Phydeaux
Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tkman117
quote:
K-O temperature variations have been happening for a million years. Well before human were around to cause AGW.
I looked up K-O temp variations and found nothing, could you clarify what you mean by that? because I feel that I know what you're talking about it's just I personally can't remember what it's called. And I agree that climate has changed before, as is examined in this article:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles. Also called D-O oscillations or DKO oscillations.
Well, its good of your skeptical science site to admit these oscillations occur. However he hand waves them away without evidence saying that current science thinks these are regional variations.
No science. Just hand waving.
He further maintains that these are a see-saw heat oscillation effect when, in fact more than 15 journal articles say that rather than a see-saw the south pole sites merely experience lag.
He hand waves away the criticism of Dr. Singer, Dr. Hayden and others because he alleges, without evidence that the they receive funding from fossil fuel industries in order to obfuscate global warming. Ignoring the fact that the IPCC chapters were written by the President of the Sierra Club, and other environmental activist groups.
quote:
"Our climate is governed by the following principle: when you add more heat to our climate, global temperatures rise. Conversely, when the climate loses heat, temperatures fall. Say the planet is in positive energy imbalance. More energy is coming in than radiating back out to space. This is known as radiative forcing, the change in net energy flow at the top of the atmosphere. When the Earth experiences positive radiative forcing, our climate accumulates heat and global temperature rises (not monotonically, of course, internal variability will add noise to the signal).
How much does temperature change for a given radiative forcing? This is determined by the planet's climate sensitivity. The more sensitive our climate, the greater the change in temperature. The most common way of describing climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature if atmospheric CO2 is doubled. What does this mean? The amount of energy absorbed by CO2 can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. These results have been experimentally confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 Watts per square metre (W/m2) (IPCC AR4 Section 2.3.1).
So when we talk about climate sensitivity to doubled CO2, we're talking about the change in global temperatures from a radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2. This forcing doesn't necessarily have to come from CO2. It can come from any factor that causes an energy imbalance.
How much does it warm if CO2 is doubled? If we lived in a climate with no feedbacks, global temperatures would rise 1.2°C (Lorius 1990). However, our climate has feedbacks, both positive and negative. The strongest positive feedback is water vapour. As temperature rises, so too does the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. However, water vapour is a greenhouse gas which causes more warming which leads to more water vapour and so on. There are also negative feedbacks - more water vapour causes more clouds which can have both a cooling and warming effect."
So we agree with much of this. Which is why NASA's admission that they did not have an accurate model for net effect of co2 in the atmospheric column is a HUGE deal.
Similarly, when the ipcc and nasa admit that they role of ionizing radiation in the formations of aerosols (especially in equatorial regions) was understated and WRONG.
And there has absolutely NOT been experimental validation of the relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures - which is why the pause from the last 16 years despite dramatic increases in CO2 levels is important.
CO2 in the lower atmosphere acts as a thermal blanket, keeping the planet warm. In the upper atmosphere it cools the planet by re-radiating energy to space. The net effect is not known. There is certainly not a linear relationship between co2 concentration and temperature.
quote:
quote:
A close look at the latest “study” used by alarmists to back their claim actually found that barely 1% of published scientific articles support the claim of dangerous man-made global warming. (See D. Legates et al., “Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation,’” Science & Education, DOI 10.1007/s11191_013_9647_9.)
And the whole "No consensus" argument is also picked apart in this article:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
"The first step of our approach involved expanding the original survey of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in Oreskes (2004). We performed a keyword search of peer-reviewed scientific journal publications (in the ISI Web of Science) for the terms 'global warming' and 'global climate change' between the years 1991 and 2011, which returned over 12,000 papers. John Cook created a web-based system that would randomly display a paper's abstract (summary). We agreed upon definitions of possible categories: explicit or implicit endorsement of human-caused global warming, no position, and implicit or explicit rejection (or minimization of the human influence).
