"Only 41 percent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made."It doesn't take a degree in Logical Analysis to understand that computer models that fail to reflect an entire decade of non-warming are not good models.
And that if CO2 is the culprit, then non-warming should not be occurring, because the CO2 level in the atmosphere has not decreased or even levelled during the rogue decade. The effect is not following or congruent with the hallowed "cause".
Cause and effect are innately understood by rational minds. AGW / CO2 poisoning is not rational because the basic cause and effect has failed.
6 comments:
>And that if CO2 is the culprit, then non-warming should not be occurring, because the CO2 level in the atmosphere has not decreased or even levelled during the rogue decade.
Temp and CO2 is not a simple correlation. Anthropogenic CO2 is one component mixed with natural variation; right now the sun is at an historic low in activity, and a very strong recent La Nina (cold) has kept temperatures down. This coupled with the strong 1998 El Nino leads to a very noisy signal. No one is saying that it will be a perfectly smooth rise.
Then why is CO2 the villian du jour in all the climate talks? Why is carbon sequetering and the carbon Cap and Trade travesty about to be visited upon us all?
Of course it's not a simple correlation. It is much more complex and not understood than the politicians in scientist's clothing admit.
The fact is that the blame is on CO2, and the huge money will be stolen based on CO2, and the actual correlation between CO2, especially antropogenic CO2, which is only a couple of percent of atmospheric CO2, and temperature rise is very low - that's the point of the graphs. Yes, other factors are actually dominating the temps: that's the point.
And the data, now known to be manipulated to enhance certain features and diminish other features - all in favor of global warming - can be shown to be within the limits of natural rise over the centuries.
The next days and weeks should be interesting. The AGW clique might just get arrested for data destruction, collusion to avoid FOI data release, and tax evasion. Bare minimum their credentials will never be the same.
>Then why is CO2 the villian du jour in all the climate talks?
Because it's the only forcing they can find that explains the current warming. The sun? It's been quiet for decades. The orbit of the earth? It changes much too slowly too explain the rapid recent rise. The last major contender to manmade CO2 was Richard Lindzen's work on water vapor, which he abandoned in 2001. Skeptics keep saying "it's natural it's natural it's natural," but what? WHAT is the natural thing that is causing it?
And in fact the very book you linked to in an earlier post, Climate of Extremes, also says that the recent warming is due to manmade CO2; just that it isn't going to be as big of a crisis as some are saying.
>now known to be manipulated to enhance certain features and diminish other features
You do realize that AGW science comes from thousands of climate scientists the world over, don't you? All operating independently of one another? You do realize that Mann and his hockey stick are NOT the basis of AGW, right? And you realize that there are many, many hockey sticks using independent data that have nothing to do with Michael Mann, right? And that in fact, you can go to NASA's GISTEMP yourself, download the data, slap it into Excel, and make a chart? I just did it. It resembles a particular sporting implement.
Here's what I'd like to know from the skeptics: What specifically is being manipulated? What is the before and after? In what way is everything we know about radiative physics wrong? What specific paper needs to be retracted?
Do you want to see manipulation? A clear example of it and not just gotcha words and inferences? In the Great Global Warming Swindle, the narrator explains how the sun correlates with temperature, and that therefore there is no manmade warming. But he stops the sun in his graph in 1980, as temperatures continued to rise. Do you know why? Because the sun goes down at that point, that's why. He misses the whole point, deliberately: AGW comes into play in the last 30 years of continued temperature rise even in the face of an inactive sun. This is disonesty at it's best.
You linked to a picture here that supposedly demonstrates the recent warming is completely natural. How does it demonstrate this? How can the person who made this picture have any clue what the underlying causes are just by looking at the slope of the rise? The whole point is that they have a good handle on the underlying causes of these temperature changes. The last 30 years should have been a cooling, along with the sun. The person making these graphs does not understand global warming and is fighting against a strawman version of it.
Let’s take your points one at a time.
1. Prove that warming is natural.
Actually the burden of proof is on the accuser: prove that it is not natural.
2. What is the underlying cause?
Very good question: when is (presumed) constant conjunction proof of cause? Especially when other variables are either unknown or ignored or downplayed.
3. AGW science comes from thousands of scientists.
Actually it might be tens or hundreds of thousands. None of whom set out their own instruments, calibrated them, certified the calibrations, took the readings over 200 years, maintained pristine sites with no differentiation in either instrumentation or measurement environment; released this pristine and raw data for analysis by the millions of scientists. The point: they all work off the same data base.
4. What specifically is being manipulated?
The data is obviously averaged, smoothed, adjusted and outliers eliminated, the GISS site admits that. Those who have dived into the underlying data have found anomalies. But it seems impossible to acertain the credibility of each site w/r to calibration, certification of calibration and calibrator, modifications to site and surround, etc.
Moreover, the Hanson and Mann/CRU et. al. data uses manipulations that are not released, yet are taken as cant, and used as cant by the IPCC. Your question is correct: where is the original data, the calibrations and certifications of the calibrators, the changes, both to instruments and local environments; the adjustments for changing local heat sources (thermal domes); the adjustments for adjacent heat sinks (eg water bodies); the adjustment for humidity and rain/drought in the case of tree rings; the adjustment for prevailing and varying winds from distant sources and sinks, and altitude; the adjustment for decalibration/recalibrations of failing instruments over the past 200 years?
In the resulting computer models what weighting is given to nitrous oxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (the rise and fall of temps can be correlated with the use / disuse of freon), volcanic emissions, intercontinental dust storms etc – and on the other side, what weighting is given to deforestation, burning, reforestation, agricultural source and sink, etc.
