Any Other Lefties Dubious on AGW?

[GIGObuster]

@NoJustice

So literal GIGObuster

Well, you did mention uterus, I detect that you are realizing that your insult suddenly sounds even worse after your explanation.

The real irony here is that the examples I gave were so easy to refute, I have no doubt the reason nobody attempted to do so (nobody competent anyway) was because my post was so unconvincing as to not be worth the effort to address. But then along comes Lightnin’ to provide a much better example…

If his/her bluster were motivated by a zeal for debate, one would expect him/her to jump at the chance to refute me, but instead he/she blows right past and tries to refute arguments I never made, then tries to deny I ever gave examples at all, despite the fact they are plain for everyone to see. Now he/she is reduced to simply quoting me and responding with non sequiturs. At any time, Lightnin’ could easily admit what everyone already knows, and move on to refuting the examples everyone has already read, but he/she just cannot bring him/herself to do so. All of this smacks of, shall we say, excessive emotion.

Well, as I have a penis, I have to mention that your examples of hysteria are weak.

In fact, I’m still trying to figure out what is the point you are trying to make, BTW there is scientific consensus on the AWG. I think it would help if you can mention the best example of hysteria showed in this thread so we can see if you have a point.

[NoJustice]

@tomndebb

Let me clarify for you the concept of “insults.”

That would seem to be in order.

Personal insults, (however glibly they are rationalized, later), are not permitted on the SDMB outside the BBQ Pit.

…Still waiting for that clarification.

Stick to a direct discussion of the topic and drop this line of comments before it lands you in trouble.

I’ll drop any line of comments you ask me to, but that seems somewhat in contradiction to your order to stick to a direct discussion of the topic. Hysterics on the part of AGW supporters make some “Other Lefties Dubious on AGW” Someone asks for examples. I provide them. How is this not direct discussion of the topic? Until you answer, I’ll refrain from pointing GIGObuster to “the best example of hysteria showed in this thread”.

[GIGObuster]

@NoJustice

Until you answer, I’ll refrain from pointing GIGObuster to “the best example of hysteria showed in this thread”.

Might as well, because none of the quotes or scientists I mentioned was being hysteric.

The fact that some posters could be doing hysterics does not change the fact that those posters are not the scientists.

[Lightnin]

@NoJustice

That would seem to be in order…Still waiting for that clarification.I’ll drop any line of comments you ask me to, but that seems somewhat in contradiction to your order to stick to a direct discussion of the topic. Hysterics on the part of AGW supporters make some “Other Lefties Dubious on AGW” Someone asks for examples. I provide them. How is this not direct discussion of the topic? Until you answer, I’ll refrain from pointing GIGObuster to “the best example of hysteria showed in this thread”.

You know, it would be much easier for you to get your message across if you’d simply quote an example of the hysteria you claim to be seeing, instead of blindly pointing fingers at whomever most recently offended you and expecting us to fill in the blanks for you. Disagreeing with your views is NOT hysteria, by the way.

If you want to debate AGW, we’re here for you. If you’re going to keep trying to pick a fight by accusing others of irrational emotional attachment to the concept, well… you might be happier elsewhere, like Digg.

[NoJustice]

@Lightnin

Disagreeing with your views is NOT hysteria, by the way.

Repetition != rebuttal.

If you want to debate AGW, we’re here for you.

And what if I don’t? What if I’d prefer to stay on topic?

[Sam_Stone]

Look: Trying to argue that AGW does not exist puts you on the wrong side of current science. Is there a possibility it’s wrong? Sure. Science is never a closed book. We could discover a new mechanism tomorrow that better explains temperature changes over time, and be forced to revise the models. But that’s true for anything in science. You must always keep your mind open.

However, the data we have as of this minute very strongly suggests that CO2 is a significant driver of climate, and we have hard measurements showing that CO2 levels are rising fairly rapidly.

i spent last night going to the actual GISS data and some of the other datasets, and plotting them against Hansen’s original climate models. Do they diverge from time to time? Yes. In fact, they are diverging right now - I could post the graph I’ve got here, where I took the recorded measurements since the 2005 article that was linked above and added them to the graph, then plotted 5-year, 7-year, 9-year, and 11-year means across the data to smooth it a bit.