Our approach was also similar to that taken by James Powell, as illustrated in the popular graphic below. Powell examined nearly 14,000 abstracts, searching for explicit rejections of human-caused global warming, finding only 24. We took this approach further, also looking at implicit rejections, no opinions, and implicit/explicit endorsements.
We took a conservative approach in our ratings. For example, a study which takes it for granted that global warming will continue for the foreseeable future could easily be put into the implicit endorsement category; there is no reason to expect global warming to continue indefinitely unless humans are causing it. However, unless an abstract included (either implicit or explicit) language about the cause of the warming, we categorized it as 'no position'.
Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming.
We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?"
Sheer Cooked up poppy cock. Do you even read what was listed?
They looked at c.12,000 papers. They found 4,000 that had global warming. 97% of those seemed to support global warming.
By my math - 4000/12000 is roughly 33%.
Thats kind of a big difference from 97% of all scientists support global warming, don't you think?
But since you don't like my math - perhaps you'd prefer: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html which found support by 1-3%.
Or at least as valid as sceptical science: http://digitaljournal.com/article/162241
How about the guy that wrote chapter 7 of the IPCC report, MIT Sloan Professor of meteorology, 200 published papers to his name?
http://newmexico.watchdog.org/15128/mit-scientist-disputes-man-made-global-warming-in-sandia-labs-presentation/
As Lindzen and Chou (2009) Lindzen clearly states, “We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.” This is an acknowledgement of the “physical science basis” which predicts a temperature rise between 2.6-4.1 deg C. And yet, as Lindzen correctly highlights, the observational data for the Industrial Age have only reported a temperature increase of 0.8-1.1 deg C.
Clearly, something(s) has(have) been overlooked by the models; they have inadequately-forecasted, observed temperature increases and have consistently-failed at hindcasting the same. Lindzen and Choi published a paper on the same in 2009 – http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf .
And I dispute your assertion that the radiative inputs and outputs are pretty well understood. If such were the case, why do we continue to fund climate change research – solely for the feedbacks? The predictive models fail to capture some observed outputs like those in the tropical oceans – http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N20/C2.php and the tropical upper troposphere – http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N40/C2.php .
Lastly, the IPCC and its apologists almost exclusively focus on carbon dioxide as THE culprit for global warming, climate change, climate disruption – whatever euphemism they wish to assign. So much do they single out this trace, atmospheric gas that even other greenhouse gases are reported in terms of their carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_equivalent
quote:
quote:
NIPCC, in contrast, is a group of some 50 skeptical scientists, all of them highly qualified to speak to the issues they address, with no financial stake in the outcome of the global warming debate.
LOLOLOLOL, the NIPCC are all highly qualified and have no financial stake in the outcome of the debate? Ive never heard so much BS in my life.
Sticks and stones is never an effective debate tool. Quit the politics of destruction and actually look at the research. If they are frauds it should be easy to dispute their research.
The fact that alarmists instead are trying to silence detractors points to the paucity of their arguments.
And quit trying to use skeptical science as an authoritative source. He's not a scientist and he's unabashed alarmist.
quote:
"DenialGate - the leaked internal documents from the climate science denying think tank Heartland Institute - has given us a small glimpse into the operations of the climate denial movement. Funds from a few wealthy individuals and corporations are funneled to these think tanks (and Heartland is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak; there are dozens of similar anti-climate science think tanks), which in turn use those funds in attempts to delay climate policy and misinform school children. While the end goal of those climate action delay tactics may be in the best short-term economic interests of those wealthy donors, they also bring us one step closer to ensuring that we all will have to face the harmful consequences of climate change, particularly those children who they seek to misinform by 'teaching the controversy' in our schools.
Oh you mean the fraudulent memos that Peter Gleick (global warming activist) forged to discredit Heartland?
