more clouds and reflects more sunlight out. Storm
> systems are also major
> transports of heat from the surface into the upper
> atmosphere and into
> space, more negative feedbacks.
>
> The BEST does NOTHING to establish the positive
> feedbacks assumed by the
> climate modelers, but with no telltale positive
> feedback warming events
> ever in the fossil record of the past 500+ million
> years.
>
> - -Greg
>
>
> >> "Global warming" was never in
> >> serious doubt; yes,
> >> it's gotten warmer since the little ice age. Yes,
> >> there was a warming
> >> trend in the latter 20th century. This is not in
> >> serious dispute, though
> >> there is strong circumstantial evidence that
> thumbs
> >> have been put on the
> >> scale to nudge the adjusted latter day surface
> >> records higher.
> >>
> > Of course.  And the activities of 7 billion human
> beings could have had absolutely no effect on the
> global system.
> >> Berkeley's Muller isn't even an *anthropogenic*
> >> global warming skeptic;
> >> he's been on the record as believing it is very
> >> probably true.
> >>
> > What a bad boy is he!
> >> His
> >> "skeptic" label is only because he was blistering
> in
> >> his attack on the
> >> "hide the decline" tactics revealed by the
> >> Climategate emails.
> >>
> > Redeemed a bit of his sins by that, perhaps?  Or
> was that only a devious ploy?
> >> The BEST
> >> uses much the same surface data as all the other
> >> surface temperature
> >> data sets, it isn't strange they came up with
> similar
> >> results and the
> >> newly released papers have also not yet passed
> >> through a peer review process.
> >>
> > Let's totally ignore them, or, better yet, let's
> dump them, along with the 'Education Mafia' onto
> history's dustbin.
> >> The last few years of the BEST is particularly
> >> interesting... rather
> >> than 2010 being a record high like Hansen's NASA
> GISS
> >> data and all the
> >> others, they show a mild decline since about 2004.
> >>
> >> The good thing about BEST is the promised
> >> transparency and availability
> >> of data and code online.
> >>
> > Aha!  How come?  Is such an improbable thing even
> possible?
> >> For now, let's try to give
> >> science-by-press-release a pass and wait for the
> peer
> >> reviewed journals
> >> to catch up.
> >>
> > OK.  Let's.
> >
> > GSC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"

Paul A. Tanner III
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
- --- On Sat, 10/22/11, GS Chandy <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: GS Chandy <[hidden email]>
> Subject: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Saturday, October 22, 2011, 9:43 AM
> Worth reading, in my opinion: the
> Scientific American article, "Skeptical Research Effort
> Confirms Global Warming, Again" - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptical-research-effort-confirms-global-warming
>
> My sincere apologies to those who that this is not relevant
> to Math-Teach.  But do consider that we may not be able
> to discuss the teaching of math (or of anything else) if we
> don't learn how to minimize global warming (assuming, of
> course, that it is something real and not something phony
> cooked up for their own devious purposes by the 'alarmists',
> and, no doubt, by the 'Education Mafia' as well).
>
> GSC
>

Here is Richard Muller in his own words:

"The Case Against Global Warming Skepticism"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html

(One wonders what the oil industry billionaires Koch brothers are thinking, having funded this study no doubt expecting it to show that the planet is not warming or at least not to anywhere near the magnitude that peer-reviewed climate science has been saying all along.)

The good thing about this study is that once this peer-review process completes, it confirms that the planet has warmed to the magnitude that mainstream peer-reviewed climate science has been saying all along, and therefore it kills off once and for all the ability of the deniers to deny the truth as to the magnitude of the warming.

The only thing now left for all those mainstream climate science deniers is to try to explain this warming using essentially only natural causes - they still utterly deny even the mere possibility that CO2 could have any more than the tiniest little effect as a greenhouse gas. That is, they claim that the level of CO2 could go up to even 2000 ppm and nothing more than a pleasant warming would occur. So, from their perspective, essentially all the warming that has occurred MUST be natural.

What would this natural explanation be? The only thing left to them in terms of natural causes is less cloudiness (from less galactic cosmic rays). But there's a big problem with that: The global diurnal temperature range has been decreasing - the precise opposite of what would have happened if it is as the deniers say, which is that the CO2 greenhouse gas effect is essentially nonexistent and therefore essentially all this increase has been merely from less clouds. And so what they would hope to try to use as the explanation has already been falsified.

Note: The diurnal temperature range is the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures. If the deniers are right in that CO2 has essentially no greenhouse effect, then, if the heating is caused by less cloudiness, then there is very little to work to trap the heat at night - there is very little to keep the heat from radiating out to space at night. The result would be that the difference in global daytime and nighttime temperatures would increase over time - globally, the daytime temperature would rise faster than the nighttime temperature. But this global difference has decreased over time - globally, the daytime temperature has risen slower than the nighttime temperature, just as one would expect if CO2 was a greenhouse gas with sufficient capability in working to trap heat trying to escape into space at night.

This person has compiled a list of studies on this topic:
"Papers on diurnal temperature range"
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/papers-on-diurnal-temperature-range/

What do the deniers have to say about all this? The usual: They try to get away with using something about some LOCAL climate somewhere to try to refute what is happing with GLOBAL climate - that is, they try to use some study here or there showing some LOCAL diurnal temperature range increasing to try to refute the fact that the GLOBAL diurnal temperature range has been decreasing.

Here is some more very recent peer-reviewed science the deniers won't like: Consider the fact that the oceans are involved in the whole process such that there is to be expected some temporary sideways or downwards trends in the graph showing a long-term upward trend in global temperature:

"Deep oceans hide the so-called missing heat"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110918144941.htm

"Global warming and ocean heat content"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/

"The Earth continues to build up heat"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Earth-continues-to-build-up-heat.html

And here's even more they won't like:

"Current global warming appears anomalous in relation to the climate of the last 20000 years"
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v48/n1/p5-11/

"New Study Shows No Simultaneous Warming of Northern and Southern Hemispheres as a Result of Climate Change for 20,000 Years"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111021074532.htm 

Quote:

"A common argument against global warming is that the climate has always varied. "Temperatures rise sometimes and this is perfectly natural," is the usual line. However, Svante Bjorck, a climate researcher at Lund University in Sweden, has now shown that global warming, i.e. simultaneous warming events in the northern and southern hemispheres, have not occurred in the past 20 000 years, which is as far back as it is possible to analyse with sufficient precision to compare with modern developments.

...

"My study shows that, apart from the larger-scale developments, such as the general change into warm periods and ice ages, climate change has previously only produced similar effects on local or regional level," says Svante Bjorck.

...

"As long as we don't find any evidence for earlier climate changes leading to similar simultaneous effects on a global scale, we must see today's global warming as an exception caused by human influence on the Earth's carbon cycle," says Svante Bjorck, continuing: "this is a good example of how geological knowledge can be used to understand our world. It offers perspectives on how the Earth functions without our direct influence and thus how and to what extent human activity affects the system."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"

Greg Goodknight


On 10/24/2011 11:23 PM, Paul A. Tanner III wrote:

> - --- On Sat, 10/22/11, GS Chandy<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> From: GS Chandy<[hidden email]>
>> Subject: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Date: Saturday, October 22, 2011, 9:43 AM
>> Worth reading, in my opinion: the
>> Scientific American article, "Skeptical Research Effort
>> Confirms Global Warming, Again" - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptical-research-effort-confirms-global-warming
>>
>> My sincere apologies to those who that this is not relevant
>> to Math-Teach.  But do consider that we may not be able
>> to discuss the teaching of math (or of anything else) if we
>> don't learn how to minimize global warming (assuming, of
>> course, that it is something real and not something phony
>> cooked up for their own devious purposes by the 'alarmists',
>> and, no doubt, by the 'Education Mafia' as well).
>>
>> GSC
>>
> Here is Richard Muller in his own words:
>
> "The Case Against Global Warming Skepticism"
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html
First, the most glaring straw man in that piece is the conflating of
"global warming skepticism" with "catastrophic anthropogenic global
warming skepticism", even if he does end with the one bit of info that
makes that somewhat clearer. Yes, it's gotten warmer since the Little
Ice Age. The only argument there is with the folks like Michael Mann who
used really bad math to make the Little Ice Age disappear. And Muller's
generation of an open source temperature record doesn't do a thing to
determine what drives the temperature changes.