Right now, the climate appears to be trending more towards Hansen’s ‘C’ curve, which he says could only happen there were drastic cuts in CO2. So that would appear to refute his model. And lots of anti-AGW people are using the cooling seen in the past five years as a refutation of global waming. However, there’s a deviation at least as large in the period between 1991 and 1995, but it eventually corrected itself and by 1996 the temperature predicted by the model was again very close to the measured temperatures.

My conclusion from this is that the model has not been refuted, but that there is so much noise around the trend lines that it hasn’t been confirmed, either. But we have to be honest and say that with the data we have so far, the model is at least holding up reasonably well.

If the temperature continues to fall or remain steady for the next five years, the model will be in big trouble, because the spread between the model and the measured data will be so large that it can’t be explained by annual variance. Right now, it can.

My concern is that the response of pro-AGW people has been essentially to treat all the data as confirmation. When a glacier would show signs of melting, that was trumpeted as proof of global warming. If a glacier was found to be growing in size, someone would trot out a study saying that global warming could increase glacier size in some places, so it was proof of global warming. When it became clear that there has been no warming for the past few years, the term itself was dropped in favor of ‘climate change’. If changing climiate is proof of global warming, it’s unfalsifiable, and therefore not science. Climate always changes.

What I’d like to hear from the AGW side is what data they would accept as proof that global warming models are wrong. If it’s cooler ten years from now than it was in 2000, would that be proof? If not, how come the fact that it was warmer in 2000 than it was in 1990 was considered to be proof that AGW exists? Bad science exists on both sides of the debate (not necessarily among the scientists in question, but by the more politically-oriented boosters or naysayers on both sides).

Finally, here’s my biggest problem with the global warming movement - there is a HUGE excluded middle in the debate. The way the debate has shaped up, it seems that the only question is whether or not AGW exists. If it does, then that is taken as all the justification needed for radical changes to our industrial economy. But there is a large gap between, “AGW exists”, and “what should we do about it?”

Both sides seem to have a vested interest in avoiding that debate. The anti-AGW side doesn’t want to concede that the problem even exists, so they have no desire to talk about solutions. the pro-AGW side wants to maintain a direct linkage between the fairly solid evidence that AGW exists and any policy they might want to implement, and would rather not talk abou things like the real effects of global warming, whether fixes cost more than the problem, how much money should be spent today to fix a problem 50 years down the road, etc. Because once you get past the basic claim that AGW exists, the science gets a lot more fuzzy and some of the claims scientists and politicians are making are on much weaker ground. So the pro-AGW side would rather treat the debate as binomial - either AGW exists, in which case any policiy floated to stop it is a good one, or it doesn’t exist.

We should get past that debate. The anti-AGW people should stop fighting what is fairly solid science, and start engaging on the much more complex and nuanced issue of what a rational policy towards it should be.

[Lightnin]

@NoJustice

Repetition != rebuttal.
And what if I don’t? What if I’d prefer to stay on topic?

Repetition != validation.

You were the one who brought up hysteria. Frankly, I’m not seeing it- and you aren’t backing your claims up. If anything, this thread has been more sedate than most AGW threads. Why, we sometimes get all knock-down and drag-out.

Look, it’s very easy to shut me up- just quote ONE example of hysteria in this thread. Just one. You might want to make it a good one, though.

[NoJustice]

@Lightnin

You were the one who brought up hysteria.

Ooh, incorrect again.

[GIGObuster]

@Sam_Stone

My concern is that the response of pro-AGW people has been essentially to treat all the data as confirmation. When a glacier would show signs of melting, that was trumpeted as proof of global warming. If a glacier was found to be growing in size, someone would trot out a study saying that global warming could increase glacier size in some places, so it was proof of global warming. When it became clear that there has been no warming for the past few years, the term itself was dropped in favor of ‘climate change’. If changing climiate is proof of global warming, it’s unfalsifiable, and therefore not science. Climate always changes.

What I’d like to hear from the AGW side is what data they would accept as proof that global warming models are wrong. If it’s cooler ten years from now than it was in 2000, would that be proof? If not, how come the fact that it was warmer in 2000 than it was in 1990 was considered to be proof that AGW exists? Bad science exists on both sides of the debate (not necessarily among the scientists in question, but by the more politically-oriented boosters or naysayers on both sides).

