Climate Denial Kookery

[Underseer]

Well, Asha'man. Clearly, you are smarter and better informed than over 90% of the scientists from the relevant field and over 90% of all scientists.

You should immediately publish your findings. That's the nice thing about science: the evidence always wins out in the end, and when a brave and noble upstart convinces everyone else they're wrong when armed only with the facts, they get their names in the history books.

So put together your own climate model, demonstrate why it more accurately predicts data than the climate model that is currently used, and you'll be on your way to fame and fortune! I can't wait to tell everyone I knew you before you were famous!

 

[Asha'man]

It's because of Mann and the chairman of IPPC Pachouri [spel] that it has very little credibility except in the left circles. Polling shows the majority of the public are not alarmed, in fact many don't believe a word of it.

Thought I should address this too. Again, it's complete bullcrap of the highest horder.

Mann has the highest credibility in scientific circles. But how exactly do you measure credibility in science? The currency of science is research papers, research papers, and research papers. Nothing else matters. Everything that counts has to be published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal, or it doesn't exist. You measure credibility first by getting something published. Then you measure it again by seeing if subsequent research papers reproduce the results or refute it. You measure it again by seeing if the research is cited in later papers or ignored.

And Mann's work was indeed published in a reputable peer-reviewed research journal. It was reproduced. It was reproduced again. It was expanded on, and reproduced again. Another expansion with the same basic results was published. His paper and subsequent research has been cited over and over, indicating that it was viewed as significant and important. And it was never refuted by published research. Let me repeat that last bit: it was never refuted by anyone using actual science. Mann started out with a 2,000 year detailed temperature reconstruction, we now have follow-up research that gives the same results, plus more, for 20,000 years. (We have lower resolution research that generates million year reconstructions, but those are in a slightly different category.) I showed you the Marcott et all graph above, it's one of many that repeat and reinforce the initial work that Mann did. Mann's work has been reproduced or verified over a dozen times in recent years, making it one of the best-tested ideas in the field.

That's the core problem of the global warming denial crowd: they throw out complete bullcrap statements, but are utterly unable to support their statement with actual peer-reviewed scientific papers. And in the world of science, the lack of research papers means that they have absolutely nothing.

angelo atheist, I dare you to refute the scientific consensus with an actual science journal article. I double-dog dare you. Peer-reviewed articles from the last 10 years in reputable journals only. I can already tell you that you won't find any, because they don't exist. In the last decade, there's been about 10,000 climate science papers published, and a grand total of 2 that disagree with the consensus. Surveys indicate that 97% of publishing climate scientists agree with the mainstream consensus, and only 1% disagree. The simple reason for that is that scientists follow the evidence, and the evidence is overwhelming.

You appear to think that this is a political left-right issue. It's not. It's a split between those that have the knowledge, and those that lack (or reject) knowledge. The average person has been badly mislead by a lazy media trying to create a false balance, and by outright lies by those who's financial interests are tied to fossil fuels. The average person thinks that scientists are split 50-50 over the issue, but the reality is that there's a 97% consensus among scientists. The average person is, frankly, too stupid and ignorant to be relevant in this discussion.

 

[Asha'man]

Well, Asha'man. Clearly, you are smarter and better informed than over 90% of the scientists from the relevant field and over 90% of all scientists.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I'm doing nothing but representing the views of the overwhelming majority (97%) of climate scientists, which I learn by directly reading what they write. I've quoted numbers that are exactly what the current consensus represents, nothing I've said so far is at all controversial. I don't do climate research, I just read it and remember it.

If you're talking about my comment about the IPCC report, climate scientists have carefully described the process for generating that report, and freely acknowledged that the process is automatically biased to present a more conservative result. Controversial ideas, and even alarmist wording, is automatically filtered out by the review process, since any objection to phrasing results in a more mild replacement. The most recent research available is also excluded, since there hasn't been enough time for follow-up papers to be published. But the most recent research is also the research that indicates the risks are higher than previously estimated, that climate change is hitting harder and faster than earlier models predicted.

Would you care to clarify what your statement refers to?

I am smarter and better informed than 90% of the general (non-scientific) population, but that's a pretty low bar.

 

[Underseer]

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I'm doing nothing but representing the views of the overwhelming majority (97%) of climate scientists, which I learn by directly reading what they write. I've quoted numbers that are exactly what the current consensus represents, nothing I've said so far is at all controversial. I don't do climate research, I just read it and remember it.