Where might some natural drivers of the latter 20th century warming
might be found? Here is Muller et al in their own words:
"Given that the 2-­‐15 year variations in world temperature are so
closely linked to the AMO raises (or re-­‐raises) an important ancillary
issue: to what extent does the 65-­‐70 year cycle in AMO contribute to
the global average temperature change?... some of the long-­‐term change
in the AMO could be driven by natural variability, e.g. fluctuations in
thermohaline flow. In that case the human component of global warming
may be somewhat overestimated."
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation was only first identified in '94,
long after the IPCC had CO2 in its sights. Correlations of the AMO with
temperatures is more recent. The PDO (guess which ocean that might be)
is also a candidate for a partial driver.

Then there's the doubling of solar magnetic field strength and solar
winds somewhere circa 1940 and crashing circa 2005. We now have a
mechanism for that affecting cloud cover, and along with our emerging
understanding of oceanic surface temperature fluctuations, the
unexplained fraction of a degree said to be the smoking gun for CO2
driven positive feedback warming mostly disappears.

Sorry Paul, there remains a fine case for cAWG skepticism. If there was
someone somewhere who still thinks the winters in Flanders remain as
Pieter Breughel the Elder beheld in the LIA, I'm sure that BEST has
driven them underground.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Pieter_Bruegel_d._%C3%84._106b.jpg

- -Greg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"

Paul A. Tanner III
- --- On Tue, 10/25/11, Greg Goodknight <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Greg Goodknight <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"
> To: "Paul A. Tanner III" <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Date: Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 8:26 PM
>
> Where might some natural drivers of the latter 20th century
> warming might be found? Here is Muller et al in their own
> words:
> "Given that the 2---15 year variations in world
> temperature are so closely linked to the AMO raises (or
> re---raises) an important ancillary issue: to what extent
> does the 65---70 year cycle in AMO contribute to the
> global average temperature change?... some of the
> long---term change in the AMO could be driven by natural
> variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline flow. In that
> case the human component of global warming may be somewhat
> overestimated."
> http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations
>
> The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation was only first
> identified in '94, long after the IPCC had CO2 in its
> sights. Correlations of the AMO with temperatures is more
> recent. The PDO (guess which ocean that might be) is also a
> candidate for a partial driver.
>
> Then there's the doubling of solar magnetic field strength
> and solar winds somewhere circa 1940 and crashing circa
> 2005. We now have a mechanism for that affecting cloud
> cover, and along with our emerging understanding of oceanic
> surface temperature fluctuations, the unexplained fraction
> of a degree said to be the smoking gun for CO2 driven
> positive feedback warming mostly disappears.

All we have here above is just yet another example of the denial of mainstream peer-reviewed climate science - and this denial includes denying that the greenhouse gas effect is any more than a very tiny one. This denial exists in the form of grasping at whatever they perceive to be available. More on what they perceive to be available further below.

But it first might be a good idea to understand the psychology underlying this denial:

This denial is by politically and/or religiously motivated conservatives who have decided ahead of time that mainstream peer-reviewed climate science CANNOT be true, simply because what mainstream peer-reviewed climate science says contradicts some preciously held ideology of these conservatives. (For instance here, see the last part of
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7571327&tstart=135 
to see Greg exposing his political motivations behind his denial of mainstream peer-reviewed climate science.)

In general, what the Muller paper has done is set the stage for fully exposing to the world that these political and/or religious motivations behind the denial of mainstream peer-reviewed climate science is one and the same type of psychology as the political and/or religious motivations behind the denial of evolutionary science.

To see more clearly this phenomenon, first see this Wikipedia article about Roy Spencer, trained in climate science but yet a denier of peer-reviewed mainstream climate science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

Quote:

"Spencer is an advisor to the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation[28] and a signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".[29]

The declaration states:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems - created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence - are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception.""

Also see this article:

http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/09/rick-perry-and-galileo-the-religious-beliefs-behind-global-warming-skepticism/

Quote:

"If you have a biblical, Judeo-Christian worldview that sees the earth and its climate system as being designed by an omnipotent God... and sustained by a faithful God who has covenanted to sustain it, then your inclination is to see the climate system as robust, resilient, self-regulating and self-correcting."

In other words, with respect to those conservatives who are religious conservatives, their particular theology has boxed them in such that if mainstream peer-reviewed climate science is true in its saying that humanity via such as greenhouse gases can cause great harm to the Earth by altering its climate, then the God - or at least the type of God - they believe in does not exist. And, of course, they can't handle that and therefore, as long as they hold to these preconceived conservative worldviews, they CANNOT EVER accept mainstream peer-reviewed climate science - and they CANNOT EVER accept any other science like evolutionary science that contradicts these preconceived conservative worldviews.

And so we may have at least a partial explanation for why even some who have training in climate science like the evolution-denying Roy Spencer commit all those many logical fallacies and put forth all that laughably bad science in their denial of mainstream peer-reviewed climate science.

With respect to Spencer: Consider that his science is so bad that the Editor-in-Chief of a journal that did not exercise enough diligence when reviewing a recent Spencer paper resigned, saying that the Spencer paper was so bad, it should not have published:

http://wottsupwiththat.com/2011/09/03/breaking-editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-over-spencer-braswell-paper/ 

Quote:

"The Remote Sensing editor-in-chief, Wolfgang Wagner, has resigned in disgust (PDF here) over the deception by denialist scientists he believed were impartial reviewers and over the campaign that Spencer organized to promote the overstatement of his paper's unsupported conclusions and play up its publication as proof of [its] credibility. Remote Sensing got played."

Of course, these deniers will dress up their denials in sciencey sounding language, so let's see whether these sciencey sounding denials actually hold up:

With respect to the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) reference further above - like all other myths that keep being proclaimed by the deniers, their idea that "the PDO did it" has been smacked down by so many over the years, including recently:

"Mathematical analysis of Roy Spencer's climate model"
http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/mathematical_analysis_of_roy_spencers_climate_model

"Roy Spencer's six trillion degree warming"
http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/roy_spencers_six_trillion_degree_warming

Quote:

"It turns out you need to set the starting temperature to negative six trillion degrees in 993, in order to match Spencer's model for the 20th century. 6 trillion degrees. Wow. Now that's global warming!"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/review-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder/

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/papers-on-pacific-decadal-oscillation/

Not only that, in my last post above I cite brand new research that demonstrates that the global warming of this last century is the only GLOBAL warming of past 20,000 years - all other warming events of the past 20,000 years were not global, but LOCAL. It turns out that in all such events prior to this last 100 years, warming on some parts of the planet were accompanied by cooling on other parts of the planet such that in terms of GLOBAL climate, the net result was statistically speaking NOT a GLOBAL warming event. This lends strong support to the peer-reviewed mainstream climate science that this global warming event of the last century, the only GLOBAL warming event of the last 20,000 years, is not natural but humanity-caused.

The very recent denier response to this brand new research is what? The usual: Deny, deny, deny, while still trying to get away with using LOCAL events - events that occur on some parts of the planet but not on others - to try to make an argument on GLOBAL climate. (They keep talking about such events as the Medieval warm period to try to argue that there was GLOBAL warming during recent parts of modern human history, when for instance this Medieval warm period has already been known by peer-reviewed mainstream climate science and has now been further confirmed by this most recent peer-reviewed mainstream climate science to be NOT a GLOBAL warming event but a LOCAL event.)