RealClimate: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!

Does “Global Warming Theory” pass Judge Jones’ science test?

In one sense, the Theory of Global Warming is clearly a falsifiable scientific theory: all we need to do is wait around a while until industrial activities have doubled CO2, and observe what has happened to atmospheric temperature, water vapor and clouds. This indeed seems to be the experiment that most of the world seems intent on carrying out.

However, when we talk about “verifying” the Theory of Global Warming, what most of us have in mind is doing something to test the theory right now, so that (to the extent that it is correct) necessary policy decisions can be informed by the predictions of the theory.

Earth science shares the full range of difficulties generic to observational sciences, in that we can carry out laboratory experiments testing individual basic physical principles making up our theories, but have only limited opportunities to conduct experiments on the collective behavior of the whole system. For the latter, we must do the best we can with those ready-made examples that Nature provides. In this regard, the situation of the Theory of Global Warming is rather similar to that of the Theory of Evolution.

There are indeed a great many aspects of the Theory of Global Warming that are falsifiable without waiting for the next century’s climate to come upon us. There are, to start, all the laboratory tests of basic physics, such as the infrared absorption properties of CO2 and water vapor. There are also field tests of the predictions of these basic physical theories, as is done when one measure water vapor and temperature in the atmosphere, and compares the predictions of radiative transfer theory with observed infrared radiation measured at the top of the atmosphere by satellite, or at the surface by radiation sensors. One can check the evaporation formulae used in climate models against the measured evaporation at buoys in the ocean, or the predictions of cloud models against observed cloud reflectivity. Going up the scale in complexity, one can compare the predictions of the theory against observations of recent climates, and of climates of the more distant past. General circulation models encapsulate the assumptions of the theory, and provide the tool necessary for testing hypotheses in such a complex system.

A further point regarding the positivist criterion is the the Theory of Global Warming is productive. The implied influence of CO2 (or methane) on climate can be, and has been, applied to the understanding of the Last Glacial Maximum, to Snowball Earth, to the Faint Young Sun, and to Cretaceous warmth. Variants apply also to Venus, Mars (present and past) and Titan. It is fair to say that this theory plays as central a role in the theory of planetary climate as the Theory of Evolution plays in biology. A relatied point is that the theory can be and has been challenged by data, and forced to adapt accordingly. This was the case in the precursor to the theory, when Tyndall discovered that minor constituents (CO2 and water vapor) dominated the greenhouse effect; the resulting adaptation of Fourier’s theory opened the way for Arrhenius to conclude that human influences on the atmosphere could change the climate. A more recent adaptation was the incorporation of aerosol effects in the late 1980’s which was forced upon the theory by the inability to explain the pattern of 20th century climate change with greenhouse gas increases alone. Contrary to the assertion in Mr. Williams’ letter to the Chicago Tribune, revisions to the theory have not led to any systematic downward revision of the appraisal of the magnitude of the thread caused by doubling CO2. Indeed, some discoveries, notably the prevalance of abrupt climate change in the past record, have raised concerns that the current understanding may underpredict the magnitude of the response.

What of Judge Jones’ other two criteria applied in the Kitzmiller case? The false duality issue does not arise in the judgement of Global Warming Theory itself, since the theory has never been argued for on the basis of such a stipulated duality (“The world is warming, and if it’s not the Sun, then it must be CO2!”). On the other hand, a false duality has often been invoked in arguing against the Global Warming Theory. This typically takes the form of pointing out some aspect of the observations that Global Warming Theory doesn’t explain, and then jumping to the conclusion that the observed warming must be due to the local skeptic’s favorite cause: maybe solar variability, maybe some unspecified sort of “natural variability.” Often such arguments involve holding Global Warming up to unreasonable standards of proof (“If we don’t understand everything about climate, then we understand nothing about climate.”), and often, like ID proponents arguing against Evolution, the arguments offered against Global Warming are at best distortions of scientific truth. In this regard, Global Warming plays the role of the Theory of Evolution, with the Global Warming Skeptics playing the role of ID advocates.