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/20/statement-heartland-institute-peter-gleick-confession
Read the report here:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/14/professional-forensic-stylometric-analysis-of-the-fake-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-concludes-peter-gleick-is-the-likely-forger/
But .. let me quote:
The lead analysis was conducted by Patrick Juola, Ph.D., Director of Research, and director of the Evaluating Variations in Language Laboratory at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh. Juola & Associates, headed by President Patrick Brennan is a separate commercial entity that provides analysis and consultation on stylometry.
Dr. Juola has published his analysis of the “Climate Strategy Memo,” which I present first and in entirety here at WUWT.
First, the short read:
Stylometric Report – Heartland Institute Memo
Patrick Juola, Ph.D.
Summary
As an expert in computational and forensic linguistics, I have reviewed the alleged Heartland memo to determine who the primary author of the report is, and more speci fically whether the primary author was Peter Gleick or Joseph Bast. I conclude, based on a computational analysis, that the author is more likely to be Gleick than Bast.
And the larger excerpt of the document, bolds mine:
Analysis
24 This task is challenging for several reasons, some technical and some linguistic.
25 First, the Heartland memo as published contains a great many quotations taken from other sources. As originally published, the memo contains approximately 717 words, but at least 266 of those words have been identified as belonging to phrases (or paraphrases of phrases) found elsewhere in the stolen documents). [N.b. this identification was done by the Heartland Institute, who admit that these 266 words are "paraphrases [of] text appearing in one of the stolen documuments.”
As paraphrases, they may nor may not reflect the style of the original authors, and they also may or may not reflect the style of the alleged forger. For this reason, we analyzed both the full document as well as the 451-word redacted document with the controversial passages removed.
26 Second, even the full-length document is rather short for an accurate analysis. Most authorship attribution experts recommend larger samples if possible. (E.g., Eder recommends 3500 words per sample, noting that results obtained from fewer than 3000 words “are simply disastrous.”)
27 Thirdly, perhaps as a result of the previous factors, we have observed that Bast and Gleick appear to have extremely similar writing styles.
Results
28 Despite this difficulty, we were able to identify and calibrate an appropriate analysis method. Using this method, we analyzed both the complete Heartland memo and the selections from the Heartland memo that had been identified as not copied from other stolen documents. In both analyses, the JGAAP system identified the author as Peter Gleick.
29 In particular, the JGAAP system identified the author of the complete (unredacted) memo as Peter Gleick, despite the large amount of text that even Bast admits is largely taken from genuine writings of the Heartland Institute. We justify this result by observing, first, that much of the quotation is actual paraphrase, and the amount of undisputed writing is still nearly 2/3 of the full memo.
Conclusions
30 In response to the question of who wrote the disputed Heartland strategy memo, it is difficult to deliver an answer with complete certainty. The writing styles are similar and the sample is extremely small, both of which act to reduce the accuracy of our analysis. Our procedure by assumption excluded every possible author but Bast and Gleick. Nevertheless, the analytic method that correctly and reliably identified twelve of twelve authors in calibration testing also selected Gleick as the author of the disputed document. Having examined these documents and their results, I therefore consider it more likely than not that Gleick is in fact the author/compiler of the document entitled ”Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” and further that the document does not represent a genuine strategy memo from the Heartland Institute.
It seems very likely then, given the result of this analysis, plus the circumstances, proximity, motive, and opportunity, that Dr. Peter Gleick forged the document known as ”Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy.” The preponderance of the evidence points squarely to Gleick. According to Wikipedia’s entry on the “legal burden of proof”:
Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is the standard required in most civil cases. This is also the standard of proof used in Grand Jury indictment proceedings (which, unlike civil proceedings, are procedurally unrebuttable).
Further, it is abundantly clear that this document was not authored by Heartland’s Joe Bast, nor was it included as part of the board package of documents Dr. Gleick (by his own admission) phished under false pretenses from Heartland.
quote:
For someone who recommended to me to read some, I might just offer you the same advice, you never know what you'll find.
I've read the entire skeptical science site. Long on personal attacks, unsupported appeals to authority. Very short on science.
Read papers, not blogs.
|
A few facts about global warming/climate change. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread