Starship Asterisk*

Although it is an older report (1999) This PDF file from Heartland seems to state
"1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate."
"2. The most reliable temperature data show no sign of global warming."
"4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming."
"5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural
world and to human civilization."
And would indicate that Chris is speaking true in his assertions.

BMAONE23 wrote:Although it is an older report (1999) This PDF file from Heartland seems to state
"1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate."
"2. The most reliable temperature data show no sign of global warming."
"4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming."
"5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural
world and to human civilization."
And would indicate that Chris is speaking true in his assertions.

Thank you very much for providing a reference. That makes life so much easier. Let's look at what they say.

"Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate."

I don't see anything wrong with that statement. They didn't just pull that statement out of the air, they have a reference: http://www.oism.org/pproject

Their petition now has over 31,000 signatures from American scientists. Where is your list of American scientists that accept the AGW hypothesis?

"The most reliable temperature data show no sign of global warming"

Again, they provide a reference (how nice!), http://www.ssl.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/notebook, where they got the data in 1999. Unfortunately, the link appears to have expired now. However, new data was released that I referenced in my response to Mr. Chris Peterson. The 30-year records from UAH and RSS show temperature anomalies of +0.043 and +0.09 degrees Centigrade. If that trend was to continue then we might expect to see a temperature rise of 0.17 or 0.36 degrees Centigrade by 2100. Oh, my! How alarming! In reality, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has switched to the cool phase and sunspot activity is down so we should expect some 20 or 30 years of cooling.

"The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming."

That is a true statement. Is there a problem with that? Here is what one IPCC author said, “It’s unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the chapter. . . . I think the caveats
are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue was a done deal.” Dr. Benjamin Santer, lead author of IPCC, The Science of Climate Change, Chapter 8. (Source: Kerr, op cit.)

"A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization."

I am inclined to agree. If given a choice between the climate getting warmer and it getting cooler, I would choose warming. They quoted from an IPCC document:

The increase in global temperatures of between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius during the past century
occurred primarily at night and during the winter season, when its effect was likely to be benign. “Minimum
temperatures have typically increased twice as much as maximum temperatures over the last 40 years.”
(Source: IPCC, The Science of Climate Change, page 27.) “Overall, there is no evidence that extreme
weather events, or climate variability, has increased, in a global sense, through the 20th century.” (Source:
IPCC, The Science of Climate Change, page 173.)

There are many benefits from a warmer climate. I suggest you examine chapters 7 and 9 of http://www.heartland.org/publications/N ... 0Final.pdf

I fail to see why you consider the assertions in that Heartland Institute document such a pernicious impeachment of their credibility.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
- Roy Tucker

Chris Peterson wrote:There are certainly AGW dissenters with good credentials. Of course, for every one of them there are a hundred or so who are not dissenters, and have equally good credentials. I place a much greater burden of proof on dissenters, following the reasonable rule of skepticism that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Oh, my! A hundred or so? Really? My previous post pointed to a list of 31,000 American scientists who are unconvinced of the AGW hypothesis. You can point me to a list of 3,100,000 American scientists who are convinced of Anthropogenic Global Warming? That would be wonderful, please do. That certainly sounds like an extraordinary claim to me.

Chris Peterson wrote:Virtually every study I've seen predicts that the current trend will produce more floods, more droughts, and massive food crises in the most vulnerable parts of the world. Any "benefit" is unlikely to be seen before a very long period of disruption occurs.

I think the key phrase there is "Virtually every study I've seen...". How many studies have you looked at? And were those studies selected to give a dismal view of the future? Have you surveyed a large body of literature from both sides of the argument? Supposedly, the climate has already been warming a while. Where are all the floods and droughts that are worse than ones we've had in the past? There might be a massive food crises if people insist on turning food crops into biofuels instead of food. I prefer to examine actual data and observations. I suggest you might wish to peruse http://www.heartland.org/publications/N ... er%206.pdf

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
- Roy Tucker

gpobserver wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:There are certainly AGW dissenters with good credentials. Of course, for every one of them there are a hundred or so who are not dissenters, and have equally good credentials. I place a much greater burden of proof on dissenters, following the reasonable rule of skepticism that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Oh, my! A hundred or so? Really? My previous post pointed to a list of 31,000 American scientists who are unconvinced of the AGW hypothesis. You can point me to a list of 3,100,000 American scientists who are convinced of Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Note that I limited this to those with good credentials.