On Judge Jones’ final criterion (presence in the peer-reviewed literature) the Theory of Global Warming gets an easy and obvious pass. Here, the Global Warming skeptics are in a somewhat better position than the ID advocates, in that a very few of the skeptics arguments have appeared in the peer reviewed literature. This doesn’t make them right, but it does mean that to some extent, some of them are playing by the rules of science. Still, the relative paucity of skeptics arguments being played out in the peer reviewed literature suggests that they may not be as wrong as the ID advocates, but that they are not as right as the vastly greater number of researchers who have published in support of the Global Warming Theory.

RealClimate: What the IPCC models really say

So, to give one possibility, if the global mean temperature from 2050 to 2070 would end up being lower than the 1950 to 1970 global mean temperature, would that be enough to falsify the IPCC projections, assuming no volcanic eruptions, cometary impacts, etc.?

[Response: …and that the trajectories of the GHGs and aerosols looked something like this scenario. Yes. - gavin]

@Sam_Stone

Finally, here’s my biggest problem with the global warming movement - there is a HUGE excluded middle in the debate. The way the debate has shaped up, it seems that the only question is whether or not AGW exists. If it does, then that is taken as all the justification needed for radical changes to our industrial economy. But there is a large gap between, “AGW exists”, and “what should we do about it?”

My nit here is that I will have to blame the deniers of AGW for this, it has been my experience from past discussions that the main point of the deniers is to say that AGW=CAGW, with emphasis on the Catastrophic part. They claim that scientists are only talking about this, it is in reality a HUGE straw man.

@Sam_Stone

Both sides seem to have a vested interest in avoiding that debate. The anti-AGW side doesn’t want to concede that the problem even exists, so they have no desire to talk about solutions. the pro-AGW side wants to maintain a direct linkage between the fairly solid evidence that AGW exists and any policy they might want to implement, and would rather not talk abou things like the real effects of global warming, whether fixes cost more than the problem, how much money should be spent today to fix a problem 50 years down the road, etc. Because once you get past the basic claim that AGW exists, the science gets a lot more fuzzy and some of the claims scientists and politicians are making are on much weaker ground. So the pro-AGW side would rather treat the debate as binomial - either AGW exists, in which case any policiy floated to stop it is a good one, or it doesn’t exist.

We should get past that debate. The anti-AGW people should stop fighting what is fairly solid science, and start engaging on the much more complex and nuanced issue of what a rational policy towards it should be.

You will get no complaints from me here. IMHO the debate on AGW is over when even skeptics of what to do about it like Bjorn Lomborg are actually agreeing with the science.

http://www.lomborg.com/faq/

Q: Does Lomborg deny man-made global warming exists?

A: No. In Cool It he writes: “global warming is real and man-made. It will have a serious impact on humans and the environment toward the end of this century” (p8).

[GIGObuster]

@NoJustice

Ooh, incorrect again.

Well, yes he is, but it was an skeptic who mentioned hysteria first. I would like to see evidence that a serious researcher is acting like that, otherwise you are just navel gazing.

[tomndebb]

NoJustice, you made a reference to female genitalia in an attempt to be cute insulting another poster. One more stupid response to me or one more coy attempt to focus on etymology rather than current usage so that you can keep letting everyone know of your sexual fixation and you are out of this thread.

[ /Moderating ]

[tomndebb]

EVERYONE ELSE will also drop that line of discussion.

[ /Modding ]

[elucidator]

All in all, a very fair analysis, with some minor quibbles. Your tone of grudging acceptance speaks well of your open-mindedness, you seem willing to admit we were right so long as you don’t have to admit you were wrong. Groovy.

…So the pro-AGW side would rather treat the debate as binomial - either AGW exists, in which case any policy floated to stop it is a good one, or it doesn’t exist…

But this is a but unfair. Even as you admit a good case being made, yet you wish to insinuate that the better argument is held by unreasonable people, people who see in “binomial” (an unfortunate word choice but I know what you mean), people who see in the dreaded “black and white”, unable to see the shades and umbras that reasonable people see.

To say that global warming exists, but that its not important enough to do anything about is not much different than saying that it doesn’t exist. Besides that, given the amount of “greenhouse gases” we pump out, and given our understanding of physics, if there weren’t any global warming, we should be wondering why not. It might be proof of the existence of a loving Goddess, that She suspends the laws of physics so that Her retarded children don’t off themselves.