If you're talking about my comment about the IPCC report, climate scientists have carefully described the process for generating that report, and freely acknowledged that the process is automatically biased to present a more conservative result. Controversial ideas, and even alarmist wording, is automatically filtered out by the review process, since any objection to phrasing results in a more mild replacement. The most recent research available is also excluded, since there hasn't been enough time for follow-up papers to be published. But the most recent research is also the research that indicates the risks are higher than previously estimated, that climate change is hitting harder and faster than earlier models predicted.

Would you care to clarify what your statement refers to?

I am smarter and better informed than 90% of the general (non-scientific) population, but that's a pretty low bar.

I'm sleep-deprived and completely misread your post as taking a denialist position. Sorry.

 

[angelo]

Thought I should address this too. Again, it's complete bullcrap of the highest horder.

Mann has the highest credibility in scientific circles. But how exactly do you measure credibility in science? The currency of science is research papers, research papers, and research papers. Nothing else matters. Everything that counts has to be published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal, or it doesn't exist. You measure credibility first by getting something published. Then you measure it again by seeing if subsequent research papers reproduce the results or refute it. You measure it again by seeing if the research is cited in later papers or ignored.

And Mann's work was indeed published in a reputable peer-reviewed research journal. It was reproduced. It was reproduced again. It was expanded on, and reproduced again. Another expansion with the same basic results was published. His paper and subsequent research has been cited over and over, indicating that it was viewed as significant and important. And it was never refuted by published research. Let me repeat that last bit: it was never refuted by anyone using actual science. Mann started out with a 2,000 year detailed temperature reconstruction, we now have follow-up research that gives the same results, plus more, for 20,000 years. (We have lower resolution research that generates million year reconstructions, but those are in a slightly different category.) I showed you the Marcott et all graph above, it's one of many that repeat and reinforce the initial work that Mann did. Mann's work has been reproduced or verified over a dozen times in recent years, making it one of the best-tested ideas in the field.

That's the core problem of the global warming denial crowd: they throw out complete bullcrap statements, but are utterly unable to support their statement with actual peer-reviewed scientific papers. And in the world of science, the lack of research papers means that they have absolutely nothing.

angelo atheist, I dare you to refute the scientific consensus with an actual science journal article. I double-dog dare you. Peer-reviewed articles from the last 10 years in reputable journals only. I can already tell you that you won't find any, because they don't exist. In the last decade, there's been about 10,000 climate science papers published, and a grand total of 2 that disagree with the consensus. Surveys indicate that 97% of publishing climate scientists agree with the mainstream consensus, and only 1% disagree. The simple reason for that is that scientists follow the evidence, and the evidence is overwhelming.

You appear to think that this is a political left-right issue. It's not. It's a split between those that have the knowledge, and those that lack (or reject) knowledge. The average person has been badly mislead by a lazy media trying to create a false balance, and by outright lies by those who's financial interests are tied to fossil fuels. The average person thinks that scientists are split 50-50 over the issue, but the reality is that there's a 97% consensus among scientists. The average person is, frankly, too stupid and ignorant to be relevant in this discussion.

One word only, okay, two words, refutes the credibility of Mann and the IPPC....................Hockey stick which has been quietly discarded in the last few years because of it's false alarmist tone. You do know that warming stopped over 15 years ago right? A certain local alarmist has been sent on his way by the current government. This idiot forecast that in a couple of decades the rising sea would completely cover an eight story building on a beach front. Then buys a mansion guess where............No you didn't guess because these people are sarconstant in your opinion, beyond questioning. A million dollar property in a beach front leafy suburb. I speak of Tim Flannery, a government advisor in the previous government's payroll of over $500k per year.

- - - Updated - - -

The overwhelming scientific view once existed that the sun orbited the earth. That the earth was created in a seven day period by the babblical god some 6 thousand years ago.

 

[Asha'man]

One word only, okay, two words, refutes the credibility of Mann and the IPPC....................Hockey stick which has been quietly discarded in the last few years because of it's false alarmist tone.

Again, you are repeating outright lies and bullcrap. I don't know where you are getting it, but you need to find more credible sources of information. And I should note that you failed the first test: you haven't posted a scientific paper that shows Mann was wrong. Your argument is entirely empty words.

Look closely at this graph:

Marcott, S. A. et al., (2013) A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years. Science, DOI:10.1126/science.1228026

This is an 11 thousand year reconstruction of past temperatures, published just last year in Science. Look at the last little bit, where temperature shoots up almost instantly. That's the hockey stick part of the graph, where temperatures rise so fast that the line simply becomes vertical. We had 6,000 years of natural cooling, resulting in a drop of about 0.8C. Then industrialization hit, and we warmed up that same amount in under 200 years, with the majority of the warming occurring the last 50 years. There's the hockey stick right in front of you, continuing to be reproduced in the most current research. (We can also conclude that human influences are at least 100 times stronger than natural forces)

Here's a graph with a longer look into the past, plus future projections into the future:

Now we can see the temperatures rising at the end of the last ice age, then flattening out. That flat period lasts for the entire history of human civilization, the entire length of human agriculture. Notice that this graph is actually drawn for 4 different research papers, but they all reinforce each other. Also note the same temperature spike at the end, which is the current and then projected impact of industrialization. The hockey stick is still alive and well, except it looks more like running into a brick wall now.

You do know that warming stopped over 15 years ago right?

You do know that you have no idea what you are talking about, right? Warming has not stopped. This statement is all types of fail, you've got at least 3 types of stupid layered on top of each other here.

First, you've got your cherry-picked data wrong. 1998 was an exceptionally warm year due to a strong el Nino, and if you start measuring from an abnormally hot year that means you won't see as much warming. Since the current year is 2014, you have to say 'no warming in 16 years' instead. Because if you look at the last 15 years measured from 2014, there has been significant warming. The same is true if you look at the last 14 years, the last 13 years, the last 12 years, the last 11 years, the last 17 years, the last 18 years, the last 19 years, the last 20 years. So this is a textbook example of cherry picked data designed to skew the conversation (except you couldn't even get that part right!). Of course, tying to measure trends on such a short timeframe is stupid, climate changes are generally mapped using a 10 year average at a minimum, and there's no question the last 10 years were hotter than the previous 10. 12 of the 13 warmest years on record all happened in the 21st Century.

Second, even if you do measure over a cherry picked 16 year range, there has been additional atmospheric warming. The normally quoted temperature statistics are biased towards inhabited land, since that's where the ground weather stations are installed. If you do a better job of extrapolating surface temperatures over the oceans, especially the arctic, then there is a statistically significant warming even over your cherry picked date range. The arctic is warming faster than other areas, due to what's called 'arctic amplification'. The arctic is more affected by albedo changes from melting snow & ice, and greenhouse warming is more significant in a region that gets less sunlight.

Third, and most importantly, you're quoting average air temperatures. Since more than 90% of the global warming energy is going into the oceans, quoting air temperatures and claiming warming has stopped is a massive and inexcusable bit of stupidity. We're seeing a wind pattern in the Pacific that has a side effect of buying atmospheric heat in the mid layers of the oceans. We're seeing huge temperature increases just below the topmost ocean layers, someone equated the amount of energy to 14 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapon detonations every second. But the wind pattern in the Pacific is a periodic system that may end soon, and that heat won't stay there forever even if the winds persisted.

Again, a graph. Notice the skyrocketing heat content in the oceans over the last 15 years:

The heat content of the oceans is so massive, air temperature changes appear to vanish into insignificance. No, warming has not stopped, at least not in this reality.

One of the reasons I mention 10 year averages above is that weather is chaotic, and there's a lot of short-term noise in the system. But we can measure and correct for some of that noise. There are directly measurable changes in solar output, known el Nino/la Nina influences, and even a tiny bit of variations in volcanic activity. If we subtract out the measured impact of those noisy systems (taking an average across 5 different input datasets as input), we get a graph like this (from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), Environmental Research Letters):

Again, notice that there's not even a hint of a slowdown in atmospheric warming.

Let's review some basic thermodynamics: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. If the amount of energy arriving at Earth from the Sun is not balanced by the amount of energy departing Earth into the cold of space, then the planet must change temperature. Right now, there's a significant imbalance at the top of the atmosphere between energy coming and going, so the laws of thermodynamics mean that it's impossible for warming to have stopped. Unless you've found a exemption for the laws of thermodynamics, then you're just repeating utter nonsense.

Right now, there's an imbalance of energy at the top of the atmosphere. That imbalance is currently close to 3 Watts/m^2. (That may sound like a small number, but you have to multiply it by the entire surface of the Earth to get a total energy tally.) Warming cannot stop until that number drops to zero. But that number isn't dropping, it's increasing every year! That imbalance was actually just about 2 Watts/m^2 in 1986, so the increase is happening fast. And again, warming cannot stop until that number drops to zero, unless the laws of thermodynamics are repealed.