In my post

http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7571525&tstart=135

I document in very great detail just some of the many problems with the claims of Svensmark that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with climate and that instead the global warming of 1950-2010 is essentially nothing but less cloudiness on a global scale (caused by less galactic cosmic rays entering the atmosphere). This includes what I documented again in my last post

http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7593969&tstart=0

which is that if CO2 as a greenhouse gas is as weak as the deniers say - which means essentially non-existent in causal power as a greenhouse gas, then it contradicts physics to say that essentially nothing but less cloudiness has caused the global warming 1950-2010. In other words, the denier claim that the greenhouse gas effect is essentially nonexistent falsifies the "essentially only less cloudiness did it" idea of Svensmark.

Note: It contradicts physics and therefore is falsified because the nighttime GLOBAL (not local) temperature has been increasing faster than the daytime GLOBAL temperature, the precise opposite of what should have happened if the greenhouse gas effect is essentially nonexistent - if there is essentially no greenhouse gas effect, then there is essentially nothing to stop most all that increasing heat during the daytime to radiate into space during the night, and so GLOBALLY, increasing daytime temperatures should increase faster than increasing nighttime temperatures. But if there is a greenhouse gas effect as strong as peer-reviewed mainstream climate science says, then there is an increasing amount of something there to trap the heat at night, and so there can be and would be expected to be a faster rise of temperature of the global nighttime temperature than the global daytime temperature - which is exactly what has happened.

Note 2: This problem also applies to that other set of claims by the deniers, which is that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) - and now, because of their already fundamental abuse of Muller's paper, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation - are the cause of the global warming of the past 60 years. If "the oceans did it" and the greenhouse gas effect is essentially nonexistent, you just can't by physics have essentially nothing to keep the heat from radiating out to space at night and at the same time have the global nighttime temperature rising faster than the global daytime temperature.

In all cases, the only thing that can really explain the nighttime global temperature rising faster than the daytime global temperature is something in the atmosphere trapping the heat at night, keeping it from radiating out to space at night - the greenhouse gas effect with enough causal power to actually bring about that result.

(But to anticipate denier replies to this fact of the global nighttime temperature rising faster than the global daytime temperature: Again see my last post above, where I address the denier attempts to deal with this fact they can't handle, these denier attempts reducing to nothing but trying to use what happens in LOCAL climates here and there to try to refute this fact about GLOBAL climate. These attempts just demonstrate how junior-high-ish denier "climate science" is. This is not surprising, since, to go back to what I said above, it is at the same level of denier "creation science" or "intelligent design science" and so on. To see this explicitly, just see Roy Spencer's own arguments against evolution in his books against evolution to see how junior-high-ish they are - he just imports this junior-high-ish thinking over into the area of climate science, which results in his junior-high-ish denial of mainstream peer-reviewed climate science.)

By the way: Ultimately, although the PDO and AMO cannot be used as the deniers want, which is to explain essentially all of global warming of the past 100 years with the greenhouse gas effect from CO2 essentially nonexistent, they can be used to explain the up and down cycles in the long-term upward trends in the graphs, which is exactly what mainstream peer-reviewed climate science has been trying to do.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"

Greg Goodknight


On 10/25/2011 11:58 PM, Paul A. Tanner III wrote:

> - --- On Tue, 10/25/11, Greg Goodknight<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> From: Greg Goodknight<[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"
>> To: "Paul A. Tanner III"<[hidden email]>
>> Cc: [hidden email]
>> Date: Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 8:26 PM
>>
>> Where might some natural drivers of the latter 20th century
>> warming might be found? Here is Muller et al in their own
>> words:
>> "Given that the 2---15 year variations in world
>> temperature are so closely linked to the AMO raises (or
>> re---raises) an important ancillary issue: to what extent
>> does the 65---70 year cycle in AMO contribute to the
>> global average temperature change?... some of the
>> long---term change in the AMO could be driven by natural
>> variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline flow. In that
>> case the human component of global warming may be somewhat
>> overestimated."
>> http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations
>>
>> The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation was only first
>> identified in '94, long after the IPCC had CO2 in its
>> sights. Correlations of the AMO with temperatures is more
>> recent. The PDO (guess which ocean that might be) is also a
>> candidate for a partial driver.
>>
>> Then there's the doubling of solar magnetic field strength
>> and solar winds somewhere circa 1940 and crashing circa
>> 2005. We now have a mechanism for that affecting cloud
>> cover, and along with our emerging understanding of oceanic
>> surface temperature fluctuations, the unexplained fraction
>> of a degree said to be the smoking gun for CO2 driven
>> positive feedback warming mostly disappears.
> All we have here above is just yet another example of the denial of mainstream peer-reviewed climate science - and this denial includes denying that the greenhouse gas effect is any more than a very tiny one.

All my claims are backed by papers in mainstream, peer reviewed physical
science journals, Paul. And if you were more aware of what the cAGW
claims acturally rest upon you would know the CO2 greenhouse effect is
small in all of them. The theorized danger is not from the greenhouse
gases like CO2 directly, but rather positive feedback from increased
evaporation and an expanded atmosphere from the additional water vapor
which is the dominant greenhouse gas.

Everyone agrees that, in the absence of evaporation, a doubling of CO2
would only generate a 1.2C increase, and at most, mankind has increased
CO2 from about 0.03 to 0.04% of the atmosphere in the last 100 years.
The 3C the IPCC claims (this is just the average of the wildly varying
CO2 sensitivities of the IPCC blessed models) requires these positive
feedbacks which are not confined to CO2. ALL positive forcings would be
multiplied in similar ways, not just CO2

As Muller mentions in the video I'm sure you saw, only a 2% increase in
clouds over the model predictions, over the next 50 years, and the
warming goes away. The IPCC-blessed models all assume more water vapor
will not result in more clouds, a point that MIT's  Lindzen argued
against when the assumption was under discussion in the '90's.

Paul, whether you like it or not, the theoretical underpinnings of CO2
alarmism are being chipped away. It was reasonable to sound an alarm in
the 80's and 90's, but without the ugly suppression of contrary
researchers and commenters in the last 20 years we'd all be in a much
better informed state.

- -Greg



> This denial exists in the form of grasping at whatever they perceive to be available. More on what they perceive to be available further below.
>
> But it first might be a good idea to understand the psychology underlying this denial:
>
> This denial is by politically and/or religiously motivated conservatives who have decided ahead of time that mainstream peer-reviewed climate science CANNOT be true, simply because what mainstream peer-reviewed climate science says contradicts some preciously held ideology of these conservatives. (For instance here, see the last part of
> http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7571327&tstart=135
> to see Greg exposing his political motivations behind his denial of mainstream peer-reviewed climate science.)
>
> In general, what the Muller paper has done is set the stage for fully exposing to the world that these political and/or religious motivations behind the denial of mainstream peer-reviewed climate science is one and the same type of psychology as the political and/or religious motivations behind the denial of evolutionary science.
>
> To see more clearly this phenomenon, first see this Wikipedia article about Roy Spencer, trained in climate science but yet a denier of peer-reviewed mainstream climate science:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
>
> Quote:
>
> "Spencer is an advisor to the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation[28] and a signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".[29]
>
> The declaration states:
>
> "We believe Earth and its ecosystems - created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence - are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception.""
>
> Also see this article:
>
> http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/09/rick-perry-and-galileo-the-religious-beliefs-behind-global-warming-skepticism/
>
> Quote:
>
> "If you have a biblical, Judeo-Christian worldview that sees the earth and its climate system as being designed by an omnipotent God... and sustained by a faithful God who has covenanted to sustain it, then your inclination is to see the climate system as robust, resilient, self-regulating and self-correcting."
>
> In other words, with respect to those conservatives who are religious conservatives, their particular theology has boxed them in such that if mainstream peer-reviewed climate science is true in its saying that humanity via such as greenhouse gases can cause great harm to the Earth by altering its climate, then the God - or at least the type of God - they believe in does not exist. And, of course, they can't handle that and therefore, as long as they hold to these preconceived conservative worldviews, they CANNOT EVER accept mainstream peer-reviewed climate science - and they CANNOT EVER accept any other science like evolutionary science that contradicts these preconceived conservative worldviews.
>
> And so we may have at least a partial explanation for why even some who have training in climate science like the evolution-denying Roy Spencer commit all those many logical fallacies and put forth all that laughably bad science in their denial of mainstream peer-reviewed climate science.
>
> With respect to Spencer: Consider that his science is so bad that the Editor-in-Chief of a journal that did not exercise enough diligence when reviewing a recent Spencer paper resigned, saying that the Spencer paper was so bad, it should not have published:
>
> http://wottsupwiththat.com/2011/09/03/breaking-editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-over-spencer-braswell-paper/
>
> Quote:
>
> "The Remote Sensing editor-in-chief, Wolfgang Wagner, has resigned in disgust (PDF here) over the deception by denialist scientists he believed were impartial reviewers and over the campaign that Spencer organized to promote the overstatement of his paper's unsupported conclusions and play up its publication as proof of [its] credibility. Remote Sensing got played."
>
> Of course, these deniers will dress up their denials in sciencey sounding language, so let's see whether these sciencey sounding denials actually hold up:
>
> With respect to the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) reference further above - like all other myths that keep being proclaimed by the deniers, their idea that "the PDO did it" has been smacked down by so many over the years, including recently:
>
> "Mathematical analysis of Roy Spencer's climate model"
> http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/mathematical_analysis_of_roy_spencers_climate_model
>
> "Roy Spencer's six trillion degree warming"
> http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/roy_spencers_six_trillion_degree_warming
>
> Quote:
>
> "It turns out you need to set the starting temperature to negative six trillion degrees in 993, in order to match Spencer's model for the 20th century. 6 trillion degrees. Wow. Now that's global warming!"
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/review-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder/
>
> http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/papers-on-pacific-decadal-oscillation/
>
> Not only that, in my last post above I cite brand new research that demonstrates that the global warming of this last century is the only GLOBAL warming of past 20,000 years - all other warming events of the past 20,000 years were not global, but LOCAL. It turns out that in all such events prior to this last 100 years, warming on some parts of the planet were accompanied by cooling on other parts of the planet such that in terms of GLOBAL climate, the net result was statistically speaking NOT a GLOBAL warming event. This lends strong support to the peer-reviewed mainstream climate science that this global warming event of the last century, the only GLOBAL warming event of the last 20,000 years, is not natural but humanity-caused.
>
> The very recent denier response to this brand new research is what? The usual: Deny, deny, deny, while still trying to get away with using LOCAL events - events that occur on some parts of the planet but not on others - to try to make an argument on GLOBAL climate. (They keep talking about such events as the Medieval warm period to try to argue that there was GLOBAL warming during recent parts of modern human history, when for instance this Medieval warm period has already been known by peer-reviewed mainstream climate science and has now been further confirmed by this most recent peer-reviewed mainstream climate science to be NOT a GLOBAL warming event but a LOCAL event.)
>
> In my post
>
> http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7571525&tstart=135
>
> I document in very great detail just some of the many problems with the claims of Svensmark that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with climate and that instead the global warming of 1950-2010 is essentially nothing but less cloudiness on a global scale (caused by less galactic cosmic rays entering the atmosphere). This includes what I documented again in my last post
>
> http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7593969&tstart=0
>
> which is that if CO2 as a greenhouse gas is as weak as the deniers say - which means essentially non-existent in causal power as a greenhouse gas, then it contradicts physics to say that essentially nothing but less cloudiness has caused the global warming 1950-2010. In other words, the denier claim that the greenhouse gas effect is essentially nonexistent falsifies the "essentially only less cloudiness did it" idea of Svensmark.
>
> Note: It contradicts physics and therefore is falsified because the nighttime GLOBAL (not local) temperature has been increasing faster than the daytime GLOBAL temperature, the precise opposite of what should have happened if the greenhouse gas effect is essentially nonexistent - if there is essentially no greenhouse gas effect, then there is essentially nothing to stop most all that increasing heat during the daytime to radiate into space during the night, and so GLOBALLY, increasing daytime temperatures should increase faster than increasing nighttime temperatures. But if there is a greenhouse gas effect as strong as peer-reviewed mainstream climate science says, then there is an increasing amount of something there to trap the heat at night, and so there can be and would be expected to be a faster rise of temperature of the global nighttime temperature than the global daytime temperature - which is exactly what has happened.
>
> Note 2: This problem also applies to that other set of claims by the deniers, which is that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) - and now, because of their already fundamental abuse of Muller's paper, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation - are the cause of the global warming of the past 60 years. If "the oceans did it" and the greenhouse gas effect is essentially nonexistent, you just can't by physics have essentially nothing to keep the heat from radiating out to space at night and at the same time have the global nighttime temperature rising faster than the global daytime temperature.
>
> In all cases, the only thing that can really explain the nighttime global temperature rising faster than the daytime global temperature is something in the atmosphere trapping the heat at night, keeping it from radiating out to space at night - the greenhouse gas effect with enough causal power to actually bring about that result.
>
> (But to anticipate denier replies to this fact of the global nighttime temperature rising faster than the global daytime temperature: Again see my last post above, where I address the denier attempts to deal with this fact they can't handle, these denier attempts reducing to nothing but trying to use what happens in LOCAL climates here and there to try to refute this fact about GLOBAL climate. These attempts just demonstrate how junior-high-ish denier "climate science" is. This is not surprising, since, to go back to what I said above, it is at the same level of denier "creation science" or "intelligent design science" and so on. To see this explicitly, just see Roy Spencer's own arguments against evolution in his books against evolution to see how junior-high-ish they are - he just imports this junior-high-ish thinking over into the area of climate science, which results in his junior-high-ish denial of mainstream peer-reviewed climate science.)
>
> By the way: Ultimately, although the PDO and AMO cannot be used as the deniers want, which is to explain essentially all of global warming of the past 100 years with the greenhouse gas effect from CO2 essentially nonexistent, they can be used to explain the up and down cycles in the long-term upward trends in the graphs, which is exactly what mainstream peer-reviewed climate science has been trying to do.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"

Bishop, Wayne-2
I certainly have not followed this issue anything like you have,
Greg, but I'm always amazed that pre-internal combustion engines -
even modern civilization - dramatic climate changes are just
ignored.  The current issue of National Geographic has another
article on "Otzi", frozen in the Alps for more than 5000 years but
exposed 20 years ago.  The Andes burial sites are much more recent
(6-700 years ago?)  but the same idea  applies.  Exposing such stuff
indicates that it had to be roughly the same temperature back
then.  Rhinoceroses in the Sahara desert a couple different times
over the last 5000 years doesn't say much about global temperature
but it does say quite a lot about anthropomorphic global climate change.