So then it becomes how drastic a solution is to be implemented? On this point, let your mind be at ease, Greenpeace does not have a military wing training in the wilds of Oregon with an eye towards global domination. There is little or no chance that we will do too much. Even if we wanted to go drastically overboard, there is no chance, given the resistance, that the baby will go out with the bathwater.

It is far, far more likely that we will not do enough. Its a bit like Chesterton’s take on Christianity: not that it was tried and found wanting, but it was found difficult and not tried.

There is one antidote that will cure all our ills, the Pollyanna Paradigm: we need to discover how to make cheap, clean, abundant energy. So we gamble a bit: if there are a hundred crackpot ideas, there’s a chance one of them will actually work. If there’s ten thousand of them, there’s a much better chance.

And we need something wholly new. Tinkering with the fossil fuel engine, squeezing a bit here and there is the preferred approach of those whose livelihood depends on selling us fossil fuel. I can’t fault them for that. Actually, I can, but it wouldn’t do any good.

And a massive international machinery to legislate and regulate energy production? From my lips to the Ears, but we cannot even enforce international peace, how the heck are we going to regulate ten thousand Exxons with a thousand conniving lawyers/legislators each?

So the only really good answer is a new answer. Make fossil fuel production and use obsolete. And if we do that, we will solve the warming problem to the extent that we can be responsible, if we can honestly say we did our best, we earn the right to shrug. But not until then.

Or we find out that its all a mirage, like phlogiston or ether as the medium for light. And then we are stuck with a golden age brought on by a mistake. Well, shit! A bit like the Q-bomb in,The Mouse That Roared, the best mistake anyone has made since Dr. Fleming let his agar dish get contaminated by penicillin fungi.

Think globally, act loco.

[NoJustice]

@GIGObuster

Might as well, because none of the quotes or scientists I mentioned was being hysteric.

The fact that some posters could be doing hysterics does not change the fact that those posters are not the scientists.

@GIGObuster

I would like to see evidence that a serious researcher is acting like that, otherwise you are just navel gazing.

Sorry I couldn’t help with the heavy lifting under the restrictions of the mod, but you seem to have done a good job of moving those goalposts all by yourself.
Would you like something to drink?

[tomndebb]

@NoJustice

Sorry I couldn’t help with the heavy lifting under the restrictions of the mod, but you seem to have done a good job of moving those goalposts all by yourself.
Would you like something to drink?

NoJustice, you are about to be removed for trolling.

Knock it off or go away.
[ /Moderating ]

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Gig0buster:

the warming from CO2 dwarves any potential cooling even if the sun was to return to Maunder Minimum levels.

That should read: “dwarfs”.

[tomndebb]

Lewis over Tolkien eh?

[GIGObuster]

@tomndebb

Lewis over Tolkien eh?

It is a giant controversy.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@tomndebb

Lewis over Tolkien eh?

CS Lewis? Never read it

[Chief_Pedant]

@elucidator

There is one antidote that will cure all our ills, the Pollyanna Paradigm: we need to discover how to make cheap, clean, abundant energy…
Think globally, act loco.

If we discover how to make cheap, clean, abundant energy we will guarantee the destruction of the earth as it has existed for millions of years. Our species will overrun the earth to a greater extent than it has done so to date. Nothing is more destructive in the long run to the earth’s ecosystem than those things which promote the survival and propagation of humans. Off-topic, but I just thought it bore mentioning. Build cheap, energy-efficient cars and we’ll have 10 billion of them–along with their roads–in no time. Ditto with houses…and on and on.

Back to the issue of whether Lefties are Dubious on AGW…

Based on his propensity to live large, I’d say Pope Gore is dubious on AGW. Or at least dubious that he personally should take the bus. And that kind of walking with your feet instead of talking is the best example I can think of to describe how we all tend to take a public position about what we believe which sounds very definitive, but live our lives in private quite differently. Kind of like believing in Hell in the abstract for Jimmy Swaggart, but indulging taxi romance while he preaches against it.

From what I’ve seen of our western lives, we’re all dubious. We just need the Great Cause to satisfy that atavistic part of who we are.