Chris Peterson wrote:

gpobserver wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:There are certainly AGW dissenters with good credentials. Of course, for every one of them there are a hundred or so who are not dissenters, and have equally good credentials. I place a much greater burden of proof on dissenters, following the reasonable rule of skepticism that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Oh, my! A hundred or so? Really? My previous post pointed to a list of 31,000 American scientists who are unconvinced of the AGW hypothesis. You can point me to a list of 3,100,000 American scientists who are convinced of Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Note that I limited this to those with good credentials.

Is that really the best you can come up with?

gpobserver wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:Note that I limited this to those with good credentials.

Is that really the best you can come up with?

It's a good argument. I haven't seen any evidence at all that there are thousands of scientists with good credentials (meaning those that are properly trained to actually have a credible opinion on the matter) who disbelieve AGW. Recent surveys of climate scientists demonstrate an overwhelming belief that AGW is real (for example, this very recent survey which quite properly concludes "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.") The interesting thing about these surveys is that they show two features: a trend towards support for AGW that increases from a bit over half for the public at large, fairly high (80-90%) for scientists, and extremely high (>95%) for climate specialists; and a trend over time- the newer the survey, the greater the support for AGW, not surprising as the evidence has steadily accumulated.

You challenge my argument that many of the scientists you quote aren't sufficiently qualified for me to place much faith in their opinions, and yet you claim that the IPCC report is not credible because some UN workers are child molesters. Thanks, I needed a good chuckle this morning.

Chris Peterson wrote:It's a good argument. I haven't seen any evidence at all that there are thousands of scientists with good credentials (meaning those that are properly trained to actually have a credible opinion on the matter) who disbelieve AGW.

Excellent! That means you have no credentials to have a credible opinion. I won't argue with that. That's certainly the impression I've gotten.

Chris Peterson wrote:Recent surveys of climate scientists demonstrate an overwhelming belief that AGW is real (for example, this very recent survey which quite properly concludes "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.") The interesting thing about these surveys is that they show two features: a trend towards support for AGW that increases from a bit over half for the public at large, fairly high (80-90%) for scientists, and extremely high (>95%) for climate specialists; and a trend over time- the newer the survey, the greater the support for AGW, not surprising as the evidence has steadily accumulated.

We could go back and forth forever arguing about polls but the bottom line is that truth is not determined by plebescite. There is abundant evidence that falsifies the hypothesis that CO2 is the dominant driver of climate variation. I have gone through this evidence in previous postings and you have not responded meaningfully to that evidence. We could try it again. Let's start with this one: The computer models predict a warming of the equatorial mid-troposphere. Please tell me why such a warming is not seen in the data. Answer that one and we can go on to the next question.

Chris Peterson wrote:You challenge my argument that many of the scientists you quote aren't sufficiently qualified for me to place much faith in their opinions, and yet you claim that the IPCC report is not credible because some UN workers are child molesters. Thanks, I needed a good chuckle this morning.

That's ok, I got a good guffaw out of your contention that "Climate Change Reconsidered" was not credible because the sponsoring Heartland Institute made some truthful statements.

By the way, I was pleasantly surprised to see that you had included a reference. That's great! I think we're making some progress here.

Best regards,
- Roy Tucker

gpobserver wrote:Excellent! That means you have no credentials to have a credible opinion. I won't argue with that. That's certainly the impression I've gotten.

I've said as much before. I make no pretense of being a climate scientist, and would not venture an original opinion. Neither would I foolishly sign a petition supporting either viewpoint. I am, however, a trained scientist and am able to make a reasonable assessment of primary literature, particularly as some of it does overlap my areas of expertise. It is my quite rational assessment of the strong evidence, and trust in the opinions of trained, professional climate scientists, that form my personal opinion that AGW is probably real.