My

At 11:49 AM 10/26/2011, Greg Goodknight wrote:


>On 10/25/2011 11:58 PM, Paul A. Tanner III wrote:
>>- --- On Tue, 10/25/11, Greg Goodknight<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>>From: Greg Goodknight<[hidden email]>
>>>Subject: Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"
>>>To: "Paul A. Tanner III"<[hidden email]>
>>>Cc: [hidden email]
>>>Date: Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 8:26 PM
>>>
>>>Where might some natural drivers of the latter 20th century
>>>warming might be found? Here is Muller et al in their own
>>>words:
>>>"Given that the 2---15 year variations in world
>>>temperature are so closely linked to the AMO raises (or
>>>re---raises) an important ancillary issue: to what extent
>>>does the 65---70 year cycle in AMO contribute to the
>>>global average temperature change?... some of the
>>>long---term change in the AMO could be driven by natural
>>>variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline flow. In that
>>>case the human component of global warming may be somewhat
>>>overestimated."
>>>http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations
>>>
>>>The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation was only first
>>>identified in '94, long after the IPCC had CO2 in its
>>>sights. Correlations of the AMO with temperatures is more
>>>recent. The PDO (guess which ocean that might be) is also a
>>>candidate for a partial driver.
>>>
>>>Then there's the doubling of solar magnetic field strength
>>>and solar winds somewhere circa 1940 and crashing circa
>>>2005. We now have a mechanism for that affecting cloud
>>>cover, and along with our emerging understanding of oceanic
>>>surface temperature fluctuations, the unexplained fraction
>>>of a degree said to be the smoking gun for CO2 driven
>>>positive feedback warming mostly disappears.
>>All we have here above is just yet another example of the denial of
>>mainstream peer-reviewed climate science - and this denial includes
>>denying that the greenhouse gas effect is any more than a very tiny one.
>
>All my claims are backed by papers in mainstream, peer reviewed
>physical science journals, Paul. And if you were more aware of what
>the cAGW claims acturally rest upon you would know the CO2
>greenhouse effect is small in all of them. The theorized danger is
>not from the greenhouse gases like CO2 directly, but rather positive
>feedback from increased evaporation and an expanded atmosphere from
>the additional water vapor which is the dominant greenhouse gas.
>
>Everyone agrees that, in the absence of evaporation, a doubling of
>CO2 would only generate a 1.2C increase, and at most, mankind has
>increased CO2 from about 0.03 to 0.04% of the atmosphere in the last
>100 years. The 3C the IPCC claims (this is just the average of the
>wildly varying CO2 sensitivities of the IPCC blessed models)
>requires these positive feedbacks which are not confined to CO2. ALL
>positive forcings would be multiplied in similar ways, not just CO2
>
>As Muller mentions in the video I'm sure you saw, only a 2% increase
>in clouds over the model predictions, over the next 50 years, and
>the warming goes away. The IPCC-blessed models all assume more water
>vapor will not result in more clouds, a point that MIT's  Lindzen
>argued against when the assumption was under discussion in the '90's.
>
>Paul, whether you like it or not, the theoretical underpinnings of
>CO2 alarmism are being chipped away. It was reasonable to sound an
>alarm in the 80's and 90's, but without the ugly suppression of
>contrary researchers and commenters in the last 20 years we'd all be
>in a much better informed state.
>
>-Greg
>
>
>
>>This denial exists in the form of grasping at whatever they
>>perceive to be available. More on what they perceive to be
>>available further below.
>>
>>But it first might be a good idea to understand the psychology
>>underlying this denial:
>>
>>This denial is by politically and/or religiously motivated
>>conservatives who have decided ahead of time that mainstream
>>peer-reviewed climate science CANNOT be true, simply because what
>>mainstream peer-reviewed climate science says contradicts some
>>preciously held ideology of these conservatives. (For instance
>>here, see the last part of
>>http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7571327&tstart=135
>>to see Greg exposing his political motivations behind his denial of
>>mainstream peer-reviewed climate science.)
>>
>>In general, what the Muller paper has done is set the stage for
>>fully exposing to the world that these political and/or religious
>>motivations behind the denial of mainstream peer-reviewed climate
>>science is one and the same type of psychology as the political
>>and/or religious motivations behind the denial of evolutionary science.
>>
>>To see more clearly this phenomenon, first see this Wikipedia
>>article about Roy Spencer, trained in climate science but yet a
>>denier of peer-reviewed mainstream climate science:
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
>>
>>Quote:
>>
>>"Spencer is an advisor to the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship
>>of Creation[28] and a signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on
>>Global Warming".[29]
>>
>>The declaration states:
>>
>>"We believe Earth and its ecosystems - created by God's intelligent
>>design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence
>>- are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting,
>>admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.
>>Earth's climate system is no exception.""
>>
>>Also see this article:
>>
>>http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/09/rick-perry-and-galileo-the-religious-beliefs-behind-global-warming-skepticism/
>>
>>Quote:
>>
>>"If you have a biblical, Judeo-Christian worldview that sees the
>>earth and its climate system as being designed by an omnipotent
>>God... and sustained by a faithful God who has covenanted to
>>sustain it, then your inclination is to see the climate system as
>>robust, resilient, self-regulating and self-correcting."
>>
>>In other words, with respect to those conservatives who are
>>religious conservatives, their particular theology has boxed them
>>in such that if mainstream peer-reviewed climate science is true in
>>its saying that humanity via such as greenhouse gases can cause
>>great harm to the Earth by altering its climate, then the God - or
>>at least the type of God - they believe in does not exist. And, of
>>course, they can't handle that and therefore, as long as they hold
>>to these preconceived conservative worldviews, they CANNOT EVER
>>accept mainstream peer-reviewed climate science - and they CANNOT
>>EVER accept any other science like evolutionary science that
>>contradicts these preconceived conservative worldviews.
>>
>>And so we may have at least a partial explanation for why even some
>>who have training in climate science like the evolution-denying Roy
>>Spencer commit all those many logical fallacies and put forth all
>>that laughably bad science in their denial of mainstream
>>peer-reviewed climate science.
>>
>>With respect to Spencer: Consider that his science is so bad that
>>the Editor-in-Chief of a journal that did not exercise enough
>>diligence when reviewing a recent Spencer paper resigned, saying
>>that the Spencer paper was so bad, it should not have published:
>>
>>http://wottsupwiththat.com/2011/09/03/breaking-editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-over-spencer-braswell-paper/
>>
>>Quote:
>>
>>"The Remote Sensing editor-in-chief, Wolfgang Wagner, has resigned
>>in disgust (PDF here) over the deception by denialist scientists he
>>believed were impartial reviewers and over the campaign that
>>Spencer organized to promote the overstatement of his paper's
>>unsupported conclusions and play up its publication as proof of
>>[its] credibility. Remote Sensing got played."
>>
>>Of course, these deniers will dress up their denials in sciencey
>>sounding language, so let's see whether these sciencey sounding
>>denials actually hold up:
>>
>>With respect to the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) reference
>>further above - like all other myths that keep being proclaimed by
>>the deniers, their idea that "the PDO did it" has been smacked down
>>by so many over the years, including recently:
>>
>>"Mathematical analysis of Roy Spencer's climate model"
>>http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/mathematical_analysis_of_roy_spencers_climate_model
>>
>>"Roy Spencer's six trillion degree warming"
>>http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/roy_spencers_six_trillion_degree_warming
>>
>>Quote:
>>
>>"It turns out you need to set the starting temperature to negative
>>six trillion degrees in 993, in order to match Spencer's model for
>>the 20th century. 6 trillion degrees. Wow. Now that's global warming!"
>>
>>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/review-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder/
>>
>>http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/papers-on-pacific-decadal-oscillation/
>>
>>Not only that, in my last post above I cite brand new research that
>>demonstrates that the global warming of this last century is the
>>only GLOBAL warming of past 20,000 years - all other warming events
>>of the past 20,000 years were not global, but LOCAL. It turns out
>>that in all such events prior to this last 100 years, warming on
>>some parts of the planet were accompanied by cooling on other parts
>>of the planet such that in terms of GLOBAL climate, the net result
>>was statistically speaking NOT a GLOBAL warming event. This lends
>>strong support to the peer-reviewed mainstream climate science that
>>this global warming event of the last century, the only GLOBAL
>>warming event of the last 20,000 years, is not natural but humanity-caused.
>>
>>The very recent denier response to this brand new research is what?
>>The usual: Deny, deny, deny, while still trying to get away with
>>using LOCAL events - events that occur on some parts of the planet
>>but not on others - to try to make an argument on GLOBAL climate.
>>(They keep talking about such events as the Medieval warm period to
>>try to argue that there was GLOBAL warming during recent parts of
>>modern human history, when for instance this Medieval warm period
>>has already been known by peer-reviewed mainstream climate science
>>and has now been further confirmed by this most recent
>>peer-reviewed mainstream climate science to be NOT a GLOBAL warming
>>event but a LOCAL event.)
>>
>>In my post
>>
>>http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7571525&tstart=135
>>
>>I document in very great detail just some of the many problems with
>>the claims of Svensmark that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with
>>climate and that instead the global warming of 1950-2010 is
>>essentially nothing but less cloudiness on a global scale (caused
>>by less galactic cosmic rays entering the atmosphere). This
>>includes what I documented again in my last post
>>
>>http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7593969&tstart=0
>>
>>which is that if CO2 as a greenhouse gas is as weak as the deniers
>>say - which means essentially non-existent in causal power as a
>>greenhouse gas, then it contradicts physics to say that essentially
>>nothing but less cloudiness has caused the global warming
>>1950-2010. In other words, the denier claim that the greenhouse gas
>>effect is essentially nonexistent falsifies the "essentially only
>>less cloudiness did it" idea of Svensmark.
>>
>>Note: It contradicts physics and therefore is falsified because the
>>nighttime GLOBAL (not local) temperature has been increasing faster
>>than the daytime GLOBAL temperature, the precise opposite of what
>>should have happened if the greenhouse gas effect is essentially
>>nonexistent - if there is essentially no greenhouse gas effect,
>>then there is essentially nothing to stop most all that increasing
>>heat during the daytime to radiate into space during the night, and
>>so GLOBALLY, increasing daytime temperatures should increase faster
>>than increasing nighttime temperatures. But if there is a
>>greenhouse gas effect as strong as peer-reviewed mainstream climate
>>science says, then there is an increasing amount of something there
>>to trap the heat at night, and so there can be and would be
>>expected to be a faster rise of temperature of the global nighttime
>>temperature than the global daytime temperature - which is exactly
>>what has happened.
>>
>>Note 2: This problem also applies to that other set of claims by
>>the deniers, which is that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) -
>>and now, because of their already fundamental abuse of Muller's
>>paper, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation - are the cause of the
>>global warming of the past 60 years. If "the oceans did it" and the
>>greenhouse gas effect is essentially nonexistent, you just can't by
>>physics have essentially nothing to keep the heat from radiating
>>out to space at night and at the same time have the global
>>nighttime temperature rising faster than the global daytime temperature.
>>
>>In all cases, the only thing that can really explain the nighttime
>>global temperature rising faster than the daytime global
>>temperature is something in the atmosphere trapping the heat at
>>night, keeping it from radiating out to space at night - the
>>greenhouse gas effect with enough causal power to actually bring
>>about that result.
>>
>>(But to anticipate denier replies to this fact of the global
>>nighttime temperature rising faster than the global daytime
>>temperature: Again see my last post above, where I address the
>>denier attempts to deal with this fact they can't handle, these
>>denier attempts reducing to nothing but trying to use what happens
>>in LOCAL climates here and there to try to refute this fact about
>>GLOBAL climate. These attempts just demonstrate how junior-high-ish
>>denier "climate science" is. This is not surprising, since, to go
>>back to what I said above, it is at the same level of denier
>>"creation science" or "intelligent design science" and so on. To
>>see this explicitly, just see Roy Spencer's own arguments against
>>evolution in his books against evolution to see how junior-high-ish
>>they are - he just imports this junior-high-ish thinking over into
>>the area of climate science, which results in his junior-high-ish
>>denial of mainstream peer-reviewed climate science.)
>>
>>By the way: Ultimately, although the PDO and AMO cannot be used as
>>the deniers want, which is to explain essentially all of global
>>warming of the past 100 years with the greenhouse gas effect from
>>CO2 essentially nonexistent, they can be used to explain the up and
>>down cycles in the long-term upward trends in the graphs, which is
>>exactly what mainstream peer-reviewed climate science has been trying to do.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"

Paul A. Tanner III
In reply to this post by Greg Goodknight
- --- On Wed, 10/26/11, Greg Goodknight <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Greg Goodknight <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 2:49 PM
>
>
> On 10/25/2011 11:58 PM, Paul A. Tanner III wrote:
> > - --- On Tue, 10/25/11, Greg Goodknight<[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Greg Goodknight<[hidden email]>
> >> Subject: Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms
> Global Warming, Again"
> >> To: "Paul A. Tanner III"<[hidden email]>
> >> Cc: [hidden email]
> >> Date: Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 8:26 PM
> >>
> >> Where might some natural drivers of the latter
> 20th century
> >> warming might be found? Here is Muller et al in
> their own
> >> words:
> >> "Given that the 2---15 year variations in world
> >> temperature are so closely linked to the AMO
> raises (or
> >> re---raises) an important ancillary issue: to what
> extent
> >> does the 65---70 year cycle in AMO contribute to
> the
> >> global average temperature change?... some of the
> >> long---term change in the AMO could be driven by
> natural
> >> variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline
> flow. In that
> >> case the human component of global warming may be
> somewhat
> >> overestimated."
> >> http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations
> >>
> >> The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation was only
> first
> >> identified in '94, long after the IPCC had CO2 in
> its
> >> sights. Correlations of the AMO with temperatures
> is more
> >> recent. The PDO (guess which ocean that might be)
> is also a
> >> candidate for a partial driver.
> >>
> >> Then there's the doubling of solar magnetic field
> strength
> >> and solar winds somewhere circa 1940 and crashing
> circa
> >> 2005. We now have a mechanism for that affecting
> cloud
> >> cover, and along with our emerging understanding
> of oceanic
> >> surface temperature fluctuations, the unexplained
> fraction
> >> of a degree said to be the smoking gun for CO2
> driven
> >> positive feedback warming mostly disappears.
> > All we have here above is just yet another example of
> the denial of mainstream peer-reviewed climate science - and
> this denial includes denying that the greenhouse gas effect
> is any more than a very tiny one.
>
> All my claims are backed by papers in mainstream, peer
> reviewed physical
> science journals, Paul.

But your claims are not backed by mainstream peer-reviewed climate science. There is no doubt that if you were to name the papers you claim back up your claims, we would see that they are papers whose claims do not hold up when compared to that set of textbooks and papers that make up mainstream peer-reviewed climate science, especially those published since IPCC 2007, which you keep citing, which I keep pointing out is ancient history in terms of how fast mainstream peer-reviewed climate science is evolving, which is in the process of being modified in line with more recent results in mainstream peer-reviewed climate science and will in a few years by out in the new IPCC report. And, by the way, as Muller says in the video, this coming next IPCC report will be very much better than the one in 2007.

> And if you were more aware of what
> the cAGW
> claims acturally rest upon you would know the CO2
> greenhouse effect is
> small in all of them.
> The theorized danger is not from the
> greenhouse
> gases like CO2 directly, but rather positive feedback from
> increased
> evaporation and an expanded atmosphere from the additional
> water vapor
> which is the dominant greenhouse gas.

Yes, I already know that. But in line with what I said above regarding this fast evolution of mainstream peer-reviewed climate science, some of these more recent and important and exciting results show that they are working out in more and more detail the physics and chemistry of how H2O and CO2 interact in the atmosphere.

The newer results are suggesting that water vapor and clouds are not constant in terms of how severely they act as greenhouse gases - that is, to what degree they amplify the greenhouse effects of the non-condensing greenhouse gases like CO2. The newer results are suggesting that if there are more and more non-condensing greenhouse gases like CO2 in the atmosphere, water vapor and clouds act more and more intensely as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - that is, they act more and more to amplify the greenhouse effects of the non-condensing greenhouse gases like CO2. And if there are less and less non-condensing greenhouse gases like CO2 in the atmosphere, water vapor and clouds act less and less intensely as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - that is, they act less and less to amplify the greenhouse effects of the non-condensing greenhouse gases like CO2. And so even if there is going to be more water in the atmosphere with increasing heat, by the
 fact that water vapor and clouds may be acting more severely as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it does not necessarily mean that having more water vapor and clouds will save the day. More and more water in the atmosphere could end up making things hotter and hotter than would otherwise have been the case.

Note: To those who don't want to get this basic idea of water in atmosphere making things hotter, note that this phenomenon is something that everyone who has experienced both high and low humidity climates has experienced. Note that for instance in the summer months in high humidity climates it does not cool down at night anywhere near as much as it does in low humidity climates even though the highs in high-humidity climates can be relatively close to the highs in low-humidity climates.

Here is one of the researchers' abstracts:

"Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract

Quote:

"Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state."

In his own words, one year later after publishing:

"Atmospheric CO2: the greenhouse thermostat"
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/09/atmospheric-co2-the-greenhouse-thermostat/

Quote:

"(1) The terrestrial greenhouse effect is comprised of two distinct components: (a) the non-condensing greenhouse gases that provide the 'radiative forcing' that sustains the terrestrial greenhouse effect; (b) the 'feedback component' by water vapor and clouds that acts to amplify the radiative effect of the non-condensing greenhouse gases.
(2) The radiative forcing by the non-condensing greenhouse gases is accurately known, and fully understood. Of the GHGs, atmospheric CO2 is the principal contributor, hence the principal control knob that governs the strength of the greenhouse effect and global temperature. The greenhouse physics, and the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases as the fundamental basis for global warming, are well founded.
(3) Water vapor and clouds account for about 75% the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect, but are feedback effects that require sustained radiative forcing to maintain their atmospheric distribution. Their radiative effects are accurately known. The magnitude of their feedback sensitivity is also reliably known, to within order of 10%.
(4) The temporal record of global climate change can be separated into two distinct components: (a) global warming - this is the steady and predictable increase in the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect that is caused by the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from human industrial activity; (b) natural variability - this is the unforced and mostly unpredictable inter-annual, regional, and decadal variability of the climate system that is superimposed upon the steadily increasing global warming component.
(5) Global warming, the climate change component that is driven by greenhouse gas increases, is the reason for concern because of its increasing impact on ecosystems and polar ice caps/sea level rise. Whether humans like it or not, and whether humans realize it or not, global warming has been so, and continues to be, fully under human control via fossil fuel burning. Smaller contributors such as changes in aerosols, solar irradiance, and sporadic large volcanoes exist. But aerosol forcing is also anthropogenic and/or short lived. Solar forcing is cyclical and small, while the GHG residence time is very long.
(6) Natural (unforced) climate variability is the principal reason for the uncertainty manifested in the largely unpredictable temperature and precipitation fluctuations that occur on regional spatial scales, and on inter-annual and decadal time scales. Arising from changes in advective energy transports and poorly understood interactions with ocean dynamics, this is where uncertainty reigns supreme. However, these advective transports must globally add to zero, and the unforced fluctuations are necessarily fluctuations about the global equilibrium reference point. Nature conserves energy very carefully. Hence, large deviations from the global equilibrium cannot be sustained. So, this unforced climate variability cannot significantly impact the long-term global temperature trend, but its effects on local and regional climate will remain the main source of uncertainty for the foreseeable future.
(7) Global climate change is far too complex to be understandable in one swoop. Fortunately, the global warming component, it being tied directly to the growing strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect, is a uniquely radiative effect that can be addressed independently of the other climate complexities. The basic physics of the greenhouse effect is rooted to the conservation of global energy. Precise measurements of the rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 are irrefutable, leaving no doubt that global warmingis happening. Geological evidence shows that 450 ppm of atmospheric CO2 is the critical level that is needed to sustain polar ice caps, although the time scale for the melting of polar ice caps is many centuries. That is the scientific perspective on global warming. Deciding what, if anything, to do about global warming is a political problem, but the politicians should keep the science in mind."

Here is more:

http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/newsItem.jsp?action=ViewObject&id=149&forward=no&object=newsItem

Quote:

"A recently published result of Mark Zelinka's thesis shows that clouds in models are behaving as one would expect from basic physics. Zelinka and Hartmann (2010) show that for one aspect of cloud feedback, that involving longwave or infrared radiation, the positive feedback that every model produces is simply due to the fact that clouds rise in a warming climate. Another recent study that got a good deal of press was by Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University. Dessler used analyses of observations to lend credence to the positive feedback of clouds in climate models. Dessler's work shows that clouds in models do things that are consistent with what clouds do in nature.

A Ph.D. dissertation contains years of detailed, cutting edge study. Another chapter of Mark Zelinka's thesis explores 8 years of data from a suite of satellite instruments to investigate how tropical high clouds change as the Tropics warm and cool from year-to-year. The observational data suggest that clouds change as the Tropics warm in such a way as to allow further heating. One can think of this as a positive cloud feedback that operates on interannual timescales. Such inferences from observations are based on year-to-year natural variability, much of which is associated with El Nino - La Nina cycles. The cloud feedback for these natural variations are expected to be different from that associated with global warming which occurs over a much longer time frame. Studying these natural variations and their simulations in models can be used to test and even extend our understanding of the basic physics of cloud feedbacks."

In addition, there is in fact observational evidence over places like China and India that the world could see an actual decrease in clouds even with more and more water in the atmosphere because of pollution from black carbon or soot from the burning of oil and coal, especially coal - which is very bad because although world oil supplies may run out relatively soon, world coal supplies will not. That is, one of the most recent and exciting results is that black carbon or soot works to burns off cloud cover even as the air gets hotter and hotter and via evaporation, contains more and more water. Here again is that result:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110831205919.htm

Quote:

"Jacobson, who developed the first detailed climate model to include the global effects of soot, reported on use of the model to gain new insights into the effects of soot particles trapped inside and between the water droplets that make up clouds. Previous research on black carbon and climate overlooked that topic. Jacobson said the information is important because black carbon within clouds makes the clouds "burn off" and disappear over heavily polluted urban and other areas. Climate models that ignore this "cloud absorption" phenomenon underestimate the effects of black carbon on climate."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5255/is_17/ai_n58261837/

Quote:

"Jacobsen developed a model of soot's effects on climate change several years ago, but says its full impact is not recognised in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. In new work presented at the ACS meeting, he reported even more pronounced warming effects of soot on clouds, which burn off over heavily polluted areas in parts of India and China and formerly in Los Angeles."

Quote:

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/environment/Study-Reducing-Soot-is-Fastest-Way-to-Slow-Climate-Change-129070528.html

"His study, presented this week at the American Chemical Society meeting in Colorado, describes how black carbon - the main component in soot - heats up clouds when it mingles with the rain drops suspended within them.  

"And it turned out that there is more heating when the black carbon was inside the drop than between the drops and there was more heating when the black carbon was between the drop than outside of the cloud. So the bottom line was you get this enhancement of the heating of the cloud by the black carbon presence in the cloud drops."

Jacobson says climate models that ignore this cloud absorption phenomenon underestimate the effects of black carbon in the atmosphere. His research found that airborne soot quickly burns off cloud cover.

"If you look at satellite images over really polluted areas such as in China and India you can actually see an absence of clouds."  

"Soot is a solar absorber, whereas carbon dioxide is primarily a heat absorber. Now, per unit mass, black carbon is about a million times more powerful in warming the air than is carbon dioxide. But because soot, black carbon in soot, are so powerful and warming and because they are very short-lived, that is actually important for control strategies for global warming."