Yes indeed. Where are the manipulations?
(comment split due to size restriction)
(Comment continued from previous)
5. "Great Global Swindle": data truncation.
Your point being that questioning the results of the thousands of climatologists (all based on the same data) based on all the same data is evil because of this book? Or is it that the bad guys do it too so it's OK for the good guys?
6. How does a linear graph show natural cause?
Martin, your true faith is hampering your objectivity here. If the graph is linear from way before human intervention to the present, then human intervention did not affect the graph. C’mon, that is simple.
7. The last 30 years should have been cooling along with the sun.
Not true. The past thirty years contained two full cycles of irradiation: go here: ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_IRRADIANCE/COMPOSITE.v2.GIF (the graph comes up small, but an expand button finally pops up some time later).
I found this without much trouble:
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm (human causation):
Increase in CO2, roughly 8.8% since 1800;
Increase in methane, roughly 60% since 1900;
Increase in Nitrous Oxide (NO), roughly 8.8% since 1800;
Discussion:
The world's leading scientists project that during our children's lifetimes global warming will raise the average temperature of the planet by 2 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1-3.5 degree Celsius. In contrast the Earth is only 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit or about 3-6 degrees Celsius warmer today than it was 10,000 years ago during the last ice age. Man-made global warming is occurring much faster than at any other time in at least the last 10,000 years. (www.toowarm.org/factsheets/basfact.html#How) This information would suggest that the warming Earth is experiencing now is not a natural phenomenon, but caused by the increased concentration of greenhouse gases.
While evidence is strong to support the notion of human contribution to the global warming problem, an alternative view is that recent global warming is a natural occurrence. Some theorists believe that the Earth's climate works in a cycle, cooling, and then warming itself. Scientists point out the fact that 75 million years ago, the Earth's average temperature was ten degrees higher than it is today. Conditions were warmer and more humid, but life sustained. (www.enviolink.org/orgs/edf/sitemap.html)
Another phenomenon to take into account is the "little ice age", which occurred from 1550-1850 A.D. Conditions around the world were cooler than usual; many bodies of water froze over. The average global temperature since the little ice age has risen by one degree Fahrenheit! Shouldn't it be expected that after that ice age was over that the temperature on Earth would rise at least one degree?
The bottom line is that it may seem that only human actions are causing global warming, but it is very possible that global warming is nothing to worry about and is just part of the global temperature cycle. Both theories are credible, but neither has yet been proven.
Not questioning the data, sources, the models, and the conclusions is anti-scientific. When everyone is forced to work off the same unannotated data, or even secret data allowed only to special individuals, the objectivity of science is strained to, or beyond, the breaking point. If you choose not to recognize that, then you might reveal the underlying philosophy that forces that conclusion for you.
This is not normal science in the sense that not getting it right could unduly affect all the populations of the world. When the USA and producing demographics are forced into a downspin, the non-producers suffer as much or more. That is the likely impact of AGW political implications.
"Actually the burden of proof is on the accuser: prove that it is not natural."
1. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas (Herzerg 1953, Burch 1962, more).
2. CO2 is increasing. (NOAA)
3. Total Solar Irradiance has been flat and even slightly declining since 1950 (400 years of TSI)
4. Temperatures are increasing. (Comparison of ground-based and satellite-based temperature readings)
5. Therefore, CO2 is the best explanation for the last 30 years of rising temperatures
Many skeptical arguments are fallacious because they fail to address any of these premises. For instance, the obsession with Michael Mann's hockey stick. What does past variability have to do with attribution of modern climate change? Whether modern temps are or are not higher than in the past does not address any of the above premises.
And now to address some of your points:
"Martin, your true faith is hampering your objectivity here. If the graph is linear from way before human intervention to the present, then human intervention did not affect the graph. C’mon, that is simple."
Maybe I didn't word it very well. Let me try again. The person who made this graph seems to be saying:
1. Climatologists attribute the current warming to human causes (see above argument)
2. In the past, there was natural variation
3. Therefore, the current warming is not due to human causes
Does that conclusion follow from the premises? Non sequitur fallacy.
"when is (presumed) constant conjunction proof of cause?"
The conclusion is not because of conjunction. The conclusion runs thus:
1. W, X, Y, and possibly Z are known causes of A
2. X and Y are not happening
3. Z has not been found and may or may not exist
4. W is happening
5. A is happening
6. Therefore, the current best explanation for A is W.
"Especially when other variables are either unknown or ignored or downplayed."
What specifically are these other unknown, maybe or maybe-not extant variables of which you speak?
1. Climate forcings are: sun activity, orbital variation, greenhouse gas, volcanoes, ocean currents.
2. Total Solar Irradiance has been level and even down slightly since 1950
3. Orbital variance happens on multi-thousand year cycles.
4. Volcanoes have only contributed 1% the CO2 that humans have.
5. Ocean currents only effect local temporary regions.
6. Manmade greenhouse gases are increasing.
7. Temperature is increasing.
8. Therefore, the best explanation for the current warming is manmade greenhouse gases.
"The data is obviously averaged, smoothed, adjusted and outliers eliminated..."
There are four global temperature records, as well as two sets of satellite temperatures. All are in agreement. The satellites agree with ground data, so any urban heat island effect, siting issues, etc are obviously negligible. I doubt Phil Jones secretly manipulated all six data sets, including satellites. Again I ask: what specifically is wrong with these six temperature sets?
Post a Comment