Chris Peterson wrote:Recent surveys of climate scientists demonstrate an overwhelming belief that AGW is real...

We could go back and forth forever arguing about polls but the bottom line is that truth is not determined by plebescite.

When discussing climate science, climate scientists are not the "plebescite" (sic). They are the people who are in the best position to know. They are the ones that one should rationally trust.

In science, there is no "truth". There is only knowledge, and our degree of confidence in that knowledge. And the strongest measure of that confidence is consensus. In the case of AGW, the consensus among experts is overwhelming. And that is something that should be ignored only at great peril. It is rare in modern times for the scientific consensus to ultimately be proven substantially incorrect in any area.

Chris Peterson wrote:I've said as much before. I make no pretense of being a climate scientist, and would not venture an original opinion. Neither would I foolishly sign a petition supporting either viewpoint. I am, however, a trained scientist and am able to make a reasonable assessment of primary literature, particularly as some of it does overlap my areas of expertise. It is my quite rational assessment of the strong evidence, and trust in the opinions of trained, professional climate scientists, that form my personal opinion that AGW is probably real.

Ah hah! You said "probably". You're not certain. It is possible to change your mind if there is sufficient doubt. We really are making progress.

Chris Peterson wrote:When discussing climate science, climate scientists are not the "plebescite" (sic). They are the people who are in the best position to know. They are the ones that one should rationally trust.

That is where we differ. In matters that are very important, I educate myself. I am not inclined to just blindly trust someone else's expertise. My Master's degree is in physics. I have taken graduate coursework in planetary sciences including planetary atmospheres and isotope geochemistry. I have been acquainting myself with the climate literature for over ten years now. I think I can tell when someone's trying to pull the wool over my eyes.

Chris Peterson wrote:In science, there is no "truth". There is only knowledge, and our degree of confidence in that knowledge. And the strongest measure of that confidence is consensus. In the case of AGW, the consensus among experts is overwhelming. And that is something that should be ignored only at great peril. It is rare in modern times for the scientific consensus to ultimately be proven substantially incorrect in any area.

I don't see anywhere in the Scientific Method anything about "consensus". Just one inconvenient fact can overturn a "consensus". Facts are stubborn things, they don't just go away. I have more than just one fact. Would you tell me that if you must choose between a fact and a consensus, you would choose the consensus?

I'm not going to let you dodge the question. Why do we not see in the actual data the equatorial mid-tropospheric warming that all of the computer models predict?

Congrats guys, you totally smashed the old thread's record number of pages. Here are some statistics I have made up on the content of this thread for your amusement:

Semantical arguments: 11%
Wry or sardonic remarks: 15%
The word "consensus": 4%
Links to or quoting of "references": 40%
Actual good, informative posts: 21%
Unrelated quips: 9%

Chances of convincing Chris he is flat wrong: .05%

geckzilla wrote:Congrats guys, you totally smashed the old thread's record number of pages. Here are some statistics I have made up on the content of this thread for your amusement:

Semantical arguments: 11%
Wry or sardonic remarks: 15%
The word "consensus": 4%
Links to or quoting of "references": 40%
Actual good, informative posts: 21%
Unrelated quips: 9%

Chances of convincing Chris he is flat wrong: .05%

But we should determine if there is a consensus that Chris is wrong.

I'm making progress, he admits he's no longer certain.

gpobserver wrote:But we should determine if there is a consensus that Chris is wrong.

I'm making progress, he admits he's no longer certain.

geckzilla wrote:Congrats guys, you totally smashed the old thread's record number of pages. Here are some statistics I have made up on the content of this thread for your amusement:

Semantical arguments: 11%
Wry or sardonic remarks: 15%
The word "consensus": 4%
Links to or quoting of "references": 40%
Actual good, informative posts: 21%
Unrelated quips: 9%

Chances of convincing Chris he is flat wrong: .05%

But we should determine if there is a consensus that Chris is wrong.

I'm making progress, he admits he's no longer certain.

I doubt that.

Mr Roy Tucker.

Please can you pick this evidence apart.

http://www.physorg.com/news85073557.html

Thanks

Mark

mark swain wrote:Mr Roy Tucker.

Please can you pick this evidence apart.

http://www.physorg.com/news85073557.html

Thanks

Mark

First of all, I must ask, "Evidence of what?" It says the sea levels are rising 3 mm per year. Are you suggesting that if sea levels are rising, it is certain evidence that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of terrestrial climate? That's a bit of a leap of reasoning, isn't it? If the 3mm per year rate is correct and if it continues until 2100, then the sea level since 2000 will rise 11.8", hardly very alarming and definitely not evidence that CO2 is responsible.

Mr. Swain, why do we not see in the data and observations the equatorial mid-tropospheric warming that is predicted by all of the computer models that would indeed be evidence of the role of CO2?

For more information about sea levels, I refer you to page 184 of http://www.heartland.org/publications/N ... 0Final.pdf

Thanks Roy,
You have proven my father to be a well informed person who died way too early.
Lets see, over the past century, temparatures have risen 0.3 to 0.6dC or .54 to 1.08dF but primarily at night and during the winter. This does seem to indicate a cause for Glacial melt and mountian ice cap melt mentioned in article link provided by Mr Swain. It is certainly true that warmer summers melt ice and cause glacial retreat but following summer with a normal winter will allow he glaciers to regrow. Warmer winters in turn will not allow the glaciers to rebuild to their previous level thereby sustaining the retreat and melt off. Glacires are like the alarm clock for a warming climate. Perhaps, when they are gone, your alarm will finally sound.

gpobserver wrote:If the 3mm per year rate is correct and if it continues until 2100, then the sea level since 2000 will rise 11.8", hardly very alarming and definitely not evidence that CO2 is responsible.

That,s a figure which is getting larger.. And larger. until we get runaway methane feast. In England.. every year in the winter we had heavy snow. Last winter was the first real bad snow for 20 years.. it just rains all time. some towns had 11 foot of water in there living rooms? in places that have never flooded before. Somebody told me, when New York or Washington DC gets a CAT 5 Hurricane, Something will be done. But why stop at Cat 5? I,m sure nature has got a nice little Cat 10-15 Up her sleeve ... We will see When the Hurricane season Starts.

Mark

BMAONE23 wrote:Thanks Roy,
You have proven my father to be a well informed person who died way too early.
Lets see, over the past century, temparatures have risen 0.3 to 0.6dC or .54 to 1.08dF but primarily at night and during the winter. This does seem to indicate a cause for Glacial melt and mountian ice cap melt mentioned in article link provided by Mr Swain. It is certainly true that warmer summers melt ice and cause glacial retreat but following summer with a normal winter will allow he glaciers to regrow. Warmer winters in turn will not allow the glaciers to rebuild to their previous level thereby sustaining the retreat and melt off. Glacires are like the alarm clock for a warming climate. Perhaps, when they are gone, your alarm will finally sound.

Please explain how it's known that this warming is due to anything besides natural phenomena. Please explain how it proves that CO2 is the dominant driver for terrestrial climate.

Please explain why we do not see in data and observations the equatorial mid-tropospheric warming predicted by all of the climate models that would be proof of warming by greenhouse gases?

mark swain wrote:

gpobserver wrote:If the 3mm per year rate is correct and if it continues until 2100, then the sea level since 2000 will rise 11.8", hardly very alarming and definitely not evidence that CO2 is responsible.

That,s a figure which is getting larger.. And larger. until we get runaway methane feast. In England.. every year in the winter we had heavy snow. Last winter was the first real bad snow for 20 years.. it just rains all time. some towns had 11 foot of water in there living rooms? in places that have never flooded before. Somebody told me, when New York or Washington DC gets a CAT 5 Hurricane, Something will be done. But why stop at Cat 5? I,m sure nature has got a nice little Cat 10-15 Up her sleeve ... We will see When the Hurricane season Starts.

Mark

"getting larger.. And larger..." Boom-boom... boom-boom... It's the chicken heart! Eeeeeeeeeeeee....

You're dodging the questions.

Please explain how it's known that this warming is due to anything besides natural phenomena. Please explain how it proves that CO2 is the dominant driver for terrestrial climate.