Another exciting result is the one I mention in my last post below, which that the global warming we see today is a type of warming that the planet has not seen for the last 20,000 years - this is the only time in the past 20,000 years that both hemispheres of the planet are warming at the same time. That is, this is the only truly global warming event of the past 20,000 years - all prior warming events of the last 20,000 years, which were natural events, happened only in a subset of one of the hemispheres. Here again that result:

"New Study Shows No Simultaneous Warming of Northern and Southern Hemispheres as a Result of Climate Change for 20,000 Years"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111021074532.htm

Yes I know - you utterly reject all these results I just mentioned because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe, you have no choice because you are part of this group that has staked out its claims of denial of mainstream peer-reviewed climate science no matter what comes out, and that's that. But too bad for you and everyone like you because you all are just missing out on feeling the excitement of being able to learn more and more about the world via more and more new results in science. That is, those of you who deny mainstream peer-reviewed climate science are missing out on the excitement of seeing and embracing and feeling the excitement of being around to see all the new and exciting results coming out in real science. (To wit: Unlike those of you in the denier community who already have decided ahead of time to deny any and all results coming from some mainstream science you don't like such as evolutionary or climate science, those of us
 who embrace all real science are quite happy to see and embrace the results coming out of any and all real scientific research, including what is going on at CERN, and look forward to seeing and embracing all the results they will present in the next 10 years.)

>
> Paul, whether you like it or not, the theoretical
> underpinnings of CO2
> alarmism are being chipped away.

Whether you like it or not, this is true only in the minds of the community that denies real climate science - much like only in the minds of the community that denies real evolutionary science (where the two communities are mostly one and the same) do we see such similar claims that evolution is slowly and surely being destroyed by scientific creationism or intelligent design.

Meanwhile, like the real evolutionary scientists, the real climate scientists just keep churning out more and more science with more and more interesting discoveries advancing the state of human knowledge.

And, by the way, I keeping pointing out the fundamentally fatal flaw in the denial of the view of mainstream peer-reviewed climate science on CO2, which is that by physics, this denial is utterly inconsistent with and is utterly contradicted by the fact that the global diurnal temperature range has been decreasing as the globe gets hotter, where the global nighttime temperature has been increasing faster than the global daytime temperature. In three separate posts now
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7571525&tstart=150
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7593969&tstart=0
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7594668&tstart=0
I addressed this is detail with links and citations, especially the last two. And your response has been the same as Svensmark and the many others like him, which is no response at all.

Oh, in process of grasping at anything to try to salvage the denier position on this one you will try to say that water in the atmosphere by itself will save the day for the deniers? And the mathematical/physical model providing the calculations that fit reality on this one is where? Answer: Nowhere - and we know this because Svensmark and everyone else in the denier community who runs away from this problem know full well that they cannot even begin to make the numbers work to their favor on this one, and so rather than embarrass themselves trying to make the numbers work to their favor they elect to just ignore or run away from the problem when confronted with it. NOTE: As I've said before at my posts above, there are deniers that have tried to salvage the Svensmark hypothesis that essentially only less reflected light caused all the warming of the last half century or so by trying to deal with this diurnal temperature range problem by trying to use
 LOCAL phenomena to try to refute fact about GLOBAL phenomena. That is, they try to use th fact that there has been an increase in the diurnal temperature range in some LOCAL climates to try to argue against the fact that the GLOBAL diurnal temperature range has decreased. But since this is all about GLOBAL climate and not about the climate of only cherry-picked parts of the planet, this attempt is just an embarrassment to those deniers who try this. Svensmark and others like him know this, and so, as I said, to avoid trying and inevitably failing and being embarrassed like this, they just either ignore this problem or they run away from it when confronted with it.

Here is more on this:

"'Cosmoclimatology' - tired old arguments in new clothes"
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7571525&tstart=150

Quote:

"The irony is that Svensmark ignores (in addition to the lack of trend in GCR) the fact that the night-time temperature has risen faster than the day-time temperature, which I did pester him about on a Nordic Meteorology Meeting in Copenhagen in 2002. A journalist from Jyllands Posten present at the conference got the message, as my criticism was echoed in a news report the following day ("Klimaforskere i aben krig" [translation 'Climate researchers in open war'], May 28, 2002): It's tricky to explain how a warming caused by decreasing albedo would be stronger at the night-side (dark) of the planet."

There is a book that is partially available online as a Google e-book
"Solar activity and earth's climate"
by Rasmus E. Benestad, a Ph.D in physics from the Atmospheric, Oceanic & Planetary Physics at Oxford University. (He is one of the many real climate scientists who contribute at RealClimate.) Go to page 176. We read, "Any mechanism involving the albedo implies strongest response in the daytime temperature. Observations, on the other hand, suggest a reduction in the diurnal temperature range where the night-time temperature has increased more than the daytime temperature (Houghton et al., 2001). According to Svensmark's hypothesis, the warming is due to the reduction in Earth's albedo (reflected light), and therefore a long-term reduction in the low-level planetary cloud cover appears to be inconsistent with the observations." (My comment: This is just polite talk for saying that by using the method of falsification of Popper, the reduction in the diurnal temperature range where the night-time temperature has increased more than the daytime temperature
 falsifies the Svensmark hypothesis that essentially only less reflected light has caused all the global warming of the past half century or so.)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"

GS Chandy
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
Like Wayne Bishop (Oct 27, 2011 7:19 AM - http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7595242&tstart=0 ), I certainly haven't followed the issue with anything like the attention that Greg Goodknight and Paul Tanner have, but - for whatever little it's worth - I come out with the impression that the human species is in 'clear and present danger' from a host of causes - most of them stemming from the extreme pressures that the plunder of the planet by human beings is putting on the planet's ability to sustain much of life as we know it.

It is true that the 'climate changers' - those sounding an alarm - have possibly made many errors of judgment and method in parts of their analysis.  There are undoubtedly a large number of holes in their arguments.

That seems at least equally true of the 'deniers'.  There seem to be even more holes in the argument that "everything is tickety-boo and we can continue without fear on the exploitative path we have chosen".

I come out of the argument with the idea that we do need to rethink much of our 'economics', in particular with those parts explaining away the way we exploit the planetary resources for our purposes.

The 'Christian'/Biblical argument that all of this planet was created for us human beings is utterly laughable.  The planet is not, in my view, capable of sustaining a human population of 7 billion at the accelerating rate of resource utilization we have seen over the past couple of centuries.

We need to understand clearly, from the ground level up, just how the activities we do from day to day may "contribute to" or "hinder" the sustainability of life on this planet.

GSC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"

jk@israeliteknight.com
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
"It is true that the 'climate changers' - those sounding an alarm - have possibly made many errors of judgment and method in parts of their analysis. There are undoubtedly a large number of holes in their arguments."

There are no holes in their arguments.  Whatever holes their might have been, they were completely shredded when all their emails made the public record and their almost infinite string of LIES caused them all to resign.  And there actually never were any holes in any arguments in the first place, because they never had an argument.  All they had were Beverly Hall class LIES, piled on top of the type of character assassination our current "education" system is fully engaged in, peppered with tossing out the 99% of the data which already proved them wrong two decades ago, topped with slurs of racism and anti-semitism (sound familiar?), and government funding and backing which would make any government school [or 72 IQ Indian] happier than a pig in ....!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Skeptical Research Effort Confirms Global Warming, Again"

jk@israeliteknight.com
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
"Paul, whether you like it or not, the theoretical underpinnings of CO2
alarmism are being chipped away. It was reasonable to sound an alarm in
the 80's and 90's, but without the ugly suppression of contrary
researchers and commenters in the last 20 years we'd all be in a much
better informed state."

Ditto for the role our Department of Education has played as they dumbed down our schools with one anti-Christ federal mandate after another.  The researchers who uncovered the Beverly Hall cheating scandal have forwarded their proof of how the NAEP test has undergone the same (or at least similar) ugly suppression as the global warming scammers engaged in.

Hopefully they will finally wake up and tell a TRUTH for a change.