Please explain why we do not see in data and observations the equatorial mid-tropospheric warming predicted by all of the climate models that would be proof of warming by greenhouse gases?

I will be honest with you Roy, I have no idea what this means (equatorial mid-tropospheric warming) Please explain it to me in detail. and i will try answer your question..

Mark

So I guess you can't explain it to me, so i got to go find it myself..

Oh dear, It don't look good does it?

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_descr ... ime_series Is this what your talking about?

What part of this model say,s global warming is all wrong?

Mark

mark swain wrote:I will be honest with you Roy, I have no idea what this means (equatorial mid-tropospheric warming) Please explain it to me in detail. and i will try answer your question..

Mark

Hello Mark,

Thank you very much for your candor and willingness to engage in the debate.

Climate models predict a warming of the equatorial mid-troposphere as depicted in figure 9.1(c) on page 675 of http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... apter9.pdf. Please note the warm region between latitudes 30N and 30S. Compare with figure 5.7E on page 116 of http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/s ... al-all.pdf. No warming is seen in the radiosonde data.

Further, more recent (2008) blog discussion at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3161

Thank you again, Mark. I hope this information is helpful.

Best regards,
- Roy

gpobserver wrote:Ah hah! You said "probably". You're not certain. It is possible to change your mind if there is sufficient doubt. We really are making progress.

I've never said I was certain. I have explicitly said that I had doubt, not just on this subject but on every post on this forum. But "we" aren't making any progress, because my degree of doubt hasn't shifted the slightest since this thread started. Indeed, in that time I've read more papers, and have less doubt now than I did a month a go. That's progress for me, but I don't know about you.

I don't see anywhere in the Scientific Method anything about "consensus". Just one inconvenient fact can overturn a "consensus".

But that is a very rare thing. So consensus is one of the most valuable tools for assessing the quality of knowledge. The simple fact is that a scientific opinion held by the majority of experts in a field is more likely to be correct than one that held by a minority. That's a truth you can take to the bank.

Would you tell me that if you must choose between a fact and a consensus, you would choose the consensus?

I have seen very little in science that I would call a "fact". In the context of this discussion, I think that what you are calling facts are what I'd call observations, and not such simple ones that they aren't open to interpretation. I've certainly never seen something that would qualify in my mind as "fact" that comes close to challenging my opinions about AGW. I think your question is unanswerable as structured, because in real life there would never be an opportunity to choose between a consensus and a "fact", since anything qualifying as the latter would change the former- something that has only rarely happened.

I'm not going to let you dodge the question. Why do we not see in the actual data the equatorial mid-tropospheric warming that all of the computer models predict?

I don't know (in part because I don't know the details of the issue). My first assumption would be that the models are inaccurate in this respect. It is already known that we are lacking pieces of fundamental theory, and this is reflected in the output of the simulations. That certainly doesn't mean that the data produced by the simulations isn't valuable, however. Only that it is an approximation.

The real cause of global warming:

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/03/sho ... l-charges/

Hello gpobserver,

Good one.

gpobserver wrote:I'm not going to let you dodge the question. Why do we not see in the actual data the equatorial mid-tropospheric warming that all of the computer models predict?

Chris Peterson wrote:I don't know (in part because I don't know the details of the issue). My first assumption would be that the models are inaccurate in this respect. It is already known that we are lacking pieces of fundamental theory, and this is reflected in the output of the simulations. That certainly doesn't mean that the data produced by the simulations isn't valuable, however. Only that it is an approximation.

I'm inclined to agree with you. I'll bet they'd be much better models if they included solar activity modulation of low-level clouds.

gpobserver wrote:I'm inclined to agree with you. I'll bet they'd be much better models if they included solar activity modulation of low-level clouds.

Well, if you're talking about modulation of cosmic rays, I think that theory is getting generally discredited as a significant contributor to climate. But I do think what would most improve the models is better handling of cloud effects. And the models are getting better in that respect, but have quite a bit farther to go. It's so darn complex, because clouds have both positive and negative feedback components, while most other factors are one or the other.